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

There is a singular paucity of imagination in Kneller’s pictures. He did indeed (and Wai pole justly commends him for it) indulge in an ideal drapery for women, instead of the monstrous dresses they wore at the time; but his ingenuity does not appear equal to assist them much; so that there is a ridiculous mixture of positive formality in the stiff neckcloths and wired skirts of coats of the men, and of an affected flow and grace in the loose robes of the women, which consist of nothing more than a chemise thrown open, and discovering the bosom, and a robe-de-chambre loosely drawn over it. All that Kneller can be justly praised, or deservedly esteemed for, generally speaking, is, that his heads, or rather his faces, have a good deal of liveliness and gentility. It seldom amounts to character in the general run of his portraits. Now and then the master-hand appears, when the subject or the moment were favourable. There is, at Petworth, a head of sir Jiaac Newton that would be an honour to any man to bave produced; and portraits of branches of the Seym our family, whicir are a disgrace to the name they bear. In our days, happily, the weaknesses as well as the merits of Kneller are duly appreciated, and hundreds of his works consigned to the oblivion he probably wished they might experience. When the mass may be thus disposed of, and the select only remain, then he will obtain, unalloyed, the praise his talents, when carefully exerted, fully deserved.

Dr. Knight, whose attention appears to have been much directed to literary and ecclesiastical history, was an useful assistant to many authors of his time, and his assistance was acknowledged by Peck, Grey, Ward, and others. He had made collections for the lives of bishops Grosseteste, Overal, and Patrick. Whiston had the latter, which is probably in the hands of his grandson, Samuel Knight, esq. His own publications were the “Life of Erasmus,” 1724, 8vo, and of “Dean Colet,” 1726, 8vo. Neither of these are written with much animation or elegance, but they contain many curious and useful materials, and are now sold at very high prices, especially the Erasmus, on account of the numerous and well-engraven portraits and plates.

None of our writers, in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, can justly contest the superiority of Knolles, who, in his History of the Turks, has displayed all the excellencies that narration can admit. His style, though somewhat obscured by time, and sometimes vitiated by false wit, is pure, nervous, elevated, and clear. A wonderful multiplicity of events is so artfully arranged, and so distinctly explained, that each facilitates the knowledge of the next. Whenever a new personage is introduced, the reader is prepared by his character for his actions. When a nation is first attacked, or city besieged, he is made acquainted with its history or situation: so that a great part of the world is brought into view. Tfie descriptions of this author are without minuteness, and the digressions without ostentation. After other praises of the work, Dr. Johnson concludes with remarking, that nothing could have sunk Knolles into obscurity, but the remoteness and barbarity of the people whose story he relates. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that our great critic took the fable of his “Irene” from this work.

This Jesuit was the author of several works, in all which he has shewn great acuteness and learning. In 1630, 'he published a small volume, called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that Protestancy, unrepented, destroys salvation.” This involved him in a controversy, first with Dr. Potter, provost of Queeu’s-college, Oxford, who, in 1633, wrote “Want of Charity justly charged Oh all such Romanists, as dare, without truth or modesty, affirm, that Protestancy destroyeth salvation;” and afterwards with Chillingworth, who, in answer to this Jesuit, wrote his “Religion of Protestants;” of which, as well as of his controversy with Knott, we have already given an account in his life (vol. IX.) It only remains to be added here, that Chillingworth’s latitude of principles afforded Knott many advantages, which, at that time, would be more apparent than now. Knott’s larger answer to Chillingworth did not appear until 1652, when it was printed at Ghent, under the title of “Infidelity unmasked; or, the confutation of a book published by W. Chillingworth, &c.” Knott was also the author of “Monita utilissima pro patribus missionariis Anglicanis,” or useful advice for the fathers of the English mission; but this work was never printed.

, the chief instrument and promoter of the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford, in the county of East Lothian, Scotland. His parents gave him a liberal education, which in that age was far from being common. He was first placed at the grammar-school of Haddington, and after acquiring the principles of the Latin tongue, was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s under professor John Major, the same who was Buchanan’s tutor, a very acute schoolman, and deep in theology. Knox, however, examining the works of Jerom and Austin, began to dis-relish this subtilizing method, altered his taste, and applied himself to plain and solid divinity. At his entrance upon this new course of study, he attended the preaching of Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, a friar of eminence, whose sermons were of extraordinary service to him; and he acquired still more knowledge of the truth from the martyr, George Wishart, so much celebrated in, the history of this time, who came from England in 1554, with commissioners from king Henry VIII. Knox, being of an inquisitive nature, learned from him the principles of the reformation; with which he was so well pleased, that he renounced the Romish religion, and having now relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church, which had invested him with clerical orders, he entered as tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Long Niddrie, a gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. Another gentleman, in the neighbourhood, also put his son under his tuition, and these two youths were instructed by him in the principles of religion, as well as of the learned languages, and he taught the former in such a way as to allow the rest of the family, and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Long Niddrie, in which be also read to them at stated times, a chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this has been preserved by tradition; and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent, is popularly called “John Knox’s kirk.” It was not, however, to be expected, that he would long be suffered to continue in this employment, under a government entirely at the devotion of cardinal Beaton (see Beaton); and although he was, in the midst of his tyranny, cut off by a conspiracy in 1546, Hamilton, successor to the vacant bishopric, sought Knox’s life with as much eagerness as his predecessor. Hence Knox resolved to retire to Germany, where the reformation was gaining ground; knowing that, in England, though the pope’s authority was suppressed, yet the greater part of his doctrine remained in full vigour. He was, however, diverted from his purpose, and prevailed on to return to St. Andrew’s, January 1547; where he soon after accepted a preacher’s place, though sorely against his will.

He now set openly, and with a boldness peculiar to his character, to preach the doctrines of the reformation, although he had received no ordination, unless such as the small band of reformers could give; a circumstance which, although objected to by some ecclesiastical historians, was not accounted any impediment to 1m afterwards receiving promotion at the hands of the English prelates. His first sermon was upon Dan. vii. 23 28; from which text he proved, to the satisfaction of his auditors, that the pope was Antichrist, and that the doctrine of the Romish church was contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles; and he likewise gave the notes both of the true church, and of the antichristian church. Hence he was convened by his superiors; he was also engaged in disputes; but things went prosperously on, and Knox continued diligent in the discharge of his ministerial function tillJuly 1547, when the castle of St. Andrew’s, in which he was, was surrendered to the French; and then he was carried with the garrison into France. He remained a prisoner on. board the galleys, till the latter end of 1549, when being set at liberty, he passed into England; and, going to London, was there licensed, either by Cranmer, or Somerset the protector, and appointed preacher, first at Berwick, and next at Newcastle. During this employ, he received a summons, in 1551, to appear before Cuthbert Tonstall, bishop of Durham, for preaching against the mass. In 1552, he was appointed chaplain to Edward VI.; it being thought fit, as Strype relates, that the king should retain six chaplains in ordinary, who should not only wait on him, but be itineraries, and preach the gospel over all the nation. The sanje year he came into some trouble, on account of a bold sermon preached upon Christmas-day, at Newcastle, against the obstinacy of the papists. In 1552-3, he returned to London, and was appointed to preach before the king and council at Westminster; who recommended Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury to give him the living of Allhallows in London, which was accordingly offered him but he refused it, not caring to conform to the English liturgy, as it then stood. Some say, that king Edward would have promoted him to a bishopric; but that he even fell into a passion when it was offered him, and rejected it as favouring too much of Antichristianism.

While our reformer was thus occupied in Scotland, he received letters from the English congregation at Geneva, earnestly intreating him to come thither; accordingly, July 1556, he left Scotland, went first to Dieppe in France, and thence to Geneva. He had no sooner turned' his back than the bishops summoned him to appear before them; and, upon his non-appearance, passed a sentence of death upon him for heresy, and burnt him in effigy at the Cross at Edinburgh. Against this sentence, he drew up, and afterwards printed at Geneva, in 1558, “An Appellation from the cruel and unjust Sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland,” &c. He had a call to Scotland in 1557; and having consulted Calvin and other persons as to the prudence and necessity of the step, he set out, and had proceeded as far as Dieppe, when he was advised that some of his best friends seemed, through timidity, to be abandoning their principles, and that therefore it would not be safe for him to proceed. He immediately wrote letters to those who had invited him, complaining of their irresolution, and even denouncing the severe judgments of God on all those who should betray the cause of truth and of their country, by weakness or apostacy. These letters made such an impression on those to whom they were immediately addressed, that they all came to a written resolution, “that they would followforth their purpose, and commit themselves, and whatever God had given them, into his hands, rather than suffer idolatry to reign, and the subjects to be defrauded of th^ only food of their souls.” To secure each other’s fidelity to the protestant cause, a common bond, or covenant, was entered into by them, dated at Edinburgh, December 3, 1557; and from this period they were distinguished by the name of “The Congregation.” In the mean time Mr. Knox returned to Geneva, where, in 1558, he published his treatise, entitled “The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous Regiment of Women.” His chief motives to write this, were the cruel and bloody government of queen Mary of England, and the endeavours of Mary of Lorrain, queen-regent of Scotland, to break through the laws, and introduce tyrannical government. He designed to have written a subsequent piece, which was to have been called “The Second Blast:” but queen Mary dying, and he having a great opinion of queen Elizabeth, and great expectations to the protestant cause from her, went no farther.

In April 1559, he determined to return to his native country, and would have visited England in his way, but queen Elizabeth’s ministers would not suffer him, because he had rendered himself obnoxious to their royal mistress by inveighing against the government of women. He accordingly arrived in Scotland in May. At this time a public prosecution was carried on against the protestants, and their trial was just ready to commence at Stirling: Knox instantly hurried to share with his brethren in the threatened danger, or to assist them in their common cause.

Dr. Robertson, in describing this business, says, “While their minds were in that ferment which the queen’s perfidiousness and their own danger occasioned, Knox mounted the pulpit, and, by a vehement harangue against idolatry, inflamed the multitude with the utmost rage. The indiscretion of a priest, who, immediately after Knox’s discourse, was seen preparing to celebrate mass, and began to decorate the altar for that purpose, precipitated them into immediate action. With tumultuous, but irresistible violence, they fell upon the churches in that city, overturned the altars, defaced the pictures, broke in pieces the images, and proceeding next to the monasteries, laid those sumptuous fabrics almost level with the ground. This riotous insurrection was not the effect of any concert, or previous deliberation. Censured by the reformed preachers, and publicly condemned by the persons of most power and credit with the party, it must be regarded merely as an accidental eruption of popular rage.” From this time Mr. Knox continued to promote the reformation by every means in his power, sparingno pains, nor fearing any danger. Mr. Knox, by his correspondence with secretary Cecil, was chiefly instrumental in establishing those negotiations between “The Congregation” and the English, which terminated in the march of an English army into Scotland to assist the protestants, and to protect them against the persecutions of the queen-regent. This army, being joined by almost all the great men of Scotland, proceeded with such vigour and success, that they obliged the French forces, who had been the principal supports of the tyranny of the regent, to quit the kingdom, and restored the parliament to its former independency. Of that body, a great majority had embraced the protestant opinions, and encouraged by the zeal and number of their friends, they improved every opportunity in overthrowing the whole fabric of popery. They sanctioned the confession of faith presented to them by Knox, and the other reformed teachers: they abolished the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and transferred the causes to the cognizance of the civil courts; and they prohibited the exercise of religious worship, according to the rites of the Romish church. In August 1561, the queen arrived from France, and immediately set up a private mass in her own chapel; which afterwards, by her protection and countenance, was much frequented. This excited the zeal of Knox, who expressed great warmth against allowing it: and, an act of the privy-council being proclaimed at Edinburgh the 25th of that month, forbidding any disturbance to be given to this practice, under pain of death, Knox openly, in his sermon the Sunday following, declared, that “one mass was more frightful to him than ten thousand armed enemies, landed in any part of the realm.' 1 This freedom gave great offence to the court, and the queen herself had a long conference with him upon that and other subjects. In 1563, he preached a sermon, in which he expressed his abhorrence of the queen’s marrying a papist; and her majesty, sending for him, expressed much passion, and thought to have punished him; but was prevailed on to desist at that time. The ensuing year, lord Darnley, being married to the queen, was advised by the protestants about the court, to hear Mr. Knox preach, as thinking it would contribute much to procure the good-will of the people he accordingly did so but was so much offended at his sermon, that he complained to the council, who silenced Knox for some time. His text was Isaiah xxiv. 13 and 17,” O Lord, our God, other lords than Thou have reigned over us.“From these words he took occasion to speak of the government of wicked princes, who, for the sins of the people, are sent as tyrants and scourges to plague them; and, among other things, he said, that” God sets over them, for their offences and ingratitude, boys and women."

The character of this eminent man has been variously represented, according to the sentiments of ecclesiastical writers. The friends of popery, and of the episcopal establishment in Scotland, and the more recent admirers and advocates of queen Mary, have spared no pains to give an unfavourable turn to all his actions, while the adherents to the church of Scotland have always continued to reverence his character and actions. Dr. Robertson, by no means a partial admirer of Knox, and certainly no bigot to the doctrines or discipline of his church, says that “he was the prime instrument of spreading and establishing the reformed religion in Scotland. Zeal, intrepidity, disinterestedness, were virtues which he possessed in an eminent degree. He was acquainted, too, with the learning cultivated among divines in that age, and excelled in that species of eloquence which is calculated to rouse and inflame. His maxims, however, were often too severe, and the impetuosity of his temper excessive. Rigid and uncomplying himself, he shewed no indulgence to the infirmities of others. Regardless of the distinctions of rank and character, he uttered his admonitions with acrimony and vehemence, more apt to irritate than to reclaim. This often betrayed him into indecent and undutiful expressions with respect to the queen’s person and conduct. Those very qualities, however, which now render his character less amiable, fitted him to be the instrument of Providence for advancing the reformation among a fierce people, and enabled him to face dangers, and to surmount opposition, from which a person of a more gentle spirit would have been apt to shrink back.” Knox has lately found more zealous biographers in Cook, and especially M‘Crie, whose life of him is an important addition to the ecclesiastical history of his country, and does honour to Mr. M’Crie’s talents, judgment, and extensive research. It is not perhaps necessary to add many authorities to this notice of that work.

, born in 1585, was one of the three fanatics whose visions were published at Amsterdam in 1657 (by Comenius, as noticed in his life), with the following title: “Lux in Tenebris.” He lived at Sprottow in Silesia; and his visions began in June 1616. He fancied he saw an angel, under the form of a man, who commanded him to go and declare to the magistrates, that, unless the people repented, the wrath of God would fall dreadfully upon them. His pastor and friends restrained him for some time, nor did he execute his commission, even though the angel had appeared six times; but in 1619, being threatened by the same spirit, he divulged his commission. This brought upon him some ridicule, but his visions continued, and were followed by extasies and prophetic dreams. He waited on the elector Palatine, whom the protestants had declared king of Bohemia, at Breslaw, in 1620, and informed him of his commission, and published it in other places, and, in 1625, at Brandenburg, He became acquainted, the same year, with Comenius, who greatly favoured his prophecies but, as they chiefly presaged happiness to the elector-palatine, and the reverse to the emperor, he became at length obnoxious, and, in 1627, was closely imprisoned, as a seditious impostor, afterwards set on the pillory, and banished the emperor’s dominions. Upon this he went to Lusatia, which was then subject to his electoral highness of Saxony; and lived there unmolested till his death, in 1647. Whether fool, or knave, he was not discouraged from prophesying, though his predictions were continually convicted of falsehood by the event.

, a celebrated fanatic, was born at Breslaw in Silesia in 1651, and gave great hopes by the uncommon progress he made in literature; but this was interrupted by a sickness he laboured under at eighteen years of age. He was thought to be dead on the third day of his illness, but had then, it seems, a most terrible vision. He fancied himself surrounded with all the devils in hell, and this at mid-day, when he was awake. This vision was followed by another of God himself, surrounded by his saints, and Jesus Christ in the midst; when he saw and felt things inexpressible. Two days after, he had more visions of the same kind; and when he was cured of his distemper, though he perceived a vast alteration with regard to these sights, yet he found himself perpetually encompassed with a circle of light on his left hand. He had no longer any taste for human learning, nor any value for university-disputes or lectures; he would have no other master but the Holy Ghost. He left his country at nineteen years of age. His desire to see Holland made him hasten thither, even in the midst of a desolating war; and he landed at Amsterdam, Sept. 3, 1673, which was but three days before the retaking the city of Naerden. He went to Leyden a few days after, and meeting with Jacob Behmen’s works, his disorder increased, for he now said he found that Behmen had prophesied of things, of which he thought nobody but himself had the least knowledge. There was at that time in Holland one John Hothe, a prophet likewise of the same stamp; for whom Kuhlman conceived a high veneration, and dedicated to him his “Prodromus quinquennii mirabilis,” printed at Leyden in 1674. This work was to be followed by two other volumes, in the first of which he intended to introduce the studies and discoveries he had made from the time of his first vision to 1674. He communicated his design to father Kircher; and, commending some books which that Jesuit had published, he let him know, that he had only sketched out what himself intended to carry much farther Kircher wrote him civil answers, in which he did not trouble himself to defend his works, but declared, that, having written only as a man, he did not pretend to equal those who wrote by inspiration. “I frankly own myself,” says he, “incapable of your sublime and celestial knowledge: what I have written, I have written after a human manner, that is, by knowledge gained by study and labour, not divinely inspired or infused. I do not doubt but that you, by means of the incomparable and vast extent of your genius, will produce discoveries much greater and more admirable than my trifles. You promise great and. incredible things, which, as they far transcend all human capacity, so I affirm boldly, that they have never been attempted, nor even thought of, by any person hitherto; and therefore I cannot but suspect, that you have obtained by the gift of God such a knowledge as the scriptures ascribe to Adam and Solomon: I mean, an Adamic and Solomonic knowledge, known to no mortal but yourself, and inexplicable by any other.” Our fanatic, not perceiving that his correspondent was jesting with him, carefully published Kircher’s answers, using capital letters in those passages where he thought himself praised. Kircher, however, gave him serious advice, when Kuhlman consulted him about writing to the pope: he told him with what circumspection and caution things were conducted at Rome; and assured him, that in his great work, which he proposed to dedicate to the pope, he must admit nothing which might offend the censors of books, and especially take care not to ascribe to himself an inspired knowledge.

When Kuhlman left Holland does not appear; but it is related, that he wandered a long time in England, France, and the East, and at last was burnt in Muscovy, Oct. 3, 1689, on account of some predictions of the seditious kind. In the character of this fanatic, there is little to excite respect or compassion. He kept two women in succession, without the sanction of marriage, and made use of the worst arts to get money. He used to write letters to people, in which he denounced terrible judgments, if certain sums were not advanced for the promotion of the new kingdom of God. The celebrated Van Helmont received one of these letters, but paid no attention to it. Another proof that there was nothing very sincere in his enthusiasm, is, that, while he was reaay to write respectfully to the pope for the good of Christianity, he was comforting himself with Drabicius’s prophecies relating to the destruction of the papacy; and, at that very time, wrote to his friends letters full of hopes that it was then approaching.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Husurn, in the duchy of Sleswick, in 1630. He was originally intended for the practice of pharmacy; but having applied himself with equal diligence to the study of chemistry and metallurgy, he obtained great reputation in. these sciences, and was appointed chemist to the elector of Saxony. He afterwards went to the court of Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with a similar appointment; and subsequently to that of Charles XI. king of Sweden, who, in 1693, granted him letters of nobility, under the name of Kunckel de Loewenstern. He was elected a member of the imperial Academia Naturae Curiosorum, under the name of Hermes III. He died in Sweden, in March 1703. Notwithstanding his advantages and fame, his theoretical knowledge was very imperfect; he was altogether destitute of the least tincture of philosophy, and was even said to have been one of the searchers for the philosopher’s stone. He is now principally known as the discoverer of phosphorus, which he prepared from urine, and which bears his name in the shops. He was the author of several works, written in German, in a very bad style, and with as little method as the rest of the alchemists. His treatise “On Phosphorus,” was printed at Leipsic in 1678, and his “Art of Glass-making” in 1689. Two or three of his essays have been translated into Latin.

“Dr. Raster, a tall, thin, pale man, seemingly unable to bear fatigue, was nevertheless indefatigable, and of an uncommon application to letters. He formed himself under Graevius. I was acquainted with him from 1700 to 1714-. Upon my collecting the remains of Anacreon for Mr. Barnes, about 1702, he introduced me to Dr. Bentley. You must be known, says he, to that gentleman, whom I look upon, not only as the first scholar in Europe, but as the best of friends. I only hinted to him the difficulty I lay under in relation to the officers of the customs; and, presently after, he accommodated that troublesome affair to my entire satisfaction, without so much as once letting me know he had any hand in it till near a year after: unde satis compertum mihi Bentleium esse re officiosum non verbis. Many an excellent emendation upon Suidas have I received from him. I the rather mention this, says Mr. Wasse, because when that Lexicon was in the press, Kuster with indignation shewed me an anonymous letter in Latin, addressed to him, wherein he was advised not to treat the doctor with that distinction, if he intended his book should make its way in the learned world. But to proceed; when he came to write upon Suidas, he found himself under a necessity of making indices of all the authors mentioned by the ancients; Eustathius particularly, and nineteen volumes of Commentaries upon Aristotle, &c. of the history, geography, and chronological characters occasionally mentioned. Dr. Bentley prevailed upon me to give him some assistance. Those that fell to my lot were chiefly Eustathius on the Odyssey, seven or eight Scholiasts, Plutarch, Galen. You may judge of Kuster’s dispatch and application, when I tell you I could by no means keep pace with him, though I began the last author Jan. 9, 1703, and finished him March the 8th of the same year, and in proportion too, the remainder. Though I corrected all the sheets of the first volume, yet I never perceived he had omitted some less material words, nor ever knew the true reason. I have heard him blamed too for mentioning the names of one or two persons who sent him a few notes; but this was occasioned, I am confident, by the hurry he was always in, and the great number of letters, memorandums, and other papers he had about him. As I remember, he translated cle novo in a manner five or six sheets a week, and remarked upon them; so that the work was hastily executed, and would have been infinitely more perfect, had he allowed himself time. Some people thought they assisted him when they did not. A person of figure took him into his closet after dinner, and told him he would communicate something of mighty importance, a xfi/xiiMov, which in all difficulties had been his oracle. In an ill hour I met Kuster transported with delight. We found it was Bndaeus’s Lexicon, large paper, with only the names of the authors he quotes written in the margin, without one single remark or addition. Kuster, the best-natured man alive, was terribly put to it how to treat one that meant well, and continually inquired what service it did him, and triumphed that he was able to contribute so largely to the worthy edition of Suidas. Towards the close of the work, Kuster grew very uneasy, emaciated to the last degree, cold as a statue, and just as much alive as a man three parts dead. Sure I was to hear, every time I called upon him, * O utinam illuce.scat ille dies, quo huic operi manum ultimam imponam' It may now be proper to acquaint you in what manner this gentleman used to relax, and forget his labours over a bottle, for even Scipio and Luelius were not such fools as to be wise always; and that was generally in the poetical way, or in conversations that turned upon antiquities, coins, inscriptions, and obscure passages of the ancients. Sometimes he performed on the spinnet at our music-club, and was by the connoisseurs accounted a master. His chief companions were, Dr. Sike, famous in oriental learning; Davies and Needham; Mr. Oddy, who wrote Greek pretty well, and has left notes upon Dio, and a version of Apollonius Rhodius, which are reposited in lord Oxford’s library; he is the person whose conjectures upon Avienus were printed by Dr. Hudson at the end of his Geographers; and Mr. IJarnes, the Greek professor. Upon the publication of his Suidas, Kuster in a little time grew very fat; and, returning into Prussia, found his patrons retired from court, and his salary precarious. What is more, his principles, which inclined to what is now called Arianism, rendered him not very acceptable to some persons. In a little time measures were taken to make him uneasy, and he retired to Amsterdam. Here he reprinted Dr. Mill’s New Testament, and published Aristophanes, and some additional remarks upon Suidas, under Mr. Le Clerc’s cover. But his banker failing, he was reduced to extreme poverty; and, happening at that very juncture to be invited to Paris by his old friend l'abbe Bignon, was unfortunately prevailed upon to join himself to the Gallican church. He desired me to write to him, as usual, but never on the article of religion; declaring, at the same time, how he had not been obliged to make a formal recantation, or condemn the reformed by an express act of his, but merely to conform. How far this is true I know not; what is certain is, only that he was promised all the favour and distinction any convert could expect. He was presently admitted a member of the royal academy of inscriptions; and in 1714, in return for a paper of verses I sent him, made me a present of his book c De vero usu verborum mediorum; xpvesa %ataW The last 1 had from Kuster contained only queries upon Hesychius; on whom, before he left England, he had made about 5000 emendations. His queries were not over difficult and thence I guessed his health much impaired. And it proved so indeed for we heard soon after, that he had been blooded five or six times for a fever, and that, upon opening his body, there was found a cake of sand along the lower region of his belly. This, I take it, was occasioned by his sitting in a manner double, and writing on a very low table, surrounded with three or four circles of books placed on the ground, which was the situation we usually found him in. He had a clear head, cool and proper for debate: he behaved in a very inoffensive manner; and I am persuaded, the last error of his life was almost the only one, and by charitable persons will be placed in a good measure to the account of his deplorable circumstances; for if oppression, which only affects a part, will, why shall not the loss of all one’s fortunes, purchased with so much labour, ‘make a wise man mad.’”

Little or nothing is known of his life. His works are numerous, and therefore he must have lived long; for they are of so highly finished a quality that he must have given much time to them. In the various collections among the nobility in England, works of his shine with almost unrivalled lustre; and are not very uncommon. At the marquis of Stafford’s is a very fine one of the landing of prince Maurice at Dort. There are also several others of great merit.

, an ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born in Worcestershire towards the latter end of the fifteenth century. When he was about fifteen years of age, he was received into the monastery of Benedictine monks at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire; whence, being professed one of that order, he was sent to Gloucester-hall, Oxford, which was then a school for young Benedictines. After studying there four years, he was recalled to his monastery, and made principal chapjain; and his good conduct procured him to be chosen abbot in 1487. He had considerable reputation as a scholar and a promoter of learning; and was an exact observer and reformer of the discipline of his house. In one of his visits to Oxford, which were frequent, he took the degree of D. D. in 1500. He also visited Rome on some affairs belonging to his order, and on his return acquired much reputation as a preacher in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. In 1515, when there was a great debate between the clergy and the laity concerning exceptions; some asserting that what is called the “benefit of clergy,” should not be extended but to the higher orders, our abbot contended that the minor or inferior orders should also be included. He died in 1531, leaving “Tractatus contra doctrinam Lutheri,” 1521, one of the first attacks on that reformer’s doctrines from this country. But he was more known for his history of the foundation of Winchcombe monastery a list of its abbots and its charters and privileges manuscripts which have been partly lost.

He was no sooner fixed at Amiens, than he endeavoured to become a director of consciences, and presently saw himself at the head of a vast number of devotees; but it is said that his enthusiasm led him to practices more of a carnal than a spiritual nature; and that the discovery of some love-intrigues, in a nunnery, obliged him to seek a retreat elsewhere. For that purpose he chose first PortRoyal; but, as his doctrines or practices were not acceptable, his stay there was short. He therefore removed to Bazas, and afterwards to Toulouse, where M. de Montchal, archbishop of the city, gave him the direction of a convent of nuns; but here, likewise, the indecency of his familiarities with his pupils, under pretence of restoring the notions of primitive purity, and unsuspicious innocence, obliged the bishop, apprehending the consequences of such a converse, to disperse those who had been seduced into different convents, to be better instructed. Labadie endeavoured to inculcate the same practices elsewhere, but, despairing at length to make disciples any longer among the catholics, by whom he was by this time suspected and watched, he betook himself to the reformed, and resolved to try if he could not introduce among them the doctrine and practice of spirituality and mental prayer; with which view, he published three manuals, composed chiefly to set forth the excellence and necessity of that method. But an attempt which he is said to have made upon the chastity of mademoiselle Calonges lost him the esteem and protection of those very persons for whose use his books were particularly written.

, an ancient Roman knight, who excelled in writing Mimes, or little satirical productions for the stage, died in 46 A. C. Though in his time men of birth made no scruple to furnish entertainments of the theatrical kind, yet it was highly disgraceful to represent them in their own persons. Julius Caesar, however, ordered Laberius to act one of his own Mimes; and though he made all the opposition he could, yet Caesar compelled him. The prologue to the piece is still extant, and Rollin thinks it one of the most beautiful morsels of antiquity. Laberius bemoans himself for the necessity he was under in a very affecting manner, but in the course of the piece glances several strokes of satire at Caesar, which were so well understood as to direct the eyes of the spectators upon him. Coesar, by way of revenge, gave the preference to Publius Syrius, who was his rival upon the same theatre; yet, when the Mimes were over, presented him with a ring, as if to re-establish him in his rank. The very small fragments which remain of Laberius, have been often collected and printed with those of Ennius, Lucilius, Publius Syrus, &c. The prologue above-mentioned is preserved in Aulus Gellius, and there is a good version of it in Beloe’s translation of that author.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born in 1623, at Montmorency, near Paris, of which city his father was bailiff. He had scarcely attained his 13th year, when he became known to the literary world by his “Recueil de Tombeaux,” or a collection of monuments of illustrious persons buried in the church of the Celestines at Paris, together with their eloges, genealogies, arms, and mottoes. This work appeared in 1642, 4to; and although disclaimed by the authoron account of its imperfection, yet was so well received by the public, that a second edition came out the following year. In 1644 he was at court in quality of a gentleman in waiting, when he was chosen to attend the marshal de Guebriant, charged with conducting the princess Mary de Gonzaga into Poland, in order to her marriage with Ladislaus IV. Our author returned with the ambassadress the following year, and printed in 1647, at his own expence, a relation of the journey, which was very entertaining.

, or Lucius Cælius, or Cæcilius (Firmianus), an eminent father of the church, was, as some say, an African, or, according to others, a native of Fermo, a town in the marche of Ancdna, whence Le is supposed to have taken his surname. Arnobius was his preceptor. He studied rhetoric in Africa, and with so great reputation, that Constantine the Roman emperor appointed him preceptor to his son Crispus. This brought him to court; but he was so far from giving into the pleasures or corruptions incident to that station, that, amidst very great opportunities of amassing riches, he lived so poor as even frequently to want necessaries. He is account^d the most eloquent of all the ecclesiastical Latin authors. He formed himself upon Cicero, and wrote in such a pure, smooth, and natural, style, and so much in the taste and manner of the lloman orator, that he is generally distinguished by the title of “The Christian Cicero.” We have several pieces of his, the principal of which is his “Institutiones Divinae,” in seven books, composed about the year 320, in defence of Christianity, against all its opposers. Of this treatise he made an abridgment, of which we have only a part, and added it to another tract, “De Ira Divina.” In 1777 the late sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, published with notes a correct edition of the fifth book “De Justitia,” Edin. 12mo. Lactantius had before written a book “De Operibus Dei,” in which he proves the creation of man, and the divine providence. St. Jerome mentions other works of our author, as “Two Books to Æsclepiades;” “Eight Books of Letters;” a book entitled “The Festin,” composed before he went to Nicomedia; a poem in hexameter verse, containing a description of his journey thither; a treatise entitled “The Grammarian;” and another, “De Persecutione.” Concerning this last tract, there are various opinions. Dr. Lardner, after stating the evidence on both sides, seems inclined to deny that it was written by LaCtantius. He allows, however, that it is a very valuable work, containing; a short account of the sufferings of Christians under several of the Roman emperors, from the death and resurrection of Christ to Dioclesian; and then a particular history of the persecution excited by that emperor, with the causes and springs of it; as well as the miserable deaths of its chief instruments. The learned judge above mentioned, who published a translation of this work in 1782, Edin. 12mo, has also examined the opinions of those who have treated of its authenticity, with far more acuteness than Lardner, and concludes with Baluze, Mosheim, and other eminent critics, that the treatise “De Mortibus Persecutorum” was written by Lactantius. Lord Hailes’s preface is a master-piece of critical inquiry, nor are his notes and illustrations, which occupy one half of the volume, of less merit or utility.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Cyrene, the disciple of Arcesilaus, and his successor in the academy, devoted himself early to study, and, in spite of poTerty, became a very skilful philosopher, and very pleasing in his discourses, teaching in a garden which was given him by Attalus, king of Pergamus. This prince also invited him to court, but Lacydes replied, that the portraits of kings should be viewed at a distance. In some things, however, like the rest of his brethren, he descended from philosophy to the littlenesses of common men. He had a goose who attended him every where, and when she died he buried her as magnificently as if she had been his son or brother and his death, which happened in the year 212 B. C. is attributed to excess in drinking. Lacydes followed the doctrines of Arcesilaus, and affirmed that we ought not to decide on any thing, but always suspend our judgment. His servants frequently took advantage of this maxim to rob him, and, when he complained of it, maintained that he was mistaken; nor could he, on his own principles, make any reply but, growing weary at last of being plundered, and they still urging that he ought to suspend his judgment, he said to them, “Children, we have one method of disputing in the schools, and another of living in our families.”

, an useful and agreeable French writer, was born Jan. 3, 1709, at Vauxcouleurs, in Champagne, where his father was a magistrate. He studied in his native place, but particularly at Pont-a-mousson, where he was called “the prince of philosophers,” an academical title given to those who distinguished themselves by their talents and application. Being intended for the church, he was sent to the seminary of St. Louis in Paris, where he remained five years. He afterwards took the degree of bachelor of divinity, was admitted of the house of the Sorbonne in 1734, and of the society in 1736, being then in his licentiateship; but after finishing that career with equal ardour and reputation, he was placed in the second rank, among more than 140 competitors. He took a doctor’s degree June 1738, and afterwards served the curacy of Greux, and Dom-Remi, to which he had been nominated by his bishop. This prelate proposed to have M. Ladvocat near him, fix him in his chapter, and place his whole confidence in him; but the Sorbonne did not give the bishop time to execute his plan for one of their royal professorships becoming vacant by the resignanation of M. Thierri, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, they hastened to appoint M. Ladvocat to it, January 11, 1740. Our new professor was unable to continue his lectures more than two years and a half, from a disorder of his lungs, thought by the physicians to be incurable, but of which he at length cured himself by consulting the best authors. In the mean time he wrote two tracts, one “on the Proofs of religion,” the other, “on the Councils,” both which are valued by catholics. In October 1742, he resigned his chair to be librarian to the Sorbonne, an office then vacant by the premature death of the abbe Guedier de St. Aubin, and made use of the leisure this situation afforded, to improve himself in the learned languages, which he had never neglected in the midst of his other studies. He was often consulted by Louis, duke of Orleans, first prince of the blood, who, among other things, wished to become acquainted with the original language of the holy scriptures. M. Ladvocat took advantage of his situation with this prince to represent to him what great and important benefits religion would derive from the establishment of a professor who should explain the holy scriptures according to the Hebrew text. M. the duke immediately comprehending all the good which would result from this professorship, realized it in 1751, and chose M. Ladvocat to fulfil its duties; desiring that for that time only, without any precedent being drawn from it in future, the offices of librarian and professor, which till then had been incompatible, might center in one person. M. Ladvocat was no sooner appointed to this professorship, than he considered by what means he might procure scholars to it; in which he was again seconded by the pious liberality of its august founder. The seminary of the Holy Family, endowed by Anne of Austria, offered choice subjects; the duke assembled them, and revived that seminary by paying the debts which had been necessarily contracted in repairing its buildings. The extinct, or suspended fellowships, rose to new existence, and were no longer given but to deserving competitors; an emulation for understanding scripture inspired the most indifferent, and. all the students in divinity hastened to receive lectures from the Orleans professor. The example was followed by some other communities, and this school, which seemed at first likely to be deserted, had the credit of training up many men of great talents. M. Ladvocat died at Paris, December 29, 1765, by which event the house and society of the Sorhonne lost one of its most learned members, the faculty of theology one of its most ingenious doctors, and religion one of its ablest defenders. There is scarce any kind of knowledge which he had not pursued; philosophy, mathematics, the learned languages, history, theology, the holy scripture, all fixed his attention. Assiduous and deliberate study had made the Greek and Latin fathers familiar to him: no monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had escaped his researches; but his peculiar study was to find the true sense of the sacred books; and the theses which he caused to be maintained on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, at which the most distinguished among the learned were present, prove the utility of his labours. A genius lively and penetrating, uncommon and extensive, accurate and indefatigable; a ready and retentive memory, a delicate and enlightened feeling, a decided taste formed from the best models of antiquity, a clear and impartial judgment, a fertile, singular, and natural imagination, and a conversation, which, without seeking for ornaments of style, never failed to prove agreeable and interesting, characterized the scholar in M. Ladvocat, and gained him the regard and esteem of all with whom he had any intercourse or connections. He was frequently consulted on the most intricate and important points, by persons of the greatest distinction in different departments, while his uniform conduct, full of candour and simplicity, tender and compassionate, honest and virtuous, rendered him, though always far from affluence, the resource of indigent men of letters, and made him a kind relation, an excellent friend, beloved by all who had any intercourse with him, and a most valuable member of society in general. His works are, “A Hebrew Grammar,” 1758, 8vo; “The Historical Dictionary,” 4 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times during his lite; “Tractatus de Consiliis” a “Dissertation on Psalm, 67, Exurgat Deus;” “Lettres sur FAutorite des Textes originaux de FEcriture Sainte;” “Jugemens sur qoelques nouvelles Traductions de ‘lEcriture Sainte, d’apres le Texte Hebreu.” The four last were published after his death. M. Ladvocat assisted in the “Dict. Geographique,” which has appeared under the name of M. the abbé de Vosgiens, the best edition of which is that of 1772, 8vo. He had planned several other works which ke had not time to finish, but which were impatiently expected even in foreign countries.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Lyons in 1660. Being intended for the bar, he was sent to study the law first at the college of Lyons, and next at the university of Thoulouse but having accidentally met with Fournier’s Euclid, and a treatise on algebra, mathematics became his favourite science. In 1686 he came to Paris, was soon after appointed tutor to the duke de Noailles, elected a member of the academy of sciences, and was appointed by Louis XIV, royal hydrographer at Rochefort; but sixteen years afterwards, he was recalled to Paris, and made librarian to the king with a considerable pension. He died April 11, 1734, and in his last moments, when he no longer knew the persons who surrounded his bed, one of them, through a foolish curiosity, asked him “What is the square of 12” to which he replied, as it were mechanically, 144. His works are, 1. “New Methods for the Extraction and Approximation of Roots,” 1692, 4to, 2. “Elements of Arithmetic and Algebra,” 1697, 12mo. 3. “On the Cubature of the, Sphere,” 1702, 12mo. 4. “A general Analysis, or Method of resolving Problems,” published by Richer in 1733, 4to. 5. Several Papers in the Memoirs of the Academy. Lagny excelled in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry, in which he made many important discoveries.

Lagrange, while giving up to his friend these anonymous solutions, published at the same time under his own name, theories which he promised to unfold and explain. After having given new formulae of maxima and minima, and after having shown the insufficiency of the methods already known, he announced that he would treat of this subject, which in other respects appeared interesting to him, in a work that he was preparing, and in which from the same principles would be deduced all the mechanical properties of bodies, whether solid or fluid. Thus at the early age of twenty. three, he laid the foundation of those great works which have attracted the admiration of the learned. In the same volume he applied the theory of recurring consequences and the doctrine of chances to the differential calculus, which till his attempt was worked by indirect methods, but which he established on more general principles.

In the mean time, as the society of Turin was not quite to his taste, he had a strong desire to become personally acquainted with those scientific men at Paris, with whom he had correspondence; and an opportunity offering, he visited that city, and was kindly received by D'Alembert, Clairaut, Condorcet, Fontaine, Nollet, &c. Soon after, either from his well-known and well-earned fame, or in consequence of the recommendation of his friends, he was, in 1766, appointed director of the Berlin academy, forphysico-mathematical sciences. Here, as he was a foreigner, he had some prejudices to overcome; but by a diligent application to the duties of his office, and by steering clear of all contests and parties, political or religious, he soon gained universal esteem, and enriched the memoirs of the Academy of Berlin by a vast number of highly interesting papers, which, however, are but a part of what twenty years enabled him to produce. He had among other things published his “Mecauique analytique” at Paris, to which city he again removed on the death of Frederic, which occasioned great changes in Prussia, some of which it was supposed would affect the literary world. The successor of Frederic indeed was reluctant to part with such an ornament to the academy, and granted leave of absence on condition that Lagrange should continue to contribute to the Berlin memoirs; and the volumes for 1792, 1793, and 1803, show that he was faithful to his engagement.

, a pious English prelate, brother to sir Thomas Lake, knt. principal secretary of state to James I. and son of Almeric Lake or Du Lake, of Southampton, was born in St. Michael’s parish, and educated for some time at the free-school in that town. He was afterwards removed to Winchester school, and thence was elected probationer fellow of New college, Oxford, of which he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1589. in 1594 he took his degrees in arts, and being ordained, was made fellow of Winchester college about 1600, and in 1603 master of the hospital of St. Cross. In 1605 he took his degrees in divinity, and the same year was installed archdeacon of Surrey. In 1608 he was made dean of Worcester, and in December 1616, consecrated bishop of Bath and He Was a man of great learning and extensive rej f particularly in the fathers and schoolmen, then a cf study; and as a preacher was greatly admired, says he obtained his preferments “not so much by the power of his brother (the secretary) as by his own desert, as one whose piety may be justly exemplary to all of his order. In all the places of honour and employment which he enjoyed, he carried himself the same in mind and person, showing by his constancy, that his virtues were virtues indeed; in all kinds of which, whether natural, moral, theological, personal, or paternal, he was eminent, and indeed one of the examples of his time. He always lived as a single man, exemplary in his life and conversation, and very hospitable.” Walton confirms this character; he says Dr. Lake was “a man whom I take myself bound in justice to say, that he made the great trust committed to him the chief rare and whole business of his life. And one testimony of this truth may be, that he sat usually with his chancellor in his consistory, and at least advised, if not assisted, in most sentences for the punishing of such offenders as deserved church censures. And it may be noted, that after a sentence of penance was pronounced, he did very rarely or never allow of any commutation for the offence, but did usually see the sentence for penance executed; and then, as usually, preached a sermon of mortification and repentance, and so apply them to the offenders that then stood before him, as begot in them a devout contrition, and at least resolutions to amend their lives; and having done that, he would take them, though never so poor, to dinner with him, and use them friendly, and dismiss them with his blessing and persuasions to a virtuous life, and beg them for their own sakes to believe him. And his humility and charity, and all other Christian excellencies, were all like this.”

