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

In 1634, having procured a manuscript, with some alterations, of the “Ars Notoria” of Cornelius Agrippa, he became so infatuated by the doctrine of the magical circle, and the invocation of spirits, as not only to make use of a form of prayer prescribed there to the angel Salmonaeus, and to fancy himself a favourite of great power and interest with that uncreated phantom, but even to claim a knowledge of, and a familiar acquaintance with, the partieular guardian angels of England, by name Salmael and Malchidael. After this he treated the more common mystery of recovering stolen goods, &c. with great contempt, claiming a supernatural sight, and the gift of prophetical predictions, and seems to have known well how to profit by the credulity of the times. Such indeed was his fame, as to produce the following notable story. When one Ramsay, the king’s clock maker, being informed that there was a great treasure buried in the cloister of Westminster-abbey, obtained the dean’s (Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln), leave to search for it with the divining or Mosaical* rods, he applied to Lilly for his assistance. Lilly, with one Scot, who pretended to the use of the said rods, attended by Ramsay and above thirty persons more, went into the cloister by night, and, observing the rods to tumble over one another on the West side of the cloister, concluded the treasure lay hid under that spot; but, the ground being' dug to the depth of six feet, and nothing found but a coffin, which was not heavy enough for their purpose, they proceeded, without opening it, into the abbey. Here they were alarmed by a storm, which suddenly rose, and increased to such a height, that they were afraid the West end of the church would have been blown down upon them; the rods moved not at all; the candles and torches, all but one, were extinguished, or burned very dimly. Scot was amazed, looked pale, and knew not what to think or do; until Lilly gave directions to dismiss the chcinons, which when done, all was quiet again, and each man returned home. Lilly, however, took care not to expose his skill again in this manner, though he was cunning enough to ascribe the miscarriage, not to any defect in the art itself, but to the number of people who were present at the operation and derided it; shrewdly laying it down for a rule, that secrecy and intelligent operators, with a strong confidence and knowledge of what they are doing, are necessary requisites to succeed in this work.

All this while our astrologer continued true to his own interest, by serving that of the parliament party, from whom he received this year, 1648, fifty pounds in cash, and an order from the council of state for a pension of 100l. perann. which was granted to him for furnishing them with a perfect knowledge of the chief concernments of France. This he obtained by means of a secular priest, with whom he had been formerly acquainted, and who now was confessor to one of the French secretaries. Lilly received the pension two years, when he threw it up, with the employment, in disgust on some account or other. He read public lectures upon astrology, in 1648 and 1649, for the improvement of young students in that art and succeeded so well both as a practitioner and teacher, that we find him, in 1651 and 1652, laying out near 2000l. for lands and a house at Hersham. During the siege of Colchester, he and Booker were sent for thither, to encourage the soldiers, which they did by assuring them that the town would soon be taken, which proved true, and was perhaps not difficult to be foreseen. In 1650 he published that the parliament should not continue, but a new government arise, agreeably thereto; and in the almanack for 1653, he also asserted, that the parliament stood upon a ticklish foundation, and that the commonalty and soldiery would join together against them. On this he was called before the committee of plundered ministers; but, receiving notice before the arrival of the messenger, he applied to speaker Lenthal, always his friend, who pointed out the offensive passages, which he immediately altered; and attended the committee next morning with six copies printed, which six alone he acknowledged to be his. By this trick he escaped after having been only detained thirteen days in custody of the serjeant at arms. This year he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Thomas Gataker, and, before the expiration of the year, he lost his second wife, to his great joy, and married a third in October following. In 1655 he was indicted at Hicks’s-hall, for giving judgment upon stolen goods, but acquitted: and, in 1659, he received, from the king of Sweden, a present of a gold chain and medal, worth above 50l. on account of his having mentioned that monarch with great respect in his almanacks of 1657 and 1658.

Lilly, a little before his death, adopted one Henry Coley, a tailor, for his son, by the name of Merlin Junior, and made him a present of the copyright, or good-will of his almanack, which had been printed six and thirty years successively; and Coley carried it on for some time. Lilly bequeathed his estate at Hersham to one of the sons of his friend and patron Bulstrode Whitelock; and his magical utensils came all into the hands of Dr. Case, his successor, of facetious memory.

Lilly was author of many works. His “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles late King of England,” if we overlook the astrological nonsense, may be read with as much satisfaction as more celebrated histories, Lilly being not only very well informed, but strictly impartial. This work, with the Lives of Lilly and Ashmole, written by themselves, were published in one volume, 8vo, in 1774. His other works were principally as follow: 1. “Merlinus Anglicus Junior.” 2. “Supernatural Sight.” 3. “The white King’s Prophecy.” 4. “England’s prophetical Merlin;” all printed in 1644. 5. “The starry Messenger,” 1645. 6. “Collection of Prophecies,” 1646. 7. “A Comment on the white King’s Prophecy,” ib. 8. “The Nativities of archbishop Laud, and Thomas earl Strafford,” ib. 9. “Christian Astrology,” 1647; upon this piece he read his lectures in 1648, before- mentioned. 10. “The third Book of Nativities,” ib. 11.“The World’s Catastrophe,” ib. 12. “The Prophecies of Ambrose Merlin, with a Key,” ib. 13. “Trithemius, or the Government of the World by presiding Angels.” See Cornelius Agrippa’s book with the same title. These three last were printed together in one volume; the two first being translated into English by Elias Ashmole, esq. 14. “A Treatise of the three Suns seen in the Winter of 1647,” printed in 1648. 15. “Monarchy or no Monarchy,” 1651. 16. “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles, late King of England,” ib. and again in 1615, with the title of Mr. William Lilly’s “True History of King James and King Charles I.” &c. 17. “-Annus Tenebrosus or, the black Year.” This drew him into the dispute with Gataker, which our author carried on in his almanack in 16.54.

tatis ac Promotionem pacis Christians separately the same year atAmsterunice directa, Amst. 1686,"4to; the dam, 8vo, in Low Dutch or Flemish,

In 1694 a young gentlewoman at Amsterdam, of twenty-­two years of age, took a fancy to learn Hebrew of a Jew; and was by frequent conversations with her tutor, induced to quit the Christian religion for Judaism. As soon as her mother understood this, she employed several divines, but in vain; because they undertook to prove Christianity from the Old Testament, omitting the authority of the New; to which she, returning the common answers she had learned from the Jews, received no reply that gave her satisfaction. While the young lady was in the midst of this perplexity, Dr. Veen, a physician, happened to be sent for to the house; and, hearing her mother speak, with great concern, of the doubts which disturbed her daughter, he mentioned Limborch’s dispute with Orobio. She immediately applied to Limborch, in hopes that he would be able to remove her scruples, and bring her back to the Christian religion. Limborch accordingly used the same train of argument which he had pursued with Orobio, and quickly recovered her to her former faith. In 1698 he was accused of a calumny, in a book concerning the Xo'yog in St. John’s gospel, by Vander Waeyen, professor of divinity at Franecker, because he had said, that Francis Burman, a divine and professor at Leyden, had, in his “Theologia Christiana,” merely transcribed Spinoza without any judgment. Limborch, producing passages from both, endeavoured to prove that he had said nothing which was not strictly true; but when this was printed at Amsterdam in 1699, the two Burmans, one professor of history and eloquence at Utrecht, and the other minister at Amsterdam, published a book in viiulication of their father’s memory, entitled “Burmannorum Pietas,” “The Piety of the Burmans;” to which Limborch made no reply. la 1700 he published, in Dutch, at Amsterdam, a book of piety, containing instructions for dying persons, or means of preparing for death; with a discourse upon the death of John Owens, minister of the remonstrants at Gouda. At the same time he began a -commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, and upon the Epistles to th.e Romans and Hebrews, which was published in 1711.

Having pursued the strictest temperance through life, he preserved the vigour of his mind, and health of his body, to a considerable age, but in the autumn of 1711 he was seized with the St. Anthony’s fire which, growing more violent in the winter, carried him oft, April So, 1713. His funeral oration was spoken by John Le Clerc, who gives him the following character: “Mr, Limborch had many friends among the learned, both at home and abroad, especially in England, where he was much esteemed, particularly by archbishop Tillotson, to whom his history of the inquisition was dedicated, and Mr. Locke. With Mr, Locke he first became acquainted in Holland, and after-> wards held a correspondence by letters, in which, among other things, he has explained the nature of human liberty, a subject not exactly understood by Mr. Locke. He was of an open sincere carriage, which was so well tempered with humanity and discretion as to give no offence. In his instructions, when professor, he observed the greatest perspicuity and the justest order, to which his memory, which retained whatever he had written, almost to a word, contributed very much; and, though a long course of teaching had given him an authority with those about him, and his advanced age had added a reverence to him, yet he was never displeased with others for differing from him, but would both censure, and be censured, without chagrin. Though he never proposed the understanding of languages as the end of his studies, yet he had made large advances in them, and read over many of the ancient and modern writers, and would have excelled in this part of literature, if he bad not preferred that which was more important. He bad all the qualifications suitable to the character of a divine. Above all things, he had a love for truth, and pursued the search of it, by reading the Scriptures with the best commentators. As a preacher, his sermons were methodical and solid, rather than eloquent. If he had applied himself to the mathematics he would undoubtedly have excelled therein; but he had no particular fondness for that study, though he was an absolute master of arithmetic. He was so perfectly acquainted with the history of his own country, especially for 150 years, that he even retained the most minute circumstance?, and the very time of each transaction; so that scarce any one could deceive him in that particular. In his manner he was grave withput pride or sullenness, affable without affectation, pleasant and facetious, upon occasion, without sinking into a vulgar lowness, or degenerating into malice or ill-nature. By these qualifications he was agreeable to all who conversed with him; and his behaviour towards his neighbours was such, that all who knew him, or had any dealings with him, ever commended it.”

In the reign of Henry VIII. indeed, he appears to have Stood above all rivalship at the head of his profession; and he evinced his attachment to its interests, as well as to the public good, by various acts; but especially by founding two lectures on physic in the university of Oxford, and one in that of Cambridge. That at Oxford was left to Merton college, and the Cambridge lecture was given to St. John’s, at which college it is said by Wood and Knight that Linacre studied for some time. The endowment of both is the manor of Tracys, or Tracies, in Kent; but although he bequeathed these at his death in 1524, and the lectures were actually read even in his life-time, they were not established until December 1549, by Tunstall, bishop of Durham. Linacre also may be reputed the founder of the royal college of physicians in London. Regretting that there was no proper check upon illiterate monks and empirics, licences being easily obtained by improper persons, when the bishops were authorised to examine and license practitioners in an art of which they could not be competent judges, Linacre obtained letters patent in 1518 from Henry VIII. constituting a corporate body of regularly bred physicians in London, in whom was vested the sole right of examining and admitting persons to practise within the city, and seven miles round it; and also of licensing practitioners throughout the whole kingdom, except such as were graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, who by virtue of their degrees were independent of the college, except within London and its precincts. The college had likewise authority given to it to examine prescriptions and drugs in apothecaries’ shops. Linacre was the first president of the new college, and continued in the office during the remaining seven years of his life; and, at his death, he bequeathed to the college his house in Knight-rider-street, in which its meetings were held.

In his literary character, Linacre stands eminently distinguished; as he was one of the first, in conjunction with Colet, Lily, Grocyn, and Latimer, who revived, or rather introduced, classical learning in this island. Translations from the Greek authors into Latin were the chief occupations of the literati of those times; and Linacre, as we have already observed, conferred a benefit on his profession, by translating several of the most valuable pieces of Galen. These were the treatises, “De Sanitate tuenda,” in six books, which was printed at Cambridge in 1517, and dedicated to king Henry VIII.; “De Morbis curandis,” in fourteen books, printed at Paris in 1526; three books “De Temperamentis,” and one “De inaequali Temperie,” first printed at Cambridge in 1521, and inscribed to pope Leo X. A* copy of this on vellum, which Linacre presented to Henry VIII. is now in the Bodleian. There is another edition, without date or printer’s name. “De naturalibus Facaltatibus,” three books, together with one book “De Pulsuum Usu,” without date, but they were reprinted by Colinaeus in 1528, as well as his posthumous translation of the four books “De Morborum Symptomatibus.” In these versions Linacre exhibited a Latin style so pure and elegant, as ranked him among the finest writers of his age. In the polish of his style he was rather fastidious, and his friend Erasmus describes him as “Vir non exacti tantum, sed severi judicii;” and Huet, in his learned treatise “De claris Interpretatoribus,” gives him the pra?se of extraordinary elegance and chasteness of style, but intimates that he occasionally sacrifices fidelity to these qualities.

, an ancient Scotch poet, descended from a noble family, was born in 1490, at Garmylton in Hadingtonshire, and received his early education probably at the neighbouring school of Coupar. In 1505 he was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s, which he is supposed to have left in 1509. He then entered into the service of the court, where, in 1512, he was an attendant, or page of honour to James V. then an infant. In this situation he continued until 1524, when, by the intrigues of the queen mother, the young king was deprived of his servants, Bellenden, Lindsay, and others, for whom he seems always to have entertained a just regard, and whom he dismissed with a pension, the payment of which his majesty was studious to enforce, while his means were few, and his power was little. From 1524 to 1528, Lindsay was a witness of the confusions and oppressions arising from the domination of the Douglasses over both the prince and his people. From that thraldom the king, at the age of sixteen, made his escape, by his own address and vigour, in July of 1528, after every other exertion had failed. Lindsay had now liberty and spirits to support him in the cultivation of his muse, and about the end of the year just mentioned, produced his “Dreme.” In the following year he presented his “Complaynt” to the king, and in 1530 he was inaugurated lion king of arms, and incidentally became a knight. In December of this year he published his satire on the clergy, called “The Complaynt of the Papingo.”

Sir David was soon employed in discharging the proper functions of lion herald. In April 1531, he was sent with Campbel and Panter, to Antwerp, to renew the ancient treaty of commerce with the Netherlands, and they were so well received by the emperor Charles V. as to insure the success of their mission. Lindsay returned to Scotland in the latter end of 1531, and not long after married. This marriage does not appear to have been either fruitful or happy. Sir David left no issue, and he every where speaks with a sort of Turkish contempt of women. He was now occupied upon a poem, which displays much of that sentiment, a drama of a very singular kind, which he called, what he intended it to be, “A Satyre of the three Estatis.” Some of his biographers have affected to consider him as the first dramatist of his country. But moralities existed in Scotland before he was born; and were very common in his time. In 1536, probably, he produced his “Answer to the King’s Flyting,” and his ' Complaynt of Basche," which shew the gloominess of his temperament.

In the mean time he was sent as lion king, with sir John Campbel of Laudon, in 1535, to the emperor, to demand in marriage one of the princesses of his house. The king, however, not being satisfied with the portraits of the princesses presented to him, or perhaps, as Mr. Chalmers thinks, being attracted by a more useful connection with France, sent Lindsay, in 1536, to that country to demand in marriage a daughter of the house of Vendome; but the king himself, arriving the year following, made choice of Magdalene of France, who died in about two months after her marriage; and this lamentable event occasioned Lindsay’s next poem, the “Deploratioun of the Deith of quene Magdalene.” The king, however, married again in 1538, and Lindsay’s talents were called forth in the rejoicings and ceremonies consequent to that event, and afterwards on the birth of a prince. During the remainder of the reign of James V. he appears to have retained his majesty’s favour, and to have been frequently employed in his character of herald; but few of these incidents seem of sufficient importance to be detached from his biographer’s narrative. During the regency, he appears to have espoused the cause of the reformers, and after the assassination of cardinal Beaton, wrote his “Tragedie of the late Cardinal,” to strengthen the prejudices of the public against that ecclesiastic.

In 1548 he was sent, as lion herald, to Christian, king of Denmark, to solicit ships, for protecting the Scottish coasts against the English, and to negociate a free trade, particularly in grain: the latter purpose only was accomplished, but at Copenhagen, Lindsay had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the literati of Denmark. He at length returned to his usual occupations, and was probably no more employed in such distant embassies. About this time he published the most pleasing of all his poems, “The Historic and Testament of Squire Meldrum.” In 1553 he finished his last and greatest work, “The Monarchic.” When he died, seems a matter of great uncertainty. His latest and best-informed biographer is inclined to place his death in or about 1557; but others say that he lived till 1567. It is rather singular that a man of so much celebrity, a great public officer, one of the reformers, or who at least contributed to the reformation, and the most popular poet of his time, should have died in such obscurity, without even a tradition as to when or where he was buried. Little of his personal character can now be known, but what is to be gleaned from his writings. Hfc entered with great zeal into the religious disputes of his time, but is supposed to lean rather to the Lutheran than Calvinistic principles of reformation; his satires, however, were powerfully assisting in exposing the vices of the clergy, and produced a lasting etiect on the minds of the people. We shall not enter very minutely into his character as a poet. In his works, says Mr. Ellis, we do not often find either the splendid diction of Dunbar, or the prolific imagination of Gawin Douglas. Perhaps, indeed, the “Dream” is his only composition which can be cited as uniformly poetical; but his various learning, his good sense, his perfect knowledge of courts, and of the world, the facility of his versification, and above all, his peculiar talent of adapting himself to readers of all denominations, will continue to secure to him a considerable share of that popularity, for which he was originally indebted to the opinions he professed, no less than to his poetical merit. The most ample information respecting Lindsay, his personal history, and works, may be found in the very accurate edition of the latter published in 1806, by George Chalmers, esq. in 3 vols. 8vo. It has been justly remarked that if the learned editor had executed no more than the glossary prefixed to this edition, he would have been amply entitled to the gratitude both of English and Scotch scholars. A more elaborate, learned, and satisfactory production of the kind has certainly not appeared since that of Ruddiman.

, a Dutch painter, or at least one who painted much in the Dutch manner, was born at Frankfort on the Maine, in 1625, and learned his art in Holland, but afterwards went to Koine, where he studiously observed every thing that was curious in art or nature, and continued at Rome till he was twenty-five years of age. His usual subjects are fairs, mountebanks, seaprospects, naval engagements, and landscapes. His landscapes are enriched with antiquities, ruins, animals, and elegant figures; his sea-fights are full of expression, exciting pity and terror; and all his objects are well-designed. His skies are generally light, and thinly clouded, and his management of the aerial perspective is extremely judicious; his keeping is usually good; his distances of a clear bluish tint; and the whole together is masterly, producing an agreeable effect. In painting figures or animals, he had uncommon readiness, and on that account he was employed by several eminent artists to adorn their landscapes with those objects; and whatever he inserted in the works of other masters, was always well adapted to the scene and the subject. His pencil is free, his touch clean and light, and his compositions are in general esteem. It may be observed, that he was particularly fond of introducing into most of his compositions, pieces of architecture, the remains of elegant buildings, or the gates of the sea-port towns of Italy; embellished with statues, placed sometimes on the pediments and cornices, and sometimes in niches. He also excelled in representing Italian fairs and markets, inserting in those subjects abundance of figures, well grouped and designed, in attitudes suitable to their different characters and occupations; and although )ie often repeated the same subjects, yet the liveliness of liis imagination, and the readiness of his invention, always enabled him to give them a remarkable variety. He died in 1687.

, a French advocate and political writer, was born at Rheims, July 14, 1736. His father was one of the professors of the college of Beauvais, at Paris, and had his son educated under him, v who made such proficiency in his studies as to gain the three chief prizes of the college in 1751. This early celebrity was noticed by the duke de Deux-Pont, then at Paris, who took him with him to the country; but Linguet soon left this nobleman for the service of the prince de Beavau, who employed him as his aide-de-camp in the war in Portugal, on account of his skill in mathematics. During his residence in that country, Linguet learned the language so far as to be able to translate some Portuguese dramas into French. Returning to France in 1762, he was admitted to the bar, where his character was very various; but amongst the reports both of enemies and friends, it appears that of an hundred and thirty causes, he lost only nine, and was allowed to shine both in oiatory and compo*­sidon. He had the art, however, of making enemies by the occasional liberties he took with characters; and at one time twenty-four of his brethren at the bar, whether from jealousy or a better reason, determined that they would take no brief in any cause in which he was concerned, and the parliament of Paris approved this so far as to interdict him from pleading. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case to be able to form an opinion on the justice of this harsh measure. It appears, however, to have thrown Linguet out of his profession, and he then began to employ his pen on his numerous political writings but these, while they added to his reputation as a lively writer, added likewise to the number of his enemies. The most pointed satire levelled at him was the “Theory of Paradox,” generally attributed to the abbe Morellet, who collected all the absurd paradoxes to be found in Linguet’s productions, which it must be allowed are sufficiently numerous, and deserve the castigation he received. Linguet endeavoured to reply, but the laugh was against him, and all the wits of Paris enjoyed his mortification. His “Journal,” likewise, in which most of his effusions appeared, was suppressed by the minister of state, Maurepas; and Linguet, thinking his personal liberty was now in danger, came to London; but the English not receiving him as he expected, he went to Brussels, and in consequence of an application to the count de Vergeunes, was allowed to return to France. He had not been here long, before, fresh complaints having been made of his conduct, he was, Sept. 27, 1780, sent to the Bastille, where he remained twenty months. Of his imprisonment and the causes he published a very interesting account, which was translated into English, and printed here in 1783. He was, after being released, exiled to Rethel, but in a short time returned to England. He had been exiled on two other occasions, once to Chartres, and the other to Nogent-le-Kotrou. At this last place, he seduced a madame But, the wife of a manufacturer, who accompanied him to England. From England he went again to Brussels, and resumed his journal, or “Annales politiques,” in which he endeavoured to pay his court to the emperor Joseph, who was so much pleased with a paper he had written on his favourite project of opening the Scheldt, that he invited him to Vienna, and made him a present of 1000 ducats. Linguet, however, soon forfeited the emperor’s favour, by taking part with Varider Noot and the other insurgents of Brabant. Obliged, therefore, to quit the Netherlands, he came to Paris in 1791, and appeared at the bar of the constituent assembly as advocate for the colonial assembly of St. Domingo and the cause of the blacks. In February 1792, he appeared in the legislative assembly to denounce Bertrand de Moleville, the minister of the marine; but his manner was so absurd, that notwithstanding the unpopularity of that statesman, the assembly treated it with contempt, and Linguet indignantly tore in pieces his memorial, which he had been desired to leave on the table. During the reign of terror, he withdrew into the country, but was discovered and brought before the revolutionary tribunal, and condemned to death June 27, 1794, for having in his works paid court to the despots of Vienna and London. At the age of fifty-seven he went with serenity and courage to meet his fate. It is not very easy to form an opinion of Linguet’s real character. His being interrupted in his profession seems to have thrown him upon the public, whose prejudices he alternately opposed and flattered. His works abound in contradictions, but upon the whole it may be inferred that he was a lover of liberty, and no inconsiderable promoter of those opinions which precipitated the revolution. That he was not one of the ferocious sect, appears from his escape, and his death. His works are very numerous. The principal are, 1. “Voyage au labyrinthe du jardin du roi,” Hague, (Paris,) 1755, 12mo. 2. “Histoire du siecle d'Alexandre,” Paris, 1762, 12mo. 3. “Projet d‘un canal et d’un pont sur les cotes de Picardie,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Le Fanatisme de Philosophes,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Necessit6 d‘une reforme dans l’administration de la justice et des lois civiles de France,” Amst. 1764, 8vo. 6. “La Dime royale,” 1764, reprinted in 1787. 7. “Histoire des Revolutions de l'empire Remain,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. This is one of his paradoxical works, in which tyranny and slavery are represented in the most favourable light. 8. “Theorie des Lois,” 1767, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774. 9. “Histoire impartiale des Jesuites,” 1768, 8vo. 10. “Hardion’s Universal History,” vols. 19th and 20th. 11. “Theatre Espagnole,” 1770, 4 vols. 12mo. 12. “Theorie du Libelle,” Amst. (Paris), 1775, 12mo, an a,nswer to the abbe Morellet. 13. “Du plusheureux gouvernment,” &c. 1774, 2 vols. 12mo. 14. “Essai philosophique sur le Monachisme,” 1777, 8vo. Besides these he wrote several pieces on the revolution in Brabant, and a collection of law cases.

, an eminent mnsic professor and organist, long resident at Bath, where he had served an apprenticeship under Chilcot, the organist of that city, was a studious man, equally versed in the theory and practice of his art. Having a large family of children, in whom he found the seeds of genius had been planted by nature, and the gift of voice, in order to cultivate this, he pointed his studies to singing, and became the best singing-master of his time, if we may judge by the specimens of “his success in his own family. He was not only a masterly player on the organ and harpsichord, but a good composer, as his elegies and several compositions for Drury-lane theatre evinced. His son Thomas, who was placed under Nardini at Florence, the celebrated disciple of Tartini, was a fine performer on the violin, with a talent for composition, which, if he had lived to develope, would have given longevity to his fame. Being at Grimsthorpe, in Lincolnshire, at the seat of the duke of Ancaster, where he often amused himself in rowing, fishing, and sailing in a boat on a piece of water, in a squall of wind, or by some accident, the boat was overset, and this amiable and promising youth was drowned at an early age, to the great affliction of his family and friends, particularly his matchless sister, Mrs. Sheridan, whom this calamity rendered miserable for a long time; during which, her affection and grief appeared in verses of the most sweet and affecting kind on the sorrowful event. The beauty, talents, and mental endowments of this” Sancta Caecilia rediviva," will be remembered to the last hour of all who heard, or even saw and conversed with her. The tone of her voice and expressive manner of singing were as enchanting as her countenance and conversation. In her singing, with a mellifluous-toned voice, a perfect shake and intonation, she was possessed of the double power of delighting an audience equally in pathetic strains and songs of brilliant execution, which is allowed to very tew singers. When she had heard the Agujari and the Danzi, afterwards madame le Brun, she astonished all hearers by performing their bravura airs, extending the natural compass of her voice a fourth above the highest note of the harpsichord, before additional keys were in fashion. Mrs. Sheridan died at Bristol in 1792.

, afterwards Von Linne', the most eminent of modern naturalists, was born at Rashult, in the province of Smaland, in Sweden, May 13th, 1707. His father, Nicholas Linnæus, was assistant minister of the parish of Stenbrohult, to which the hamlet of Rashult belongs, and became in process of time its pastor or rector; having married Christina Broderson, the daughter of his predecessor. The subject of our memoir was their first-born child. The family of Linnæus had been peasants, but some of them, early in the seventeenth century, had followed literary pursuits. In the beginning of that century regular and hereditary surnames were first adopted in Sweden, on which occasion literary men often chose one of Latin or Greek derivation and structure, retaining the termination proper to the learned languages. A remarkable Lindentree, Tilia Europæa, growing near the place of their residence, is reported to have given origin to the names of Lindelius and Tiliander, in some branches of this family but the above-mentioned Nicholas, is said to have first taken that of Linnæus, by which his son became so exlen--“sively known. Of the taste which laid the foundation of his happiness, as well as his celebrity, this worthy father was the primary cause. Residing in a delightful spot, on the banks of a fine lake, surrounded by hills and valleys, woods and cultivated ground, his garden and his fields yielded him both amusement and profit, and his infant son imbibed, under his auspices, that pure and ardent love of nature for its own sake, with that habitual exercise of the mind in observation and activity, which ever after marked his character, and which were enhanced by a rectitude of principle, an elevation of devotional taste, a warmth of feeling, and an amiableness of manners, rarely united in those who so transcendantly excel in any branch of philosophy or science, because the cultivation of the heart does by no means so constantly as it ought keep pace with that of the understanding. The maternal uncle of Nicholas Linnæus, Sueno Tiliander, who had educated him with his own children, was also fond of plants and of gardening, so that these tastes were in some measure hereditary. From his tutor he learned to avoid the error of the desultory speculators of nature; and his memory, like his powers of perception, was naturally good, and his sight was always remarkably acute. He does not appear, however, to have been very happy under this tutor, and at seven years of age grammar had but an unequal contest with botany, in the mind of the young student. Nor was he much more fortunate when removed, in 1717, to the grammar-school of Wexio, the master of which, as his disgusted pupil relates,” preferred stripes and punishments to admonitions and encouragements.“In 1722 he was admitted to a higher form in the school, and his drier studies were now allowed to be intermixed and sweetened with the recreations of botany. In 1724, being seventeen years of age, he was removed to the superior seminary or Gymnasium, and his destination was fixed for the church; but, having no taste for Greek or Hebrew, ethics, metaphysics, or theology, he devoted himself with success to mathematics, natural philosophy,and a scientific pursuit of his darling botany. The” Chloris Gothica“of Bromelius, and” Hortus Upsaliensis" of Rudbeck, which made a part of his little library, were calculated rather to fire than to satisfy his curiosity; while his Palmberg and Tillands might make him sensible how much still remained to be done. His own copies of these books, used with the utmost care and neatness, are now in sir James Smith’s library. Linnæus’ s literary reputation, therefore, made so little progress, that his tutors havino pronounced him a dunce, he would probably have been put to some handicraft trade, had not Dr. Hothmann, the lecturer on natural philosophy, taken him into his own house, with a view to the studv of physic, and given him a private course of instruction in physiology. He first suggested to Linnæus the true principles upon which botany ought to be studied, founded on the parts of fructification, and put the system of Tournefort into his hands, in the knowledge of which he made a rapid progress.

Having learned the art of assaying metals during ten days’ residence at the mines of Biorknas, near Calix, in the course of his tour, he next year gave a private course of lectures on that subject, which had never been taught at Upsal before. The jealousy of Rosen, however, still pursued him; and this rival descended so low as to procure, partly by intreaties, partly by threats, the loan of his manuscript lectures on botany, which Linnæus detected him in surreptitiously copying. Rosen had taken by the hand a young man named Wallerius, who afterwards became a distinguished mineralogist, and for whom he now procured, in opposition to Linnæus, the new place of adjunct, or assistant, in the medical faculty at Lund. But the basest action of Rosen, and which proved envy to be the sole source of his conduct, was, he obtained, through the archbishop’s means, an order from the chancellor to prevent all private medical lectures in the university. Linnæus, deprived of his only means of subsistence, is said to have been so exasperated as to have drawn his sword upon Rosen, an affront with which the latter chose to put up and Linnæus, after having for some time indulged feelings of passionate resentment, entirely subdued these; and Rosen, towards the close of his life, was glad of the medical aid of the man he had in vain endeavoured to crush.

Disappointed in his views of medical advancement, Linnaeus turned his thoughts more immediately to the subject of mineralogy. In the end of 1733, he had visited some of the principal mines of Sweden, and had been introduced to baron Reuterholm, governor of the province of Dalarne, or Dalecarlia, resident at Fahlun, at whose persuasion and expence he travelled through the pastern part of Dalecarlia, accompanied by seven of his ablest pupils, a journal of which tour exists in his library. At Fahlun he gave a course of lectures on the art of assaying, which was numerously attended; and here he first became acquainted with Browallius, then chaplain to the governor, afterwards bishop of Abo, who advised him to take his doctor’s degree, in order to pursue the practice of physic, and further recommended him to aim at some advantageous matrimonial connection. In pursuit of the first part of this advice, Linnaeus, having scraped together about 15l. sterling, now entered on his travels, with a view of obtaining his degree at the cheapest university he could find, and of seeing as much of the learned world as his chances and means might enable him to do. In the beginning of 1735 he set out, and after a short stay at Hamburgh and Amsterdam, he proceeded to Harderwyck, where, having offered himself *s a candidate, and undergone the requisite examinations, ce obtained his degree June 23. On this occasion he published and defended a thesis, entitled “Hypothesis nova de Febriuin Intermittentium Causâ,” in the dedication of which, to his “Mæceuates et Patrnes,” it is remarkable that, among the names of Rudbeck, Rothmann, StobacusV Moraius, &c. we find that of Rosen. The hypothesis here advanced, most correctly so denominated, is truly Boerhaavian. Intermitting fevers are supposed to be owing to fine particles of clay, taken in with the food, and lodged in the terminations of the arterial system, where they cause the symptoms of the disorder in question.

In Holland Linnæus became acquainted with Dr. John Frederick Gronovius, who assisted him in publishing the first edition of the celebrated “Systema Naturie,” consisting of eight large sheets, in the form of tables; which edition is now a great bibliothecal curiosity. He also procured access to the illustrious Boerhaave, who encouraged him to remain in Holland; but this advice could scarcely have been followed, had he not met with a patron in Burmann, of Amsterdam, who was then preparing his “Thesaurus Zeylanicus,” and who received Linnæus into his house as his guest for some months, during which period he printed his “Fundamenta Botanica,” a small 8vo, which contains the very essence of botany, and has never been superseded or refuted. After he had been a few months under Burmann’s roof, he was introduced by Boerhaave toi Mr. George Clifford, an opulent banker, who had a capital garden at Hartecamp, and invited Linnæus to superintend it. This situation, which he accepted, appears to have been in all respects agreeable and profitable to his studies, and here he wrote and printed his “Flora Lapponica.” In 1736, after having written his “Musa Cliffortiana,” Linnaeus was sent by Mr. Clifford to England, and was introduced to the lovers and teachers of natural science at Oxford and London, Shaw, Martyn, Miller, and Collinson, &c. They admired his genius, and valued his friendship, and supplied him with books and plants, both for his own herbarium, and the garden of his patron at Hartecamp.

After leaving Paris, Linnæus took his passage at Rouen for Sweden, and landed at Helsingborg, from whence be proceeded to Fahlun, visiting his father for a few days in his way. His reception from the lady of his choice, the daughter of Dr. Moraeus, a physician of the place, was favourable, and they were formally betrothed to each other, but it was necessary that some prospect of an advantageous establishment should be discovered. The scientific merits of Lmnseus were not overlooked, as he was unanimously chosen a member of the Upsal academy, the only one then in Sweden; yet the homage he had so lately received abroad, seems to have made him a little unreasonable on this head, and he declares that he would certainly have quitted his native country, “had he not been in love.” To this all-powerful deity, therefore, and not to his merits, or to the wisdom of his countrymen in discerning them, was Sweden, in the first instance, indebted for the possession of her Linnæus. After passing the winter of 1738 in Stockholm, he began to make his way in medical practice, so that by the following March he had considerable employment. At this time a plan was formed for establishing a literary society at Stockholm, which afterwards rose to great eminence. Triewald, Hopken, and Alstroem (whose family was ennobled by the name of Alstroemer), were, with Linnæus, the first members and the infant society, being incorporated by royal authority, was augmented with all the most learned men of the country.

In 1741 Linnæus received an order to travel through Æland, Gothland, &c. for the purpose of investigating the natural history and produce of those countries. On this Jhe spent four months, accompanied by six of his pupils, and published an account of it at Stockholm in 1745. Before he began his lectures at Upsal, to which place he removed in the autumn, he delivered a Latin oration “On the benefit of travelling in one’s own country,” which is translated by Mr. Stillingfleet in his miscellaneous tracts. In 1742 he undertook the reform of the Upsal garden, which in the following year was put in a state to receive those many exotics which his extensive foreign correspondence procured. In 1745 he published his “Flora Suecica, and in 1746 his” Fauna Suecica;“the second editions of which valuable works were enriched with many additions. His reputation was now followed by corresponding honours. He was chosen a member of the academy at Montpellier, and secretary to the Upsal academy; a medal of him was struck in 1746, and soon after he received the rank and title of Archiater from the king, and was the only Swede chosen into the new-modelled academy of Berlin. He also acquired about this time, what be perhaps valued as highly as these honours, the herbarium made by Hermann in Ceylon, now in the possession of sir Joseph Banks. From this originated Linnæus’s” Flora Zeylanica,“Stockholm, 1747. In 174U appeared his” Materia Medica,“Written in. the same systematic and didactic style as-tlle? rest of his works. Of this numerous editions have heeti published on the continent, but none with any additions or corrections from the author himself, though he left ber hind him copious manuscript notes on the subject. In the same year he had a violent attack of the gout, which en-> dangered his life; and such was his anxiety to promote science, that he dictated from his bed-side, the manuscript of his” Philosophia Botanica," which afterwards received his own corrections, and was published in 1751.

About this period the queen of Sweden, Louisa Ulrica, having a taste for natural history, which her- royal consort, king Adolphus Frederick, also patronized, shewed much favour to Linnæus. He was employed in arranging her collection of insects and shells, in the country palace of Drotningholm, or Ulricksdahl, and was frequently honoured with the company and conversation of their majesties, during his attendance there. The queen interested herself in the education of his son, and promised to send him to travel through Europe at her own expence. She also listened very graciously to any recommendation or petition, of Linnæus, in the service of science. Linnæus devoted some of his leisure time in winter, to the arragement of his friend count Tessin’s collection of fossils, at Stockholm, of which an account in Latin and Swedish, making a small folio, with plates, came out in 1753. The result of his labours at Drotningholm was not given to the public [until] 1764, when his “Museum Reginse” appeared, in 8Vo, be-, ing a sort of Prodromus of an intended more splendid work, that was never executed. His most magnificent publication appeared in 1754, being a large folio, entitled “Museum Regis Adolphi Frederici,” comprehending descripr: tions of the rarer quadrupeds, birds, serpents, fishes, &c. of the king’s museum, in Latin and Swedish, with plates, and an excellent preface, which was translated by Dr. (now; sir James) Smith, and first printed in 1786; appearing, again, in a volume of “Tracts relating to Natural History,” in 1798. In the mean time, Linnæus was preparing a lasting monument of his own talents and application, the “Species Plantarum,” of which the first editiqn was primed in 1753, the second in 1762, each in two volumes S.vo. The work is too well known to need any description, and must ever be memorable for the adaptation of specific,­<5>ras they were at first called, trivial, names. This coa-, trivance, which Linnæus first used in his “Pan Sueciciw,” a dissertation printed in 1749, extended to minerals in his “Museum Tessinianum,” and subsequently to all the departments of zoology, has perhaps rendered his works more popular than any one of their merits besides. His specific differences were intended to be used as names; but their unavoidable length rendering this impracticable, and the application of numeral figures to each species, in Haller’s manner, being still more burthensome to the memory, all natural science would have been ruined for want of a common language, were it not for this simple and happy invention. By this means we speak of every natural production in two words, its generic and its specific name. No ambiguous comparisons or references are wanted, no presupposition of any thing already known. The philosophical tribe of naturalists, for so they are called by themselves and their admirers, do not therefore depreciate Linnæus, when they call him a nomenclator. Whatever may have been thought of the Linnæun trivial names at their first appearance, they are now in universal use, and their principle has been, with the greatest advantage, extended to chemistry, of which the celebrated Bergman, the friend of Linnæus, originally set the example.

