through the telescope, with obfervations upon them, upon the fpots of the Sun and Jupiter in particular; all engraved by himself upon copper, and diftinctly placed before the eyes of the reader. At the entrance of this work there is a handfome mezzotinto of himself, as he then was in his 36th year, with an eloge in Latin verfe engraved under it by Falek; which, as we take it to contain no more than what is strictly due to his merit, fhall here be transcribed for the entertainment of the reader : 66 . Contemplare virum, qui cœli fydera primus, 66 Hevelium, patriæ nobile fidus humi.” After this, he continued to make his obfervations upon the heavens, and to publifh, from time to time, whatever he thought might tend to the advancement of aftronomy. In 1654, he published two epiftles: one to the famous aftronomer Ricciolus," De motu Lunæ libratorio;" another to the no lefs famous Bulialdus, "De utriufque luminaris defectu:" In 1656, a differtation "De natura Saturni faciei, ejufque "phafibus certa periodo redeuntibus:" In 1661, "Mer"curius in fole vifus :" In 1662, "Hiftoriola de nova ❝ftella in collo Ceti:" In 1665, "Prodromus Cometicus, t or the History of a Comet, which appeared in 1664:” In 1666, "The History of another Comet, which appeared in "1665" and, in 1668, " Cometographia, cometarum na"turam & omnium à mundo condito hiftoriam exhibens." He fent copies of this work to several members of the Royal Society at London, and among the reft to Hooke; whom we mention particularly, because of a very warm dispute which this present accidentally occafioned between these gentlemen foon after. In return for the "Cometographia," Hooke fent Hevelius a defcription of the dioptric telescope, with an account of the manner of using it; and at the fame time recommended it to him, as greatly preferable to telescopes with plain fights. This gave rife to the dispute between them; the point of which was, "whether distances "and altitudes could be taken with plain fights any nearer "than to a minute." Hooke afferted that they could not; but that, with an inftrument of a fpan radius, by the help of a telefcope, they might be determined to the exactness of a fecond. Hevelius, on the other hand, infifted, that, by the advantage advantage of a good eye and long ufe, he was able with his inftruments to come up even to that exactness; and, appealing to experience and facts, fent by way of challenge eight distances, each between two different ftars, to be examined by Hooke. Thus the affair refted for fome time with outward decency, but not without fome inward grudge between the parties. In 1673, Hevelius publifhed the first part of his "Machina Cœleftis," as a fpecimen of the exactnefs both of his inftruments and obfervations; and fent feveral copies as prefents to his friends in England, but left Hooke out. This, it is fuppofed, occafioned Hooke to print, in 1674, "Animadverfions on the first Part of the Machina Coeleftis; in which he treated Hevelius with a very magifterial air, and threw out feveral unhandfome reflections, which were greatly resented; and the difpute grew afterwards fo notorious, and to fuch a height, that, in 1679, Halley went, at the request of the Royal Society, to examine both the inftruments and the obfervations made therewith. Halley gave a favourable judgement of both, in a letter to Hevelius; and Hooke managed the controverfy fo ill, that he was univerfally condemned, though the preference has fince been given to telefcopic fights. However, Hevelius could not be prevailed with to make use of them: whether he thought himself too experienced to be informed by a young aftronomer, as he confidered Hooke; or whether, having made fo many obfervations with plain fights, he was unwilling to alter his method, left he might bring their exactnefs into queftion; or whether, being by long practice accustomed to the use of them, and not thoroughly apprehending the ufe of the other, nor well understanding the difference, is uncertain. Besides Halley's letter, Hevelius received many others in his favour, which he took the opportunity of inferting among the aftronomical obfervations in his "Annus Climactericus," printed in 1685. In a long preface prefixed to this work, he spoke with more confidence and greater indignation than he had done before; and particularly exclaims against Hooke's dogmatical and magifterial manner of affuming a kind of dictatorship over him. This revived the difpute, and caused several learned men to engage in it. The book itself being fent to the Royal Society, an account was given of it at their requeft by Dr. Wallis; who among other things took notice, that" Hevelius's obfervations had been milreprefented, "fince it appeard from this book, that he could diftinguish "by plain fights to a fmall part of a minute." About the fame time Molyneux alfo wrote a letter to the fociety, in vinVOL. VI. G dication dication of Hevelius against Hooke's "Animadverfions." Hooke drew up an answer to this letter, which was read likewife before the fociety; wherein he observed, "that he * ડ was not the first aggreffor to print, as appeared from the "293d to the 300th page in the Machina Coeleftis' itself; "that in his Animadverfions' he had no where expreffed "lis doubt, whether Hevelius's obfervations could be made "true, and always the fame, to two or three minutes, as "Mr. Molyneux had afferted, nor that an inftrument of a fpan radius might be made, that should perform obferva"tions fixty times more accurate than could be done with "his beft inftruments; that as for any difrefpectful or undervaluing fentiments he had of Hevelius or his performances, the contrary appears from the following paffage, "where he fays, that he would not be understood by thefe "animadverfions, to undervalue the works and performances of a perfon fo highly meriting the thanks of the "learned world, for his great expence and vast pains in per" forming a work fo highly useful. to aftronomy and navi66 gation; that he did not the leaft doubt but it would be a "work of perpetual efteem, and much preferable to any "thing of the like kind yet done in the world; and that he "had gone as far as it was poffible for human industry to go "with inftruments of that kind, which were as complete and exact as inftruments with plain fights could be made; " and that Mr. Hevelius had calculated them with all ima"ginable care and