Lalande has been charged with profaneness and atheism; llbut, says the writer of his life whom we have follovyed, no authority is produced to support such charges, which, if true, ought to have been sanctioned by some sort of proof, or by well ascertained facts. The facts, however, as given in the “Biographic moderne,” are these, that, “before the Revolution, Lalande made a public profession of Atheism: in 1793 he delivered a speech at the Pantheon, with the red cap on his head, against the existence of God; in 1805 he published a Supplement to the” Dictionary of Atheists,“by Silvain Mareschal, in which he endeavours to prove there is no Deity; and in support of his opinion he cites not only the dead, but even living persons, one of whom, Francis de Neufchateau, president of the senate, strongly protested in the public prints against this charge.” In the same work, we are likewise told, that the emperor (Bonaparte) on being informed of Lalande' s conduct, enjoined him to publish nothing more with his name, in a letter dated from the palace at Schoenbrunn, Jan. 18, 1806, which was read at a general meeting of the Institute, all the classes of which had been especially summoned. The substance of this letter is, that M. Lalande, whose name had hitherto been united with important labours in science, had lately fallen into a state of childhood, which appeared now in little articles unworthy of his name, &c. Lalande, who was present, rose and said, “I will conform to the orders of his majesty.” These are surely facts of the most decisive kind, and easily to be refuted, if they have no foundation. The editors of the Diet. Hist, borrowing from one of his eulogists, make a very poor defence, by saying that, “he always manifested a benevolent disposition, and approved himself a man of honour, probity, courage, full of activity for all useful things, and of love and zeal in behalf of his fellow creatures. To imitate the great benefactor is the most worthy homage we can pay to the infinite goodness; the supreme intelligence which governs the universe.” He rendered, however, inestimable service toi science during his life, and consulted its interests after his, death, by founding an annual prize to the author of the best astronomical memoir, or most curious observation. He died April 4th, 1807, in the 7 5th year of his age.

, an eminent lawyer and antiquary, the eldest son of John Lambarde, alderman of London, by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Home or Herne, of London, was born Oct. 18, 1536. Nothing is recorded concerning the early part of his education, until he entered upon the study of the law, and was admitted into the society of Lincoln’s-inn, Aug. 15, 1556. Here he studied under Laurence Nowell (brother to the celebrated dean of St. Paul’s), a man famous for his knowledge of antiquities and of the Saxon tongue. Lambarde profited much by his instructions, considering an acquaintance with the customs and jurisprudence of the Saxon times as very useful in his profession. The first fruits of his studies appeared in a collection and translation of the Saxon laws, under the title of “A^awvo/iw, sive de priscis Anglorum legibus, libri,” 1568, 4to, republished afterwards, with Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History,” in 1644, by Abraham Wheelock, who commends highly the elegance of Lambarde’s interpretation.

In 1570 he appears to have resided at Westcombe, near Greenwich, of the manor of which he was possessed, and devoted a great share of his labours to the service of the county of Kent, but without giving up his profession of the law, or his connection with Lincoln’s-inn, of which society he was admitted a bencher in 1578. He had finished his “Perambulation of Kent” in 1570, which after being inspected by archbishop Parker, and the lord treasurer Burleigh, was published in 1576. From a letter of his to his friend Thomas Wotton, esq. it appears that his design and researches extended much farther, and that he had already collected materials for a general account of Great Britain, of which this was but the specimen, and that he was prevented from proceeding in his plan by discovering that Camden was engaged in one similar. His materials, however, were published from the original ms. in 1730, 4to, under the title of “Dictionarium Angliae Topographicum et Historicum.” Camden, in praising his “Perambulation,” and acknowledging his obligations to it, calls the author “eminent for learning and piety;” by the latter quality alluding probably to his founding an hospital for the poor at East-Greenwich, in Kent, said to have been the first founded by a protestant. The queen (Elizabeth) granted her letters patent for the foundation of this hospital in 1574; and it was finished, and the poor admitted into it in October, 1576. It was to be called “The college of the poor of queen Elizabeth.” An account of its endowment and present state may be seen in our principal authority, and in Lysons’s “Environs.”

In 1579 Lambarde was appointed a justice of peace for the county of Kent, an office which he not only performed with great diligence and integrity, but endeavoured to explain and illustrate for the benefit of other magistrates, in his “Eirenarcha, or the Office of the Justices of Peace, in four books,” 1581, reprinted eleven times, the last in 1619. Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, recommends this work to the perusal of students. He published also, “The Duties of Constables,” &c. 1582, 8vo, and reprinted six times. His character and writings had now recommended him to the notice of some of the greatest and most powerful people of the realm. In 1589 he had a deputation from the lord treasurer for the composition for alienations for fines, an office erected in the 18th year of queen Elizabeth. In 1592 he was appointed a master in chancery by sir John Puckering, lord keeper; and in 1597 was appointed keeper of the rolls and house of the rolls, in Chancery-lane, by sir Thomas Egerton, lord keeper. At length, in 1600, he was personally noticed by the queen, who received him very graciously, and appointed him keeper of the records in the Tower. In consequence of this appointment, he had another interview with her majesty, Aug. 4, 1601, and presented her with an account of those records, which he called his “Pandecta Rotulorum.” In the mean time he had written, though not published, another work, entitled “Archeion, or a Discourse upon the high courts of justice in England.” It was not published until 1635, some years after his death, by his grandson, Thomas Lambarde. Of this work there are two editions of the same date, but Mr. Bridgman gives the preference to that with a preface signed T. L. which he thinks the most correct. Mr. Lambarde died Aug. 19, 1601, at his house of Westcombe, and was buried in the parish church of Greenwich. A monument was placed over him, which, upon the rebuilding of that church, was removed to the parish church of Sevenoak, in Kent, where is now the seat and hurying-place of the family. He was thrice married, but left issue only by his second wife. He left many Mss. of which Mr. Nichols has given an account; and appears to have been an accurate antiquary, and in all respects a man of learning and distinction.

After these visits, he returned to Vienna Sept. 28, 1662, and, as it would appear, without any employment or resources. While sitting pensive at his inn, and ignorant which way to turn himself, he received a letter from Miller the Jesuit, mentioned above, and who was confessor to the emperor, requesting him to state in writing in what manner he wished to be employed under his majesty. Lambecius immediately returned for answer, that it had always been his greatest desire to serve the emperor and the august house of Austria, and that if his majesty would be so gracious as to admit him to court, he should endeavour to prove the sincerity of his zeal, by placing the imperial library in a better condition than it had ever been, by writing the history of Germany in general, and of the house of Austria in particular, and by continuing the history of literature, of which he had already dedicated a specimen to, his majesty. In consequence of these offers, the emperor appointed him his under-librarian and historiographer, and the same day (Nov. 27), the emperor spent three hours in shewing Lambecius his collection of medals, and made him a present of some of them. Three months afterwards, on the death of the head librarian, he was appointed to succeed him, and the emperor gave him also the title of counsellor, and bestowed, indeed, every mark of esteem upon him, conversing with him in the most familiar manner, and taking him as part of his suite in some of his travels. During the ten years that he lived at Vienna, he lodged with an advocate, who managed all his domestic concerns, and in return he made him his heir. He died in the month of April 1680. Lambecius was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his time; but his character, in other respects, as may be collected from the preceding narrative, was not without considerable blemishes. With respect to the imperial library, he certainly performed what he undertook, and has laid the learned world under great obligations by his vast catalogue, published in 8 vols. folio, from 1665 to 1679, under the title of “Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Csesarea Vindobonensi, libri octo.” To thes must be added as a supplement, “Dan. de Nessel Breviarium et supplementum commentariorum Bibl. Caes. Vindobon.” Vienna, 1690, 2 vols. folio. A second edition of this work was published at Vienna in 1766 82, in 8 vols. folio, “opera et studio Ad. Fr. Kollarii,” to which must be added “A. F. Kollarii ad Lambecii commentariorum libros octo, Supplementum liber primus posthumus,” Vienna, 1790, folio. In 1712 Reimann published, at Hanover, an abridgment of this catalogue in one volume, 8vo, under the title “Bibliotheca acromatica.” A new edition of Lambecius’s “Prodromus historic litterariae,” was published by Fabricius, at Leipsic, 1710, folio.

, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Muhlhausen, in the Sundgaw, a town in alliance with the Swiss cantons, Aug. 29th, 1728. His father was a poor tradesman, who, intending to bring him up to his own business, sent him to a public school, where he was taught the rudiments of learning, at the expence of the corporation, till he was twelve years old. Here he distinguished himself among his school-fellows, and some attempts were made to provide him with the means of studying theology as a profession, but for want of encouragement, he was under the necessity of learning his father’s trade. In this laborious occupation, however, he continued to devote a considerable part of the night to the prosecution of his studies; and to furnish himself with candles, he sold for half-pence or farthings small drawings which he delineated while employed in rocking his infant sister in a cradle. He met with an old book on the mathematics which gave him inexpressible pleasure, and which proved that he had a genius for scientific pursuits. Seeing the turn which the young man had for knowledge, several learned men afforded him assistance and advice; and they had the pleasure of finding him improve, under their patronage, with a rapidity beyond their most sanguine expectations. He was now taken from the drudgery of the shop-board, and M. Iselin, of Basil, engaged him as his amanuensis, a situation which afforded him an opportunity of making further progress in the belles-lettres, as well as philosophy and mathematics. In 1748, his patron recommended him to baron Salis, president of the Swiss confederacy, to become tutor to his children, in which office he gladly engaged. His talents as a philosopher and mechanician began to display themselves in his inventions and compositions. After living eight years at Coire, he repaired, in 1756, with his pupils, to the university of Gottingen, where he was nominated a corresponding member of the scientific society in that place, and from thence he removed, in the following year, to Utrecht, where he continued twelve months. In 1758, he went with his pupils to Paris, where he acquired the esteem and friendship of D' Alembert and Messier; and from thence he travelled to Marseilles, and formed the plan of his work “On Perspective,” which he published in the following year at Zurich. In 1760 he published his “Photometry,” a master-piece of sagacity, which contains a vast quantity of information of the most curious and important nature. In the same year he was elected a member of the Electoral Bavarian Scientific Society. Lambert was author of many other pieces besides those which have been already mentioned: among these were his “Letters on the Construction of the Universe,” which were afterwards digested, translated, and published under the title of “The System of the World.” In 1764 he made an excursion to Berlin, and was introduced to Frederic II., who, sensible of his great services to science, gave directions to have him admitted a regular member of the academy; this appointment enabled him to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of his favourite studies. He enriched the transactions of several learned societies with his papers and treatises, some of which he published separately. He died Sept. 25th, 1777, when he was in the 50th year of his age. Most of his mathematical pieces were published in a collective form by himself in three volumes, in which almost every branch of mathematical science has been enriched with additions and improvements.

, the son of Francis Lamotte, a native of Ypres, in Flanders, fled thence into England from the persecution of the duke of Alva, and settled at Colchester, where he had a principal hand in establishing the manufacture of “sayes and bayes.” He afterwards became a wealthy merchant of London, and was chosen alderman of the city. None of his contemporaries maintained a fairer character, or had a more extensive credit. His piety was exemplary; and his charities, in his life-time, almost without example, extending to the distressed protestants in foreign parts, as well as to multitudes of miserable objects in "the three kingdoms. He died much lamented, July 13, 1655. He was grandfather to the facetious Dr. William King.

, an eminent French surgeon and accouc-heur, was of Valogne, in Normandy. He studied his profession at Paris, where he attended the practice of the celebrated hospital, l'Hotel-Dieu, during five years. He was distinguished particularly by his skill and success as an accoucheur, not only at his native town, but throughout the neighbouring country, during a long period. No dates are given of his birth or death, but he is said to have left three sons, two of whom were physicians, and the third succeeded him in his own department. His first publication, entitled “Traite des accouchemens naturels, non naturels, et contre nature,” was first published in 1715. It went through many editions, and was translated into several languages; and was generally deemed the best treatise of the time, after that of Mauriceau, which Lamotte censured. It contained an account of four hundred cases, with judicious practical reflections, the result of thirty years’ practice. His next publication was a “Dissertation sur la Generation, et sur la Superfetation;” containing also an answer to a book entitled “De l‘lndecence aux Homines d’accoucher les Femines, et sur l'Obligations aux Meres de nourrir leurs Enfans,” Paris, 1718. He denied the occurrence of superfcetation, and combated the opinions of the ovarists, and the doctrine of animalcules: and in his reply to Hecquet, he relates a number of untoward accidents, occasioned by the ignorance of midwives. In 1722 he published “Trait complet de Chirurgie, conteiiant des Observations sur toutes Jes Maladies chirurgicales, et sur la maniere de les traiter,” which has been several times reprinted. The last edition was published in 1771, with notes by professor Sabatier. This was a valuable practical work, but disfigured by the egotism of the author, and his contempt for his professional brethren.

, of Cremona, a celebrated Latin poet in the sixteenth century, followed John Lascaris to Rome, and there taught Greek and Latin. After the death of pope Leo X. in 1521, he went to Padua, where he also instructed youth, more for the profit than the reputation of that employment, in which, however, he was eminently successful. He was then invited to Mantua by Frederic Gonzaga, who appointed him tutor to his son, and there he is said to have died in 1540, or a few years after. Lampridius, we are told, was of so timid a nature, that his friends could never prevail on him to speak in public. We have epigrams and lyric verses of this author, both in Greek and Latin, which were printed separately, and also among the “Deliciae” of the Italian poets. In his odes he aimed to imitate Pindar; but he wanted the force of that unrivalled poet.

was many years rector of Stamford Rivers, near Ongar, in Essex; and author of the celebrated “Essay on Delicacy,” 1748. In speaking of Or. Lancaster, Mr. Hull the comedian, who was lus nepuew, (in a note on “Select Letters between the late Dutchess of Somerset, Lady Luxborough,” &c. &c. 1768, 2 vols. 8vo), says, “He w;is a man of strong natural parts, gieat erudition, refined taste, and master of a nervous, and at the same time elegant style, as is obvious to every one who has had the happiness to read the Essay here spoken of. His writings were fewer in number than their author’s genius seemed to promise to his friends, and his publications less known than their intrinsic excellence deserved. Had he been as solicitous as he was capable to instruct and please the world, few prose writers would have surpassed h m; but in his latter years he lived a recluse, and whatever he composed in the hours of retired leisure, he (unhappily for the public) ordered to be burned, which was religiously (I had almost said irreligiously) performed. He was a native of Cheshire; and in his early years, under the patronage and friendship of the late earl of Cholmondely, mixed in all the more exalted scenes of polished life, where his lively spirit and brilliant conversation rendered him universally distinguished and esteemed; and even till within a few months of his decease (near seventy-five years of age) these faculties could scarce be said to be impaired. The Essay on Delicacy (of which we are now speaking) the only material work of his which the editor knows to have survived him, was first printed in 1748, and has been very judiciously and meritoriously preserved by the late Mr. Dodsley in his Fugitive Pieces.” Notwithstanding Mr. Hull’s assertion, that his uncle wrote nothing but the “Essay,” a sermon of his, under the title of“Public Virtue, or the Love of our Country,” was printed in 1746, 4to. He was also author of a long anonymous rhapsodical poem, called “The Old Serpent, or Methodism Triumphant,” 4to. The doctor’s imprudence involved him so deeply in debt, that he was some time confined for it, and left his parsonage-house in so ruinous a condition, that his successor Dr. Beadon was forced entirely to take it down. He died June 20, 1775, leaving two daughters, one of whom married to the rev. Thomas Wetenhall, of Chester, chaplain of a man of war, and vicar of Walthamstow, Essex, from 1759 till his death, 1776.

About the latter end of 1757, or the beginning of 1758, he published proposals for printing by subscription “The Residual Analysis,” a new branch of the algebraic art; and in 1758 he published a small tract entitled “A Discourse on the Residual Analysis,” in which he resolved a variety of problems, to which the method of fluxions had usually been applied, by a mode of reasoning entirely new; and in the “Philosophical Transactions” for 1760 he gave a “New method of computing the sums of a great number of infinite series.” In 1764 he published the first book of <c The Residual Analysis/' in which, besides explaining the principles on which his new analysis was founded, he applied it, in a variety of problems, to drawing tangents, and finding the properties of curve lines; to describing their involutes and evolutes, finding the radius of curvature, their greatest and least ordinates, and points of contrary flexure; to the determination of their cusps, and the drawing of asymptotes: and he proposed, in a second book, to extend the application of this new analysis to a great variety of mechanical and physical subjects. The papers which formed this book lay long by hi in; but he never found leisure to put them in order for the press.

In the 67th volume, for 1777, he gave “A New Theory of the Motion of bodies revolving about an axis in free space, when that motion is disturbed by some extraneous force, either percussive or accelerative.” At that time he did not know that the subject had been treated by any person before him, and he considered only the motion of a sphere, spheroid, and cylinder. After the publication of of this paper, however, he was informed, that the doctrine of rotatory motion had been considered by d'Alembert; and upon procuring that author’s “Opuscules Mathematiques,” he there learned that d‘Alembert was not the only one who had considered the matter before him; for d’Alembert there speaks of some mathematician, though he does not mention his name, who, after reading what had been written on the subject, doubted whether there be any solid whatever, beside the sphere, in which any line, passing through the centre of gravity, will be a permanent axis of rotation. In consequence of this, Mr. Landen took up the subject again; and though he did not then give a solution to the general problem, viz. “to determine the motions of a body of any form whatever, revolving without restraint about any axis passing through its centre of gravity,” he fully removed every doubt of the kind which had been started by the person alluded to by d'Alembert, and pointed out several bodies which, under certain dimensions, have that remarkable property. This paper is given, among many others equally curious, in a volume of “Memoirs,” which he published in 1780. That volume is also enriched with a very extensive appendix, containing “Theorems for the calculation of Fluents;” which are more complete and extensive than those that are found in any author before him. In 1781, 1782, and 1783, he published three small tracts on the “Summation of Converging Series;” in which he explained and shewed the extent of some theorems which had been given for that purpose by De Moivre, Stirling, and his old friend Thomas Simpson, iii answer to some things which he thought had been written to the disparagement of those excellent mathematicians. It was the opinion of some, that Mr. Landen did not shew less mathematical skill in explaining and illustrating these theorems, than he has done in his writings on original subjects; and that the authors of them were as little aware of the extent of their own theorems, as the rest of the world were before Mr. Landen’s ingenuity made it obvious to all.

The extreme difficulty of th% subject, joined to the concise manner in which Mr. Landen had been obliged to give his solution, to confine it within proper limits for the Transactions, rendered it too difficult, or at least too laborious a task, for most mathematicians to read it; and this circumstance, joined to the established reputation of Euler and d'Al-embert, induced many to think that their solution was right, and Mr, Landen’s wrong; and there did not want attempts to prove it; particularly along and ingenious paper by the learned Mr, Wildbore, a gentleman of very distinguished talents and experience in such calculations; this paper is given in the 80th volume of the Philosophical Transactions for 1790, in which he agrees with the solutions of Kuler and d'Alembert, and against that of Mr. Landen. This determined the latter to revise and extend his solution, and give it at greater length, to render it more generally understood. About this time also he met by chance with the late Frisi’s “Cosmographia Physica et Mathematica;” in the second part of which there is a solution of this problem, agreeing in the result with those of Euler and d'Alembert. Here Mr. Landen learned that Euler had revised the solution which he had given formerly in the Berlin Memoirs, and given it another form, and at greater length, in a volume published at Rostoch and Gryphiswald, in 1765, entitled “Theoria Motus Corporum Solidorum seu Rigidorwn.” Having therefore procured this book, Mr. Landen found the same principles employed in it, and of course the same conclusion resulting from them, as in M. Euler’s former solution of the problem. But notwithstanding that there was thus a coincidence of at least four most respectable mathematicians against him, Mr. Landen was still persuaded of the truth of his own solution, and prepared to defend ifc. And as he was convinced of the necessity of explaining his ideas on the subject more fully, so he now found it necessary to lose no time in setting about it. He had for several years been severely afflicted with the stone in the bladder, and towards the latter part of his life to such a degree as to be confined to his bed for more than a month at a time: yet even this dreadful disorder did not extinguish his ardour for mathematical studies; for the second volume of his “Memoirs,” lately published, was written and revised during the intervals of his disorder. This volume, besides a solution of the general problem concerning rotatory motion, contains the resolution of the problem relating to the motion of a top; with an investigation of the motion of the equinoxes, in which Mr. Landen has first of any one pointed out the cause of sir Isaac Newton’s mistake in his solution of this celebrated problem; and some other papers of considerable importance. He just lived to see this work finished, and received a copy of it the day before his death, which happened on the 15th of January 1790, at Milton, near Peterborough, in the seventy- first year of his age. Though Mr. Landen was one of the greatest mathematicians of the age, his merit, in this respect, was not more conspicuous than his moral virtues. The strict integrity of his conduct, his great humanity, and readiness to serve every one to the utmost of his power, procured him the respect and the esteem of all who knew him.

, knt. lord chief baron of the exchequer, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was the son of Richard Lane of Courtenhall in Northamptonshire, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Clement Vincent of Harpole, in the same county. He studied law in the Middle Temple, with great success, and being called to the bar, became eminent in his profession. In the 5th Charles I. he was elected Lent reader of his inn, but the plague which broke out about that time, prevented his reading. In 1640 he was counsel for the unhappy earl of Strafford; and soon after was made attorney to prince Charles. As the Long-parliament grew more capricious and tyrannical in its proceedings, he began to be alarmed for his property, and entrusted his intimate friend Buistrode Whitlocke, with his chamber in the Middle Temple, his goods and library; and leaving London, joined the king at Oxford, where, in 1643, he was made serjeant at law, lord chief baron of the exchequer, a knight, and one of his majesty’s privy council. The university also conferred on him the degree of LL. D. “with more,” says Wood, “than ordinary ceremony.” In the latter end of the following year, he was nominated one of his majesty’s commissioners to treat of peace with the parliament at Uxbridge, and on Aug. 30, 1645, he had the great seal delivered to him at Oxford, on the death of Edward lord Littleton. In May and June 1646, he was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the parliament for the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, apd soon alter went abroad to avoid the general persecution of the royalists which the parliament meditated. He died in the island of Jersey in 1650, or 1651, Wood tells a strange story of the fate of the goods he entrusted to Whitlocke. He says, that during sir Richard’s residence abroad, lm son applied to Whitlocke, who would not own that he knew such a man as sir Richard, and kept the goods. That this story is not without foundation, appears from Whitlocke’s receipt for his pension, &c. printed by Peck, to which he adds, “And I have likewise obtained some bookes and manuscripts, which were the lord Littleton’s; and some few bookes and manuscripts, which were sir Richard Lane’s; in all worth about So/.” Sir Richard Lane’s “Reports in the court of Exchequer in the reign of king James,” were published in 1657, folio.

, an eminent Italian painter, was born at Parma, in 1581. His parents, being poor, carried him to Placenza, to enter him into the service of the count Horatio Scotte. While he was there, he was always drawing with coal upon the walls, paper being too small for him to scrawl his ideas on. The count, observing his disposition, put him to Agostino Caracci; after whose death he went to Rome, and studied under Annibale, who set him to work in the church of St. Jago, and found him capable of being trusted with the execution of his designs; in which Lanfranco has left it a doubt whether the work be his or his master’s. His genius lay to painting in fresco in spacious places, as appeared by his grand performances, especially the cupola of Andrea de Laval, in which he has succeeded much better than in his pieces of a less size. His taste in design he took from Annibale Caracci; and as long as he lived under the discipline of that illustrious roaster, he was always correct; but, after his master’s death, 'he gave a loose to the impetuosity of genius, without regarding the rules of art. He joined with his countryman Sisto Badalocchi, in etching the histories of the Bible, after Raphael’s painting in the Vatican; which work, in conjunction with Badalocchi, he dedicated to his master Annibale. Lanfranco painted the history of St. Peter for pope Urban VIII. which was engraved by Pietro Santi; he executed other performances, particularly St. Peter walking on the water, for St. Peter’s church, and pleased the pope so much, that he knighted him.

Our author was much esteemed by several learned men of his time, and held a literary correspondence with Usher and Selden. He was screened from the persecutions of the then prevailing powers, to whom he so far submitted as to continue quiet without opposing them, employing himself in promoting learning, and preserving the discipline of the university, as well as that of his own college. With what spirit he did this, is best seen in the following passages of two letters, one to Usher, and the other to Selden. In the first, dated from Queen’s-college, Feb. 9, 1646-7, he gives the following account of himself: “For myself, I cannot tell what account to make of my present employment. J have many irons in the fire, but of no great consequence. I do not know how soon I shall be called to give up, and am therefore putting my house in order, digesting the confused notes and papers left me by several predecessors, both in the university and college, which I purpose to leave in a better method than I found them. At Mr. Patrick Young’s request, I have undertaken the collation of Constantino’s Geoponics with two Mss. in our public library, upon which I am forced to bestow some vacant hours. In our college I am ex officio to moderate divinity-disputations once a week. My honoured friend Dr. Duck has given me occasion to make some inquiry after the law; and the opportunity of an ingenious young man, come lately from Paris, who has put up a private course of anatomy, has prevailed with me to engage myself for his auditor and spectator three days a week, four hours each time. But this I do ut explorator, non ut transfuga. For, though 1 am not solicitous to engage myself in that great and weighty calling of the ministry after this new way, yet I would lothe to be teiTrorautriit as to divinity. Though I am very insufficient to make a master-builder, yet I could help to bring in materials from that public store in our library, to which I could willingly consecrate the remainder of my days, and count it no loss to be deprived of all other accommodations, so I might be permitted to enjoy the liberty of my conscience, and study in that place. But if there be such a price set upon the latter as I cannot reach without pawning the former, I am resolved. The Lord’s will be done.” The other letter to Selden, is dated Nov. 8, 1653; “I was not so much troubled to hear of that fellow, who lately, in London, maintained in public that learning is a sin, as to see some men, v.onld he accounted none of the meanest among ourselves here at home, under pretence of piety, go about to banish it th university. I cannot make any better construction of a late order made by those whom we call visitors, upon occasion of an election last week at All-Souls college to this effect, that for the future, no scholar be chosen into any place in any college, unless he bring a testimony, under the hands of four persons at least (not electors) known to these visitors to be truly godly men, that he who stands for such a place is himself truly godly; and by arrogating to themselves this power, they sit judges of all men’s consciences, and have rejected some, against whom they had no other exceptions, (being certified by such to whom their conversations were best known, to be unblameable, and statutably elected, after due examination and approbation of their sufficiency by that society), merely upon this account, that the persons who testified in their behalf are not known to these visitors to be regenerate. I intend (God willing) ere long to have an election in our college, and have not professed that I'will not submit to this order. Howl shall speed in it, I do not pretend to foresee; but if I be baffled, I shall hardly be silent.” Dr. Langbaine’s works were, 1. his Longinus, Oxon. 1636 and 1638, 8vo. 2. “Brief Discourse relating to the times of Edward VI.; or, the state of the times as they stood in the reign of King Edward VI. By way of Preface to a book intituled The true subject to the rebel: or, the hurt of sedition, &c. written by sir John Cheek.” Oxford, 1641, in 4to. To this Dr. Langbaine prefixed the life of sir John Cheek. 3. “Episcopal Inheritance; or, a Reply to the humble examination of a printed abstract; or the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons against the votes of bishops in Parliament,” Oxford, 1641, 4to. To which is added, “A determination of the late learned Bishop of Salisbury (Davenant) Englished.” These two pieces were reprinted at London in 1680. 4. “A Review of the Covenant: wherein the original, grounds, means, matter, and ends of it are examined; and out of the principles of the remonstunce*, declarations, votes, orders and ordinances of trie prime covenanters, or the firmer grounds of scripture, law, and reason, disproved,” 1644. It was reprinted at London, 1661, in 4to. 5. “Answer of the Chancellor, master and scholars of the university of Oxford, to the petition, articles of grievance, and reasons of the city of Oxford; presented to the committee for regulating the University of Oxford, 24 July 1649,” Oxford, 1649, 4to; reprinted in 1678, with a book entitled “A defence of the rights and privileges of the University of Oxford,” &c. published by James Harrington, then bachelor (soon after master) of arts, and student of Christ-church, at Oxford, 1690, 4to. 6. “Quacstiones pro more solenni in Vesperiis propositac ann. 1651,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. Published by Mr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln, among several little works of learned men. 7. “Platonicorum aliquot, qui etiamnum supersunt, Authorum, Graecorum, imprimis, mox Latinorum, syllabus alphabeticus,” Oxford, 1607, 8vo, drawn up by our author at the desire of archbishop Usher, but left imperfect; which being found among his papers, was, with some few alterations, placed at the end of “Alcini, in Plutonicam Philosophiam Introductio,” published by Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church. 8. There is also ascribed to our author, “A View of the New Directory, and a Vindication of the ancient Liturgy of the Church of England: in answer to the reasons pretended in the ordinance and preface for the abolishing the one, and establishing the other,” Oxford, 1645, 4to, pages 112, Dr. Langbaine also published, 1. “The Foundation of the university of Oxford, with a Catalogue of the principal founders and special benefactors of all the colleges, and total number of students,” &c. London, 165I,4to f mostly taken from the Tables of John Scot of Cambridge, printed in '622. 2. “The Foundation of the University of Cambridge, with a Catalogue,” &c. printed with the forme? Catalogue, and taken from Mr. Scot’s Tables. He likewise laboured very much in finishing archbishop Usher’s book, entitled “Chronologia Sacra,” but died when he had almost completed it, which was done by Barlow. He translated into Latin “Reasons of the present judgment of the university concerning the solemn League and Covenant,” and assisted Dr. Robert Sanderson, and Dr. Richard Zouch, in the drawing up of those Reasons. He translated into English “A Review of the Council of Trent, written in French by a learned Roman catholic,” Oxford, 1638, fol. in which is represented the dissent of the Gallican church from several conclusions of the Council. He left behind him thirteen 4tos, and eight 8vos, in manuscript, with innumerable collections in loose papers, collected chiefly from ancient manuscripts in the Bodleian library, &c, He had also made several catalogues of manuscripts in various libraries, and of printed books likewise, with a view, as was supposed, to an universal Catalogue. Dr. Fuller tells us that he took a great deal of pains in the continuation of Brian Twyne’s “Antiq. Academ. Oxon.” and that he was intent upon it when he died. But Mr. Wood observes, that Dr. Thomas Barlow and Dr. Lamplugh, who looked over his library after his death, assured him that they saw nothing done towards such a design. Dr. Langbaine assisted Dr. Arthur Duck in composing his book “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Homanorum in Dominiis Principum Christianorum,” London, 1653, 8vo. In Parr’s collection of Usher’s letters, are several letters of our author to that prelate.

, archbishop of Canterbury, and cardinal, was probably born at Langham in Rutlandshire, whence he took his name, but the date is nowhere specified. He became a monk of St. Peter, Westminster, in 1335, and soon attained a considerable degree of eminence among his brethren. In 1346 he officiated at the triennial chapter of the Benedictines, held at Northampton, by whom in 1349 he was elected prior, and two months after abbot. The revenues of this monastery having been much wasted in his predecessor’s time, the new abbot directed his attention to a system of ceconomy, and partly by his own example, and partly by earnest persuasion, was soon enabled to pay off their debts. When he began this reformation of the abuses which had crept into the cloister, he (knowing the disposition of his fraternity) thought that those which respected the articles of provision were of the first importance. He therefore took care that their mistricordia, or better than ordinary dishes, and those dinners which were somewhat similar to what in our universities have obtained the names of Exceeding and Gaudy-days, should be common to the whole society; and not, as had formerly been the practice, confined to a few, to the extreme mortification of the rest. To effect this purpose, he relinquished the presents which it had been usual for preceding abbots, at certain times, to accept.

The king, Edward 111. perceiving his talents and sagacity, promoted him in 1360 to the place of lord treasurer, and in 1361 he was chosen bishop of London; but the see of Ely becoming vacant at the same time, he chose the latter, and was consecrated March 20, 1361-2, and employed its revenues to the encouragement of learning, and to the relief of the poor. As his character in this high office began more fully to appear, the king became partial to Langham, and in Feb. 1364 removed him from the post of lord treasurer to that of chancellor, and in July 1366, he was, by papal provision, but at the express desire of the king, promoted to the see of Canterbury. The most remarkable event which occurred during his administration was, his undertaking to execute the bull promulgated by the pope Urban the Fifth, “for the correction of the abuse of the privilege of pluralities. 77 Archbishop Langham was indefatigable in his inquiry through his diocese; and the result of it was,” the reformation of a great many ecclesiastics who held an enormous number of livings, some of them twenty or thirty, with the cure of souls."

While employed on the education of the sons of Mr. Cracroft, he became enamoured of the amiable disposition and personal charms of Miss Anne Cracroft, one of that gentleman’s daughters. He had given her some instructions in the Italian language, and was often delighted by her skill in music, for which he had a very correct ear. A mutual attachment was the consequence of these many opportunities and coincidences in polite accomplishments, which Mr. Langhorne was eager to terminate in marriage. But the lady, who knew that a match so disproportioned as to fortune would be opposed by her family, gave him a denial, as firm and as gentle as her good sense and secret attachment would permit. For this, however, Mr. Langhonie was not prepared, and immediately left his situation, in hopes of recovering a more tranquil tone of mind in distant scenes and different employment. In 1761 he officiated as curate to the rev. Abraham Blackburn of :cnham, and obtained the friendship of the Gillmans, a very amiable family in that place. While endeavouring to forget his heart’s disappointment, he found some relief in penning a “Hymn to Hope,” which he published this year in London, 4to; and in the course of the next, he gave further vent to his thoughts in “The Visions of Fancy, four Elegies,” 4to “Letters on Religious Retirement,” 8vo and “Solyman and Almena,” a fiction in the manner of the Eastern Tales, but not much to be praised for invention. The “Letters” are of a sentimental, melancholy cast, with a considerable mixture of lighter and more entertaining matter. In the same year he published “The Viceroy,” a poem in honour of lord Halifax, then lord lieutenant of Ireland. Here, as in the case of “Studley Park,” our author appears to have expected to find a patron, but lord Halifax did not condescend to notice what, it must be confessed, flatters him with too much artifice; and Langhorne, when he collected his poems, retained only a favourite fragment of this unlucky piece, omitting altogether the name of Halifax, or Viceroy. The whole, however, is given in the last edition of the “English Poets,” as originally written.

But whatever may be in this, his employment as a critic we are told, procured him many acquaintances among literary men, while the vein of ridicule which he indulged in treating several of the subjects that fell under his consideration, created him many enemies, who in their turn endeavoured to depreciate his performances. As no judgment can now be pronounced on the articles which he wrotCj it is impossible to say whether this vein of ridicule was employed as the just chastisement of arrogance and immorality, or substituted for fair and legitimate criticism. Illibefality has not often been imputed to the journal in which he wrote; and as to his enemies, we know of none more formidable than Churchill, Kelly, and Kenrick, two of whom were libellers by profession. Smollett, whose jealousy of the Monthly Review led him often to disgrace his talents by invidious attacks on the supposed writers belonging to it$ bestows almost uniform praise on Langhorne’s various works.

In 1765j his productions were, “The Second Epistle on the Enlargement of the Mind;” an edition of the poems of the elegant and tender Collins, with a criticism and some memoirs; and letters on that difficult subject, “The Eloquence of the Pulpit.” He had now occasion to exert his own talents before a more enlightened auditory than he had ever yet addressed, having been appointed by Dr. Hurd (bishop of Worcester) to the office of assistant preacher at LincolnVihn chapel. In the following year we do not find that any thing original came from his pen, He prepared for the press, however, an enlarged edition of hia “Effusions of Friendship and Fancy,” and a collection of his “Poems,” in 2 vols. 12mo. The principal article of these, not before published, is a dramatic poem, or tragedy, entitled '< The Fatal Prophecy." This was his only attempt in this species of poetry, and was universally accounted unsuccessful. He had the good sense to acquiesce in the decision, and neither attempted the drama again, nor reprinted this specimen.

During Churchill’s career, our author endeavoured to counteract the scurrility he had thrown out against Scotland in his “Prophecy of Famine,” by an elegant poem entitled “Genius and Valour.” This provoked Churchill to introduce his name once or twice with his usual epithets of contempt, which Langhorne disregarded, and disregarded his own interest at the same time, by dedicating this poem to lord Bute, a minister going out of place It produced him, however, a very flattering letter, in 1766, from Dr. Robertson, the celebrated historian, and principal of the university of Edinburgh, requesting him to accept a diploma for the degree of D. D. He was farther consoled by the approbation of every wise and loyal man, who contemplated the miseries of disunion, and the glaring absurdity of perpetuating national prejudices.

Amidst these engagements he found leisure to give to the world two productions strongly marked by the peculiarities of his style and turn of thinking the one entitled “Frederick and Pharamond, or, The Consolations of Human Life,” 8vo the other, “Letters supposed to have passed between M. de St. Evremond and Waller” In this last, while he was allowed to have preserved their characters tolerably, he was at the same time accused, by the critic in the Monthly Review, of taking frequent opportunities to compliment himself on the merit of the letters he had written for St. Evremond and Waller. This produced a complaint from Langhorne, which was answered by the Reviewer, respectfully indeed, but not in the manner that might have been expected from an associate. It is from this circumstance that we have been led to conjecture that his connexion with the Review ceased when he left London in consequence of his obtaining the living of Blagdon. “Frederick and Pharamond” was begun with a view to alleviate the afflictions of a friend, and pursued perhaps to alleviate his own. It attempts that by argument which is rarely accomplished but by time.

The translation of “Plutarch” by the brothers appeared in 1770, and soon became a very popular book. In 1771, Dr. Langhorne gave another proof of the variety on which he exercised his fancy in a favourite little volume, entitled the “Fables of Flora.” In this, although he claimed too hastily the merit of combining for the first time imagery, description, and sentiment, yet he has certainly enlarged the province of fable, and given proof of a wide range of imagination. It cannot, however, be denied that the moral is not always sufficiently pointed, that the style is too much ornamented, and the general cast of sentiment too obscure for the persons into whose hands Fables are usually placed. In answer to the objection made to the language of flowers, his son very justly remarks that “ inipersonation may certainly be applied with as much reason to the vegetable as to the animal creation, if the characteristic attributes of each plant or flower are faithfully marked, and the unity of the fable is maintained.”

In 1776, he lost his second wife, who died, like the former, in child-bed, five years after her marriage, and left a daughter, whom he consigned by his will to the protection of his friend Mrs. Gillman. What impression this second interruption to domestic happiness produced on his mind we are not told. In this year, however, we find him again employing the press on a translation of Milton’s “Italian Sonnets,” and on two occasional sermons. In 1777, at the request of the Bouverie family, who highly respected Mr. Langhorne, Dr. Moss, bishop of Bath and Wells, presented him with a prebend in the cathedral of Wells. His last production was the tale of “Owen of Carron;” which, with some beauties, has less of his usual energy and vigour; it is uncertain whether this was owing to the nature of the poem, in which he conceived it necessary to imitate the ballad simplicity, or to a languor of body and mind. The death of the honourable Charles Yorke, from whom he had great expectations, is said to have made a lasting impression on him; but, as Mr. Yurke die-i in 1770, this seems wholly improbable. His biographer passes over his last clays without notice of his situation or enjoyments. We are merely told that he died on April i, 1779, in the forty -fifth year of his age.

In 1804, his son published an edition of his poems, in two elegant volumes 12mo, with memoirs of fhe author, To these we are indebted for the principal part of this sketch. If we may judge from his writings, Dr. Langhorne was a man of an amiable disposition, a friend to religion and morals, and, though a wit, he never descends to grossness or indelicacy. His, memory has not been followed by any worse objection than that he was of a social turn, and during the latter part of his life more addicted to convivial indulgences than is consistent with health. This, however, is a serious objection, and not much lessened by the supposition that he was driven to this unhappy species of relief by having twice lost the chief source of domestic happiness. Ease, elegance, and tenderness, are the most striking features of his poetry: nor is he deficient in invention; an attentive perusal will discover many original sentiments, and spirited flights, which the critics of his day pointed out with high praise. He is very seldom a copyist; his style, as well as his sentiments, whatever their merit, are his own. His prose works are various enough to convince us that he was either a laborious writer, or possessed of great fertility of imagination; and the latter will probably be the safest conjecture. But, although a scholar of high attainments, he has rarely brought learning to his aid. His mind was stored with remarks on men and manners, which he expressed in various and desultory modes, so as to give an air of novelty to every thing he wrote. But we find nothing very profound. He appeared so frequently before the public as to secure a considerable degree of fame: what he announced was expected with eagerness, and what he published was read with pleasure; but as his abilities were confined to the lighter provinces of literature, there are few of his productions which will be honoured by permanent popularity.