These Herculean literary labours, combined with the practice of physic, were more than the bodily constitution of Linnæus could support. He was attacked with the stone, and had also, from time-to time, returns of gout, but he considered the wood strawberry as a specific for both disorders, and they never greatly interfered with his comfort or his duties. On the 27th of April, 1753, he received, from the hand of his sovereign, the order of the Polar Star, an honour which had never before been conferred for literary merit. A still more remarkable compliment was paid him not long after by the king of Spain, who invited him to settle at Madrid, with the offer of nobility, the free exercise of his religion, and a splendid botanical appointment. This proposal, however, he declined, from an attachment to his own country, and in November 1756, he was raised to the rank of Swedish nobility, and took the name of Von Linné".

Although, as a physician, Linnæus appears to advantage in his “Clavis Medicinae” and his “Genera Morborum,” his abilities are more striking in his classification of natural objects. He excelled in a happy perception of such technical characters as brought together things most naturally allied. His lectures on the natural order of plants were published long after his death in 1792, at Hamburgh, and evince his deep consideration of a subject then in the infancy of cultivation. In the zoological department, his classification of birds and insects is the most original as well as the best of the whole. The arrangement of fishes was an original idea of Linnæus; and in the arrangement of shells, he has succeeded at least as well as any of his fellow-labourers: though we are, says his biographer, by no means inclined to justify some of his terms, which are borrowed from an anatomical analogy, not only false in itself, but totally exceptionable. This leads us to consider a charge, often brought against this great man, of pruriency of phraseology in many parts of his works. The most attentive contemplation of his writings has satisfied us that in such instances he meant purely to be anatomical and physiological; and if his fondness for philosophical analogies sometimes led him astray, it was not in pursuit of any thing to contaminate his own mind, much less that of others. That the mind of Linnæus was simple and chaste, as his morals were confessedly pure, is evinced by his Lapland Tour, written only for his own use, but which is now, as we have already mentioned, before the public. This is such a picture of his heart as will ever render any justification of his moral character, and any elaborate display of his religious principles or feelings, alike superfluous. His apparent vanity, as displayed in his diary,published in Dr. Maton’s valuable edition of Dr. Pulteney’s “View of his Writings,” is perhaps far less justifiable. All we can say for him is, that this paper was drawn up for the use of his intimate friend Menander, as materials from which his life was to be written. If it be unbecoming, and indeed highly ridiculous in many instances, for a man to speak as he does of himself, the justice and accuracy of his assertions, had they come from any other person, could in no case be disputed.

As the habits of Linnæus were temperate and regular, he retained his health and vigour in tolerable perfection, notwithstanding the immense labours of his mind, till beyond his sixtieth year, when his memory began in some degree to fail him. In 1774, at the age of sixty-seven, an attack of apoplexy greatly impaired his constitution. Two years afterwards a second attack rendered him paralytic on the right side, and materially affected his faculties. The immediate cause of his death, which happened January 10th, 1778, in the seventy-first year of his age, was an ukeration of the bladder. His remains were deposited in a vault near the west end of the cathedral of Upsal, where a monument of Swedish porphyry was erected by his pupils. His obsequies were performed, in the most respectful manner, by the whole university, the pall being supported by sixteen doctors of physic, all of whom had been his pupils. A general mourning took place on the occasion at Upsal. His sovereign, Gustavus III. commanded a medal to be struck, expressive of the public loss, and honoured the academy of sciences at Stockholm with his presence, when the eulogy of this celebrated man was pronounced there by his intimate friend Back. A still higher compliment was paid to his memory by the king in a speech from the throne, wherein his majesty publicly celebrated the talents of his deceased subject, and lamented the loss which his country had so recently sustained. Various testimonies of respect were given to the merits of Linnæus in the different parts of Europe, even where rival systems or interests had heretofore triumphed at his expence. The celebrated Condorcet delivered an oration in his praise to the Parisian academy of sciences, which is printed in its memoirs. We cannot wonder that his memory was cherished in England, where he had long had numerous correspondents, and where two of his most distinguished pupils, Solander and Dryander, have, in their own talents and character, conferred singular honour upon their preceptor. Ten years after his decease a new society of naturalists, distinguished by his name, was founded in London, and has since been incorporated by royal charter, whose publications, in ten quarto volumes of Transactions, sufficiently evince that its members are not idle venerators of the name they bear. This name, in imitation of them, has been adopted by several similar institutions in other parts of the world.

The appellation of Limuean Society was, with the more propriety, chosen by this British institution, on account of the museum of Linnæus having fallen into the hands of sir James Smith, its original projector, and hitherto only president. This treasure, comprehending the library, herbarium, insects, shells, and all other natural curiosities, with all the manuscripts and whole correspondence of the illustrious Swede, were obtained by private purchase from his widow, after the death of his son in 1783. The authority which such an acquisition gave to the labours of the infant society, as well as to all botanical and zoological publications, the authors of which have ever been allowed freely to consult it, will readily be perceived. Nothing perhaps could have more contributed to raise up, or to improve, a taste for natural science, in any country.

, or Von Linne' (Charles), the oldest, and only surviving son of the preceding, was born January 20, 1741, at the House of his maternal grandfather, at Fahlun. His father was anxiously desirous of his excelling in natural history, more particularly botany; and committed him, when about the age of nine or ten, t the more particular care of some of his own most favourite pupils. By them he was taught the names of the plants in the Upsal garden, and such of the principles of natural science as were suited to his period of life, as well as to converse habitually in Latin. He appears to have given satisfaction to his father, who procured for him, at the age of eighteen, the appointment of Demonstrator in the botanic garden, an office then first contrived on purpose for him. Having learned to draw from nature, he became an author at the age of twenty-one, publishing in 1762 his first “Decas Plantarum Rariorum Horti Upsaliensis,” the plates of which, in outline only, were drawn by his own hand, and are sufficiently faithful and useful, if not ornamental, while the descriptions are full and scientific. In 1763 another “Decas,” or collection of ten species, came out on the same plan, but, for whatever reason, he printed no more numbers under this title. In 1767, however, he published at Leipsic ten more plates and descriptions, like the above, entitled “Plantarum Rariorum Horti Upsaliensis Fasciculus Primus,” but no second fasciculus appeared. In 1763 he was nominated adjunct professor of botany, with a promise, hitherto unexampled, that after his father’s death he should succeed to all his academical functions. In 1765 he took his degree of doctor of physic, and began to give lectures.

His progress would probably have been happy, if not brilliant, but for the conduct of his unnatural mother, who, not content with dishonouring her husband’s bed, and making his home as uncomfortable as she could, by the meanest parsimony and disgusting petty tyranny, conceived a hatred for her only son, which she displayed by every affront and persecution that her situation gave her the means of inflicting on his susceptible and naturally amiable mind. According to Fabricius, she forced her husband, who by such a concession surely partook largely of her guilt and meanness, to procure the nomination of his pupil Solander to be his future successor, in preference to his own son; and it was a part of her plan that he should marry her eldest daughter. Solander, however, disdained both the usurpation and the bait, refusing to leave England; and the misguided father recovered his senses and authority, causing his son, as we have said above, to receive this truly honourable distinction. The mind and spirit of the young man nevertheless still drooped; and even when he had attained his thirtieth year, he would gladly have escaped from his miseries and his hopes together. The authority of the king was obliged to be exerted, at his father’s solicitation, to prevent his going into the army. This measure of the parent was happily followed up by kindness and encouragement in his botanical pursuits, to which treatment the son was ever sensible, and he revived from his despondency before his father’s death, which happened when he was thirty-seven years of age. Though obliged by his mother to purchase, at her own price, the library, manuscripts, herbarium, &c. which he ought by every title to have inherited, he rose above every impediment, and betook himself to the useful application of the means now in his hands, for his own reputation and advancement. His father had already prepared great part of a third botanical appendix, or “Mantissa;” from the communications of Mutis, Kcenig, Sparmann, Forster, Pallas, and others. Hence originated the “Supplementum Plantarum,” printed at Brunswick, under the care of Ehrhart in 1781. The ingenious editor inserted his own new characters of some genera of mosses; which Hedwig has since confirmed, except that some of the names have been justly rejected. This sheet was, in an evil hour, suppressed by the mandate of Linnæus from London, where, at that period, the subject of generic characters of mosses was neither studied nor understood, whatever superior knowledge was displayed concerning their species. The plants of the “Supplementum” are admitted into the fourteenth edition of the “Systema Vegetabilium” by Murray, and figures of some of the most curious have been published by sir J. Smith, in his “Plantarum Icones ex Herbario Linnæano.” Three botanical dissertations also appeared under the presidency of the younger Linnæus, on grasses, on lavandula, and the celebrated Methodus muscorum, which last was the work, and the inaugural thesis, of the present professor Swartz of Stockholm. These form a sequel to the 186 similar essays, which most of them compose the seven volumes of the Amcenitates Academicae, the rest being published by Schreber in three additional ones.

The subject of our memoir had always felt a strong desire to visit the chief countries of learned and civilized Europe. For this purpose he was obliged to pawn his juvenile herbarium, made from the Upsal garden, to his friend Alstroemer, for the loan of about fifty or sixty pounds. He arrived at London in May 1781, and was received with enthusiasm by the surviving friends and correspondents of his father, and was in a manner domesticated under the roof of sir Joseph Banks, whose friendship, kindness, and liberality could not be exceeded; neither could they have been by any one more gratefully received. Here the ardent Swedish visitor had every assistance for the preparation of several works on which he was intent, as a system of the mammalia, a botanical treatise on the lily and and palm tribes, ard new editions of several of his father’s standard books. None of these, however, have yet been printed. An attack of thfe jaundice rendered half his stay in England uncomfortable as well as useless to him. He proceeded to Paris in the latter end of August 1781, accompanied by the amiable and celebrated Broussonet, with whom he became acquainted at London. His reception in France was not less flattering than what he had experienced in England. The next place in which he made any stay was Hamburgh, where several of his own friends were already settled; and from hence he returned by Copenhagen and Stockholm, visiting his friend Fabricius at Kiel, and his patron baron Alstroemer at Gottenburgh, finally arriving at Upsalin Feb. 1783. But his career was cut short by a bilious fever, followed by apoplexy, Nov. 1, 1783, in the forty-second year of his age. He died very much respected and lamented. His museum and library reverted to his mother and sisters, as he had never been married, and were purchased by sir James Smith.

, a painter, called from his dress “the Turk,” was born at Geneva, in 1702. He went to Paris to study in 1725, and thence accompanied the marquis de Puisieux to Rome, where the earls of Sandwich and Besborough engaged him to accompany them to Constantinople. There he became acquainted with sir Everard Fawkener, our ambassador, who persuaded him to come to England, where he remained two years. He painted admirably in miniature, and in enamel, though he seldom practised the last, but he is best known by his crayons. The earls of Harrington and Besborough have some of his most capital works. His portraits, however, were so exact as to displease those who sat to him, for he never could conceive the absence of any imperfection or mark in the face that presented itself. Such a man could not be long a favourite, and therefore, according to lord Orford, although he had great business the first year, he had very little the second, and went abroad. It is said that he owed much of his encouragement to his making himself conspicuous by adopting the manners and habits of the Levant He came to England again in 1772, and brought a collection of pictures of different masters, which he sold by auction; and some pieces of glass painted by himself with surprizing effect of light and shade, but more curious than useful, as it was necessary to darken the room before they could be seen to advantage. He staid two years likewise on this visit. He went to the continent afterwards, but we find no account of his death. He carried his love of truth with him on all occasions; and we are told that at Venice and Milan, and probably elsewhere, all but firstrate beauties were afraid to sit to him, and he would have starved if he had not so often found customers who were of opinion that they belonged to that class.

, a very learned critic, was born at Isch, a country-seat of his father, between Brussels and Louvain, Oct. 18, 1547. He was descended from ancestors who had been ranked among the principal inhabitants of Brussels. At six years of age he was sent to the public school at Brussels, and soon gave proofs of uncommon parts. He tells as himself in one of his letters, that he acquired the French language, without the assistance of a master, so perfectly as to be able to write it before he was eight years old. From Brussels he was sent, at ten years old, to Aeth; and, two years after, to Cologne, where at the Jesuits’ college he prosecuted his literary and philosophical studies. Among the ancients, he learned the precepts of morality from Epictetus and Seneca, and the maxims of civil prudence from Tacitus. At sixteen, he was sent to the university of Louvain; and having now acquired a knowledge of the learned languages, applied himself to the civil law; but his principal delight was in belles lettres and ancient literature; and, therefore, losing his parents, and becoming his own master before he was eighteen, he projected a journey to Italy, for the sake of cultivating them. Before, however, he set out, he published three books of various readings, “Variarum Lectionum Libri tres,” which laid the foundation of his literary fame; and his dedication of them to cardinal Perenettus, a great patron of learned men, served to introduce him to the cardinal, on his arrival in 1567, at Rome, where he lived two years with him, was nominated his secretary, and treated with the utmost kindness and generosity. His time he used to employ in the Vatican, the Farnesian, the Sfortian, and other principal libraries, which were open to him, and where he carefully collated the manuscripts of ancient authors, of Seneca, Tacitus, Plautus, Propertius, &c. His leisure hours he spent in inspecting the most remarkable antiquities, or in cultivating the acquaintance of the literati then residing at Rome, Antonius Muretus, Paulus Manutius, Fulvius Ursinus, Hieronymus Mercurialis, Carolus Sigonius, Petrus Victorius, and others, from whose conversation he could not fail to reap advantage and encouragement in his studies.

Lipsius died at Louvain, March 23, 1606, in his 59th year, and left, says Joseph Scaliger, the learned world and his friends to lament the loss of him. Lipsius is said to have been so mean in his countenance, his dress, and his conversation, that those who had accustomed themselves to judge of great men by their outward appearance, asked, after having seen Lipsius, whether that was really he. But the greatest blot in his character was his inconstancy with regard to religion. He was educated a Roman Catholic, but professed the Lutheran religion while he was professor at Jena. Afterwards returning to Brabant, he appeared again a Roman Catholic; but when he accepted a professor’s chair in the university of Leyden, he published what was called Calvinism. At last, he removed from Leyden, and went again into the Low Countries, where he adopted the extreme bigotry of the Roman communion. This is obvious from his credulous and absurd accounts of the holy virgins, in his “Diva Virgo H aliensis,” &c. and “Diva Schemiensis,” &c. in both which he admits the most trifling stories, and the most uncertain traditions. Some of his friends endeavoured to represent how greatly all this would diminish the reputation he had acquired; but he was deaf to their expostulations. He even went so far as to dedicate a silver pen to the Holy Virgin of Hall; and on this occasion wrote some verses which are very remarkable, both on account of the elogies he bestows on himself, and of the extravagant worship he pays to the Virgin. By his last will, he left his gown, lined with fur, to the image of the same lady. With these superstitions he joined an inconsistency of a more serious nature; for when, as we have already noticed, he lived at Leyden in an outward profession of the reformed religion, he gave his public approbation of the persecuting principles which were exerted, throughout all Europe, against the professors of it, maintaining that no state ought to suffer a plurality of religions, nor shew any mercy towards those who disturbed the established worship, but pursue them with fire and sword, it being better that one member should perish rather than the whole body “dementias non hie locus ure, seca, ut membrorum potius aliquod quam totum corpus corrumpatur.” When attacked for these principles and expressions, he endeavoured to explain them in a very evasive manner, pretending that the words ure and seca were only terms borrowed from chirurgery, not literally, to signify fire and sword, but only some effectual remedy. All these evasions are to be met with in his treatise * f De una Religione," the worst of his writings. His works in general turn upon subjects of antiquity and criticism. In his early pieces he imitated, with tolerable success, the style of Cicero; but afterwards chose rather to adopt the concise and pointed manner of Seneca and Tacitus. For this corruption of taste he was severely censured by Scioppius and Henry Stephens; but his example was followed by several contemporary writers. On this innovation Huet justly remarks, that although the abrupt and antithetical style may obtain the applauses of unskilful youth, or an illiterate multude, it cannot be pleasing to ears which have been long inured to genuine Ciceronian eloquence.

, son to the preceding, and a very learned French geographer, was born at Paris Feb. 2$, 1675. His father being much occupied in the same way, young Lisle began at nine years of age to draw maps, and soon made a great progress in this art. In 1699 he first distinguished himself by executing a map of the world, and other pieces, which procured him a place in the academy of sciences, 1702. He was afterwards appointed geographer to the king, with a pension, and had the honour of instructing the king himself in geography, for whose particular use he drew up several works. De Lisle’s reputation was so great, that scarcely any history or travels came out without the embellishment of his maps. Nor was his name less celebrated abroad than in his own country. Many sovereigns in vain attempted to draw him out of France. The Czar Peter, when at Paris on his travels, paid him a visit, to communicate to him some remarks upon Muscovy; but especially, says Fontenelle, to learn from him, better than he could anywhere else, the extent Niceron, vol. XXIV. Bibl. Belg. Blount’s Censura. Brueker. Bufiart’s Academie des Sciences, vol. II. Saxii Onomast. and situation of his own dominions. De Lisle died of an apoplexy Jan. 25, 1726, at 51 years of age. Besides the excellent maps he published, he wrote many pieces in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences.

, younger brother of the preceding, was born at Paris April 4, 1688, and at first educated under his paternal roof. He then pursued his studies at the Mazarine-college, where the eclipse of the sun in 1706 seems to have directed his attention to astronomy, for which he soon displayed so much genius, as to be admitted into the academy of sciences, to the memoirs of which he contributed many valuable papers. In 1715 he calculated the tables of the moon according to the theory of sir Isaac Newton. He also, in the course of his pursuits, made many observations on the spots of the sun, and from them formed a theory to determine the sun’s rotation on his axis. In 1720 he delivered a proposal to the academy for ascertaining in France the figure of the earth, and some years afterwards this was carried into execution. In 1724 he paid a visit to England, where he became acquainted with Newton and Halley, who shewed him every mark of respect, and Halley in particular highly gratified him by a present of a copy of his astronomical tables of the sun, moon, and planets, which he had printed in 1719, but which were not published for many years after. In. 1726 he was appointed astronomer royal in the imperial academy of sciences at Petersburg, where for twenty- one years he resided in the observatory-house built by Peter the Great, incessantly occupied in the improvement of astronomy and geography. During this period he published “Memoirs illustrative of the History of Astronomy,” 2 vols. 4to; and an atlas of Russia, first published in the Russian language, and afterwards in Latin. He constructed also a thermometer, differently graduated from those in use, the degrees beginning at the heat of boiling water, and thence increasing to 150, which was the freezing point. In 1747, after much ill-treatment on the part of the Russian government, he obtained his dismission, and arrived in Paris in September of the same year. He was then appointed professor of the mathematics at the college royal, in which situation he lived to render the greatest service to the interests of science, by training up some learned pupils, among whom was the celebrated M. de la Lande. In 1743, his pupil, M. Monnier, took a voyage to Scotland to observe an annular eclipse of the sun, and on this subject De Lisle published a large advertisement, which was reckoned a complete treatise on annular eclipses. He afterwards entered more fully on the consideration of the theory of eclipses, and he communicated a part of his researches on the subject to the academy in 1749. He was so expert in calculations, that he made many founded on the observations of Greenwich, Berlin, Scotland, and Sweden. In 1750 and 1753 he published “New charts of the Discoveries of admiral de Fonte, or Fuente, made in 1640, and those of other navigators, Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, French, and Russian, in the Northern seas, with, explications.” In 1753 appeared his map of the world, in which he represented the effect of the parallaxes of Mercury in different countries, in order to point out the proper places for making such observations on the then expected transit, as should furnish a method of determining the distance of the sun, in a manner similar to that applied by Halley to the transit of Venus. Another work of his, published in the Transactions of the Academy, was on the comet of 1758, which was visible several months; but he was principally attentive to the one predicted by Di% Halley, forty years before, which was first seen in January 1759, He gave an account of his observations on that comet irr the first volume of the “Mercure,” for July of that year. He was afterwards assiduously engaged on the transit of Venus, expected in 1761, in order to correct the error of Halley, and thus prevent persons from undertaking long voyages unnecessarily for the sake of observing it. He had, some years previously to this, been appointed astronomical geographer to the marine, and his business was to collect and arrange the plans and journals of naval captains, and to extract from them whatever might be found beneficial to the king’s service in this department. His majesty now purchased, with a pension- for life, all M. de Lisle’s rich astronomical and geographical collections, which were added to the Mss. in the depot. In 1758, JDeginning to decline, he withdrew as much as he could from public life, leaving the care of his observations to M. Messier, while M. de la Lamle was appointed his coadjutor at the college royal. He went to reside at the abbey of St. Genevieve, where he spent his time partly in devotional exercises, and partly in study, devoting the greatest part of his income to- acts of benevolence and charity. He died on the 11th of July 1768, in the eighty-first year of his age. As a man of science his merits are very great, and in private life he was distinguished by unaffected piety, pure morals, undeviating integrity, and most amiable manners.

, an English antiquary, was educated at Eton school, and admitted to King’s -college, Cambridge, in 1584, where he took his degree of M. A. and became fellow, but quitted his fellowship on succeeding to an estate at Wilbraham, in Cambridgeshire. He was afterwards appointed one of the esquires extraordinary of the king’s body, and died in 1637. No farther particulars of his life are upon record. He published “A Saxon treatise concerning the Old and New Testament; written about the time of king Edgar, (700 years ago) by >Elfricus Abbas, thought to be the same that was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury,” 1623, 4to. (See jELFRic). This was published by Mr. Lisle from a ms. in sir Robert Cotton’s library. The copy before us has only this “Treatise,” but the volume is incomplete without “A Testimony of Antiquity, shewing the ancient faith in the church of England, touching the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord” the “Words of CEilfric abbot of St. Alban’s, &c. taken out of his epistles written to Wulfsine, bishop of Scyrburne;” and “The Lord’s prayer, the creed, and ten commandments, in the Saxon and English tongue.” The work is dedicated to prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. in a long copy of verses, “by way of eclogue, imitating the fourth of Virgile.” To this is added a still longer preface, or address to the reader, containing some curious remarks on a variety of topics relating to Saxon literature, the Bible, the English language, &c. Mr. Lisle also published Du Bartas’s “Ark, Babylon, Colonies, and Columns,” in French and English, 1637, 4to and “The Fair Æthiopian,” 1631, 4to, a long poem of very indifferent merit. His reputation was founded on his skill in the Saxon tongue.

In 1685 he published his “Historia sive Synopsis Conchyliorum,” 2 vols. fol. containing very accurate figures of all the shells known in his time, amounting to upwards of a thousand; and what renders the book a singular curiosity is, that they were all drawn by his two daughters, Susanna and Anne. The copper-plates of this work becoming the property of the university of Oxford, a new edition was published there in 1770, under the care of Huddesford, keeper of the Ashmolean museum. This edition wants two or three of the plates belonging to the original; but to make up for this deficiency, two or three new plates have been added, and notwithstanding the progress which the study has since made, the work still retains its value, and is indispensable to the student of^conchology.

He died June 30, 1694, aged sixty-seven years, and was buried on the north side of the chancel of Chelsea church, where there is a handsome monument, with an epitaph to his memory. He was an excellent philologist and grammarian, particularly in the Latin, as appears from his Dictionary of that language; he appears also to have studied the Greek with equal minuteness, a Lexicon of which he had long been compiling, and left unfinished at his death. He was also well skilled in the Oriental languages and in rabbinical learning; in prosecution of which he exhausted great part of his fortune in purchasing ' books and manuscripts from all parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The consequence of this improvidence, we are sorry, however, to add, was his dying insolvent, and leaving his widow in very distressed circumstances. Some time before his death, he made a small essay towards facilitating the knowledge of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic tongues, which he intended to have brought into a narrower compass. He was versed also in the abstruse parts of the mathematics, and wrote a great many pieces concerning mystical numeration, which came into the hands of his brother-in-law Dr. Hockin. In private life he was extremely charitable, easy of access, communicative, affable, facetious in conversation, free from passion, of a strong constitution, and a venerable countenance. Besides his “Latin Dictionary,” which appeared first in 1678, 4to, and was often reprinted, but is now superseded by Ainsworth’s, he published, 1. “Tragicomcedia Oxoniensis,” a Latin poem on the Parliament-Visitors,“1648, a single sheet, 4to, which, however, was afterwards attributed to a Mr. John Carrick, a student of Christ-churdi. 2.” Pasor metricus, sive voces omnes Nov. Test, primogenias hexametris versibus compreherusae,“1658, 4to, Greek and Latin. 3.” Diatriba in octo Tractatus distributa,“&c. printed with the former. 4.” Elementa Religionis, sive quatuor Capita catechetica totidem Linguis descripta, in usum Scholarum,“1658, 8vo, to which h added, 5.” Complicatio Radicum in primaeva Hebrseorurh Lingua.“6.” Solomon’s Gate, or an entrance into the Church,“&c. 1662, 8vo. Perhaps this title was taken from the north gate of Westminster-abbey, so called 7.” Sixty-one Sermons,“1680, fol. 8.” A Sermon at a solemn meeting of the natives of the city and county of Worcester, in Bow-church, London, 24th of June, 1680,“4to. 9.” Preface to Cicero’s Works,“Lond. 1681, 2 vols.'fol. 10.” A Translation of ‘ Selden’s Jani Anglorum Facies Altera,’ with Notes,“which for some unkuown reason he published under the name of Redman Westcote, 1683, fol. With this were printed three other tracts of Selden, viz. his” Treatise of the Judicature of Parliaments,“&c.” Of the original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments.“”Of the Disposition of Intestates Goods.“11.” The Life of Themistocles,“from the Greek, in the first vol. of Plutarch’s Lives, by several hands, 1687, 8vo. He also published” Dissertatio epistolaris de Juramento Medicorum qui Ορκοσ Ἱπποκρατουσ dicitur," &c. also A Latin Inscription, in prose and verse, intended for the monument of the fire of London, in Sept. 1666. This is printed at the end of his Dictionary; with an elegant epistle to Dr. Baldwin Hamey, M. D.

, a celebrated English judge, descended of an ancient family, was the eldest son of Thomas Westcote, of the county of Devon, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter and sole-heir of Thomas Littleton or Lyttleton, of Frankley in Worcestershire, in compliance with whom she consented that the issue, or at least the eldest son, of that marriage should take the name of Lyttleton, and bear the arms of that family. He was born about the beginning of the fifteenth century at Frankley. Having laid a proper foundation of learning at one of the universities, he removed to the Inner-Temple; and, applying himself to the law, became very eminent in that profession. The first notice we have of his distinguishing himself is from his learned lectures on the statute of Westminster, “de donis conditionalibus,” “of conditional gifts.” He was afterwards made, by Henry VI. steward or judge of the court of the palace, or marshalsea of the king’s household, and, in May 1455, king’s serjeant, in which capacity he went the Northern circuit as a judge of the assize. Upon the revolution of the crown, from the house of Lancaster to that of York) in the time of Edward IV. our judge, who was now made sheriff of Worcestershire, received a pardon from that prince; was continued in his post of king’s serjeant, and also in that of justice of assi/r for the same circuit. This pardon passed in 1462, the second year of Edward IV.; and, in 1466, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of Common Pleas. The same year, he obtained a writ to the commissioners of the customs of London, Bristol, and Kingston-upon-Hull, enjoining them to pay him a hundred and ten marks annually, for the better support of his dignity; a hundred and six shillings and eleven pence farthing, to furnish him whh a furred robe; and six shillings and six-pence more, for another robe called Li num. In 1473, we find him residing near St. Sepulchre’s church, London, in a capital mansion, the property of the abbot of Leicester, which he held on lease at the yearly rent of 1 <'>.-. In 1475 he was created, among others, knight of the Hath, to grace the solemnity of conferring that order upon the king’s eldest son, then prince of Wales, afterwards Edward V. He continued to enjoy the esteem of his sovereign and the nation, on account of his profound knowledge of the laws of England, till his death, Aug. 23, 1481, the day after the date of his will. He was then said to be of a good old age, but its precise length has not been ascertained. He was honourably interred in the cathedral church of Worcester, where a marble tomb, with his statue, was erected to his memory; his picture was also placed in the church of Frankley; and another in that of Hides-Owen, where his descendants purchased a good estate. He married, and had three sons, William, Richard, and Thomas. Kichard, bred to the law, became eminent in thut profession; and it was for his use that our judge drew up his celebrated treatise on tenures or titles, which will probably hand his name down to the latest posterity. The judge’s third son, Thomas, was knighted by Henry VII. for taking Lambert Simnel, the pretended earl of Warwick. His eldest son and successor, sir William Littleton, after living many years in great splendour, at Frankley, died in 1508; and from this branch the late celebrated lord Lyttelton of Frankley co. Worcester, who was created a baron of Great Britain, Nov. 1756, derived his pedigree; but who, owing to the alteration in the spelling of the name (which, however, appears unnecessary) will occur in a future part of this work.

The memory of judge Littleton is preserved by his “Tenures” and the various editions through which his book has passed are the best evidence of its worth. Dr. Middleton supposes the first edition to have been that printed in French by Lettou and Machlima, near the church of All-Saints, or All-Hallows, in London, without date: and he thinks that it was put to press by the author himself in 1481, the year he died; but lord Coke supposes the French edition in folio, printed without date, at Rouen, by W. Le Tailleur, for R. Pinson, to have been the first. The point however has not yet been settled; and perhaps cannot now be settled with precision. The various opinions on the subject may be found in our authorities. That it was often reprinted is a matter of less doubt: the editions from 1539 to 1639 only, amount to twenty-four. The original composition of this celebrated work is justly esteemed as the principal pillar on which the superstructure of the law of real property in this kingdom is supported; and the valuable “Commentary” of lord Coke has uniformly been considered, by the most eminent lawyers, as the result and repository of all his learning on the subjects there treated. Of this work a republication was made in folio, 1738, which, independent of the valuable annotations of lord Hale and lord chancellor Nottingham, has been greatly improved by the learning and indefatigable labours of Mr. Hargrave and Mr. Butler. There was a book written in the reign of Edward III. which is called “Oki Tenures,” to distinguish it from Littleton’s book. It gives an account of the various tenures by which land was holdeu, the nature of estates, and some other incidents relating to landed property. It is a very scanty tract, but has the merit of having led the way to Littleton’s famous work.

In this station he preserved the esteem of both parties for some time, and the two houses of parliament agreed to return their thanks by him to the king, for passing the triennial bill, and that of the subsidies; but, as he concurred in the votes for raising an army, and seizing the militia, in March 1641, measures very hostile to the royal cause, the king sent an order from York to lord Falkland, to demand the seal from him, and to consult about a successor with Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon; but this last step prevented the former order from being put into execution. Hyde, who always entertained a great regard for the keeper, had, upon his late behaviour, paid him a visit at Exeter-house, on which occasion the keeper freely disclosed his mind, lamenting that he had been removed from the common-pleas, of which court he was acquainted with the business aud the persons with whom he had to deal, to an higher office, which involved him with another sort of men, and in affairs to which he was a stranger; and this without his having one friend among them, to whom he could confide any difficulty that occurred to him. Adverting likewise to the unhappy state of the king’s affairs, he said that the party in hostility to the court “would never have done what they had already, unless they had been determined to do more: that he foresaw it would not be long before a war would break out, and of what importance it was, in that season, that the great seal should be with his majesty; that the prospect of this necessity had made him comply to a certain degree with that party; that there had lately been a consultation, whether, in case the king might send for him, or the great seal be taken from him, it were advisable to keep it in some secure place, where the keeper should receive it upon occasion, they having no mind to disoblige him: that the knowledge of this had induced him to vote as he did in the late debates; and by that compliance, which he knew would give the king a bad impression of him, he had gained so much credit with them, that he should be able to preserve the seal in his own hands till his majesty should demand it, and then he would be ready to wait on the king with it, declaring that no man should be more willing to perish with and for his majesty than himself.” Mr. Hyde acquainted lord Falkland with this conference; and, being confident that the lord-keeper would keep his promise, recommended to advise his majesty to write a kind invitation to the keeper to come to York, and bring the seal with him, rather than, think of giving it to any other person. The advice was embraced by the king, who, though he still had his doubts of Littleton’s sincerity, was influenced by the reasons assigned; and accordingly the seal was sent to York on the f2d, and followed by the keeper on the 23d of May, 1642. But, notwithstanding this piece of service and eminent proof of his loyalty, at the risk of his life, he could never totally regain the king’s confidence, or the esteem of the court-party. He continued, however, to enjoy his post, in which he attended his majesty to Oxford, was there created doctor of laws, and made one of the king’s privycouncil, and colonel of a regiment of foot in the same service, some time before his death, which happened Aug. 27, 1645, at Oxford. His body was interred in the cathedral of Christ church; uu which Qccasioa a funeral oration was pronounced by the celebrated Dr. Hammond, then orator to the university. In May 1683, a monument was erected there to his memory, by his only daughter and heiress, the lady Anne Lyttelton, widow of sir Thomas Lyttelton; and the same year came out his “Reports,” in folio, which, however, Mr. Stevens, in his introduction to lord Bacon’s Letters, edition 1702, p. 21, thinks were not composed by him, many of the cases being the same verbatim as in Hetley’s reports. Lord Clarendon says of sir Edward Littleton, that “he was a man of great reputation in the profession of the law, for learning, and all other advantages which attend the most eminent men. He was of a very good extraction in Shropshire, and inherited a fair fortune and inheritance from his father. He was a handsome and a proper man, of a very graceful presence, and notorious courage, which in his youth he had manifested with his sword. He had taken great pains in the hardest and most knotty part of the law, as well as that which was most customary; and was not only ready and expert in the books, but exceedingly versed in records, in studying and examining whereof he had kept Mr. Selden company, with whom he had great friendship, and who had much assisted him: so that he was looked upon as the best antiquary of his profession, who gave himself up to practice; and, upon the mere strength of his abilities, he had raised himself into the first of the practisers of the common law courts, and was chosen recorder of London before he was called to the bench, and grew presently into the highest practice in all the other courts, as well as those of the law.” Whitelocke also observes, that he was a man of courage, and of excellent parts and learning. But we fear he cannot be altogether acquitted of unsteadiness in some parts of his conduct, although it must at the same time be owned that when he found he could no longer retain the seal with credit, he delivered it, with his own hands, to his unhappy sovereign, and died firmly attached to his cause.

, a rigid but pious presbyter of the church of Scotland, was born in 1603. In 1617, he was sent to the college of Glasgow, where he remained until he passed M. A. in 1621. After this, he exercised the ministry in various places, as occasion oflered, till 1628, when he was, by the sentence of the general assembly, sent to Ancrum in Teviot-dale. He was twice suspended by bishop Down, and was one of those who tendered the covenant to king 'Charles II. a little before he landed in Scotland. In 1663, as he would not subscribe or take the oath of allegiance, he was banished out of the kingdom, and retired into Holland, where he preached to the Scots’ congregation at Rotterdam till his death, Aug. 9, 1672, His works are “Letters from Leith, 1663, to his Parishioners at Ancrum;” “Memorable Characteristics of Divine Providence;” and a “Latin Translation of the Old Testament,” not published.

, the most celebrated of the Roman historians, was born at Patavium, or Padua, and descended from an illustrious family, which had given several consuls to Rome. Few circumstances of his life are known, as none of the ancients have left any thing about it; and so reserved has he been with regard to himself, that we should be at a loss to determine the time when his history was written, if it were not for one passage which seems to prove that he was employed on it about the year of Rome 730. He was then at Rome, where he long resided; and some have supposed that he was known to Augustus before, by certain dialogues, which he had dedicated to him. Seneca, without noticing the dedication, mentions these dialogues, whjch he calls historical and philosophical; and also some books, written purposely on the subject of philosophy. All this appears doubtful, but there is reason to think that he began his history as soon as he was settled at Rome; and he seems to have devoted himself entirely to it. The tumults and distractions of that city frequently obliged him to retire to Naples, not only that he might be less interrupted in his historical labours, but enjoy that tranquillity which he could not have at Rome. He appears to have been much dissatisfied with the manners of his age, and tells us, that “he should reap this reward of his labour, in composing the Roman history, that it would take his attention from the present numerous evils, at least while he was employed upon the first and earliest ages.”

It is said that he used to read parts of his history, while he was composing it, to Mæcenas and Augustus; and that Livia conceived so high an opinion of him, as to intend to commit to him the education of young Claudius the brother of Germanicus, but his death prevented his enjoying this honour. On the demise of Augustus, he returned to Padua, where he was received with all imaginable honour and respect; and there died, A. D. 17, at the age of seventy, or seventy-six.