fkill, and delivered them with the like "candour and integrity; but yet that it was his opinion, "that this ought not to difcourage others from making use "of telescopic fights, and to make better observations with "inftruments by that means more exact." In 1679, Hevelius had published the second part of his "Machina Cœleftis;" but the fame year, while he was at a feat in the country, he had the misfortune to have his house at Dantzick burnt down. By this calamity he is faid to have fuftained feveral thousand pounds damage; having not only his obfervatory and all his valuable inftruments and aftronomical apparatus deftroyed, but also a great number of copies of his "Machina Cœleftis;" which accident has made this fecond part very fcarce, and confequently very dear. In 1690, were publifhed a defcription of the heavens, called, "Firmamentum Sobiefcianum," in honour of John III. king of Poland; and "Prodromus aftronomiæ, & novæ ta"bulæ folares, una cum catalogo fixarum," in which he lays down the neceflary preliminaries for taking an exact ca 2 talogue talogue of the ftars. But both thefe works were pofthumous; for Hevelius died January 28, 1687, which was the day of his birth, and on which he entered upon his 77th year. He was a man greatly esteemed by his countrymen, not only on account of his skill in aftronomy, but as an excellent and worthy magiftrate. He was made a burgomaster of Dantzick; which office he is faid to have executed with the utmoft integrity and applaufe. He was efteemed also very highly by foreigners; and not only by foreigners fkilled in aftronomy and the fciences, but by foreign princes and potentates: as appears abundantly evident from a collection of their letters, which were printed at Dantzick in 1683. HEURNIUS (JOHN), a celebrated phyfician, born at Utrecht in 1543. After having made himself master of every thing belonging to his art at Louvain, Paris, Padua, Turin, he was invited to Leyden to be profeffor there. He is faid to have been the firft in this place who taught anatomy by lectures upon dead carcaffes. dead carcaffes. He died of the ftone in 1601. There are feveral productions of his, but his capital one is, "A Treatise upon Disorders of the Head:" it is, fays Julius Scaliger," as much fuperior to his other works, as the head "is fuperior to other parts of the body;" but Scaliger's praises as well as his cenfures were for the most part outrées, bigger than the truth. He published Hippocrates in Greek and Latin, with explanatory commentaries, which have undergone many editions: the fourth was at Amsterdam, 1688, De Philofoin 12m0: Gerard Voffius calls him fummum Medicum; and phia, p. 95 fays, that he was his master in fcientiâ naturali. Haga Com. 1658, 4to. lin, p. 74. HEYLIN (Dr. PETER), an English divine, descended from an ancient family at Pentric-Heylin in Montgomeryfhire, was born at Burford in Oxfordfhire, Nov. 29, 1600. Ath. Oxon. In 1613, he was entered of Hart-hall in Oxford, and two Barnard's years after chofen a demy of Magdalen-college. He had, Life of Heywhile at school, given a fpecimen of his genius for dramatic poetry in a tragi-comedy on the wars and fate of Troy; and now compofed a tragedy, intituled "Spurius," which was fo approved by his fociety, that the prefident, Dr. Langton, ordered it to be acted in his apartments. After this he read Barnard, cofmographical lectures in the college, which being a very p. 81. 86. unusual thing, and he very converfant in that branch of fcience, did fo recommend him to the fociety, that he was chofen fellow thereof in 1619. In 1621, he published his Ath. Oxon. "Microscomus, or, Defcription of the Great World;" the G 2 chief chief materials of which were the lectures juft mentioned. It was univerfally liked, and fpeedily bought up; fo that, in 1624, it was reprinted in the fame fize, but with confiderable additions, and again prefented to prince Charles, to whom it had been dedicated. It was foon after put into the hands of the king, who feemed at firft greatly pleafed with it; till meeting with a paffage in it, where Heylin gave precedency to the French king, and ftyled France the more famous kingdom, he was, forfooth, fo exceedingly offended, that he ordered the lord-keeper to fupprefs the book. Heylin, to make his peace with the king, declared, that the error, in one of the exceptionable paffages, was entirely the printer's, who had put is inftead of was; and that when he himself men441. L. i. tioned the precedency of France before England, " befides edit. 1624." that he did not speak of England, as it then flood aug"mented by Scotland, he took what he did fay from Cam"den in his Remains." James was hereby fatisfied, and Heylin took care, on the other hand, that the whole clause, which gave fo much difguft, fhould be left out in all future impreffions: for the work was fucceffively enlarged, till it Barnard, became a great folio, and has fince been often reprinted in Microcofmus, p. P.94-101. that fize. In 1625, he went over to France, where he continued about fix weeks, and took down in writing an account of his journey; the original MS. of which he gave to his friend the lord Danvers, but kept a copy for himself, which was published about 30 years after. April 1627, he answered, pro forma, upon thefe two queftions: 1. "An ecclefia un66 quam fuerit invifibilis ?" that is, whether the church was ever invifible? 2. "An ecclefia poffit errare?" that is, whe`ther the church can err? both which determining in the affirmative, a great clamour was raifed against him as a Papist, Ath. Oxon. or at leaft a favourer of Popery. Wood fays, that Prideaux, the divinity-profeffor," fell foul upon him for it, calling him "Bellarminian, Pontifician, and I know not what." Heylin was not eafy under the charge of being Popifhly affected; for which reafon, to clear himself from that imputation, he took an opportunity, preaching before the king on John iv. 20. of declaring vehemently againft fome of the errors and corruptions of the Romish church. In 1628, the lord Danvers, then earl of Danby, recommended him to Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; by whofe intereft alfo, in 1629, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majefty. Ath. Oxon. On Act-Sunday 1630, he preached before the univerfity of Oxford at St. Mary's on Matth. xiii. 25. from whence he Barnard P. 3. and Barnard, P. 120. took |