, an English chronicler, so called from Langtoft in Yorkshire, flourished in the thirteenth, and beginning of the fourteenth century, and was a canon regular of the order of St. Austin at Bridiington in Yorkshire. He translated out of the Latin into French verse, Bosenham or Boscam’s Life of Thomas a Becket, and compiled likewise in French verse, a Chronicle of England, copies of which are in several libraries. He begun his chronicle as early as the old fable of the Trojans, and brings it down to the end of the reign of Edward I. He is supposed to have died about the beginning of Edward II. or soon after. Robert de Brunne, as we have already mentioned in his article (see Brunne), gave an English metrical version of Langtoft, which was edited by Hearne in 1725, 2 vols. 8vo.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the thirteenth century, a native of England, was educated at the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and explained the Scriptures with much reputation. His character stood so high, that he was chosen chancellor of that university, canon of Paris, and dean of Rheims. He was afterwards sent for to Rome by pope Innocent III. and created a cardinal. In 1207, the monks of Canterbury having, upon a vacancy taking place in that see, made a double return, both parties appealed to the pope, and sent agents to Rome to support their respective claims. His holiness not only determined against both the contending candidates, but ordered the monks, of Canterbury, then, at Rome, immediately to proceed to the election of an archbishop, and, at the same time, commanded them to choose cardinal Stephen Langton. After various excuses, which the plenitude of papal power answered, by absolving these conscientious monks from all sorts of promises, oaths, &c. and by threatening them with the highest penalties of the church, they complied; and Langton was consecrated by the pope at Viterbo. As soon as the news arrived in England, king John was incensed in the highest degree both against the pope and monks of Canterbury, which last experienced the effects of his indignation. He sent two officers with a company of armed men to Canterbury, took possession of the monastery, banished the monks out of the kingdom, and seized all their property. He wrote a spirited letter to the pope, in which he accused him of injustice and presumption, in raising a stranger to the highest dignity in his kingdom, without his knowledge. He reproached the pope and court of Rome with ingratitude, in not remembering that they derived more riches from England than from all the kingdoms on this side the Alps. He assured him, that he was determined to sacrifice his life in defence of the rights of his crown; and that if his holiness did not immediately repair the injury he had done him, he would break off all communication with Rome. The pope, whom such a letter must have irritated in the highest degree, returned for answer, that if the king persisted in this dispute, he would plunge himself into inextricable difficulties, and would at length be crushed by him, before whom every knee must bow, &c. All this may be deemed insolent and haughty, but it was not foolish. The pope knew the posture of king John’s affairs at home he knew that he had lost the affections of his subjects by his imprudence his only miscalculation was respecting the spirit of the people for when, which he did immediately, he laid the kingdom of England under an interdict, and two years after excommunicated the king, he was enraged to find that the great barons and their followers adhered with so much steadiness to their sovereign, that, while he lay under the sentence of excommunication, he executed the only two successful expeditions of his reign, the one into Wales, and the other into Ireland a proof that if he had continued to act with firmness, and had secured the affections of his subjects by a mild administration, he might have triumphed over all the arts of Rome. Such, however, was not the policy of John; and in the end, he submitted to the most disgraceful terms. In 1213, cardinal Langton arrived in England, and took possession of the see; and though he owed all his advancement to the pope, yet the moment he became an English baron, he was inspired with a zealous attachment to the liberties and independence of his country. In the very year in which he came over, he and six other bishops joined the party of the barons, who associated to resist the tyranny of the king; and at length they were successful in procuring the g eat charter. Langton was equally zealous in opposing the claims of the papal agents, particularly of the pope’s legate, who assumed the right of regulating all ecclesiastical affairs in the most arbitrary manner. In the grand contest which took place between king John and the barons about the charter, the archbishop’s patriotic conduct gave such offence to the pope, that, in 1215, he laid him under a sentence of suspension, and reversed the election of his brother Simon Langton, who had been chosen archbishop of York. Yet in the following year we find Langton assisting at a general council held at Rome; and during his absence from England at this time, king John died. In 1222, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a remarkable canon was made, prohibiting clergymen from keeping concubines publicly in their houses, or from going to them in other places so openly as to occasion scandal. In the following year, he, at the head of the principal nobility, demanded an audience of king Henry III. and demanded of him a confirmation of the charter of their JiberTheir determined manner convinced the king that their demand was not to be refused, and he instantly gave s lor the assembling of parliament. The archbishop shewed, in several instances, that he was friendly to the legal prerogatives of the crown; and by a firm conduct, in a case of great difficulty, he prevented the calamity of a civil war. He died in 1228, leaving behind him many works, which prove that he was deserving the character of being a learned and polite author. He wrote “Commentaries” upon the greatest part of the books of the Old and New Testament. He was deeply skilled in Aristotelian dialectics, and the application of them to the doctrines of Scripture. The first division of the books of the Bible into chapters is ascribed to this prelate. The history of the translation of the body of Thomas a Becket was printed at the end of that archbishop’s letters, at Brussels, 1682; and there are various Mss. of his in our public libraries. His letter to king John, with the king’s answer, may be seen, in d'Achery’s Spicilegium.

At length, in the controversy which arose in Saxony between the Lutherans and Zuinglians, respecting the eucharist, Languet was suspected to favour the latter, and in consequence was obliged to beg leave of the elector, being then one of his chief ministers, to retire; which was granted, with a liberty to go where he pleased. He chose Prague for the place of his residence, where he was in 1577; and in, this situation applied himself to John Casimir, count Palatine, and attended him to Ghent, in Flanders, the inhabitants of which city had chosen the count for their governor. On his quitting the government, Languet accepted an invitation from William prince of Orange, and remained with him until the bad state of his health obliged him to go in 1579 to the wells of Baden; and there he became acquainted with Thuanus, who was much struck with his conversation, probity, and judgment, not only in the sciences, but in public affairs. Thuanus tells us that Languet was so well acquainted with the affairs of Germany, that he could instruct the Germans themselves in the affairs of their own country. After Thuanus had left that place, they appear to have corresponded, and Thuanus speaks of some memoirs then in his possession, which Languet sent to him, containing an account of the present state of Germany, of the right of the diets, of the number of the circles, andi-of the order or rank of the different councils of that country.

His parish-church being out of repair, and scarce fit to hold 1200 or 1500 persons out of a parish which contained 125,000 inhabitants, he conceived a design to build a church in some degree proportionable to them; and undertook this great work without any greater fund to begin with than the sum of one hundred crowns, which had been, left him for this design by a pious and benevolent lad' T He laid out this money in stones, which he caused to be carried through all the streets, to shew his design to the public. He soon obtained considerable donations from all parts; and the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, granted him a lottery. That prince likewise laid the first stone of the porch in 1718; and Languet spared neither labour nor expence during his life, to make the church one of the finest in the kingdom, both for architecture and ornaments. It was consecrated in 1745, with so much splendour, that Frederic II. of Prussia wrote the vicar a congratulatory letter, in which he not only praises the building, but even the piety of the founder, a quality which Frederic knew how to notice when it served to point a compliment.

Languet was not less to be esteemed for his beneficence and his zeal in aiding the poor of every sort. Never man took more pains than he did in procuring donations and legacies, which he distributed with admirable prudence and discretion. He inquired with care if the legacies which were left him were to the disadvantage of the poor relations of the testator; if he found that to be the case, he restored to them not only the legacy, but gave them, when wanting, a large sum of his own. Madame de Camois, as illustrious for the benevolence of her disposition as for her rank in life, having left him by her last will a legacy of more than 600,000 livres, he only took 30,000 livres for the poor, and returned the remaining sum to her relations. It is said from good authority, that he disbursed near a million of livres in charities every year. He always chose noble families reduced to poverty, before all others; and there were some families of distinction in his parish, to each of whom he distributed 30,000 livres per annum. Always willing to serve mankind, he gave liberally, and often before any application was made to him. When there was a general dearth in 1725, he sold, in order to relieve the poor, his household goods, his pictures, and some scarce and curious pieces of furniture, which he had procured with difficulty. From that time he had only three pieces of plate, no tapestry, and but a mean serge bed, which madam e de Camois had lent him, having before sold all the presents she had made him at different periods. His charity was not confined to his own parish. At the time that the plague raged at Marseilles, he sent large sums into Provence to assist the distressed. He interested himself with great zeal in the promotion of arts and commerce, and in whatever concerned the glory of the nation. In times of public calamity, as conflagrations, &c. his prudence and assiduity have been much admired. He understood well the different dispositions of men. He knew how to employ every one according to his talent or capacity. In the most intricate and perplexed affairs he decided with a sagacity and judgment that surprized every one. Languet refused the bishopric of Couserans anid that of Poictiers, and aeveral others which were offered him by Louis Xtv. and Louis XV. under the ministry of the duke of Orleans and cardinal Fleury. He resigned hia vicarage to Mons. l'Abbé du Lau, in 1748, but continued to preach every Sunday, according to his custom, in his own parish church; and continued also to support the house de rev fans Jesus till his death, which happened Oct. 11, 1750, in his seventy-fifth year,- at the abbey de Bernay, to which place he went to make some charitable establishments. His piety and continued application to works of beneficence did not hinder him from being lively and chearful; and he delighted his friends by the agreeable repartees and sensible remarks he made in conversation.

, an artist of various talents in the seventeenth century, was born in Italy, and appears to have come over to England in the time of James I. He had a great share in the purchases of pictures made for the royal collection. He drew for Charles I. a picture of Mary, Christ, and Joseph; his own portrait done by himself with a pallet and pencils in his hand, and musical notes on a scrip of paper, is in the music-school at Oxford. He also employed himself in etching, but his fame was most considerable as a musician. It is mentioned in the folio edition of Ben Jonson’s works, printed 1640, that in 1617, his whole masque, which was performed at the house of lord Hay, for the entertainment of the French ambassador, was set to music after the Italian manner, stilo recitativo, by Nic. Laniere, who was not only ordered to set the music, but to paint the scenes. This short piece being wholly in rhyme, though without variation in the measure, to distinguish airs from recitation, as it was all in musical declamation, may be safely pronounced the first attempt at an opera in the Italian manner, after the invention of recitative. In the same year, the masque called “The Vision of Delight,” was presented at court during Christmas by the same author; and in it, says Dr. Burney, we have all the characteristics of a genuine opera, or musical drama of modern times complete: splendid scenes and machinery; poetry; musical recitation; air; chorus; and dancing. Though the music of this masque is not to be found, yet of Laniere’s “Musica narrativa” we have several examples, printed by Playford in the collections of the time; particularly the “Ayres and Dialogues,” 1653, and the second part of the “Musical Companion,” which appeared in 1667; and in which his music to the dialogues is infinitely superior to the rest; there is melody, measure, and meaning in it. His recitative is more like that of his countrymen at present, than any contemporary Englishman’s. However, these dialogues were composed before the laws and phraseology of recitative were settled, even in Italy. His cantata of “Hero and Leander” was much celebrated during these times, and the recitative regarded as a model of true Italian musical declamation. Laniere died at the age of seventyeight, and was buried in St. Martin’s in the Fields, Nov. 4, 1646.

Lanzoni acquired a high reputation by the success of his practice, and obtained the confidence and esteem of many illustrious personages. His attachment to study increased with his years; and every moment in which he was not employed in the duties of his profession, was devoted to literature, philosophy, or antiquarian research. His character as a physician and philosopher, indeed, ranked so high, that if any question upon these subjects was agitated in Italy, the decision was commonly referred to him. He was distinguished likewise by his genius in Latin and Italian poetry; and he was the restorer and secretary of the academy of Ferrara, and a member of many of the learned societies of his time. He left a considerable number of works, a collection of which was printed at Lausanne, in 1738, in 3 vols. 4to, with an account of his life, under the title of “Josephi Lanzoni, Philosophise et Medicinae Doctoris, in Patria Universitate Lectoris primarii, &c. Opera omnia Medico-physica et PhU lologica.”

His reputation as a translator from the Greek being now acknowledged, some booksellers in Paris who were in possession of a manuscript translation of Herodotus left by the abbe“Bellanger without revision, applied to Larcher to prepare it for the press; and he, thinking he had only to correct a few slips of the pen, or at most to add a few notes, readily undertook the task, but before he had proceeded far, the many imperfections, and the style of Bellanger, appeared to be such, that he conceived it would be easier to make an entire new translation. He did not, however, consider this as a trifling undertaking, but prepared himself by profound consideration of the text of his author, which he collated with the ms copies in the royal library, and read with equal care every contemporary writer from whom he might derive information to illustrate Herodotus. While engaged in these studies, Paw published his” Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois,“and Larcher borrowed a little time to publish an acute review of that author’s paradoxes in the” Journal des Savans“for 1774. The year following, while interrupted by sickness from his inquiries into Herodotus, he published his very learned” Memoire sur Venus,“to which the academy of inscriptions awarded their prize. During another interruption of the Herodotus, incident to itself, he wrote and published his translation of Xenophon, which added much to the reputation he had already acquired, and although his style is not very happily adapted to transfuse the spirit of Xenophon, yet it produced the following high compliment from Wyttenbach (Bibl. Critica)” Larcherus is est quern non dubitemus omnium, qui nostra aetate veteres scrintores in linguas vertunt recentiores, antiquitatis linguaeque Grace* scientissimum vocare.“Larcher’s critical remarks in this translation are very valuable, particularly his observations on the pronunciation of the Greek. The reputation of his” Memoire sur Venus,“and his” Xenophon,“procured him to be elected into the Academy of inscriptions, on May 10, 1778. To the memoirs of this society he contributed many essays on classical antiquities, which are inserted in vols. 43, 45, 46, 47, and 48; and these probably, which he thought a duty to the academy, interrupted his labours on Herodotus, not did it issue from the press until 1786. The style of this translation is liable to some objections, but in other respects, his profound and learned researches into points of geography and chronology, and the general merit and importance of his comments, gratified the expectations of every scholar in Europe. It was translated into Latin by Borheck, into German by Degan, and his notes have appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. We may here conclude this part of our subject by noticing his new and very much improved edition of” Herodotus,“published in 1802, 9 vols. 8vo. The particulars which distinguish this edition are, a correction of those passages in which he was not satisfied with having expressed the exact sense; a greater degree of precision and more compression of style; a reformation of such notes as wanted exactness; with the addition of several that were judged necessary to illustrate various points of antiquity, and render the historian better understood. We have already hinted that Larcher was at one time not unfriendly to the infidel principles of some of the French encyclopedists. It is with the greater pleasure that we can now add what he says on this subject in his apology for further alterations.” At length,“he says,” being intimately convinced of all the truths taught by the Christian religion, I have retrenched or reformed all the notes that could offend it. From some of them conclusions have been drawn which I disapprove, and which were far from my thoughts; others of them contain things, which I must, to discharge my conscience, confess freely, that more mature examination and deeper researches have demonstrated to have been built on slight or absolutely false foundations. The truth cannot but be a gainer by this avowal: to it alone have I consecrated all my studies: I have been anxious to return to it from the moment I was persuaded I could seize it with advantage. May this homage, which I render it in all the sincerity of my heart, be the means of procuring me absolution for all the errors I have hazarded or sought to propagate." In this vast accumulation of ancient learning, the English reader will find many severe strictures on Bruce, which he may not think compatible with the general opinion now entertained both in France and England on the merits of that traveller.

During the revolutionary storm Larcher lived in privacy, employed on his studies, and especially on the second edition of his “Herodotus,” and was but little disturbed. He was indeed carried before the revolutionary committee, and his papers very much perplexed those gentlemen, who knew little of Greek or Latin. For one night a sentinel was placed at his door, who was set asleep by a bottle of wine, and next morning Larcher gave him a small assignat, and he came back no more. When the republican government became a little more quiet, and affected to encourage men of letters, Larcher received, by a decree, the sum of 3000 livres. He was afterwards, notwithstanding his opinions were not the fashion of the day, elected into the Institute; and when it was divided into four classes, and by that change he became again, in some degree, a member of the Academy of inscriptions, he published four dissertations of the critical kind in their memoirs. The last honour paid to him was by appointing him professor of Greek in the imperial university, as it was then called; but he was now too tar advanced for active services, and died after a short illness, in his eighty-sixth year, Dec. 22, 1812, regretted as one of the most eminent scholars and amiable men of his time. His fine library was sold by auction in Nov. 1814.

, a very learned dissenting clergyman, was born at Hawkhurst, in Kent, June 6, 1684. He was educated for some time at a dissenter’s academy in London, by the Rev. Dr. Oldfield, whence he went to Utrecht, and studied under Grsevius and Burman, and made all the improvement which might be expected under such masters. From Utrecht Mr. Lardner went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he came to England, and employed himself in diligent preparation for the sacred profession. He did not, however, preach his first sermon till he was twenty-five years of age. In 1713 he was invited to reside in the house of lady Treby, widow of the lord chief justice of common pleas, as domestic chaplain to the lady, and tutor to her youngest son. He accompanied his pupil to France, the Netherlands, and United Provinces, and continued in the family till the death of lady Treby. It reflects no honour upon the dissenters that such a man should be so long neglected; but, in 1723, he was engaged with other ministers to carry on a course of lectures at the Old Jewry. The gentlemen who conducted these lectures preached a course of sermons on the evidences of natural and revealed religion. The proof of the credibility of the gospel history was assigned to Mr Lardner, and he delivered three sermons on this subject, which probably laid the foundation of his great work, as from this period he was diligently engaged in writing the first part of the Credibility. In 1727 he published, in two volumes octavo, the first part of “The Credibility of the Gospel History; or the facts occasionally mentioned in the New Testament, confirmed by passages of ancient authors who were contemporary with our Saviour, or his apostles, or lived near their time.” It is unnecessary to say how well these volumes were received by the learned world, without any distinction of sect or party. Notwithstanding, however, his great merit, Mr. Lardner was forty-five years of age before he obtained a settlement among the dissenters; but, in 1729, he was invited by the congregation of Crutcbedfriars to be assistant to their minister. At this period the enthusiasm of Mr. Woolston introduced an important controversy. In various absurd publications he treated the miracles of our Saviour with extreme licentiousness. These Mr. Lardner confuted with the happiest success, in a work which he at this time published, and which was entitled “A Vindication of three of our Saviour’s Miracles.” About the same time also he found leisure to write other occasional pieces, the principal of which was his “Letter on the Logos.” In 1733, appeared the first volume of the second part of the “Credibility of the Gospel-history,” which, besides being universally well received at home, was so much approved abroad, that it was translated by two learned foreigners; by Mr. Cornelius Westerbaen into Low Dutch, and by Mr. J. Christopher Wolff into Latin. The second volume of the second part of this work appeared in 1735; and the farther Mr. Lardner proceeded in his design, the more he advanced in esteem and reputation among learned men of all denominations. In 1737 he published his “Counsels of Prudence” for the use of young people, on account of which he received a complimentary letter from Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford. The third and fourth volumes of the second part of the “Credibility,” no less curious than the precediug, were published in 1738 and 1740. The fifth volume in 1743. To be circumstantial in the account of all the writings which this eminent man produced would greatly exceed our limits. They were all considered as of distinguished usefulness and merit. We may in particular notice the “Supplement to the Credibility,” which has a place in the collection of treatises published by Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff. Notwithstanding Dr. Lardner’s life and pen were so long and so usefully devoted to the public, he never rfceived any adequate recompence. The college of Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, and the diploma had the unanimous signature of the professors. But his salary as a preacher was inconsiderable, and his works often published to his loss instead of gain. Dr. Lardner lived to a very advanced age, and, with the exception of his hearing, retained the use of his faculties to the last, in a remarkably perfect degree. In 1768 he fell into a gradual decline, which carried him off in a few weeks, at Hawkhurst, his native place, at the age of eighty-five. He had, previously to his last illness, parted with the copy-right of his great work for the miserable sum of 150l. but he hoped if the booksellers had the whole interest of his labours, they would then do their utmost to promote the sale of a work that could not fail to be useful in promoting the interests of his fellow creatures, by promulgating the great truths of Christianity. After the death of Dr. Lardner, some of his posthumous pieces made their appearance; of these the first consist of eight sermons, and brief memoirs of the author. In 1776 was published a short letter which the doctor had written in 1762, “Upon the Personality of the Spirit.” It was part of his design, with regard to “The Credibility of the Gospel History,” to give an account of the heretics of the first two centuries. In 1780 Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, published another of Dr. Lardner' s pieces, upon which he had bestowed much labour, though it was not left in a perfect state; this was “The History of the Heretics of the first two centuries after Christ, containing an account of their time, opinions, and testimonies to the books of the New Testament; to which are prefixed general observations concerning Heretics.” The last of Dr. Lardner’s pieces was given to the world by the late Rev. Mr. Wicbe, then of Muidstone, in Kent, and is entitled “Two schemes of a Trinity considered, and the Divine Unity asserted;” it consists of four discourses; the first represents the commonly received opinion of the Trinity; the second describes the Arian scheme the third treats of the Nazarene doctrine and the fourth explains the text according to that doctrine. This work may perhaps be regarded as Supplementary to a piece which he wrote in early life, and which he published in 1759, without his name, entitled “A Letter written in the year 1730, concerning the question, Whether the Logos supplied the place of the Human Soul in the person of Jesus Christ:” in this piece his aim was to prove that Jesus Christ was, in the proper and natural meaning of the word, a man, appointed, anointed, beloved, honoured, and exalted by God, above all other beings. Dr. Lardner, it is generally known, had adopted the Socinian tenets.

, a French historian, was born September 7, 1638, at Montivilliers, of noble parents, who were Protestants. After having practised as an attorney some time in his native country, he went to Holland, was appointed historiographer to the States General, and settled afterwards at Berlin, where he had a pension from the elector of Brandenburg. He died March 17,1719, aged eighty. His principal works are, the “History of Augustus,” 1690, 12mo; “The History of Eleanor, queen of France, and afterwards of England,” 1691, 8vo; “A History of England,” 1697 to 1713, 4 vols. fol. the most valued of all Larrey’s works on account of the portraits, but its reputation has sunk in other respects since the publication of the history written by Rapin. He wrote also the history, or rather romance of “the Seven Sages,” the most complete edition of which is that of the Hague, 1721, 2 vols. 8vo; and “The History of France, under Louis XIV.” 3 vols. 4to, and 9 vols. 12mo, a work not in much estimation, but it was not entirely his. The third volume 4to was the production of la Martiniere.

, a learned Greek, descended from the imperial family of that name, was born at Constantinople, but became a refugee when it was taken, by the Turks in 1454, and went to Italy, where he was most amicably received by duke Francis Sforza of Milan, who placed his own daughter, a child of ten years of age, under the cure of Lascaris for instruction in the Greek language, and it is said to have been for her use he composed his Greek grammar. From Milan he went to Rome, about 1463, or perhaps later, and from, thence, at the invitation of king Ferdinand, to Naples, where he opened a public school for Greek and rhetoric. Having spent some years in this employment, he was desirous of repose, and embarked with the intention of settling at a town of Greece; but having touched at Messina, he was urged by such advantageous oilers to make it his residence, that he complied, and passed there the remainder of his days. Here he received the honour of citizenship, which he merited by his virtues as well as his learning, and by the influx of scholars which his reputation drew thither. He lived to a very advanced age, and is supposed to have died about the end of the fifteenth century. He bequeathed his library to the city of Messina. His Greek grammar was printed at Milan in 1476, reprinted in 1480, and was, according to Zeno, “prima Graeco-Latina praelorum foetura,” the first Greek and Latin book that issued from the Italian press. A better edition of it was given in 1495, by Aldus, from a copy corrected by the author, and with which the printer was furnished by Bembo and Gabrielli. This was the first essay of the Aldine press. Bembo and Gabrielli had been the scholars of Lascaris, although in his old age, as they did not set out for Messina until 1493. A copy of this Greek grammar of the first edition is now of immense value. Erasmus considered it as the best Greek grammar then extant, excepting that of Theodore Gaza. Lascaris was author likewise of two tracts on the Sicilian and Calabrian Greek writers, and some other pieces, which remain in manuscript.

, called Rhyndacenus, as Constantine was called Byzantinus, was a learned Greek of the same family with the preceding, who came either from Greece or Sicily to Italy, on the ruin of his country. He was indebted to cardinal Bessarion for his education at Padua, where he obtained a high reputation for his knowledge in the learned languages, and received the patronage of Lorenzo de Medici, who sent him into Greece with recommendatory letters to the sultan Bajazet, in order to collect ancient manuscripts: for this purpose he took two journeys, in the latter of which he appears to have been very successful. After the expulsion of the Medic, family from Florence, in 1494, he was carried to France by Charles VIII. alter which he was patronized by Louis XII. who sent him, in 1503, as his ambassador to Venice, in which oroce he remained till 1508. He ioined the pursuit of literature with his public employment, and held a correspondence with many learned men. After the termination of hi. embassy, he“remained some yeaa' Venice, as an mstructor in the Greek language. On the election of pope Leo X. to the popedom in 1513, he set out for Rome, where, at his instigation, Leo founded a college for noble Grecian youths at Rome, at the head of which he placed the author of the plan, and likewise made him superintendant of the Greek press; his abilities as a corrector and editor, had been already sufficiently evinced by his magnificent edition of the Greek” Anthologia,“printed in capital letters at Florence in 1494, and by that of” Callimachus,“printed in the same form. Maittaire thinks he was also editor of four of the tragedies of” Euripides,“of the” Gnorase Monastichoi,“and the” Argonautics“of Apollonius Rhodius. He now printed the Greek” Scholia“on Homer, in 1517; and in 1518 the” Scholia“on Sophocles. Having in this last-mentioned year quitted Rome for France, whither he was invited by Francis I. he was employed by that monarch in forming the royal library. He was also sent as his ambassador to Venice, with a view of procuring Greek youths for the purpose of founding a college at Paris similar to that of Rome. After the accomplishment of other important missions, he died at Rome in 1535, at an advanced age. He translated into the Latin language, a work extracted from Polybius, on the military constitutions of the Romans; and composed epigrams in Greek and Latin; this rare volume is entitled” Lascaris Rhydaceni epigrammata, Gr. Lat. edente Jac. Tossano,“printed at Paris, 1527, 8vo. There is another Paris edition of 1544, 4to. Mr. Dibdin has given an ample and interesting account of his” Anthologia" from lord Spencer’s splendid vellum copy.

, or, as he is called by the Italians, Orlando di Lasso, an eminent musician, was a native of Mons, in Hainault, born in 1520, and not only spent many years of his life in Italy, but had his musical education there, having been carried thither surreptitiously, when a child, on account of his fine voice. The historian Thuanus, who has given Orlando a place among the illustrious men of his time, tells us that it was a common practice for young singers to be forced away from their parents, and detained in the service of princes; and that Orlando was carried to Milan, Naples, and Sicily, by Ferdinand Gonzago. Afterwards, when he was grown up, and had probably lost his voice, he went to Rome, where he taught music during two years; at the expiration of which, he travelled through different parts of Italy and France with Julius Caesar Brancatius, and at length, returning to Flanders, resided many years at Antwerp, till being invited, by the duke of Bavaria, to Munich, he settled at that court, and married. He had afterwards an invitation, accompanied with the promise of great emoluments, from Charles IX. king of France, to take upon him the office of master and director of his band; an honour which he accepted, but was stopped on the road to Paris by the news of that monarach’s death. After this event he returned to Munich, whither he was recalled by William, the son and successor of his patron Albert, to the same office which he had held under his father. Orlando continued at this court till his death, in 1593, at upwards of seventy years of age. His reputation was so great, that it was said of him: “Hic ille Orlandus Lassus, qui recreat orbem.” As he lived to a considerable age, and never seems to have checked the fertility of his genius by indolence, his compositions exceed, in number, even those of Palestrina. There is a complete catalogue of them in Draudius, amounting to upwards of fifty different works, consisting of masses, magnificats, passiones, motets, and psalms: with Latin, Italian, German, and French songs, printed in Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. He excelled in modulation, of which he gave many new specimens, and was a great master of harmony.

, an English lawyer, was a native of Somersetshire, and educated at Oxford, in St. John’s college, as Wood was informed, where, he adds, he made considerable proficiency in literature. Afterwards he removed to the Middle Temple, but being of a delicate habit, does not appear to have practised as a barrister. Some years before his death, he had embraced the Roman catholic religion, influenced by the artifices of a priest or Jesuit who prevailed on him to leave his estate to the society of Jesuits. He died at Hayes in Middlesex, in August 1655. He was the reporter of certain “Cases in the first three years of K. Car. I.” which were published in French, by Edward Walpole, 1662, folio.

Among those in Cambridge who favoured the reformation, the most considerable was Thomas Bilncy, a clergyman of a most holy life, who began to see popery in a very disagreeable light, and made no scruple to own it. Biiney was an intimate, and conceived a very favourable opinion, of Latimer; and, as opportunities offered, used to suggest to him many things about corruptions in religion, till be gradually divested him of his prejudices, brought him to think with moderation, and even to distrust what he had so earnestly embraced. Latimer no sooner ceased from being a zealous papist, than he became (such was his constitutional warmth) a zealous protesiunt; active in supporting the reformed doctrine, and assiduous to make converts both in town and university. He preached in public, exhorted in private, and everywhere pressed the necessity of a holy life, in opposition to ritual observances. A behaviour of this kind was immediately taken notice of: Cambridge, no less than the rest of the kingdom, was entirely popish, and every new opinion was watched with jealousy. Latimer soon perceived bow obnoxious he had made himself; and the first remarkable opposition he met with from the popish party, was occasioned by a course of sermons he preached, during the Christmas holidays, before the university; in which he spoke his sentiments with great freedom upon many opinions and usages maintained and practised in the Romish church, and particularly insisted upon the great abuse of locking up the Scriptures in an unknown tongue. Few of the tenets of popery were then questioned in England, but such as tended to a relaxation of morals; transubstantiation, and other points rather speculative, still held their dominion; Lattmer therefore chiefly dwelt upon those of immoral tendency. He shewed what true religion was, that it was seated in the heart; and that, in comparison with it, external appointments were of no value. Having a remarkable address in adapting himself to the capacities of the people, and being considered as a preacher of eminence, the orthodox clergy thought it high time to oppose him openly. This task was undertaken by Dr. Buckingham, prior of the Black-friars, who appeared in the pulpit a few Sundays after; and, with great pomp and prolixity, shewed the dangerous tendency of Latimer' s opinions; particularly inveighing against his heretical notions of having the Scriptures in English, laying open the bad effects of such an innovation. “If that heresy,” said he, “prevail, we should soon see an end of every thing useful among us. The ploughman, reading that if he put his hand to the plough, and should happen to look back, he was unfit for the kingdom of heaven, would soon lay aside his labour; the baker likewise reading, that a little leaven will corrupt his lump, would give us a very insipid bread; the simple man also finding himself commanded to pluck out his eyes, in a few years we should have the nation full of blind heg jars.” Latimer could not help listening with a secret pleasure to this ingenious reasoning; perhaps he had acted as prudently, if he had considered the prior’s arguments as unanswerable; but he could not resist the vivacity of his temper, which strongly inclined him to expose this solemn trirler. The whole university met together on MI ml ay, wnen it was known Mr. Latimer would preach. That vein of pleasantry and humour which run through all hiswords and notions, would here, it was imagined, have its full scope; and, to say the truth, the preacher was not a little conscious of his own superiority: to complete the scene, just before the sermon began, prior Buckingham himself entered the church with his cowl about his shoulders, and seated himself, with an air of importance, before the pulpit. Latimer, with great gravity, recapitulated the learned doctor’s arguments, placed them in the strongest light, and then rallied them with such a flow of wit, and at the same timt with so much good humour, that, without the appearance of ill-nature, he made his adversary in the highest degree ridiculous. He then, with great address, appealed to the people; descanted upon the low esteem in which their guides had always held their understandings; expressed the utmost offence at their being treated with such contempt, and wished his honest countrymen might only have the use of the Scripture till they shewed themselves such absurd interpreters. He concluded his discourse with a few observations upon scripture metaphors. A figurative manner of speech, he said, was common in all languages: representations of this kind were in daily use, and generally understood. Thus, for instance, continued he (addressing himself to that part of the audience where the prior was seated), when we see a fox painted preaching in a friar’s hood, nobody imagines that a fox is meant, but that craft aud hypocrisy are described, which are so often found disguised in that garb. But it is probable that Latimer thought this levity unbecoming; for when one Venetus, a foreigner, not long after, attacked him again upon the same subject, and in a manner the most scurrilous and provoking, we find him using a graver strain. Whether he ridiculed, however, or reasoned, with so much of the spirit of true oratory, considering the times, were his harangues animated, that they seldom failed of their intended effect; his raillery shut up the prior within his monastery; and his arguments drove Venctus from the university.

These advantages increased the credit of the protestant party in Cambridge, of which Bilney and Latimer were the leaders; and great was the alarm of the popish clergy, of which some were the heads of colleges, and senior part of the university. Frequent convocations were held, tutors were admonished to have a strict eye over their pupils, and academical censures of all kinds were inflicted. But academical censures were found insufficient. Latimer continued to preach, and heresy to spread. The heads of the popish party applied to the bishop of Ely, Dr. West, as their diocesan; but that prelate was not a man for their purpose; he was a papist indeed, but moderate, tie, however, came to Cambridge, examined the state of religion, and, at their intreaty, preached against the heretics; but he would do nothing farther; only indeed he silenced Mr. Latimer, which, as he had preached himself, was an instance of his prudence. But this gave no check to the reformers; for there happened at this time to be a protestant prior in Cambridge, Dr. Barnes, of the Austinfriars, who, having a monastery exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and being a great admirer of Latimer, boldly licensed him to preach there. Hither his party followed him; and, the late opposition having greatly excited the curiosity of the people, the friars’ chapel was soon incapable of containing the crowds that attended. Among others, it is remarkable, that the bishop of Ely was often one of his hearers, and had the ingenuousness to declare, that Latimer was one of the best preachers he had ever heard. The credit to his cause which Latimer had thus gained in the pulpit, he maintained by the piety of his life. Bilney and he did not satisfy themselves with acting unexceptionably, but were daily giving instances of goodness, which malice could not scandalize, nor envy misrepresent. They were always together concerting their schemes. The place where they used to walk, was long afterwards known by the name of the Heretics’ Hill. Cambridge at that time was full of their good actions; their charities to the poor, and friendly visits to the sick and unhappy, were then common topics. But these served only to increase the heat of persecution from their adversaries. Impotent themselves, and finding their diocesan either unable or unwilling to work their purposes, they determined upon an appeal to the higher powers; and heavy complaints were carried to court of the increase of heresy, not without formal depositions against the principal abettors of it.

The principal persons at this time concerned in ecclesiastical affairs were cardinal Wolsey, Warham archbishop of Canterbury, and Tunstal bishop of London; and as Henry VIII. was now in the expectation of having the business of his divorce ended in a regular way at Rome, he was careful to observe all forms of civility with the pope. The cardinal therefore erected a court, consisting of bishops, divines, and canonists, to put the laws in execution against heresy: of this court Tunstal was made president; and Bilney, Latimer, and one or two more, were called before him. Bilney was considered as the heresiarch, and against him chiefly the rigour of the court was levelled; and they succeeded so far that he was prevailed upon to recant: accordingly he bore his faggot, and was dismissed. As for Latimer, and the rest, they had easier terms: Tunstal omitted no opportunities of shewing mercy; and the heretics, upon their dismission, returned to Cambridge, where they were received with open arms by tlicir friends. Amidst this mutual joy, Bilney alone seemed unaffected: he shunned the sight of hi* acquaintance, and received their congratulations with confusion and blushes. In short, he was struck with remorse for what he bad done, grew melancholy, and, after leading an ascetic life for three years, resolved to expiate his abjuration by death. In this resolution he went to Norfolk, the place of his nativity; and, preaching publicly against popery, he was apprehended by order of the bishop of Norwich, and, after lying a while in the county gaol, was executed in that city.

His sufferings, far from shocking the reformation at Cambridge, inspired the leaders of it with new courage. Latimer began now to exert himself more than he bad yet done; and succeeded to that credit with his party, which Bilney had so long supported. Among other iustances of his zeal and resolution in this cause, he gave one very remarkable: he had the courage to write to the king against a proclamation then just published, forbidding the use of the Bible in English, and other books on religious subjects. He had preached before his majesty once or twice at Windsor, and had been noticed by him in a more affable manner than that monarch usually indulged towards his subjects. But, whatever hopes of preferment his sovereign’s favour might have raised in him, he chose to put all to the hazard rather than omit what he thought his duty. He was generally considered as one of the most eminent who favoured protestantism, and therefore thought it became him to be one of the most forward in opposing aopery. His letter is the picture of an honest and sincere eart: t t was chiefly intended to point out to the king the d intention of the bishops in procuring the proclamation, I concludes in these terms: Accept, gracious oveeign, without displeasure, what I have written; I thought it my duty to mention these things to your majesty. No personal quarrel, as God shall judge me, have I with any man; I wanted only to induce your majesty to consider well what kind of persons you have about you, and the ends for which they counsel. Indeed, great prince, many of them, or they are much slandered, nave very private ends. God grant your majesty may see through all the designs of evil men, and be in all things equal to the high office with which you are intrusted. Wherefore, gracious king, remember yourself, have pity upon your own soul, and think that the day is at hand, when you shall give account of your office, and of the blood that hath been shed by your sword: in the which day, that your grace may stand stedfastly, and not be ashamed, but be clear and ready in your reckoning, and have your pardon sealed with the blood of our Saviour Christ, which alone serveth at that day, is my daily prayer to him who suffered death for our sins. The spirit of God preserve you!"

His enemies, however, were not thus silenced. The party against him became daily stronger, and more inflamed. It consisted in general of the country priests in those parts, headed by some divines of more eminence. These persons, after mature deliberation, drew up articles against him, extracted chiefly from his sermons; in which he was charged with speaking lightly of the worship of saints; with saying there was no material fire in hell; and that he would rather be in purgatory than in Lollard’s tower. This charge being laid before Stokesley bishop of London, that prelate cited Latimer to appear before him; and, when he appealed to his own ordinary, a citation was obtained out of the archbishop’s court, where Stokesley and other bishops were commissioned to examine him. An archiepiscopal citation brought him at once to a compliance. His friends would have had him fly for it; but their persuasions were in vain. He set out for London in the depth of winter, and under a severe fit of the stone and cholic; but he was more distressed at the thoughts of leaving his parish exposed to the popish clergy, who would not fail to undo in his absence what he had hitherto done. On his arrival at London, he found a court of bishops and canonists ready to receive him; where, instead of being examined, as he expected, about his sermons, a paper was put into his hands, which he was ordered to subscribe, declaring his belief in the efficacy of masses for the souls in purgatory, of prayers to the dead saints, of pilgrimages to their sepulchres and reliques, the pope’s power to forgive sins, the doctrine of merit, the seven sacraments, and the worship of images; and, when he refused to sign it, the archbishop with a frown begged he would consider what he did. “We intend not,” says he, “Mr. Latimer, to be hard upon you; we dismiss you for the present; take a copy of the articles, examine them carefully; and God grant that, at our next meeting, we may find each other in a better temper!” At the next and several succeeding meet ings the same scene was acted over again. He continued inflexible, and they continued to distress him. Three times every week they regularly sent for him, with a view either to draw something from him by captious questions, or to teaze him at length into compliance. Of one of these examinations he gives the following account: “1 was brought out,” says he, “to be examined in the same chamber as before; but at this time it was somewhat altered: for, whereas before there was a fire in the chimney, now the fire was taken away, and an arras hanged over the chimney, and the table stood near the chimney’s end. There was, among these bishops that examined me, one with whom I have been very familiar, and whom I took for my great friend, an aged man; and he sat next the table-end. Then, among other questions, he put forth one, a very subtle and crafty one; and when I should make answer, * I pray you, Mr. Latimer,‘ said he, * speak out, I am very thick of hearing, and there be many that sit far off.’ I marvelled at this, that I was bidden to speak out, and began to misdeem, and gave an ear to the chimney; and there I heard a pen plainly scratching behind the cloth. They had appointed one there to write all my answers, that I should not start from them. God was my good Lord, and gave me answers I could never else have escaped them.” At length he was tired out with such usage and when he was next summoned, instead of going himself, he sent a letter to the archbishop, in which, with great freedom, he tells him, that “the treatment he had of late met with, had fretted him into such a disorder as rendered him unfit to attend that day that, in the mean time, he could not help taking this opportunity to expostulate with his grace for detaining him so long from the discharge of his duty; that it seemed to him most unaccountable, that they, who never preached themselves, should hinder others; that, us for their examination of him, he really could not imagine what they aimed at; they pretended one thing in the beginning, and another in the progress; that, if his sermons were what gaveofTence, which he persuaded himself were neither contrary to the truth, nor to any canon of the church, he was ready to answer whatever might be thought exceptionable in them; that he wished a little more regard might be had to the judgment of the people; and that a distinction might be made between the ordinances of God and man; that if some abuses in religion did prevail, as was then commonly supposed, he thought preaching was the best means to discountenance them; that he wished all pastors might be obliged to perform their duty: but that, however, liberty might be given to those who were willing; that, as for the articles proposed to him, he begged to be excused from subscribing them; while he lived, he never would abet superstition: and that, lastly, he hoped the archbishop would excuse what he had written; he knew his duty to his superiors, and would practise it: but, in that case, he thought a stronger obligation laid upon him.”

While his endeavours to reform were thus confined to his diocese, he was called upon to exert them in a more public 'manner, by a summons to parliament and convocation in 1536. This session was thought a crisis by the Protestant party, at the head of which stood the lord Cromwell, whose favour with the king was now in its meridian. Next to him in power was Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, after whom the bishop of Worcester was the most considerable man of the party; to whom were added the bishops of Ely, Rochester, Hereford, Salisbury, and St. David’s. On the other hand, the popish party was headed by Lee archbishop of York, Gardiner, Stokesley, and Tunstal, bishops of Winchester, London, and Durham. The convocation was opened as usual by a sermon, or rather an oration, spoken, at the appointment of Cranmer, by the bishop of Worcester, whose eloquence was at this time everywhere famous. Many warm debates passed in this assembly; the result of which was, that four sacraments out of the seven were concluded to be insignificant: but, as the bishop of Worcester made no figure in them, for debating was not his talent, it is beside our purpose to enter into a detail of what was done in it. Many alterations were made in favour of the reformation; and, a few months after, the Bible was translated into English, and recommended to general perusal in October 1537. In the mean time the bishop of Worcester, highly satisfied with the prospect of the times, repaired to his diocese, having made a longer stay in London than was absolutely necessary. He had no talents for state affairs, and therefore meddled not with them. It is upon that account that bishop Burnet speaks very slightingly of his public character at this time, but it is certain that Latimer never desired to appear in any public character at all. His whole ambition was to discharge the pastoral functions of a bishop, neither aiming to display the abilities of a statesman, nor those of a courtier. How very unqualified he was to support the latter of these characters, will sufficiently appear from the following story. It was the custom in those days for the bishops to make presents to the king on New-year’sday, and many of them would present very liberally, proportioning their gifts to their expectations. Among the rest, the bishop of Worcester, being at this time in town, waited upon the king with his offering; but instead of a purse of gold, which was the common oblation, he presented a New Testament, with a leaf doubled down, in a very conspicuous manner, to this passage, “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Henry VIII. made so little use of his judgment, that his whole reign was one continued rotation of violent passions, which rendered him a mere machine in the hands of his ministers; and he among them who could make the most artful address to the passion of the day, carried his point. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was just returned from Germany, having successfully negotiated some commissions which the king had greatly at heart; and, in 1539, a parliament was called, to confirm the seizure and surrendry of the monasteries, when that subtle minister took his opportunity, and succeeded in prevailing upon his majesty to do something, towards restoring the old religion, as being most advantageous for his views in the present situation of Europe. In this state of affairs, Latimer received his summons to parliament, and, soon after his arrival in town, he was accused of preaching a seditious sermon. The sermon was preached at court, and the preacher, according to his custom, had been unquestionably severe enough against whatever he observed amiss. The king had called together several bishops, with a view to consult them upon some points of religion. When they had all given their opinions, and were about to be dismissed, the bishop of Winchester (for it was most probably be) kneeled down and accused the bishop of Worcester as above-mentioned. The bishop being called upon by the king with some sternness, to vindicate himself, was so far from denying or even palliating what he said, that he boldly justified it; and turning to the king, with that noble unconcern which a good conscience inspires, made this answer: “I never thought myself worthy, nor I never sued to be a preacher before your grace; but I was called to it, and would be willing, if you mislike it, to give place to my betters; for I grant there may be a great many more worthy of the room than I am. And if it be your grace’s pleasure to allow them for preachers, I could be content to bear their books after them. But if your grace allow me for a preacher, I would desire you to give me leave to discharge my conscience, and to frame my doctrine according to my audience. I bad been a very dolt indeed, to have preached so at the borders of your realm, as I preach before your grace.” This answer baffled his accuser’s malice, the severity of the king’s conscience changed into a gracious smile, and the bishop was dismissed with that obliging freedom which this monarch never used but to those whom he esteemed. In this parliament passed the famous act, as it was called, of the six articles, which was no sooner published than it gave an universal alarm to all the favourers of the reformation; and, as the bishop of Worcester could not give his vote for the act, he thought it wrong to hold any office. He therefore resigned his bishopric , and retired into the country; where he resided during the heat of that persecution which followed upon this act, and thought of nothing for the remainder of his days but a sequestered life. He knew the storm which was up could not soon be appeased, and he had no inclination to trust himself in it. But, in the midst of his security, an unhappy accident carried him again into the tempestuous weather that was abroad he received a bruise by the fall of a tree, and the contusion was so dangerous, that he was obliged to seek out for better assistance than the country afforded. With this view he repaired to London, where he had the misfortune to see the fall of his patron, the lord Cromwell; a loss of which he was soon made sensible. Gardiner’s emissaries quickly found him out; and something, that somebody had somewhere heard him say against the six articles, being alleged against him, he was sent tp the Tower, where, without any judicial examination, he suffered, through one pretence or another, a cruel imprisonment for the remaining six years of king Henry’s reign.