This ridiculous story, which has been repeated in the former editions of this Dictionary, as well as in other accounts of Livy, took its rise from the ignorance or knavery of those who reported it; and having been refuted by Gudius, and more fully by Morhof (“De Livii Patav.” cap. iii.), ought long ago to have been displaced. The epitaph at Padua was, when written without the contractions, “Vivus fecit Titus Livius, Livice Titi filise quartae, libertus Halys, concordialis Patavi, sibi et suis omnibus;” i. e. This monument was erected by himself and his family by Titus Livius Halys, the freedman of Livia, a daughter of one Titus Livius, who probably lived many ages after the historian. Halys was his name, while he continued in servitude, and Titus Livius the name of his patron or master, which he assumed, as was usual in those cases, when he received his freedom. He had perhaps borne some office in the temple of Concordia at Padua, which might possibly have stood in the place where the epitaph was discovered, and hence the title Concordialis. But the monks of the fifteenth century, who valued themselves on having discovered the bones of the celebrated historian, attended only to the name of Titus Livius; never reflecting, that this was a common name, and might have belonged to twenty others; that in the Augustan age, dead bodies were usually burnt, and not buried within the walls of cities; and that, admitting Livy had been buried, it was very improbable that any of his bones should have remained unconsumed in the ground above 1400 years.

Mr. Lloyd, even by Wood’s account, left an excellent character behind him: “he was a very industrious and zealous person, charitable to the poor, and ready to do good offices in his neighbourhood; he commonly read the service every day in his church at Northop, when he was at home, and usually gave money to such poor children as would come to him to be catechised.” As an author, however, Wood appears to have been a little jealous of Lloyd; speaks of him as being “a conceited and confident per­*on;” who “took too much upon him to transmit to posterity the memoirs of great personages;” by which “he obtained among knowing men not only the character of a most impudent plagiary, but a false writer, and a mere scribbler, especially upon the publication of his * Memoirs,' wherein are almost as many errors as lines.” “At length,” adds Wood, “having been sufficiently admonished of his said errors, and brought into trouble for some extravagancies in his books, he left off writing, retired to Wales, and there gave himself up to the gaining of riches.” That all this is not true, modern inquirers of reputation, who have repeatedly referred to Lloyd, seem to be convinced: he is in truth a compiler, like others of his contemporaries; but, although he must rank greatly under, he certainly belongs to the same class with Fuller and Wood himself. la his style he partakes more of the former than the latter, and having titled the subject of his pen “Worthies,” he is, s, a little too anxious to support their claim, and regardless- of those circumstances which form ajust, if not a perfect, character. Lloyd has preserved many minutiae of eminent men, not to be found, or not easily, to be found, elsewhere. These remarks apply to his two principal works, so often quoted by modern biographers, “The Statesmen and favourites of England since the Reformation, &c.” 166.5, 8vo, reprinted in 1670; and his “Memoirs of the Lives, &c.” of persons who suffered for their loyalty during the rebellion, Lond. 1668, folio. This last is the more valuable of the two, and is so far from deserving the character Wood has given, of containing as “many errors as lines,” that, while we admit it is not free from errors, we have found it in general corroborated by contemporary writers, and even by Wood himself. Of the first of these works, an edition was published by Charles Whitworth, esq. in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, with additions from other writers, with a view to restore the light and shade of character. “Mr. Lloyd,” says an anonymous critic, “is professedly the white-washer of every character and personage that falls under his brush, particularly of the loyalists of Charles I. and II.; but his editor has seamed it with some sable strokes, some drawn from lord Herbert, and some from his own stores, which are supplied from Rapin, and other republican writers of little credit and less abilities. The true merit of Lloyd is, that notwithstanding the sameness of most of his characters, he serves them up to his readers so differently dressed, that each seems to be a new dish, and to have a peculiar relish.”

Lloyd’s other publications were: 1. “Modern Policy compleated, or the public actions and councils, '&c. of General Monk,” Lond. 1660, 8vo. 2. “The Pourtraictuue of his sacred Majesty Charles II. &c.” ibid. 1660, 8vo. 3. “The Countess of Bridgwater’s Ghost, &c.” Lond. 1663, a character of this amiable lady, published, as Wood allows, “to make her a pattern for other women to imitate;” but we can scarcely credit what he adds, that “the earl being much displeased that the memory of his lady should be perpetuated under such a title, and by such an obscure person, who did not do her the right that was <Jue, he brought him into trouble, and caused him to suffer six months imprisonment /” We have not seen this work; but had it been a libel instead of a panegyric, which last appears to have been the author’s honest intention, it could not have been punished with more severity. 4. “Of Plots, &c.” Lond. 1664, 4to, published under the name of Oliver Foulis. 5. “The Worthies of the World, &c.” an abridgment of Plutarch, ibid. 1665, 8vo. 6. “Dying and Dead men’s Living Words; or a fair warning to a careless world,” 1665, and 1682, 12mo. 7. “Wonders no miracles; or Mr. Valentine Greatrack’s Gift of Healing examined, &c.” ibid. 1665, 4to. 8. “Exposition of the Catechism and Liturgy, &c.” 9. “A Treatise on Moderation,” 1674.

, a learned English writer in the seventeenth century, was son of Mr. George Lloyd, minister of Wonson or Wonsington near Winchester, and grandson of Mr. David Lloyd, vicar of Lockford near Stockbridge in Hampshire. He was born at Hoi ton in Flintshire in 1634, and educated at Wykeham’s school near Winchester, and admitted a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, from Hart-hall, October 20, 1653. He afterwards became a fellow of Wadham, and July 6, 16.58, took the degree of roaster of arts. In 1665, when Dr. Blandford, warden of that college, became bishop of Oxford, our author was appointed chaplain to him, being about that time rector of St. Martin’s church in Oxford, and continued with the bishop till he was translated to the see of Worcester in 1671. The year following, the rectory of St. Mary Newington, in Surrey, falling void, the bishop of Worcester presented Mr. Lloyd to it, who kept it to his death, which happened Nov. 27, 1680. He was interred in the chancel of the church there, leaving behind him the character of an harmless quiet man, and an excellent philologist. His “Dictionarium Historicum,” &c. although now obsolete, was once reckoned a valuable work. The first edition was published at Oxford in 1670, folio. The second edition was printed at London in 1686, folio, under the fMlowing title: “Dictionarium Historicum, geographicum, poeticum, gentium, hominum, deorum gentilium, regionum, insularum, locorum, civitatum, aequorum, fluviorum, sinuum, portuum, promontoriorum, ac montium, antiqua recentioraque, ad sacras & profanas historias, poetarumque fabulas intelligendas nccessaria, Nomina, quo decet erdine, complectens & illustrans. Opus admodum utile & apprime necessarium; a Carolo Stephano inchoatum; ad incudem vero revocatum, innumerisque pene locis auctum & emaculatum per NicolaumV.Lloydium, Collegii Wadhami in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi Socium. Editio novissima.” He left several unpublished Mss. consisting principally of commentaries and translations. He had a younger brother, John, somewhat of a poet, who appears to have shared the friendship and esteem of Addison.

At what time he quitted the school, we are not told. In 1760 and 1761, he superintended the poetical department of a short-lived periodical publication, entitled the “Library,” of which the late Dr. Kippis was the editor. In 1760 he published the first of his productions which attracted much notice, “The Actor.” It was recommended by an easy and harmonious versification, and by the liberality of his censures, which were levelled at certain improprieties common to actors in general. By this poem, Churchill is said to have been stimulated to write his *' Rosciad,“in which he descended from general to personal criticism. The subjects, however, were so alike, that Lloyd was for some time supposed to be the author of the” llosciad,“which he took an early opportunity to deny, and not only acknowledged his inferiority, but attached himself more closely than ever to the fame and fortunes of Churchill. In the same year, he attempted a small piece of the musical kind, called” The Tears and Triumphs of Parnassus/' and the following season had another little opera performed at Drury-lane theatre, in honour of their present majesties’ nuptials, entitled “Arcadia; or, The Shepherd’s Wedding.” The profit arising from these pieces was not great, but probably enough to induce him to become an author by profession, although no man ever ventured on that mode of life with fewer qualifications. His poetical productions were of such a trifling cast as to bring him very small supplies, and he had neither taste nor industry for literary employment.

In 1762, he attempted to establish a periodical work, “The St. James’s Magazine,” which was to be the depository of his own efVusions, aided by the contributions of his friends. The latter, however, came in tardily; Churchill, from whom he had great expectations, contributed nothing, although such of his poems as he published during the sale of the magazine, were liberally praised. Thornton gave a very few prose essays, and poetical pieces were furnished by Denis and Emily, two versifiers of forgotten reputation. Lloyd himself had none of the steady industry which a periodical work requires, and his magazine was often made up, partly from books, and partly from the St. James’s Chronicle, of which Colman and Thornton were proprietors, and regular contributors. Lloyd also translated some of Marmontel’s tales for the Magazine, and part of a French play, in order to fix upon Murphy the charge of plagiarism. This magazine, after existing about a year, was dropped for want of encouragement, as far as Lloyd was concerned; but was continued for some time longer by Dr. Kenrick. Lloyd’s imprudence and necessities were now beyond relief or forbearance, and his eretlitors confined him within the Fleet prison, where he afforded a melancholy instance of the unstable friendship of wits. Dr. Kenrick informs us that “even Thornton, though his bosom friend from their infancy, refused to be his security for the liberty of the rules; a circumstance which, giving rise to some ill-natured altercation, induced this quondam friend to become an inveterate enemy, in the quality of his most inexorable creditor.” It was probably during his imprisonment, that he published a very indifferent translation of Klopstock’s “Death of Adam.” After that, his “Capricious Lovers,” a comic opera, was acted for a few nights at Drury-lane theatre. This is an adaptation of Favart’s Ninette a la Cour to the English stage, but Lloyd had no original powers in dramatic composition. Churchill and Wilkes are said to have afforded him a weekly stipend from the commencement of his imprisonment until his final release. How this was paid we knownot. Wilkes had been long out of the kingdom, and Churchill, who left Lloyd in a jail when he went to France, bequeathed him a ring only as a remembrance*. It is more probable that his father assisted him on this occasion, although it might not be in his power to pay his debts. He had in vain tried every means to reclaim him from idleness and intemperance, and had long borne “the drain or burthen” which he was to his family. The known abilities of this unhappy son, “rendered this blow the more grievous to so good a father,” who is characterized by bishop Newton as a man that “with all his troubles and disappointments, with all the sickness and distress in his family, still preserved his calm, placid countenance, his easy cheerful temper, and was at all times an agreeable friend and companion, in all events a true Christian philosopher.”

ap edition of his collected poems. Frqm 1763. loved to associate. In his friendships he was warm, constant, and grateful, *' more sinned against than sinning;“and it would be difficult to find an apology for the conduct of those prosperous friends to whose reputation he had contributed in no inconsiderable degree by his writings. Among these, however, Hogarth appears to have been unjustly ranked. An irreconcileable quarrel had long subsisted between this artist and Churchill’s friends; and, much decayed in health, Hogarth languished for some time at Chiswick, where he died nearly two months before Lloyd. The news of Churchill’s death being announced somewhat abruptly to Lloyd, while he was sitting at dinner, he was seized with a sudden sickness, and saying” I shall follow poor Charles,“took to his bed, from which he never rose. He died December 1$, 1764, and his remains were deposited, without ceremony t on the 19th, in the churchyard of St. Bride’s parish. Ten years afterwards his poetical works were published in two handsome volumes, by Dr. Kenrick, who prefixed some memoirs, written in a negligent manner, and without a single date of birth, death, events, or publications. His poems have been added to the works of the” English Poets," although he certainly merits no very distinguished rank. His chief excellence was the facility with which he wrote a number of smooth and pleasing lines, tinctured with gay humour, on any topic which presented itself. But he has no where attempted, or afforded m much reason to think that by any diligence or effort he could have attained, the higher species of his art. He has neither originality of thought, or elegance of expression. It has been observed that those poets who have been degraded by the licentiousness of their lives, have rarely surpassed the excellence, of whatever degree, which first brought them into notice. Lloyd, however, had not the excuse which has been advanced in some recent instances. He was neither spoiled by patronage, nor flattered into indolence by injudicious praise and extravagant hopes. The friends of his youth were those of his mature years; and of the few whom he lost, he had only the melancholy recollection that some of them had quitted him from shame, and some from ingratitude.

, or L'Obel (Matthias de), a botanist, was born in 1538, at Lisle, in Flanders, where his father practised in the law. He bad an early taste for plants, and had good opportunities of advancing his knowledge at Montpelier, where he studied physic under the learned Rondeletius, as well as by making some botanical excursions over the south of France. At Narbonne he became acquainted with Pena, afterwards his fellow^labourer in the “Adversaria,” the first edition of which was published, at London, in 1570, small folio, and dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The few cuts dispersed through this volume are mostly original, but inferior in style and accuracy, as well as in size, to those of Clusius, with whom he was contemporary. Before the publication of the “Adversaria,” our author had extended his travels to Switzerland, the Tyrol, some parts of Germany, and Italy; had settled as a physician -at Antwerp, afterwards at Delft; and had been appointed physician to the illustrious William prince of Orange, and to the States of Holland. Dr. Pulteney has not been able to ascertain the time of Lobel’s removal to England, but justly concludes it to have been before 1570, or most probably some years earlier. The aim of the authors of the “Adversaria” was to investigate the botany and materia medica of the ancients, and especially of Dioscorides. It was reprinted at Antwerp in 1576, the dedication being, of course, there suppressed, and new titlepages were printed to help the sale of the original in 1571 and 1572. Some copies of the Antwerp impression appear to have been made up into a new edition at London in 1605, with an ample Pharmacopeia, and an appendix. This volume is dedicated to Edward lord Zouch, whom Lobel had attended on his embassy to Denmark in 1592, and he calls himself, in the title, botanist to king James I. Dr. Pulteney observes, after Haller, that this work exhibits some traces of a natural distribution of plants, but without any remarks, and with little precision. His work is much more valuable for the accounts of new plants discovered by himself in England or elsewhere, although Ray accuses him of having made several mistakes, from having trusted too much to his memory.

He seems first to have appeared as an author in 1657, during the interregnum, by the publication of his “little consort of three parts for viols or violins, consisting of pavans, ayres, corants, sarabands, in two several varieties, the first twenty of which are for two trebles and a base.” Some of his compositions appear in the second part of John Playford’s continuation of Hilton’s “Catch that catch can,” in 1667; and among them the most pleasing of Lock’s compositions, “Never trouble thyself about times or their turnings,” a glee for three voices. He was the first Who attempted dramatic music for the English stage, if we except the masques that were performed at court, and at the houses of the nobility, in the time of Charles I. and during the reign of Charles II. When musical dramas were first attempted, which Dryden calls heroic plays and dramatic operas, Lock was employed to set most of them, particularly the semi-operas, as they were called, the Tempest, Macbeth,] and Psyche, translated from the French of Moliere, by Shadwell. The Tempest and Psyche were printed in 1675, and dedicated to James duke of Monmouth. There is a preface of some length by Lock, which, like his music, is rough and nervous, exactly corresponding with the idea which is generated of his private character, by the perusal of his controversy with Salmon, and the sight of his picture in the music-school at Oxford. It is written with that natural petulance which probably gave birth to most of the quarrels in which he was involved. It includes, however, a short history of these early attempts at dramatic music on our stage, in which, as in the most successful representations of this kind in later times, the chief part of the dialogue was spoken, and recitative, or musical declamation, which seems to be the true criterion and characteristic of Italian operas, but seldom used, unless merely to introduce some particular airs and choruses. Upon examining this music, it appears to have been very much composed on Lulli’s model. The melody is neither recitative nor air, but partaking of both, with a change of measure as frequent as in any old French opera which we ever saw.

Lock had genius and abilities in harmony sufficient to have surpassed his model, or to have casthis movements in a mould of his own making but such was the passion af Charles II. and consequently of his court, at this time, for every thing French, that in all probability Lock was instructed to imitate Cambert and Lulli. His music for the witches in Macbeth, which, when produced in 1674, was as smooth and airy as any of the time, has now obtained by age, that wild and savage cast which is admirably suited to the characters that are supposed to perform it.

In the third introductory music to the Tempest, which is called a curtain tune, probably from the curtain being first drawn up during the performance of this species of overture, he has, for the first time that is come to one knowledge, introduced the use of crescendo (louder by degrees), with diminuendo and lentando, under the words soft and slow by degrees. No other instruments are mentioned in the score of his opera of Psyche, than violins for the ritornels; and yet, so slow was the progress of that instrument during the last century, that in a general catalogue of music in 1701, scarce any compositions appear to have been printed for its use. This musician was of so irascible a disposition, that he seems never to have been without a quarrel or two on his hands. For his furious attack on Salmon, for proposing to reduce all the clefs in music to one, he had a quarrel with the gentlemen of the chapel royal, early in Charles II.'s reign. Being composer in ordinary to the king, he produced for the chapel royal a morning-service, in which he set the prayer after each of the ten commandments to different music from that to which the singers had been long accustomed, which was deemed an unpardonable innovation, and on the first day of April, 1666, at the performance of it before the king, there was a disturbance and an obstruction for some time to the performance. To convince the public that it was not from the meanness or inaccuracy of the composition that this impediment to its performance happened, Lock thought it necessary to print the whole service; and it came abroad in score on a single sheet, with a long and laboured vindication, by way of preface, under the following title, “Modern church musick pre-accused, censured, and obstructed in its performance before his majesty.” Lock was long suspected of being a Roman catholic, and it is probable that this new service, by leaning a little more towards the mass than the service of the 1 protestant cathedral, may have given offence to some zealous members of the church of England.

The public were indebted to Lock for the first rules that were ever published in England, for a basso continuo, or thorough base; these rules he gave the world, in a book entitled “Melothesia,” London, 1673, oblong 4to. It is dedicated to Roger L‘Estrange, esq. afterwards sir Roger L’Estrange, himself a good musician, and an encourager of its professors. It contains, besides the thorough-bass rules, some lessons for the harpsichord and organ, by Lock himself, and others. He was author likewise of several songs printed in “The Treasury of Music,” “The Theatre of Music,” and other collections of songs. In the 4atter of these is a dialogue, “When death shall part us from these kids,” which, with Dr. Blow’s “Go, perjured man,” was ranked among the best vocal compositions of the time.

, one of the greatest philosophers this country has produced, was the son of John Locke, of Pensford, a market-town in Somersetshire, five miles from Bristol, by Anne his wife, daughter of Edmund Keen, or Ken, of Wrington, tanner. His father, who was first a clerk only to a neighbouring justice of the peace, Francis Baber, of Chew Magna, was advanced by col. Alexander Popham, whose seat was near Pensford, to be a captain in the parliament’s service. After the restoration, he practised as an attorney, and was clerk of the sewers in Somersetshire *. Although our philosopher’s age is not to be found in the registers of Wrington, which is the parish church of Pensford, it has been ascertained that he wasborn there Aug. 29, 1632. By the interest of col, Popham, he was admitted a scholar at Westminster, whence in 1652 he was elected to Christ church, Oxford. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1655, and that of M. A. in 1658; but although he made a considerable progress in the usual course of studies at that time, he often said that what he learned was of little use to enlighten and enlarge his mind. The first books which gave him a relish for the study of philosophy, were the writings of Des Cartes, whom he always found perspicuous, although he did not always approve of his sentiments.

* /But an intelligent writer, who ap- minority, and the other our celebrated pears to have had access to the best metaphysician. See Gent. Mag. vol. authorities, asserts that Mr. Locke’s LXII. See also a letter on the same father was killed at Bristol in 1645, subject, in vol. LXIX. p. Ul. leaving two sons, one who died in his his genius, and penetrating and exact judgment, or the purity of his morals, has scarce any superior, and few equals now living." Hence he was often saluted by his acquaintance with the title, though he never took the degree, of doctor, which we think would have been the case had he intended medicine as a profession, or had not been diverted from it by other studies and avocations f.

In 1664, sir William Swan being appointed envoy from the English court to the elector of Brandenburgh, and some other German princes, Mr. Locke attended him as his secretary, but returned to England within the year, and applied himself again with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to that of natural philosophy. While at Oxford, in 1666, he became acquainted with lord Ashley, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury, and that in the character of a medical practitioner. Lord Ashley by a fall had hurt his breast in such a manner, that there was an abscess formed in it, and being advised to drink the mineral waters at Astrop, wrote to Dr. Thomas, a physician at Oxford, to procure a quantity of those waters, which might be ready on his arrival. Dr. Thomas, being obliged to be absent from Oxford at that time, desired his friend Mr. Locke to execute this commission. By some accident or neglect, the waters were not ready the day after lord Ashley’s arrival, and Mr. Locke thought it his duty to wait on his lordship to make an apology, which he received with his usual civility, and was so pleased with Locke’s conversation as to detain him to supper, and engaged him to dine with him next day, that he might have the more of his company. And when his lordship left Oxford to go to Surinirig-hill, where he drank the waters, he made Mr. Locke promise to come thither, as he did in the summer of 1667. Lord Ashley afterwards returned, and obliged him to promise that he would come and lodge at his house. Mr. Locke accordingly went thither, and though not a regular practitioner, his lordship confided entirely in his advice, with regard to the operation, which was to be performed by opening the abscess in his breast, and which saved his life, though it never closed.

After this cure, his lordship, by frequent conversations, discovered qualities in Locke, which made him regard his medical skill as the least of his merits; and foreseeing the bent of his talents, advised him to apply himself to the study of political and religious topics, on which his lordship seems often to have consulted him. By his acquaintance with this nobleman, he was introduced to some persons of eminence, such as Villiers duke of Buckingham, lord Halifax, and other noblemen of wit and parts, who were all charmed with his conversation, and more so, it appears, than he was sometimes with theirs. One day, three or four of these lords having met at lord Ashley’s when Mr. Locke was there, after some compliments, cards were brought in, before scarce any conversation had passed between them. Mr. Locke looked upon them for some time while they were at play, and taking his pocket book began to write with great attention. One of the lords asked him what he was writing: “My lord,” said he, “I am endeavouring to profit as far as I am able, in your company; for having waited with impatience for the honour of being in an assembly of the greatest geniuses of this age, and at last having obtained the good fortune, I thought I could not do better than write down your conversation; and indeed I have set down the substance of what has been said for this hour or two.” This rebuke appears to have been taken in good part; the company quitted their play, and passed the rest of their time in a. manner more suitable to the rational character.

During his residence in Holland, he was accused at court of having written certain tracts against the government of his country, which were afterwards discovered to be the production of another person; and upon that suspicion he was deprived of his studentship of Christ-church. This part of Mr. Locke’s history requires some detail. The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica (Nicoll) says that “being observed to join in company with several English malcontents at the Hague, this conduct was communicated by our resident there to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state; who acquainting the king therewith, his majesty ordered the proper methods to be taken for expelling him from the college, and application to be made for that purpose to bishop Fell, the dean; in obedience to this command, the necessary information was given by his lordship, who at the same time wrote to our author, to appear and answer for himself on the first of January ensuing, but immediately receiving an express command to turn him out, was obliged to comply therewith, and, accordingly, Air. Locke was removed from his student’s place on the 15th of Nov. 1684.” This account, however, is not correct. All that lord Sunderland did, was to impart his majesty’s displeasure to the dean, and to request his opinion as to the proper method of removing Mr. Locke. The dean’s answer, dated Nov. 8, contains the following particulars of Mr. Locke, and of his own advice and proceedings against him. “I have,” says the dean, “for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has his guard been on himself, that after several strict inquiries, I may confidently affirm there is not any man inthe college, however familiar with him, who had heard him speak a word either against or so much as concerning the government; and although very frequently, both in public and private, discourses have been purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the earl of Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he never could be provoked to take any notice, or discover in word or look the least concern. So that I believe there is not a man in the world so much master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a physician’s place (he had taken the degree of B. M. in 1674) which frees him from the exercise of the college, and the obligations which others have to residence in it; and he is now abroad for want of health.”

Thus far we might suppose the dean had advanced enough in behalf of the innocence of Mr. Locke. What follows, however, will be read with regret, that so good a man as bishop Fell should have given such advice. “Notwithstanding this, I have summoned him to return home, which is done with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable to expulsion for contumacy; and if he does, he will be answerable to the law for that which he shall be found to have done amiss. It being probable that, though he may have been thus cautious here, where he knew himself suspected, he has laid himself more open at London, where a general liberty of speaking was used, and where the execrable designs against his majesty and government were managed and pursued. If he don't r^­turn by the first of January, which is the time limited to him, I shall be enabled of course to proceed against him to expulsion. But if this method seems not effectual or speedy enough, and his majesty, our founder and visitor, shall please to command his immediate remove, upon the receipt thereof, directed to the dean and chapter, it shall accordingly be executed.” In consequence of this, a warrant came down to the dean and chapter, dated Nov. 12, in these words: “Whereas we have received information of the factious and disloyal behaviour of Locke, one of the students of that our college; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure to you, that you forthwith remove him from his student’s place, and deprive him of all rights and advantages thereunto belonging, for which this shall be your warrant,” &c. And thus, on the 16th following, one of the greatest men of his time was, expelled the college at the command of Charles II. without, as far as ia known, any form of trial or inquiry. After the death of Charles II. William Penn, the celebrated quaker, who had known Mr. Locke at the university, used his interest with king James to procure a pardon for him) an J would have obtained it, if Mr. Locke had not said, that he had no occasion for a pardon, since he had not been guilty of any crime.

He was now at full liberty to pursue his speculations, and, accordingly, in 1689, published his celebrated “Essay on Human Understanding,” and the same year his “Two Treatises on Government,” in which he fully vindicated the principles upon which the revolution was founded. His writings had now procured him such high reputation, and he had merited so much of the new government, that it would have been easy for him to have obtained a very considerable place; but he contented himself with that of commissioner of appeals, worth about 200l. per annum. He was offered to go abroad in a public character, and it was left to his choice whether he would be envoy at the court of the emperor, the elector of Brandenburgh, or any other, where he thought the air most suitable to him, but he declined it on account of his bad health.

Some time before this, Toland published his “Christianity not. mysterious,” in which he endeavoured to prove, that there is nothing in the Christian religion contrary to or above reason; and in explaining some of his notions, used several arguments drawn from Locke’s “Essay on Human Understanding.” Some Socinians,also about this time published several treatises, in which they affirmed, that there was nothing in the Christian religion but what was rational and intelligible; and Mr. Locke having asserted in his writings that revelation delivers nothing contrary to reason; all this induced Dr. Stillingfleet, the learned bishop of Worcester, to publish a treatise, in which he vindicated the doctrine of the Trinity against Toland and the Socinians, and likewise opposed some of Mr. Locke’s principles, as favourable to the above-mentioned writings. This produced a controversy, in the course of which our author endeavoured to show the perfect agreement of his principles with the Christian religion, and that he had advanced nothing which had the least tendency to scepticism, which the bishop had charged him with. But Stillingfleet dying some time after, the dispute ended, and ended as such disputes have frequently done, each party claiming the victory. On whichever side it lay, we may be permitted to add, that some of Mr. Locke’s biographers have spoken of Stillingfleet’s writings with unpardonable arrogance and contempt.

In 1695, Mr. Locke was appointed one of the commissioners of trade and plantations, a place wprth 1000l. per annum. The duties of this post he discharged with great ability and diligence until 1700, when the increase of his asthmatic disorder, obliged him to resign it. On this occasion he acquainted no person with his intention, until he had given up his commission into the king’s hand. His majesty, who knew his worth, was very unwilling to part with him, and said he would be well pleased with his continuance in office, although he should give little or no attendance, and certainly would not wish him to remain in towji one day to the detriment of his health. But Mr. Locke told the king that he could not in conscience hold a place to which such a salary was annexed, without discharging the duties of it; and therefore he begged leave to resign it, which was accepted.

From this time, which was the year 1700, he lived altogether at Oates, and applied himself, without interruption, entirely to the study of the holy scriptures; and in this employment he found so much pleasure, that he regretted his not having devoted more of his time to it in the former part of his life. On one occasion, in answer to a young gentleman, who asked what was the shortest and surest way for a person to attain a true knowledge of the Christian religion? he replied, “Let him study the holy scripture, especially the New Testament. It has God for its author; salvation for its end; and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” In 1703 he suffered much from his asthmatic disorder, but the pangs of bodily complaint were alleviated by the kind attentions of lady Masham: still he foresaw that his dissolution was not far distant, and he could anticipate it without dread, and speak of it with perfect calmness and composure. After receiving the sacrament at home, in company with some friends, he told the minister, “that he was in perfect charity with all men, and in a sincere communion with the church of Christ, by what name soever it might be distinguished.” He lived some months after this, which he spent in acts of piety and devotion: when he was meditating on the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, he could not forbear crying out, *' Oh the depth of the riches of the goodness and knowledge of God:“what he felt himself on this subject he was anxious to infuse into the hearts of others. On the day previously to uis departure he said,” he had lived long enough, and was thankful that he had enjoyed a happy life but that, after all, he looked upon this life to be nothing but vanity,“or, as he expresses a similar sentiment, in a letter which he left behind him for his friend Mr. Anthony Collins, one that” affords no solid satisfaction but in the consciousness of doing well, and in the hopes of another life." He had no rest that night, and begged in the morning to be carried into his study,; where, being placed in an easy chair, he had a refreshing sleep for a considerable time. He then requested lady Masham to read aloud some of the psalms, to which he appeared exceedingly attentive, till feeling, probably, the approach of the last messenger, he begged her to desist, and in a few minutes expired, on the 28th of October 1704, in the 73d year of his age.

Mr. Locke, says his latest biographer, had great knowledge of the world, and was prudent without cunning, easy, affable, and condescending without any mean complaisance. If there was any thing he could not bear, it was ill manners, and a rude behaviour. This was ever ungrateful to him, unless, when he perceived that it proceeded from ignorance; but when it was the effect of pride, ill- nature, or brutality, he detested it. He looked on civility not only as a duty of humanity, but Christianity; and he thought that it ought to be more pressed and urged upon men than it commonly is. He recommended on this occasion a treatise in the moral essays written by the gentlemen of the Port Roval, *-' concerning the means of preserving peace among men,“and was a great admirer of Dr. Whichcote’s Sermons on the subject. He was exact to his word, and religiously performed whatever he promised. He was very scrupulous of giving recommendations of persons whom he did not well know, and would by no means commend those whom he thought not to deserve it. If he was told that his recommendation had not produced the effect expected, he would say,” the reason was because he never deceived any person by saying more than he knew; that he never passed his word for any but such as he believed would answer the character he gave of them; and that if he should do otherwise, his recommendations would be worth nothing."

Of all Mr. Locke’s works, his “Essay on Human Understanding,” is that which has contributed most to his fame, and the reputation which it had from the beginning, and which it has gradually acquired abroad, is a sufficient testimony of its merit. There is perhaps no book of the metaphysical kind that has been so generally read by those who understand the language, or that is more adapted to teach men to think with precision, and to inspire them with that candour and love of truth, which is the genuine spirit of philosophy. He gave, Dr. Reid thinks, the first example in the English language of writing on such abstract subjects, with a remarkable degree of simplicity and perspicuity; and in this he has been happily imitated by others that came after him. No author has. more successfully pointed out the danger of ambiguous words, and the importance of having distinct and determinate notions in judging and reasoning. His observations on the various powers of the human understanding, on the use and abuse of words, and on the extent and limits of human knowledge, are drawn from attentive reflection on the operations of his own mind, the true source of all real knowledge on those subjects; and show an uncommon degree of penetration and judgment Such is the opinion of the learned and candid Dr. Reid, who says, “I mention these things that when I have occasion to differ from him, I may not be thought insensible of the merit of an author whom I highly respect, and to whom I owe my first lights in those studies, as well as my attachment to them.” Dr. Reid has ably pointed out what he thought defective in Locke’s system, which indeed has been more or less the subject of discussion in every work on metaphysics during the last century. The late Mr. Home Tooke, in his “Diversions of Purley,” differs from all others in advancing one of those singular opinions which are peculiar to that gentleman. He calls Locke’s Essay, merely “a grammatical treatise, or a treatise on words, or on language;” and says, that “it was a lucky mistake which Mr. Locke made when he called his book an Essay on the Human Understanding. For some part of the inestimable benefit of that book has, merely on account of its title, reached to thousands more than, I fear, it would have done, had he called it a Grammatical Essay. The human mind, or the human understanding, appears to be a grand and noble theme, and all men, even the most insufficient, conceive ttut to be a proper object for their contemplation, while inquiries into the nature of language are supposed to be beneath the concern of their exalted understanding.”

son of Stephen Locker, esq. or Lockier (for that was the family name in the reign of Charles II. as appears by the signature pf one of their ancestors to a lease in that reign), was of a gentleman’s family in Middlesex, where they possessed a considerable property, which, it is said, they lost, as many others did, by their loyalty. He was bred at MerchantTaylors’ school, whence he went to Merton-college, Oxford; after which he travelled abroad with his friend Mr. Twisleton, who was probably of the same college. He was entered at Gray’s Inn, where he studied the law in the same chambers formerly occupied by his admired lord Bacon; and having been called to the bar, was afterwards clerk of the companies of leather-sellers and clock-makers, and a commissioner of bankrupts. He married (the families being before related) miss Elizabeth Stillingfleet, who was remarkable for her many excellent qualities as well as personal charms. She was grand-daughter to the eminent bishop of Worcester by his lordship’s first wife, and sister to Benjamin Stillingfleet, esq. much distinguished by his ingenious writings and worthy character. By this lady, who died August 12, 1759, he had nine children. Mr. Locker is noticed by Dr. Johnson , in his Life of Addison, as eminent for curiosity and literature; as he is by Dr. Ward, in his Lives of the Gresham Professors, as a gentleman much esteemed for his knowledge of polite literature. He was remarkable for his skill in the Greek language; and attained the modern, which he could write very well, in a very extraordinary manner. Coming home late one evening, he was addressed in that language by a poor Greek, from the Archipelago, who had lost his way in the streets of London. Mr. Locker took him home, where he was maintained, for some time, by the kindness of himself and Dr. Mead; and, by this accidental circumstance, Mr. Locker acquired his knowledge of modern Greek. He almost adored lord Bacon; and had collected from original manuscripts and other papers, many curious things of his lordship’s not mentioned by others, which it was his intention to publish, but his death prevented it; however, this fell into such good hands, that the public are now in possession of them, as is mentioned in the last edition of lord Bacon’s works, by Dr. Birch and Mr. Mallet, 1765. Mr. Locker also wrote the preface to Voltaire’s Life of Charles XII. of Sweden, and translated the two first books; and Dr. Jebb the rest. He died, very much regretted, in May 1760, not quite a year after the loss of his amiable lady, which it was thought accelerated his own death. They both were buried in St. Helen’s church, Bishopsgate-street, London. Their son William, bred to the naval service, but a man of some literary talents, died lieutenant-governor of Greenwich-hospital, on December 26, 1800, at the age of seventy. Some particulars of him are to be found in our authority.

Mr. Loftus’s greatest excellence lay in the knowledge of various languages, especially the oriental; and it is said, that when only twenty years of age, he was able to translate as many languages into English. Among archbishop Usher’s letters is one from him to that prelate, which, although short, shews his avidity to search out oriental books and Mss.; as well as his high respect and gratitude to Usher, who first directed his attention to the treasures of the Bodleian library. Yet his character in other respects does not correspond with his parts or learning. He was accounted, says Harris, an improvident and unwise man, and his many levities and want of conduct gave the world too much reason to think so. The same biographer mentions “a great, but free-spoken prelate,” who said of Mr. Loftus, that “he never knew so much learning in the keeping of a fool.”