But in the discharge of this duty a slander passed upon bim, which, being recorded by a low historian of those days, has found its way into ours. It is even recorded as credible by Milton, who suffered his zeal against episcopacy, in more instances than this, to bias his veracity, or at best to impose upon his understanding. It is said that after the lord high admiral’s attainder and execution, which happened about this time, he publicly defended his death in a sermon before the king; that he aspersed his character; and that he did it merely to pay a servile compliment to the protector. The first part of this charge is true; but the second and third are false. As to his aspersing the admiral’s character, his character was so bad, there was no room for aspersion; his treasonable practices too were notorious, and though the proceeding against him by a bill in parliament, according to the custom of these times, may be deemed inequitable, yet he paid no more than a due forfeit to the laxvs of his country. However, his death occasioned great clamour, and was made use of by the lords of the opposition (for he left a very dissatisfied party behind him), as an handle to raise a popular odium against the protector, for whom Latimer had always a high esteem. He was mortified therefore to see so invidious and base an opposition thwarting the schemes of so public-spirited a man; and endeavoured to lessen the odium, by shewing the admiral’s character in its true light, from some anecdotes not commonly known. This notice of lord Seymour, which was in Latimer' s fourth sermon before king Edward, is to be found only in the earlier editions.

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.

, an eminent grammarian of Florence, in the thirteenth century, was of a noble family in that city, and during the party contests between the Guelphs and Ghibelins, took part with the former. When the Ghibelins had obtained assistance from Mainfroy, king of-Sicily, the Guelphs sent Bninetto to obtain similar aid from Alphonso king of Castillo; but on his return, hearing that the Ghibelins had defeated his party and got possession of Florence, he fled to France, where he resided several years. At length he was enabled to return to his own country, in which he was appointed to some honourable offices. He died in 1294. The historian Villani attributes to him the merit of having first introduced a degree of refinement among his countrymen, and of having reformed their language, and the general conduct of public affairs. The work which has contributed most to his celebrity, was one which he entitled “Tresor,” and wrote when in France, and in the French language, which he says he chose because it was the most agreeable language and the most common in Europe. This work is a kind of abridgment of the Bible, of Pliny the naturalist, Solinus, and other writers who have treated on different sciences, and may be called an Encyclopaedia of the knowledge of his time. It was translated into Italian about the same period, and this translation only was printed; but there are about a dozen transcripts of the original in the royal library at Paris, and there is a fine ms. of it in the Vatican, bound in crimson velvet, with manuscript notes, by Petrarch. After his return to Florence, Latini wrote his u Tesoretto,“or little treasure, which, however, is not as some have reported, an abridgment of the” Tresor,“but a collection of moral precepts in verse. He also translated into the Italian language part of Cicero” de Inventione.“His greatest honour seems to have been that he was the tutor of Dante, not however in poetry, for his” Tesoretto" affords no ground to consider him as a master of that art.

He proceeded B. D. July 6, 1604. In his exercise for this degree, he maintained these two points: the necessity of baptism; and that there could be no true church without diocesan bishops. These were levelled also against the puritans, and he was rallied by the divinity-professor. He likewise gave farther offence to the Calvinists, by a sermon preached before the university in 1606; and we are told it was made heresy for any to be seen in his company, and a misprision of heresy to give him a civil salutation; his learning, parts, and principles, however, procured him some friends. His first preferment was the vicarage of Stanford, in Northamptonshire, in 1607; and in 1608 he obtained the advowson of North Kilworth, in Leicestershire. He was no sooner invested in these livings, but he put the parsonage- houses in good repair, and gave twelve poor people a constant allowance out of them, which was his constant practice in all his subsequent preferments. This same year he commenced D. D. and was made chaplain to Neile, bishop of Rochester; and preached his first sermon before king James, at Theobalds, Sept. 17, 1609. In order to be near his patron, he exchanged North Kilworth for the rectory of West Tilbury, in Essex, into which he was inducted in 1609. The following year, the bishop gave him the living of Cuckstone, in Kent, on which he resigned his fellowship, left Oxford, and settled at Cuckstone; but the un-healthiness of that place having thrown him into an ague, he exchanged it soon after for Norton, a benefice of less value, but in a better air. In Dec. 1610, Dr. Bnckeridge, president of St. John’s, being promoted to the see of Rochester, Abbot, newly made archbishop of Canterbury, who had disliked Laud’s principles at Oxford, complained of him to the lord-chancellor Ellesmere, chancellor of the university; alledging that he was cordially addicted to popery. The complaint was supposed to be made, in order to prevent his succeeding Buckeridge in the presidentship of his college; and the lord-chancellor carrying it to the king, all his credit, interest, and advancement, would probably have been destroyed thereby, had not his firm friend bishop Neile contradicted the reports to his discredit. He was therefore elected president May 10, 1611, though then sick in London, and unable either to make interest in person or by writing to his friends; and the king not only con finned his election, after a hearing of three hours at Tichbonrn, but as a farther token of his favour, made him one of his chaplains, upon the recommendation of bishop Neile. Laud having thus attained a footing at court, flattered himself with hopes of great and immediate preferment; but abp. Abbot always opposing applications in his behalf, after three years fruitless waiting, he was upon the point of leaving the court, and retiring wholly to his college, when his friend and patron Neile, newly translated to Lincoln, prevailed with him to stay one year longer, and in the mean time gave him the prebend of Bugden, in the church of Lincoln, in 16 14; and the archdeaconry of Huntingdon the following year.

About Oct. 1623, the lord-keeper Williams’s jealousy of Laud, as a rival in the duke of Buckingham’s favour, and other misunderstandings or misrepresentations on both sides, occasioned such animosity between these two prelates as was attended with the worst consequences. Archbishop Abbot also, resolving to depress Laud as long as he could, left him out of the high commission, of which he complained to the duke of Buckingham, Nov. 1624, and then was put into the commission. Yet he was not so attached to Buckingham, as not to oppose the design, formed by that nobleman, of appropriating the endowment of the Charter-house to the maintenance of an army, under pretence of its being for the king’s advantage and the ease of the subject. In December this year, he presented to the duke a tract, drawn up at his request, under ten heads, concerning doctrinal puritanism. He corresponded also with him, during his absence in France, respecting Charles the First’s marriage with the princess Henrietta-Maria; and that prince, soon after his accession to the throne, wanting to regulate the number of his chaplains, and to know the principles and qualifications of the most eminent divines in his kingdom, our bishop was ordered to draw a list of them, which he distinguished by the letter O for orthodox, and P for puritans. At Charles’s coronation, Feb. 2, 1625-6, he officiated as dean of Westminster, in the room of Williams, then in disgrace; and has been charged, although unjustly, with altering the coronationoath. In 1626 he was translated from St. David’s to Bath and Wells and in 1628 to London. The king having appointed him dean of his chapel-royal, in 1626, and taken him into the privy-council in 1627, he was likewise in the commission for exercising archiepiscopal jurisdiction during Abbot’s sequestration. In the third parliament of king Charles, which met March 17, 1627, he was voted a favourer of the Arminians, and one justly suspected to be unsound in his opinions that >vay accordingly, his name was inserted as such in the Commons’ remonstrance and, because he was thought to be the writer of the king’s speeches, and of the duke of Buckingham’s answer to his impeachment, &c. these suspicions so exposed him to popular rage, that his life was threatened . About the same time, he was put into an ungracious office; namely, in a commission for raising money by impositions, which the Commons called excises; but it seems never to have been executed.

One of his first acts, after his advancement to the archbishopric, was an injunction, October 18, pursuant to the king’s letter, that no clergyman should be ordained priest without a title. At the same time came out the king’s declaration about lawful sports on Sundays, which Laud was charged with having revived and enlarged; and that, with the vexatious persecutions of such clergymen as refused to read it in their churches, brought a great odium upon him. It was in vain that he pleaded precedents in foreign churches; and perhaps no act of this unhappy reign gave a more violent shock to the loyalty of the people, which Laud, unfortunately, seldom consulted. Soon after he yet farther interfered with popular prejudices." During a metropoliticul visitation, by his vicar-general, among other regulations, the church-wardens in every parish were enjoined to remove the communion-table from the middle to the east end of the chancel, altar-wise, the ground being raised for that purpose, and to fence it in with decent rails, to avoid profaneness; and the refusers were prosecuted in the high-commission or star-chamber courts. In this visitation, the Dutch and Walloon congregations were summoned to appear; and such as were born in England enjoined to repair to the several parish-churches where they inhabited, to hear divine service and sermons, and perform all duties and payments required on that behalf; and those of them, ministers and others, that were aliens born, to use the English liturgy translated into French or Dutch; but many of these, rather than comply, chose to leave the kingdom, to the great detriment of our manufactures.

In order to prevent the printing and publishing of what he thought improper books, a decree was passed in the star-chamber, July 11, 1637, to regulate the trade of printing, by which it was enjoined that the master-printers should be reduced to a certain number, and that none of them should print any books till they were licensed either by the archbishop, or, the bishop of London, or some of their chaplains, or by the chancellors or vice-chancellors of the two universities. Accused as he frequently was, of popery, he fell under the queen’s displeasure this year, by speaking, with his usual warmth, to the king at the council- table against the increase of papists, their frequent resort to Somerset house, and their insufferable misdemeanors in perverting his majesty’s subjects to popery. On Jan. 3i, 1638-9, he wrote a circular letter to his suffragan bishops, exhorting them and their clergy to contribute liberally towards raising the army against the Scots, For this he was called an incendiary: but he declares, on the contrary, that he laboured for peace so long, till he received a great check; and that, at court his counsels alone prevailed for peace and forbearance. lu 1639 he employed one Mr. Petley to translate the liturgy into Greek; and, at his recommendation, Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, composed his learned treatise of “Episcopacy by Divine Right asserted.” On Dec. 11, the same year, he was one of the three privy-counsellors who advised the king to call a parliament in case of the Scottish rebellion; at which time a resolution was adopted to assist the king in extraordinary ways, if the parliament should prove peevish and refuse supplies. A new parliament being summoned, met April 13, 1649, and the convocation the day following; but the Commons beginning with complaints against the archbishop, and insisting upon a redress of grievances before they granted any supply, the parliament was unhappily dissolved, May 5. The convocation, however, continued sitting; and certain canons were made in it, which gave great offence. On Laud many laid the blame and odium of the parliament’s dissolution; and that noted enthusiast, John Lilburne, caused a paper to be posted, May 3, upon the Old Exchange, animating the apprentices to sack his house at Lambeth the Monday following. On that day above 5000 of them assembled in a riotous and tumultuous manner; but the archbishop, receiving previous notice, secured the palace as well as he could, and retired to his chamber at Whitehall, where he remained some days; and one of the ringleaders was hanged, drawn, and quartered, on the 21st. In August following, a libel was found in Covent-garden, exciting the apprentices and soldiers to fall upon him in the king’s absence, upon his second expedition into Scotland. The parliament that met Nov. 3, 1640, not being better disposed towards him, but, for the most part, bent upon his ruin, several angry speeches were made against him in the House of commons.

His enemies, of which the number was great, began then to give full vent to their passions and prejudices, and to endeavour to ruin his reputation.' In March and April, the House of Commons ordered him, jointly with all those that had passed sentence in the Star-chamber against Burton, Bastwick, and Prynne, to make satisfaction and reparation for the damages they had sustained by their sentence and imprisonment and he was fined 20,000l. for his acting in the late convocation. He was also condemned by the House of Lords to pay 500l. to sir Robert Howard for false imprisonment. This person was living in open adultery with lady Purbeck; and both were imprisoned by an order of the high commission court, at the king’s particular command. On June 25, 1641, he resigned his chancellorship of the university of Oxford; and, in October, the House of Lords sequestered his jurisdiction, putting it into the hands of his inferior officers and enjoined, that he should give no benefice without first having the House’s approbation of the person nominated by him. On Jan. 20, 1641-2, they ordered his armoury at Lambeth-palace, which had cost him above 300l. and which they represented as sufficient for 2000 men, to be taken away by the sheriffs of London. Before the end of the year, all the rents and profits of the archbishopric were sequestered by the lords for the use of the commonwealth; and his house was plunv dered of what money it afforded by two members of the House of Commons; and such was their wanton severity, that when he petitioned the parliament afterwards for a maintenance, he could not obtain any, nor even the least part of above two hundred pounds worth of his own wood and coal at Lambeth, for his necessary use in the Tower. On April 25, 1643, a motion was made in the House of Commons, at the instance of Hugh Peters and others of that stamp, to send or transport him to New England; but that motion was rejected. On May 9, his goods and books in Lambeth-house were seized, and the goods sold for scarce the third part of their value, and all this before he had been brought to any trial, the issue of which alone could justify such proceedings. Seven days after, there came out an ordinance of parliament, enjoining him to give no benefice without leave and order of both Houses. On May 31, W. Prynne, by a warrant from the close committee, came and searched his room, while he was in bed, and even rifled his pockets; taking away his diary > private devotions, and twenty-one bundles of papers, which he had prepared for his own defence. Prynne promised a faithful restitution of them within three or four days; but he never returned quite three bundles of the papers. In the mean time, the archbishop not complying exactly with the ordinance above-mentioned, all the temporalities of his archbishopric were sequestered to the parliament June 10, and he was suspended from his office and benefice, and from all jurisdiction whatsoever.

On Tuesday, March 12, 1643-4, the trial was opened in form; the original and additional articles of impeachment were read, and, after that, the archbishop’s answer, plea, and demurrer to them. He requested that the charge and evidence to all the articles might be given together; and the articles of misdemeanour separated from those of treason; to which the celebrated lawyer, Maynard, answered, that, in the earl of Strafford’s trial, he was put to answer every day the particular evidence given that day; that they were now only to try matters of fact, not of law, and that all the articles collectively, not any one separately, made up the charge of treason. Serjeant Wilde then made a long speech, upon the charge of high treason, insisting chiefly upon the archbishop’s attachment to popery, and his intention to introduce it into England; concluding with these words, that “Naaman was a great man, but he was a leper,” and that the archbishop’s leprosy had so infected all, “as there remained no other cure but the sword of justice.” The archbishop replied to the several charges, and mentioned various persons whom he had brought back from the Romish religion, particularly sir William Webbe, his kinsman, and two of his daughters; his son lui took from him; and, his father being utterly decayed, bred him at his own charge, and educated him in the protestant religion. The trial lasted above twenty days, and on Sept. 2, 1644, the archbishop made a recapitulation of the whole cause; but, as soon as he came into the House, he saw every lord present with a new thin book in folio, in a blue cover; which was his “Diary,” which Prynne, as already mentioned, had robbed him of, and printed with notes of his own, to disgrace the archbishop. On Sept. 11, Mr. Brown delivered, in the House of Lords, a summary of the whole charge, with a few observations on the archbishop’s answer. The queries of his counsel on the law of treason was referred to a committee which ordered his counsel to be heard on Oct. 11, when Mr. Herne delivered his argument with great firmness and resolution. The lord chancellor Finch told archbishop Sancroft that the argument was sir Matthew Hale’s, afterwards lord chief justice; and that being then a young lawyer, he, Mr. Finch, stood behind Mr. Herne, at the bar of the house, and took notes of it, which he intended to publish in his reports. With this argument, the substance of which may be seen in our authorities, the trial ended for that day; but, after this, a petition was sent about London, “for bringing delinquents to justice;” and many of the preachers exhorted the people to sign it; so that with a multitude of hands, it was delivered to the House of Commons, on Oct. 8. The archbishop was summoned on Nov. 2, to the House of Commons, to hear the whole charges, and to make his defence, which he did at large, Nov. 11. On the following Wednesday Mr. Brown replied and after the archbishop was dismissed, the House called for the ordinance, and without hearing his counsel, voted him guilty of high treason. After various delays, the Lords had a conference with the Commons, on Dec. 24, in which they declared, “that they had diligently weighed all things charged against the archbishop, but could not, by any one of them, or all, find him guilty of treason.” The judges had unanimously made the same declaration. At the second conference, on Jan. 2, 1644-5, the reasons of the Commons for the attainder of the archbishop were communicated to the Lords, who in a very thin house, passed the ordinance that he should suffer death by hanging, which was fixed for Friday the 10th. He pleaded the king’s pardon, under the great seal, which was over-ruled, and rejected, without being read, and the only favour granted, and that after delay and with reluctance, was, that his sentence should be changed to beheading.

By his will, dated Jan. 13, 1643, he bequeathed the bulk of his property to charitable or liberal purposes: to St. John’s college, all his chapel plate and furniture, what books they had not in their library, and 500l. to purchase lands, the rent to be divided between every scholar and fellow on Oct. 17, every year. We have already mentioned that he built the inner quadrangle of St. John’s; he also obtained from king Charles, the vicarage of St. Laurence for this college, with other valuable preferments. He founded an Arabic lecture which began to be read Aug. 10, 1636, by the celebrated Pococke, whose successors have been all scholars of eminence, Drs. Hyde, Wallis, Hunt, and the late Dr. Joseph White. To the bishopric of Oxford, Laud added the impropriation of the vicarage of Cuddesden. In his native town of Reading he founded an excellent school.

His character has been variously represented, and indeed enters more or less into every controversy respecting the unhappy reign in which he flourished. He was a man of strict integrity, sincere, and zealous; but, in many respects, was indiscreet and obstinate, eagerly pursuing matters that were either inconsiderable or mischievous. The rigorous prosecutions in the Star-chamber and High-commission courts were generally imputed to him: and he formed the airy project of uniting the three kingdoms in an uniformity of religion and the passing of some ceremonies in this last affair brought upon him the odious imputation of popery, and of being popishly affected, without a,ny good grounds. He was more given to interfere in matters of state than his predecessors; and this at a time when a jealousy of the power of the clergy was increasing. Having naturally a great warmth of temper, which betrayed itself in harsh language, he was ill fitted to contend with the party now so powerful that it may even be doubted whether a conciliating temper would have had much effect in preventing their purposes against the church and state. Mr. Gilpiu’s comparison between him and his great predecessor Cranmer appears to us worthy of consideration. “Both,” says that elegant writer, “were good men, fypth were equally zealous for religion, and both were engaged in the work of reformation. I mean not to enter into the affair of introducing episcopacy in Scotland; nor to throw any favourable light on the ecclesiastical views of those times. I am at present only considering the measures which the two archbishops took in forwarding their respective plans. While Cranmer pursued his with that caution and temper, which we have just been examining; Laud, in the violence of his integrity (for he was certainl^ a well-meaning man), making allowances neither for men nor opinions, was determined to carry all. before him. The consequence was, that he did nothing which he attempted; while Cranmer did every thing. And it is probable that if Henry had chosen such an instrument as Laud, he would have miscarried in his point: while Charles with such a primate as Cranmer, would either have been successful in his schemes, or at least have avoided the fatal consequences that ensued.” But, whatever Laud’s faults, itcannot.be denied that he was condemned to death by an ordinance of parliament, in defiance of the statute of treasons, of the law of the land, and by a stretch of prerogative greater than any one of the sovereign whom that parliament opposed.

The few productions we have of archbishop Laud show that his time was more occupied in active life, than in studious retirement, and demonstrate but little of that learning which was very justly attributed to him. These are, 1. “Seven Sermons preached and printed on several Occasions,” reprinted in 1651, 8vo. 2. “Short Annotations upon the Life and Death of the most august King James,” drawn up at the desire of George duke of Bucks. 3. Answer to the Remonstrance made by the House of Commons in 1628.“4.” His Diary by Wharton in 1694; with six other pieces, and several letters, especially one to sir Kenelm Digby, on his embracing Popery.“5.” The second volume of the Remains of Archbishop Laud, written by himself,“&c. 1700, fol. 6.” Officium Quotidianum; or, a Manual of private Devotions,*' 1650, 8vo. 7. “A Summary of Devotions,” 1667, 12mo. There are about 18 letters of his to Gerard John Vossius, printed by Colomesius in his edition of “Vossii Epistol.” Lond. 1690, fol. Some other letters of his are published at the end of Usher’s life by Dr. Parr, 1686, fol. And a few more by Dr. Twells, in his “Life of Dr. Pocock,” prefixed to that author’s theological works, 1645, in 2 vols. folio.

, a native of Scotland, the author of a remarkable forgery, was educated at the university of Edinburgh, where he finished his studies with great reputation, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Latin tongue. He afterwards taught with success the Latin tongue to some students who were recommended to him by the professors. In 1734, Mr. professor Watt falling ill of that sickness of which he died, Lauder taught for him the Latin class, in the college of Edinburgh, and tried, without success, to be appointed professor in his room. He failed also in his application for the office of librarian. In Feb. 1739, he stood candidate, with eight others, for the place of one of the masters of the high school; but, though the palm of literature was assigned by the judges to Lauder, the patrons of the school preferred one of his opponents. In the same year he published at Edinburgh an edition of “Johnston’s Psalms,” or rather a collection of Sacred Latin poetry, in 2 vols, but his hopes of profit from this were disappointed. In 1742, although he was recommended by Mr. Patrick Cuming and Mr. Colin Maclaurin, professors of church history and mathematics, to the mastership of the grammar-school at Dundee, then vacant, we find him, the same year, in London, contriving to ruin the reputation of Milton; an attempt which ended in the destruction of his own. His reason for the attack has been referred to the virulence of violent party-spirit, which triumphed over every principle of honour and honesty. He began first to retail part of his design in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in 1747; and, finding that his forgeries were not detected, was encouraged in 1751 to collect them, with additions, into a volume, entitled “An Essay on Milton’s Use and Imitation of the Moderns in his Paradise Lost,” 8vo. The fidelity of his quotations had been doubted by several people; and the falsehood of them was soon after demonstrated by Dr. Douglas, late bishop of Salisbury, in a pamphlet, entitled “Milton vindicated from the Charge of Plagiarism brought against him by Lauder, and Lauder himself convicted of forgeries and gross impositions on the public. In a letter humbly addressed to the right honourable the earl of Bath,” 1751, 8vo. The appearance of this detection overwhelmed Lauder with confusion. He subscribed a confession, dictated by Dr. Johnson, on whom he had imposed, in which he ingenuously acknowledged his offence, which he professed to have been occasioned by the injury he had received from the disappointment of his expectations of profit from the publication of “Johnston’s Psalms.” This misfortune he ascribed to a couplet in Mr. Pope’s Dunciad, book iv. ver. iii. and thence originated his rancour against Milton. He afterwards imputed his conduct to other motives, abused the few friends who continued to countenance him; and, finding that his own character was not to be retrieved, quitted the kingdom, and went to Barbadoes, where he was for some time master of the free-school in Bridgetown, but was discharged for misconduct, and passed the remainder of his life in universal contempt. “He died,” says Mr. Nichols, “sometime about the year 1771, as my friend Mr. Reed was informed by the gentleman who read the funeral-service over him.” It may be added, that notwithstanding Lauder’s pretended regret for his attack on Milton, he returned to the charge in 1754, and published a pamphlet entitled “The Grand Impostor detected, or Milton convicted of forgery against Charles I.” which was reviewed in the Gent. Mag. of that year, probably by Johnson.

, a learned and judicious protestant writer, was born 157S, at Blois, descended from one of the most respectable families in that city. At the age of forty, he resigned a post in the exchequer, the title of king’s secretary, and all prospects of advancement, that he might devote himself entirely to the sacred writings; and from that time till he was eighty-nine, rose constantly at four in the morning, to read and meditate on Scripture. The French protestants placed an extraordinary confidence in him. He was deputed to all the synods of his province, and to almost every national synod held in his time, and died in 1662, greatly lamented. His works are, “Paraphrases” on all St. Paul’s Epistles, on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, the Proverbs, and Revelations; and “Remarks on the Bible, or an Explanation of the difficult words, phrases, and metaphors, in the Holy Scriptures,” Geneva, 1667, 4to. These two works are much valued. He wrote also a treatise “De la Sainte C6ne,” and another, “Sur le Millénarisme.”

, 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.

, the celebrated physiognomist, was born at Zurich, Nov. 15, 1741. He was from his earliest years of a gentle, timid disposition, but restless in the pursuit of knowledge. At school he was perpetually varying his studies by attempting mechanical operations, and often showed indications of genius and invention in his amusements. When he reached the upper classes of school, his diligence in study was encouraged by the advice of Bodmer and Breitenger, and quickened by a wish to emulate some school -fellows of superior talent. His turn of thinking was original, liberal, and manly. As he grew up he wrote some essays on subjects of morals and religion, which gained him the hearts of his countrymen. Having gone through the usual course of reading and instruction for the ecclesiastical profession, he was admitted into orders in May 1761, and two years afterwards he travelled with the brothers Hess, two amiable friends, of whom death deprived him, and, with Henry Fuseli, our celebrated painter. They went over Prussia, under the tuition of professor Sulzer, and Lavater made a considerable stay with Spalding, then curate of Barth in Pomeranian Prussia, and afterwards counsellor of the grand consistory. On his return to Zurich he became a very eloquent and much admired preacher, and proved himself the father of his flock by the most benevolent attention to their wants bodily and mental. After having been for some years deacon of th Orphans’ church, he was in 1774 appointed first pastor. In 1778 the parishioners of the church of St. Peter, the only persons in the canton of Zurich who have a right to chuse their own minister, made choice of Lavater as deacon; and, in 1786, as first pastor. Here he remained, intenton the duties of his office, and on his physiognomical studies until Zurich was stormed in 1797. On this occasion he was wounded by a Swiss soldier, on whom he had conferred important benefits; from the effects of this he never recovered, although he lived in full possession of his faculties till Jan. 2, 1801, when he expired in the sixtieth year of his age. His principal works are, 1. “Swiss Songs,” which he composed at the desire of the Helvetic society, aud which were sung in that society, and in other cantons. 2. Three collections of “Spiritual Songs, or Hymns,” and two volumes of “Odes,” in blank verse. 3. “Jesus Messiah, or the Evangelists and Acts of the Apostles,” 4 vols. a poetical history of our Saviour, ornamented with 72 engravings from his designs, executed by Chodoweiki, Lips, &c. 4. “A Look into Eternity,” which being severely criticised by Gothe, Lavater, who loved truth in every shape, instead of being offended at the liberties he took, sought out the author, and became his friend and correspondent. 5. “The secret Journal of a Self-Observer,” which was published here in 1795. In this Lavater unveils his secret conduct, and displays the motions of his heart. It may justly be said that every good heart is generally in unison with him, but it is impossible not to differ from many of his opinions, and not to perceive in them an uncommon degree of extravagance and enthusiasm. We learn from his Journal, however, and indeed from all his works, that a warm desire to promote the honour of God, and the good of his fellow creatures, was the principal feature in his character, and the leading motive of all he did. Next to these were an indefatigable placability, and an inexhaustible love for his enemies.

, an English prelate, and very eminent scholar, was descended from a family long settled in Wiltshire, and was born at the parsonage- house of Mildenhall, in the above county, and baptised Jan. 18, 1683, his grandfather, Constable, being then rector of that parish. Joseph, father to bishop Lavington, is supposed to have exchanged his original benefice of Broad Hinton, in Wiltshire, for Newton Longville, in Bucks, a living and a manor belonging to New college, in Oxford. Transplanted thither, and introduced to the acquaintance of several members of that society, he was encouraged to educate the eldest of his numerous children, George, the subject of this article, at Wykeham’s foundation, near Winchester, from whence he succeeded to a fellowship of New college, early in the reign of queen Anne. George, while yet a schoolboy, had produced a Greek translation of Virgil’s eclogues, in the style and dialect of Theocritus, which is still preserved at Winchester in manuscript. At the university he was distinguished by his wit and learning, and equally so by a marked attachment to the protestant succession, at a period when a zeal of that kind could promise him neither preferment nor popularity. But if some of his contemporaries thought his ardour in a good cause excessive, still their affection and esteem for him remained undiminished by any difference of political sentiment. In 1717, he was presented by his college to their rectory of Hayford Warren, in the diocese of Oxford. Before this his talents and principles had recommended him to the notice of many eminent persons in church and state. Among others Talbot, then bishop of Oxford, intended him for the benefice of Hook Norton, to which his successor, bishop Potter, collated him. Earl Coningsby not only appointed him his own domestic chaplain, but introduced him in the same capacity to the court of king George I. In this reign he was preferred to a stall in the cathedral church of Worcester, which he always esteemed as one of the happiest events of his life, since it laid the foundation of that close intimacy which ever after subsisted between him and the learned Dr. Francis Hare, the dean. No sooner was Dr. Hare removed to St. Paul’s, than he exerted all his influence to draw his friend to the capital after him; and his endeavours were so successful that Dr. Lavington was appointed in 1732, to be a canon residentiary of that church, and in consequence of this station, obtained successively the rectories of St. Mary Aldermary, and St. Michael Bassishaw. In both parishes he was esteemed a minister attentive to his duty, and an instructive and awakening preacher. He would probably never have thought of any other advancement, if the death of Dr. Stillingfleet, dean of Worcester, in 1746, had not recalled to his memory the pleasing ideas of many years spent in that city, in the prime of life. His friends, however, had higher views for him; and, therefore, on the death of bishop Clagget, lord chancellor Hardwick, and the duke of Newcastle, recommended him to the king, to till the vacancy, without his solicitation or knowledge. From this time he resided at Exeter among his clergy, a faithful and vigilant pastor, and died universally lamented, Sept. 13, 1762; crowning a life that had been devoted to God’s honour and service, by a pious act of resignation to his will; for the last words pronounced by his faultering tongue, were Ao<* in 0sa> “Glory to God.” He married Francis Maria, daughter of Lave, of Corf Mullion, Dorset, who had taken refuge in this kingdom from the popish persecution in France. She survived the bishop little more than one year, after an union of forty years. Their only daughter is the wife of the rev. N. Nutcombe, of Nutcombe, in Devonshire, and chancellor of the cathedral at Exeter. Bishop Lavington published only a few occasional sermons, except his “Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists compared,” three parts; which involved him in a temporary controvery with Messrs. Whitfield and Wesley.

Between these two periods, Lavoisier, struck with the discoveries that had been made by Dr. Black, and pursued by Dr. Priestley, respecting the properties of certain aeriform substances, gases, or factitious airs, entered into the same field of research, and published the result of his experiments in 1774, in his “Opuscules Chymiques,” which contained not only a clear and elegant view of all that had hitherto been done, in regard to gaseous or aeriform fluids, but also several original experiments, remarkable for their ingenuity and accuracy.

The existence of a gaseous body, in a fixed or solid state, in the mild alkalies and alkaline earths, which, when expelled from these substances, assumed an aerial form, and left them in a caustic state, as well as its production during the combustion of fuel, had been demonstrated by Dr. Black; and Bergman had shown that this air possessed acid properties. Dr. Priestley had also submitted it to various experiments in 1767, but the honour of ascertaining the real constituent parts of this acid gas, or fixa^le air, was reserved for Lavoisier. He now turned his experimental researches to the subject of the calcination of metals. It had already been shewn by Rey and Homberg, that metals acquire an augmentation of weight during calcination but they differed in the causes of this augmentation. Lavoisier, who published the result of his experiments on the subject in 1774, demonstrated that a given quantity of air was requisite for the calcination of a given quantity of tin; that a part of the air is absorbed during this process, by which not only the bulk, but the weight of the air is diminished; that the weight of the tin is increased during the same process; and lastly, that the weight acquired by the tin is exactly equal to that which is lost by the air.

Thus, by a few simple, accurate, and well-chosen experiments, Lavoisier had apparently arrived at the legitimate inference, that during the process of the formation of acids, whether with carbonaceous matter, sulphur, or phosphorus, and also during that of the calcination of metals, an absorption and fixation of air take place; and thus he gained a glimpse of principles, in the view of which hit singular sagacity in devising experiments, and his accuracy in executing them, would in all probability have alone conducted him to those brilliant results to which Dr. Priestley so materially contributed. The synthetic proofs only of this union of air with the base bad been as yet ascertained; but Dr. Priestley first furnished the analytic proof, by dissevering the combination; a discovery which at once advanced the nascent theory of Lavoisier, and, in his hands, became the source of more than one important conclusion. In August 1774, Dr. Priestley discovered that by heating certain metallic calces, especially the calcined mercury (the precipitate per sc, as it was then called) a quantity of air was separated, while the mercury resumed its metallic form; and this air, which he found was much purer than that of the atmosphere, he called, from the theory of the time, dephlogisticated air. Having communicated this discovery to Lavoisier, the latter published a memoir in 1775, in which he shewed, in conformity with the experiments of Dr. Priestley, that the mercurial precipitate per se t by being heated in a retort, gives out a highly respirable air (called since oxygeri]^ and is itself reduced to the metallic state; that combustible bodies burn in this air with increased brilliancy; and that the same mercurial calx, if heated with charcoal, gives out not the pure air, but fixed air; whence he concluded that fixed air is composed of charcoal and the pure air. It has, therefore, since been called carbonic acid. A second very important consequence of Dr. Priestley’s discovery of the pure or vital air, was the analysis of the air of the. atmosphere, which was accomplished by Lavoisier in the following manner. He included some mercury in a close vessel, together with a known quantity of atmospheric air, and kept it for some days in a boiling state; by degrees a small quantity of the red calx was formed upon the surface of the metal; and when this ceased to be produced the contents of the vessel were examined. The air was found to be diminished both in bulk and weight, and to have been rendered altogether incapable of supporting combustion or animal life; part of the mercury was found converted into the red calx, or precipitate per se; and, which was extremely satisfactory, the united weight of the mercury and the precipitate exceeded the weight of the original mercury, by precisely the same amount as the air had lost. To complete the demonstration, the precipitate was then heated, according to Dr. Priestley’s first experiment, and decomposed into fluid mercury and an air which had all the properties of vital air; and this air, when mixed with the unrespirable residue of the original air of the receiver, composed an elastic fluid possessing the same properties a atmospherical air. The vital air was afterwards made the subject of various experiments in respect to the calcination of metals, to the combustion and conversion of sulphur and phosphorus into acids, &c. in which processes it was found to be the chief agent. Hence it was named by Lavoisier oxygen (or generator of acids), and the unrespirable residue of the atmosphere was called azot (i. e. incapable of supporting life).

The new theory thus acquired farther support and conistency; oxygen appeared to be one of the most active and important agents of chemistry and of nature; combustion, acidification, and calcination (or, as it was now called, oxydatioriy the calces being also termed oxyds^ i. e. something approaching to, or resembling acids), were proved to be processes strikingly analogous to each other; all according in these points, that they produced a decomposition of the atmospheric air, and a fixation of the oxygenous portion in the substance acidified or calcined.

Time alone seemed now requisite to establish these doctrines, by exemplifying them in other departments of chemical research. In 1777 six memoirs were communicated feo the Academy of sciences by Lavoisier, in which his former experiments were confirmed, and new advances were made to a considerable extent. Our countrymen, Black and Crawford, in their researches respecting latent heat, and the different capacities of bodies under different circumstances, had laid a solid foundation, on which the doctrines of combustion, resulting from the foregoing experiments, might be perfected, and the cause of the light and heat connected with it might be explained. The first mentioned philosopher, Dr. Black, had shewn, that a solid, when it is made to assume a liquid form, and a liquid, when it assumes the form of vapour, absorbs or combines with, and renders latent, a large portion of heat, which is again parted with, becomes free and cognizable by the sense of feeling, and by the thermometer, when the vapour is again condensed into a liquid, and the liquid becomes solid. In like manner, it was now said by Lavoisier, during the process of combustion, the oxygen, which was previously in a gaseous state, is suddenly combined with the substance burnt into a liquid or solid. Hence all the latent heat, which was essential to its gaseous state, being instantaneously liberated in large quantity, produces flame, which is nothing more than very condensed free heat. About the same time, the analogy of the operation and necessity of oxygen in the function of respiration, with the preceding hypothesis of combustion, was pointed out by Lavoisier. In the process of respiration, it was found that, although atmospheric air is inhaled, carbonic acid and azot are expired. This animal operation, said Lavoisier, is a species of slow combustion: the oxygen of the air unites with the superfluous carbon of the venous blood, and produces carbonic acid, while the latent or combined caloric (the matter of heat) is set free, and thus supplies the animal heat. Ingenious and beautiful, however, as this extension of the analogy appeared, the subject of animal temperature is still under many obscurities and difficulties. The phenomena of chemistry, however, were now explicable upon principles more simple, consistent, and satisfactory than by the aid of any former theory; and the Lavoisierian doctrines were everywhere gaining ground. But there yet remained a formidable objection o them, which was derived from a circumstance attending the solution of metals in acids; to wit, the production of a considerable quantity of inflammable air. If sulphuric acid (formerly called vitriolic acid, or oil of vitriol) consists only of sulphur and oxygen, it was said, how does it happen, that wheti these two substances, with a little water, come in contact, they should produce a large quantity of inflammable air during their re-action? This objection was unanswerable, and appeared to be fatal to the whole theory: but it was most opportunely converted into an argument in its favour, by the great discovery of the decomposition of water, made by Mr. Cavendish; who resolved that element, as it was formerly esteemed, into oxygen and inflammable air. The latter has since, therefore, been called hydrogen, or generator of water. This experiment was repeated with full success by Lavoisier and his associates in 1783; and the discovery was farther established by a successful experiment of the same chemists, carried on upon a grand scale, in which, by combining the oxygen with hydrogen, they produced water, and thus adding synthesis to analysis, brought the fact to demonstration.

The name of Lavoisier will always be ranked among the most illustrious chemists of the present age, when it is considered what an extensive and beneficial influence his labours have had over the whole science. It has been said, indeed, that if he be estimated on the score of his actual discoveries, not only Scheele and Priestley, and Cavendish, but many more, will stand before him. But he possessed in a high degree that rare talent of discernment, by which he detected analogies, which others overlooked, even in their own discoveries, and a sagacity in devising and an accuracy in completing his experiments, for the purpose of elucidating every suggestion which he thus acquired, such as few philosophers have possessed. No one who did so much, probably ever made so few unsuccessful or random experiments. It was the singular perspicuity, simplicity, and order to which he reduced the phenomena of chemistry, that claimed for his theory the general reception which it met with, and occasioned the abandonment of those doctrines which prejudice and habit conspired to support. Subsequent discoveries, however, and more especially those numerous facts which the genius of sir Humphrey Davy has lately brought to light, through the medium of that most powerful agent of decomposition, galvanism, have rendered several modifications of the Lavoisierian theory necessary, and bid fair to produce a more general revolution in the language and doctrines of chemistry.

Dr. Keene held at this time with the bishopric of Chester, the mastership of Peter-house, in Cambridge. Desiring to leave the university, he procured Dr. Law to be elected to succeed him in that station. This took place in 1756, in which year Dr. Law resigned his archdeaconry in favour of Mr. Eyre, a brother-in-law of Dr. Keene. Two years before this (the list of graduates says 1749) he had proceeded to his degree of D. D., in his public exercise for which, he defended the doctrine of what is usually called the “sleep of the soul,” a tenet to which we shall have occasion to revert hereafter. About 1760 he was appointed head librarian of the university; a situation which, as it procured an easy and quick access to books, was peculiarly agreeable to his taste and habits. Some time after this he was appointed casuistical professor. In 1762 he suffered an irreparable loss by the death of his wife; a loss in itself every way afflicting, and rendered more so by the situation of his family, which then consisted of eleven children, many of them very young. Some years afterwards he received several preferments, which were rather honourable expressions of regard from his friends, than of much advantage to his fortune. By Dr. Cornwallis, then bishop of Lichfield, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, xvho had been his pupil at Christcollege, he was appointed to the archdeaconry of Staffordshire, and to a prebend in the church of Lichfield. By his old acquaintance Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, he was made a prebendary of that church. But in 1767, by the intervention of the duke of Newcastle, to whose interest, in the memorable contest for the high stewardship of the university, he had adhered in opposition to some temptations, he obtained a stall in the church of Durham. The year after this, the duke of Grafton, who had a short time before been elected chancellor of the university, recommended the master of Peterhouse to his majesty for the bishopric of Carlisle. This recommendation was made, not only without solicitation on his part, or that of his friends, but without his knowledge, until the duke’s intention in his favour was signified to him by the archbishop.

In or about 1777, our bishop gave to the public a handsome edition, in 3 vols. 4to, of the works of Mr. Locke, with a life of the author, and a preface. Mr. Locke’s writings and character he held in the highest esteem, and seems to have drawn from them many of his own principles; he was a disciple of that school. About the same time he published a tract which engaged some attention in the controversy concerning subscription; and he published new editions of his two principal works, with considerable additions, and some alterations. Besides the works already mentioned, he published, in 1734 or 1735, a very ingenious “Inquiry into the Ideas of Space, Time,” &c. in which he combats the opinions of Dr. Clarke and his adherents on these subjects.

The life of Dr. Law was a life of incessant reading: and thought, almost entirely directed to metaphysical and religious inquiries; but the tenet by which his name and writings are principally distinguished, is, “that Jesus Christ, at his second coming, will, by an act of his power, restore to life and consciousness the dead of the human species; who by their own nature, and without this interposition, would remain in the state of insensibility to which the death brought upon mankind by the sin of Adam had reduced them.” He interpreted literally that saying of St. Paul, I. Cor. xv. 21. “As by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” This opinion, Dr. Paley says, had no other effect upon his own mind, than to increase his reverence for Christianity, and for its divine founder. He retained it, as he did his other speculative opinions, without laying, as many are wont to do, an extravagant stress upon their importance, and without pretending to more certainty than the subject allowed of. No man formed his own conclusions with more freedom, or treated those of others with greater candour and equity. He never quarrelled with any person for differing from him, or considered that difference as a sufficient reason for questioning any man’s sincerity, or judging meanly of his understanding. He was zealously attached to religious liberty, because he thought that it leads to truth; yet from his heart he loved peace. But he did not perceive any repugnancy in these two things. There was nothing in his elevation to his bishopric which he spoke of with more pleasure, than its being a proof that decent freedom of inquiry was not discouraged. He was a man of great softness of manners, and of the mildest and most tranquil disposition. His voice was never raised above its ordinary pitch. His countenance seemed never to have been ruffled; it preserved the same kind and composed aspect, truly indicating the calmness and benignity of his temper. He had an utter dislike of large and mixed companies. Next to his books, his chief satisfaction was in the serious conrersation of a literary companion, or in the company of a few friends. In this sort of society he would open his rnind with great unreservedness, and with a peculiar turn and sprightliness of expression. His person was low, but well formed; his complexion fair and delicate. Except occasional interruptions by the gout, he had for the greatest part of his life enjoyed good health; and when not confined by that distemper, was full of motion and activity. About nine years before his death, he'was greatly enfeebled by a severe attack of the gout, and in a short time after that, lost the use of one of his legs. Notwithstanding his fondness for exercise, he resigned himself to this change, not only without complaint, but without any sensible diminution of his cheerfulness and good humour. His fault was the general fault of retired and studious characters, too great a degree of inaction and facility in his public station. The modestj, or rather bashfulness of his nature, together with an extreme unwillingness to give pain, rendered him sometimes less firm and efficient in the administration of authority than was requisite. But it is the condition of human nature. There is an opposition between some virtues, which seldom permits them to subsist together in perfection. Bishop Law was interred in the cathedral of Carlisle, in which a handsome monument is erected to his memory. Of his family, his second son, John, bishop of Elphin, died in 1810; and his fourth son, Edward, is now lord Ellenborough, chief-justice of the king’s-bench.

, usually known by the name of the projector, was born at Edinburgh, in April 1671; and on the death of his father, who was a goldsmith or banker, inherited a considerable estate, called Lauriston. He is said to have made some progress in polite literature, but his more favourite study was that of financial matters, banks, taxes, &c. and he was at the same time a man of pleasure, and distinguished by the appellation of Beau Law. Having visited London in 1694, his wit and accomplishments procured him admission into the first circles, and he became noted for his gallant attentions to the ladies. One of his intrigues having involved him in a quarrel with a Mr. Wilson, a duel took place, and Mr. Law killed his antagonist. He was then apprehended, and committed to the king’s-bench prison, from which he made his escape, and is supposed to have retired to the continent. In 1700, however, he returned to Edinburgh, as he appears in that year to have written his “Proposals and reasons for constituting a Council of Trade,” which, although it met with no encouragement from the supremo judicature of the kingdom, procured him the patronage of some noblemen, under which he was induced in 1705, to publish another plan for removing the difficulties the kingdom was then, exposed to by the great scarcity of money, and the insolvency of the bank. The object of his plan was to issue notes, which were to be lent on landed property, upon the principle, that being so secured, they would be equal in value to gold and silver money of the same denomination, and even preferred to those metals, as not being liable to fall in value like them. This plausible scheme being also rejected as an improper expedient, Mr. Law now abandoned his native country, and went to Holland, on purpose to improve himself in that great school of banking and finance. He aftewards resided at Brussels, where his profound skill in calculation is said to have contributed to his extraordinary success at play.

Mr. Law, however, was named director-general of this royal bank, and branches of it were established at Lyons, Rochelle, Tours, Orleans, and Amiens. In 1720, he began to develope his grand project, so well known to all Europe, under the name of the Missisippi scheme. This scheme was no less than the vesting the whole privileges, effects, and possessions of all the foreign trading companies, the great farms, the profits of the mint, the general receipt of the king’s revenue, and the management and property of the bank, in one great company, who thus having in their hands all the trade, taxes, and royal revenues, might be enabled to multiply the notes of the bank to any extent they pleased, doubling or even trebling at will the circulating cash of the kingdom; and by the greatness of their funds, possessed of a power to carry the foreign trade, and the culture of the colonies, to a height altogether impracticable by any other means. This monstrous and impracticable monopoly was approved of by the regent, who issued letters patent for erecting the “Company of the West,” to which he granted at the same time, the whole province of Louisiana, or the country on the river Missisippi, from which the scheme took its name. That part of America having been represented as a region abounding in gold and silver, and possessing a fertile and luxurious soil, the actions or shares were bought up with great avidity; and such was the rage for speculation, that the unimproved parts of the colony were actually sold for 30,000 livres the square league.

The “Company of the West,” of which Law was of course director-general, in pursuance of his scheme, undertook the farm of tobacco at an advanced rent of upwards of two millions of livres; they soon after engrossed the charter and effects of the Senegal company, and in May 1719, actually procured the grant of an exclusive trade to the East Indies, China, and the South-sea^, with all the possessions and effects of the China and India companies, which were now dissolved on the condition of liquidating their debts. The price of actions soon rose from 550 to 1000 livres each. On July 25th, the mint was made over to this company, which now assumed the name of “The Company of the Indies” for a consideration of fifty millions of livres, and on Aug. 27, following, they also obtained a lease of the farms, for which they agreed to pay three millions and a half of livres advanced rent. Having thus concentered within themselves, not only the whole foreign trade and possessions of France, but the collection and management of the royal revenues, they promised an annual dividend of 200 livres per share, in consequence of which the price of actions rose to 5000 livres, and a rage for the purchase of their stock seems to have infatuated all ranks in the kingdom. The whole nation, clergy, laity, peers, and plebeians, statesmen, and princes, nay even ladies, who had, or could procure money for that purpose, turned stock-jobbers, outbidding each other with such avidity, that in November 1719, after some fluctuations, the price of actions rose to above 10,000 livres, more than sixty times the sum they originally sold for.

The only obstacle to his advancement to the highest offices in the state being soon after removed by his abjuration of the protestant religion, he was declared comptroller-general of the finances on Jan. 18, 1720. But after having raised himself to such an envied situation, he at length fell a sacrifice to the intrigues of the other ministers, who, playing upon the fears of the regent, induced him to issue an arret on May 21, 1720, which, contrary to sound policy, and even to the most solemn stipulations, reduced the value of the company’s bank notes one half, and fixed their actions or shares at 5000 livres. By this fatal step, which seems to have been taken in opposition to the opinion and advice of the comptroller-general, the whole paper fabrick was destroyed, and this immense speculation turned out to be a mere bubble. The consternation of the populace was soon converted into rage; troops were obliged to be stationed in all parts of the capital to prevent mischief; and such was the depreciation of this boasted paper money, that 100 livres were given for a single louis-d'or. Law with some difficulty made his escape to Brussels, and of all his wealth and property, retained only the salary of his office, through the friendship of the duke of Orleans.

, the author of many pious works of great popularity, was born at KingVcliffe, in Northamptonshire, in 1686, and was the second son of Thomas Law, a grocer. It is supposed that he received his early education at Oakham or Uppingham, in Rutlandshire, whence on June 7, 1705, he entered of Emmanuel college, Cambridge. In 1708 he commenced B. A.; in 1711, was elected fellow of his college; and in 1712 took his degree of M. A. Soon after the accession of his majesty George I. being called upon to take the oaths prescribed by act of parliament, and to sign the declaration, he refused, and in consequence vacated his fellowship in 1716. He was after this considered as a nonjuror. It appears that he had for some time officiated as a curate in London, but had no ecclesiastical preferment. Soon after his resignation of his fellowship he went to reside at Putney, as tutor to Edward Gibbon, father to the eminent historian. When at home, notwithstanding his refusing the oaths, he continued to frequent his parish-church, and join in communion with his fellow parishioners. In 1727 he founded an alms-house at Cliffe, for the reception and maintenance of two old women, either unmarried and helpless, or widows; and a school for the instruction and clothing of fourteen girls. It is thought that the money thus applied was the gift of an unknown benefactor, and given to him in the following manner. While he was standing at the door of a shop in London, a person unknown to him asked whether his name was William Law, and whether he was of King’s-cliffe; and after having received a satisfactory answer, delivered a sealed paper, directed to the Rev. William Law, which contained a bank note for 1000l. But as tlifre is no proof that this was given to him in trust tor the purpose, he is fully entitled to the merit of having employed it in the service of the poor; and such beneficence was perfectly consistent with his general character.

At what time Mr. Law quitted Mr. Gibbon’s house at Putney, his biographer has not discovered, but it appears that some time before 1740, he was instrumental in bringing about an intimacy between Mrs. Hester Gibbon, his pupil’s sister, and Mrs. Elizabeth Hntcheson, widow of Archibald Hutcheson, esq. of the Middle Temple. Mr. Hutcheson, when near his decease, recommended to his wife a. retired life, and told her he knew no person whose society would be so likely to prove profitable and agreeable to her as that of Mr. Law, of whose writings he highly approved. Mrs. Hutcheson, whose maiden name was Lawrence, had been the wife of colonel Robert Steward; and when she went to reside in Northamptonshire, was in possession of a large income, from the produce of an estate which was in her own power, and of a life interest in property settled on her in marriage, or devised to her by Mr. Hutcheson. These two ladies, Mrs. Hutcheson and Mrs. H. Gibbon, appear lo have been of congenial sentiments, and now formed a plan of living together in the country, far from that circle of society generally called the world; and of taking Mr. Law as their chaplain, instructor, and almoner. With this view they took a house at Thrapston, in Northamptonshire; but that situation not proving agreeable to them, the two ladies enabled Mr. Law, about 1740, to prepare a roomy house near the church at King’s-cliffe, and in that part of the town called “The Hall-yard.” This house was then possessed by Mr. Law, and was the only property devised to him by his father. Here the whole income of these two ladies,' after deducting the frugal expences of their household, was expended in acts of charity to the poor and the sick, and in donations of greater amount to distressed persons of a somewhat higher class. And after twenty years residence, Mr. Law died in this house April 9, 1761.

By some persons now or lately living at Cliffe, who knew Mr. Law, it is reported that he was by nature of an active and cheerful disposition, very warm-hearted, unaffected, and affable, but not to appearance so remarkable for meekness “as some others of the most revered members of the Christian church are reported to have been.” He was in stature rather over than under the middle size; not corpulent, but stout made, with broad shoulders; his visage was round, his eyes grey, his features well-proportioned, and not large, his complexion ruddy, and his countenance open and agreeable. He was naturally more inclined to be merry than sad. In his habits he was very regular and temperate; he rose early, breakfasted in his bed-room on one cup of chocolate; joined his family in prayer at nine o‘clock, and again, soon after noon, at dinner. When the daily provision for the poor was not made punctually at the usual hour, he expressed his displeasure sharply, but seldom on any other occasion. He did not join Mrs. Gibbon and Mrs. Hutcheson at the tea-table, but sometimes ate a few raisins standing while they sat. At an early supper, after an hour’s walk in his field, or elsewhere, he ate something, and drank one or two glasses of wine; then joined in prayer with the ladies and their servants, attended to the reading of some portion of scripture, and at nine o’clock retired.

As a theologian, Law held certain tenets peculiar to himself which, either from being misunderstood, or misrepresented, subjected him at different times, to two very opposite imputations, that of being a Socinian and that of being a Methodist. What, however, was really erroneous in his opinions has been ably pointed out by bishop Home in a small tract, printed with his life, entitled “Cautions to the readers of Mr. Law.” It was in his latter days that Mr. Law became most confused in his ideas, from having bewildered his imagination with the reveries of Jacob Behmen, for whose sake he learned German that he might read his works, and whom he pronounces “the strongest, the plainest, the most open, intelligible, awakening, convincing writer, that ever was.” Although it is as a devotional writer that he is now best known, and there can be no doubt that his “Serious call*,” and “Christian perfection” have been singularly useful, it is as a controversial writer, that he ought to be more highly praised. His letters to bishop Hoadly are among the finest specimens of controversial writing in our language, with respect to style, wit, and argument.

Mr. Law’s works amount to nine vols. 8vo, and consist of, 1 “A Serious Call to a devout and holy life.” 2. “A practical Treatise on Christian Perfection.” 3. “Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor.” 4. “Remarks upon a late Book, entitled, The Fable of the Bees; or private vices public benefits.” 5. “The absolute Unlawfulness of Stage Entertainments fully demonstrated.” 6. “The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, fairly and fully stated.” 7. “An earnest and serious answer to Dr. Trapp’s Discourse of the folly, sin, and danger, of being righteous over much.” 8. “The Grounds and Reasons of Christian Regeneration.” 9. “A Demonstration of the gross and fundamental errors of a late book, called, A plain account of the nature and end of the Sacramentof the Lord’s Supper.” 10. “An Appeal to all that doubt or disbelieve the Jruths of the Gospel.” 11.“The Spirit of Prayer; or, the Soul rising out of the vanity of Time into riches of Eternity. In two Parts.” 12. “The Spirit of Love, in two Parts.” 13. “The Way to Divine Knowledge; being several Dialogues between Humanus, Academicus, Rusticus, and Theophilus.” 14. “A short but sufficient Confutation of the rev. Dr. Warburton’s projected Defence (as he calls it) of Christianity, in his Divine Legation of Moses. In a Letter to the right rev. the Lord Bishop of London.” 15. “Of Justification by Faith and Works; a Dialogue between a Methodist and a Churchman,” 8vo. 16. “A Collection of Letters on the most interesting and important subjects, and on several occasions.” 17. “An humble, earnest, and affectionate Address to the Clergy.”

it a dull book (as such books generally after 1 became capable of rational inare), and perhaps to laugh at it. But quiry.“ and born there about 1600. He was a disciple of Coperario. In 1625, he became a gentleman of the chapel royal; and was afterwards appointed one of the private music to Charles f. In 1653, were published his” Ayres and Dialogues," &c. folio, with a preface by himself, and commendatory verses by the poet Waller, Edward and John Phillips, nephews of Milton, and others. In the preface, speaking of the Italians, he acknowledges them in general to be the greatest masters of music; yet contends, that this nation has produced as able musicians as any in Europe. He censures the fondness of his age for songs in a language which the hearers do not understand; and, to ridicule it, mentions a song of his own composition, printed at the end of the book, which is nothing but an index, containing the initial words of some old Italian songs or madrigals: and this index, which read together made a strange medley of nonsense, he says, he set to a varied air, and gave out that it came from Italy, by which it passed for an Italian song. In the title-page of this book is a very fine engraving of the author’s head by Faithorne.

Twenty years before, in 1633, Lawes had been chosen to assist in composing the airs, lessons, and songs of a masque, presented at Whitehall on Candlemas-night, before the king and queen, by the gentlemen of the four inns of court, under the direction of Noy the attorney- general, Hyde afterwards earl of Clarendon, Selden, Whitelock, and others. Whitelock has given an account of it in his “Memorials,” &c. Lawes also composed tunes to Mr. George Sandys’s “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” published in 1638: and Milton’s “Comus” was originally set by him, and published in 1637, with a dedication to lord Brady, son and heir of the earl of Bridgewater. It was represented in 1634, at Ludlow-castle, Lawes himself performing in it the character of the attendant spirit. The music to “Comus” was never printed and there is nothing in any of the printed copies of the poem, or in the many accounts of Milton, to ascertain the form in which it was composed.

Lawes taught music to the family of the earl of Bridgewater: he was intimate with Milton, as may be conjectured from that sonnet of the latter, “Harry, whose tuneful and well-measured song.” Peck says, that Milton wrote his masque of “Comus” at the request of Lawes, who engaged to set it to music. Most of the songs of Waller are set by Lawes; and Waller has acknowledged his obligation to him for one in particular, which he had set in 1635, in a poem, wherein he celebrates his skill as a musician. Fenton, in a note on this poem, says, that the best poets of that age were ambitious of having their verses set by this incomparable artist; who introduced a softer mixture of Italian airs than before had been practised in our nation. Dr. Burney entertains another kind of suspicion. “Whether,” says this historian, “Milton chose Lawes, or Lawes Milton for a colleague in Comus, it equally manifests the high rank in which he stood with the greatest poets of his time. It would be illiberal to cherish such an idea; but it does sometimes seem as if the twin-sisters. Poetry and Music, were mutually jealous of each other’s glory: * the less interesting my sister’s offspring may be,‘ says Poetry, * the more admiration will my own obtain.’ Upon asking some years ago, why a certain great prince continued to honour with such peculiar marks of favour, an old performer on the flute, when he had so many musicians of superior abilities about him? We were answered, * because he plays worse than himself.' And who knows whether Milton and Waller were not secretly influenced by some such consideration? and were not more pleased with Lawes for not pretending to embellish or enforce the sentiments of their songs, but setting them to sounds less captivating than the sense.”

, brother to the preceding, w placed early in life under Coperario, for his musical education, at the expence of the earl of Hertford. His first preferment was in the choir of Chichester, but he was soon called to London, where, in 1602, he was sworn a gentleman of the chapel royal; which place, however, he resigned in 1611, and became one of the private, or chamber-musicians, to Charles, then prince and afterwards king. Fuller says, “he was respected and beloved of all such persons as cast any looks towards virtue and honour:” and he seems well entitled to this praise. He manifested his gratitude and loyalty to his royal master by taking up arms in his cause against the parliament. And though, to exempt him from danger, lord Gerrard, the king’s general, made him a commissary in the royal army, yet the activity of his spirit disdaining this intended security, at the siege of Chester, 1645, he lost his life by an accidental shot. The king is said, by Fuller, to have been so affected at his loss, that though he was already in mourning for his kinsman lord Bernard Stuart, killed at the same siege, his majesty put “on particular mourning for his dear servant William Lawes, whom he commonly called the father of music.”

His anthem for four voices, in Dr. Boyce’s second volume, is the best and most solid composition of this author; though it is thin and confused in many places, with little melody. He must have been considerably older than his brother Henry, though they frequently composed in conjunction; but we are unable to clear up this point of primogeniture. Several of the songs of William Lawes occur in the collections of the time, particularly in John Playford’s Musical Companion, part the second, consisting of dialogues, glees, ballads, and airs, the words of which are in general coarse and licentious. The dialogue part, which he furnished to this book, is a species of recitative, wholly without accompaniment: and the duet at last, which is called a chorus, is insipid in melody, and ordinary in counterpoint. His boasted canons, published by his brother Henry at the end of their psalms, as proofs of his great abilities in harmony, when scored, appear so far from finished compositions, that there is not one of them totally free from objections, or that -bears the stamp of a great master.

About 1773, Dr. Lawrence’s health began to decline, and he first perceived symptoms of that disorder on the breast which is called angina pectoris, and which continued to afflict him to the end of his life. Yet he remitted little of his attention, either to study or business; he still continued his custom of rising early, that h might secure leisure for study; and his old friend and instructor, Dr. Nicholls, dying in the beginning of 1778, he paid a tribute of friendship and gratitude to his memory by writing an account of his life, in Latin, which was printed for private distribution in 1780, 4to. The death of his friend was soon followed by a nearer loss, in Jan. 1780, that of his wife, with whom he had lived with great happiness for above thirty-five years; and from this time his health and spirits declining more rapidly, his family prevailed on him to retire from business and London; he accordingly removed with his family to Canterbury, in 1782, and died there June 6, 1783.

, master-gunner of England, was born at Harwich, in 1629, and being bred to the sea-service, distinguished himself by his skill and bravery in many actions. At the restoration he was made master-gunner of the Princess, a frigate of fifty guns; and in the first Dutch war exhibited his skill and bravery in two very extraordinary actions, in one against fifteen sail of Dutch men of war, and another in 1667, against two Danish ships in the Baltic, in which, the principal officers being killed, the command devolved on him, though only master-gunner. In 1669 he was promoted to be gunner of the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war. In 1673 he was engaged with his two sons Henry and John, against Van Trump. His ship was the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war, all the masts of which were shot away, four hundred of her men killed or disabled, and most of her upper tier of guns dismounted. Whilst she was thus a wreck, a large Dutch ship of war came down upon her, with two fire-ships, meaning to burn or carry her off. Captain, afterwards sir George Rooke, thinking her condition hopeless, ordered the men to save their lives, and strike the colours. Mr. Leake, hearing this, ordered the lieutenant off the quarter-deck, and took the command upon himself, saying, “the Royal Prince shall never be given up while I am alive to defend her.” The chief- gunner’s gallantry communicated itself to all around the crew returned with spirit to their guns, and, under the direction of Mr. Leake and his two sons, compelled the Dutchman to sheer off, and sunk both the fireships. Leake afterwards brought the Royal Prince safe to Chatham; but the joy of his victory was damped by the loss of his son Henry, who was killed by his side. He was afterwards made master-gunner of England, and storekeeper of the ordnance at Woolwich. He had a particular genius for every thing which related to the management of artillery, and was the first who contrived to fire otf a mortar by the blast of a piece, which has been used ever since. He was also very skilful in the composition of fire-works, which he often and successfully exhibited for the amusement of the king, and his brother, the duke of York. He died in 1686, leaving a son, who is the subject of our next article.

, a brave and successful English admiral, son of the preceding, was born in 1656, at Rotherhithe, in Surrey. His father instructed him both in mathematics and gunnery, with a view to the navy, and entered him early into that service as a midshipman; in which station he distinguished himself, under his father, at the above-mentioned engagement between sir Edward Spragge and Van Trump, in 1673, beingt'nen no more than seventeen years old. Upon the conclusion of that war soon after, hfc engaged in the merchants’ service, and had the command of a ship two or three voyages up the Mediterranean; but his inclination lying to the navy, he did not long remain unemployed in it. He had indeed refused a lieutenant’s commission; but this was done with a view to the place of master-gunner, which was then of much greater esteem than it is at present. When his father was advanced, not long after, to the command of a yacht, he gladly accepted the offer of succeeding him in the post of gunner to the Neptune, a second-rate man of war. This happened about 1675; and, the times being peaceable, he remained in this post without any promotion till 1688. James II. having then resolved to fit out a strong fleet, to prevent the invasion from Holland, Leake had the command of the Firedrake fireship, and distinguished himself by several important services; particularly, by the relief of Londonderry in Ireland, which was chiefly effected by his means. He was in the Firedrake in the fleet under lord Dartmouth, when the prince of Orange landed; after which he joined the rest of the protestant officers in an address to the prince. The importance of rescuing Londonderry from the hands of king James raised him in the navy; and, after some removes, he had the command given him of the Eagle, a third-rate of 70 guns. In 1692, the distinguished figure he made in the famous battle off La Hogue procured him the particular friendship of Mr. (afterwards admiral) Churchill, brother to the duke of Marlborough; and he continued to behave on all occasions with great reputation till the end of the war; when, upon concluding the peace of Ryswick, his ship was paid off, Dec. 5, 1697. In 1696, on the death of his father, his friends had procured for him his father’s places of mastergunner in England, and store- keeper of Woolwich, but these he declined, being ambitious of a commissioner’s place in the navy; and perhaps he might have obtained it, had not admiral Churchill prevailed with him not to think of quitting the sea, and procured him a commission for a third-rate of 70 guns in May 1699. Afterwards, upon the prospect of a new war, he was removed to the Britannia, the finest first-rate in the navy, of which he was appointed, Jan. 1701, first captain of three under the earl of Pembroke, newly made lord high admiral of England. This was the highest station he could have as a captain, and higher than any private captain ever obtained either before or since. But, upon the earl’s removal, to make way for prince George of Denmark, soon after queen Anne’s accession to the throne, Leake’s commission under him becoming void, May 27, 1702, he accepted of the Association, a second-rate, till an opportunity offered for his farther promotion. Accordingly, upon the declaration of war against France, he received a commission, June the 24th that year, from prince George, appointing him commander in chief of the ships designed against Newfoundland. He arrived there with his squadron in August, and, destroying the French trade and settlements, restored the English to the possession of the whole island. This gave him an opportunity of enriching himself by the sale of the captures, at the same time that it gained him the favour of the nation, by doing it a signal service, without any great danger of not succeeding; for, in truth, all the real fame he acquired on this occasion arose from his extraordinary dispatch and diligence in the execution.

In 1726, he published his “Nummi Britan. Historia, or Historical Account of English Money.” A new edition, with large additions, was printed in 1745, dedicated to the duke of Suffolk. It is much to Mr. Leake’s honour, that he was the first writer upon the English coinage. From affectionate gratitude to admiral sir John Leake, and at the particular desire of his father, he had written a history of the life of that admiral, prepared from a great collection of books and papers relating to the subject which were in his possession. This he published in 1750, in large octavo. Fifty copies only were printed, to be given to his friends: this book is therefore very scarce and difficult to be obtained. Bowyer, in 1766, printed for him fifty copies of the Statutes of the Order of St. George, to enable him to supply each knight at his installation with one, as he was required to do officially. Ever attentive to promote science, he was constantly adding to the knowledge of arms, decents, honors, precedency, the history of the college, and of the several persons who had been officers of arms, and every other subject in any manner connected with his office. He also wrote several original essays on some of those subjects. These multifarious collections are contained in upward of fifty volumes, all in his own handwriting; which ms., with many others, he bequeathed to his son, John-Martin Leake, esq. He married Ann, youngest daughter, and at length sole- heiress of Fletcher Pervall, esq. of Downton, in the parish and county of Radnor, by Ann his wife, daughter of Samuel Hoole of London, by whom he had nine children, six sons and three daughters; all of whom survived him. He died at his seat at Mile-end at Middlesex, March 24, 1773, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Thorpe Soken church in Essex, of which parish he was long impropriator, and owner of the seat of Thorpe-hall, and the estate belonging to it, inheriting them from his father.

, an English physician and writer, was the son of a clergyman who was curate of Ainstable in Cumberland. He was educated partly at Croglin, and partly at the grammar-school at Bishop Auckland. He then went to London, intending to engage in the military profession: but finding some promises, with which he had been flattered, were not likely soon to be realized, he turned his attention to medicine. After attending the hospitals, and being admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, an opportunity presented itself of improving himself in foreign schools; he embarked for Lisbon, and afterwards visited Italy. On his return, he established himself as a surgeon and accoucheur in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly; and about that time published “A Dissertation on the Properties and Efficacy of the Lisbon Dietdrink,” which he professed to administer with success in many desperate cases of scrophula, scurvy, &c. Where he obtained his doctor’s diploma is not known; but he became ere long a licentiate of the College of Physicians, and removed to Craven-street, where he began to lecture on the obstetric art, and invited the faculty to attend. ID 1765 he purchased a piece of ground on a building lease, and afterwards published the plan for the institution of the Westminster Lying-in- Hospital and as soon as the building was raised, he voluntarily, and without any consideration, assigned over to the governors all his right in the premises, in favour of the hospital. He enjoyed a considerable share of reputation and practice as an accoucheur, anJ as a lecturer; and was esteemed a polite and accomplished man. He added nothing, however, in the way of improvement, to his profession, and his writings are not characterized by any extraordinary acuteness, or depth of research; but are plain, correct, and practical. He was attacked, in the summer of 1792, with a disorder of the chest, with which he had been previously affected, and was found dead in his bed on the 8th of August of that year. He published, in 1773, a volume of “Practical Observations on Child-bed Fever;” and, in 1774, “A Lecture introductory to the Theory and Practice of Midwifery, including the history, nature, and tendency of that science,” &c. This was afterwards considerably altered and enlarged, and published in two volumes, under the title of “Medical Instructions towards the prevention and cure of various Diseases incident to Women,” &c. The work passed through seven or eight editions, and was translated into the French and German languages. In the beginning of 1792, ^a short time before his death, he published “A practical Essay on the Diseases of the Viscera, particularly those of the Stomach and Bowels.”

, historiographer of buildings of the academy della Crusca, and of that of the Arcades at Rome, was born at Dijon, in 1707, of poor parents, but he went early to Paris, where his talents procured him friends and patrons. He then came to London, and met with the same advantage. In 1746 Maupertuis offered him, on the part of the king of Prussia, a place suitable to a man of letters, at the court of Berlin; but he preferred mediocrity at home to flattering hopes held out to him from abroad. He died in 1781. His tragedy of “Abensaïde,” the subject of which is very interesting, was well received at first, notwithstanding the harshness of the versification but it did not support this success when revived on the stage in 1743. What most brought the abbé Le Blanc into repute was the collection of his letters on the English, 1758, 3 vols. 12mo, in which are many judicious reflections; but he is heavy, formal, fruitful in vulgar notions, and trivial in his erudition, and the praises he bestows on the great men, or the literati, to whom he addresses his letters, are deficient in ease and delicacy. The letters of abbé Le Blanc cannot bear a comparison with the “London” of Grosley, who is a far more agreeable writer, if not a more accurate observer.

, a learned protestant divine, was born about the end of 1646, at Caen, in Normandy, where he was first educated. He afterwards went through a course of theological studies at Sedan. Returning thence in 1669, he was very honourably received by the learned of his native country, which he again left, in order to attend the lectures of the divinity-professors at Geneva. Here he remained until Nov. 1670, and after a residence of some time at Sanmur, came back in March 1672 to Caen, with the warmest recommendations from the various professors under whom he had studied. He then became pastor at Honfleur, where he married a lady of fortune, which joined to his own, enabled him to prosecute his studies without anxiety. It appears to be about this time that he conceived the design of translating the Bible into French, on which he was more or less engaged for a great many years. He continued his functions, however, as a minister, until the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, which annihilated the protestant churches in France.

, archbishop of York, was born in 1482, and was the son of Richard Lee, of Lee Magna in Kent, esq. and grandson of sir Richard Lee, km. twice lordmayor of London. He was partly educated in both universities, being admitted of Magdalen college, Oxford, about 1499, where he took his degrees in arts, and then removed to Cambridge, and completed his studies. He was accounted a man of great learning and talents, which recommended him to the court of Henry VIII. in which, among others, he acquired the esteem of sir Thomas More. The king likewise conceived so high an opinion of his political abilities, that he sent him on several embassies to the continent. In 1529 he was made chancellor of Sarum, and in 1531 was incorporated in the degree of D. D. at Oxford, which he had previously taken at some foreign university. The same year he was consecrated archbishop of York, but enjoyed this high station a very short time, dying at York, Sept. 13, 1544. He was buried in the cathedral. He lived to witness the dawn of the reformation, but adhered to the popish system in all its plenitude, except, says his popish biographer, that he “was carried away with the stream as to the article of the king’s supremacy.” He was a zealous opponent of Luther, and had a controversy with Erasmus, respecting his annotations on the New Testament. This somewhat displeased sir Thomas More, who was greatly attached to Erasmus, but it did not lessen his friendship for Lee Wood says, “he was a very great divine, and very well seen in all kinds of learning, famous as well for his wisdom as virtue, and holiness of life; a continual preacher of the gospel, a man very liberal to the poor, and exceedingly beloved by all sorts of men.” His works were, 1. “Comment, in universum Pentateuchum,” ms. 2. “Apologia contra quorundam calumnias, 11 Lovan, 1520, 4to. 3.” Index annotationum prioris libri,“ibid. 1520. 4.” Epistola nuncupatoriaad Desid. Erasmum,“ibid. 1520. 3.” Annot. lib. duo in annotationes Novi Test. Erasmi.“6.” Epistola apologetica, qua respondet D. Erasmi epistolis.“7.” Epistolae sexcenta;.' 8. “Epiceuia clarorum virorum.” The two last articles are in ms. or partially printed. Some of his Mss. are in the Harleian, and some in the Cotton library."

, an English dramatic poet, was the son of Dr. Richard Lee, who had the living of Hatfield, in Hertfordshire, where he died in 1684. He was bred at Westminster-school under Dr. Busby, whence he removed to Trinity-college, in Cambridge, and became scholar upon that foundation in 1668. He proceeded B. A. the same year; but, not succeeding to a fellowship, quitted the university, and came to London, where be made an unsuccessful attempt to become an actor in 1672. The part he performed was Duncan in sir William Davenant’s alteration of Macbeth. Cibber says that Lee “was so pathetic a reader of his own scenes, that I have been informed by an actor who was present, that while Lee was reading to major Mohun at a rehearsal, Mohun, in the warmth of his admiration, threw down his part, and said, Unless I were able to play it as well as you read it, to what purpose, should I undertake it! And yet (continues the laureat) this very author, whose elocution raised such admiration in so capital an actor, when he attempted to he an actor himself, soon quitted the stage in an honest despair of ever making any profitable figure there.” Failing, therefore, in this design, he had recourse to his pen for support; and composed a tragedy, called “Nero Emperor of Rome,” in 1675; which being well received, he produced nine plays, besides two in conjunction with Dryden, between, that period and 1684, when his habits of dissipation, aided probably by a hereditary taint, brought on insanity, and in November he was taken into Bedlam, where he continued four years under care of the physicians. In April 1688, he was discharged, being so much recovered as to be able to return to his occupation of writing for the stage; and he produced two plays afterwards, “The Princess of Cleve,” in 1689, and The Massacre of Paris,“in 1690, but, notwithstanding the profits arising from these performances, he was this year reduced to so low an ebb, that a weekly stipend of ten shillings from the theatre royal was his chief dependence. Nor was he so free from his phrenzy as not to suffer some temporary relapses; and perhaps his untimely end might be occasioned by one. He died in 1691 or 1692, in consequence of a drunken frolic, by night, in the street; and was interred in the parish of Clement Danes, near Temple-Bar. He is the author of eleven plays, all acted with applause, and printed as soon as finished, with dedications of most of them to the earls of Dorset, Mulgrave, Pembroke, the duchesses of Portsmouth and Richmond, as his patrons. Addison declares, that among our modern English poets there was none better turned for tragedy than Lee, if, instead of favouring his impetuosity of genius, he had restrained and kept it within proper bounds. His thoughts are wonderfully suited to tragedy, but frequently lost in such a cloud of words, that it is hard to see the beauty of them. There is infinite fire in his works, but so involved in smoke, that it does not appear in half its lustre. He frequently succeeds in the passionate parts of the tragedy, but more particularly where he slackens his efforts, and eases the style of those epithets and metaphors with which he so much abounds. His” Rival Queens“and” Theodosius“still keep possession of the stage. None ever felt the passion of love pore truly; nor could any one describe it with more tenderness; and for this reason he has been compared to Ovid among the ancients, and to Otway among the moderns. Dryden prefixed a copy of commendatory verses to the” Rival Queens“and Lee joined with that laureat in writing the tragedies of” The duke of Guise“and” CEdipus.“Notwithstanding Lee’s imprudence and eccentricities, no man could be more respected by his contemporaries. In Spence’s” Anecdotes" we are told that ViU liers, duke of Buckingham, brought him up to town, where he never did any thing for him; and this is said to have contributed to bring on insanity.

, an English nonconformist divine, was the son of an eminent citizen of London, from whom he inherited some property, and was born in 1625. He was educated under Dr. Gale at St. Paul’s school, and afterwards entered a commoner of Magdalen-bail about the year 1647. The following year he was created M. A. by the parliamentary visitors, and was made fellow of Wadham college. In the latter end of 1650 he was elected by his society one of the proctors, although he was not of sufficient standing as master; but this the visitors, with whom he appears to have been a favourite, dispensed with. About that time he became a frequent preacher in or near Oxford, and was preferred by Cromwell to the living of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate- street, but ejected by the rump parliament. Afterwards he was chosen lecturer of Great St. Helen’s church in Bishopsgate-street According to Wood, he was not in possession of either of these preferments at the restoration, but Calamy says he was ejected from St. Botolph’s. His friend Dr. Wilkins, of Wadham college, afterwards bishop of Chester, urged him much to conform, but he was inflexible. He then lived for some time on an estate he had near Bisseter in Oxfordshire, and preached occasionally. About 1678 be removed to Newingtoii Green near London, where he was for many years minister of a congregation of independents. In 1686, being dissatisfied with the times, he went over to New England, and became pastor of a church at Bristol. The revolution in 1688 affording brighter prospects, he determined to revisit his own country, but in his passage home, with his family, the ship was captured by a French privateer, and carried into St. Malo, where he died a few weeks after, in Nov. 1691. His death is said to have been hastened by his losses in this capture, and especially by his being kept in confinement while his wife and children were permitted to go to England. He was at one time a great dabbler in astrology, but, disapproving of this study afterwards, he is said to have burnt many books and manuscripts which he had collected on that subject. It was probably when addicted to astrology, that he informed his wife of his having seen a star, which, according to all the rules of astrology, predicted that he should be taken captive. Mr. Lee’s other studies were more creditable. He was a very considerable scholar; understood the learned languages well, and spoke Latin fluently and eloquently. He was also a good antiquary. He wrote “Chronicon Castrense,” a chronology of all the rulers and governors of Cheshire and Chester, which is added to King’s “Vale Royal.” Wood suspects that he was of the family of Lee in Cheshire. His other works are: 1. “Orbis Miraculum; or the Temple of Solomon portrayed by Scripture light,” Lond. 1659, folio.

3. “Dissertation” on the probable conversion and restoration of the Jews, printed with Giles Fletcher’s “Israel Redux.” 4. “The Joy of Faith,” 1689, 8vo. He published also various sermons preached on public occasions, or prescribed subjects; and had a considerable hand in Helvicus’s “Theatrum Historicum,” the edition of 1662.

Leibnitz, charmed with this opportunity of shewing bit gratitude to so zealous a patron, set out for Paris in 1672. He also proposed several other advantages to himself in this tour, and his views were not disappointed. He saw all the literati in that metropolis, made an acquaintance with the greatest part of them, and, besides, applied himself with vigour to the mathematics, in which study he had not yet made any considerable progress. He tells us himself, that he owed his advancement in it principally to the works of Pascal, Gregory, St. Vincent, and above all, to the excellent treatise of Huygens “De Horologio oscillatorio.” In this course, having observed the imperfection of Pascal’s arithmetical machine, which, however, Pascal did not live to finish, he invented a new one, as he called it; the use of which he explained to Mr. Colbert, who was extremely pleased with it and, the invention being approved likewise by the Academy of sciences, he was offered a seat there as pensionary member. With sucli encouragement he might have settled very advantageously at Paris if he would have turned Roman catholic; but he chose to adhere to the Lutheran religion, in which he was born. In 1673, he lost his patron, M. de Boim-bourg; and, being at liberty by his death, took a tour to England, where he became acquainted with Oldenburg, the secretary, and John Collins, fellow of the royal society, from whom he received some hints of the invention of the method of fluxions, which had been discovered in 1664 or 1665, by Mr. (afterwards) sir Isaac Newton .

universal language. him by cardinal Casanata, while hf Leibnitz was in person of a middle stature, and of a thin habit. He had a studious air, and a sweet aspect, though short-sighted. He was indefatigably industrious, and so continued to the end of his life. He ate and drank little. Hunger alone marked the time of his meals, and his diet was plain and strong. He loved travelling, and different climates never affected his health. In order to impress upon his memory what he had a mind to remember, he wrote it down, and never read it afterwards. His temper was naturally choleric, but on most occasions he had th art to restrain it. As he had the honour of passing for one of the greatest men in Europe, he was sufficiency sensible of it. He was solicitous in procuring the favour of princes, which he turned to his own advantage, as well as to the service of learning. He was affable and polite in conversation, and averse to disputes. He was thought to love money, and is said to have left sixty thousand crowns, yet no more than fifteen or twenty thousand out at interest; the rest being found in crown-pieces and other specie, hoarded in corn-sacks. He always professed himself a Lutheran, but never joined in public worship; and in his last sickness, being desired by his coachman, who was his favourite servant, to send for a minister, he would not hear of it, saying he had no occasion for one. He was never married, and never attempted it but once, when he was about fifty years old; and the lady desiring time to consider of it, gave him an opportunity of doing the same; which produced this conclusion, “that marriage was a good thing, but a wise man ought to consider of it all his life.” Mr. Lcefler, son of his sister, was his sole heir, whose wife died suddenly with joy at the sight of so much money left them by their uncle. It is said he had a natural son in his youth, who afterwards lived with him, was serviceable to him in many ways, and had a considerable share in his confidence. He went by the name of William Dinninger, and extremely resembledhis father.

"He left behind him twelve or thirteen thousand crowns in specie, and a bag full of gold medals. Among his papers was found a manuscript on the Cartesian method, which has not yet appeared; a political tract of Bud, the letters of pope Sylvester II. and Spinoza’s letters. His own manuscripts were in great disorder. There were found many papers filled with his thoughts, and with ban mots either his own, or collected by him. Leibnitz had passed part of his life with almost all the sovereigns of Europe, and expressed himself with much spirit and elegance. He left behind him poems, epigrams, and loveletters. He was connected with the learned of all countries; and carefully preserved all the letters he wrote and received. M. Eckard says, there were found in his letters the history of the inventions, discoveries, and literary disputes during the space of forty years. He applied himself to every thing; having left behind him a book of etymologies in the German language, and he laboured at an universal language to the time of his death. He loved chemistry; and to acquire the secrets of that art, he contrived a language chiefly composed of foreign words, which procured him the acquaintance of several chemists.

As Leibnitz was long the successful teacher of a new system of philosophy, it may be now necessary to give some account of it, which was formed partly in emendation of the Cartesian, and partly in opposition to the Newtonian philosophy. In this philosophy, the author retained the Cartesian subtile matter, with the vortices and universal plenum; and he represented the universe as a machine that should proceed for ever, by the laws of mechanism, in the most perfect state, by an absolute inviolable necessity. After Newton’s philosophy was published, in 1687, Leibnitz printed an essay on the celestial motions in the Act. Erud. 1689, where he admits the circulation of the ether with Des Cartes, and of gravity with Newton; though he has not reconciled these principles, nor shewn how gravity arose from the impulse of this ether, nor how to account for the planetary revolutions in their respective orbits. His system is also defective, as it does not reconcile the circulation of the ether with the free motions of the comets irt all directions, or with the obliquity of the planes of the planetary orbits; nor does it resolve other objections to which the hypothesis of the vortices and plenum is liable.

Soon after the period just mentioned, the dispute commenced concerning the invention of the method of fluxions, which led Mr. Leibnitz to take a very decided part in opposition to the philosophy of Newton. From the goodness and wisdom of the Deity, and his principle of a sufficient reason, he concluded, that the universe was a perfect work, or the best that could possibly have been made; and that other things, which are evil or incommodious, were permitted as necessary consequences of what was best: that the material system, considered as a perfect machine, can never fall into disorder, or require to be set right; and to suppose that God interposes in it, is to lessen the skill of the author, and the perfection of his work. He expressly charges an impious tendency on the philosophy of Newton, because he asserts, that the fabric of the universe and course of nature could not continue for ever in its present state, but in process of time would require to be re-established or renewed by the hand of its first framer. The perfection of the universe, in consequence of which it is capable of continuing for ever by mechanical laws in its present state, led Mr. Leibnitz to distinguish between the quantity of motion and the force of bodies; and, whilst he owns in opposition to Des Cartes, that the former varies, to maintain that the quantity of force is for ever the same in the universe; and to measure the forces of bodies by the squares of their velocities.