His learning, indeed, and his industry appear very evident by his many writings. Besides the ^thiopic New Testament which he translated into Latin, at the request of Usher and Selden, for the Polyglot, and which procured him from Walton the character of “vir doctissimus, tain generis prosapia, quam linguaruoi orientalium scientia, nobilis,” he published, 1. “Logica Armeniaca in Latinam traducta,” Dublin, 1657, 12mo. 2. “Introductio in totam Aristotelis Philosophiam,” ibid. 1657, 12mo. 3. “The Proceedings observed in order to, and in the consecration of, the twelve Bishops in St. Patrick’s Church in Dublin, Jan. 27, 1660,” Lond. 1661, 4to. 4. “Liber Psalmorum Davidis ex Armeniaco idiotnate in Latinum traductus,” Dublin, 1661, 12mo. 5. “Oratio funebris habita post exuvias nuperi Rev. jbatris Joan. (Bramhall) archiepiscopi Armacbani,” ibid. 1663, 4to. 6. “The Speech of James duke of Ormond, made in a parliament at Dublin, Sept. 17, 1662, translated into the Italian,” ibid. 1664. 7. “Reductio litium de libero arbitrio, proedestinatione, et reprobatione ad arbitrium boni viri,” ibid. 1670, 4to. 8. “A, Book demonstrating that it was inconsistent with the English government, that the Irish rebels should be admitted to their former condition with impunity, by topics drawn from principles of law, policy, and conscience,” published under the name of Philo-Britannicus. 9. “Lettera esortatoria di mettere opera a fare sincera penitenza mandata alia signora F. M. L. P. &c.” 1667, 4to. This piece was written on account of a lady of Irish birth, with whom he was criminally connected, and whom he wished to pass for an Italian, as she was educated in Italy. Her name was Francisca Maria Lucretia Plunket. It was to her he wrote this exhortatory letter, which was followed soon after by, 10. “The Vindication of an injured lady, F. M. Lucretia Plunket, one of the ladies of the privy chamber to the queen mother of England,” Lond. 1667, J-to. i I Two pamphlets of the “Case of Ware and Shirley,” a gentleman who married an heiress against her will. 12. “A Speech delivered at the Visitation held in the diocese of Clogher, se.de vacant e, Sept. 27, 1671,” Dublin, 1671, 4to. 13. “The first marriage of Katherine Fitzgerald (now lady Decies), &c. asserted,” Lond. 1677, 4to. Readers of the present times will be surprised to be told, that this pamphlet relates to the marriage of lord Decies, aged eight years, to Katherine Fitz-gerald, aged twelve and a half. The little lady in about twenty months took another husband, Edward Villiers, esq. Mr. Loftus’s opinion was, that the first marriage was legal. His argument was answered by Robert Thomson, LL. D. in a pamphlet under the title of “Sponsa nondum uxor,” Lond. 1678, 4to. 14. “Several Chapters of Dionysius Syrus’s Comment on St. John the Evangelist, concerning the Life and Death of our Saviour,” Dublin, 4 to. 15. “The Commentary on the Four Evangelists, by Dionysius Syrus, out of the Syriac tongue.” 16. “Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, by Moses Bar-Cepha, out of the Syriac.” 17. “Exposition of Dionysius Syrus, on St. Mark,” Dublin, 1676, 4to, according to Harris, but by the Bodleian catalogue it would appear that most, if not all, the four preceding articles were published together in 1672. 18. “History of the Eastern and Western Churches, by Gregory Maphrino, translated into Latin from the Syriac.” 19. “Commentary on the general Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles, by Gregory Maphrino.” 20 “Praxis cultusdivini juxta ritus primoevorum Christianorum,” containing various ancient liturgies, &c. Dublin, 1693, 4to. 21. “A clear and learned Explication of the History of our Blessed Saviour, taken out of above thirty Greek, Syriac, and other oriental authors, by way of Catena, by Dionysius Syrus, translated into English,” Dublin, 1695, 4to. Harris mentions a few other translations from the Armenian, Arabic, and Syriac, but without date or place, and which probably were printed with some of the preceding.

, a Scotch divine and poet, was born about the beginning of 1747-8, at Soutra, in the parish of Fala, on the southern extremity of Mid- Lothian, where his father rented a small farm. He appears to have been taught the first rudiments of learning at the school of Musselburgh, near Edinburgh; and here, as well as at home, was zealously instructed in the principles of the Calvinistic system of religion, as professed by the seceders, a species of dissenters from the established church of Scotland. In 1762, he entered on the usual courses of study at the university of Edinburgh, where he made uncommon proficiency in the learned languages, but discovered no great inclination for mathematics, or metaphysics, although he took care not to be so deficient in these branches as to incur any censure, or create any hindrance to his academical progress. His turn being originally to works of imagination, he found much that was congenial in a course of lectures then read by professor John Stevenson, on Aristotle’s Art of Poetry, and on Longinus; and while these directed his taste, he employed his leisure hours in acquiring a more perfect knowledge of Homer, whose beauties he relished with poetical enthusiasm. The writings of Milton, and other eminent poets of the English series, became likewise his favourite studies, and the discovery of

At what time he began to imitate his favourite models, is doubtful, but as an inclination to write poetry is generally precipitate, it is probable that he had produced many of his lesser pieces while at the university; and he had the advice and encouragement of Dr. John Main of Athelstoneford, a clergyman of classical taste, in pursuing a track which genius seemed to have pointed out. He had also acquired the friendship and patronage of lord Elibank, and of the celebrated Dr. Blair, who regarded him as a youth of promising talents, and unusual acumen in matters of criticism. By the recommendation of Dr. Blair, he was, in 1768, received into the family of Sinclair, as private tutor to the present baronet of Ulbster, the editor of those statistical reports which have done so much honour to the clerical character of Scotland. Here, however, Logan did not remain long, but returned to Edinburgh to attend the divinity lectures, with a view of entering into the church. Either by reading, or by the company he kept, he had already overcome the scruples which inclined his parents to dissent, and determined to take orders in the establishment.

In 1770, he published a volume under the title of “Poems on several occasions, by Michael Bruce,” a youth who died at the age of twenty-one, after exhibiting considerable talents for poetry. In this volume, however, Logan chose to insert several pieces of his own, without specifying them, a circumstance which has since given rise to a controversy between the respective friends of Bruce and Logan. In 1770, after going through the usual probationary periods, Logan was admitted a preacher, and in 1773 was invited to the pastoral charge at South Leith, which he accepted. His poems, which had been hitherto circulated only in private, or perhaps occasionally inserted in the literary journals, pointed him out as a proper person to assist in a scheme for revising the psalmody of the church. For this purpose he was, in 1775, appointed one of the committee ordered by the General Assembly (the highest ecclesiastical authority in Scotland), and took a very active part in their proceedings, not only revising and improving some of the old versions, but adding others of his own composition. This collection of “Translations and Paraphrases” was published in 1781, under the sanction of the General Assembly. About two years before this publication appeared, he had prepared a course of lectures on the philosophy of history, and had on this occasion consulted Drs. Robertson, Blair, Carlisle, and other eminent men connected with the university of Edinburgh, who seemed liberally inclined to promote his success. The first request, however, which he had to make, happened not to be within their power. He desired the use of a room in the college for the delivery of his lectures, but by the statutes no indulgence of that kind could be granted to persons teaching or lecturing on subjects for which regular professors were already appointed. He then hired a chapel, in which he delivered his first course of lectures in 1779 So, and his auditors, if not very numerous, were of that kind whose report was of great consequence to his fame. In his second course, he had a larger auditory, and attracted so much notice, that he entertained very sanguine hopes of being promoted to the professorship of history, which became vacant about this time.

Here, however, an obstacle presented itself, which he had not foreseen, and which his friends could not remove. It had been the invariable practice of the patrons to present to this office a member of the faculty of advocates, and in the present instance their choice fell upon Mr. FrazerTytler, the late lord Woodhouselee, a gentleman whose talents (had talents been the criterion) must have excluded all competition. Whether owing to this appointment, or to the decay of public curiosity, Logan’s lectures were no longer encouraged; but in 1781, he published an analysis of them, entitled “Elements of the Philosophy of History,” and soon after one entire lecture in the form of an “Essayon the Manners of Asia.” Both were favourably received, yet without those decisive proofs of encouragement which could justify his publishing the whole course, as he probably intended. In the same year appeared his volume of “Poems,” which were so eagerly bought up, that a second edition became necessary within a few months. Such popularity induced him to complete a tragedy which he had been for some time preparing, entitled “Kunamede,” and founded upon the history of the great charter. This tragedy was accepted by the manager of Covent-garden theatre, but was interdicted by the licenser of the stage as containing political allusions that were improper. It was printed, however, in 1783, and afterwards acted on the Edinburgh theatre, but met with no extraordinary applause either in the closet or on the stage. In this attempt, indeed, the author seems to have mistaken his talents. In Scotland, his biographer informs us, he had to encounter the general prejudices of that country against the interference of the clergy in theatrical concerns.

These disappointments, we are told, “preyed with pungent keenness upon a mind uncommonly susceptible. His temper,” it is added, “was still further fretted by the umbrage which some of his parish had unjustly taken at his engaging in studies foreign to his profession, and which others, with more reason, had conceived, on account of certain deviations from the propriety and decorum of his clerical character; though not a few of them were sufficiently liberal in their allowances for irregularities which could only be attributed to inequality of spirits and irritability of nerves.” This vindication is specious, but will not bear examination. There could surely be no great injustice in complaining of studies which diverted him from his profession a profession which he had voluntarily chosen, and in which he was liberally settled; or of irregularities which unfitted him to perform its duties, and obliged him at last to compound for his inability or neglect by retiring upon a small annuity. Yet such was the case; and with this annuity, or with the promise of it, he came to London in 1786, and for some time subsisted by furnishing articles for the “English Review,” and perhaps other periodical publications. He wrote also a pamphlet, entitled “A Review of the Principal Charges against Mr. Hastings,” which was a very able and eloquent vindication of that gentleman; and probably appeared in that light to the public at large, for the publisher, against whom the friends of the impeachment directed a prosecution, was acquitted by the verdict of a jury. This last consequence, Logan did not live to witness. His health had been for some time broken, and he died at his apartments in Marlborough-street, Dec. 28, 1738, in the fortieth year of his age.

Dr. Robertson accordingly prepared a volume of his Sermons, which was published in 1790, and a second in the following year. They are in general elegant and perspicuous, but occasionally burst into passages of the declamatory kind, which, however, are perhaps not unsuitable to the warmth of pulpit oratory. They have been uncommonly successful, the fifth edition having made its appearance in 1807. He left several other manuscripts, which were once intended for publication. Among these are his Lectures on History, and three or four tragedies. In 1805 a new edition of his poems was published at Edinburgh and London, to which a life is prefixed by an anonymous writer. From this the facts contained in the present more succinct sketch have been borrowed. Logan deserves a very high rank among our minor poets. The chief character of his poetry is the pathetic, and it will not, perhaps, be easy to produce any pieces from the whole range of English poetry more exquisitely tender and pathetic than “The Braes of Yarrow,” *f The Ode on the Death of a Young Lady,“or” A Visit to the Country in Autumn.“” The Lovers“seems to assume a higher character; the opening lines, spoken by Harrietj rise to sublimity by noble gradations of terror, and an accumulation of images, which are, with peculiar felicity, made to vanish on the appearance of her lover. In the whole of Logan’s poems are passages of true poetic spirit and sensibility. With a fancy so various and regulated, it is to be regretted he did not more frequently cultivate his talents. The episode of” Levina," among the pieces attributed to him, indicates powers that might have appeared to advantage in a regular poem of narration and description. His sacred pieces are allowed to be of the inferior kind, but they are inferior only as they are ixot original he strives to throw an air of modern elegance over the simple language of the East, consecrated by use and devotional spirit; and he fails where Watts and others have failed before him, and where Cowper only has escaped without injury to his general character.

, a very useful, if not an eminent engraver, was a native of Dantzic, and born probably in 1635. He is said to have received some instructions from Simon Pass, in Denmark. Passing through Holland, he studied under Hondius, and came to England before the restoration. Being at Oxford, and making a drawing for himself of All-souls college, he was taken notice of, and invited to undertake plates of all the colleges and public buildings of that university, which he executed, and by which he first distinguished himself. He afterwards performed the same for Cambridge, where he is said to have hurt his eye-sight in delineating the fine chapel of King’s college. He also engraved on eleven folio plates, the academical habits of Oxford, from the doctor to the lowest servant. At Oxford he was much caressed, obtained a licence for vending his “Oxonia Illustrata,” for fifteen years, and on July 9, 1672, was matriculated as universityengraver, by the name of “David Loggan, Gedanensis.” He was the most considerable engraver of heads in his time, but their merit as work* of art has not been rated very high. His “Oxonia” and “Cantabrigia illustrata,” however, will perpetuate his name, and his correctness may still be traced in those colleges which have not undergone alterations. He married a Mrs. Jordan, of a good family near Witney, in Oxfordshire, and left at least one son, who was fellow of Magdalen-college, Oxford, and B. D. in 1707. Loggan died in Leicester-fields, where he had resided in the latter part of his days, either in 1693 or 1700, for Vertue gives both dates in different places.

, sometimes called Abre Anam, or father of Anam, was a philosopher of great account among the Easterns, but his personal history is involved in much obscurity, and what we have is probably fabulous. Some say he was an Abyssinian of Ethiopia or Nubia, and was sold as a slave among the Israelites, in the reigns of David and Solomon. According to the Arabians, he was tlje son of Baura, son or grandson of a sister or aunt of Job. Some say he worked as a carpenter, others as a tailor, while a third sort will have him to be a shepherd; however that be, he was certainly an extraordinary person, endowed with great wisdom and eloquence, and we have an account of the particular manner in which he received these divine gifts; being one day asleep about noon, the angels saluted Lokman without making themselves visible, in these terms: “We are the messengers of God, thy creator and ours; and he has sent us to declare to thee that he will make thee a monarch, and his vice-gerent upon earth.” Lokman replied, “If it is by an absolute command of God that I am to become such a one as you say, his will be done in all things; and I hope if this should happen, that he will bestow on me all the grace necessary for enabling me to execute his commands faithfully; however, if he would grant me the liberty to chuse my condition of life, I had rather continue in my present state, and be kept from offending him; otherwise, all the grandeur and splendours of the world would be troublesome to me.” This answer, we are told, was so pleasing to God, that he immediately bestowed on him the gift of wisdom in an eminent degree; and he was able to instruct all men, by a multitude of maxims, sentences, and parables, amounting to ten thousand in number, every one of which his admirers reckon greater than the whole world in value.

This story is evidently of the same cast with that of Solomon, and was perhaps taken from it; but Lokman himself gives a different account of his perfections. Being seated in the midst of a number of people who were listening to him, a man of eminence among the Jews, seeing so great a crowd of auditors round him, asked him, “Whether he was not the black slave who a little before looked after the sheep of a person he named?” To which Lokman assenting; “How has it been possible,” continued the Jew, “for thee to attain so exalted a pitch of wisdom and virtue” Lokman replied, “It was by the following means by always speaking the truth, by keeping my word Inviolably, and by never intermeddling in affairs that did not concern me.” Accordingly, we find inscribed to him this apophthegm: “Be a learned man, disciple of the learned, or an auditor of the learned; at least be a lover of knowledge, and desirous of improvement.” Lokman, it is said, hud not only consummate knowledge, but was equally good and virtuous; and so many admirable qualifies could not always be held in slavery. His master giving him a bitter melon to eat, Lokman ate it all; when his master, surprised at his exact obedience, says, “Hovr was it possible for you to eat so nauseous a fruit?” Lokman replied, “I have received so many favours from you, that it is no wonder I should once in my life eat a bitter melon from your hand.” This generous answer struck the master to such a degree, that he immediately gave him his liberty.

, well known by the title of Master or“the Sentences, was born at Novara, in Lombardy, whence he took his surname. He was educated at Bologna, and Rheims, under St. Bernard, and afterwards removed to Paris, where, as one of the professors in that university, he distinguished himself so much, that the canonry of Chartres was conferred upon him. He was some time tutor to Philip, son of king Lewis le Gros, and brother of Lewis the young; and was so much esteemed by him, that upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Paris, that noble personage, being intended for the see, declined it for the sake of Lombard, who was accordingly promoted to it about 1160, and died in 1164. He was interred in the church of Marcellus, in the suburb of that name, where his epitaph is still to be seen. His work of the Sentences, divided into four books, contains an illustration of the doctrines of the church, in a collection of sentences or passages taken from the fathers. This was so favourably received, that in a short time it was the only work taught in the schools, and the author was, by way of eminence, called the” Master of the Sentences,“and was accounted the chief of the scholastic divines. His work was first printed at Venice, 1477, fol. and innumerable commentaries have been written on it. In our own universities the being admitted” to read the Sentences“was, as may be frequently seen in Wood’s Athenae, a mark of great progress in study, for a greater veneration was paid to Lombard’s work than to the Scriptures. Bacon, in a letter to Clement IV. mentions this preference as an absurdity.” The bachelor,“says he,” who reads the Scriptures, gives place to the reader of the * Sentences,' who everywhere is honoured and preferred. The reader of the Sentences has his choice of the most eligible time, and holds a call and society with the religious; but the biblical reader has neither; and must beg for such an hour as the reader of the Sentences is pleased to assign him. He who reads the Lombardine thesis, may anywhere dispute and be esteemed a master; but he who reads the text of Scripture is admitted to no such honour: the absurdity of this conduct is evident," &C.

, an eminent French historian and bibliographer, was born at Paris, April 19, 1665. His mother dying while he was very young, his father married again, and entrusted his education to one of his relations, a priest, who was director of the religious at Estampes. After he had been taught grammar and Latin for two or three years under this ecclesiastic, his father sent him to Malta, with a view to procure him admission among the clerks of the order of St. John of Jerusalem. He had scarcely arrived here when the plague broke out, to which he incautiously exposed himself; but although he escaped the contagion, he fancied that the air of Malta did not agree with him, and obtained leave of his superiors to return to Paris, where he might prosecute his studies in the classics, philosophy, and divinity. As he had not taken the vows in the order of St. John, he had no sooner completed his studies at home, than he entered into the congregation of the oratory. His year of probation being passed, he was sent to the college of Jully, where he taught mathematics, and went afterwards to the seminary of Notre Dame des Vertus, where he employed his leisure time in study, particularly of philosophy, which brought him acquainted with father Malbranche. On his return to Paris he was appointed to the care of the library belonging to the fathers of the oratory, a place for which he was admirably qualified, as he was not only acquainted with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the Chaldean, but with the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English languages, and had a very extensive knowledge of literary history, of books, editions, and printing. The continual pains, however, which he bestowed on this library, and on his own publications, undermined his constitution, which was originally delicate, and brought on a complaint in the chest, which proved fatal, Aug. 13, 1721, in the fifty. sixth year of his life. His time for many years had been divided between devotion and study; he allowed very little to sleep, and less to the table. Although a man of extensive knowledge, and often consulted, he was equally modest and unaffected. In all his researches he shewed much acuteness and judgment, but the course of his studies had alienated him from works of taste and imagination, for which he had little relish. His principal object was the ascertaining of truth in matters of literary history; and the recovery of dates and other minutiae, on which he was frequently obliged to bestow the time that seemed disproportionate, was to him a matter of great importance, nor was he to be diverted from such accuracy by his friend Malbranche, who did not think philosophy concerned in such matters. “Truth,” said Le Long, “is so valuable, that we ought not to neglect it even in trifles.” His works are, 1. “Methode Hebraique du P. Renou,” 1708, 8vo. 2. “Bibliotheca Sacra, sive syllabus omnium ferme Sacrse Scripture eclitionum ac versionum,” Paris, 1709, 8vo, 2 vols. Of this a very much enlarged edition was published at Paris in 1723, 2 vols. fol. by Desmolets. Another edition was begun by Masch in 1778, and between that and 1790, 5 vols. 4to were published, but the plan is yet unfinished. 3. “Discours historique sur les principales Editions des Bibles Polyglottes,” Paris, 1713, 8vo, a very curious work. 4. “Histoire des demelez du pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe Le Bel, roi de France,” 1718, 12mo, a posthumous work of M. Baillet, to which Le Long added some documents illustrating that period of French history. 5. “Bibliotheque Historique de France,” 1719, fol. a work of vast labour and research, and perhaps the greatest of all his undertakings. It has since been enlarged by Ferret de Fontette and others, to 5 vols. fol. 1768—78, and is the most comprehensive collection of the kind in any language. The only other publication of M. Le Long was a letter to M. Martin, minister of Utrecht, with whom he had a short controversy respecting the disputed text in 1 John, v. 7.

, author of a valuable History of Jamaica, was the fourth son of Samuel Long, esq. of Longville, in the island of Jamaica, and Tredudwell in the county of Cornwall, by his wife Mary, second daughter of Bartholomew Tate, of Delapre in the county of Northampton, esq. He was born Aug. 23, 1734, at Rosilian, in the parish of St. Blaize, in Cornwall. He was placed first at Bury school, under Dr. Kinnesman, and was removed thence about 1746, probably on account of his father’s residence in the country, to a school at Liskeard, in Cornwall, under the management of the Rev. Mr. Haydon. In 1752 he left this place, and after two years private instruction in London, he was entered at Gray’s Inn, and fixed with Mr. Wflmot. His father dying, in 1757, in Jamaica, he resolved to embark for that Island; but, not having completed his terms, he obtained an ex gratia call to the bar before he sailed. On his arrival in Jamaica, he at first filled the post of private secretary to his brother-in-law, sir Henry Moore, bart. then lieutenant-governor of the island; and was afterwards appointed judge of the vice-admiralty court. On Aug. 12, 1758, he married Mary, second daughter, and at length sole heiress, of Thomas Beckford, esq. Mr. Long’s ill health compelled him to leave the island in 1769; and he never returned to it, but passed the remainder of his life in retirement, devoting his leisure to literary pursuits, and particularly to the com 7 pletion of his “History of Jamaica,” which was published in 1774, 3 vols. 4to. His high station in the island afforded him every opportunity of procuring authentic materials, which he digested with ingenuity and candour, although perhaps a little too hastily. He saw its imperfections, however, and had been making preparations for a new edition at the time of his death. In 1797 he resigned his office of judge of the vice-admiralty court; and died March 13, 1813, at the house of his son-in-law, Henry Howard Molyneux, esq. M. P. of Arundel Park, Sussex, and was buried in the chancel of Slindon church in that county. Besides his “History of Jamaica,” Mr. Long contributed to public information or amusement by a variety of lesser productions. Early in life he wrote some essays in “The Prater, by Nicholas Babble, esq.” 1756. 2. “The Antigallican, or the History and Adventures of Harry Cobham, esq.” 1757, 12mo. 3. “The Trial of farmer Carter’s Dog Porter, for murder,” 1771, 8vo. 4. “Reflections on the Negro Cause,” 1772, 8vo. 5. “The Sentimental Exhibition, or Portraits and Sketches of the Times,” 1774, 8vo. 6. “Letters on the Colonies,” 1775, 8vo. 7. “English Humanity no Paradox,” 1778, 8vo. 8. A pamphlet on “The Sugar Trade, 1782, 8vo. He was likewise editor of” Memoirs of the Reign of Bossa Ahaclee, king of Dahomy, with a short account of the African slave trade, by Robert Norris," 1789, v 8vo.

, an English divine and astronomer, was born about 1680, and was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1700, A.M. 1704, and S. T. P. in 1728. In 1733 he was elected master of Pembroke hall, and in 1749 Lowndes’s professor of astronomy. He is chiefly known as an author by a “Treatise on Astronomy,” in two volumes 4to; the first of which was published in 1742, and the second in 1764. He was the inventor of a curious astronomical machine, erected in a room at Pembroke hail, of which he has himself given the following description: “I have, in a room lately built in Pembroke hall, erected a sphere of 18 feet diameter, wherein above thirty persons may sit conveniently; the entrance into it is over the south pole by six steps; the frame of the sphere consists of a number of iron meridians, not complete semi-circles, the northern ends of which are screwed to a large plate of brass, with a hole in the centre of it; through this hole, from a beam in the cieling, comes the north pole, a round iron rod, about three inches long, and supports the upper parts of the sphere to its proper elvation for the latitude of Cambridge; the lower part of the sphere, so much of it as is invisible in England, is cut off; and the lower or southern ends of the meridians, or truncated semi-circles, terminate on, and are screwed down to, a strong circle of oak, of about thirteen feet diameter, which, when the sphere is put into motion, runs upon large rollers of lignum vitae, in the manner that the tops of some wind-mills are made to turn round. Upon the iron meridians is fixed a zodiac of tin painted blue, whereon the ecliptic and heliocentric orbits of the planets are drawn, and the constellations and stars traced; the great and little Bear and Draco are already painted in their places round the north pole; the rest of the constellations are proposed to follow; the whole is turned with a small winch, with as little labour as it takes to wind up a jack, though the weight of the iron, tin^ and wooden circle, is about a thousand pounds. When it is made use of, a planetarium will be placed in the middle thereof. The whole, with the floor, is well-supported by a frame of large timber.” Thus far Dr. Long, before this curious piece of mechanism was perfected. Since the above was written, the sphere has been completely finished; all the constellations and stars of the northern hemisphere, visible at Cambridge, are painted in their proper places upon plates of iron joined together, which form one concave surface.

“I could recollect several other ingenious repartees if there were occasion. One thing is remarkable. He never was a hale and hearty man; always of a tender and delicate constitution, yet took care of it. His common drink, water. He always dines with the fellows in the hall. Of late years, he has left off eating flesh-meats; in the room thereof, puddings, vegetables, &c. Sometimes a glass or two of wine.”

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Exeter in 1621, and became a servitor of Exeter college, Oxford, in 1638. In 1642 he took the degree of B. A. but soon after left the university, and obtained the vicarage of St. Lawrence Clist, near Exeter. After the restoration he was, per literas regias, created B. D. and made prebendary of Exeter, which he held until the revolution, when refusing to take the oaths to the new government, he was ejected. He died in 1700. Wood characterizes him as “well read in the fathers, Jewish and other ancient writings,” and he appears also to have made himself master of all the controversies of his time in which subjects of political or ecclesiastical government were concerned, and took a very active part against the various classes of separatists, particularly those whose cause Mr, Baxter pleaded.

His principal work^ are, 1. “An Exercitation concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer in the public worship of God,” Lond. 1658, 8vo, partly in answer to some sentiments advanced by the celebrated Dr. John Owen in his “Vindicise Evangelicae.” 2. “Calvinus redivivus, or Conformity to the Church of England, in doctrine, government, and worship, persuaded by Mr. Calvin,” ibid. 1673, 8vo. 3. “History of the Donatists,” ibid. 1677, 8vo. 4. “The Character of a Separatist or sensuality the ground of separation,” ibid. 1677, 8vo. 5.“Mr. Hales’s Treatise of Schism examined and censured,” ibid. 1678, 8vo, occasioned by the publication of that treatise among Hales’s “Posthumous Miscellanies.” 6. “The Nonconformist’s Plea for Peace impleaded, in answer to several late writings of Mr. Baxter, and others,” &c. ibid. 1680, 8vo. 7. “Unreasonableness of Separation,” &c. begun by Stillingfleet, with remarks on the life and actions of Baxter,“ibid. 1681, 4to and 8vo. 8.” No Protestant, but the Dissenters’ Plot, discovered and defeated;. being an answer to the late writings of several eminent dissenters,“ibid. 1682, 8vo. 9.” Vindication of the Primitive Christians in point of obedience to their prince, against the calumnies of a book entitled * The Life of Julian the Apostate,' “ibid. 1683, 8vo. 10.” History of all the popish and fanatical Plots, &c. against the established government in Church and State,“&c. ibid. 1684, 8vo. 11.” The Letter for Toleration decyphered,“&c. ibid, 1689, in answer to Locke. 12.” Vox Cleri; or the sense of the Clergy concerning the making of alterations in the Liturgy,“ibid. 1690. 13.” An Answer to a Socinian Treatise, called the Naked Gospel,“ibid. 1691. 14.” Dr. Walker’s true, modest, and faithful account of the author of Eikon Basilike,*' &c. proving this work to have come from the pen of Charles I. 15. Several single Sermons.

, the author of an admired work “On the Sublime,” was a Grecian, and probably an Athenian, though some authors fancy him a Syrian. He was born in the third century. His father’s name is entirely unknown; by his mother Frontonis he was allied to Plutarch. We know nothing of the employment of his parents, their station in life, or the beginning of his education; but from a fragment of his it appears, that his youth was spent in travelling with them, which gave him an opportunity to increase his knowledge and improve his mind. Wherever men of learning were to be found, he was present, and lost no opportunity of forming a familiarity and intimacy with them. Ammonius and Origen, philosophers of great reputation in that age, were two of those whom he visited, and heard with the greatest attention. The travels of Longinus ended with his arrival at Athens, where he fixed his residence. Here he pursued the studies of humanity and philosophy with the greatest application. Here also he published hit “Treatise on the Sublime,” which raised his reputation to such a height, as no critic either before or since could ever reach. His contemporaries there had so great an opinion of his judgment and taste, that they appointed him sovereign judge of all authors; and every thing was received or rejected by the public according to the decision of Longinus.

But this last line, so often quoted, forms the great objection which modern critics have advanced against this celebrated treatise, viz. his exemplifying rather than explaining the sublime. His taste and sensibility were exquisite, but his observations are too general, and his method too loose. The precision of the true philosophical critic, says Warton, is lost in the declamation of the florid rhetorician. Instead of shewing for what reason a sentiment or image is sublime, and discovering the secret power by which they affect a reader with pleasure, he is ever intent on producing something sublime himself. It has likewise been objected, that although he defines the sublime with precision, he frequently departs from his own rule, and includes whatever, in any composition, pleases highly. Some, therefore, of his instances of the sublime are mere elegancies, without the most distant relation to sublimity. His work, however, in other respects, is one of the most valuable relics of antiquity, and is admirably calculated to give excellent general ideas of beauty in writing. Brurker remarks that Longinus must have seen the Jewish scriptur.es, as he quotes a passage from the writings of Moses, as an example of the sublime (Gen. i. 3) “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”

After becoming a fellow of his college, he was in 1505 chosen principal of Magdalen-hall, which he resigned in 1507. In 1510 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in the following year. In 1514 he was promoted to be dean of Salisbury, and in 1519 had the additional preferment of a canonry of Windsor. At this time he was in such favour with Henry VIII. as to be appointed his confessor, and upon the death of Atwater, bishop of Lincoln, he was by papal provision advanced to this see in 1520, and was consecrated May 3, 1521. In the same year (1520) we find him at Oxford assisting in drawing up the privileges for the new statutes of the university. In 1523 he was at the same place as one of those whom. Wolsey consulted in the establishment of his new college; and when the foundation was laid on July 15, 1525, Longland preached a sermon, which, with two others on the same occasion, he dedicated to archbishop Warham. He was afterwards employed at Oxford by the king, to gain over the learned men of the university fo sanction his memorable divorce. It is said, indeed, that when Henry’s scruples, or, as we agree with the catholic historian, his pretended scruples, began to be started, bishop Longland was the first that suggested the measure of a divorce. The excuse made for him is, that he was himself over-persuaded to what was not consistent with his usual character by Wolsey, who thought that Longland’s authority would add great weight to the cause; and it is said that he expressed to his chancellor, Dr. Draycot, his sorrow for being concerned in that affair. In 1533 he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford, to which he proved in many respects a liberal benefactor, and to poor students a generous patron. The libraries of Brazenose, Magdalen, and Oriel colleges, he enriched with many valuable books; and in 1540 he recovered the salary of the lady Margaret professorship, which had almost been lost, owing to the abbey from which it issued being dissolved. It must not be disguised, however, that he was inflexible in his pursuit and persecution of what he termed heresy. In 1531, we find him giving a commission to the infamous Dr. London, warden of New college, and others, to search for certain heretical books commonly sold at St. Frideswyde’s fair near Oxford. He died May 7, 1547, at Wooburn in Bedfordshire, where his bowels were interred; while his heart was carried to Lincoln cathedral, and his body deposited in Eton-college chapel, where it is thought he once had some preferment. He built a curious chapel in Lincoln cathedral in the east part, in imitation of bishop Russel’s chapel, with a tomb, &c. He also gave the second bell at Wooburn church, and built almshouses at Henley, his birth-place.

In the introduction to the vision, the poet (shadowed by the name and character of Peter or Pierse, a plowman) represents himself as weary of wandering, on a May-morning, and at last laid down to sleep by the side of a brook; where, in a vision, he sees a stately tower upon a hill, with a dungeon, and dark dismal ditches belonging to it, and a very deep dale under the hill. Before the tower a large field or plain is supposed, filled with men of every rank or occupation, all being respectively engaged in their several pursuits; when suddenly a beautiful lady appears to him, and unravels to him the mystery of what he had seen. Before every vision the manner and circumstances of his falling asleep are distinctly described; before one of them in particular, P. Plowman is supposed, with equal humour and satire, to fall asleep while he is bidding his beads. In the course of the poem, the satire is carried on by means of several allegorical personages, such as Avarice, Simony, Conscience, Sloth, &c. Selden mentions this author with honour; and by Hickes he is frequently styled, “Celeberrimus il-le Satyrographus, morum vindex acerrimus,” Sue. Chaucer, in the “Plowman’s Tale,” seems to have copied from our author. Spenser, in his Pastorals, seems to have attempted an imitation of his visions; and Milton is considered as under some obligations to him. The memory of this satire has been of late years revived by Percy, Warton, and Ellis, in whose works more ample information may be found than it is necessary to admit in a work professedly biographical. Perhaps indeed it does not belong to our department, since some of the most profound of our poetical critics have considered it as anonymous; Mr Tycwhitt remarks that in the best Mss. the author is called William, without any surname, and the name of Robert Longland, or Langlande, rests upon the authority only of Crowley, its earliest editor. Three of Crowley’s editions were published in 1550, doubtless owing to its justifying the Reformation then begun under king Edward, by exposing the abuses of the Romish church. There is also an edition printed in 1561, by Owen Rogers, to which is sometimes annexed a poem of nearly the same tendency, and written in the same metre, called “Pierce the Plowman’s Crede,” the first edition of which, however, was printed by Wolfe in 1553. Of both these works, new editions have recently been announced.

, or Longolius, a very elegant scholar, was born in 1490, at Mechlin, although some have called him a Parisian, and Erasmus makes him a native of Schoohhoven in Holland. He was the natural son of Antony de Longueil, bishop of Leon, who being on some occasion in the Netherlands, had an intrigue with a female of Mechlin, of which this son was the issue. He remained with his mother until eight or aine years old; when he was brought to Paris for education, in the course of which he fur exceeded his fellowscholars, and was able at a very early age to read and understand the most difficult authors. He had also an extraordinary memory, although he did not trust entirely to it, but made extracts from whatever he read, and showed great discrimination in the selection of these. His taste led him chiefly to the study of the belles lettres, but his friends wished to direct his attention to the bar, and accordingly he went to Valence in Dauphiny, where he studied civil law under professor Philip Decius, for six years, and returning then to Paris, made so distinguished a figure at the bar, that in less than two years, he was appointed counsellor of the parliament of Paris, according to his biographer, cardinal Pole, but this has been questioned on account of its never having been customary to appoint persons so young to that office; Pole has likewise made another mistake, about which there can be less doubt, in asserting that the king of Spain, Philip, appointed Longueil his secretary of state, for Philip died in 1506, when our author was only sixteen years of age.

, an eminent Italian poet, was born at Home, Oct. 12, 1680. He was in his twenty-second year received into the society of the Jesuits, among whom he had been educated, but owing to bad health, was obliged to quit them, and after much consideration, and a conflict with his taste, which was decide.ily for polite literature, he studied and practised the law for some time, until iiis inclination for more favourite studies returning, he entered, in 1705, into the academy of the Arcadi, the chief object of which was the reformation of the bad taste which had infected Italian poetry. He is said to have excelled in melo-dramas, or pieces on religious subjects, adapted to being sung, written in the Latin language; and has been denominated the Michael Angelo of Italian poets, on account of the boldness and energy of his expressions. In 1728, on the death of Crescembini, he was chosen president of the academy, and besides founding five academical colonies in the neighbouring towns, instituted a private weekly meeting of the Arcadi, at which the plays of Plautus or Terence, in the original language, were performed by youths trained for the purpose But the want of a regular profession, and his constant attendance to these pursuits, often deranged his finances; and he appears not to have acquired permanent patronage until cardinal Borghese enrolled him among his noble domestics, and paid him liberally. In 1741, he took up his residence in the Borghese palace, where he died in June 1743. His Italian poems, which are much admired, have been printed at Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples, &c. and in many of the collections. His Latin “Sacred Dramas” were separately published at Rome; and his other Latin poetry, among those of the academicians of the Arcadi.

Ronsard, the poet, out of envy, published a satire, or satirical sonnet, against him, under the title of “LaTruelle crosse'e,” the Trowel crosier'd. De Lorme revenged himself, by causing the garden-door of the Thuilleries, of which he was governor, to be shut against the poet; and Ronsard, with a pencil, wrote upon the gate these three words: “Fort, reverent, habe.” De Lorme, who understood little Latin, complained of this inscription, as levelled at him, to queen Catharine de Medicis, who, inquiring into the matter, was told by Ronsard, that, by a harmless irony, he had made that inscription for the architect when read in French; but that it suited him still better in Latin, these being the first words abbreviated of a Latin epigram of Ausonius, which begins thus: “Fortunam reverenter habe.” Ronsard added that he only meant that De Lorme should reflect on his primitive grovelling fortune, and not to shut the gate against the Muses. De Lorme died in 1557; leaving several books of architecture, greatly esteemed. These are, 1. “Nouvelles Inventions pour bien bastir & a petit frais,” Paris, 1561, folio, fifty-seven leaves. 2. “Ten Books of Architecture,” 1568, folio.

The pieces in the episcopal palace of Saverne, which are all of his composition, are much admired. He was a learned designer, with a great deal of genius, and succeeded in his heads, especially those of the young nymphs, with so much truth, and a delicacy so admirable, that his chisel seemed to be directed by Corregio or Parmegiano.

Dr. Lort was well known to the learned of this and other countries, as a man of extensive literary information, and a collector of curious and valuable books, at a time when such articles were less known and in less request than at present. He was very generally and deservedly esteemed by his numerous acquaintance. An artless simplicity formed the basis of his character, united to much kindness and liberality. With talents and learning that might have appeared to great advantage from the press, Dr. Lort was rather anxious to assist the labours of others than ambitious of appearing as the author of separate publications. Except a few occasional sermons, a poem on the peace of Aix-laChapelle among the Cambridge congratulations, and some anonymous contributions to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and other literary journals and newspapers, we can only mention, as an original work, “A Short Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer; in which an allusion to the principal circumstances of our Lord’s temptation is attempted to be shewn;” printed in 8vo, 1790. In this ingenious tract, he adopts the translation taken by Dr. Doddridge from the fathers, and given in his “Family Expositor.” Mr. Nichols has printed, from the pen of Dr. Lort, a curious “Inquiry into the author, or rather who was not the author, of The Whole Duty of Man.” The same gentleman acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Lort for assistance in some of his valuable labours. To Grander also Dr. Lort communicated much information. Biography had been always his study, and most of his books were filled with notes, corrections, and references of the biographical kind. He had likewise compiled many ms lives, which were dispersed at his death. Of some of these the editor of this Dictionary has been enabled to avail himself. His library was not remarkable for external splendour, but it contained a great number of rare and valuable articles, and formed a sale of twenty-five days, at Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby’s, in 1791. The produce was 1269/1; and his prints sold for 40 1l.