Mr. Leibnitz proposes two principles as the foundation of all our knowledge; the first, that it is impossible for a thing to be, and not to be, at the same time, which, he says is the foundation of speculative truth; and secondly, that nothing is without a sufficient reason why it should be so, rather than otherwise; and by this principle he says we make a transition from abstracted truths to natural philosophy. Hence he concludes that the mind is naturally determined, in its volitions and elections, by the greatest apparent good, and that it is impossible to make a choice between things perfectly like, which he calls indiscernilles; from whence he infers, that two things perfectly like could not have been produced even by the Deity himself: and one reason why he rejects a vacuum, is because the parts of it must be supposed perfectly like to each other. For the same reason too, he rejects atoms, and all similar parts of matter, to each of which, though divisible ad iiifinitum, he ascribes a monad, or active kind of principle, endued with perception and appetite. The essence of substance he places in action or activity, or, as he expresses it, in something that is between acting and the faculty of acting. He affirms that absolute rest is impossible, and holds that motion, or a sort of nisus, is essential to all material substances. Each monad he describes as representative of the whole universe from its point of sight; and yet he tells us, in one of his letters, that matter is not a substance, but a substantial urn, or phenomene bienfondc. From this metaphysical theory, which must be confessed too hypothetical to afford satisfaction, Leibnitz deduced many dogmas respecting the divine nature and operations, the nature of human actions, good and evil, natural and moral, and other subjects which he treats with great subtlety, and in a connected train of reasoning.

Gibbon has drawn the character of Leibnitz with great force and precision, as a man whose genius and studies have ranked his name with the first philosophic names of his age and country; but he thinks his reputation, perhaps, would have been more pure and permanent, if he had not ambitiously grasped the whole circle of human science. As a theologian, says Gibbon (who is not, perhaps, the most impartial judge of this subject), he successively contended with the sceptics, who believe too little, and with the papists who believe too much; and with the heretics, who believe otherwise than is inculcated by the Lutheran confession of Augsburgh. Yet the philosopher betrayed his love of union and toleration* his faith in revelation was accused, while he proved the Trinity by the principles of logic; and in the defence of the attributes and providence of the Deity, he was suspected of a secret correspondence with his adversary Bayle. The metaphysician expatiated in the fields of air; his pre-established harmony of the soul and body might have provoked the jealousy of Plato; and his optimism, the best of all possible worlds, seems an idea too vast for a mortal mind. He was a physician, in the large and genuine sense of the word like his brethren, he amused him with creating a globe and his Protogæa, or primitive earth, has not been useless to the last hypothesis of Buffon, which prefers the agency of fire to that of water. “I am not worthy,” adds Gibbon, “to praise the mathematician; but his name is mingled in all the problems and discoveries of the times; the masters of the art were his rivals or disciples; and if he borrowed from sir Isaac Newton, the sublime method of fluxions, Leibnitz was at least the Prometheus who imparted to mankind the sacred fire which he had stolen from the gods. His curiosity extended to every branch of chemistry, mechanics, and the arts; and the thirst of knowledge was always accompanied with the spirit of improvement. The vigour of his youth had been exercised in the schools of jurisprudence; and while he taught, he aspired to reform the laws of nature and nations, of Rome and Germany. The annals of Brunswick, and of the empire, of the ancient and modern world, were presented to the mind of the historian; and he could turn from the solution of a problem, to the dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the middle age. His genius was more nobly directed to investigate the origin of languages and nations; nor could he assume the character of a grammarian, without forming the project of an universal idiom and alphabet. These various studies were often interrupted by the occasional politics of the times; and his pen was always ready in the cause of the princes and patrons to whose service he was attached; many hours were consumed in a learned correspondence with all Europe; and the philosopher amused his leisure in the composition of French and Latin poetry. Such an example may display the exte^nt and powers of the human understanding, but even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could finish; he designed more than he could execute: his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject, which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes, whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”

, a learned theological writer of the seventeenth century, the son of Henry Leigh, esq. was born at Shawell in Leicestershire, March 24, 1602-3. He had his grammatical learning under a Mr. Lee of Waishall in Staffordshire; and when removed td Oxford, became a commoner of Magdalen-hall, in 1616, under Mr. William Pemble, a very celebrated tutor of that society. After completing his degrees in arts in 1623, he removed to the Middle Temple for the study of the law. During the violence of the plague in 1625, he took that opportunity to visit France; and on his return to the Temple, added to his law studies those of divinity and history, in both which he attained a great stock of knowledge. He was in fact a sort of lay divine, and superior to many of the profession. About 1636, we find him representing the borough of Stafford in parliament, when some of the members of that, which was called the Long parliament, had withdrawn to the king at Oxford. Mr. Leigh’s sentiments inclining him to remain and to support the measures of the party in opposition to the court, he was afterwards appointed to a seat in the assembly of divines, and certainly sat with no little propriety in one respect, being as ably skilled in matters of divinity and ecclesiastical history as most of them. He was also a colonel of a regiment in the parliamentary service, and custos rotulorum for the county of Stafford. He was not, however, prepared to approve of all the proceedings of the parliament and army; and having, in Dec. 1648, voted that his majesty’s concessions were satisfactory, he and some others, who held the same opinion, were turned out of parliament. From that time he appears to have retired from public life, and to have employed his time in study. He died June 2, 1671, at Rushall Hall in Staffordshire, and was buried in the chancel of that church. His works, which afford abundant proofs of his learning and industry, are, 1. “Select and choice Observations concerning the first twelve Cssars,” Oxon, 1635, 8vo. Additions were made to this work both by himself and his son Henry, who published an enlarged edition in 1657, 8vo, with the title of “Analecta Ccesarum Romanorum.” Two other editions, with farther improvements and plates of coins, &c. appeared in 1664 and 1670, 8vo. 2. “Treatise of Divine promises,” Lond. 1633, often reprinted, and was the model of Clarke’s “Scripture Promises,” and other collections of the same kind. 3. “Critica Sacra, or the Hebrew words of the Old, and of the Greek of the New Testament,” Lond. 1639, and 1646, 4to, afterwards enlarged with a supplement, to 2 vols. folio. This was one of the books on which the late learned Mr. Bowyer bestowed great pains, and had filled it with critical notes. 4. “A Treatise of Divinity,” ibid. 1648, 1651, 8vo. 5. “The Saint’s encouragement in evil times or observations concerning the martyrs in general,” ibid. 1648, 8vo. 6. “Annotations on all the New Testament,” ibid. 1650, folio. 7. “A philological Commentary; or, an illustration of the most obvious and useful words in the Law, &c.” ibid. 1652, &c. 8. “A System or Body of Divinity,” 1654, and 1662, folio. 9. “Treatise of Religion and Learning,” ibid. 1656, folio, which not succeeding, was republished in 1663, with only the new title of “Fcelix consortium, or a fit conjuncture of Religion and Learning.” H). “Choice French Proverbs,” ibid. 1657, 1664, 8vo. 11. “Annotations on the five poetical books of the Old Testament, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,” ibid. 1657, folio. 12. “Second considerations of the high court of Chancery,” 1658, 4to. 13. “England described,” 1659, 8vo, mostly from Caraden*. 14. “Choice observations on all the kings of England, from the Saxons to the death of Charles I.” 1661, 8vo. 15. “Three Diatribes, or Discourses, of travel, money, and measuring, &c.” 1671, 8vo; in another edition it is called the “Gentleman’s Guide.” 16. “Two Sermons,” on the magistrate’s authority, by Christ. Cartwright, B. D. To these sir Edward prefixed a preface in vindication of his own character for appearing in the assembly of divines. This gentleman is by some writers called Sir Edward Leigh, but not so by Wood, nor can we find any information respecting his being knighted. In all his works, that we have seen, he is styled Edward Leigh, Esq.

, a Scotch divine, was born at Edinburgh, in 1568, and educated in the university of that city, under the direction of the pious and learned Mr. Rollock. In 1603 he took the degree of M. A. and was appointed professor of moral philosophy in his own college, a place which he enjoyed till the laureation of his class, in 1613. At that time he came to London, and procured a lectureship, which he enjoyed till 1629, when he wrote two books, the one entitled “Zion’s Plea,” and the other, “The Looking-glass of the Holy War.” In the former of these books, he spoke not only with freedom, but with rudeness and indecency against bishops, calling them “men of blood,” and saying that we do not read of a greater persecution and higher indignities done towards God’s people in any nation than in this, since the death of queen Elizabeth. He called the prelacy of the church anti-christian, and declaimed vehemently against the canons and ceremonies. He styled the queen a daughter of Heth, and concluded with expressing his pity that so ingenuous and tractable a king should be so monstrously abused by the bishops, to the undoing of himself and his subjects. This brought him under the vengeance of the star-chamber, and a more cruel sentence was probably never pronounced or executed. After receiving sentence, he made his escape, but was soon re-taken and brought back to London. Historians have recorded the manner of his shocking punishment in these words: “He was severely whipped before he was put in the pillory. 2. Being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off. 3. One side of his nose slit. 4. Branded on the cheek with a red hot iron with the letters S S (a sower of sedition). On that day seven-night, his sores upon his back, ear, nose, and face, being not yet cured, he was whipped again at the pillory in Cheapside, and had the remainder of his sentence executed upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of his nose, and branding the other cheek.” This happened in 1630. Granger has recovered a memoir of him by which it appears that he practised as a physician in the reign of James I. and that he was interdicted the practice of physic by the college of physicians, as a disqualified person. He alleclged in bar to this prohibition, that he had taken his doctor’s degree at Leyden, under professor Heurnius. It was then objected to him, that he had taken priest’s orders, and being asked why he did not adhere to the profession to which he had been ordained, he excepted against the ceremonies, but owned himself to be a clergyman. Still persisting to practise in London, or within seven miles of that city, he was censured “tanquam infamis” he having before been sentenced in the star-chamber to lose his ears. But in this account: there is some inaccuracy. He did not lose his ears until 1630, and then underwent his long imprisonment.

, sometime bishop of Dunblane, and afterwards archbishop of Glasgow, son to the preceding, was born at London in 1613, but educated at the university of Edinburgh, where his talents were not more conspicuous than his piety and humble temper. He afterwards spent some time in France, particularly at Doway, where some of his relations lived. Our accounts, however, of his early years, are very imperfect. All we know with certainty of the period before us is, that when he had reached his thirtieth year, in 1643, he was settled in Scotland, according to the presbyterian form, as minister of the parish of Newbottle, near Edinburgh. Here he remained several years, and was most assiduous in discharging the various duties of his office. He did not, however, conceive it to be any part of that office to add to the distractions of that unhappy period, by making the pulpit the vehicle of political opinions. His object was to exhort his parishioners to live in charity, and not to trouble themselves with religious and political disputes. But such was not the common practice; and it being the custom of the presbytery to inquire of the several brethren, twice a year, “whether they had preached to the times?” “For God’s sake,” answered Leighton, “when all my brethren preach to the times, suffer one poor priest to preach about eternity.” Such moderation could not fail to give offence; and finding his labours of no service, he retired to a life of privacy. His mind was not, however, indifferent to what was passing in the political world, and he was one of those who dreaded the downfall of the monarchy, and the subsequent evils of a republican tyranny, and having probably declared his sentiments on these subjects, he was solicited by his friends, and particularly by his brother, sir Elisha Leighton, to change his connexions. For this he was denounced by the presbycerians as an apostate, and welcomed by the episcopalians as a convert. In his first outset, however, it is denied that he was a thorough presbyterian, or in his second, entirely an episcopalian; and it is certain that his becoming the latter could not bo imputed to motives of ambition or interest, for episcopacy was at this time the profession of the minority, and extremely unpopular. His design, however, of retiring to a life of privacy, was prevented by a circumstance which proved the high opinion entertained of his integrity, learn ing, and piety. The office of principal in the university of Edinburgh becoming vacant soon after Leighton’s resignation of his ministerial charge, the magistrates, who had the gift of presentation, unanimously chose him to fill the chair, and pressed his acceptance of it by urging that he might thereby be of great service to the church, without taking any part in public measures. Such a motive to a man of his moderation, was irresistible; and accordingly he accepted the offer, and executed the duties of his office for ten years with great reputation. It was the custom then for the principal to lecture to the students of theology in the Latin tongue; and Leighton’s lectures delivered at this period, which are extant both in Latin and English, are very striking proofs of the ability and assiduity with which he discharged this part of his duty.

It may seem strange that Leighton, who was so disgusted with the proceedings of his brethren as now to think it a misfortune to belong to the order, and who had so earnestly tendered his resignation, should at no great distance of time (in 1670) be persuaded to remove from his sequestered diocese of Dunblane, to the more important province of Glasgow. This, however, may be accounted for to his honour, and not to the discredit of the court which urged him to accept the archbishopric. The motive of the king and his ministers was, that Leighton was the only man qualified to allay the discontents which prevailed in the west of Scotland; and Leighton now thought he might have an opportunity to bring forward a scheme of accommodation between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, which had been for years the object of his study, and the of his heart. The king had examined this scheme, and promised his aid. It had all the features of moderation; and if moderation had been the characteristic of either party, might have been successful. Leighton wished that each party, for the sake of peace, should abate somewhat of its opinions, as to the mode of church-government and worship; that the power of the bishops should be reduced considerably, and that few of the ceremonies of public worship should be retained; that the bishop should only be perpetual moderator, or president in clerical asemblies; and should have no negative voice; and that every question should be determined by the majority of presbyters. Both parties, however, were too much exasperated, and too jealous of each other to yield a single point, and the scheme came to nothing, for which various reasons may be seen in the history of the times. The only circumstance not so well accounted for, is that Charles II. and his ministers should still persist in retaining a man in the high office of bishop, whose plans they disliked, and who formed a striking contrast to his brethren whom they supported.

Archbishop Leighton is celebrated by all who have written his life, or incidentally noticed him, as a striking example of unfeigned piety, extensive learning, and unbounded liberality. Every period of his life was marked with substantial, prudent, unostentatious charity; and that be might be enabled to employ his wealth in this way, he practised the arts of frugality in his own concerns. He enjoyed some property from his futher, but his income as bishop of Dunblane was only 200l., and as archbishop of Glasgow about 400l.; yet, besides his gifts of charity during his life, he founded an exhibition in the college of Edinburgh at the expence of 150l. and three more in the college of Glasgow, at the expence of 400l. and gave 300l. for the maintenance of four paupers in St. Nicholas’s hospital. He also bequeathed at last the whole of his remaining property to charitable purposes. His library and Mss. he left to the see of Dunblane. His love for retirement we have often mentioned; he carried it perhaps to an excess, and it certainly unfitted him for the more active duties of his high station. Although a prelate, he nnver seemed to have considered himself as more than a parish priest, and his diocese a large parish. He was not made for the times in which he lived, as a public character. They were too violent for his gentle spirit, and impressed him with a melancholy that checked the natural cheerfulness of his temper and conversation* As a preacher, he was admired beyond all his contemporaries, and his works have not yet lost their popularity. Some of them, as his “Commentary on St. Peter,” have been often reprinted, but the most complete edition, including many pieces never before published, is that which appeared in 1808, in 6 vols. 8vo, with a life of the author by the Rev. G. Jerment. Of this last we have availed ourselves in the preceding sketch, but must refer to it for a more ample account of the character and actions of this revered prelate.

, an eminent English antiquary, was born in London, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, but in what parish or year is uncertain. He was bred at St. Paul’s school, under the famous William Lilly. Having lost both his parents in his infancy, he found a foster-father in one Mr. Thomas Myles, who both maintained him at school, and sent him thence to Christ’s college, in Cambridge. Of this society, it is said, he became fellow; yet, it is certain that he afterwards removed to Oxford, and spent several years in All Souls college, where he prosecuted his studies with great assiduity, not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in the Saxon and Welch, the ancient languages of his country. For farther improvement he travelled to Paris, where he had the conversation and instruction of Budaeus, Faber, Paulus yEmilius, Ruellius, and Francis Sylvius; by whose assistance he not only perfected himself in the Latin and Greek tongues, but learned French, Italian, and Spanish. He also improved hia natural diposition to poetry, On his return home he entered into holy orders, and being esteemed an accomplished scholar, king Henry VIII. made him one of his chaplains, gave him the rectory of Popeling, Popering, or Pepling, in the marches of Calais, appointed him his library- keeper, and by a commission dated 1533, dignified him with the title of his antiquary. By this commission his majesty laid his commands on him to make search after “England’s antiquities, and peruse the libraries of all cathedrals, abbies, priories, colleges, &c. and places where records, writings, and secrets of antiquity were reposited.” For this purpose he had an honourable stipend allotted him, and obtained, in 1536, a dispensation for non-residence upon his living at Popeling. Being now at full liberty, he spent above six years in travelling about England and Wales, and collecting materials for the history and antiquities of the nation. He entered upon his journey with the greatest eagerness; and, in the execution of his design was so inquisitive, that, not content with what the libraries of the respective houses afforded, nor with what was recorded in the windows and other monuments belonging to cathedrals and monasteries, &c. he wandered from place to place where he thought there were any footsteps of Roman, Saxon, or Danish buildings, and took particular notice of all the tumuli, coins, inscriptions, &c. In short, he travelled every where, both by the seacoasts and the midland parts, sparing neither pains nor cost; insomuch that there was scarcely either cape or bay, haven, creek, or pier, river, or confluence of rivers, breaches, washes, lakes, meres, fenny waters, mountains, valleys, moors, heaths, forests, chaces, woods, cities, boroughs, castles, principal manor- places, monasteries, and colleges, which he had not seen, and noted, as he says, a whole world of things very memorable.

of places in Britain with the antiqui- in three books, ties or civil history of it in as many know his history, that he was a man entirely abstracted from the world, pecuniary considerations could scarce be the object of his views. However, to whatever primary or secondary cause ins disorder may be assigned, he fell into a deep melancholy, and, in a short time alter, was totally deprived of his senses.

, an eminent writer in defence of Christianity, was born at Wigan, in Lancashire, Oct. 18, 1691. Soon after, his father, who had lived in good repute for many years, being involved in pecuniary difficulties, gave up his effects to his creditors, and removed to Dublin. Finding here an opportunity for settling in business, he sent over for his wife and family of three sons, and was enabled to support them in a decent manner. John, the subject of this memoir, was his second son, and when in his sixth year, which was before they left England, as our account states, he met with a singular misfortune. He was seized with the small pox, which proved of so malignant a kind that his life was despaired of; and when, contrary to all expectation, he recovered, he was found to be deprived of his understanding and memory, which last retained no traces of what he had been taught. In this state he remained a year, when his faculties returned; but having still no remembrance of the past, he began anew to learn his letters, and in this his second education, made so quick a progress, and gave such proofs of superior memory and understanding, that his parents resolved to breed him up to one of the learned professions. In this, from their situation in life, they probably had not much choice, from the great expenses necessary to law or physic; and this, with their religious principles, induced them to decide in favour of divinity. He was therefore educated for the ministry among the dissenters; and having first exhibited his talents to advantage in a congregation of dissenters in New- row, Dublin, was, in a few months, invited to become joint-pastor with the Rev. Mr. Weld, to which office he was ordained in 1716. As he entered upon this station from the best and purest motives, he discharged the duties of it with the utmost fidelity; and, by indefatigable application to his studies, he made at the same time such improvements in every branch of useful knowledge, that he soon acquired a distinguished reputation in the learned world. In 1730 Tindal published his “Christianity as old as the Creation,” and although several excellent answers appeared to that impious work, Mr. Leland was of opinion that much remained to be said, in order to expose its fallacious reasonings and inconsistencies. Accordingly he first appeared as an author in 1733, by publishing “An Answer to a late book entitled ‘ Christianity as old as the Creation, &c.’” in 2 vols. In 1737 he embarked in a controversy with another of the same class of writers, Dr. Morgan, by publishing “The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament asserted against the unjust aspersions and false reasonings of a Book entitled * The Moral Philosopher.'” The learning and abilities displayed by Mr. Leland in these publications, and the service which he rendered by them to the Christian cause, procured him many marks of respect and esteem from persons of the highest rank in the established church, as well as from the most eminent of his dissenting brethren; and from the university of Aberdeen he received, in the most honourable manner, the degree of D. D. In 1742 Dr. Leland published an answer to a pamphlet entitled “Christianity not founded on Argument;” and in 1753 he distinguished himself still further as an advocate in behalf of Christianity, by publishing “Reflections on the late lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the study and use of History; especially so far as they relate to Christianity and the Holy Scriptures.” It is said to have been with some reluctance that he was persuaded to exert himself upon this occasion; for although, as he himself observes, no man needs make an apology for using his best endeavours in defence of Christianity when it is openly attacked, yet he was apprehensive that his engaging again in this cause, after having done so on some former occasions, might have an appearance of too much forwardness. But these apprehensions gave way to the judgment and advice of his friend, the late Dr. Thomas Wilson, rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook; and in complying with his recommendation, he performed an acceptable service to the Christian world, and added not a little to the reputation he had already acquired.

, a learned uivine and translator, the son of a citizen of Dublin, was born in that city in 1722. The first rudiments of classical education he received at the seuool kept by the celebrated Dr. Sheridan, whose talents and success in forming excellent scholars, were then well known. In 17^7 he entered a pensioner in Trinity college; and in 1741 was elected a scholar commenced bachelor of arts in 1742, and was a candidate for a fellowship in 1745, in which he failed at this time, but succeeded the following year by the unanimous voice of the electors, On bein^ thus placed in a state of independence, he did not resign himself to ease and indolence, but was conspicuous for the same ardent love of knowledge which appeared in the commencement of his studies, and was predominant throughout his whole life. In 1748 he entered into holy orders, and from a deep sense of the importance of his profession, drew up a discourse “On the helps and impediments to the acquisition of knowledge in religious and moral subjects,” wtiich was much admired at that time, but no copy is now to be found In 1754, in conjunction with Dr. John Stokes, he published, at the desire of the university, an edition of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” with a Latin version and notes, which we do not find mentioned by any of our classical bibliographers, except Harwood, who says it is in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1760 Dr. Leiand published the first volume of his English “Translation of Demosthenes,” 4to, with notes critical and historical; the second volume of which appeared in 1761, and the third in 1770. This raised his reputation very high as a classical scholar and critic, and public expectation was farther gratified in 1758 by his “History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon, the father of Alexander,” 2 vols. 4to. His attention to the orations of Demosthenes and Æschmes, and to Grecian politics, eminently qualified him for treating the life of Philip with copiousness and accuracy. After this he proceeded with translations of Æschines, and the other orations of Demosthenes. In 1762, he is supposed to have written, although he never formally avowed it, the ingenious historical romance of “Longsword, earl or Salisbury.”

, a most capital painter of the reign of Charles II. was born at Soest, in Westphalia, in 1617. His family name was Vander Vaas; but from the circumstance of his father, who was a captain of foot, being born in a perfumer’s shop, whose sign was a lily, and receiving the appellation of captain Du Lys, or Lely, our artist obtained it as a proper name. He was first instructed in the art by Peter Grebber, at Haerlem; and having acquired a very considerable degree of skill in execution, he came to England in 1641, and commenced portrait-painter. After the restoration he was appointed state-painter to Charles II. and continued to hold that office with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1680. He was seized by an apoplexy while painting a portrait of the duchess of Somerset, and died instantly, at the age of sixty-three.

In 1672, having made the tour of France, he returned to Paris, where he commenced an acquaintance with Mr. Marty n, apothecary to monsieur the prince; and making use of the laboratory which this apothecary had in the hotel de Conde, he performed several courses of chemistry, which brought him into the knowledge and esteem of the prince. At length he provided himself with a laboratory of his own, and might have been made a doctor of physic, but his attachment to chemistry induced him to remain an apothecary, and his lectures were frequented by so great a number of scholars, that he had scarce room to perform his operations. Chemistry was then coming into great vogue in that metropolis; and Lemery contributed greatly to its advancement, by treating it in a simple and perspicuous manner, divesting it of the jargon of mysticism in which it had been hitherto obscured, and, by the dexterity of his experiments, exhibiting the facts which it discloses to the comprehension of every understanding. By these means he established such a character for superior chemical skill, as enabled him to make a fortune by the sale of his preparations, which were in great request both in Paris and the provinces. One article in particular was the source of great profit, namely, the oxyd, or, as it was then called, the magistery of bismuth, and known as a cosmetic by the name of Spanish white, which no other person in Paris knew how to prepare. In 1675 he published his “Coura de Chymie,” which was received with general approbation and applause, and passed through numerous editions: indeed seldom has a work on a subject of science been so popular. It sold, says Fontenelle, like a novel or a satire; netf editions followed year after year; and it was translated into Latin, and into various modern languages. Its chief value consisted in the clearness and accuracy with which the processes and operations were detailed: the science was not yet sufficiently advanced for a rational theory of them. Indeed he seems to have worked rather with the view of directing apothecaries how to multiply their preparations, than as a philosophical chemist; and his materials are not arranged in the most favourable manner for the instruction of beginners "in the science. Nor did he divulge the whole of his pharmaceutical knowledge in this treatise; he kept the preparation of several of his chemical remedies secret, in order to obtain the greater profit by their sale.

, a learned French writer in the eighteenth century, was born at Bazoches, in Beausse, April 13, 1661. He was son of Paul Lenfant, minister at Chatillon, who died at Marbourg, in June 1686. He studied divinity at Saumur, where he lodged at the house of James Cappel, professor of Hebrew, by whom he was always highly esteemed; and afterwards went to Geneva, to continue his studies there. Leaving Geneva towards the end of 1683, he went to Heidelberg, where he was ordained in August, 1684. He discharged the duties of his function there with great reputation as chaplain of the electress dowager of Palatine, and pastor in ordinary to the French church. The descent of the French into the Palatinate, however, obliged him to depart from Heidelberg in 1688. Two letters which he had written against the Jesuits, and which are jnserted at the end of his “Preservatif,” ren r dered it somewhat hazardous to continue at the mercy of a society whose power was then in its plenitude. He left the Palatinate, therefore, in October 1688, with the consent of his church and superiors, and arrived at Berlin in November following. Though the French church of Berlin had already a sufficient number of ministers, the elector Frederic, afterwards king of Prussia, appointed Mr. Lenfant one of them, who began his functions on Easter-day, March the 21st, 1689, and continued them thirty-nine years and four months, and during this time added greatly to his reputation by his writings. His merit was so fully acknowledged, as to be rewarded with every mark of distinction suitable to his profession. He was preacher to the queen of Prussia, Charlotta-Sophia, who was eminent for her sense and extensive knowledge, and after her death he became chaplain to the king of Prussia. He was counsellor of the superior consistory, and member of the French council, which were formed to direct the general affairs of that nation. In 1710 he was chosen a member of the society for propagating the gospel established in England; and March the 2d, 1724, was elected member of the academy of sciences at Berlin. In 1707 he took a journey to Holland and England, where he had the honour to preach before queen Anne; and if he had thought proper to leave his church at Berlin, for which he had a great respect, he might have had a settlement at London, with the rank of chaplain to her majesty. In 1712, he went to Helmstad; in 1715 to Leipsic; and in 1725, to Breslaw, to search for rare books and manuscripts necessary for the histories which he was writing. In those excursions he was honoured with several valuable materials from the electress of Brunswic-Lunebourg, princess Palatine; the princess of Wales, afterwards Caroline queen of Great Britain; the count de Fleming; mons. Daguesseau, chancellor of France; and a great number of learned men, both protestants and papists, among the latter of whom was the abbé Bignon. It is not certain whether he first formed thedesign of the “Bibliotheque Germanique,” which began in 1720; or whether it was suggested to him by one of the society of learned men, which took the name of Anonymous; but they ordinarily met at his house, and he was a frequent contributor to that journal. When the king of Poland was at Berlin, in the end of May and beginning of June 1728, Mr. Lenfant, we are told, dreamt that he was ordered to preach. He excused himself that he was not prepared; and not knowing what subject he should pitch upon, was directed to preach upon these words, Isaiah XxxtiiL 1. “Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die, and not live.” He related this dream to some of his friends, and although not a credulous man, it is thought to have made some impression on him, for he applied with additional vigour to finish his “History of the War of the Hussites and the Council of Basil.” On Sunday July the 25tn following, he had preached in his turn at his church; but on Thursday, July the 29th, he had a slight attack of the palsy, which was followed by one more violent, of which he died on the 7th of the next month, in his sixtyeighthyear. He was interred at Berlin, at the foot of the pulpit of the French church, where he ordinarily preached since 1715, when his Prussian majesty appointed particular ministers to every church, which before were served by the same ministers in their turns. His stature was a little below the common height. His eye was very lively anil penetrating. He did not talk much, but always well. Whenever any dispute arose in conversation, he spoke without any heat; a proper and delicate irony was the only weapon he made use of on such occasions. He loved company, and passed but few days without seeing some of his friends. He was a sincere friend, and remarkable for a disinterested and generous disposition. In preaching, his voice was good; his pronunciation distinct and varied; his style clear, grave, and elegant without affectation; and he entered into the true sense of a text with great force. His publications were numerous in divinity, ecclesiastical history, criticism, and polite literature. Those which are held in the highest estimation, are his Histories of the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, each in 2 vols. 4to. These are written with great ability and impartiality, and they abound with interesting facts and curious researches. Lenfant, in conjunction with M. Beausobre, published “The New Testament, translated from the original Greek into French,” in 2 vols. 4to, with notes, and a general preface, or introduction to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, useful for students in divinity. He is known also by his “De iuquirenda Veritate,” which is a translation of Malebranche’s “Search after Truth” “The History of Pope Joan” “Poggiana or, the life, character,- opinions, c. of Poggio the Florentine, with the History of the Republic of Florence,” and the abovementioned “History of the Wars of the Hussites,” Utrecht, 1731, 2 vols. in 4to, dedicated by his widow to the prince royal of Prussia. This was the last work in which our author was engaged. He had revised the copy of the first volume, and was reading over that of the second, when he was seized with the apoplexy. But for this it appears to have been his intention to continue his History to about 1460. To this History is added monsieur Beausobre’s “Dissertation upon the Adamites of Bohemia.”

, a voluminous French writer, was born October 5, 1674, at Beauvais. He entered the Sorbonne, as a student, under M. Pirot, a celebrated doctor of that house; but, being convicted of having privately obtained from this gentleman’s bureau, some papers relative to what was then transacting in the Sorbonne, respecting Maria d'Agreda’s “Mystical city of God,” and having published, 1696, a “Letter addressed to Messieurs the Syndics and doctors in divinity of the faculty of Paris,” concerning this censure, M. Pirot expelled him. Lenglet then went to the seminary of St. Magloire, entered into sacred orders, and took his licentiate’s degree, 1703. He was sent to Lisle, 1705, by M. Torcey, minister for foreign affairs, as first secretary for the Latin and French languages, and with a charge to watch that the elector of Cologn’s ministers, who were then at Lisle, might do nothing against the king’s interest; and was also entrusted by the elector with the foreign correspondence of Brussels and Holland. When Lisle was taken in 1708, Lenglet obtained a safeguard for the elector of Cologn’s furniture and property from prince Eugene. Having made himself known to that prince through M. Hoendorf, he desired the latter to tell his highness, that he would give up the memoirs of the Intendants for fifty pistoles, which the prince sent him; but be wrote to M. Hoendorf eight days after, to say that the papers had been seized at his house by the minister’s order, and kept the money. He discovered a conspiracy formed by a captain at the gates of Mons, who had promised not only to deliver up that city, but also the electors of Cologn and Bavaria, who had retired thither, for a hundred thousand piastres. Lenglet was arrested at the Hague fur his “Memoirs sur la Collation des Canonicats de Tournay,” which he had published there, to exclude the disciples of Jansenius from this collation; but he obtained his liberty six weeks after, at prince Eugene’s solicitation. After his return to France, the prince de Cellemare’s conspiracy, which cardinal Albtjroni had planned, being discovered in Dec. 1718, he was chosen to find out the number and designs of the conspirators, which he did, after receiving a promise that none of those so discovered should be sentenced to death; this promise the court kept, and gave Lenglet a pension. In 1721, he went to Vienna, pretending to solicit the removal of M. Ernest, whom the Dutch had made dean of Tournay; but having no orders from France for the journey, was arrested at Strasburgh on his return, and confined six months in prison. This disgrace the abbé Lenglet attributed to the celebrated Rousseau, whom he had seen at Vienna, and from whom he had received every possible service in that city; and thence originated his aversion to him, and the satire which he wrote against him, under the title of “Eloge historique de Rousseau, par Brossette,” which that friend of Rousseau’s disavowed, and the latter found means to have suppressed in Holland, where it had been printed, in 1731. Lenglet refused to attach himself to cardinal Passionei, who wished to have him at Rome, and, indeed, he was so far from deriving any advantage from the favourable circumstances he found himself in, or from the powerful patrons which he had acquired by his talents and services, that his life was one continued series of adventures and misfortunes. His passion was to write, think, act, and live, with a kind of cynical freedom; and though badly lodged, clothed, and fed, he was still satisfied, while at liberty to say and write what he pleased; which liberty, however, he carried to so great an extreme, and so strangely abused, that he was sent to the bastille ten or twelve times. Lenglet bore all this without murmuring, and no sooner found himself out of prison, than he laboured to deserve a fresh confinement. The bastille was become so familiar to him, that when Tapin (one of the life guards) who usually conducted him thither, entered his chamber, he did not wait to hear his commission, but began himself by saying, “Ah M. Tapin, good morning” then turning to the woman who waited upon him, cried, “Bring my little bundle of linen and snuff directly,” and followed M. Tapin with the utmost cheerfulness. This spirit of freedom and independence, and this rage for writing, never left him; he chose rather to work and live alone in a kind of garret, than reside with a rich sister, who was fond of him, and offered him a convenient apartment at her house in Paris, with the use of her table and servants. Lenglet would have enjoyed greater plenty in this situation, but every thing would have fatigued him, and he would have thought regularity in meals quite a slavery. Some have supposed that he studied chymistry, and endeavoured to discover the philosopher’s stone, to which operations he desired no witnesses. He owed his death to a melancholy accident; for going home about six in the evening, Jan. 15, 1755, after having dined with his sister, he fell asleep, while reading a new book which had been sent him, and fell into the tire. The neighbours went to his assistance, but too late, his head being almost entirely burnt. He had attained the age of eighty-two. The abbé Lenglet’s works are numerous their subjects extremely various, and many of them very extravagant. Those which are most likely to live are his, “Méthode pour etudier l'Histoire, avec un Catalogue des principaux Historiens,” 12 vols.; “Methode pour Etudier la Geographic,” with maps; “Histoire de la Philosophic Hermetique,” and “Tablettes Chronologiques de T Histoire Universelle,” 1744-, two vols. An enlarged edition of this work was published in 1777. His “Chronological Tables” were published in English, in 8vo. It is a work of great accuracy, and of some whim, for he lays down a calculation according to which a reader may go through an entire course of universal history, sacred and profane, in the space of ten years and six months at the rate of six hours per day.

, a lady long distinguished for her genius and literary merit, and highly respected by Johnson and Richardson, was born in 1720. Her father, colonel James Ramsay, was a field-officer, and lieutenant-­governor of New-York, who sent her over, at the age of fifteen, to. England, to an opulent aunt, but whom, on ner arrival, she found incurably insane. The father died soon after, leaving his widow (who died at New York in Aug. 1765), and this daughter, without any provision. Who Mr. Lennox was, or when she married, we have not been able to learn, and, indeed, very little is known of her early history by her few surviving friends, who became acquainted with her only in her Tatter days. We are told, that from the death of her father she supported herself by her literary talents, which she always employed usefully.

, surnamed The Great, a doctor of the church, and one of the most eminent popes who have filled the Roman see, was born in Tuscany, or rather at Rome. He made himself very useful to the church under pope St. Celestine, and Sixtus III. and was concerned in all important affairs while but a deacon. The Roman clergy recalled him from Gaul, whither he was gone to reconcile Albums and Ætius, generals of the army, and raised him to the papal chair Sept. 1, 440. He condemned the Manicheans, in a council held at Rome in the year 444, and completely extirpated the remains of the Pelagian heresy in Italy: “Let those Pelagians,” said he, “who return to the church, declare by a clear and public profession, that they condemn the authors of their heresy, that they detest that part of their doctrine which the universal church has beheld with horror, and that they receive all such decrees of the councils as have been passed for exterminating the Pelagian heresy, and are confirmed by the authority of the apostolical see, acknowledging by a clear and full declaration, signed by their hand, that they admit these decrees, and approve them in every thing,” Leo also condemned the Priscillianists, and annulled all the proceedings in the council of Ephesus, which was called “the band of Ephesian robbers,” in the year 449. He presided by his legates at the general council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, but opposed the canon made there in favour of the church of Constantinople, which gave it the second rank, to the prejudice of that at Alexandria. The letter which Leo had written to Flavian us on the mystery of the Incarnation, was received with acclamations in this council, and the errors of Eutyches and Dioscorus condemned. The following year he went to meet Attila, king of the Huns, who was advancing to Rome, and addressed him with so much eloquence that he was prevailed upon to return home. Genseric having taken Rome, in the year 455, Leo obtained from that barbarous prince, that his soldiers should not set fire to the city, and saved the three grand churches (which Constantine had enriched with magnificent gifts) from being plundered. He was a strict observer of ecclesiastical discipline. He died November 3, in the year 461, at Rome. Never has the Romish church appeared with more true grandeur, or less pomp, than in this pontiff’s time; no pope was ever more honoured, esteemed, and respected; no pope ever displayed more humility, wisdom, mildness, and charity. Leo left ninety-six: “Sermons,” on the principal festivals throughout the year, and one hundred and forty-one Letters, which may be found in the library of the fathers. The best edition of his works is that by Pere Quesnel, Lyons, 1700, fol. They have been printed at Rome, by father Cacciaci, 3 vols. fol. and at Venice, by Messrs. Ballarimi, 3 vols. fol. but these editions have not sunk the credit of Quesnel’s. P. Maimbourg has written a history of his pontificate, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo.

was a pontiff whose history is so connected with that of literature and the reformation, that more notice of him becomes necessary than we usually allot to his brethren, although scarce any abridgment of his life will be thought satisfactory, after the very luminous and interesting work of Mr. Roscoe. Leo was born at Florence in December 1475, the second son of Lorenzo de Medici, the Magnificent, and was christened John. Being originally destined by his father for the church, he was prorooted before he knew what it meant, received the tonsure at the age of seven years, two rich abbacies, and before he ceased to he a boy, received other preferments to the number of twenty-nine, and thus early imbibed a taste for aggrandizement which never left him. Upon the accession of Innocent VIII. to the pontificate, John, then thirteen years of age only, was nominated to the dignity of cardinal. Having now secured his promotion, his father began to think of his education, and when he was nominated to the cardinalate, it was made a condition that he should spend three years at the university of Pisa, in professional studies, before he was invested formally with the purple. In 145>2 this solemn act took place, and he immediately went to reside at Rome as one of the sacred college. His father soon after died, and was succeeded in his honours in the Florentine republic by his eldest son Peter. The young cardinal’s opposition to the election of pope Alexander VI. rendered it expedient for him to withdraw to Florence, and at the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. he and the whole family were obliged to take refuge in Bologna. About 1500 he again fixed his residence at Rome, where he resided during the remainder of Alexander’s pontificate, and likewise in the early part of that of Julius II. cultivating polite literature, and the pleasures of elegant society, and indulging his taste for the fine arts, for music, and the chase, to which latter amusement he was much addicted. In 1505 he began to take an active part in public affairs, and was appointed by Julius to the government of Perugia. By his firm adherence to the interest of the pope, the cardinal acquired the most unlimited confidence of his holiness, and was entrusted with the supreme direction of the papal army in the Holj League against the French in 1511, with the title of legate of Bologna. At the bloody battle of Ravenna, in 1512, he was made prisoner, and wos conveyed to Milan, but afterwards effected his escape. About this time he contributed to the restoration of his family at Florence, by overthrowing the popular “constitution of that republic, and there he remained until the death of Julius II. in 1513, when he was elected pope in his stead, in the thirty-eighth year of his age. He assumed the name of Leo X. and ascended the throne with greater manifestations of goodwill, both from Italians and foreigners, than most of his predecessors had enjoyed. One of his first acts was to interpose in favour of some conspirators against the house of Medici, at Florence, and he treated with great kindness the family of Sodorini, which had long been at the head of the opposite party in that republic. He exhibited his taste for literature by the appointment of two of the most elegant scholars of the age, Bembo and Sadoleti, to the ffice of papal secretaries. With regard to foreign politics, he pursued the system of his predecessor, in attempting to free Italy from the dominion of foreign powers: and in order to counteract the antipapal council of Pisa, which was assembled at Lyons, he renewed the meetings of the council of Lateran, which Julius II. had begun, and he had the good fortune to terminate a division which threatened a schism in the church. Lewis XII. who had incurred ecclesiastical censure, made a formal submission, and received absolution. Having secured external tranquillity, Leo did not delay to consult the interests of literature by an ample patronage of learned studies. He restored to its former splendour the Roman gymnasium or university, which he effected by new grants of its revenues and privileges, and by filling its professorships with eminent men invited from all quarters. The study of the Greek language was a very particular object of his encouragement. Under the direction of Lascaris a college of noble Grecian youths was founded at Rome for the purpose of editing Greek authors; and a Greek press was established in that city. Public notice was circulated throughout Europe, that all persons who possessed Mss. of ancient authors would be liberally rewarded on bringing or sending them to the pope. Leo founded the first professorship in Italy of the Syriac and Chaldaic languages in the university of Bologna. With regard to the politics of the times, the pope had two leading objects in view, viz. the maintenance of that balance of power which might protect Italy from the over-bearing influence of any foreign potentate; and the aggrandizement of the house of Medici. When Francis I. succeeded to the throne of France, it was soon apparent that there would necessarily be a new war in the north of Italy.' Leo attempted to remain neuter, winch. being found to be impracticable, he joined the emperor, the Swiss, and other sovereigns against the French king and the state of Venice. The rapid successes of the French arms soon brought him to hesitate, and after the Swiss army had been defeated, the pope thought it expedient to abandon his allies, and form an union with the king of France. These two sovereigns, in the close of 1515, had an interview at Bologna, when the famous Pragmatic Sanction was abolished, and a concordat established in it stead. The death of Leo’s brother left his nephew Lorenzo the principal object of that passion for aggrandizing his family, which this pontiff felt full as strongly as any one of his predecessors, and to gratify which he scrupled no acts of injustice and tyranny. In 1516 he issued a monitory against the duke of Urbino, and upon his non-appearance, an excommunication, and then seized his whole territory, with which, together with the ducal title, he invested his nephew. In the same year a general pacification took place, though all the efforts of the pope were made to prevent it. In 1517 the expelled duke of Urbino collected an army, and, by rapid movements, completely regained his capital and dominions. Leo, excessively chagrined at this event, would gladly have engaged a crusade of all Christian princes against him. By an application, which nothing could justify, of the treasures of the church, he raised a considerable army, under the command of his nephew, and compelled the duke to resign his dominion, upon what were called honourable terms. The violation of the safe conduct, granted by Lorenzo to the duke’s secretary, who was seized at Rome, and put to torture, in order to oblige him to reveal his master’s secrets, imprints on the memory of Leo X. an indelible stain. In the same year his life was endangered by a conspiracy formed against him, in which the chief actor was cardinal Petrucci. The plan failed, and the cardinal, being decoyed to Rome, from whence he had escaped, was put to dt-ath; and his agents, as many as were discovered, were executed with horrid tortures. The conduct of Leo on this occasion was little honourable to his fortitude or clemency, and it was believed that several persons suffered as guilty who were wholly innocent of the crimes laid to their charge. To secure himself for the future, the pope, by a great stretch of his high authority, created in one day thirty-one nevr cardinals, many of them his relations and friends, who had not even risen in the.church to the dignity of. the episcopal office; but many persons also, who, from their talents and virtues, were well worthy of his choice. He bestowed upon them rich benefices and preferments, as well in the remote parts of Christendom, as in Italy, and thus formed a numerous and splendid court attached to his person, and adding to the pomp and grandeur of the capital. During the pontificate of Leo X. the reformation under Luther took its rise, humanly speaking, from the following circumstances. The unbounded profusion of this pope had rendered it necessary to devise means for replenishing his exhausted treasury; and one of those which occurred was the sale of indulgences, which were sold in Germany with such ridiculous parade of their efficacy, as to rouse the spirit of Luther, who warmly protested against this abuse in his discourses, and in a letter addressed to the elector of Mentz. He likewise published a set of propositions, in which he called in question the authority of the pope to remit sins, and made some very severe strictures on this method of raising money. His remonstrances produced considerable effect, and several of his cloth undertook to refute him. Leo probably regarded theological quarrels with contempt, and from his pontifical throne looked down upon the efforts of a German doctor with scorn; even when his interference was deemed necessary, he was inclined to lenient measures. At length, at the express desire of the emperor Maximilian, he summoned Luther to appear before the court of Rome. Permission was, however, granted for the cardinal of Gaeta to hear his defence at Augsburg. Nothing satisfactory was determined, and the pope, in 1518, published a bull, asserting his authority to grant indulgences, which would avail both the living, and the dead in purgatory. Upon this, the reformer appealed to a general council, and thus open war was declared, in which the abettors of Luther appeared with a strength little calculated upon by the court of Rome. The sentiments of the Christian world were not at all favourable to that court.” The scandal,“says the biographer,” incurred by the infamy of Alexander VI., and the violence of Julius II., was not much alleviated in the reign of a pontiff who was characterized by an inordinate love of pomp and pleasure, and whose classical taste even caused him to be regarded by many as more of a heathen than a Christian."