He was next appointed one of the Assembly of Divines, and minister of St. Lawrence Jury, and is said also to have been chosen minister of St. Anne’s, Aldersgate-street. He was one of the London ministers who signed a declaration against the king’s death. He was afterwards engaged in a plot, which cost him his life, and was known at the time by the name of Love’s plot, either because he was a principal agent, or a principal sufferer. Mr. Love, we have already noticed, was a presbyterian, and when he found that the independents were gaining the ascendancy, he united with various gentlemen and ministers of his own way of thinking to assist the Scotch (before whom Charles II. had taken the covenant, and by whom he had been crowned,) in their endeavours to advance that sovereign to the crown of England. Cromwell, howev&r, was too watchful for the success of such a design in London; and the chief conspirators being apprehended, Mr. Love and a Mr. Gibbons were tried and executed, the rest escaping by interest, or servile submission. Mr. Love appears on his trial to have used every means to defeat its purpose, and was certainly more tenacious of life, than might have been expected from the boldness of his former professions. Great intercessions were made to the parliament for a pardon: his wife presented one petition, and himself four; several parishes also, and a great number of his brethren interceded with great fervour; but all that could be obtained was the respite of a month. It is said that the affairs of the commonwealth being now at a crisis, and Charles II. having entered England with 16,000 Scots, it was thought necessary to strike terror in the presbyterian party, by making an example of one of their favourite ministers. Some historians say that Cromwell, then in the north, sent a letter of reprieve and pardon for Mr. Love, but that the post-boy was stopped on the road by some persons belonging to the late king’s army, who opened the mail, and finding this letter, tore it in pieces, exclaiming that “he who had been so great a firebrand at Uxbridge, was not fit to live.” Whatever truth may be in this, he was executed, by beheading, on Tower-hill, Aug. 22, 1651. He was accompanied at his death by the three eminent nonconformists, Simeon Ashe, Edmund Calamy, and Dr. Manton. The latter preached a funeral sermon for him, in which, while he avoids any particular notice of the cause of his death, he considers him, as the whole of his party did, in the light of a saint and martyr. The piety of his life, indeed, ereated a sympathy in his favour which did no little harm to the power of Cromwell. Thousands began to see that the tyranny of the republic would equal all they had been taught to hate in the mo larchv. The government, we are told, expressed some displeasure at Dr. Manton’s intention of preaching a funeral sermon, and their creatures among the soldiers threatened violence, but he persisted in his resolution, and not only preached, but printed the sermon. The loyalists, on the other hand, considered Love’s death as an instance of retributive justice. Clarendon says that he “was guilty of as much treason as the pulpit could contain;” and his biographers have so weakly defended the violence of his conduct during the early period of the rebellion, as to leave this fact almost indisputable. His works consist of sermons and pious tracts, on various subjects, mostly printed after his death, and included in three volumes, 8vo. They were all accompanied by prefaces from his brethren, of high commendation.

, an actor and dramatic writer, assumed this name (from his wife’s, De L'Amour) when he first attached himself to the stage. He was one of the sons of Mr. Dance the city surveyor, whose memory will be transmitted to posterity on account of the clumsy edifice which he erected for the residence of the city’s chief magistrate. Our author received, it is said, his education at Westminster school, whence he removed to Cambridge, which, it is believed, he lett without taking any degree. About that time a severe poetical satire against sir Robert Waipole, then minister, appeared under the title of “Are these things so?” which, though written by Mr. Miller, was ascribed to Pope. To this Mr Love immediately wrote a reply called “Yes, they are, what then?” which proved so satisfactory to Walpole that he made him a handsome present, and gave him expectations of preferment. Elated with this distinction, with the vanity of a young author, and the credulity of a young man, he considered his fortune as established, and, neglecting every other pursuit, became an attendant at the minister’s levees, where he contracted habits of indolence and expence, without obtaining any advantage. The stage now offered itself as an asylum from the difficulties he had involved himself in, and, therefore, changing his name to Love, he made!is first essays ID strolling companies. He afterwards performed both at Dublin and Edinburgh, and at the latter place resided some years as manager. At length he received, in 1762, an invitation to Drury-lane theatre, where he continued during the remainder of his life. In 1765, with the assistance of his brother, he erected a new theatre at Richmond, and obtained a licence for performing in it; but did not receive any benefit from it, as the success by no means answered his expectations. He died about the beginning of 1774. He neither as an actor or author attained any great degree of excellence. His performance of Falstaff was by much the best, but the little reputation which he acquired by it was entirely eclipsed by the superiority of gen;iis which his successor, Mr. Henderson, di-splayed in the representation of the same character As an author, he has given the world “Pamela, a Comedy,” 1742, and some other dramatic pieces, enumerated in the “Biographia Dramatica.”

In 1774- he was ordained minister of Birsay and Haray, a parish in Pomona, or main-land of Orkney, and from this time devoted himself to the duties of his charge, which he continued to fulfil for the remainder of his lite. He employed his leisure chiefly in the study of nature, and his success was highly creditable, considering the many disadvantage-; of a remote situation. Sir Joseph Banks, with his accrstouied zeal for the promotion of science, introduced him to Mr. Pennant, by whose advice he engaged to un n nake a “Fauna Orcadensis,” and a “Flora Orcadensi.s,” ti.e Hrst of which was published in 1813, 4to, from a ms. in the possession of Wilua.ii Eli'ord l.eacb, M D. F. L. S. &c. but the “Flora” iias not been discovered. A tour through the islands of Orkney and Shetland, Containing hints relating to their ancient, modern, and natural history, was also prepared by Mr. Low for the press, and previous to his decease, he made a translation of Torfeus’s “-History of Orkney.” The Mss. of the “Fauna,” the tour and the translation just mentioned, with his zoological collections, came into the possession of Mr. George Paton, an eminent antiquary of Edinburgh, after whose decease they were purchased by different persons. Mr. Low died in 1795. His “Fauna” forms a very interesting and valuable addition to the natural history of the British islands.

, was a noted cavalier in the reign of king Charles I. He was born at a place called Tremare in Cornwall. During the heat of the civil wars he took refuge in Holland, where, being strongly attached to the Muses, he had an opportunity of enjoying their society, and pursuing his study in peace and privacy. He died in 1662. He was a very great admirer of the French poets, particularly Corneille and Quinault, on whose works he has built the plans of four out of the six plays which he wrote. The titles of his dramatic works are, 1. “Phoenix in her Flames.” 2. “Polyeuctes or, The Martyr.” 3. “Horatius.” 4. “Inchanted Lovers.” 5. “Noble Ingratitude.” 6. “Amorous Phantasm.” All those, except the first, were written during the usurpation. He translated from the French the first and third volumes of “The Innocent Lady, or Illustrious Innocents.” But the most considerable of his translations, was “A Relation in form of a Journal of the voyage and residence of Charles II. in Holland from May 25, to June 2, 1660,” fol. finely printed, with good engravings of the ceremonies, and several copies of bad verses by the translator.

, a distinguished divine, was the son of William Lowth, apothecary and citizen of London, and was born in the parish of St. Martin’s Ludgate, Sept.H, 1661. His grandfather Mr. Simon Lowth, rector of Tylehurst in Berks, took great care of his education, ad initiated him early in letters. He was afterwards sent to Merchant-Taylors’ school, where he made so great a progress that he was elected thence into St. John’s-college in Oxford in 1675, before he was fourteen. Here he regularly took the degrees of master of arts, and bachelor in divinity. His eminent worth and learning recommended him to Dr. Mew, bishop of Winchester, who made him his chaplain, and in 1696 conferred upon him a prebend in the cathedral-church of Winchester, and in 1699 presented him to the rectory of Buriton, with the chapel of Petersfield, Hants. His studies were strictly confined within his own province, and solely applied to the duties of his function; yet, that he might acquit himself the better, he acquired an uncommon share of critical learning. There is scarcely any ancient author, Greek or Latin, profane or ecclesiastical, especially the latter, whose works he had not read with accuracy, constantly accompanying his reading with critical and philological remarks. Of his collections in this way, he was, upon all occasions, very communicative. His valuable notes on “Clemens Alexandrinus” are to be met with in Potter’s edition of that father; and his remarks on “Josephus,” communicated to Hudson for his edition, are acknowledged in his preface; as also those larger and more numerous annotations on the “Ecclesiastical Historians,” inserted in Reading’s edition of them at Cambridge. The author also of the “BibJiotheca Biblica” was indebted to him for the same kind of assistance. Chandler, late bishop of Durham, while engaged in his defence of Christianity from the prophecies o the Old Testament, against Collins’s discourse of the “Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion,” and in his vindication of the “Defence,” in answer to “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered,” held a constant correspondence with him, and consulted him upon many difficulties that occurred in the course of that work. But the most valuable part of his character was that which least appeared in the eyes of the world, the private and retired part, that of the good Christian, and the useful parishpriest. His piety, his diligence, his hospitality, and beneficence, rendered his life highly exemplary, and greatly enforced his public exhortations. He married Margaret daughter of Robert Pitt, esq. of Blandford, by whom he had three daughters and two sons, one of whom was the learned subject of our next article. He died May 17, 1732, and was buried, by his own orders, in the church-yard at Buriton, near the South side of the chancel; and on the inside wall is a plain monument with an inscription.

ID this last mentioned year he published his Poetrylectures, under the title of “De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum Praelectiones academicc,” 4to, of which he gave the public an enlarged edition in 1763, 2 vols. 8vo. The second volume consists of additions made by the celebrated Michaelis. To this work, as we have already noticed, the duties of his professoiship gave occasion; and the choice of his subject, which lay out of the beaten paths ol criticism, and which was highly interesting, not only in a literary, but a religious view, afforded ample scope for the poetical, critical, and theological talents of the author. In these prelections, the true spirit and distinguishing character of the poetry of the Old Testament are more thoroughly entered into, and developed more perfectly, than ever had been done before Select parts of this poetry are expressed in Latin composition with the greatest elegance and force; the general criticism which pervades the whole work is such as might be expected from a writer of acknowledged poetical genius and literary judgment; and the particular criticism applied to those passages of the original Hebrew, which he has occasion to introduce, in order either to express the sense, or correct the words of k, is a pattern for that kind of sacred literature: nor are the theological subjects which occur in the course of the work, and are necessarily connected with it, treated with less ability. To the “Prelections” is subjoined a “Short Confutation of bishop Hare’s system of Hebrew Metre,” in which he shows it to be founded on laUe reasoning, on apetitio princigiiy that would equally prove a different and contrary system true This produced the fir>t and most creditable controversy in which Mr Lowth was engaged. The Harian metre was defended by Dr. Thomas Edwards, of Cambridge, (see his life,) who published a Latin letter to Mr. Lowth, to which the latter replied in a “Larger Confutation,” addressed to Dr. Edwards in 1766. This “Larger Confutation,” which from the subject may be supposed dry and uninteresting to the majority of readers, is yet, as a piece of reasoning, extremely curious; for" there never was a fallacy more accurately investigated, or a system more complete!) refuted, than that of bisnop Hare.

In 1765 Dr. Lowih was elected a fellow of the royal societies of London and Gottingen; and in the same year was involved in a controversy with bishop Warburton. On this subject we shall be brief, but we cannot altogether agree with former biographers of Lowth and Warburton, in considering them as equally blameable, and that the contest reflected equal disgrace on both. In all contests the provoking party has more to answer for than the provoked. We lament that it was possible for Warburton to discover in the amiable mind of Lowth that irritability which has in some measure tainted the controversy on the part of the latter and we lament that Lowth was not superior to the coarse attack of his antagonist; but all must allow that the attack was coarse, insolently contemptuous, and almost intolerable to any man who valued his own character. Lowth bad advanced in his Prelections an opinion respecting the Book of Job, which Warburton considered as aimed at his own peculiar opinions. This produced a private correspondence between them in 1756, and after some explanations the parties seem to have retired well satisfied with each other. This, however, was not the case with Warburton, who at the end of the last volume of a new edition of his “Divine Legation,” added “An appendix concerning the Book of Job,” in which he treated Dr. Lowth with every expression of sneer and contempt, and in language most grossly illiberal and insolent. This provocation must account for the memorable letter Dr. Lowth published entitled “A Letter to the right rev. author of the Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, in answer to the Appendix to the fifth volume of that work; with an appendix, containing a former literary correspondence. By a laic professor in the university of Oxford,” 8vo. Few pamphlets of the controversial kind were ever written with more ability, or more deeply interested the public than this. What we regret is the strong tendency to personal satire; but the public at the time found an apology even for that in the overbearing character of Warburton, and the contemptuous manner in which he, and his under-writers, as Hard and others were called, chose to treat a man in all respects their equal at least. It was, therefore, we think, with great justice, that one of the monthly critics introduced an account of this memorable letter, by observing, that “when a person of gentle and amiable manners, of unblemished character, and eminent abilities, is calumniated and treated in the most injurious manner by a haughty and over-bearing colossus, it must give pleasure to every generous mind to see a person vindicating himself with manly freedom, resenting the insult with proper spirit, attacking the imperious aggressor in his turn, and taking ample vengeance for the injury done him. Such is the pleasure which every impartial reader, every true republican in literature, will receive from the publication of the letter now before us.” 1

* " The real merit of Warburton was is seldom candid or impartial. A late

mercy or moderation; and his servile the merits of an insignificant controflatterers exalted the master-critic far versy, his victory was clearly estaabove Aristotle and Longinus, as- blished by the silent confession of Warsaulted every modern dissenter who burton and his slaves." Gibbon’s Merefused to consult the oracle, and to enoirs, 4to, p. 136.

opposition, and the zeal of opposition Lowth; ampng these was Richard CumIn June 17 66 Dr. Lowth was promote* to the see of St. David’s, and about four mouths after was translated to that of Oxford. In this high office he remained till 1777, when he succeeded Dr. Terrick in the see of London. In 1778 he published the last of his literary labours, entitled “Isaiah: a new Translation, with a preliminary dissertation, and notes, critical, philological, and explanatory,” His design in this work was not only to give an exact and faithful representation of the words and sense of the prophet, by adhering closely to the letter of the text, and treading as nearly as may be in his footsteps; but to imitate the air and manner of the author, to express the form and fashion of the composition, and to give the English reader some notion of the peculiar turn and cast of the original. For this he was eminently qualified, by his critical knowledge of the original language, by his understanding more perfectly than any other writer of his time the character and spirit of its poetry, and by his general erudition, both literary and theological. In the preliminary dissertation the form and construction of the poetical compositions of the Old Testament are examined more particularly, and at large, than even in the “Prelections” themselves; and such principles of criticism are established as must be the foundation of all improved translations of the different, and especially of the poetical books of the Old Testament. In this instance the translation of the evangelical prophet, who is almost always sublime or elegant, yet often obscure notwithstanding all the aids of criticism, was executed in a manner adequate to the superior qualifications of the learned prelate who undertook it; and marked out the way for other attempts of a like kind, at a time when the hopes of an improved version was cherished by many, and when sacred criticism was cultivated with ardour. In our account of Michael Dodson we have mentioned an attempt to censure some part of this admired translation, which was ably repelled by the bishop’s relative, Dr. Sturges.

so good an account, that were we di- Monthly Review, or Gentleman’s Mato flatter him, no language of giuuut. tormented by a cruel and painful disorder, the stone, and had recently experienced some severe strokes of domestic calamity. Mary, his eldest daughter, of whom he was passionately fond, died in 1768, aged thirteen. On her mausoleum the doctor placed the following exquisitely beautiful and pathetic epitaph:

Several occasional discourses, which the bishop was by his station at different times called upon to deliver, were of course published, and are all worthy of his pen. That “On the Kingdom of God,” preached at a visitation at Durham, was most admired for liberality of sentiment, and went through several editions. Some of his poetical effusions have been already mentioned, and others appear in podsley’s and Nichols’s Collections, the Gentleman’s Magazine, &c. With such various abilities, equally applicable either to elegant literature or professional studies, bishop Lowth possessed a mind that felt its own strength, and decided on whatever came before it with promptitude and firmness a mind fitted fur the high station in which he was placed. He had a temper, which, in private and domestic life, endeared him in the greatest degree to those who were most nearly connected with him, and towards others produced an habitual complacency and agreeableness of manners; but which, as we have seen, was susceptible of considerable warmth, when it was roused by unjust provocation or improper conduct.

, an English clergyman, was born iir Northamptonshire about 1630, and is supposed to have been the son of Simon Lowth, a native of Thurcaston in Leicestershire, who was rector of Dingley in that county in 1631, and was afterwards ejected by the usurping powers. This, his son, was educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where be took his master’s degree in 1660. He was afterwards rector of St. Michael Harbledown in 1670, and vicar of St. Co.Miius and Damian on the Blean in 1679, both in, Kent. On Nov. 12, 1688, king James nominated him, and he was instituted by bishop Sprat, to the deanery of Rochester, on the death of Dr. Castillon, but never obtained possession, owing to the following circumstances. The mandate of installation bad issued in course, the bishop not having allowed himself time to examine whether the king’s presentee was legally qualified; which happened not to be the case, Mr. Lowth being only a master of arts, and the statute requiring that the dean should be at least a bachelor of divinity. The bishop in a day or two discovering that he had been too precipitate, dispatched letters to the chapter clerk, and one of the prebendaries, earnestly soliciting that Mr. Lowth might not be installed; and afterwards in form revoked the institution till he should have taken the proper degree. On Nov. 27 Mr. Lowth attended the chapter, and produced his instruments, but the prebendaries present refused to obey them. He was admitted to the degree of D.D.Jan. 18 following, and on March 19 again claimed instalment, but did not obtain possession, for which, in August of this year, another reason appeared, viz. his refusing to take the oaths of allegiance; in consequence of which he was first suspended from his function, and afterwards deprived of both his livings in Kent. He lived very long after this, probably in London, as his death is recorded to have happened there on July 3, 1720, when he was buried in the new cemetery belonging to the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square. He published, 1. “Letters between Dr. Gilbert Burnet and Mr. Simon. Lowth,” 1684, 4to, respecting some opinions of the former in his “History of the Reformation.” 2. “The subject of Church Power, in whom it resides,” &c. 1685, 8vo. 3. “A Letter to Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. in answer to the Dedicatory Epistle before, his ordination-sermon, preached at St. Peter’s Cornhill, March 15, 1684, with reflections. on some of Dr. Burnet’s letters on the same subject,” 1687, 4to, and 8vo. This was answered by Dr. Stillingfleet in a short letter to the bishop of London, “an honour,” bishop Nicolson says, “which he (Lowth) had no right to expect;” Lowth had submitted this letter both to Stillingfleet and Tillotson, who was then dean of Canterbury, but, according to Birch, “the latter did not think proper to take the least public notice of so confused and unintelligible a writer.” Dr. Hickes, however, a suffering nonjuror like himself, calls Lowfeh “a very orthodox and learned divine,” and his book an excellent one. His only other publication, was “Historical Collections concerning Deposing of Bishops,” 1696, 4to. From the sameness of name we should suppose him related to the subjects of the two preceding articles, but have not discovered any authority for more, than a conjecture on the subject.

, the founder of the order of Jesuits, was born in 1491, of a considerable family, at the castle of Loyola, in the province of Guipuscoa in Spain. He was educated in the court of Ferdinand and Isabella, and entered very early into the military profession. He was addicted to all the excesses too common in that line of life, but was at the same time a good officer, and one who sought occasions to distinguish himself. His valour was conspicuous at Pampeluna in 1521, when it was besiege,d by the French, and there he had his leg broken by a cannon-shot. During the confinement occasioned by this wound, he formed a resolution of renouncing the world, of travelling to JtTUS;de and dedicating his life to the service ol Go.,. He is said to have imbibed his ardour of zeal by reading the legends of the saints, as Don Quixote began his errantry l<\ reading the old romances; though some have denied that Loyola knew the use of letters. But whether he read, or had these things read to him, he certainly conceived an ardour of religious activity, which has not otten bem equalled.

He had no sooner been restored to health than he went to bang up his arms over the altar of the blessed virgin at Montst rrat, to whom he devoted his services on March 24, 1522; for he carried the laws of chivalry to his religious observances. In his way he disputed with a Moor on the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin, and after his antagonist left him, was seized with such a fit of enthusiasm as to pursue the Moor in order to put him to death, but could not find him. Having watched all night at Montserrat, sometimes standing, and sometimes kneeling, and having devoted himself most earnestly to the virgin^, he set out before day-b eak in a pilgrim’s habit to Manresa. Here he took his lodging among the poor of the town hospital, and he practised mortifications of every kind for above a year. He suffered his hair and nails to grow begged from door to door; fasted six days in the week whipped himself thrice a day was seven hours every day in vocal prayer lay without any bedding upon the ground, and all to prepare himself for his adventures to Jerusalem. It was here also that he wrote his book of “Spiritual Exercises,” in Spanish; a Latin translation of which, by Andrew Frusius, he published at Rome in 1548, when it was favoured with the approbation of pope Paul III. As it has been commonly reported that Loyola could not read, which, however, we think improbable, as he was of a good family, educated at court, and an officer in the army, Allegambe, in his lives of the Jesuits, gives the following solution: “Lewis de Ponte, a person of undoubted credit, relates how faithful tradition had handed it down to father Lainez, general of the Jesuits, that these exercises were revealed to our holy father (Ignatius of Loyola) by God himself; and that Gabriel the archangel had declared to a certain person, in the name of the blessed virgin, how she had been their patroness, their founder, and helper; had prompted Loyola to begin this work, and had dictated to him what he should write.” Perhaps the truth was, that Loyola either took his materials from other works, or was assisted in composing his book, by some other person.

Ignatius, Faber, and Laynez, came to Rome about the end of 1537, and at their first arrival had an audience of his holiness Paul III. They offered him their service; and Loyola undertook, under his apostolical authority, the reformation of manners, by means of his spiritual exercises, and of Christian instructions. Being dismissed for the present, with* some degree of encouragement, Loyola proposed soon after to his companions the founding of a new order; and, after conferring with Faber and Laynez about it, sent for the rest of his companions, who were dispersed through Italy, The general scheme being agreed on, he next conferred with his companions about his institute; and at several assemblies it was resolved, that to the vows of poverty and chastity, which they had already taken, they should add that of obedience; that they should elect a superior general, whom they must obey as God himself; that this superior should be perpetual, and his authority absolute; that wheresoever they should he sent, they should instantly and cheerfully go, even without any viaticum, and living upon alms, if it should be so required; that the professed of their society should possess nothing, either in particular or in common; but that in the universities they might have colleges with revenues and rents, for the subsistence of the students. A persecution in the mean time was raised against Loyola at Rome, who, however, went on with his great work, in spite of all opposition. Some of his companions were employed upon great occasions by the pope; and two of them, Simon Kodriguez and Francis Xavier, were sent to the Indies, with no less than the title of “Apostles of the new world.”

But whatever honours might be paid to Loyola, nothing can be more surprising in his history, than the prodigious power which his order acquired, in so few years, in the old world, as well as in America, and the rapidity with whic, it multiplied after it was once established. In 1545, t suits were but eighty in all; in 1545, they had ten houses; in 1549, they had two provinces, one in Spain, another in Portugal, and twenty-two houses. In 1556, when Loyola died, they had twelve great provinces; in 1608, Ribacleneira reckons twenty-nine provinces, two vice-provinces, twenty-one professed houses, 293 colleges, thirty-three houses of probation, ninety-three other residences, and 1Q>5 81 Jesuits. But in the last catalogue, which was printed at Rome in 1679, they reckoned thirty-five provinces, two vice-provinces, thirty-three professed houses, *78 colleges, forty-eight houses of probation, eighty-eight seminaries, 160 residences, 106 missions, and in all 17,655 Jesuits, of whom 7870 were priests. What contributed chiefly to the prodigious increase of this order, in so short a time, wafr the great encouragement they received from the popes, as well as from the kings of Spain and Portugal, on account of the service it was supposed they might render to these several powers. Various sects of religion were at that time combining against popery; in Germany especially, where Lutheranism was prevailing. The Jesuits were thought a proper order to oppose these incursions; and so far might be useful to the pope. The Spaniard found his account in sending them to the Indies, where, by planting Christianity, and inculcating good manners, they might reduce barbarous nations into a more nvili/ed form, and by such means make them better subjects; and the Jesuits were not unlikely to succeed in these employments, whether we consider their manners, discipline, or policy. They carried a great appearance of holiness, and observed a regularity of conduct in their lives and conversations, which gave them great influence over the people; who, on this account, and especially as they took upon them the education of youth without pay or reward, conceived the highest opinion of, and reverence for them. Their policy, too, within themselves, was wisely contrived, and firmly established. They admitted none into their society thai were not perfectly qualified in every respect. Their discipline was rigid, their government absolute, their obedience most submissive and implicit.

Lubienietski was composing his History of the Reformation of Poland at the time of his death, and nil that was found among his manuscripts Whs printed in Holland, in 1685, 8vo, with an account of his life prefixed, whence the materials of this memoir are taken. He wrote several books, the greater part of which, however, have not been printed: the titles of them may be seen in “Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum,” p. 165. The most considerable of those which have been published is his “Theatrum Cometicum,” printed at Amsterdam, 1667, folio. This contains, among other things, the “History of Comets from the flood to 1665,” an elaborate work, containing a minute historical account of every single comet that had been seen or recorded. On the subject of comets, it appears he had corresponded with the most celebrated astronomers in Europe. They who had the care of the impression committed so many rogueries, that he was obliged to take a journey to Holland on the occasion.

, an Augustine friar, and geographer to the French king, was born at Paris, Jan. 29, 1624, took the monk’s habit early, passed through all the offices of his order, became provincial-general of the province of France, and at last assistant- general of the Augustine monks of France at Rome. He applied himself particularly to the subject of the benefices of France, and of the abbies of Italy, and acquired that exact knowledge which enabled him to compose, both in France and at Rome, ' The Geographical Mercury;“” Notes upon the Roman Martyrology, describing the places marked in it;“”A history of the French Abbeys;“” The present state of the Abbeys of Italy;“” Orbis Augustinianus, or an account of all the houses of his order;“with a great number of maps and designs, engraved by himself, a very curious work in oblong quarto. He also wrote notes upon” Plutarch’s Lives -,“and we have geographical tables of his, printed with the French translation of Plutarch by the abbe* Tallemant. He also prepared for the press notes to archbishop” Usher’s Chronology;“”A Description of Lapland;“and several other works; especially” A Geography of all the places mentioned in the Bible,“which is prefixed to” Usher’s Annalsi“He likewise wrote notes upon.” Stephanas de urbibus." He died in the convent of the Augustine fathers in St. Germain, at Paris, March 17, 1695, aged seventy-one.

But that which attracted most attention, though not very deservedly, was his, 11. “Phosphorus, de prima causa et natura mali, tractatus hypermetaphysicus,” &c. printed at Rostock in 1596, and reprinted there in 8vo and 12mo, in 1600. “Phosphorus; or an hypermetaphysical treatise concerning the origin and nature of Sin.” In this piece he established two co-eternal principles (not matter and a vacuum, or void, as Epicurus did, but) God and the nihilum, or nothing. God, he supposed, is the good principle, and nothing the evil principle. He added, that sin was nothing else but a tendency towards nothing; and that sin had been necessary in order to make known the nature of good; and he applied to this nothing all that Aristotle says of the first matter. This being answered by Grawer in his “AntiLubinus,” in 1608, 4to, the author published a reply, entitled, 12. “Apologeticus quo Alb. Graw. calumniis respondetur, &c.” printed at Rostock, and reprinted there in 1605. To this also Grawer published an answer, in an appendix to his “Anti-Lubinus.” Lubin likewise published the next year, 13. “Tractatus de causa peccati, ad theologos Augustinae confessionis in Germania.” But, notwithstanding all these works, posterity has justly considered him as better acquainted with polite literature than with divinity.

, a celebrated Roman poet, was a native of Cordova, in Spain, where he was born Nov. lh> in the year 37. His father Annseus Mela, a Roman knight, a man of distinguished merit and interest in his country, was the youngest brother of Seneca the philosopher; and his mother, Acilia, was daughter of Acilius Lucanus, an eminent orator, from which our author took his name. When only eight months old he was carried to Rome and carefully educated under the ablest masters in grammar and rhetoric, a circumstance which renders it singular that critics have endeavoured to impute the defects in his style to his being a Spaniard; but it is certain that his whole education was Roman. His first masters were Palaemon, the grammarian, and Flavius Virginius, the rhetorician. He then studied under Cornutus, from whom he imbibed the sentiments of the stoic school, and probably derived the lofty and free strain by which he is so much distinguished. It is said he completed his education at Athens. Seneca, then tutor to the emperor Nero, obtained for him the office of quaestor: he was soon after admitted to the college of augurs, and considered to be in the full career of honour and opulence. He gave proofs of poetical talents at a very early age, and acquired reputation by several compositions; a circumstance peculiarly unfortunate for him, as it clashed with the vanity of the emperor, who valued himself on his powers as a poet and musician. On one occasion Lucan was so imprudent as to recite one of his own pieces, in competition with Nero; and as the judges honestly decided in favour of Lucan, Nero forbad him to repeat any more of his verses in public, and treated him with so much indignity that Lucan no more looked up to him with the respect due to a patron and a sovereign, but took a part in the conspiracy of Piso and others against the tyrant; which being discovered, he was apprehended among the other conspirators. Tacitus and other authors have accused him of endeavouring to free himself from punishment by accusing his own mother, and involving her in the crime of which he was guilty. Mr. Hayley has endeavoured to rescue his name from so terrible a charge; and it is more likely that it was a calumny raised by Nero’s party to ruin his reputation. Be this as it may, his confessions were ofno avail, and no favour was granted him but the choice of the death he would die; and he chose the same which had terminated the life of his uncle Seneca. His veins were accordingly opened; and when he found himself growing cold and faint through loss of blood, he repeated some of his own lines, describing a wounded soldier sinking in a similar manner. He died in the year 65, and in the twentyseventh year of his age. Of the various poems of Lucan, none but his Pharsalia remain, which is an account of the civil wars between Caesar and Pompey, but is come down to us in an unfinished state. Its title to the name of an epic poem has been disputed by those critics, who, from the examples of Homer and Virgil, have maintained that machinery, or the intervention of supernatural agency, is essential to that species of composition. Others, however, have thought it rather too fastidious to refuse the epic name to a poem because not exactly conformable to those celebrated examples. Blair objects, tliat although Lucan’s subject is abundantly heroic, he cannot be reckoned happy in the choice of it, because it has two defects, the one its being too near the times in which he lived, which deprived him of the assistance of fiction and machinery; the other that civil wars, especially when as fierce and cruel as those of the Romans, present too many shocking objects to be fit for epic poetry, gallant and honourable achievements being a more proper theme for the epic muse. But Lucan’s genius seems to delight in savage scenes, and he even goes out of his way to introduce a long episode of Marius and Sylla’s proscriptions, which abounds with all the forms of atrocious cruelty. On the merits of the poetry itself there are various opinions. Considered as a school book, Dr. Warton has classed it with Statins, Claudian, and Seneca the tragedian, authors into whose works no youth of genius should ever be suffered to look, because, by their forced conceits, by their violent metaphors, by their swelling epithets, by their want of a just decorum, they have a strong tendency to dazzle and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity and nature. On the other hand it has been said, that although Lucan certainly possesses neither the fire of Homer, nor the melodious numbers of Virgil, yet if he had lived to a maturer age, his judgment as well as his genius would have been improved, and he might have claimed a more exalted rank among the poets of the Augustan age. His expressions are bold and animated; his poetry entertaining; and it has been asserted that he was never perused without the warmest emotions, by any whose minds were in unison with his own.

, a learned English divine, of Welch extraction, was son of Mr. Richard Lucas of Presteign in Radnorshire, and born in that county in 1648. After a proper foundation of school learning, he was sent to Oxford, and entered of Jesus college, in 1664. Having taken both his degrees in arts, he entered into holy orders about 1672, and was for some time master of the free-school at Abergavenny; but being much esteemed for his talents in the pulpit, he was chosen vicar of St. Stephen’s, Coiemanstreet, London, and lecturer of St. Olave, Southwark, in, 1683. He took the degree of doctor in divinity afterwards, and was installed prebendary of Westminster in 1696. His sight began to tail him in his youth, but he lost it totally about this time. He died in June 1715, and was interred in Westminster-abbey; but no stone or monument marks his grave. He was greatly esteemed for his piety and learning, and his writings will preserve his fame. He wrote “Practical Christianity;” “An Enquiry after Happiness;” “The Morality of the Gospel;” “Christian Thoughts for. every Day of the Week;” “A Guide to Heaven;” “The Duty of Servants;” and several other “Sermons,” in five volumes. He also wrote a Latin translation of the “Whole Duty of Man,” which was published in 1680. He left a son of his own name, who was bred at Sydney-college, Cambridge, where he took his master of arts degree, and published some of his father’s sermons.

Of Dr. Lucas, Mr. Orton has given the following character from Dr. Doddridge’s Mss. “His style is very peculiar; sometimes exceedingly fine, nearly approaching conversation; sometimes grand and sublime; generally very expressive. His method not clear, but thoughts excellent; many taken from attentive observation of life; he wrote as entirely devoted to God, and superior to the world. His < Practical Christianity‘ most valuable and ’ Enquiry after Happiness,' especially the second volume of it.” Orton speaks of his reading the latter work for a fifth or sixth time. The “Practical Christianity” is earnestly recommended by sir Richard Steele in No. 63 of “The Guardian.”

, a celebrated Roman poet and philosopher, born about the year 96 B. C. was sent at an early age to Athens, where, under Zeno and Pheodrus, he imbibed the philosophical tenets of Epicurus and Empedocles, and afterwards explained and elucidated them in his celebrated work, entitled “De Rerum Natura.” In inis poem the writer has not only controverted all the popular notions of heathenism, but even those points which are fundamental in every system of religious faith, the existence of a first cause, by whose power all things were and are created, and by whose providence they are supported and governed. His merits, however, as a poet, have procured him in all ages, the warmest admirers; and undoubtedly where the subject admits of elevated sentiment and descriptive beauty, no Roman poet has taken a loftier flight, or exhibited more spirit and sublimity; the same animated strain is supported almost throughout entire books. His poem was written and finished while he laboured under a violent delirium, occasioned by a philtre, which the jealousy of his mistress or his wife had administered. The morality of Lucretius is generally pure, but many of his descriptions are grossly licentious. The best editions are those of Creech, Oxon. 1695, 8vo; of Havercamp, Lugd. Bat. 1725, 4to, and of the celebrated Gilbert Wakefield, Lond. 3 vols. 4to, which last is exceedingly rare, on account of the v fire which destroyed the greater part of the impression. Mr. Good, the author of the best translation of Lucretius, published in 1805, has reprinted Waketield’s text, and has given, besides elaborate annotations, a critical account of the principal editions and translations of his author, a history of the poet, a vindication of his character and philosophy, and a comparative statement of the rival systems of philosophy that flourished in the time of Lucretius, to whom Mr. Good traces the inductive method of the illustrious Bacon, part of the sublime physics of sir Isaac Newton, and various chemical discoveries of our own days, perhaps a little too fancifully, but with great ingenuity and display of recondite learning.

, one of the chiefs of the republican party during the civil wars, was descended of an ancient and good family, originally of Shropshire, and thence removed into Wiltshire, in which county he wag born, at Maiden- Bradley, about 1620. After a proper foundation in grammar, he was sent to Trinity-college in Oxford, where he took the degree of batchelor of arts in 1636, but removed to the Temple, to study the law, as a qualification for serving his country in parliament, his ancestors having frequently represented the county of Wiltshire. His father, sir Henry Ludlow, who was a member of the long parliament and an enemy to the measures of the court, encouraged his son to engage as a volunteer in the earl of Essex’s life-guard. In this station he appeared against the king, at the battle of Edge-hill, in '1642; and, having raised a troop of horse the next summer, 1643, he joined sir Edward Hungerford in besieging Wardour-castle. This being taken, he was made governor of it; but being retaken the following year, 1644, by the king’s forces, he was carried prisoner to Oxford. After remaining here some time, he was released by exchange, went to London, and was appointed high-sheriff of Wiltshire by the parliament. He then appears to have declined a command under the earl of Essex, but accepted the post of major in sir Arthur Haslerig’s regiment of horse, in the army of sir William Waller, and marched to form the blockade of Oxford. From Oxford, however, he was immediately sent, with a commission from sir William, to raise and command a regiment of horse, and was so successful as to be able to join Waller with about five hundred horse, and was engaged in the second battle fought at Newbury. Upon new modelling the army, he was dismissed with Waller, and was not employed again in any post, civil or military, till 1645, when he was chosen in parliament for Wiltshire in the room of his father, who died in 1643.

When Cromwell succeeded Fairfax, as captain-general of the army, and lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he, as an artful stroke of policy, nominated Ludlow lieutenant-general of horse in that kingdom, which being confirmed by the parliament, Ludlow went thither, and discharged the office with diligence and success, till the death of Ireton, lorddeputy, Nov. 1651, whom, in his “Memoirs,” he laments as a staunch republican. He now acted as general, by an appointment from the parliament commissioners, but without that title, which Cromwell, of whose ambitious views be constantly expressed a jealousy, as constantly found one pretext or other to keep from being conferred on him; and in the following year, 1652, Fleetwood went thither with the chief command. Soon after this, the rebellion being suppressed, a considerable part of the army was disbanded, the pay of the general and other officers reduced, and necessary steps taken for satisfying the arrears due to them, which Ludlow says fell heavier upon him than others, as in supporting the dignity of the station he had spent upwards of 4500l. in the four years of his service here, out of his own estate, over and above his pay. At home, in the mean time, Cromwell was become sovereign, under the title of protector. This being esteemed by Ludlow an usurpation, he endeavoured by every means in his power to hinder the proclamation from being read in Ireland; and being defeated in that attempt, he dispersed a paper against Cromwell, called “The Memento:” for which he was dismissed from his post in the army, and ordered not to go to London by Fleetwood, now deputy of Ireland. Soon after, being less narrowly watched by Henry Cromwell, who succeeded in that office, he found means to escape and cross the water to Beaumaris; but was there seized and detained till he subscribed an engagement, never to act against the government then established. But this subscription being made with some reserve, he was pressed, on his arrival in London, Dec. 1655, to make it absolute; which he refused to do, and endeavoured to draw major-general Harrison, and Hugh Peters, into the same opinion. Cromwell, therefore, after trying in vain, in a private conference, to prevail upon him to subscribe, sent him an order from the council of state, to give security in the sum of 5000l. not to act against the new government, within three days, on pain of being taken into custody. Not obeying the order, he was apprehended by the president’s warrant; but the security being given by his brother Thomas Ludlow, though, as he says, without his consent, he went into Essex, where he continued till Oliver died. He was then returned in the new parliament called upon Richard’s accession to the protectorate; and, either from connivance or cowardice on the part of the government, was suffered to sit in the house without taking the oath required of every member, not to act or contrive any thing against the protector. He was afterwards very active in procuring the restoration of the Rump parliament; in which, with the rest, he took possession of his seat again, and the same day was appointed one of the committee of safety. Soon after this, he obtained a regiment, by the interest of sir Arthur Haslerig; and in a little time was nominated one of the council of state, every member of which took an oath to be true and faithful to the commonwealth, in opposition to Charles Stuart, or any single person. He was likewise appointed by parliament one of the commissioners for naming and approving officers in the army.

But the Wallingford-house party, to remove him out of the way, recommended him to the parliament, for the post of commander in chief of the forces in Ireland, in the room of Henry Cromwell, and he accordingly arrived, with that command, at Dublin, in August 1659; but in September, receiving Lambert’s petition to parliament, for settling the government under a representative and select senate, he procured a counter petition to be signed by the officers of the army near Dublin, declaring their resolution of- adhering closely to the parliament and soon after, with the Consent of Fieetwood, set out for England. On his arrival at Beaumaris, hearing that the army had turned the parliament oat of the house, and resumed the supreme power, he hesitated for some time about proceeding on his journey, but at length resolved upon it; and on his arrival at Chester, finding an addition made to the army’s scheme of government, by which all the officers were to receive new commissions from Fleetwood, and that a committee of safety was appointed, consisting of twenty-one members, of which he was one, and that he was also continued one of the committee for nomination of officers, he set out for London the next day, and arrived there Oct. 29, 1659. The Wallingford-house p;irty prevailing to have a new parliament called, Ludlow opposed it with great fervour, in defence of the Hump, and proposed to qualify the power of the army by a council of twenty-one under the denomination of the Conservators of liberty; but being defeated in this, by the influence of the Wallingford-house party, he resolved to return to his post in Ireland, and had the satisfaction to know, before he left London, that it was at last carried to restore the old parliament, which was done two or three- days after. In Ireland, however, he was far from being well received. Dublin was barred against him, and landing at Duncannon, he was blockaded there by a party of horse, pursuant to an order of the council of officers, who likewise charged him with several crimes and misdemeanors against the army. He wrote an answer to this charge; but, before he sent it away, received an account, that the parliament had confirmed the proceedings of the council of officers at Dublin against him; and, about a week after, he received a letter from them, signed William Lenthall, recalling him home.

Soon after his departure, a proclamation was published, for apprehending and securing him, with a reward of 300l.; one of these coming to his hands, in a packet of letters, in which his friends earnestly desired he would remove to some place more distant from England, he went first to Geneva; and after a short stay there, passing to Lausanne, settled at last at Vevay , in Switzerland, though not without several attempts made to destroy him, or deliver him to Charles II. There he continued under the protection of those States till the Revolution in 1688, in which some thought he might have been usefully employed to recover Ireland from the Papists. With this design he came to England, and appeared so openly at London, that an address was presented by king William, from the House of Commons, Nov. 7, 1689, that his majesty would be pleased to put out a proclamation for the apprehending of colonel Ludlow, attainted for the murder of Charles I. upon which he returned to Vevay, where he died in 1693, in his 73d year. Some of his last words were wishes for the prosperity, peace, and glory of his country. His body was interred in the best church of the town, in which his lady erected a monument of her conjugal affection to his memory.

The friends of Ludlow have endeavoured to exalt his character by contrasting him with his antagonist Cromwell; and undoubtedly, in point of honesty, he has the advantage. “Ludlow,” it has been said, “was sincerely and steadily & republican Cromwell not attached to any kind of government, but of all kinds liked that the least. Ludlow spoke his mind plainly, and was never taken for any other than he professed himself to be; Cromwell valued himself upon acting a part, or rather several parts, and all of them equally well: and when he performed that of a Commonwealth’s-man, he performed it so admirably, that though Ludlow knew him to be a player by profession, yet he now thought he had thrown off the mask, and appeared what he really was. Ludlow was entirely devoted to the parliament, and would have implicitly obeyed their orders upon any occasion whatsoever, especially after it was reduced to the Rump; Cromwell never undertook any business for them, but with a view to his own interest.” Warburton says of Ludlow, “he was a furious, mad, but I think apparently honest, republican and independent.” After his death, came out the “Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, esq.” &c. Switzerland, printed at Vevay, in the canton of Bern, 1698, in 2 vols. 8vo, and there was a third volume, with a collection of original papers, published in 1691), 8vo. The same year a French translation of the first two volumes was printed in the same size at Amsterdam. Another edition of the whole was printed in folio, at London, 1751. The first edition was attacked in 1698, in a pamphlet, entitled, “A modest vindication of Oliver Cromwell;” the author of which published another piece, entitled, “Regicides not Saints,” and, in 1691, “A letter from major-general Ludlow to E. S. (Edward Seymour), &c. Amsterdam.” Mr. Wood observes, this was printed at London, and was written by way of preface of a larger work to come, to justify the murder of king Charles I. not by Ludlow, but by some malevolent person in England: in answer to which, there came out, “The Plagiary exposed, &c.” Lond. 1691, 4to, said to be written by Butler, the author of Hudibras.

Ludwig published in 1737 his “DefinitionesPlantarum,” in 8vo, for the use of his pupils. In this the genera of plants are arranged in a method supposed to be natural, founded ou the corolla in the first place, the subordinate characters being taken from the fruit. The generic distinctions are derived from the herbage, flower, smell, taste, colour, or any thing that came in the author’s way; certainly with no advantage whatever over the laws and practice of Linnæus, but rather evincing, at every step, the superiority of the latter to the vague scheme of his opponent. In another little volume of Ludwig, the “A^horismi Botanici,” published in 1738, the assertion of his being “a Linnsean in disguise” is strongly justified. In vain does the writer try to forget the “Philosophia Botanica,” and to seek originality, at any rate, by wandering from its light. In vain does he extol the system of Rivinus in preference to all others. He is brought back by his own judgment, in spite of himself, at every step; and as he could never give the least degree of popularity to the system he extolled, the slightest study of his works will show it to have been a mill-stone about his own neck. Boehmer gave a new and improved edition of the “Definitiones Plantarum” in 1760. Whether any use is made of this work at present, among the various botanical schools on the continent, we have never heard, but we believe it has fallen into oblivion.

In 1742, and again in 1757, our author published his “Institutiones Historico-Physicse Regni Vegetabilis,” in 8vo. In this work, which shews him still in pursuit of novelty rather than of truth, even the disguise of a Linnjean is almost laid aside, a system of arrangement being proposed in which the stamens and styles make an essential, if not a leading, feature. The favourite old system of vinus still takes precedence, though it serves only as additional impediment in the way of natural affinities, which defect is in some measure concealed by the primary characters not being strictly followed. This volume may therefore be considered as a tacit tribute of respect to the illustrious Swede, arising from its author’s progress in judgment and experience. He had no motive to withhold this tribute, as Linnæus never resented nor repelled hi> attacks. Ludwig began, in 1760, to publish impressions, chiefly of medicinal plants, taken from the dried specimen with printer’s ink, or with smoked paper, in folio, under the title of “Ectypa Vegetabilium,” which he continued from time to time. Such impressions give undoubtedly a correct outline, at least if the plant be fully displayed, but the rest is a mass of confusion; especially as the more elevated parts, which should be light, are necessarily the darkest. He wrote also occasionally on medico-botanical subjects, as on the effects of extract of Stramonium, and of the Belladonna, or deadly nightshade, in the epilepsy. His opinion seems not to have been favourable to cither. He died at Leipsic in 1773, aged sixty-four. He left a son named Christian Frederick, born in 1751, who became professor of natural history in the same university, and is the author of various tracts on botany, anatomy, and physiology.

, a Spanish Jesuit and cardinal, was born Nov. 28, 1583, at Madrid. His talents began to appear so early, that it is said he was able, at three years of age, to read not only printed books, but manuscripts. He maintained theses at fourteen, and was sent to study the taw, soon after, at Salamanca; where he entered into the order f the Jesuits in 1603, against his father’s wish. After finishing his course of philosophy among the Jesuits of Pampeluna, and of divinity at Salamanca, he was sent to Seville by his superiors, on his father’s death, to take possession of his patrimony, which was very considerable, and Which he divided among the Jesuits of Salamanca. He then taught philosophy five years after which, he was professor of divinity at Valladolid. The success with which he filled this chair, convinced his superiors that he was worthy of one more eminent: accordingly he received orders, in the fifth year of his professorship, to go to Rome, to teach divinity there. He set out in March 1621, and arrived at Rome in June the same year, having met with Bjanv dangers in travelling through the provinces of France. He taught divinity at Rome for twenty years, and attended wholly to that employ, without making his court to the cardinals, or visiting any ambassadors.

The publication of his works was in consequence of an order which his vow of obedience would not suffer him to refuse: he published accordingly, seven large volumes in folio , the fourth of which he dedicated to Urban VIII. Upon this occasion he went for the first time to pay his respects to the pope, by whom he was very graciously received; and from that time so highly respected, that Urban made him a cardinal, in Dec. 1643, without any previous notice or solicitation. To this promotion, however, he is said to have shown the greatest repugnance, and would not permit the Jesuits’ college to discover any signs of joy, or grant the scholars a holiday. He looked upon the coach, which cardinal Barberifli sent him, as his coffin; and when he was in the pope’s palace, he told the officers who were going to put on his cardinal’s robes, that he was resolved to represent first to his holiness, that the vows he had made as a Jesuit would not permit him to accept of a cardinal’s hat. He was answered, that the pope had dispensed with those vows. “Dispensations,” replied he, “leave a man to his natural liberty and, if I am permitted to enjoy mine, I will never accept of the purple.” Being introduced to the pope, he asked whether his holiness, by virtue of holy obedience, commanded him to accept the dignity ' to which the pontiff answering, that he did; Lugo acquiesced, and bowed his head to receive the hat. Yet he constantly kept a Jesuit near his person, to be a perpetual witness of his actions. He continued to dress and undress himself; he would not suffer any hangings to be put up in his palace; and established so excellent an order in it, that it was considered as an useful seminary. He died Aug. 20, 1660, leaving his whole estate to the Jesuits’ college at Rome; and was interred, by his own directions, at the feet of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the order.

While he was cardinal, he was very charitable and bestowed tlu> Jesuits’ bark, which then sold for its weight in gold, very liberally to persons afflicted with agues. He was iiic first that brought this febrifuge specific into France in 1650, when it was called cardinal de Lugo’s powder. He was undeniably a learned man, and had all that subtlety of genius which is the characteristic quality of the Spanish divines; and is said to be the first that discovered the philosophical sin, and the justice of punishing it eternally. His solution of this difficulty is somewhat extraordinary; for, having asserted that the savages might be ignorant of God inculpably, he observes that the Deity gave them, before their death, so much knowledge of himself as was necessary to be capable of sinning theologically, and prolonged their life till they had committed such sin, and thereby justly incurred eternal damnation. Among his other scholastic absurdities he has also the reputation of inventing the doctrine of inflated points, in order to remove the difficulties in accounting for the infinite divisibility of quantity, and the existence of mathematical points. It was a received opinion, that a rarefied body takes up a greater space than before, without acquiring any new matter; our cardinal applied this to a corpuscle, or atom, without parts or extension, which he supposes may swell itself in such a manner as to fill several parts of space.

, elder brother of the preceding, was born at Madrid in 1580, and became a Jesuit at Salamanca in 1600, where he first employed himself in teaching the rudiments of grammar: but he afterwards was professor of philosophy, and was sent to the Indies. There he filled the divinity-chair in the town of Mexico, and also in Santa Fe. These posts, however, not being agreeable to tfhe Retirement in which he desired to live, he returned to Spain. In the voyage he lost the best part of his commentaries upon the “Summit” of T. Aquinas, and narrowly escaped being taken prisoner by the Dutch. He was afterwards deputed to Rome by the province of Castile, to assist at the eighth general assembly of the Jesuits; and, upon the conclusion of it, he was detained there by two employments, that of censor of the books published by the Jesuits, and that of Theologue general. But finding himselt to be courted more and more, from the time that his brother was made a cardinal, he went back into Spain where he was appointed rector of two colleges, or of a college or school consisting of two divisions, as is that of Westminster. He died in 1652, after writing several books, the chief of which are, 1. Commentarii in primam partem S. Thomae de Deo, trinitate, & angelis,“Lyons, 1647, 2 vols, folio. 2.” De sacramentis in genere, &c.“Venice, 1652, 4to. 3.” Discursus praevius ad theologiam moralem, &c.“Madrid, 1643, 4to. 4.” Quasstiones morales de sacramentis," Grenada, 1644, 4to.

Being for some offence dismissed from the princess’s service, he got himself entered among the king’s violins; and in a little time became able to compose. Some of his airs being noticed by the king, he called for the author; and was so struck with his performance of them on the violin, of which Lulli was now become A master, that in 1660 he created a new band, called “Les Petits Violons,” and placed him at the head of it. He was afterwards appointed sur-intendant de la musique de la chambre du Roy; and upon this associated himself with Quinault, who was appointed to write the operas; and being now become composer and joint director of the opera, he not only detached himsek' from the former band, and instituted one of his own, but, what is more extraordinary, neglected the violin so much, that he had not even one in his house, and never played upon it afterwards^ except to very few, and in private. On the other hand, to the guitar, a trifling instrument, he retained throughout life such a propensity, that for his amusement he resorted to it voluntarily; and to perform on it even before strangers, needed no incentive. The reason of this seeming perverseness of temper has been thus assigned: “The guitar is an instrument of small estimation among persons skilled in music, the power of performing on it being attained without much difficulty; and, so far as regards the reputation of the performer, it is of small moment whether he plays very well on it or not: but the performance on the violin is a delicate and an arduous energy; which Lulli knowing, set too high a value on the reputation he had acquired when in constant practice, to risk the losing of it.”

, whom Granger, by mistake, calls Dr. Lupton, was one of the earliest publishers of biographical collections in English, but with his own history we are almost totally unacquainted. We can only gather from one of his dedications that he had served in the army several years, and from the contents of his two principal publications, that he was a man of piety, and an admirer of the characters of those eminent fathers and divines who made the greatest figure in the church from the earliest periods to the reformation. The first of these is entitled “The History of the Moderne Protestant Divines, &c. faithfully translated out of Latin,” Lond. 1637, a small 12mo. This is dedicated to sir Paul Pindar, sir John Wolstenholme, sir Abraham Dawes, sir John Jacob, “farmers of the custom-house.” It contains twenty-two foreign lives, and twenty-three English, translated from Holland’s “Heroologia, and Verheiden’s” Effigies,“with each an engraved head dopied, in small, from those in Holland and Verheiden. Mr. Churton has made particular mention of this curious and very scarce volume in the preface to his elaborate life of dean Newell, and an account has since been published in the Bibliographer. The other biographical collection said to be by Lupton is a 4to volume, entitled” The Glory of their Times, or the Lives of the Primitive Fathers,“&c. London, printed by J. Okes, 1640. This contains forty four lives, with heads of the same scale as. the other, but of less value, as being mostly imaginary. We know not on what authority this work is attributed to Lupton, >as there is no mention of his name in any part of the copy now before us, and the preface, or address to the reader, is signed Typographies. From internal evidence, however, we should be inclined to think it was his compilation. Lupton’s other productions werte,” London and the countrey carbonadoed and quartered into several chafacters,“1632, 8vo” ObjectorUm reductio; or daily employment for the soule,“1634, 8vo” Emblems of Rarities; or choice Observations out of worthy Histories, &c.“1636, l&tTio; and” England’s command of the Seas; or the English Seas guarded," 1653, 12mo.

, a female writer, very much admired in France for the romances which she produced, was the daughter of a coachman belonging to cardinal Fleury, and was born about 1682. Some have said that she was the daughter of prince Thomas of Savoy, the prince de Carignano’s elder brother, because prince Eugene shewed her much kindness. She had, however, an education much above her birth, which enabled her to compose the various works which she has left us. M. Huet, to whom she accidentally became known, advised her to write romances, in which she succeeded tolerably well with the help of M. Ignatius Lewis de la Serre, sieur de Langlade (author of nine or ten operas,) who was her intimate friend, after having been her lover. This gentleman inherited an income of 25,000 livres, which he consumed by gaming, and died in 1756. Mademoiselle de Lussan was more admired for her mental than for her personal qualities, for she squinted, and bad a very brown skin, with a masculine voice and gait; but she was gay, lively, extremely humane, constant in her friendships, liable to anger, but never to hatred. She died in 1758, aged seventy-five, in consequence of bathing during an indigestion. Her works are, “La Comtesse de Gondez,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Anecdotes de Philippe Auguste,” 6 vols. 12m<>, attributed to the abb de Boismorand. “Memoires de Charles VII.” 12mo; “Anecdotes” of Francis I. 3 vols. 12mo; of Henry II. 2 vols. 12mo; of Mary of England, 12mo; “La Vie de Crillon,” 2 vols. 12mo. She published also under her name a “History of Charles VI.” 9 vols. 12mo; of Louis XI. 6 vols. and “L'Hist. de la derniere Revolution de Naples,” 4 vols. but these three were written by M. Baudot de Juilly, as we have mentioned in his life. Mademoiselle de Lussan gave this gentleman half of what she gained from these works, and half of her pension of 2000 livres.

, an illustrious German divine and reformer of the church, was the son of John Letter, or Lauther, which our reformer changed to Luther, and of Margaret Lindeman, and born at Isleben, a town of Saxony, in the county of Mansfelt, November 10, 1483. His father’s extraction and condition were originally but mean, and his occupation that of a miner; it is probable, however, that by his application and industry he improved the circumstances of his family, for we find him afterwards raised to the magistracy of a considerable rank and dignity in his province. Luther was initiated very early into letters; and, having learned the rudiments of grammar while he continued at home with his parents, was, at the age of thirteen, sent to a school at Magdeburg. Here, however, he remained only one year, for the circumstances of his parents were at that time so very low, and so insufficient to maintain him, that he was forced, as Melchior Adam relates, “Mendicato vivere pane,” to beg his bread for support. From Magdeburg he was removed to a school at Eysenach, a city of Thuringia, for the sake of being among his mother’s relations; for his mother was descended from an ancient and reputable family in that town. Here he applied himself diligently to study for four years; and began to discover all that force and strength of parts, that acuteness and penetration, that warm and rapid eloquence, which afterwards produced such wonderful effects.

He continued in the university of Wittemberg, where, as professor of divinity, he employed himself in the business of his calling. The university, as we have observed, had been lately founded by Frederic, elector of Saxony, who was one of the richest and most powerful princes at that time in Germany, as well as one of the most magnificent and bountiful; and who brought a great many learned men thither, by large pensions and other encouragements, and amongst the rest Luther. Here then he feegan in the most earnest manner to read lectures upon the sacred books: he explained the epistle to the Romans, and the Psalms, which he cleared up and illustrated in a manner so entirely new, and so different from what had been pursued by former commentators, that “there seemed, after a long and dark night, a new day to arise, in the judgment of all pious and prudent men.” He settled the precise difference between the law and gospel, which before had been confounded; refuted many errors, commonly received both in "he church and the schools; and brought many necessary truths to light, which might have bee vainly sought in Scotus and Aquinas. The better to qualify himself for the task he had undertaken, he applied himself attentively to the Greek and Hebrew languages; to which, we are told, he was particularly excited by the writings of Erasmus; who, though he always remained in appearance a papist, or at least had nothing decided in his character, yet contributed much to the impelling of monkish ignorance, and overthrowing the kingdom of darkness. In the mean time, Luther, while he was active in propagating truth and instruction by his lectures and sermons, maintained an exemplary severity in his life and conversation, and was a most rigid observer of that discipline which he enjoined to others. This gained him vast credit and authority, and made all he delivered, however new or unusual, more readily accepted by. those who heard him.

These strange proceedings gave great offence at Wittemberg, and particularly inflamed the pious zeal of Luther, who, being naturally warm and active, and in the. present case unable to repress his indignation, was determined to declare against them, whatever might be the consequence*. Upon the eve of All Saints, therefore, in 1517, he publicly fixed up, at the church next to the castle of that town, a thesis upon indulgences; in the beginning of which he challenged any one to oppose it, either by writing or disputation. This thesis contained ninetyfive propositions; in which, however, he did not directly oppose indulgences in themselves, nor the power of the church to grant them, but only maintained, " That the pope could release no punishments but what he inflicted, and indulgences could be nothing but a relaxation of eccle­* It has been said by F. Paul, in his century before Luther, viz. from 1450

Saxony and that Luther was prompt- about obtaining for himself or his order,

a short time before the present period: from resentment or envy, either in the

the promulgation of them, at three edicts of tke pontiffs of his time, or in

aad it is remarkable, that for half a subject Mosheim, and Robertson. siastical penalties; that they affected only the living; that the dead were not subject to canonical penances, and so could receive no benefit by indulgences; and that such as were in purgatory could not by them be delivered from the punishment of their sins; that indeed the pope did root grant indulgences to the souls of the dead, by virtue of the power of the keys[?], but by way of suffrage; that indulgences seldom remit all punishment; that those who believe they shall be saved by indulgences only, shall be damned with their masters; that contrition can procure remission of the fault and punishment without indulgences, but that indulgences can do nothing without contrition; that, however, the pope’s indulgence ia not to be contemned, because it is the declaration of a pardon obtained of God, but only to be preached up with caution, lest the people should think it preferable to good works; that Christians should be instructed, how much better it is to abound in works of mercy and charity to the poor, than to purchase a pardon; and that it is a matter of indifference either to buy, or not to buy, an indulgence; that indulgences are not to be trusted to; that it is hard to say what that treasure of the church is, which is said to be the foundation of indulgences; that it is not the merits of Christ or his saints, because they produce grace in the inner man, and crucify the outward man, without the pope’s interposing; thai this treasure can be nothing but the power of the keys, or the gospel of the glory and grace of God; that indulgences cannot remit the most venial sin in respect of the guilt; that they remit nothing to them who by a sincere contrition have a right to a perfect remission; and that Christians are to be exhorted to seek pardon of their sins by the pains and labour of penance, rather than to get them discharged without reason."

This is the doctrine of Luther’s thesis; in which, if he does not attack indulgences directly, he certainly represents them as useless and ineffectual. He also condemns in it several propositions which he attributes to his adversaries, and inveighs against several abuses of which he affirms them guilty, as for example, “The reserving ecclesiastical penances for purgatory, or commuting them into the pains of purgatory; teaching that indulgences free men from all the guilt and punishment of sin; preaching that the soul, which they please to release out of purgatory, flies immediately to heaven when the money is cast into the chest; maintaining, that these indulgences are an inestimable gift, by which man is reconciled to God; exacting from the poor, contrary to the pope’s intentions; causing the preaching the word of God to cease in other churches that they may have a greater concourse of people in those where indulgences are preached; advancing this scandalous assertion, that the pope’s indulgences hare such a virtue, as to be able to absolve a man though he has ravished the mother of God, which is a thing impossible; publishing, that the cross with the arms of the pope, is equal to the cross of Christ, &c. Such positions as these,” says he, “have made people ask, and justly, why the pope, out of charity, does not deliver all souls tfut of purgatory, since he can deliver so great a number for a little money, given for the building of a church? Whv he suffers prayers and anniversaries for the dead, which are certainly delivered out of purgatory by indulgences? Why the pope, who is richer than several Croesuses, cannot build the church of St. Peter with his own money, but at the expence of the poor r” &c. In thus attacking indulgences, and the commissioners appointed to publish them, Luther seemed to attack Albert, the archbishop of Ment7, under whose name and authority they were published. Of this he was himself aware; and, therefore, the very eve on which he fixed up his thesis, he wrote a letter to him, in which, after humbly representing to him the grievances just recited, he besought him to remedy and correct them; and concluded with imploring pardon for the freedom he had taken, protesting that what he did was out of duty, and with a faithful and submissive temper of mind.

Luther’s propositions concerning indulgences were no sooner published, than Tetzel, the Dominican friar and commissioner for selling them, maintained and published at Franc fort, a thesis containing a set of propositions directly contrary to them. He also stirred up the clergy of his order against Luther; anathematized him from the pulpit as a most damnable heretic; and burnt his thesis publicly at Francfort. Eight hundred copies of Tetzel’s thesis were also burnt in return by some persons at Wittemberg; but Luther himself disowned having had any hand in that procedure, and in a letter to Jodocus, a professor at Isenac, who had formerly been his master, asked him “If he thought Luther ao void of common sense as to do a thing of that kind in a place where he had not any jurisdiction, and against a divine of so great authority as Tetzel?” Luther, indeed, although he perceived that his propositions were very well liked, and entertained as perfectly sound and orthodox, yet behaved himself at first with great calmness and submission. He proposed them to be discussed only in the way of disputation, till the church should determine what was to be thought of indulgences. He wrote to Jerom of Brandenburg, under whose jurisdiction he was, and submitted what he had written to that bishop’s judgment. He entreated him either to scratch out with his pen, or commit to the flames, whatever should teem to him unsound; to which, however, the bishop replied, that he only begged him to defer the publication of his propositions; and added, that be wished no discourse had been started about indulgences. Luther complied with the bishop’s request; and declared that “it gave him more pleasure to be obedient, than it would to work miracles, if he was ever so able.” And so much justice must be done to Luther, even by those who are not of his party, as to acknowledge that he was willing to be silent, and to say nothing more of indulgences, provided the same conditions might be imposed upon his adversaries.

But the spirit of peace deserted the church for a season; and a quarrel begun by two private monks, ended as we shall see, in a mighty revolution. Luther was now attacked by adversaries innumerable from all sides; three of the principal of whom were, John Eckius, divinity -professor and vice-chancellor of the university of IngoUtadt, who wrote notes upon his thesis, which Luther answered by other notes; Sylvester Prierius, or Prierio, a Dominican, and master of the holy palace; and one Jacob Hugostratus, a friar-preacher, who singled out some of his propositions, and advised the pope to condemn and burn him, if he would not immediately retract them. Luther contented himself with publishing a kind of manifesto against Hogostratus, in which he reproaches him with cruelty and ignorance; but as Prierius had drawn up his animadversions in the form of a dialogue, to which was prefixed a dedication to the pope; and built all he had advanced against Luther upon the principles of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, in an epistle to the reader, opposed Holy Scripture to the authority of this saint; and declared, among other things, that “if the pope and the cardinals were, like this Dominican, to set up any authority against that of Scripture, it could no longer be doubted that Rome was itself the very seat of antichrist; and then happy would Bohemia and all other countries be, who should separate themselves from it as soon as possible.”

In the mean time, the zeal of his adversaries grew every day more active against him; and he was at length accused to Leo X. as an heretic. As soon as he returned therefore from Heidelberg, he wrote a letter to that pope, in the most submissive terms; and sent him at the same time an explication of his propositions about indulgences. He tells his holiness in this letter, that “he was greatly troubled at being represented to him as a person who opposed the authority and power of the keys and pope; that this accusation amazed him, but that he trusted to his own innocency.” Then he sets forth the matter of fact, and says, that the “preachers of the jubilee thought all things lawful for them under the pope’s name, and taught heretical and impious propositions, to the scandal and contempt of the ecclesiastical power, and as if the decretals against the abuses of collectors did not concern them; that they had published books, in which they taught the same impieties and heresies, not to mention their avarice and exactions; that they had found out no other way to quiet the offence their il! conduct had given, than by terrifying men with the name of pope, and by threatening with fire, as heretics, all those who did not approve and submit to their exorbitances; that being animated with a zeal for Jesus Christ, and pushed on by the heat of youth, he had given notice of these abuses to the superior powers; whose not regarding it had induced him to oppose them with lenity, by publishing a position which he invited the most learned to dispute with him. This,” says he, “is the flame which they say has set the whole world on fire. Is it that I have not a right, as a doctor of divinity, to dispute in the public schools upon these matters? These theses were made only for my own country; and I am surprised to see them spread into all parts of the world. They were rather disputable points than decisions; some of them obscure, and in need of being cleared. What shall I do? I cannot, draw them back, and yet I see I am made odious. It is a trouble to me to appear in public, yet I am constrained to do it. It is to appease my adversaries, and give satisfaction to several persons, that I have published explications of the disputes I have engaged in; which I now do under your holiness’s protection, that it may be known how sincerely I honour the power of the keys, and with what injustice my adversaries have represented me. If I were such a one as they give out, the elector of Saxony woirld not have tolerated me in his university thus long.” He concludes in the following words: “I cast myself, holy father, at your feet, with all I am and have. Give me life, or put me to death; confirm or revoke, approve or disapprove, as you please. I own your voice as that of Jesus Christ, who rules and speaks by you; and if I have deserved death I refuse not to die.” This letter is dated on Trinity Sunday, 1518, and was accompanied with a, protestation, in which he declared, that “he did not pretend to advance or defend any thing contrary to the Holy Scripture, or to the doctrine of the fathers, received and observed by the church of Rome, or to the canons and decretals of the popes; nevertheless, he thought he had the liberty, either to approve or disapprove the opinions of St. Thomas, Bonaventure, and other schoolmen and canonists, which are not grounded upon any text.”

The emperor Maximilian was equally solicitous with the pope, about putting a stop to the propagation of Luther’s opinions in Saxony; since the great number of his followers, and the resolution with which he defended them, made it evident beyond dispute that if he were not immediately checked he would become troublesome both to the church and empire. Maximilian therefore applied to Leo in a letter dated Aug. 5, 1518, and begged him to forbid by his authority, these useless, rash, and dangerous disputes; assuring him also that he would strictly execute in the empire whatever his holiness should enjoin. The pope on his part ordered Jerom de Genutiis, bishop of Ascula, or Ascoli, auditor of the apostolic chamber, to cite Luther to appear at Rome within sijcty days, that he might give an account of his doctrine to the auditor and master of the palace, to whom he had committed the judgment of the cause. He wrote at the same time to Frederick the elector of Saxony, to pray him not to protect Luther and let him know that he had cited him, and had given cardinal Cajetan, his legate in Germany, the necessary instructions upon that occasion. He exhorts the elector to put Luther into the hands of this legate, that he might be carried to Rome; assuring him that, if he were innocent, he would send him back absolved, and if he were guilty, would pardon him upon his repentance. This letter to Frederic was dated Aug. 23, 1518, and it was by no means unnecessary; for though Luther had nothing to trust to at first but his own personal qualities, his parts, his learning, and his courage, yet he was afterwards countenanced and supported by this elector, a prince of great personal worth. At the same time also the pope sent a brief to cardinal Cajetan, in which he ordered him to bring Luther before him as soon as possible; and to hinder the princes from being any impediment to the execution of this order, he denounced the punishments of excommunication, interdiction, and privation of goods against all who should receive Luther, and give him protection; and promised a plenary indulgence to those who should assist in delivering him up.

thing new or extraordinary here," says society, than to retract what I have

he, " except that I am become the already justly asserted, or to be the

of such a conflagration. You will act Rescue’s Leo. him a protestation, in which he declared that “he honoured and would obey the holy church of Rome in all things; that if he had said or done any thing contrary to its decisions, he desired it might be looked upon as never said or done;” and for the three propositions made to him by the legate, he declared, “That, having sought only the truth, he had committed no fault, and could not retract errors of which he had not been convinced, nor even heard; that he was firmly persuaded of his having advanced nothing contrary to Scripture and the doctrines of the fathers; that, nevertheless, being a man, and subject to error, he would submit himself to the lawful determination of the church; and that he offered, further, to give reasons in this place, and elsewhere, of what he had asserted, answer the objections, and hear the opinions of the doctors of the famous universities of Basil, Friburg, Louvain,” &c. The legate only repeated what he had said the day before about the authority of the pope, and exhorted Luther again to retract. Luther answered nothing, but presented a writing to the legate, which, he said, contained all he had to answer. The legate received the writing, but paid no regard to it; he pressed Luther to retract, threatening him with the censures of the church, if he did not; and commanded him not to appear any more; in his presence, unless he brought his recantation with him. Luther was now convinced that he had more to fear from the cardinal’s power than from disputations of any kind; and therefore, apprehensive of being seized if he did not submit, withdrew from Augsburg upon the 20th. But, before his departure, he published a formal appeal to the pope, in which he declared, that “though he had submitted to be tried by cardinal Cajetan, as his legate, yet he had been so borne down and injured by him, that he was constrained at length to appeal to the judgment of his holiness.” He wrote likewise a letter to the cardinal, and told him that “he did not think himself bound to continue any longer at Augsburg; that he would retire after he had made his appeal; that he would always submit himself to the judgment of the church; but for his censures, that as he had not deserved, so he did not value them.”

Though Luther was a man of invincible courage, jet he was animated in some measure to these firm and vigorous proceedings by an assurance of protection from Frederic of Saxony; being persuaded, as he says in his letter to the legate, that an appeal would be more agreeable to that elector, than a recantation. On this account, the first thing which the legate did, after Luther’s departure, was to send an account to the elector of what had passed at Augsburg. He complained that Luther left him without taking leave, and without his knowledge; and although he had given him hopes that he would retract and submit, yet had retired without affording him the least satisfaction. He acquainted the elector that Luther had advanced and maintained several propositions of a most damnable nature, and contrary to the doctrine of the holy see. He prays him to discharge his conscience, and to keep unspotted the honour of his illustrious house, by either sending him to Rome, or banishing him from his dominions. He assured him that this matter could not continue long as it was at present, but would soon be prosecuted at Rome; and that, to get it out of his own hands, he had written to the pope about it. When this letter, Oct. 25, 1518, was delivered to the elector, he communicated it to Luther, who immediately drew up a defence of himself against it. In this defence he offers to the elector to leave his country, if his highness thought proper, that he might be more at liberty to defend himself against the papal authority, without bringing any inconveniences upon his highness by that means. But his friends advised him very wisely to remain in Saxony; and the university of Whtemberg presented an address to the elector, praying him to afford Luther so much favour and protection, that he might not be obliged to recant his opinions, till it was made appear that they ought to be condemned. But this address was needless; the elector was resolved not to desert Luther, and told the legate in an answer, Dec. the 18th, that he “hoped he would have dealt with Luther in another manner, and not have obliged him to recant before his cause was heard and judged; and that there were several men in his own and in mher universities, who did not think Luther’s doctrine either impious or heretical; that if he had believed it such, there would have been no need of admonishing him not to tolerate it; that Luther not being convicted of heresy, he could not banish him from his states, nor send him to Rome; and that, since Luther offered to submit himself to the judgment of the universities, he thought they ought to hear him, or at least shew him the errors which he taught in his writings.” Luther, seeing himself thus supported, continued to teach the same doctrines at Wittemberg, and sent a challenge to all the inquisitors to come and dispute with him; offering them not only a safe conduct from his prince, but assuring them also of good entertainment, and that their charges should be borne so long as they remained in Wittemberg.