The warlike disposition of Selim. the reigning Turkish emperor, excited great alarms in Europe, and gave occasion to Leo to attempt a revival of the ancient crusades, by means of an alliance between all Christian princes; he probably hoped, by this show of zeal for the Christian cause, that he should recover some of his lost credit as head of the church. He had, likewise, another object in view, viz. that of recruiting his finances, by the contributions which his emissaries levied upon the devotees in different countries. By the death of Maximilian in 1519, a competition for the imperial crown between Charles V. and Francis 1. took place. Leo was decidedly against the claims of both the rival candidates, and attempted to raise a competitor in one of the German princes, but he was unable to resist the fortune of Charles. At this period he incurred a very severe domestic misfortune in the death of his nephew Lorenzo, who left an infant daughter, afterwards the celebrated Catherine de Medicis, the queen and regent of France. The death of Lorenzo led to the immediate annexation of the duchy of Urbino, with its dependencies, to the Roman see, and to the appointment of Julius, Leo’s cousin, to the supreme direction of the state of Florence. The issue of his contest with Luther will occur hereafter in our account of that reformer. It may here, however, be noticed that Leo conferred on Henry VIII. of England, the title of “Defender of the Faith,” for his appearance on the side of the church as a controversial writer. The tranquil state of Italy, at this period, allowed the pope to indulge his taste for magnificence in shows and spectacles. His private hours were chiefly devoted to indolence, or to amusements, frequently of a kind little suited to the dignity of his high station. He was not, however, so much absorbed in them as to neglect the aggrandizement of his family and see. Several cities and districts in the vicinity of the papal territories, and to which the church had claims, had been seized by powerful citizens, or military adventurers; some of these the pope summoned to his court to answer for their conduct; which not being able to do, he caused them to be put to death. Having next set his heart on the possession of the territory of Ferrara, he had recourse to treachery, and is thought to have even meditated the assassination of the duke, but his plot being discovered by the treachery of one whom he had bribed, he was disappointed in his plans. Another of his designs was the expulsion of the French from Italy,* and he had made some progress in this when he was seized with an illness which put an end to his life in a few days. He died Dec. 1, 1521, in the forty-sixth year of his age.

, or Leo Urbevetanus, a native of that city, is said by some to have been a Franciscan, and by others a Dominican. He left a “Chronicle” of the popes, which ends in 1314, and one of the “Emperors,” ending 1308, published by father Lamy, at Florence, 1737, 2 vols. 8vo. These chronicles are useful for the history of those times, to those who can distinguish the fabulous parts.

The purity of his harmony, and elegant simplicity of his melody, are no less remarkable in such of these dramas as Dr. Burney examined, than the judicious arrangement of the parts. But the masses and motets, which are carefully preserved by the curious, and still performed in the churches at Naples, have all the choral learning of the sixteenth century. There are likewise extant, trios, for two violins and a base, superior in correctness of counterpoint and elegance of design to any similar productions of the same 'period. This complete musician is equally celebrated as an instructor and composer; and the “Solfeggi,” which he composed for the use of the vocal students, in the conservatorio over which he presided at Naples, are still eagerly sought and studied, not only in Italy, but in every part of Europe, where singing is regularly taught. This great musician died about 1742. His death was unhappily precipitated by an accident which at first was thought trivial; for, having a tumour, commonly called a bur, on his right cheek, which growing, in process of time, to a considerable magnitude, he was advised to have it taken off; but whether from the unskilfulness of the operator, or a bad habit of body, a mortification ensued, which cost him his life.

, peer, marechal, and constable of France, governor of Dauphiny, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born April 1, 1543, at St. Bonnet de Chamsaut, in Dauphiny, of a noble and ancient family. He was among the chiefs of the protestants, for whom he took several places, and when Henry IV. ascended the throne, received fresh marks of his esteem, being appointed lieutenant-general of his forces in Piedmont, Savoy, and Dauphiny. Lesdiguieres defeated the duke of Savoy at the battle of Esparon, April 15, 1591, and in several other engagements; and when the king blamed him for having suffered that prince to build Fort Barreaux, he replied, “Let the duke of Savoy be at that expence; your majesty wants a fortress opposite to Montmelian, and when it is built and stored, we will take it.” He kept his word, and conquered Savoy. This brave man received the marechal’s staff in 1607, and his estate of Lesdiguieres was made a dukedom, as a reward for his services. At length he abjured protestantism at Grenoble, and was afterwards presented by his son-in-law, the maredial de Crequi, with letters, in which the king appointed him constable, July 24, 1622. He commanded the troops in Italy in 1625, and died at Valence in Dauphiny, Sept. 28, 1626, aged eighty-four. His secretary, Lewis Videl, has written his life, or rather his eulogy, 1638, folio. There were, however, many defects in his moral character, and his apostacy is said to have been founded in avarice.

, the celebrated bishop of Ross in Scotland, was descended from a very ancient family, and bora in 1527. He had his education in the university of Aberdeen; and, in 1547, was made canon of the cathedralchurch of Aberdeen and Murray. After this, he travelled into France; and pursued his studies in the universities of Thoulouse, Poictiers, and Paris, at which place he took the degree 01 doctor of laws. He continued abroad till 1554, when he was commanded home by the queen-regent, and made official and vicar-general of the diocese of Aberdeen; and, entering into the priesthood, became parson of Une, or Oyne. About this time the doctrines of the reformation having reached Scotland, were zealously opposed by our author; and, a solemn dispute being held between the protestants and papists in 1560, at Edinburgh, Lesley was a principal champion on the side of the latter, and had Knox for one of his antagonists. This, however, was so far from putting an end to the divisions, that they daily increased; which occasioning many disturbances and commotions, both parties agreed to send deputations, inviting home the queen, who was then absent in France. It was a matter of importance to be expeditious in this race of politic courtesy; and Lesley, who was employed by the Roman catholics, made such dispatch, that he arrived several days before lord James Stuart, who was sent by the protestants, to Vitri, where queen Mary was then lamenting the death of her husband, the king of France. Having delivered to her his credentials, he told her majesty of lord James Stuart’s (who was her natural brother) coming from the protestants in Scotland, and of his designs against the Roman catholic. religion; and advised her to detain him in France by some honourable employment till she could settle her affairs at home; thus infusing suspicions of her protestant subjects into the queen’s mind, with a view that she should throw herself entirely into the hands of those who were of her own religion. The queen, however, not at all distrusting the nobility, who had sent lord James, desired Lesley to wait, till she could consult with her friends upon the methods most proper for her to take. At first, the court of France opposed her return home; but, finding her much inclined to it, they ordered a fleet to attend her; and Lesley embarked with her at Calais for Scotland, Aug. 19, 1561.

At length, after several debates, five civilians, Lewis, Dale, Drury, Aubry, and Jones, were appointed to ejamine the bishop of Ross’s case, and to give in answers to the following queries. 1. Whether an ambassador, who raises rebellion against the prince to whom he is sent, should enjoy the privileges of an ambassador, and not rather be liable to punishment as an enemy? To this it was answered, that such an ambassador, by the laws of nations, and the civil law of the Romans, has forfeited the privileges of an ambassador, and is liable to punishment. 2. Whether the minister or agent of a prince deposed from his public authority, and in whose stead another is substituted, may enjoy the privileges of an ambassador? To this it was answered, if such a prince be lawfully deposed, his agent cannot challenge the privileges of an ambassador, since none but absolute princes, and such as enjoy a royal prerogative, can constitute ambassadors. 3. Whether a prince, who comes into another prince’s country, and is there kept prisoner, can have his agent, and whether that agent can be reputed an ambassador? To this it was answered, if such a prince have not lost his sovereignty, he may have an agent; but whether that agent may be reputed an ambassador, dependeth upon the authority of his commission. 4. Whether if a prince declare to such an agent, and his prince in custody, that he shall no longer be reputed an ambassador, that agent may, by law, challenge the privileges of an ambassador? To this it was answered, that a prince may forbid an ambassador to enter into his kingdom, and may command him to depart the kingdom, if he keep himself not within the bounds prescribed to an ambassador; yet in the mean while he is to enjoy the privileges of an ambassador Queen Elizabeth and her cdunsel being satisfied with these answers of the civilians, sent bishop Lesley prisoner to the isle of Ely, and afterwards to the Tower of London; but at length he was set at liberty in 1573, and being banished England, he retired to the Netherlands. The two following years he employed in soliciting the kings of France and Spain, and all the German princes, to interest themselves in the deliverance of his mistress. Finding them tardy in their proceedings, he went to Rome, to solicit the pope’s interference with them, but all his efforts being fruitless, he had recourse to his pen, and published several pieces to promote the same design. In 1579, he was made suffragan and vicar-general of the archbishopric of Rouen in Normandy, and, in his visitation of that diocese, was apprehended and thrown into prison, and obliged to pay three thousand pistoles for his ransom, to prevent his being given op to queen Elizabeth. He then remained unmolested under the protection of Henry III. of France; but, upon the accession of Henry IV. a protestant, who was supported in his claim to that crown by queen Elizabeth, he was apprehended, in his visitation through his diocese, in 1590; and, being thrown into prison, was again obliged to pay three thousand pistoles, to save himself from being given up to Elizabeth. In 1593, he was declared bishop of Constance, with licence to hold the bishopric of Ross, till he should obtain peaceable possession of the church of Constance and its revenues. Some time after this, he went and resided at Brussels; and when no hopes remained of his returning to his bishopric of Ross, by the establishment of the reformation under king James, he retired into a monastery at Guirtenburg, about two miles from Brussels, where he passed the remainder of his days, died May 31, 1596, and lies buried there under a monument erected to his memory by his nephew and heir, John Lesley.

, the second son of the preceding, and a very distinguished writer, was born in Ireland, we know not in what year; and admitted a fellow-commoner in Dublin college in 1664, where he continued till he commenced M. A. In 1671, on the death of his father, he came to England and entered himself in the Temple at London, where he studied the law for some years; but afterwards relinquished it, and applied himself to divinity. In 1680 he was admitted into holy orders; and in 1687 became chancellor of the cathedral-church or diocese of Connor. About this time he rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the Popish party in Ireland, by his zealous opposition to them, which was thus called forth. Roger Boyle, bishop of Clogher, dying in 1687, Patrick Tyrrel was made titular popish bishop, and had the revenues of the see assigned him by king James. He set up a convent of friars in Monaghan; and, fixing his habitation there, held a public visitation of his clergy with great solemnity; when, some subtle logicians attending him, he ventured to challenge the protestant clergy to a public disputation. Leslie accepted the challenge, and disputed to the satisfaction of the protestants; though it happened, as it generally does at such contests, that both sides claimed the victory. He afterwards held another public disputation with two celebrated popish divines in the church of Tynan, in the diocese of Armagh, before a very numerous assembly of persons of both religions; the issue of which was, that Mr. John Stewart, a popish gentleman, solemnly renounced the errors of the church of Rome.

In this exigence he withdrew to Italy, whither Leslie attended him, notwithstanding the ill-usage he met with at that court. The Pretender had given him a promise that he should celebrate the church of England service in his family; and that he would hear what he should represent to him on the subject of religion. But the Chevalier was far from keeping the word he had given, and on the faith of which our divine had come over; for, though he allowed him, for form’s sake, to celebrate the church of England service in his family, yet he never was present there; and not only refused to hear Leslie himself, but sheltered the ignorance of his priests, or the badness of his cause, or both, behind his authority, and absolutely forbad all discourse concerning religion. However, Leslie put up with every thing, in dutiful submission to his avowed sovereign, till 1721, when he returned to England, resolving, whatever the consequences might be, to die in his own country. Some of his friends, acquainting lord Sunderland with his purpose, implored his protection for the good old man, which his lordship readily and generously promised; and when a member of the House of commons officiously waited on lord Sunderland with the news that Mr. Leslie had arrived, he met with such a reception from his lordship as his illiberal errand deserved. Our author then went over to Ireland, where he died April 13,' 1722, at his own house at Glaslough, in the county of Monaghan.

As to his character, Bayle styles him “a man of merit and learning,” and tellsus, that he was the first who wrote in Great Britain against the errors of madam Bourignon. His books, adds he, are much esteemed, and especially his treatise of “The Snake in the Grass.” Salmon observes, that his works must transmit him to posterity as a man thoroughly learned and truly pious. Mr. Harris, the continuator of Ware, informs us that Leslie made several converts from popery; and says, that notwithstanding his mistaken opinions about government, and a few other matters, he deserves the highest praise for defending the Christian religion against Deists, Jews, Quakers, and for admirably well supporting the doctrines of the church of England against those of Rome. The author of the “Freeholder’s Journal/' immediately after the death of Mr, Leslie, observed, that when the popish emissaries were most active in poisoning the minds of the people, Mr. Leslie was equally vigilant in exposing, both in public and private, the errors and absurdities of the Romish doctrines. Yet, upon the abdication of king James, he resigned his livings, followed his fortunes, and adhered firmly to his interests; and, after his demise, to those of the Pretender. Notwithstanding his well-known attachment to the Jacobite interest, and, his frequent visits to the court of St. Germain’s, he was not much molested by the government till a little before Sacheverell’s trial, when he attacked Bp. Burnet rather warmly, in a pamphlet called” The good Old Cause, or Lying in Truth," in which he endeavoured to prove, from the bishop’s former works, the truth of that doctrine for which the doctor was prosecuted by the Commons, and violently inveighed against the bishop himself.

"But this is not all that we have to urge on the subject If there be plagiarism in the case, and the identity of titles looks very like it, it is infinitely more probable that the editor of St. Real’s works stole from Leslie, than that Leslie stole from St. Réal, unless it can be proved that the works of the abbe*, and this work in particular, were published before 1697. At that period the English language was very little read or understood on the continent; whilst in Britain the French language was by scholars as generally understood as at the present. Hence it is, that so many Frenchmen, and indeed foreigners of different nations, thought themselves safe in pilfering science from the British philosophers; whilst there is not, that we know, one well-authenticated instance of a British philosopher appropriating to himself the discoveries of a foreigner. If, then, such men as Leibnitz, John Bernouilli, and Des Cartes, trusting to the improbability of detection, condescended to pilfer the discoveries of Hooke, Newton, and Harriot, is it improbable that the editor of the works of St. Real should claim to his friend a celebrated tract, of which he knew the real author to be obnoxious to the government of his own country, and therefore not likely to have powerful friends to maintain his right?

His works may be divided into political and theological. Of the former, he wrote, I. “Answer to the State of the Protestants of Ireland,” &c. already mentioned. 2. “Cassandra, concerning the new Associations,” &c. 1703, 4to. 3. “Rehearsals;” at first a weekly paper, published afterwards twice a week in a half-sheet, by way of dialogue on the affairs of the times; begun in 1704, and continued for six or seven years. 4. “The Wolf stripped of his Shepherd’s Cloathing, in answer to * Moderation a Virtue,'” 1704, 4to. The pamphlet it answers was written by James Owen. 5. “The Bishop of Sarum’s [Burnet’s] proper Defence, from a Speech said to be spoken by him against occasional Conformity,” 1704, 4to. 6. “The new Association of those called Moderate Churchmen,” &c. occasioned by a pamphlet entitled “The Danger of Priestcraft,” 1705, 4to. 7. “The new Association,” part II. 1705, 4to. 8. “The principles of Dissenters concerning Toleration, and occasional Conformity,” 1705, 4to. 9. “A Warning for the Church of England,” 1706, 4to. Some have doubted whether these two pieces were his. 10. “The good Old Cause, or lying in truth; being a second Defence of the bishop of Sarum from a second Speech,” &c. 1710. For this a warrant was issued out against Leslie. 11. “A Letter to the Bishop of Sarum, in answer to his Sermon after the Queen’s Death, in Defence of the Revolution,” 1715. 12. “Salt for the Leech.” 13. “The Anatomy of a Jacobite.” 14. “Gallienus redivivus.” 15. “Delenda Carthago.” 16. A Letter to Mr. William Molyneux, on his Case of Ireland’s being bound by the English Acts of Parliament.“17.” A Letter to Julian Johnson." 18. Several Tracts against Dr. Higden and Mr, Hoadly.

His theological tracts are, first, against the Quakers; as, 1. ' The Snake in the Grass,“&c. 1697, 8vo. 2.” A Discourse proving the Divine Institution of Water Baptism,“&c. ibid. 4to. 3.” Some seasonable Reflections upon the Quakers’ solemn Protestation against George Keith,“&c. 1697. 4.” Satan disrobed from his Disguise of Light,“1698, 4to. 5.” A Defence of a book entitled ‘The Snake in the Grass,’ 1700,“8vo. 6.; A Reply to a book entitled” Angnis rlagellatus, or a Switch for the Snake being the last part of the Snake in the Grass,“1702, 8vo. 7.” Primitive Heresy revived in the Faith and Practice of the Quakers,“1698, 4to. 8.” The present; State of Quakerism in England,“1701. 9.” Essay concerning the Divine Right of Tythes," 1700, 8vo.

, a distinguished German writer, was born at Kamenz, in Pomerania, in 1729. His father, who was a man of talents and learning, had destined himself to an academical life, but was called to take charge of a congregation at Kamenz, the place of his nativity. Here he was in correspondence with the most famous preachers of his time, published some works of his own, and translated several treatises of AbjJ. Tillotson. He also left behind him a manuscript refutation of some prejudices against the reformation. There can be no doubt but the example and cares of so learned and thoughtful a father had no inconsiderable influence on the early turn which Lessing shewed for literature. When, in his sixth year, his father chose to have his picture drawn, in which he was to be represented sitting under a tree playing with a bird, young Lessing shewed his utter dislike to the plan, and said, “if I am to be painted, let me be drawn with a great heap of books about me, otherwise I had rather not be painted at all;” which was accordingly done. He passed five entire years at the high-school at Meissen, to which, by his own account, he was indebted for whatever learning and solidity of thinking he possessed. Though the Latin poetry belongs to the officiis perfectis of a scholar in this academy, and the German poetry to the imperfectis, yet he pursued the latter much more than the former, and celebrated the battle of Kesseldorf in German verse, at the request of his father. Professor Klemm particularly encouraged him to the-study of mathematics and philosophy while Grabner, the rector of the academy, wrote to his father concerning them “He is a colt that requires a double allowance of provender. The lessons that are found too difficult for others, are but child’s play to him. We shall hardly be sufficient for him much longer.” Being removed to Leipsic, he soon displayed his inclination to write for the stage, and likewise made great proficiency in the bodily exercises of horsemanship, fencing, dancing, and leaping. Mr. Weisse was his first and principal friend at this place; and their friendship was only dissolved by death. Lessing frequented the college-exercises but little, and that irregularly: none of the professors gave him satisfaction, excepting Ernesti, whose lectures he sometimes attended; but he was himself an extensive reader, and was especially partial to the writings of Wolff in German. He kept up a great intimacy with Naumann, the author of “Nimrod,” on account of his possessing many singular qualities, which were always more agreeable to Lessing, than the common dull monotony of character, even though mingled with some weaknesses and defects. Under Kastner he exercised himself in disputation; and here began his close connection with Mylius, whose works he after-, wards published. His intercourse with this free-thinker, and with the company of comedians, however, gave great uneasiness to his parents. His first literary productions appeared in a Hamburgh newspaper. In company with M. Weisse, he translated “Hannibal,” the only tragedy of Marivaux, into rhyming Alexandrines. His comedy of the “Young Scholar,” which he had begun while a schoolboy, was finished at Leipsic, from an actual event that happened to a young scholar disappointed in his hopes of the prize from the academy at Berlin. His father about this time thought proper to recall him home for a time, in order to wean him from the bad company he was thought to frequent. In this interval, he composed a number of Anacreontics on love and wine. One day, his pious sister coming into his room, in his absence, saw these sonnets, read them over, and, not a little angry that her brother could so employ his time, threw them into the fire. A trifling burst of resentment was all he felt on the occasion. He took a handful of snow, and threw it into her bosom, in order to cool her zeal. He now went back to Leipzig; which place he soon after quitted, going by Wittenberg to Berlin. This gave his father fresh uneasiness; and produced those justificatory letters of his son, which at least display the frankness of his character. At Berlin, in conjunction with Mylius, he compiled the celebrated “Sketch of the History and Progress of the Drama.” The father of a writer who had been sharply criticised in this work, made complaint of it to Lessing’s father. To this person he wrote in answer: “The critique is mine, and I only lament that I did not make it more severe. Should Gr. complain of the injustice of my judgment, I give him full liberty to retaliate, as he pleases on my works.” One of his first acquaintances in Berlin was a certain Richier de Louvain, who, in 1750, from a French teacher, was become secretary to Voltaire, with whom he brought our author acquainted. From Berlin he went to Wittenberg, where he plied his studies with great diligence, and took the degree of master, but remained only one year, and then returned to Berlin. At Berlin he undertook the literary article for the periodical publication of Voss, in which employment he both wrote and translated a great variety of pieces, and formed several plans which were never executed. Among others, he agreed with Mendelsohn to write a journal, under the title of “The best from bad Books:” with the motto taken from St. Ambrose, “Legimus aliqua ne legantur.” “We read some books to save others the trouble.” Jn 1755, he went back to Leipzic, and thence set out upon a journey, in company with a young man of the name of Winkler: but this was soon interrupted, and brought op a law-suit, in which Lessing came off conqueror. He now, in order to please his sister, translated “Law’s serious Call,” which was finished and published by Mr. Weisse. At the beginning of 1759, Lessing went again to Berlin, where he very much addicted himself to gaming. This has been attributed to his situation at Breslaw, where he was in the seven years war for some time in quality of secretary to general Tauenzien. Even the care for his health was conducive to it. “Were I able to play calmly,” said he, “I would not play at all; but it is not without reason that I play with eagerness. The vehement agitation sets my clogged machine in motion, by forcing the fluids into circulation; it frees me from a bodily torment, to which I am often subject.” His intimate friends among the learned at Breslaw were Arletius and Klose. Here he was attacked by a violent fever. Though he suffered much from the disease, yet be declared that his greatest torment arose from the conversations of his physician, old Dr. Morganbesser, which he could scarcely endure when he was well. When the fever was at its height, he lay perfectly quiet, with great significance in his looks. This so much struck his friend standing by- the bed, that he familiarly asked him what he was thinking of? “I am curious to know what will pass in my mind when I am in the act of dying.” Being told that was impossible, he abruptly replied: “You want to cheat me.” On the day of his reception into the order of free-masons at Hamburgh, one of his friends, a zealous free-mason, took him aside into an adjoining room, and asked him, “Is it not true, now, that you find nothing among us against the government, religion, or morals” “Yes,” answered Lessmg, with great vivacity, “would to heaven I had I should then at least have found something” The extent of his genius must be gathered from his numerous writings. Mendelsohn said of him in a letter to his brother, shortly after his death, that he was advanced at least a century before the age in which he lived.

L‘Estrange (Sir Roger), was descended from an ancient and reputable family, seated at Hunstanton-hall, Norfolk; where he was born Dec. 17, 1616. He was the youngest son of sir Hamond L’Estrange, knt. a zealous royalist during the disputes between king Charles and his parliament; who, having his estate sequestered, retired to Lynn, of which town he was made governor. The son had a liberal education, which was completed probably at Cambridge; and adopted his father’s principles with uncommon zeal, and in 1639, when about two-and- twenty, attended king Charles upon his expedition to Scotland, his attachment to whom some years after neatly cost him his life. In 1644, soon after the earl of Manchester had reduced the town of Lynn in Norfolk, Mr. L'Estrange, thinking he had sorpe interest in the place, as his father had been governor of it, formed a plan for surprizing it, and received a commission from the king, constituting him governor of the town in case of success: but, being seized, in consequence of the treachery of two of his associates, Leman and Hager, and his majesty’s commission found upon him, he was carried first to Lynn, thence to London, and there transmitted to the city court-martial for his trial; where, after suffering all manner of indignities, he was, as Whitlocke says, condemned to die as a spy, coming from the king’s quarters without drum, trumpet, or pass.

This appearance at the court of Cromwell was much censured, after the restoration, by some of the royal party, who also objected to him, that he had once been heard playing in a concert where the usurper was present, and, therefore, they nick-named him “Oliver’s Fidler.” He was charged also with having bribed some of the protector’s people, but he positively disavows it; averring, he never spoke to Thurloe but once in his life about his discharge; and that, though during the dependency of that affair he might well be seen at Whitehall, yet he never spoke to Cromwell on any other business, or had the least commerce of any kind with him. From this to the time of the restoration, he seems to have lived free from any disturbance from the then governing powers; and perhaps the obscurity into which he had fallen made him be overlooked by Charles II. and his ministry, on that prince’s recovering his throne. He did not, however, so undervalue his own sufferings and merits, as to put up quietly with this usage, and therefore addressed a warm expostulation to the earl of Clarendon, in the dedication to that minister of his “Memento,” published in 1662; where he joins himself with other neglected cavaliers, who had suffered for their attachment to the royal family during the civil wars and the succeeding usurpation, at the same tima acknowledging the personal obligations he had received from Clarendon. For some time his remonstrances appear to have produced little effect, but at length he was made licenser of the press, a profitable post, which he enjoyed till the eve of the revolution. This, however, was all the recompence he ever received, except being in the commission of the peace, after more than twenty years, as he says, spent in serving the royal cause, near six of them in gaols, and almost four under a sentence of death in Newgate. It is true, he hints at greater things promised him; and, in these hopes, exerted his talents, on behalf of the crown, in publishing several pieces. In 1663, for a farther support, he set up a paper, called “The Public Intelligencer, and the News;' f the first of which came out the 1st of August, and continued to be published twice a week, till January 19, 1665; when he laid it down, on the design then concerted of publishing the” London Gazette,“the first of which papers made its appearance on. Saturday Feb. 4. After the dissolution of Charles’s second parliament, in 1679, he set up a paper, called” The Observator;“the design of which was to vindicate the measures of the court, and the character of the king, from the charge of being popislily affected. With the same spirit he exerted himself in 1681, in ridiculing the popish plot; which he did with such vehemence, that it raised him many enemies, who endeavoured, notwithstanding his known loyalty, to render him obnoxious to the government. But he appeared with no less vehemence against the fanatic plot in 1682; and, in 1683, was particularly employed by the court to publish Dr. Tillotson’s papers exhorting lord Russel to avow the doctrine of non-resistance, a little before his execution. In this manner he weathered all the storms raised against him during that reign, and, in the next, unrewarded with the honour of knighthood, accompanied with this declaration,” that it was in consideration of his eminent services and unshaken loyalty to the crown, in all extremities; and as a mark of the singular satisfaction of his majesty, in his present as well as his past services.“In 1687, he was obliged to lay down his” Observator,“now swelled to three volumes; as he could not agree with the toleration proposed by his majesty, though, in all other respects, he had gone the utmost lengths. He had even written strenuously in defence of the dispensing power, claimed by that infatuated prince; and this was probably one reason, why some accused him of having become a proselyte to the church of Home, an accusation which gave him much uneasiness, and which was heightened by his daughter’s defection to that church. To clear himself from this aspersion, he drew up a formal declaration, directed to his kinsman, sir Nicolas L'Estrange, on the truth of which he received the sacrament at the time of publishing the same, which is supposed to be in 1690 . By this declaration we find he was married his lady’s name was Anne Doleman but what issue he had by her, besides the just- mentioned daughter, has not come to our knowledge. After the revolution, he seems to have been left out of the commission of the peace; and, it is said, queen Mary shewed her contempt of him by the following anagram she made upon his name,” Lying- Strange Roger:" and it is certain he met with some trouble, for the remainder of his life, on account of his being a disaffected person.

Among others who attacked the character of sir Roger, was the noted Miles Prance, who was convicted of perjury in the affair of the murder of sir Edmundbury Godfrey. Echard, in his History of England, gives us an anecdote of these two worthies which seems characteristic of both parties. Echard says that Dr. Sharp told him, when archbishop of York, that while he was rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields, L‘Estrange, the famous Richard Baxter, and Miles Prance, on a certain sacrament-day, all approached the communion-table; L’Estrange at one end, Prance at the other, and Baxter in the middle; that these two by their situation, were administered to before L‘Estrange, who, when it came to his turn, taking the bread in his hand, asked the doctor if he knew who that man (pointing to Prance) on the other side of the rails was, to which the doctor answering in the negative, L’Estrange replied, “That is Miles Prance, and I here challenge him, and solemnly declare before God and this congregation, that what that man has sworn or published concerning me is totally and absolutely false; and may this sacrament be my damnation if all this declaration be not true.” Echard adds, “Prance was silent, Mr. Baxter took special notice of it, and Dr. Sharp declared he would have refused Prance the sacrament had the challenge been made in time.” Sir Roger L'Estrange died Sept. 11, 1704, in the eightyeighth year of his age, during the latter part of which his faculties were impaired. His corpse was interred in the church of St. Giles’s in the Fields, where there is an inscription to his memory. He was author of many political tract*, and translated several works from the Greek, Latin, and Spanish. Among his political effusions are, “Roger L'Estrange’s Apology” “Truth and Loyalty vindicated,” c< “The Memento” “The Reformed Catholic” “The free-born Subject” “Answer to the Appeal,” &c.; “Seasonable Memorial” “Cit and Bumpkin,” in two parts “Farther Discovery;” “Case put;” “Narrative of the Plot;” “Holy Cheat;” “Toleration discussed;” “Discovery on Discovery;” “L'Estrange’s Appeal,” &c. “Collections in defence of the King” “Relapsed Apostate” “Apology for Protestants” “Richard against Baxter;” “Tyranny and Popery;” “Growth of Knavery” “L' Estrange no Papist,” &c. “The Shammer shammed” “Account cleared” “Reformation reformed” “Dissenters Sayings,” two parts “Notes on College, i. e Stephen College;” the “Protestant Joiner;” “Zekieland Ephraim;” “Papist in Masquerade;” “Answer to the Second Character of a Popish Successor;” “Considerations on lord RussePs Speech.” All these were printed in 4to. “History of the Plot” “Caveat to the Cavaliers;” “Plea for the Caveat and its Author.” These were in folio. His translations were, “Josephus’s Works,” his best performance “Cicero’s Offices” “Seneca’s Morals” “Erasmus’s Colloquies” “Æsop’s Fables” “Quevedo’s Visions” “Bona’s Guide to Eternity” and “Five Letters from a Nun to a Cavalier.” Besides these, he wrote several news-papers, and occasional pieces.

, a voluminous writer of history, was born at Milan, May 29, 1630, of a family once of considerable distinction at Bologna. He was intended for the church, but was induced to make open profession of the protestant religion at Lausanne in 1657. This so pleased Guerin, an eminent physician, with whom he lodged, that he gave him his daughter for a wife; and Leti, settling at Geneva in 1660, passed nearly twenty years in that city employed on many of his publications. In 1674, the freedom of the city was presented to him, which had never before been granted to any stranger. Five years after he went to France, and in 1680, to England, where he was very graciously received by Charles II.; received a large present in money, and was promised the place of historiographer. On this he wrote his “Teatro Britannico,” a history of England; but, this work displeasing the court, he was ordered to quit the kingdom. Leti then went to Amsterdam, had the office of historiographer in that city, and died suddenly June 9, 1701, aged seventy-one. He was an indefatigable writer, and tells us in his “Belgic Theatre,” that three days in the week he spent twelve hours in writing, and six hours the other three days; whence the number of his works is prodigious. The greatest part are written in Italian; among which are, “The Nepotism of Rome,” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Universal Monarchy of Louis XIV.” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Life of Pope Sixtus V.” in Italian, Amsterdam, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo, plates; in French, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo and in English by Farneworth. “The Life of Philip 11. king of Spain,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Of Charles V.”. Amsterdam, 1730, 4 vols. 12mo; “Of Queen Elizabeth,” Amsterdam, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “History of Cromwell,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “Life of Giron, duke d'Ossone,” 3 vols. 12mo; “The French Theatre,*' 7 vols. 4to, a bad work;” The Belgic Theatre,“2 vols. 4to, equally bad;” The British Theatre, or History of England, 11 Amsterdam, 1684, 5 vols. 12mo; in which there is a capital portrait of queen Elizabeth. It was for this work that he was sent out of England. “L'ltalia regnante,” 4 vols. 12mo; “History of the Roman Empire in Germany,” 4 vols. 4to; “The Cardinalism of the Holy Church,” 3 vols. 12mo, a violent satire; “History of Geneva,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The just balance in which are weighed all the maxims of Rome, and the actions of the living cardinals,” 4 vols. 12mo; “The Historical Ceremonial,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Political Dialogues on the means used by the Italian Republics for their preservation,” 2 vols. 12mo “An Abridgment of Patriotic virtues,” 2 vols. 8vo “Fame jealous of Fortune a panegyric on Louis XIV,” 4to “A Poem on the enterprize of the Prince of Orange in England,” 1695, folio; “An Eulogy on Hunting,” 12mo; “Letters,” 1 vol. 12mo; “The Itinerary of the Court of Rome,” 3 vols. 8vo “History of the House of Saxony,” 4 vols. 4to “History of the House of Brandenburg,” 4 vols. 4to “The slaughter of the Innocent reformed,” 4to “The Ruins of the Apostolical See,” 1672, 12mo, &c. Although M. le Clerc, his son-in-law, has mentioned him with high encomiums, we know few writers of history who are less to be depended on, having debased all his productions with fable. It is impossible to give credit to him unless his facts can be supported by other authority. He, on some occasions, assumes all the dignity of conceited ignorance, and relates his fictions with all the confidence of a vain man, who thinks he cannot be contradicted. His aim indeed was to please rather than instruct, and he has, with his anecdotes, frequently amused and misled his readers. We know few more amusing works than his “Life of pope Sixtus V.” Granger, whose character of him we have partly adopted, relates that Leti being one day at Charles II.'s levee, the king said to him, “Leti, I hear you are writing the history of the court of England.” “Sir,” said he, “I have been for some time preparing materials for such a history.” “Take care,” said the king, “that your work give no offence.” “Sir,” replied Leti, “I will do what 1 can but if a man were as wise as Solomon, he would scarce be able to avoid giving some offence.” “Why then,” rejoined the king, “be as wise as Solomon, write proverbs, not tories.”

, a philosopher of considerable eminence in the fifth century B. C. the first propagator of the system of atoms, is said by Diogenes Laertius, who has written his life, to have been a native of Elea. He was a disciple of Zeno the Eleatic philosopher. Dissatisfied with the attempts of former philosophers to account for the nature and origin of the universe metaphysically, Leucippus, and his follower Democritus, determined to restore the alliance between reason and the senses, which metaphysical subtleties had dissolved, by introducing the doctrine of indivisible atoms, possessing within themselves a principle of motion; and although several other philosophers, before their time, had considered matter as divisible into indefinitely small particles, Leucippus and Democritus were the first who taught, that these particles were originally destitute of all qualities except figure and motion, and therefore may justly be reckoned the authors of the atomic system of philosophy. They looked upon the qualities, which preceding philosophers had ascribed to matter, as the mere creatures of abstraction; and they determined to admit nothing into their system, which they could not establish upon the sure testimony of the senses. They were also of opinion, that both the Eleatic philosophers, and those of other sects, had unnecessarily encumbered their respective systems, by assigning some external or internal cause of motion, of a nature not to be discovered by the senses. They therefore resolved to reject all metaphysical principles, and, in their explanation of the phenomena of nature, to proceed upon no other ground than the sensible and mechanical properties of bodies. By the help of the internal principle of motion, which they attributed to the indivisible particles of matter, they made a feeble and fanciful effort to account for the production of all natural bodies from physical causes, without the intervention of Deity. But, whether they meant entirely to discard the notion of a divine nature from the universe, is uncertain. This first idea of the atomic system was improved by Democritus, and afterwards carried to all the perfection which a system so fundamentally defective would admit of, by Epicurus. The following summary of the doctrine of Leucippus will exhibit the infant state of the atomic philosophy, and at the same time sufficiently expose its absurdity.

The universe, which is infinite, is in part a. plenum, and in part a vacuum. The plenum contains innumerable corpuscles or atoms, of various figures, which falling into the vacuum, struck against each other; and hence arose a variety of curvilinear motions, which continued till, at length, atoms of similar forms met together, and bodies were produced. The primary atoms being specifically of equal weight, and not being able, on account of their multitude, to move in circles, the smaller rose to the exterior parts of the vacuum, whilst the larger, entangling themselves, formed a spherical shell, which revolved about its centre, and which included within itself all kinds of bodies. This central mass was gradually increased by a perpetual accession of particles from the surrounding shell, till at last the earth was formed. In the mean time, the spherical shell was continually supplied with new bodies, which, in its revolution, is gathered up from without. Of the particles thus collected in the spherical shell, some in their combination formed humid masses, which, by their circular motion, gradually became dry, and were at length ignited, and became stars. The sun was formed in the same manner, in the exterior surface of the shell; and the moon, in its interior surface. In this manner the world was formed; and by an inversion of the process, it will at length be dissolved.

, a celebrated divine of the sixteenth century, was born at Little Lever, in Lancashire, and educated at Cambridge, where after taking his degrees, he was chosen fellow, and then master of St. John’s college. He was ordained both deacon and priest in 1550, by bishop Ridley, and became a most eloquent and popular preacher in the reign of king Edward. He is, indeed, on his monument called by way of distinction, “preacher to king Edward.” Under his mastership St. John’s college greatly flourished, and in it the reformation gained so much ground, that on the commencement of the Marian persecution, he and twenty-four of the fellows resigned their preferments. Mr. Lever went abroad, and resided with the other exiles for religion at Francfort, where he in vain endeavoured to compose the differences which arose among them respecting church discipline and the habits. He resided also for some time in Switzerland, at a place called Arrow, where he was pastor to a congregation of English exiles. Here he became so much a favourer of Calvin’s opinions, as to be considered, on his return to England, as one of the chiefs of the party who opposed the English church-establishment. The indiscreet conduct of some of them soon made the whole obnoxious to government; and uniformity being strictly pressed, Mr. Lever suffered among others, being convened before the archbishop of Ydrk, and deprived of his ecclesiastical preferments. Many of the cooler churchmen thought him hardly dealt with, as he was a moderate man, and not forward in opposing the received opinions, Bernard Gilpin, his intimate friend, was among those who pitied, and expressed his usual regard for him. His preferments were a prebend of Durham, and the mastership of Sherburn hospital; Strype mentions the archdeaconry of Coventry, but is not clear in his account of the matter. He appears to have been allowed to retain the mastership of the hospital, where he died in July 1577, and was buried in its chapel. Baker in his ms collections gives a very high character of him as a preacher. “In the days of king Edward, when others were striving for preferment, no man was more vehement, or more galling in his sermons, against the waste of church revenues, and other prevailing corruptions of the court; which occasioned bishop Ridley to rank him with Latimer and Knox. He was a man of as much natural probity and blunt native honesty as his college ever bred; a man without guile and artifice; who never made suit to any patron, or for any preferment; one that had the spirit of Hugh Latimer. No one can read his sermons without imagining he has something before him of Latimer or Luther. Though his sermons are bold and daring, and full of rebuke, it was his preaching that got him his preferment. His rebuking the courtiers made them afraid of him, and procured him reverence from the king. He was one of the best masters of feis college, as well as one of the best men the college ever bred.” He was succeeded in the mastership of his hospital by his brother Ralph, whom some rank as a puritan, although his title seems doubtful. He was however, of less reputation than his brother. Mr. Thomas Lever’s printed works are a few “Sermons,” which, like Latimer’s, contain many particulars of the manners of the times and three treatises “The right way from the danger of sin and vengeance in this wicked world,” 1575 a “Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer” and “The Path-way to Christ.”