While these things passed in Germany, Leo attempted to put an end to these disputes about indulgences, by a decision of his own; and for that purpose, November the 9th, published a brief, directed to cardinal Cajetan, in which he declared, that “the pope, the successor of St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth, hath power to pardon, by virtue of the keys, the guilt and punishment of sin, the guilt by the sacrament of penance, and the temporal punishments due for actual sins by indulgences; that these indulgences are taken from the overplus of the merits of Jesus Christ and his saints, a treasure at the pope’s own disposal, as well by way of absolution as suffrage; and that the dead and the living, who properly and truly obtain these indulgences, are immediately freed from the punishment due to their actual sins, according to the divine justice, which allows these indulgences to be granted and obtained.” This brief ordains, that “all the world shall hold and preach this doctrine, under the pain of excommunication reserved to the pope; and enjoins cardinal Cajetan to send it to all the archbishops and bishops of Germany, and c:iuse it to be put into execution by them.” Luther knew very well that after this judgment made by the pope, he could not possibly escape being proceeded against, and condemned at Rome; and therefore, upon the 28th of the same month, published a new appeal from the pope to a general council, in which he asserts the superior authority of the latter over the former. The pope, foreseeing that he should not easily manage Luther so long as the elector of Saxony continued to support and protect him, sent the elector a golden rose, such an one as he used to bless every year, and send to several princes, as marks of his particular favour to them. Miltitius, or Miltitz, his chamberlain, who was a German, was intrusted with this commission; by whom the pope sent also letters in Jan. 1519, to the elector’s counsellor and secretary, in which he prayed those ministers to use all possible interest with their master, that he would stop the progress of Luther’s errors, and imitate therein the piety of his ancestors. It appears by Sectendorf 's account of Miltitz’s negotiation, that Frederick had long solicited for this bauble from the pope; and that three or four years before, when his electoral highness was a bigot to the court of Rome, it had probably been a most welcome present. Bat it was now too late: Luther’s contests with the see of Rome had opened the elector’s eyes, and enlarged his mind; and therefore, when Miltitz delivered his letters, and discharged his commission, he was received but coldly by the elector, who valued not the consecrated rose, nor would receive it publicly and in form, but only privately, and by his proctor; and to the remonstrances of Miltitz respecting Luther, answered that he would not act as a judge, nor oppress a man whom he had hitherto considered as innocent. It is thought that the death of the emperor Maximilian, who expired on the 12th of this month, greatly altered the face of affairs, and made the elector more able to determine Luther’s fate. Miltitz thought it best, therefore, to try what could be done by fair and gentle means, and to that end came to a conference with Luther. He poured forth many commendations upon him, and earnestly intreated him that he would himself appease that tempest which could not but be destructive to the church. He blamed at the same time the behaviour and conduct of Tetzel; whom he called before him, and reproved with so much sharpness, that he died of melancholy a short time after. Luther, amazed at all this civil treatment, which he had never before experienced, commended Miltitz highly, owned that, if they had behaved to him so at lirst, all the troubles occasioned by these disputes, had been avoided; and did not forgt-t to cast the blame upon Albert archbishop of Mentz, who had increased these troubles by his severity. Miltitz also made some concessions; as, that the people had been seduced by false opinions about indulgences, that Tetzel had given the occasion, that the archbishop had employed Tetzel to get money, that Tetzel had exceeded the bounds of his commission, &c. This mildness and seeming candour on the part of Miltitz gained so wonderfully upon Luther, that he wrote a most submissive letter to the pope, on March 13, 1519. Miltitz, however, taking for granted that they would not be contented at Rome with this letter of Luther’s, written, as it was, in general terms only, proposed to refer the matter to some othec judgment; and it was agreed between them that the elector of Triers should be the judge, and Coblentz the place of conference; but this came to nothing; for Luther afterwards gave some reasons for not going to Coblentz, and the pope would not refer the matter to the elector of Triers.

But Erasmus, whatever he might think of Luther’s opinions, had neither his impetuosity,' nor his courage. He contented himself, therefore, with acting and speaking in his usual strain of moderation, and wrote a letter to the elector Frederic, in which he declared “his dislike of the 'arts which were employed to make Luther odious; that he did not know Luther, and so could neither approve nor condemn his writings, because indeed he had not read them; that however he condemned the railing at him with so much violence, because he had submitted himself to the judgment of those whose office it was to determine, and man had endeavoured to convince him of his error that his antagonists seemed rather to seek his death, than his salvation; that they mistook the matter in supposing, that all error is heresy; that there are errors in all the writings of both ancients and moderns; that divines are of different opinions; that it is more prudent to use moderate, than violent means; that the elector ought to protect innocency, and that this was the intent of Leo X.” Erasmus wrote also a friendly letter in answer to Luther’s, and told him, that “his books had raised such an uproar at Louvain, as it was not possible for him to describe; that he could not have believed divines could have been such madmen, if he had not been present, and seen them with his eyes; that, by defending him, he had rendered himself suspected; that many abused him as the leader of this faction, so they call it; that there were many in England, and some at Louvain, no inconsiderable persons, who highly approved his opinions; that, for his own part, he endeavoured to carry himself as evenly as he could with all parties, that he might more effectually serve the interests of learning and religion; that, however, he thought more might be done by civil and modest means than by intemperate heat and passion; that it would be better to inveigh against those who abuse the pope’s authority, than against the popes themselves; that new opinions should rather be promoted in the way of proposing doubts and difficulties, than by affirming and deciding peremptorily; that nothing should be delivered with faction and arrogance; but that the mind, in these cases, should be kept entirely free from anger, hatred, and vainglory. I say not this,” says Erasmus, “as if you wanted any admonitions of this kind, bat only that you may not want them hereafter, any more than you do at present.” When this letter was written, Erasmus and Luther ha<i never seen each other: it is dated from Louvain, May 30, 151 y; and it is hardly possible to read it without suspecting, that Erasmus was entirely in Luther’s sentiments, if he had possessed the courage to declare it. He concludes in these words, which seem to imply as much: “I have dipped into your commentaries upon the Psalms; they please me prodigiously, and I hope will be read with great advantage. There is a prior of the monastery of Antwerp, who says he was formerly your pupil, and loves you most affectionately. He is a truly Christian man, and almost the only one of his society who preaches Christ, the rest being attentive either to the fabulous traditions of men, or to their own profit. I have written to Melarrcthon. The Lord Jesus pour upon you his spirit, that you may abound more and more every day, to his glory in the service of the church. Farewell.”

In 1519 Luther had a famous dispute at Leipsic with John Eckius. Eckius, as we have observed, wrote notes upon Luther’s theses, which Luther first, and afterwards Carolostadius, answered. The dispute thus depending, a conference was proposed at Leipsic, with the consent of George duke of Saxony, who was cousin-german to Frederic the elector; and accordingly Luther went thither at the end of June, accompanied by Carolostadius and Melancthon. Melchior Adam relates that Luther could not obtain leave to dispute for some time, but was only a spectator of what passed between Carolostadius and Eckius, till Eckius got at last a protection for him from the duke. It is certain, however, that they disputed upon the most delicate points upon purgatory, upon indulgences; and especially upon the authority of the pope. Luther objected to this last, as being an invidjous and unnecessary subject; and that he would not have meddled with it, if Eckius had not put it among the propositions which they were to argue. Eckius answered, and it must be owned with some reason, that Luther had first given occasion to that question, by touching upon it himself, and teaching several things contrary to the authority of the holy see. In this dispute, after many texts of scripture, and many passages from the fathers, had been cited and canvassed by both sides, they came to settle the sense of the famous words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church.” Luther asserted, That by rock is to be understood either power or faith: if power, then our Saviour hath added to no purpose, “and I will give thee the keys, &c.” if faith, as it ought, then it is also common to all other churches, and not peculiar to that of Rome. Eckius replied, That these words settled a supremacy upon St. Peter; that they ought to be understood of his person, according to the explication of the fathers; that the contrary opinion was one of the errors of Wicklitf and John Hass, which were condemned; and that he followed the opinion of the Bohemians. Luther was not to be silenced with this, but said, That although all the fathers had understood that passage of St. Peter in the sense of Eckius, yet he would oppose them with the authority of St. Paul and St. Peter himself; who say, that Jesus Christ is the only foundation and corner-stone of his church; and as to his following the opinion of the Bohemians, in' maintaining a proposition condemned with John Huss, that “the dignity of the pope was established by the emperor,” though he did not, he said, approve of the schism of the Bohemians, yet he should make no scruple to affirm, that, among the articles condemned with John Huss, there were some very sound and orthodox. This dispute ended at length like all others, the parties not the least nearer in opinions, but more at enmity with each other’s persons. It seems, however, granted on all sides, that while Eckius made the best possible defence for his party, Luther did not acquire in this dispute that success and applause which he expected; and it is agreed also, that he made a concession to Eckius, which he afterwards retracted, that the pope was head of the church by human though not by divine right; which made George duke of Saxony say, after the dispute was over, “Sive Jure divino, siye hurnano sit papa, est tamen papa:” " Whether he be pope by divine right or human, he is nevertheless pope/'

This same year 1519, Luther’s books concerning indulgences were formally censured by the divines of Louvain and Cologne. The former having consulted with the cardinal of Tortosa, afterwards Adrian VI. passed their censure on the 7th of November; and the censure of the lakter, which was made at the request of the divines of Louvain, was dated on the 30th of August. Luther wrote immediately against these censures, and declared that be valued them not: that several great and good men, such as Occam, Picus Mirandula, Laurentius Valla, and others, had been condemned in the same unjust manner; nay, he would venture to add to the list, Jerom of Prague and John Huss. He charged those universities with rashness, in being the first that declared against him; and accused them of want of proper respect and deference to the holy see, in condemning a book presented to the pope, on which judgment had not yet been passed. About the end of this year, Luther published a book, in which be contended for the communion being celebrated in both kinds. This was condemned by the bishop of Misnia, Jan. 24, 1520. Lnther, seeing himself so beset with adversaries’, wrote a letter to the new emperor, Charles V. of Spain, who was not yet come into Germany, and another to the elector of Mentz; in both which he humhly implores protection, till he should be able to give an account of himself and his opinions; adding, that he did not desire to be defended, if he were convicted of impiety or heresy, but only that he might not be condemned without a hearing. The former of these letters is dated Jan. 15, 1520; the latter, Feb. 4. The elector Frederic fell about this time into a dangerous illness, which threw the whole party into great consternation, and occasioned some apprehensions at Wittemberg: but of this he happily recovered.

While Luther was labouring to excuse himself to the emperor and the bishops of Germany, Eckius had gone to Rome, to solicit his condemnation: which, it may easily be conceived, was not now very difficult to be obtained, as he and his whole party were had in abhorrence, and the elector Frederic wajs out of favour, on account of the protection which he afforded Luther. The elector excused himself to the pope, in a letter dated April 1; which the pope answered, and sent him at the same time a copy of a bull, in which he was required “either to oblige Luther to retract his errors, or to imprison him for the disposal of the pope.” This peremptory proceeding alarmed at first the court of the elector, and many German nobles who were of Luther’s party, but their final resolution was, to protect and defend him. In the mean time, though Luther’s condemnation was determined at Rome, Miltitz did not cease to treat in Germany, and to propose means of accommodation. To this end he applied to the chapter of the Augustine friars there, and prayed them to interpose their authority, and to beg of Luther that he would endeavour to conciliate the pope by a letter, full of submission and respect. Luther consented to write, and his letter bears date April the 6th; but matters had been carried too far on both sides, ever to admit of a reconciliation. The mischief Luther had done, and continued to do, to the papal authority, was irreparable; and the rough usage and persecutions he had received from the pope’s party had now inflamed his active spirit to that degree, that it was not possible to appease it, but by measures which the pope and the court of Rome could never be expected to adopt. At all events, the letter he wrote at this juncture could not be attended with any healing ednsequences; the style and sentiments were too irritating for a less degree of pride than that which presided at Rome. In this epistle Luther says, “that among the monsters of the age, with whom be had been engaged for three years past, he had often called to mind the blessed father Leo: that now he began to triumph over his enemies, and to despise them: that, though he had been obliged to appeal from his holiness to a general council, yet he had no aversion to him: that he had always wished and prayed for all sorts of blessings upon his person and see: that his design was only to defend the truth: that he had never spoken dishonourably of his holiness, but had called him a Daniel in the midst of Babylon, to denote the innocence and purity he had preserved among so many corrupt men: that the court of Rome was visibly more corrupt than either Babylon or Sodom; and that his holiness was as a lamb among wolves, a Daniel among lions, and an Ezekiel ampng scorpions: that there were not above three or four cardinals of any learning or piety: that it was against these disorders of the court of Rome he was obliged to appear: that cardinal Cajftan, who was ordered by his holiness to treat with him, bad shewn no inclinations to peace: that his nuncio JVliltitz had indeed come to two conferences with him, and that he had promised JVliltitz to be silent, and submit to the decision of the archbishop of Triers; but that the dispute at Leipsic had hindered the execution of this project, and put things into greater confusion: that Milt it/ hud applied a third time to the chapter of his order, at whose instigation he had written to his holiness: and that he now threw himself at his feet, praying him to impose silence upon his enemies: but that, as for a recantation on his part, be must not insist upon it, unless he would increase the troubles; nor prescribe him rules for the interpretation of the word of God, because it ought not to be limited. Then he admonishes the pope not to suffer himself to be seduced, by his flatterers, into a persuasion that he can command and require all things, that he is above a council and the universal church, that he alone has a right to interpret scripture; but to believe those rather who debase, than those who exalt him.”

The continual importunities of Luther’s adversaries with Leo caused him at length to publish a formal condemnation of him, in a bull dated June 15, 1520. In the beginning of this bujl, the pope directs his bpeech to Jesus Christ, to St. Peler, St. Paul, and all the saints, invoking their aid, in the most solemn expressions against the new errors and heresies, and for the preservation of the faith, peace, and unity of the church. Then he expresses hi? great grief for the late propagation of these errors in Germany; errors, either already condemned by the councils and constitutions of the pope, or new propositions heretical, false, scandalous, apt to offend and seduce the faithful. Then, after enumerating forty-one propositions collected from Luther’s writings, he does, by the advice of his cardinals, and after mature deliberation, condemn them as respectively heretical; and forbids all Christians, under the pain of excommunication, and deprivation of all their dignities, which they should incur ipso facto, to hold, defend, or preach any of these propositions^ or to suffer others to preach them. As to Luther, after accusing him of disobedience and obstinacy, because he had appealed from his citation to a council, though he thought he might at that instant condemn him as a notorious heretic, yet be gave him sixty days to consider; assuring him, that if in that time he would revoke his errors, and return to his duty, and give him real proofs that he did so by public acts, and by burning his books, he should find in him a true paternal affection: otherwise he declares, that he should incur the punishment due to heretics.

Luther, now perceiving that all hopes of an accommodation were at an end, no longer observed the least reserve or moderation. Hitherto he had treated his adversaries with some degree of ceremony, paid them some regard; and, not being openly separated from the church, did not quite abandon the discipline of it. But now he kept no measures with them, broke off all his engagements to the church, and publicly declared, that he would no longer communicate in it. The first step he took, after the publication of the pope’s bull, was to write against it; which he did in very severe terms, calling it, “The execrable bull of antichrist.” He published likewise a book called “The Captivity of Babylon” in which he begins with a protestation, “That he became every day more knowing: that he was ashamed and repented of what he had written about indulgences two years before, when he was a slave to the superstitions of Rome: that he did not indeed then reject indulgences, but had since discovered, tliat they are nothing but impostures, fit to raise money, and to destroy the faith: that he was then content with denying the papacy to be jure divino, but had lately been convinced that it was the kingdom of Babylon: that he then wished a general council would settle the communion in both kinds, but npw plainly saw, that it was commanded by scripture: that he did absolutely deny the seven sacraments, owning no more than three, baptism, penance, and the Lord’s supper,” &c. About the same time also, he published another treatise in the German language, to make the court of Rome odious to the Germans; in which “he gives a history of the wars raised by the popes against the emperors, and represents the miseries Germany had suffered by them. He strives to engage the emperor and princes of Germany to espouse his party against the pope,' by maintaining, that they had the same power over the clergy as they had over the laity, and that there was no appeal from their jurisdiction. He advised the whole nation to shake off the pope’s power; and proposes a reformation, by which he subjects the pope and bishops to the power of the emperor, &c.” Lastly, that he might not be wanting in any thing which should testify his abhorrence of the proceedings in the court of Rome, Luther determined to treat the pope’s bull and decretals in the same manner as they had ordered his writings to be treated: and therefore, calling the students at Wittemberg together, he flung them into a fire prepared for that purpose; saying, “Because thou hast troubled the holy one of God, let eternal fire trouble thee.” This ceremony was performed, Dec. 10, 1520.

The bull of Luther’s condemnation was carried into Germany, and published there by Eckius, who had solicited it at Rome; and who, together with Jerom Aleander, a person eminent for his learning and eloquence, was intrusted by the pope with the execution of it. In the mean time, Charles V. of Spain, after he had adjusted the affairs of the Low Countries, went into Germany, and was crowned emperor, Oct. the 21st, at Aix-la-Chapelle. The plague preventing his remaining long in that city, he went to Cologne, and appointed a diet at Worms, to meet Jan. the 6tb, 1521. Frederic, elector of Saxony, could not be present at the coronation, but was left sick at Cologne, where Aleander, who accompanied the emperor, presented him with a brief, which the pope had sent by him, and by which his holiness gave him notice of the decree he had made against the errors of Luther. Aleander told the elector, that the pope had intrusted himself and Eckius with the affair of Luther, which was of the utmost consequence to the whole Christian world, and, it' there were not a speedy stop put to it, would undo the empire: that he did not doubt, but that the elector woifld imitate the emperor, and other princes of the empire, who had received the pope’s judgment respectfully. He informed his highness also, that he had two things to request of him in the name of the pope: “First, That he would cause all Luther’s books to be burnt; and, secondly, that he would either put Luther to death, or imprison him, or send him to the pope.” The pope sent also a brief to the university of Wittemberg, to exhort them to put his bull in execution against Luther; but neither the elector nor the university paid any regard to his briefs. Luther, at the same time, renewed his appeal to a future council, in terms very severe upon the pope, calling him tyrant, heretic, apostate, antichrist, and blasphemer; and in it prays the emperor, electors, princes, and lords of the empire, to favour his appeal, nor suffer the execution of the bull, till he should be lawfully summoned, heard, and convicted, before impartial judges. This appeal is dated Nov. 17. Erasmus, indeed, and other German divines, were of opinion that things ought not to be carried to this extremity, foreseeing, that the fire which consumed Luther’s books would soon put all Germany into a flame. They proposed, therefore, to agree upon arbitrators, or to refer the whole cause to the first general council. But these pacific proposals came too late; and Eckius and Aleander pressed the matter so vigorously both to the emperor and the other German princes, that Luther’s books were burnt in several cities of Germany. Aleander also earnestly importuned the emperor for an edict against Luther; but he found many and great obstacles. Luther’s party was very powerful; and Charles V. was not willing to give so public an offence to the elector of Saxony, who had lately refused the empire, that he might have it.

To overcome these difficulties, Aleander gained a new bull from Rome, which declared, that Luther had incurred, by obstinacy, the penalty denounced in the first. He also wrote to the court of Rome for the assistance of money and friends, to be used at the diet of Worms: and, because the Lutherans insisted that the contest was chiefly about the jurisdiction of the pope, and the abuses of the court of Rome, and that they were only persecuted for the sake of delivering up Germany to the tyranny of that court; he undertook t.> shew, That Luther had broached many errors relating to the mysteries of religion, and revived the heresies of Wickliff and John Huss. The diet of Worms was held in the beginning of 1521 where Aleandtrr, in the absence of Luther, employed his eloquence and interest so successfully, that the emperor and princes of the empire were about to execute the pope’s bull against Luther with severity, and without delay The only way wfhich the elector of Saxony and Luther’s friends could invent to ward off the blow, was to say, “That it was not evident, that the propositions objected tp were his that his adversaries might attribute them to him falsely that the books from which they were taken might be forged and, above all, that it was not just to condemn him without summoning and hearing him.” The emperor, therefore, with the consent of the princes of the diet, sent Sturmius, an orh'cer, from Worms to Wittemberg, to conduct Luther safely to the diet. Sturmius carried w.th him a “safe-conduct” to Luther, signed by the emperor and princes of the diet; and also a letter from the emperor, dated March 21, 1521, and directed “To the honourable, beloved, devout doctor, Martin Luther, of the order of St. Augustine;” in which he summoned him to appear at the diet, and assured him, that he need not fear any violence or ill treatment. Nevertheless, Luther’s friends were much against his going; some telling him, that, by burning his books, he might easily know what censure would be passed on himself; others reminding him of the treatment they had, upon a like occasion, shewn to John Huss. But Luther despised all dangers; and, in a strain which is extremely characteristic of him, declared, that “If he knew there were as many devils at Worms as tiles upon the houses, he would go.”

He arrived accordingly at Worms April 16, where a prodigious multitude of people were assembled, for the sake of seeing a man of whom so much had no.w been heard. When he appeared before the diet, he had two questions put to him by John Eckius: “First, whether h$ owned those books for his that went under his name; and, secondly, Whether he intended to retract or defend what was contained in them.” These queries produced an altercation, which lasted some days; but which ended at length in this single and peremptory declaration of Luther, that “unless he was convinced by texts of scripture or evident reason (for he did not think himself obliged to submit to the pope or his councils), he neither could nor would retract any thing, because it was not lawful for him to act against nis conscience.” This being Luther’s final resolution, the emperor declared to the diet, That he was determined to proceed against him as a notorious heretic; but that he intended, nevertheless, he should return to Wittemberg, according to the conditions laid down in his “safe-conduct.” Luther left Worms April the 26th, conducted by Sturmius, who had brought him and being arrived at Friburg, he wrote letters to the emperor and princes of the diet, to commend his cause to them, and to excuse himself for not submitting to a recantation. These letters wt re conveyed by Sturmius, whom he sent back, on pretence that he was then out of danger; but in reality, as it is supposed, that Sturmius might not be present at the execution of a scheme which had been concerted befofe Luther set out from Worms; for, the elector of Satfony, foreseeing that the emperor was going to make a bloody edict against Luther, and finding it impossible to support and protect him any longer without involving himself in difficulties, resolved to have him taken away, and concealed. This was proposed to Luther, and accordingly when he went from Eysenac, May the 3d, through a wood, in his way to Wittemberg, he was suddenly set upon by some horsemen in disguise, deputed for that purpose, who pretended to take him by force, and carried him secretly into the castle of Wittemberg. Melchior Adam relates, that there were only eight nobles privy to this expedition, which was executed with so much address and fidelity, that no man knew what was become of him, or where he was. This contrivance produced two advantages to Luther: as, first, it caused people to believe that he was taken away by the intrigues of his enemies, which made them dious, and exasperated men’s minds against them; and, secondly, it secured him against the pr isecution which the pope and the empe or were making against him.

Before the diet of Worms was dissolved, Charles V. caused an edict to be drawn up, which was dated the 8th of May, and solemnly published on the 2oth in the assembly of the electors and princes held in his palace. In this edict, after declaring it to be the duty of an emperor, not only to defend the limits of the empire, but to maintain religion and the true faith, and to extinguish heresies in their original, he commands, That Martin Luther be, agreeably to the sentence of the pope, henceforward looked upon as a member separated from the church, a schismatic, and an obstinate and notorious heretic. He forbids all persons, under the penalty of high treason, loss of goods, and being put under the ban of the empire, to receive or defend, maintain or protect him, either in conversation or in writing; and he orders, that, after the twenty-one days allowed in his safe-conduct, he should be proceeded against according to the form of the ban of the empire, in what place soever he should be: or, at least, that he should be seized and imprisoned, till his imperial majesty’s pleasure should be further known. The same punishments are denounced against all the accomplices, adherents, followers, or favourers of Luther; and also all persons are forbidden to print, sell, buy, or read any of his books: and, because there had been published several books concerning the same doctrines, without his name, and several pictures dispersed that were injurious to the pope, cardinal, and bishops, he commands the magistrates to seize and burn them, uod to punish the authors and printers of those pictures and libels. Lastly, it forbids in general the printing of any book concerning matters of faith, which hath not the approbation of the ordinary, and some neighbouring university.

While the bull of Leo X. executed by Charles V. was thundering throughout the empire, Luther was safely shut up in his castle, which he afterwards called his Hermitage, and his Patmos. Here he held a constant correspondence with his friends at Wittemberg, and was employed in composing books in favour of his own cause, and against his adversaries. He did not however so closely confine himself, but that he frequently made excursions into the neighbourhood, though always under some disguise or other. One day he assumed the title and appearance of a nobleman: but it may be supposed that he did not act his part very gracefully; for a gentleman who attended him under that character, to an inn upon the road, was, it seems, so fearful of a discovery, that he thought it necessary to caution him against that absence of mind peculiar to literary men; bidding him “keep close to his sword, without taking the least notice of books, if by chance any should fall in his way.” He used sometimes even to go out a hunting with those few who were in his secret; which, however, we may imagine, he did more for health than for pleasure, as indeed may be collected from his own curious account of it. “I was,” says he, “lately two days a hunting, in which amusement I found both pleasure and pain. We killed a brace of hares, and took some unhappy partridges; a very pretty employment, truly, for an idle man! However, I could not forbear theologizing amidst dogs and nets; for, thought I to myself, do not we, in hunting innocent animals to death with dogs, very much resemble the devil, who, by crafty wiles and the instruments of wicked priests, is perpetually seeking whom he may devour? Again: We happened to take a leveret alive, which I put into my pocket, with an intent to preserve it; yet we were not gone far, before the dogs seized upon it, as it was in my pocket, and worried it. Just so the pope and the devil rage furiously to destroy the souls that I have saved, in spite of all my endeavours to prevent them. In short, I am tired of hunting these little innocent beasts; and had rather be employed, as I have been for some time, in spearing bears, wolves, tigers, and foxes; that is, in opposing and confounding wicked and impious divines, who resemble those savage animals in their qualities.”

Weary at length of his retirement, he appeared publicly again at Wittemberg, March 6, 1522, after he had been absent about ten months. He appeared indeed without the elector’s leave, but immediately wrote him a letter, to prevent his being offended. The diet of Charles V. severe as it was, had given little or no check to Luther’s doctrine; for the emperor was no sooner gone into Flanders, than his edict was neglected and despised, and the doctrine seemed to spread even faster than before. Carolostadius, in Luther’s absence, had acted with even more vigour than his leader, and had attempted to abolish the use of mass, to remove images out of the churches, to set aside auricular confession, invocation of saints, the abstaining from meats; had allowed the monks to leave their monasteries, to neglect their vows and to marry, and thus had quite changed the doctrine and discipline of the church at Wittemberg: all which, though not against Luther’s sentiments, was yet blamed by him, as being rashly and nnseasonably done. The reformation was still confined to Germany; it had not extended to France; and Henry V11I. of England made the most rigorous acts to prevent its entering his realm; and to shew his zeal for the holy see, wrote a treatise “Of the seven Sacraments,” against Luther’s book “Of the captivity of Babylon;” winch he presented to Leo X. in Oct. 1521. The pope received it favourably, and complimented Henry with the title of “Defender of the Faith.” Luther, however, paid no regard to his dignity, but treated both his person and performance in the most contemptuous manner. Henry complained of this rude usage to the princes of Saxony; and Fisher, bishop of Rochester, replied, in hehall' of Henry’s treatise: but neither the king’s complaint, nor the bishop’s reply, were attended with any visible effects.

Luther now made open war with the pope and bishops; and, that he might make the people despise their authority as much us possible, he wrote one book against the pope’s bull, and another against the order falsely culled “the order of bishops.” The same year, 1522, he wrote a loiter, July the 29tn, to the assembly of the States of Bohemia, in which he assured them, that he was labouring to establish their doctrine in Germany, and exhorted them not to return to the communion of the church of Rome; and he published also this year, a translation of the “New Testament” in the German tongue, which was afterwards corrected by himself and Melancthon. This translation having been printed several times, and in general circulation, Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, the emperor’s brother, made a very severe edict, to suppress its publication, and forbade all the subjects of his imperial majesty to have any copies of it, or of Luther’s other books. Some other princes followed his example, which provoked Luther to write a treatise “Of the secular power,” in which he accuses them of tyranny and impiety. The diet of the empire was held at Nuremberg, at the end of the year; to which Adrian VI. sent his brier', dated Nov. the 25th; for Leo X, died Dec. 2, 1521, and Adrian bad been elected pope the 9th of Jan. following. In this brief, among other things, he informs the diet, that he had heard, with grief, that Martin Luther, after the sentence of Leo X. which was ordered to be executed by the edict of Worms, continued to teach the same errors, and daily to publish books full of heresies: that it appeared strange to him, that so large and so religious a nation could be seduced by a wretched apostate friar: that nothing, however, could be more pernicious to Christendom: and that, therefore, he e.thorts them to use their utmost endeavours to make Luther, and the authors of these tumults, return to their duty; or, if they refuse and continue obstinate, to proceed against them according to the laws of the empire, and the severity of the last edict.

The resolution of this diet was published in the form of an edict, March 6, 1523; but it had no effect in checking the Lutherans, who still went on in the same triumphant wanner. This year Luther wrote a great many tracts: among the rest, one upon the dignity and office of the supreme magistrate; with which Frederic elector of Saxony is said to have been highly pleased. He sent, about the same time, a writing in the German language to the Waldenses, or Picards, in Bohemia and Moravia, who had applied to him “about worshipping the body of' Christ in the eucharist.” He wrote also another book, which he dedicated to the senate and people of Prague, “concerning the institution of ministers of the church.” He drew up a form of saying mass. He wrote a piece entitled " Ad Example of Popish Doctrine and Divinity;: ' which Dnpin calls a satire against nuns, and those who profess a monastic life. He wrote also against the vows of virginity, in his preface to his commentary on 1 Cor. vii.: and his exhortations here were, it seems, followed with effects; for, soon after, nine nuns eloped from a nunnery, and were brought to Wittemberg. Whatever offence this proceeding might give to the papists, it was highly extolled by Luther; who, in a book written in the German language, compares the deliverance of these nuns from the slavery of a monastic life, to that of the souls whichJesus Christ has; delivered by his death. This year he had occasion to lament the death of two of his followers, who were burnt ar Brussels, and were the first who suffered martyrdom for his doctrine. He wrote also a consolatory epistle to three noble ladies at Misnia, who were banished from the duke of Saxony’s court at Friburg, for reading his books.

In the beginning of 1524, Clement VII. sent a legate into Germany to the diet which was to be held at Nuremberg. This pope had succeeded Adrian, who died in Oct. 1523, and had, a little before his death, canonized Benno, who Was bishop of Meissen in the time of Gregory VII. and one of the most zealous defenders of the holy se. Luther, imagining that this was done directly to oppose him, drew up a piece with this title, “Against the new Idol and Devil set up at Meissen;” in which he treats the memory of Gregory with great freedom, and does not spare even Adrian. Clement VII.'s legate, therefore, represented to the diet at Nuremberg the necessity of enforcing the execution of the edict of Worms, which had been strangely neglected by the princes of the empire; but, notwithstanding the legate’s solicitations, which were very pressing, the decrees of that diet were thought so ineffectual, that they were condemned at Rome, and rejected by the emperor. It was in this year that the dispute between Luther and Erasmus began about free-will. Erasmus had been much courted by the papists to write against Luther; but had hitherto avoided the task, by saying, “that Luther was too great a man for him to write against, and that he had learned more from one short page of Luther, than from all the large books of Thomas Aquinas.” Besides, Erasmus was all along of opinion, that writing would not be found an effectual way to end the differences, and establish the peace of the church. Tired out, however, at length with the importunities of the pope and the catholic princes, and desirous at the same time to clear himself from the suspicion of favouring a cause which he would not seem to favour, he resolved to write against Luther, though, as he tells Melancthon, it was with some reluctance; and he chose free-will for the subject. His book was entitled “A diatriba, or Conference about Free-will,” and was wriuen with much moderation, and without personal reflections. He tells Luther in the preface, “that he ought not to take his differing from him in opinion ill, because he had allowed himself the liberty of differing from the judgment of popes, councils, universities and doctors of the church.” Luther was some time before he answered Erasmus’s book, but at last published a treatise “De servo arbitrio, or, Of the Servitude of Man’s Will;” and though Melancthon had promised Krasmus, that Luther should answer him with civility and moderation, yet Luther had so little regard to Melancthon’s promise, that he never wrote any thing more severe. He accused Erasmus of being carelrsn about religion, and little solicitous what became of it, provided the world continued in peace; and that his notions were rather philosophical than Christian. Erasmus immediately replied to Luther,- in a piece called “Hyperaspistes”. in the first part of which he answers his arguments, and in the second his personal reflections.

In October 1524, Luther threw off the monastic habit; which, though not premeditated and designed, was yet a very proper preparative to a step he took the year after; we mean, his marriage with Catherine de Bore. Catherine cie Bore was a gentleman’s daughter, who had been a nun, and was one of those whom we mentioned as escaping from tue nunnery in 1523. Luther had a design to marry her to Glacius, a minister of Ortamuncien; but she did not like Glacius, and Luther married her himself, June 13, 1525. This conduct of his was blamed not only by the catholics, but, as Melancthon says, by those of his own party. He was even for some time ashamed of it himself; aud owns, “that his marriage had made him so despicable, that he hoped his humiliation would rejoice the angels, and vex the devils.” Melancthon found him so afflicted with what he had done, that he wrote some letters of consolation to him: he adds, however, that “this accident may possibly not be without its use, as it tends to humble him a little: for it is dangerous,” says he, “not only for a priest, but for any man, to be too much elated and puffed up; great success giving occasion to the sin of a high mind, not only, as the orator says, in fools, but sometimes even in wise men.” It was not so much the marriage, as the circumstances of the time, and the precipitation with which it was done, that occasioned the censures passed upon Luther. He married very suddenly, and at a time when Germany was groaning under the miseries of war, which was said at least to be owing to Lutheranism. It was thought also an indecent thing in a man of forty-two years of age, who was then, as he declared, restoring the gospel and reforming mankind, to involve himself in marriage with a woman of six and twenty, upon any pretext. But Luther, as soon as he had recovered himself a little from this abashment, assumed his former air of intrepidity, and boldly supported what he had done with reasons. “I took a wife,” says he, “in obedience to my father’s commands, and hastened the consummation, in or 1 r to prevent impediments, and stop the tongues of slanderers.” It appears from his own confessions, that,this reformer was very fond of Mrs. de Bore, and used to call her his Catherine; which occasioned some slanderous reflections and therefore, says he, “I married of a sudden, not only that J might not be obliged to hear the clamours which I knew would be raised against me, but to stop the mouths of those who reproached me with Catherine de Bore.” Luther also gives us to understand, that he did it partly as concurring with his grand scheme of opposing the catholics. “See,” says he, “because they are thus mad, I have so prepared myself, that, before I die, I may be found by God in the state in which I was created, and, if possible, retain nothing of my former popish life. Therefore let them rave yet more, and this will be their last farewell; for my mind presages, that I shall soon be called by God unto his grace: therefore, at my father’s commands, I have taken a xtife.” In another letter he speaks thus: “1 hope I shall live a little longer, and I would not deny this last obedience to my father, who required it in hopes of issue, and also to confirm the doctrines I have taught.”

Luther, notwithstanding, was not himself altogether satisfied with these reasons. He did not think the step he bad taken could be sufficiently justified upon the principles of human prudence; and therefore we find him, in other places, endeavouring to account for it from a supernatural impulse. “The wise men amongst us are greatly proyoked,” says he; “they are forced to own the thing to be of God, but the disguise of the persons under which it is transacted, namely, of the young woman and myself, makes them think and say every thing that is wicked.” And elsewhere: “The Lord brought me suddenly, when I was thinking of other matters, to a marriage with Catherine (le Bore, the nun.” His party seem also to have favoured this supposition. Thus says Melancthon: “As for the* unreasonableness and want of consideration in this marriage, on which account our adversaries will chiefly slander us, we must take heed lest that disturb us: for perhaps there is some secret, or something divine couched under it, concerning which it does not become us to inquire too curiously; nor ought we to regard the scoffs of those who exercise neither piety towards God, nor virtue towards men.” Bnt whether there was any thing divine in it or not, Luther found himself extremely happy in his new state, and especially after his wife had brought him a son. “My rib Kate,” says he in the joy of his heart, “desires her compliments to you, and thanks you for the favour of your kind letter. She is very well, through God’s mercy. She is obedient and complying with me in all things, and more agreeable, I thank God, than I could have expected; so tuat I would not change my p iverty for the wealth of Croesus.” He was heard to say, Seckeiulorf tells us, “that he would not exchange his wile for the kingdom of France, nor for the riches of the Venetians, and that for three reasons: first, because she had been given him by God, at the time when he implored the assistance of the Holy Ghost in finding a good wife: secondly, because, though she was not without faults, yet she had fewer than other women: and, thirdly, because she religiously observed the conjugal fidelity she owed him.” There was at first a report, that Catherine de Bore was brought to bed soon after her marriage with Luther; but Erasmus, who wrote that news to one of his friends, acknowledged the falsehood of it a little after, in one of his letters, dated the 13th of March, 1526: “Luther’s marriage is certain; the report of his wife’s being so speedily brought to bed is false; but I hear she is now with child. If the common story be true, that antichrist shall be born of a monk and a nun, as some pretended, how many thousands of antichrists are there in the world already? I was in hopes that a wife would have made Luther a little tamer: but he, contrary to all expectation, has published, indeed, a most elaborate, but as virulent a book against me, as ever he wrote. What will become of the pacific Erasmus, to be obliged to descend upon the stage, at a time of life when gladiators are usually dismissed from the service; and not only to fight, but to fight with beasts!”