Archbishop Wake’s character of him was that of vir sobrius, et bonus pradicator: and a considerable dignitary in the church used to say, that he looked upon his life to have been spent in the service of learning and virtue, and thought the world to be more concerned for its continuance than himself: that it would be happy for us if there were many more of the profession like him, &c. It was his misfortune, however, to live in a time of much party violence, and being a moderate man, he met with ill usage from both parties, particularly from the clergy of his own diocese. His only object was the security of our church-establishment as settled at the Revolution. He was so diligent a preacher, that we are told he composed more than a thousand sermons. He was always of opinion that a clergyman should compose his own sermons, and therefore ordered his executor to destroy his stock, lest they should contribute to the indolence of others. Having no family, for his wife died young without issue, he expended a great deal of money on his library and the repairs of his dilapidated parsonage-houses; and was, at the same time, a liberal benefactor to the poor. His chief, and indeed only, failing was a warmth of temper, which sometimes hurried him on to say what was inconsistent with his character and interest, and to resent imaginary injuries. Of all this, however, he was sensible, and deeply regretted it. Hearne and Mr. Lewis Vvere, it appears, accustomed to speak, disrespectfully of each other’s labours, but posterity has done justice to both. The political prejudices of antiquariss are of very little consequence. Mr. Lewis’s works are, 1> “The Church Catechism efcplained,” already mentioned, 1700, 12mo. 2. A short Defence of Infant Baptism,“1700, 8vo. 3.” A serious Address to the Anabaptists,“a single sheet, 1701, with a second in 1702. 4.” A Companion for the afflicted,“1706. 5.” Presbyters not always an authoritative part of provincial synods,“1710, 4to. 6.” An apologetical Vindication of the present Bishops,“1711. 7.” The Apology for the Church of England, in an examination of the rights of the Christian church,“published about this time, or perhaps in 1714. 8.” The poor Vicar’s plea against- his glebe being assessed to the Church,“1712. 9.” A Guide to young Communicants,“1715. 10.” A Vindication of the Bishop of Norwich“(Trimnell), 1714. 11.” The agreement of the Lutheran churches with the church of England, and an answer to some exceptions to it,“1715. 12.” Two Letters in defence of the English liturgy and reformation,“1716. 13.” Bishop Feme’s Church of England man’s reasons for not making the decisions of ecclesiastical synods the rule of his faith,“1717, 8vo. 14.” An Exposition of the xxxivth article of Religion,“1717. 15.” Short Remarks on the prolocutor’s answer, &c.“16.” The History, &c. of John Wicliffe, D. D.“1720, 8vo. 17.” The case of observing such Fasts and Festivals as are appointed by the king’s authority, considered,“1721. 18.” A Letter of thanks to the earl of Nottingham, &c.“1721. 19.” The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Thanet in Kent,“1723, 4 to, and again, with additions, in 1736. 20.” A Specimen of Errors in the second volume of Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, being a Vindication of Bur-net’s History of the Reformation,“1724, 8vo. 21.” History and Antiquities of the abbey church of Faversham, &c.“1727, $to. 22.” The New Testament, &c. translated out of the Latin vulgate by John WicklifFe; to which is prefixed, an History of the several Translations of the Holy Bible,“&c. 1731, folio. Of this only 160 copies were printed by subscription, and the copies unsubscribed for were advertised the same year at I/. 1*. each. Of the” New Testament“the rev. H. Baber, of the British Museum, has lately printed an edition, with valuable preliminary matter, in 4to. 23.” The History of the Translations, &c.“reprinted separately in 1739, 8vo. 24.” The Life of Caxton,“1737, 8vo. For an account of this work we may refer to Dibdiu’s new edition of Ames. 25.” A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism, to which is prefixed a defence of Dr. Wicliffe from the false charge of his denying Infant-baptism,“1738. 26.” A Dissertation on the antiquity and use of Seals in England,“1710. 27.” A Vindication of the ancient Britons, &c. from being Anabaptists, with a letter of M. Bucer to bishop Hooper on ceremonies,“1741. 28.” A Defence of the Communion office and Catechism of the church of England from the charge of favouring transubstantiation,“1742. 29.” The Life of Reynold Pecock, bishop of St. Asaph and Chichester,“1744, 8vo. Mr. Lewis published also one or two occasional sermons, and an edition of Roper’s Life of sir Thomas More. After his death, according to the account of him in the‘ Biog. Britannica (which is unpardonably superficial, as Masters’s History of Bene’t College had appeared some years before), was published” A brief discovery of some of the arts of the popish protestant Missioners in England,“1750, 8vo. But there are other curious tracts which Mr. Lewis sent for publication to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and which, for reasons stated in vol. X. of that work, were printed in” The Miscellaneous Correspondence," 1742 1748, a scarce and valuable volume, very little known to the possessors of the Magazine, no set of which can be complete without it. Of these productions of Mr. Lewis, we can ascertain, on the authority of Mr. Cave, the following: an account of William Longbeard, and of John Smith, the first English anabaptist; the principles of Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Johnson; and an account of the oaths exacted by the Popes. Mr. Lewis left a great many manuscripts, some of which are still in public or private libraries, and are specified in our authorities,

He wrote, or compiled, “Reports of Cases in the courts at Westminster in the reigns of king James and king Charles, with two tables; to which is added a treatise of Wards and Liveries,” 1659, folio. The *' Treatise of Wards“had been published separately in 1612, 12mo. Among Hearne’s” Collection of curious Discourses," are some by sir James Leigh.

, a voluminous polemic in the seventeenth century, was born at Warwick, Feb. 4, 1583, and edu r cated at Christ church, Oxford. After his admission into holy orders he was presented to the vicarage of Great Budworth in Cheshire, where he continued a constant preacher for several years. He was afterwards made prebendary and subdean of Chester, and had a weekly lecture at St. Peter’s church. He was also once or twice a member of the convocation. On the commencement of the rebellion, he espoused the cause of the parliament, took the covenant, was chosen one of the assembly of divines, appointed Latin examiner of young preachers, and by his writings, encouraged all the opinions and prejudices of his party, with whom his learning gave him considerable weight. He accepted of various livings under the republican government, the last of which was that of Solihull, in Warwickshire, which he resigned on being disabled by breaking of a blood-vessel, and retired to Sutton Colfield? in the same county, where he died May 16, 1662. His works, of which Wood enumerates about thirty articles, relate mostly to the controversies of the times, except his sermons; and his share in the “Assembly’s Annotations on the Bible,” tp which he contributed the annotations on the Pentateuch and the four Evangelists.

, who was originally a printer in London, published several of the mathematical works of Samuel Foster, astronomical professor in Gresham college. He afterwards became an eminent author himself, and appears to have been the most universal mathematician of his time. He published many mathematical treatises in the seventeenth century. Among these his “Cursus Mathematicus” was esteemed the best system of the kind extant. His “Panarithmologia; or, Trader’s sure Guide,” being tables ready cast up, was long in use. It was formed upon a plan of his own, and has been adopted by Mr. Bareme in France. The seventh edition was published in 1741. We have no account of his birth or death.

, an eminent antiquary, born about 1670, was a native of South Wales, and the son of Charles Lhuyd, esq. of Lhanvorde. In 1687 he commenced his academical studies at Jesus college, Oxford, where he was created M. A. July 21, 1701. He studied natural history under Dr. Plot, whom he succeeded as keeper of the Ashmolean museum in 1690. He bad the use of all Vaughan’s collections, and, with incessant labour and great exactness, employed a considerable part of his life in searching into the Welsh antiquities, had perused or collected a great deal of ancient and valuable matter from their Mss. transcribed all the old charters of their monasteries that he could meet with, travelled several times over Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Ireland, Armoric Bretagne, countries inhabited by the same people, compared their antiquities, and made observations on the whole. In March 1708-9, he was elected, by the university of Oxford, esquire beadle of divinity, a place of considerable profit, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months. He died July 1709, an event which prevented the completion of many admirable designs. For want of proper encouragement, he did very little towards understanding the British bards, having seert but one of those of the sixth century, and not being able to procure access to two of the principal libraries in the country. He communicated, however, many observations to bishop Gibson, whose edition of the Britannia he revised; and published “Archasologia Britannica, giving some account additional to what has been hitherto published of the languages, histories, and customs, of the original inhabitants of Great Britain, from collections and observations in travels through Wales, Cornwall, Bas Bretagne, Ireland, and Scotland, Vol, I. Glossography *.” Oxford, 1707, fol. He published also “Lithophylacii Britannici Iconographia,” 1699, 8vo. This work, which is a methodical catalogue of the figured fossils of the Ashmolean museum, consisting of 1766 articles, was printed at the expence of sir Isaac Newton, sir Hans Sloane, and a few other of his learned friends. As only 120 copies were printed, a new edition of it was published in 1760 by Mr. Huddesford, to which were annexed several letters from Lhuyd to his learned friends, on the subject of fossils, and a“prselectio” on the same subject.

He left in ms. a Scottish or Irish-English dictionary, proposed to be published in 1732 by subscription, by Mr. David Malcolme, a minister of the church of Scotland, with additions; as also the elements of the said language, with necessary and useful information for propagating more effectually the English language, and for promoting the knowledge of the ancient Scottish or Irish, and many branches of useful and curious learning. Lhuyd, at the end of his preface to the “Archaeologia,” promises an historical dictionary of British persons and places mentioned in ancient records It seems to have been ready for press, though he could not fix the time of publication. His collections for a second volume, which was to give an account of the antiquities, monuments, &c. in the principality of Wales, were numerous and well-chosen; but, on account

morick Grammar, translated out of the Irish or ancient Scottish LanFrencb, by Mr. Williams, the sub-li- guages.“10.” An Irish English Diebrarian of the Museum.“4.” An titi>ary.“And lastly,” A Catalogue

Armorick English Vocabulary.“5. uf Irish Manuscripts.” "Some Welsh Words omitted in Dr. of a quarrel between him and Dr. Wynne, then fellow, afterwards principal of the college, and bishop of St. Asaph, the latter refused to buy them, and they were purchased by sir Thomas Seabright, of Beachwood, in Hertfordshire, whose grandson dispersed them by auction in 1807. Of the sale and the chief articles, an account was given by Mr. Gough in the Gentleman’s Magazine for May of that year. Carte made extracts from Mr. Lhuyd’s Mss. about or before 1736; but these were chiefly historical. Many of his letters to Lister, and other learned contemporaries, were given by Dr. Fothergill to the university of Oxford, and are now in the Ashmolean museum. Lhuyd undertook more for illustrating this part of the kingdom than any one man besides ever did, or than any one man can be equal to.

"I remember I was told formerly at Oxford, by a gentleman that knew and honoured him, ' that his death was in all probability hastened, partly by his immoderate application to researches into antiquity, and more so by his chusing, for some time before his decease, to lie in a room at the Museum, which, if not very damp, was at least not well-aired, nor could be.' This, it seemjs, was then the current opinion; for he was naturally, as I have heard, of a very robust constitution. It would probably have been better, if he could have contented himself with, a chamber or two in his college, though only a sojourner there, and paying rent. He well deserved to have lived rent-free in any part of Great Britain though I do not; know that his college denied him this piece of small respect so evidently due to nis great merit.

“The ingenious and learned Mr. Thomas Richards (formerly a member of that college, and afterwards the most worthy rector of Lhanvyllin in North Wales) told me, in 1756,” that, in a year or two after his admission into the university, a consultation was held by the fellows of Jesus- college, about a proper person of that college, or any other native of Wales, (though of another college,) to answer the celebrated * Muscipula,‘ then lately published by the ingenious Mr. Holdsworth, of Magdalen-college, at the request, and by the direction, of Dr. Sacheverell. Those who knew, and had often observed, the collegiate exercises of Mr. Richards, were pleased to propose him, though of so low standing, as the fittest person that they could think of for such an undertaking. Mr. Lhuyd, being present, asked, ’ Has he the caput poeticum?‘ They assuring him that he usually wrote in a strong Virgilian verse, ’ Theji,‘ said Mr. Lhuyd, * I will give him a plan,’ which was that of the * Hoglandia,‘ since published and well known. Mr. Richards, as he told me (and a friend of his said the same), retired with leave, for about a week, out of college, taking lodgings at St. Thomas’s, and completed the poem. When finished, and corrected by Mr. Lhuyd, and Mr. Anthony Alsop, of Christ-church, Mr. Lhuyd drew up a preface, or dedication, in very elegant Latin, but in terms by much too severe, which made Mr. Richards very uneasy, for he must obey. Before the poem was sent to the press, Mr. Lhuyd died; Richards was then at liberty. He consulted with his friend Mr. Alsop (who was greatly offended with Dr. S.’s haughty carriage), and both together drew up the dedication as it now stands.

“A friend of Mr. Richards informed me, * that, upon the publication of the * Muscipula,‘ Dr. 8. gave a cppy of it to Mr. Lhuyd, with these haughty words: * Here, Mr. Lhuyd, I give you a poem of banter upon your country; and 1 defy all your countrymen to answer it.’ This provoked the old Cambrian,' &c. ”He had prepared many other valuable materials, but did not live to finish and publish them. His apparatus, in rough draughts, are now in the possession of the family of the Seabrights at Beach-wood, in the county of Hertford. 1 wish they were bestowed upon the British Museum in London, or the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, of which latter the said Mr. Lhuyd was keeper.

, a celebrated sophist of antiquity, was born of an ancient and noble family at Antioch, on the Orontes, in the year 314. Suidas calls his father “Phasganius” but this was the name of one of his uncles; the other, who was the elder, was named Panolbius. His great-grandfather, who excelled in the art of divination, had published some pieces in Latin, which occasioned his being supposed by some, but falsely, to be an Italian. His maternal and paternal grandfathers were eminent in rank and in eloquence; the latter, with his brother Brasidas, was put to death by the order of Dioclesian, in the year 303, after the tumult of the tyrant Eugenius. Libanius, the second of his father’s three sons, in the fifteenth year of his age, wishing to devote himself entirely to literature, complains that he met with some “shadoxvs of sophists.” Then, assisted by a proper master, he began to read the ancient writers at Antioch; and thence, with Jasion, a Cappadocian, went to Athens, and residing there for more than four years, became intimately acquainted with Crispinus of Heraclea, who, he says, “enriched him afterwards with books at Nicomedia, and went, but seldom, to the schools of Diophantus.” At Constantinople he ingratiated himself with Nicocles of Lacedosmon (a grammarian, who was master to the emperor Julian), and the sophist Bermarchius. Returning to Athens, and soliciting the office of a professor, which the proconsul had before intended for him when he was twenty- five years of age, a certain Cappadocian happened to be preferred to him. But being encouraged by Dionysius, a Sicilian who had been prefect of Syria, some specimens of his eloquence, that were published at Constantinople, made him so generally known and applauded, that he collected more than eighty disciples, the two sophists, who then filled the chair there, raging in vain, and Bermarchius ineffectually opposing him in rival orations, and, when he could not excel him, having recourse to the frigid calumny of magic. At length, about the year 346, being expelled the city by his competitors, the prefect Limenius concurring, he repaired to Nice, and soon after to Nicomedia, the Athens of Bithynia, where his excellence in speaking began to be more and more approved by all; and Julian, if not a hearer, was a reader and admirer of his orations. In the dame'city, he says, “he was particularly delighted with the friendship of Aristaenetus;” and the five years which he passed there, he styles “the spring or any thing else that can be conceived pleasanter than spring, of his whole life.” Being invited again to Constantinople, and afterwards returning to Nicomedia, being also tired of Constantinople, where he found Phoenix and Xenobius, rival sophists, though he was patronised by Strategius, who succeeded Domitian as prefect of the East, not daring on account of his rivals to occupy the Athenian chair, he obtained permission from Gallus Cassar to visit for four months, his native city Antioch, where, after Gallus was killed, in the year 354, he fixed his residence for the remainder of his life, and initiated many in the sacred rites of eloquence. He was also much beloved by the emperor Julian, who heard his discourses with pleasure, received him with kindness, and imitated him in his writings. Honoured by that prince with the rank of quaestor, and with several epistles of which six only are extant, the‘ last written by the emperor during’ his fatal expedition against the Persians, he the more lamented his death in the flower of Ms age, as from him he had promised himself a certain and lasting support both in the worship of idols and in his own studies. There was afterwards a report, that Liba­Ihus, with the younger Jamblichus, the master of Proclus, inquired by divination who would be the successor of Valens, and ia consequence with difficulty escaped his cruelty, Irenaeus attesting the innocence of Libanius. In like manner he happily escaped another calumny, by the favour of duke Lupicinus, when he was accused by his enemy Fidelis, or Fidustius, of having written an eulogium on the tyrant Procopius. He was not, however, totally neglected by Valens, whom he not only celebrated in an oration, but obtained from him a confirmation of the law against entirely, excluding illegitimate children from the inheritance of their paternal estates, which he solicited from the emperor, no doubt for a private reason, since, as Eunapius informs us, he kept a mistress, and was never married. The remainder of his life he passed as before mentioned, at Antioch, to an advanced age, amidst various wrongs and oppressions from his rivals and the times, which he copiously relates in his life, though, tired of the manners of that city, be had thoughts, in his old age, of changing his abode, as he tells Eusebius. He continued there, however, and on various occasions was very serviceable to the city, either by appeasing seditions, and calming the disturbed minds of the citizens, or by reconciling to them the emperors Julian and Theodosius. That Libanius lived even to the reign of Arcadius, that is, beyond the seventieth year of his age, the learned collect from his oration on Lucian, and the testimony of Cedrenus; and of the same opinion is Godfrey Olearius, a man not more respectable for his exquisite knowledge of sacred and polite literature than for his judgment and probity, in his’ ms prelections, in which, when he was professor of both languages in the university of his own country, he has given an account of the life of this sophist.

, a celebrated physician and philosopher, was born at Rapallo, in the state of Genoa, Oct. 3, 1577, where his father was also a physician. After completing his education at Bologna, in 15J9, he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Pisa, which he filled with so. much reputation that he was invited to the same chair in the university of Padua in 1609, and occupied it until 1636. He removed at that time to Bologna, in consequence of failing to obtain the professorship of medicine, when vacant by the death of Cremonini. But the Venetian states very soon acknowledged the loss which the university of Padua had sustained by the retirement of Licetus; and the same vacancy occurring in 1645, he was induced, by the pressing invitations which were made to him, to return to Padua, and held that professorship till his death in 1657. He was a very copious writer, having published upwards of fifty treatises upon medical, moral, philosophical, antiquarian, and historical subjects; but they are no longer sufficiently interesting to require a detail of their titles, as, notwithstanding his erudition, he displays little acuteness in research or originality of conception. His treatise “De Monstrorum Causis, Natur&, et Differentiis,” which is best known, is replete with instances of credulity, and with the fables and superstitions of his predecessors, and contains a classification of the monsters which had been previously described, without any correction from his own observations. The best edition is that of Gerard Blasius, in 1668.

, professor of mathematics, and of medicine, in the university of Helmstadt, the son of John Liddel, a reputable citizen of Aberdeen, was born there in 1561, and educated in the languages and philosophy at the schools and university of Aberdeen. In 1579, having a great desire to visit foreign countries, he went from Scotland to Dantzic, and thence through Poland to Francfort on the Oder, where John Craig, afterwards first physician to James VI. king of Scotland, then taught logic and mathematics. By his liberal assistance Mr. Liddei was enabled to continue at the university of Francfort for three years, during which he applied himself very diligently to mathematics and philosophy under Craig and the other professors, and also entered upon the study of physic. In 1582, Dr. Craig being about to return to Scotland, sent Liddel to prosecute his studies at Wratislow, or Breslaw, in Silesia, recommending him to the care of that celebrated statesman, Andreas Dudithius; and during his residence at Breslaw, Liddel made uncommon progress in his favourite study of mathematics, under Paul Wittichius, an eminent professor.

In 1584 Liddel returned to Francfort, and again applied to physic, and at the same time instructed some pupils in various branches of mathematics and philosophy. In 1587, being obliged to leave Francfort on account of the plague, he retired to the university of Rostock, where his talents attracted the esteem of Brucseus, and Caselius, which last observes, that, as far as he knew, Liddel was the first person in Germany who explained the motions of the heavenly bodies according to the three different hypotheses of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe. With these learned men he lived more like a companion than a pupil; and Brucxus, himself an excellent mathematician, acknowledged that he was instructed by Liddel in the more perfect knowledge of the Copernican system, and other astronomical questions. It was probably during his residence here that Licldel became acquainted with Tycho Brahe. In 1590, having taken his master’s degree at Rostock, he returned once more to Francfort; but, hearing of the increasing reputation of the new university at Helmstadt, where his friend Caselius had accepted the chair of philosophy, he removed thither, and in 1591 was appointed to the first or lower professorship of mathematics, and in 1594 to the second and more dignified mathematical chair, which he filled with great reputation to himself and to the university. In 1596 he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine, and both taught and practised physic, and was employed as first physician at the court of Brunswick. His reputation being now at its height, he was several times chosen dean of the faculties, both of philosophy and physic, and in 1604, pro-rector of the university, the year before he resigned his mathematical professorship.

Dr. Liddel’s works are, 1. “Disputationum Medicinalium,” 1605, 4 vols. 4to, consisting of theses maintained by himself and his pupils at Helmstadt from 1592 to 1606. The copy in the library at Aberdeen is full of ms notes in his own hand. Manget mentions what appears to be a new edition, or a new arangement, of these theses, published at Helmstadt in 1720, 4to, under the title of “Universae Medicinae compendium.” 2. “Ars Medica, succincte et perspicue explicata,” Hamburgh, 1607, 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1624, by Serranus; and again at Hamburgh, 1628, by Frobenius, who acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Patrick Dun, principal of the Marischal College of Aberdeen, for the use of a copy corrected and enlarged by the author. 3. “De Febribus libri tres,” Hamburgh, 1610, 12mo, republished by Serranus, along with the “Ars Medica.” 4. “Tractatus de dente aureo,” &c. ibid. 1628, 12mo, in answer to Horstius’s ridiculous account of a boy who had a golden tooth. (See James Horstius). He appears to have undertaken this work out of regard to the reputation of the university of Helmstadt, which, Horstius being one of the professors, he thought might be affected by this imposture. 5. “Artis conservandi Sanitatem, libri duo, a C. D. doctore Liddelio defuncto delineati, opera et studio D. Patricii Dunaei, M. D. &c.” Aberdeen, 1631, 12mo. In the preface to this work Dr. Dun, who had studied physic at Helmstadt under Dr. Liddel, says, that having found the ms. among his papers, he thought it a duty he owed to the public and his old master, to complete and publish it. All these writings received the distinguished approbation of his colleagues and contemporaries, and have been mentioned with respect by succeeding authors.

, a learned English divine, was born on the 19th or 29th of March, 1602, at Stoke upon Trent, in Staffordshire. His father was Thomas Lightfoot, vicar of Uttoxeter in that county . After having finished his studies at a school kept by Mr. Whitehead on Mortongreen, near Congleton in Cheshire, he was removed in 1617, to Cambridge, and put under the tuition of Mr. William Chappel, then fellow of Christ’s college there, and afterwards bishop of Cork in Ireland, who was also the tutor of Henry More, Milton, &c. At college he applied himself to eloquence, and succeeded so well as to be thought the best orator of the undergraduates in the uni versity. He also made an extraordinary proficiency in the Latin and Greek; but neglected the Hebrew, and even lost that knowledge he brought of it from school. His taste for the Oriental languages was not yet excited; and, as for logic, the study of it, as managed at that time among the academics, was too contentious for his quiet and meek disposition.

As soon as he had taken the degree of B. A. he left the university, and became assistant to his former master, Mr. Wbitehead, who then kept a school at Repton, in Derbyshire. After he had supplied this place a year or two, he entered into orders, and became curate of Norton under Hales, in Shropshire. This curacy gave an occasion of awakening his genius for the Hebrew tongue. Norton, lies near Bellaport, then the seat of sir Rowland Cotton, who was his constant hearer, made him his chaplain, and took him into his house. This gentleman being a perfect master of the Hebrew language, engaged Lightfoot in that study; who, by conversing with his patron, soon became sensible, that, without that knowledge, it was impossible to attain an accurate understanding of the Scriptures. He therefore applied himself to it with extraordinary vigour and success; and his patron removing, with his family, to reside in London, at the request of sir Allan Cotton, his uncle, who was lord-mayor of that city, he followed his preceptor thither. He had not been long in London before he conceived the design of going abroad for farther improvement; and with that view he went into Staffordshire, and took leave of his father and mother. Passing, however, through Stone in that county, he found the place destitute of a minister; and the pressing instances of the parishioners prevailed upon him to undertake that cure. He now laid aside all thoughts of going abroad, and having in 1628 become possessed of the living, he married the daughter of William Crompton, of Stone-park, esq. After a time, his excessive attachment to rabbinical learning occasioned another removal to London, for the sake of Sion-college-library, which he knew was well stocked with books of that kind. He therefore quitted his charge at Stone, and removed with his family to Hornsey, near London, where he gave the public a specimen of his ad-? vancement in those studies, by his “Erubhirn, or Miscellanies Christian and Judaical,” in 1629. He was now only 27 years of age, and appears to have been well acquainted with the Latin and the Greek fathers, as well as with Plutarch, Plato, and Homer, and seems also to have had some skill in the modern languages. These first fruits of his studies were dedicated to sir Rowland Cotton; who, in 1631, presented him to the rectory of Ashley, in Staffordshire.

At the restoration, he offered to resign the mastership of Catharine-hall to Dr. Spurstow, who declining it, another person t would have been preferred by the crown, in which the right of presentation lay. But, as what Lightfoot had done had been rather in compliance with the necessity of the times than from any zeal or spiritof opposition to the king and government, Sheldon, abp. of Canterbury, readily and heartily engaged to serve him, though personally unknown; and procured him a confirmation

subject. It was his opinion, that, after Both which be maintained in the affirthe closing of the canon of Scripture, mature, there was neither prophecy, miracles, from the crown, both of his place, and of his living. Soon after this, he was appointed one of the assistants at the conference upon the liturgy, which was held in the beginning of 1661, but attended only once or twice, being more intent on completing his “Harmony;” and, being of a strong and healthy constitution, and remarkably temperate, he prosecuted his studies with unabated vigour to the last, and continued to publish, notwithstanding the many difficulties he met with from the expence of it . Not long, however, before he died, some booksellers got a promise from him to collect and methodize his works, in order to print them; but the fulfilment was prevented by his death, which happened at Ely Dec. 6, 1675. He was interred at Great Munden, in Hertfordshire.

, a distinguished botanist* was born at Newent, in the forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, Dec. 9, 1735. His father, Stephen Lightfoot, was a reputable yeoman or gentleman farmer, who died in 1769, with a very amiable character, expressed on a small marble monument in the parish church of Newent His son was educated at St. Crypt’s school,Jat Gloucester; from whence he became an exhibitioner in Pembroke-college, Oxford; where he continued his studies with much reputation, and took his master’s degree in July 1766. He was first appointed curate at Colnbrook, and afterwards at Uxbridgef which he retained to his dying day.

In 1772, the late Mr. Pennant invited Mr. Lightfoot to be the companion of his second tour to Scotland and the Hebrides, advising him to undertake the compilation, as he himself modestly calls it, of a “Flora Scotica,” which Mr. Pennant offered to publish at his own expence. Mr. Lightfoot gladly complied, and besides the knowledge acquired by his own observations, was ably assisted by the collections and communications of Dr. Hope, professor of botany at Edinburgh, the rev. Dr. John Stuart of Luss; the rev. Dr. Burgess of Kirkmichael, in Dumfriesshire, and of other gentlemen in England. The “Flora Scotica” was published in 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The plan and execution of it appeared calculated to render it one of the most popular Flora’s, but for a long time it did not pay its expences, which certainly did not arise from any want of merit; for its only great and radical fault was not known, or at least scarcely considered such till lately. The fault we mean, is the compiling descriptions from foreign authors, without mentioning whence they are taken; so that a student can never be certain of their just application, but on the contrary, often finds them erroneous or unsuitable, without knowing why. Even in the last class, on which Mr. Lightfoot bestowed so much pains, the synonyms of Linnæus and Dillenius often disagree, though in many cases such contrarieties are properly indicated, so as to throw original light on the subject.

He wrote several other pamphlets, before the long parliament granted him the liberties of the Fleet, Nov. 1640, which indulgence he likewise abused by appearing on May 3, 1641, at the head of a savage mob, who clamoured for justice against the earl of Stratford. Next day he was seized and arraigned at the bar of the House of Lords, for an assault upon colonel Lunsford, the governor of the Tower; but the temper of the times being now in his favour, he was dismissed, and the same day a vote passed in the House of Commons, declaring his former sentence illegal and tyrannical, and that he ought to have reparation for his sufferings and losses. This reparation was effectual, although slow. It was not until April 7, 1646, that a decree of the House of Lords passed for giving him two thousand pounds out of the estates of lord Cottington, sir Banks Windehank, and James Ingram, warden of the Fleet; and it was two years after before he received the money, in consequence of a petition to the House of Commons, when he obtained an ordinance for 3000l. worth of the delinquents’ lands, to be sold to him at twelve years purchase. This ordinance included a grant for some part of the sequestered estates of sir Henry Bellingham and Mr. Bowes, in the counties of Durham or Northumberland, from which he received about 1400l.; and Cromwell, soon after his return from Ireland, in May 1650, procured him a grant of lands for the remainder. This extraordinary delay was occasioned entirely by himself.

When the parliament had voted an army to oppose the king, Lilburne entered as a volunteer, was a captain of foot at the battle of Edge-hill, and fought well in the engagement at Brentford, Nov. 12, 1612, but being taken prisoner, was carried to Oxford, and would have been tried and executed for high treason, had not his parliamentary friends threatened retaliation. After this, as he himself informs us, he was exchanged very honourably above his rank, and rewarded with a purse of 300l. by the earl of Essex. Yet, when that general began to press the Scots’ covenant upon his followers, Lilburne quarrelled with him, and by Cromwell’s interest was made a major of foot, Oct. 1643, in the new-raised army under the earl of Manchester. In this station he behaved very well, and narrowly escaped with his life at raising the siege of Newark by prince Rupert; but at the same time he quarrelled with his colonel (King), and accused him of several misdemeanours, to the earl, who immediately promoted him to be lieutenant-colonel of his own regiment of dragoons. This post Lilburne sustained with signal bravery at the battle of Marston-moor, in July; yet he had before that quarrelled with the earl for not bringing colonel King to a trial by a court* martial; and upon Cromwell’s accusing his lordship to the House of Commons, Nov. 1644, Lilburne appeared before the committee in support of that charge. Nor did he rest until he had procured an impeachment to be exhibited in the House of Commons in August this year, against colonel King for high crimes and misdemeanours. Little attention being paid to this, he first offered a petition to the House, to bring the colonel to his trial, and still receiving no satisfaction, he published a coarse attack upon the earl of Manchester, in 1646. Being called before the House of Lords, where that nobleman was speaker, on account of this publication, he not only refused to answer the interrogatories, but protested against their jurisdiction over him in the present case; on which he was first committed to Newgate, and then to the Tower. He then appealed to the House of Commons; and upon their deferring to take his case into consideration, he charged that House, in print, not only with having done nothing of late years for the general good, but also with having made many ordinances notoriously unjust and oppressive. This pamphlet, which was called “The Oppressed man’s oppression,” being seized, he printed another, entitled “The Resolved man’s resolution,” in which he maintained “that the present parliament ought to be pulled down, and a new one called, to bring them to a strict account, as the only means of saving the laws and liberties of England from utter destruction,” This not availing, he applied to the agitators in the army; and at length, having obtained liberty every day to go, without his keeper, to attend the committee appointed about his business, and to return every night to the Tower, he made use of that indulgence to engage in some seditious practices. For this he was recommitted to the Tower, and ordered to be tried; but, upon the parliament’s apprehensions from the Cavaliers, on prince Charles’s appearing with a fleet in the Downs, he procured a petition, signed by seven or eight thousand persons, to be presented to the House, which made an order, in August 1648, to discharge him from imprisonment*, and to make him satisfaction for his sufferings. This was not compassed, however, without a series of conflicts and quarrels with Cromwell; who, returning from Ireland in

Wood characterizes him as a person “from his youth much addicted to contention, novelties, opposition of government, and to violent and bitter expressions;” “the idol of the factious people;” “naturally a great troubleworld in all the variety of governments, a hodge-podge of religion, the chief ring-leader of the levellers, a great proposal-maker, and a modeller of state, and publisher of several seditious pamphlets, and of so quarrelsome a disposition, that it was appositely said of him (by judge Jenkins), * that, if there was none living but he, John would be against Lilburne, and Ltlburne against John.‘ ’ Lord Clarendon instances him” as an evidence of the temper of the nation; and how far the spirits at that time (in 1653) were from paying a submission to that power, when nobody had the courage to lift up their hands against it.“Hume says that he was” the most turbulent, but the most upright and courageous of human kind;“and more recent biographers have given him credit for the consistency of his principles. We doubt, however, whether this consistency will bear a very close examination: it is true that he uniformly inveighed against tyranny, whether that of a king, a protector, or a parliament; but such was his selfish love of liberty, that he included under the name of tyranny, every species of tribunal which did not acquit men. of his turbulent disposition, and it would not be easy from his writings to make out any regular form of government, or system of political principles, likely to prove either permanent or beneficial. In these, however, may be found the models of all those wild schemes which men of similartempers have from time to time obtruded upon public attention. As matters of curiosity, therefore, we shall add a list of his principal publications: i.” A.Salva Libertate.“2.” The Outcry of the young men and the apprentices of London; or an inquisition after the loss of the fundamental Laws and Liberties of England,“&c. London, 1645, August 1, in 4to. 3.” Preparation to an Hue and Cry after sir Arthur Haselrig.“4.” A Letter to a Friend,“dated the 20th of July, 1645, in 4to. 5.” A Letter to William Prynne, esq.“dated the 7th of January, 1645. This was written upon occasion of Mr. Prynne’s” Truth triumphing over Falshood, Antiquity over Novelty.“6.” London’s Liberty in Chains discovered,“&c. London, 1646, in 4to. 7.” The free man’s freedom vindicated; or a true relation of the cause and manner of Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne’s present Imprisonment in Newgate,“&c. London, 1646. 8.” Charters of London, or the second part of London’s Liberty in Chains discovered,“&c. London, 1646, 28 Decemb. 9.” Two Letters from the Tower of London to Colonel Henry Martin, a member of the House of Commons, upon the 13th and 15th of September 1647.“10.” Other Letters of great concern,“London, 1647. 11.” The resolved man’s resolution to maintain with the last drop of his blood his civil liberties and freedoms granted unto him by the great, just, and truest declared Laws of England,“&c. London, 1647, in 4to. 12.” His grand plea against the present tyrannical House of Lords, which he delivered before an open Committee of the House of Commons, 20 Octob. 1647,“printed in 1647, in 4to. 13.” His additional Plea directed to Mr. John Maynard, Chairman of the Committee,“1647, in 4to. 14.” The Outcries of oppressed Commons, directed to all the rational and understanding in the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales,“&c. Febr. 1647, in 4to. Richard Overton, another Leveller, then in Newgate, had an hand in this pamphlet. 15.” Jonah’s Cry out of the Whale’s Belly, in certain Epistles unto Lieutenant General Cromwell and Mr. John Goodwin, complaining of the tyranny of the Houses of Lords and Commons at Westminster,“&c. 16.” An Impeachment of High Treason against Oliver Cromwell and his son-in-law Henry Ireton, esquires, late Members of the forcibly dissolved House of Commons, presented to publick view by Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne, close prisoner in the Tower of London, for his zeal, true and zealous affection to the liberties of this nation,“London, 1649, in 4to. 17.” The legal fundamental Liberties of the People of England revived, asserted, and vindicated,“&c. London, 1649. 18.” Two Petitions presented to the supreme authority of the nation from thousands of the lords, owners, and commoners of Lincolnshire,“&c. London, 1650, in 4to. In a paper which he delivered to the House of Commons, Feb. 26, 1648-9, with the hands of many levellers to it, in the name of” Addresses to the Supreme Authority of England,“and in” The Agreement of the people," published May 1, 1649, and written by him and his associates Walwyn, Prince, and Overton, are their proposals for a democratic form of government.

, a celebrated dramatic writer, was by profession a jeweller, and was born in the neighbourhood of Moorgate in London, Feb. 4, 1693, where he pursued his occupation for many years with the fairest and most unblemished character. He was strongly attached to the Muses, and seems to have laid it down as a maxim, that the devotion paid to them ought always to tend to the promotion of virtue and mortality. In pursuance of this aim, Lillo was happy in the choice of his subjects, and showed great power of affecting the heart, and of rendering the distresses of common and domestic life equally interesting to the audiences as those of kings and heroes. His “George Barnwell,” “Fatal Curiosity,” and “Arden of Feversham,” are all planned on common and well-known stories; yet they have perhaps more frequently drawn tears from an audience than more pompous tragedies, particularly the first of them. Nor was his management of his subjects less happy than his choice of them. If there is any fault to be objected to his style, it is that sometimes he affects an elevation rather above the simplicity of his subject, and the supposed rank of his characters; but tragedy seldom admits an adherence to the language of common life, and sometimes it is found that even the most humble characters in real life, when under peculiar circumstances of distress, or the influence of any violent passion, will employ an aptness of expression and power of language, not only greatly superior to themselves, but even to the general language and conversation of persons of much higher rank in life, and of minds more cultivated.

In the prologue to “Elmerick,” which was not acted till after the author’s death, it is said, that, when he wrote that play, he “was depressed by want,” and afflicteJ by disease; but in the former particular there appears to be evidently a mistake, as he died possessed of an estate of 60l. a year, besides other effects to a considerable value. The late editor of his works (Mr. T. Davies) in two volumes, 1775, 12mo, relates the following story, which, however, we cannot think adapted to convey any favourable impression of the person of whom it is told: “Towards the latter part of his life, Mr. Lillo, whether from judgment or humour, determined to put the sincerity of his friends, who professed a very high regard for him, to a trial. In order to carry on this design, he put in practice an odd kind of stratagem: ha asked one of his intimate acquaintance to lend him a considerable sum of money, and for this he declared he would give no bond, rior any other security, except a note of hand; the person to whom he applied, not liking the terms, civilly refused him. Soon after, Lillo met his nephew, Mr. Underwood, with whom he had been at variance some time. He put the same question to him, desiring him to lend him money upon the same terms. His nephew, either from a sagacious apprehension of his uncle’s real intention, or from generosity of spirit, immediately offered to comply with his request. Lillo was so well pleased with this ready compliance of Mr. Underwood, that he immediately declared that he was fully satisfied with the love and regard that his nephew bore him; he was convinced that his friendship was entirely disinterested; and assured him, that he should reap the benefit such generous behaviour deserved. In consequence of this promise, he bequeathed him the bulk of his fortune.” The same writer says, that Lillo in his person was lusty, but not tall; of a pleasing aspect, though unhappily deprived of the sight of one eye.

Lillo died Sept. 3, 1739, in the forty -seventh year of his age; and, a few months after his death, Henry Fielding printed the following character of him in “The Champion:” “He had a perfect knowledge of human nature, though his contempt of all base means of application, which are the necessary steps to great acquaintance, restrained his conversation within narrow bounds. He had the spirit of an old Roman, joined to the innocence of a primitive Christian: he was content with his little state of life, in which his excellent temper of mind gave him an happiness beyond the power of riches; and it was necessary for his friends to have a sharp insight into his want of their services, as well as good inclination or abilities to serve him. In short, he was one of the best of men, and those who knew him best will most regret his loss.”

, another dramatic writer, of lesi fame and merit, was born in the Wilds of Kent, about 1553, according to the computation of Wood, who says, “he became a student in Magdalen-college in the beginning of 1569, aged sixteen or thereabouts, and was afterwards one of the demies or clerks of that house.” He took the degree of B.A.April 27, 1573, and of M. A. in 1575. On some disgust, he removed to Cambridge; and thence went to court, where he was taken notice of by queen Elizabeth, and hoped to have been preferred to the post of master of the revels, but after many years of anxious attendance, was disappointed, and was forced to write to the queen fot some little grant to support him in his old age. Of his two letters, or petitions, to her, many copies are preserved in manuscript. In what year he died is unknown; but Wood says, he was alive in 1597. His attachment to the dramatic Muses produced nine dramatic pieces, none of which, however, have preserved their reputation in our times. Even Phillips, in his “Theatrum,” calls them “old-fashioned tragedies and comedies.” Besides these, Lilly has been celebrated for his attempt, which was a very unhappy one, to reform and purify the English language. For this purpose he wrote a book entitled “Euphues,” which met with a degree of success very unusual, and certainly not less unmerited, being almost immediately and universally followed; at least, if we may give credit to the words of Mr. Blount, who published six of Lilly’s plays together, in one volume in twelves. In a preface to that book he says, “our nation are in his debt for a new English, which he taught them * Euphues and his England ' began first that language all our ladies were his scholars and that beauty at court, which could not parley Euphuisme, that is to say, who was unable to converse in that pure and reformed English, which he had formed his work to be the standard of, was as little regarded as she which now there speaks not French.”

According to Mr. Blount, Lilly was deserving of the highest encomiums. He styles him, in his title-page, “the only rare poet of that time, the witty, comical, facetiously quick and unparalleled John Lilly” and in his epistle dedicatory, says, “that hep sate at Apollo’s table that Apollo gave him a wreath of his own bayes without snatching, and the lyre he played on had no borrowed strings.” If, indeed, what has been said with regard to his reformation of the English language had been true, he certainly would have had a claim to the highest hor ours from his countrymen; but those eulogiums are far from well founded, since his injudicious attempts at improvement produced only the most ridiculous affectation. The style of his Euphues exhibits the absurdest excess of pedantry, to which nothing but the most deplorable bad taste could have given even a temporary approbation. Lilly was the author of a famous pamphlet against Martin Mar-prelate and his party, well known to collectors, entitled “Pap with a Hatchet, alias a fig for my godson, &c.” published about 1589, and attributed to Nashe, but was certainly Lilly’s. His prose work, or rather his two prose works intended to reform the English language, were entitled “Euphues and his England,” Lond. 1580, and “Euphues, the Anatomy of Wit,” 1581. Some differences of opinion as to the times of publishing these, may be found in our authorities.

, a famous English astrologer, was born at Diseworth in Leicestershire, in 1602, and was put to school at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in the same county; but, his father not being in circumstances to give him a liberal education, as he intended at Cambridge, he was obliged to quit the school, after learning writing and arithmetic. Being then, as his biographers inform us, of a forward temper, and endued with shrewd wit, he resolved to push his fortune in London, where he arrived in 1620; and where his immediate necessities obliged him to article himself as a servant to a mantua-maker, in the parish of St. Clement Danes. In 1624, he was assistant to a tradesman in the Strand; who, not being able to write, employed him (among other domestic offices) as his book-keeper. He had not been above three years in this place, when, his master dying, he addressed and married his mistress, with a fortune of 1000l. In 1632, he turned his mind to astrology; and applied to one Evans, a worthless Welsh clergyman, who, after practising that craft many years in Leicestershire, had come to London, and, at this time, resided in Gunpowder-alley. Here Lilly became his pupil, and made such a quick progress, that he understood, in the cant of his brethren, how “to set a figure” perfectly in seven or eight weeks; and, continuing his application with the utmost assiduity, gave the public a specimen of his attainments and skill, by intimating that the king had chosen an unlucky horoscope for the coronation in Scotland, 1633.