In the mean time the disturbances in Germany increased everyday; and the war with the Turks, which brought the empire into danger, forced Charles V. at length to call a diet at Spires by his letters, May 24, 1525. After he had given the reasons why the diet was not held the year before, as it was appointed, he said, “That it was not because he thought that the imperial diets ought not to meddle with matters of religion; for he acknowledged, that, on the contrary, it was his duty to protect the Christian religion, to maintain the rights settled by their ancestors, and to prevent novelties and pernicious doctrines from arising and spreading but that, being certified that th<- edict of Worms was not executed in some parts of Germany, that there had been commotions and rebellions in some places, that the princes and members of the empire had many quarrels among themselves, that the Turk was ready to break in upon the territories of the empire, and that there were many disorders which needed a reformation, he had therefore appointed an imperial diet to meet at Augsburg upon the 1st of October.” Few of the princes, however, being able to meet at Augsburg, on account of the popular tumults which prevailed, the diet was prorogued, and fixed again at Spires, where it was held in June 1526. The emperor was not present in person: but Ferdinand his brother, and six other deputies, acted in his name. The elector of Saxony, and the landgrave of Hesse, who were of Luther’s party, came to it. At the opening of it, upon the 25th, the emperor’s deputies proposed such things as were to be the subject of consultation, and said, “That it was the emperor’s design, that the members of this diet should prescribe the means of securing the Christian religion, and the ancient discipline of the church derived to us by tradition; the punishments they should suffer, who did any thing contrary; and how the popish princes might assist each other best, in executing the edict of Worms.” The deputies nominated to debate this matter, were, among others, the landgrave of Hesse, Sturmius deputy of Strasburg, and Cressy deputy of Nuremberg, who embraced Luther’s doctrine; so that they could form no resolution conformable to the edict of Worms, but disputes ensued, and things were likely to end in a rupture. The elector of Saxony, landgrave of Hesse, and their party, were ready to withdraw; but Ferdinand, and the emperor’s deputies, foreseeing that if the diet broke up with these animosities, and came to no conclusion, all Germany would be in danger of falling into quarrels, took pains to pacify them, and brought them at last to make the following resolution viz. “That it being necessary, for the wel fart- m religion and the public peace, to call a national council in Germany, or a general one in Christendom, which should be opened within a year, deputies should be sent to the emperor, to desire him to return to Germany as soon as he could, and to hold a council; and that, in the mean time, the princes and states should so demean themselves concerning the edict of Worms, as to be able to give an account of their carriage to God and the emperor.”

The elector John of Saxony (for Frederic was dead), the elector of Brandenburg, Ernest and Francisdukes of Lunenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, protested against this decree of the diet. Their reasons were, 4t Ttiat they ought not to do any thing to infringe upon the determination of the former diet, which had granted liberty in religion, till the holding of the council; that that resolution, having been taken by the unanimous consent of all the members of the empire, could not be repealed but by the like consent; that, in the diet of Nuremberg, the original cause of all the differences in religion was searched into, and that, to allay them, they had offered to the pope eighty articles, to which his holiness had given no answer; that the effect of their consultations had always been, that the best way to end disputes and reform abuses was to hold a council; that they could not suffer opinions to be forced from them, which th^y judged true and agreeable to the word of God, before the council was held; that their ministers had proved, by invincible arguments taken out of Scripture, that the popish mass was contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ, and the practice of the apostles, so that they could not agree to what uas ordered in the diet; that they knew the judgment of their churches concerning the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist; but that they ought not to make a decree against those who were of a contrary opinion, because they were neither summoned nor heard: that they could indeed venture to approve of the clause about preaching the gospel according to the interpretation received in the church, since that did not determine the matter, it being yet in dispute what was the true church; that there was nothing more certain than the word of Go4 itself, which explains itself, and therefore they would take care, that nothing else should be taught but the Old and New Testament in their purity; that they are the only infallible rule, and that all human traditions are uncertain; that the decree of the former diet was made for the preservation of peace, but that this last would infallibly beget wars and troubles. For these reasons they could not approve of the decree of the diet, but yet would do nothing that should be blame- worthy, till a council, either general or national, should be held." Fourteen cities, viz. Strasburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Constance, Retlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindow, Ketnpten, Hailbron, Isny, Weissemburg, Nortlingen, S. Gal, joined in this protestation, which was put into writing, and published the 19th of April, 1529, by an instrument, in which they appealed from all that should be done, to the emperor, a future council, either general or national, or to unsuspected judges; and accordingly they appointed deputies to send to the emperor, to* petition that this decree might be revoked. This was the famous protestation, which gave the name of Protestants to the reformers in Germany.

In 1533 Luther wrote a consolatory epistle to the citizens of Oschatz, who had suffered some hardships for adhering to the Augsburg confession of faith; in which, among other things, he says, " The devil is the host, and the world is his inn, so that wherever you come, you shall be sure to find this ugly host.' 1 He had also about this time a warm controversy with George duke of Saxony, who had such an aversion to Luther’s doctrine, that he obliged his subjects to take an oath that they would never embrace it. Sixty or seventy citizens of Leipsic, however, were found to have deviated a little from the catholic doctrine, in some point or other, and they were known previously to have consulted Luther about it on which George complained to the elector John, that, Luther had not only abused his person, but also preached up rebellion among his subjects. The elector ordered Luther to be acquainted with this, and to be told at tle same time, that if be did not clear himself of the charge, he could not possibly escape punishment. Luther, however, easily refuted the accusation, by proving that he had been so fur from stirring up his subjects against him on the score of religion, that, on the contrary, he had exhorted them rather to undergo the greatest hardships, and even to suffer themselves to be banished.

In this manner he was employed till his death, which happened in 1546. That year, accompanied by Melancthon, he paid a visit to his own country, which he had not seen for many years, and returned again in safety. But soon after he was called thither again by the earls of Mansfelt, to compose some differences which had arisen about their boundaries. He had not been used to such matters; but because he was born at Isleben, a town in the territory of Mansfelt, he was willing to do his country what service he could, even in this way. Preaching his last sermon, therefore, at Wittemberg, Jan. 17, he set off the 23d; and at Hall in Saxony lodged with Justus Jonas, with whom he stayed three days, because the waters were out. The 28th he passed over the river with his three sons, and Jonas and being in some danger, he said to the doctor, “Do not you think it would rejoice the deril exceedingly, if I and you, and my three sons, should be drowned” When he entered the territories of the earl of Mansfelt, he was received by 100 horsemen or more, and conducted in a very honourable manner; but was at the same time so very ill that it was feared he would die. He said that these fits of sickness often came upon him when he had any great business to undertake: of this, however, he did not recover, but died Feb. 18, in his sixty-third year. A little before he expired he admonished those that were about him to pray to God for the propagation of the gospel “because,” said he, “the council of Trent, which had sat once or twice, and the pope, will devise strange things against it.” Soon after, his body was put into a leaden coffin, and carried with funeral pomp to the church at Isleben, when Jonas preached a sermon upon the occasion. The earls of Mansfelt desired that his body should be interred in their territories; but the elector of Saxony intsted upon his being brought back to Wittemberg, which was accordingly done; and there he was buried with the greatest pomp that perhaps ever happened to any private mail. Princes, earls, nobles, aad students without number, attended the procession; and Melancthon made his funeral oration.

A thousand falsehoods were invented by the papists about his death. Some said that he died suddenly; others, that he killed himself; others, that the devil strangled him; others, that his corpse stunk so abominably that they were forced to leave it in the way as it was carried to be interred. Similar slanders were even invented about his death, while he was yet alive for a pamphlet was published at Naples, and in other places of Italy, the year before, wherein was given the following account: “Luther, being dangerously sick, desired to communicate, and died as soon as he had received the viaticum. As he was dying, he desired his body might be laid upon the altar, to be adored; but that request being neglected, he was buried. When, lo! at his interment there arose a furious tempest, as if the world was at an end; and the terror was universal. Some, in lifting their hands up to heaven, perceived that the host, which the deceased had presumed to take, was suspended in the air; upon which it was gathered up with great veneration, and laid in a sacred place, and the tempest ceased for the present; but it arose the night following with greater fury, and filled the whole town with consternation; and the next day Luther’s sepulchre was found open and empty, and a sulphureous stench proceeded from it, which nobody could bear. The assistants fell sick of it, and many of them repented, and returned to the catholic church.” We have related this as a specimen of the innumerable falsehoods that the papists have invented about Luther; in which, as Bayle observes very truly, they have shewn no regard either to probability, or to the rules of the art of slandering, but have assumed all the confidence of those who fully believe that the public will blindly and implicitly receive their stories, be they ever so absurd and incredible. Luther, however, to give the most effectual refutation of this account of his death, published an advertisement of his being alive; and wrote a book at the same time to prove that “Papacy was founded by the devil.” Amidst all this malice of the papists towards Luther, we must not forget a generous action of the emperor Charles V. which is an exception to it. While Charles’s troops quartered at Wittemberg in 1547, which was one year after Luther’s death, a soldier gave Luther’s effigies, in the church of the castle, two stabs with his dagger; and the Spaniards earnestly desired that his tomb might be pulled down, and his bones dug up and burnt: but the emperor wisely answered, “I have nothing farther to do with Luther; he has henceforth another judge, whose jurisdiction it is not lawful fur me to usurp. Know, that I make not war with the dead, but with the living, who still make war with me.” He would not therefore suffer his tomb to be demolished; and he forbad any attempt of that nature upon pain of death.

After this long, but we trust, not uninteresting account of the great founder of the Reformation, we shall select only, on the part of the Roman catholics, the opinion of father Simon, respecting his talents as an interpreter of scripture, for this is a part of his character which must appear very important, as he was the first who boldly undertook to reform an overgrown system of idolatry and superstition by the pure word of God. “Luther,” says this critical author, “was the first protestant who ventured to translate the dible into the vulgar tongue from the Hebrewtext, although he understood Hebrew but very indifferently. As he was of a free and bold spirit, he accuses St. Jerom of ignorance in the Hebrew tongue; but he had more reason to accuse himself of this fault, and for having so precipitately undertaken a work of this nature, which required more time than he employed about it. Thus we find that he was obliged to review his translation, and make a second edition; but, notwithstanding this review, the most learned protestants of that time could not approve of either the one or the other, and several of them took the liberty to mark the faults, which were very numerous.” In another place he speaks of him not as a translator, but as a commentator, in the following manner: “Luther, the German protestant’s patriarch, was not satisfied with making a translation of the whole Bible, both from the Hebrew and Greek, into his mother tongue, but thought he ought to explain the word of God according to his own method, for the better fixing of their minds whom he had drawn to his party. But this patriarch could succeed no better in his commentaries upon the Bible than in his translation. He made both the one and the other with too little consideration; and he very often consults only his own prejudices. That he might be thought a learned man, he spends time to no purpose in confuting of other people’s opinions, which he fancies ridiculous. He mixes very improperly theological questions and several other things with his commentaries, so that they may rather be called lectures, and disputes in divinity, than real commentaries. This may be seen in his exposition on Genesis, where there are many idle digressions. He thought, that by reading of morality, and bawling against those who were not of nis opinion, he might very much illustrate the word of God; yet one may easily see by his own books, that he was a turbulent and passionate man, who had only a little flashy wit and quickness of invention. There is nothing great or learned in his commentaries upon the Bible; every thing low and mean: and as he had studied divinity, he has rather composed a rhapsody of theological questions, than a commentary upon the scripture text: to which we may add, that he wanted understanding, and usually followed his senses instead of his reason.”

This is the language of those in the church of Rome who speak of Luther with any degree of moderation; for the generality allow him neither parts nor learning, nor any attainment intellectual or moral. They tell you that he was not only no divine, but even an outrageous enemy and calumniator of all kinds of science; and that he committed gross, stupid, and abominable errors against the principles of divinity and philosophy. They accuse him of having confessed, that after struggling for ten years together with his conscience, he at last became a perfect master of it, and fell into Atheism; and add, that he frequently said he would renounce his portion in heaven, provided God would allow him a pleasant life for 100 years upon earth. And, lest we should wonder that so monstrous and much unheard-of impiety should be found in a mere human creature, they make no scruple to say that an Incubus begat him. These, and many more such scandalous imputations, Bayle has been at the pains to collect, and has treated them with all the contempt and just indignation they deserve.

On the protestant side, the character given of Luther by Dr. Robertson, seems, on the whole, the most just and impartial that has yet appeared. “As he was raised by Providence,” says this excellent historian, " to be the author of one of the greatest and most interesting revolutions recorded in history, there is not any person, perhaps, whose character has been drawn with such opposite colours. In his own age, one party, struck with horror aud inflamed with rage, when they saw with what a daring hand he overturned everything which they held to be sacred, or valued as beneficial, imputed to him not only the defects and vices of a man, but the qualities of a demon. The other, warmed with the admiration and gratitude which they thought he merited, as the restorer of light and liberty to the Christian church, ascribed to hiui perfections above the condition of humanity, and viewed all his actions with a veneration bordering on that which should be paid only to those who are guided by the immediate inspiration of heaven. It is his own conduct, not the undistinguishing censure or the extravagant praise of his contemporaries, that ought to regulate the opinions of the present age concerning him. Zeal for what he regarded as truth; undaunted intrepidity to maintain his own system; abilities, both natural and acquired, to defend his principles; and unwearied industry in propagating them; are virtues which shine so conspicuously in every part of his behaviour, that even his enemies must allow him to have possessed them in an eminent degree. To these may be added, with equal justice, such purity and even austerity of manners, as became one who assumed the character of a reformer; such sanctity of life as suited the doctrine which he delivered; and such perfect disinterestedness, as affords no slight presumption of his sincerity. Superior to all selfish considerations, a stranger to the elegancies of life, and despising its pleasures, he left the honours and emoluments of the church to his disciples, remaining satisfied himself in his original state of professor in the university, and pastor of the town of Wittemberg, with the moderate appointments annexed to these offices. His extraordinary qualities were allayed by no inconsiderable mixture of human frailties and human passions. These, however, were of such a nature, that they cannot be imputed to malevolence or corruption of heart, but seem to have taken their rise from the same source with many of his virtues. His mind, forcible and vehement in all its operations, roused by great objects, or agitated by violent passions, broke out, on many occasions, with an impetuosity which astonishes men of feebler spirits, or such as are placed in a more tranquil situation. By carrying some praise-worthy dispositions to excess, he bordered sometimes on what was culpable, and was often betrayed into actions which exposed him to censure. His confidence that his own opinions were well-founded, appreached to arrogance; his courage in asserting them, to rashness; his firmness in adhering to them, to obstinacy; and his zeal in confuting his adversaries, to rage and scurrility. Accustomed himself to consider every thing as subordinate to truth, he expected the same deference for it from other men; and, without making any allowances for their timidity or prejudices, he poured forth against such as disappointed him in this particular, a torrent of invective mingled with contempt. Regardless of any distinction of rank or character when his doctrines were attacked, he chastised all his adversaries indiscriminately, with the same rough hand: neither the royal dignity of Henry VIII, nor the eminent learning and abilities of Erasmus, screened them from the same gross abuse with which he treated Tetzel or Eckius.

"But these indecencies of which Luther was guilty, must not be imputed wholly to the violence of his temper. They ought to be charged in part on the manners of the age. Among a rude people, unacquainted with those maxims, which, by putting constraint on the passions of individuals, have polished society, and rendered it agreeable, disputes of every kind were managed with heat, and strong emotions were uttered in their natural language without reserve or delicacy. At the same time, the works of learned men were all composed in Latin; and they were not only authorized, by the example of eminent writers in that language, to use their antagonists with the most illiberal scurrility; but, in a dead tongue, indecencies of every kind appear less shocking than in a living language, whose idioms and phrases seem gross, because they are familiar.

“In passing judgment upou the characters of men, we ought to try them by the principles and maxims of their own age, not by those of another. For, although virtue and vice are at all times the same, manners and customs vary continually. Some parts of Luther’s behaviour which to us appear most culpable, gave no disgust to his contemporaries. It was even by some of those qualities which we are now apt to blame, that he was fitted for accomplishing the great work he undertook. To rouse mankind, when sunk in ignorance or superstition, and to encounter the rage of bigotry armed with power, required the utmost vehemence of zeal, as well as a temper daring to excess. A gentle call would neither have reached, nor have excited those to whom it was addressed. A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous than Luther’s, would have shrunk back from the dangers which he braved and surmounted. Toward the close of Luther’s life, though without any perceptible diminution of his zeal or abilities, the infirmities of his temper increased upon him, so that he grew daily more peevish, more irascible, and more impatient of contradiction. Having lived to be a witness of his own amazing success; to see a great part of Europe embrace his doctrines; and to shake the foundation of the papal throne, before which the mightiest monarchs had trembled, he discovered, on some occasions, symptoms of vanity and self- applause. He must have been, indeed, more than man, if, upon contemplating all that he actually accomplished, he had never felt any sentiments of this kind rising in his breast.”

Lutheiamsi has undergone some alteration since the time of its founder. Luther rejected the epistle of St. James, as inconsistent with the doctrine of St. Paul, in relation to justification; he also set aside the Apocalypse; both which are now received as canonical in the Lutheran church. Luther reduced the numher of sacraments to two, viz. baptism, and the eucharist; but he believed the impanation, or consubstantiation: that is, that the matter of the bread and wine remain with the body and blood of Christ; and it is in this article, that the main difference between the Lutheran and English churches consists. Luther maintained the mass to be no sacrifice; he exploded the adoration of the host, auricular confession, meritorious works, indulgences, purgatories, the worship of images, &c. which had been introduced in the corrupt times of the Romish church. He also opposed the doctrine of free-will; maintained predestination; asserted that we are necessitated in all we do; that all our actions done in a state of sin, and even the virtues themselves of heathens, are crimes; that we are justified only by the merits and satisfaction of Christ. He also opposed the fastings in the Roman church, monastical vows, the celibacy of the clergy, &c.

, a Greek poet and grammarian, was a native of Chalcis, in Eubcea, and according to Ovid, was killed by a shot with an arrow. He flourished about 304 years before Christ, and wrote a poem entitled “Alexandra,” or Cassandra, containing a long course of predictions, which he supposes to be made by Cassandra, daughter of Priam, king of Troy. This poem has created a great deal of trouble to the learned, on account of its obscurity, which procured him the title of “the tenebrous poet.” Suidas has preserved the titles of twenty tragedies of his composing; and he is reckoned in the number of the poets who were called the Pleiades, and who flourished under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt. The best edition of “Lycophron,” is that at Oxford, 1697, by Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Potter; re-printed therein 1701, folio. A few years ago, the rev. Henry Meen, B. D. published “Remarks” on the “Cassandra,” which are highly judicious, and his conjectures in illustration of the obscurities of Lycophron, plausible and happy.

, the celebrated lawgiver of Sparta, flourished, according to the most judicious modern chronologers, about 898 years before the Christian aera. Plutarch seems to think that he was the fifth in descent from Procles, and the tenth from Hercules. When the sceptre devolved to him by the death of his brother Polydectes, the widow of that prince was pregnant. He was no sooner assured of this, than he determined to hold the sovereign power in trust only, in case the child should prove a son, and took the title of Prodicus or Protector, instead of that of king. It is added, that he had the virtue to resist the offers of the queen, who would have married him, with the dreadful promise that no son should be born to intercept his views. A son at length was born, and publicly presented by him to the people, from whose joy on the occasion he named the infant Charilaus, i. e. the people’s joy. Lycurgus was at this time a young man, and the state of Sparta was too turbulent and licentious for him to introduce any system of regulation, without being armed with some more express authority. How long he continued to administer the government is uncertain; probably till his nephew was of age to take it into his own hands. After resigning it, howeyer, he did not long remain in Sparta, but went as a traveller to visit other countries and study their laws, particularly those of Crete, which were highly renowned for their excellence, and had been instituted by Rhadamanthus and Minos, two illustrious legislators, who pretended to have received their laws from Jupiter. Lycurgus passed some years in this useful employment, but he had left behind him such a reputation for wisdom and justice, that when the corruption and confusion of the state became intolerable, he was recalled by a public invitation to assume the quality of legislator, and to new model the government.

Lycurgus willingly returned to undertake the task thus devolved upon him, and, having obtained, after various difficulties, the co-operation of the kings, and of the various orders of the people, he formed that extraordinary system of government which has been the wonder of all subsequent ages, but which has been too much detailed by various authors, for us to enter into the particulars. When with invincible courage, unwearied perseverance, and a judgment and penetration still more extraordinary, he had formed and executed the most singular plan that ever was devised, he waited for a time to see his great machine in motion; and finding it proceed to his wish, he had now no other object but to secure its duration. For this purpose he convened the kings, senate, and people, told them that he wished to visit Delphi, to consult the oracle on the constitution he had formed, and engaged them all to bind themselves by a most solemn oath, that nothing should be altered before his return. The approbation of the oracle he received, but he returned no more, being determined to bind his countrymen indissolubly to the observance of his laws, and thinking his life, according to the enthusiastic patriotism of those times, a small sacrifice to secure the welfare of his country. Different accounts are given of the place and manner of his death. According to some authors, he died by voluntary abstinence. One tradition says, that he lived to a good old age in Crete, and dying a natural death, his body was burned, according to the practice of the age, and his relics, pursuant to his own request, scattered in the sea; lest if his bones or ashes had ever been carried to Sparta, the Lacedemonians might have thought themselves free from the obligation of their oath, to preserve his laws unaltered. He is supposed to have died after the year 873 B. C. His laws were abrogated by Philopaemen in the year 188 B. C.; but the Romans very soon re-established them.

, an Athenian orator, contemporary with Demosthenes, was born about 408 years before the Christian acra, and died about or after 328. He was an Athenian, and the son of a person named Lycophron. He studied philosophy under Plato, and rhetoric under Isocrates. He was of the most exalted character for integrity, in which he was severely scrupulous; a strenuous defender of liberty, a perpetual opposer of Philip and Alexander, and a firm friend of Demosthenes. As a magistrate, he proceeded with severity against criminals, but kept a register of all his proceedings, which, on quitting his office, he submitted to public inspection. When he was about to die, he publicly offered his actions to examination, and refuted the only accuser who appeared against him. He was one of the thirty orators whom the Athenians refused to give up to Alexander. One oration of his, against Leocrates, is still extant, and has been published in the collections of Aldus, Taylor, and Reiske. His eloquence partook of the manly severity and truth of his character.

Lydgate’s pieces are very numerous. Ritson has given a list of two hundred and fifty-one, some of which he admits may not be Lydgate’s, but he supposes, on the other hand, that he may be the author of many others that are anonymous. His most esteemed works are his “Story of Thebes,” his “Fall of Princes,” and his “History, Siege, and Destruction of Troy.” The first is printed by Speght in his edition of Ghaucer; the second, the “Fall of Princes,” or “Boke of Johan Bochas,” (first printed by Pinson in 1494, and several times since,) is a translation from Boccaccio, or rather from a French paraphrase of his work “De casibus Virorum et Feminarum illustrium.” The “History, &c. of Troy” was first printed by Pinson in 1513, but more correctly by Marshe in 1555. This was once the most popular of his works, and the inquisitive reader will find much curious information in it, although he may not be able to discover such poetical beauties as can justify its original popularity. That popularity was, indeed, says Mr. Ellis, excessive and unbounded; and it continued without much diminution during, at least, two centuries. To this the praises of succeeding writers bear ample testimony: but it is confirmed by a most direct and singular evidence. An anonymous writer has taken the pains to modernize the entire poem, consisting of about 28,000 verses, to change the ancient context, and almost every rhyme, and to throw the whole into six-line stanzas; and after all he published it with the name of Lydgate, tinder the title of “The Life and Death of Hector,” 1614, folio, printed by Thomas Purfoot. Of the general merits of Lydgate, Warton has spoken very favourably; Percy, Ritson, and Pinkerton, with contempt; and Mr. Ellis with the caution of a man of correct taste and judgment.

, an eminent English scholar, was born at Alkrington or Okerton, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, in 1572. His father, observing his natural talents, sent him to Winchester school, where he was admitted a scholar on the foundation, at thirteen; and, being elected thence to New-college in Oxford, was put under the tuition of Dr. (afterwards sir) Henry Martin, who became so well known during the rebellion. Mr. Lydiat was made probationer fellow in 1591, and two years after, actual fellow. Then taking his degree in arts, he applied himself to astronomy, mathematics, and divinity, in the last of which studies he was very desirous of continuing; but, finding a great defect in his memory and utterance, he chose rather to resign his fellowship, which he could not hold without entering the church, and live upon his small patrimony. This was in 1603; and he spent seven years after in finishing and printing such books as he had begun when in college. He first appeared as an author in 1605, by publishing his “Tractatus de variis annorum formis.” Of this he published a defence in 1607, against the censures of Joseph Scaliger, whom he more directly attacked in his “Emendatio Temporum ab initio mundi hue usque compendio facta, contra Scaligerum et alios,” 1609. This he dedicated to prince Henry, eldest son of James I. He was chronographer and cosmographer to that prince, who had a great respect for him, and, had he lived, would certainly have made a provision for him. In 1609, he became acquainted with Dr. Usher, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, who took him into Ireland, and placed him in the college at Dublin, where he continued two years; and then purposing to return to England, the lord-deputy and chancellor of Ireland made him, at his request, a joint promise of a competent support, upon his coming back thither. This appears to have been the mastership of the school at Armagh, endowed with 50l. per annum in laud.

When he came to England, which appears to have been in 1611, he is supposed to have been married, and to Usher’s sister; but for either supposition there seems very little foundation. Soon after his return, however, the rectory of Okerton becoming void, was offered to him; and though while he was fellow of New-college, he had refused the offer of it by his father, who was the patron, yet he now accepted it, and was instituted in 1612. Here he seems to have lived happily for many years: but being imprudently security for the debts of a near relation, which he was unable to pay, he was successively imprisoned at Oxford, the King’s-bench, and elsewhere, in 1629, or 1630, and remained a prisoner till sir William Boswell, a great patron of learned men, joining with Dr. Pink, warden of New-college, and Dr. Usher, paid the debt, and released him; and archbishop Laud also, at the request of sir Henry Martin, gave his assistance on this occasion . He had no sooner got his liberty, than, out of an ardent zeal to promote literature and the honour of his country, he petitioned Charles I for his protection and encouragement to travel into Turkey, Ethiopia, and the Abyssinian empire, in searcli of manuscripts relating to civil or ecclesiastical history, or any other branch of learning, and to print them in England. For the farther advancement of this design, he also requested the king would apply, by his ambassadors and ministers, to such princes as were in alliance with him, for a similar privilege to be granted to Lydiat and his assigns: this was a spirited design, but it was impossible for the king at that unhappy period to pay attention to it.

Although he took no active part in the disputes of the nation, he gave his opinion on some subjects arising out of them, respecting toleration, in a work entitled “Cases of conscience propounded in the time of Rebellion,” which bishop Kennet in his “Chronicle” says is written, with plainness, modesty, and impartiality. His other works are, 1. “Principles of Faith and of a good Conscience,” Lond. 1642; Oxford, 1652, 8vo. 2. “An Apology for our public Ministry and infant Baptism,” ibid. 1652, 1653, 4 to. 3. “The plain man’s senses exercised to discern both good and evil; or a discovery of the errors, heresies, and blasphemies of these times,” ibid. 1655, 4to, with some other pious tracts.

In 1757 he had an opportunity again of rendering himself conspicuous in a political capacity, by the part which he took in the famous convention of Closter-seven, entered into between the duke of Richelieu, commander of the French forces, and the duke of Cumberland, who was then at the head of the allied army. In this, however, he met with many difficulties, as the history of that convention shows; and the king of France and his Britannic majesty at last refused their ratification. In March 1763 he was invested with the order of the elephant by Frederic V. the highest honour his sovereign could bestow; but some complaints being made against him on account of his administration, which were not altogether groundless, he resigned in Oct. 1765. The remainder of his life he passed in retirement at Lubennau, where he died of a dropsy of the breast, Nov. 1781, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was a man of considerable learning, elegant address, and various accomplishments. His works are, I. A translation of “Seneca de Beneficiis,” Hamburgh, 1753, 8vo. 2. A translation of Seneca on “The Shortness of Life,” 1754. 3. “Der Sonderling,” or “The Singular Man,” Hanover, 1761, 8vo, and in French, Copenhagen, 1777, 8vo, a work which, according to his biographer Busching, is well worth a perusal. 4. “Historical, Political, and Moral Miscellanies,” in four parts, 1775 1777, 8vo. 5 Paraphrases on “The Epistles,” printed at various times, 1754 1770. 6. “The real state of Europe in the year 1737,” and several other articles in Busching’s Magazine for History and Geography.

His works are, 1. “Ancient characters of the visible Church, 1625.” 2. “Via tuta, the safe way, &c.” reprinted several times, and translated into Latin, Dutch, and French, printed at Paris, 1647, from the sixth edition published in 1636, 12mo, under the title of “Popery confuted by Papists,” &c. 3. “Via devia, the by-way,” &c. 1630 and 1632, 8vo. 4. “A Case for the Spectacles; or, a Defence of the Via tuta,” in answer to a book written by J. R. called “A pair of Spectacles,” &c. with a supplement in Vindication of sir Humphrey, by the publisher, Dr. Daniel Featly. A book entitled “A pair of Spectacles for sir Humphrey Lynde,” was printed at Roan, 1631, in 8vo, by Robert Jenison, or Frevil, a Jesuit. 5. “An account of Bertram, with observations concerning the censures upon his Tract De corpore et sanguine Christi,” prefixed to an edition of it at London, 1623, 8vo, and reprinted there in 1686, 8vo, by Dr. Matthew Brian.

, son of a Polish Jew, who was a silversmith, and teacher of Hebrew at Cambridge, was born there, in 1739. He displayed wonderful talents as a young man; and shewed very early a great inclination to learning, particularly mathematics; but though Dr. Smith, then master of Trinity-college, offered to put him to school at his own expence, he would go only for a day or two, saying, “he could learn more by himself in an hour than in a day with his master.” He began the study of botany in. 1755, which he continued to his death; and could remember, not only the Linniean names of almost all the English plants, but even the synonyma of the old botanists, which form a strange and barbarous farrago of great bulk; and had collected large materials for a “Flora Cantabrigiensis,” describing fully every part of each plant from the life, without being obliged to consult, or being liable to be misled by, former authors. In 1758 he obtained much celebrity by publishing a treatise “on Fluxions,” dedicated to his patron, Dr. Smith; and in 1763 a work entitled “Fasciculus plantaruui circa Cantabrigiam nascentium, quae post Raium observatae fuere,” 8vo. Mr. Banks (now sir Joseph Banks, bart. and president of the royal society), whom he first instructed in this science, sent for him to Oxford, about 1762 or 1763, to read lectures; which he did with great applause, to at least sixty pupils; but could not be induced to make a long absence from Cambridge. He had a salary of a hundred pounds per annum for calculating the “Nautical Almanack,” and frequently received presents from the board of longitude for his inventions. He could read Latin and French with ease; but wrote the former ill; had studied the English history, and could quote whole passages from the Monkish writers verbatim. He was appointed by the board of longitude to go with captain Phipps (afterwards lord Mulgrave) to the North pote in 1773, and made the astronomical and other mathematical calculations, printed in the account of that voyage. After his return he married and settled in London, where, on May 1, 1775, he died of the measles. He was then engaged in publishing a complete edition of all the works of Dr. Halley. His “Calculations in Spherical Trigonometry abridged,” were printed in “Philosophical Transactions,*' vol. LXI. art. 46. After his death his name appeWed in the title-page of” A Geographical Dictionary,“of which the astronomical parts were said to be” taken from the papers of the late Mr. Israel Lyons, of Cambridge, author of several valuable mathematical productions, and astronomer in lord Mnlgrave’s voyage to the Northern hemisphere.“It remains to be noticed, that a work entitled” The Scholar’s Instructor, or Hebrew Grammar, by Israel Lyons, Teacher of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Cambridge: the second edition, with many Additions and Emendations which the Author has found necessary in his long course of teaching Hebrew,“Cambridge, 1757, 8vo, was the production of his father; as was a treatise printed at the Cambridge press, under the title of” Observations and Enquiries relating to various parts of Scripture History, 1761," published by subscription at two shillings and six-pence. He died in August 1770, and was buried, agreeably to his own desire, although contrary to the Jewish principles, in Great St. Mary’s Church-yard, Cambridge. He was on this occasion carried through the church, and his daughter Judith read some form of interment-service over his grave. He had resided near forty years at Cambridge.

, or Lyranus, a celebrated Franciscan, in the 14th century, and one of the most learned men of his time, was born of Jewish parents at Lyre, a town in Normandy, in the diocese of Evreux. After having been instructed in rabbinical learning, he embraced Christianity, entered among the Franciscans at Verneuil, 1291, and taught afterwards at Paris with great credit. He rose by his merit to the highest offices in his order, and also gained the esteem of the great; queen Jane, countess of Burgundy, and wife of Philip the Long, appointed him one of her executors in 1325. He died at a very advanced age, October 23, 1340, leaving some “Postils,” or short Commentaries on the whole Bible, which were formerly in considerable reputation the most scarce edition of them is that of Rome, 1472, seven vols, folio; and the best that of Antwerp, 1634, six vols. folio. These commentaries are incorporated in the “Biblia Maxima,” Paris, 1660, nineteen vols. folio; and there is a French translation of them, Paris, 1511, and 1512, five vols. folio. He published also “A Disputation against the Jews,” in 8vo, a treatise against a particular rabbi, who made use of the New Testament to combat Christianity. These, and his other works not printed, show the author to have had a much more perfect knowledge of the Holy Scriptures than was common at that time.

, a learned Protestant theologian, was born at Winendeen in the territory of Wittemberg, in the year 1552. He was educated at Tubingen, at the expence of the duke of Saxony, and became a minister of the church of Wittemberg in 1577. He was one of the first to sign the “Concord,” and was deputed, with James Andreas, to procure the signature of the divines and ministers in the electorate of Saxony. He died at Dresden, where he was then minister, February 14, 1601, aged 50, leaving a great number of works, both in German and Latin. The principal are, 1. “Explanations of Genesis,” in six parts, or six volumes, 4to, each of which bears the name of the patriarch whose history it explains. 2. “Comraentaries on the two first chapters of Daniel,” 2 vols. 4to. 3. “A Paraphrase on the History of the Passion,” 4to, or 12mo. 4. “Explanation of Psalm CI,” 8vo. 5. “Commentaries on the Minor Prophets,” 4to, published at Leipsic, 1609, by Poly carp Lyserus, his great-grandson, who has added some remarks on Haggai, according to his ancestor’s method. 6. “Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” 7. “Centuria qutestionum de articulis libri Christiana; Concordia?,” 4to. 8. “Christianismus, Papismus, Calvinismus,” 8vo. 9. “Harmonia Calvinianorum et Photinianorum in Doctrina de Sacra Cena,” 4to. 10. “Vindiciae Lyserianse, an sincretismus in rebus fidei cum Calvinianis coli prodest,” 4to. II. “Disputationes IX. Anti Steiniance quibus examinatur defensio concionis Irenicse Pauli Steinii,” 4to. 12. “Harmonia Evangelistarum continuata ad Christianam Harmoniam et ejusdem Epitome,” 8vo. 13. “Disput. de Deo patre Creatore coeli et terrae,” 4to. 14. “De seternitate Filii Dei,” 4to. 15. “De sacramentis decades duae,” 4to. He published also the “History of the Jesuits,” written by Elias Hasenmuller, who having quitted that society, and turned Lutheran, retired to Wittemberg, and died there before his work was printed. Father Gretser attacked this history, and Lyserus answered him by “Strena ad Gretserum pro honorario ejus,” 8vo.

, an eminent Greek orator, was born at Syracuse, about the year 459 B. C. He was educated at Athens, and became a teacher of rhetoric, and composed orations for others, but does not appear to have been a pleader. Of his orations, which are said to have amounted to three or four hundred, only thirty-four remain. He died in the eighty-first year of his age, and in the 378th year B.C. Cicero and Quintilian give him a very high character, and suppose that there is nothing of their kind more perfect than his orations. Lysias lived at a somewhat earlier period than Isocrates; and exhibits a model of that manner which the ancients call the “tenuis vel subtilis.” He has none of the pomp of Isocrates. He is every where pure and attic in the highest degree; simple and unaffected; but wants force, and is sometimes frigid in his compositions. In the judicious comparison which Dionysius of Halicarnassus makes of the merits of Lysias and Isocrates, he ascribes to Lysias, as the distinguishing character of his manner, a certain grace or elegance arising from simplicity: “the style of Lysias has gracefulness for its nature; that of Isocrates seems to have it.” In the art of narration, as distinct, probable, and persuasive, he holdsf Lysias to be superior to all orators; at the same time he admits, that his composition is more adapted to private litigation than to great subjects. He convinces, but he does not elevate nor animate. The magnificence and splendour of Isocrates are more suited to great occasions. He is more agreeable than Lysias; and in dignity of sentiment far excels him. The first edition of Lysias is that by Aldus, folio, 1513, in the first part of the “Rhetorum Gnecorum orationes.” The best modern editions are that of Taylor, beautifully and correctly printed by Bowyer, in 1739, 4to; of Reiske, at Leipsic, 1772, 8vo and of Auger at Paris, 1782. Auger also published an excellent French translation of Lysias in 1783.

, an elegant English writer, was the eldest son of sir Thomas Lyttelton, of Hagley, in Worcestershire, bart. and was born in 1709. He came into the world two months before the usual time, and was imagined by the nurse to be dead, but upon closer inspiection was found alive, and with some difficulty reared. At Eton school, where he was educated, he was so much distinguished that his exercises were recommended as models to his school-fellows. From Eton he went to Christ Church, where he retained the same reputation of superiority, and displayed his abilities to the public in a poem on Blenheim. He was a very early writer, both in verse and prose; his “Progress of Love,” and his “Persian Letters,” having both been written when he was very young. After a short residence at Oxford, he began his travels in 1728, and visited France and Italy. From Rome he sent those elegant verses which are prefixed to the works of Pope, whom he consulted in 1730 respecting his four pastorals. Pope made some alterations in them, which may be seen in Bowles’s late edition of that poet’s works (vol. IV. p. 139). We find Pope, a few years afterwards, in a letter to Swift, speak thus of him: He is “one of those whom his own merit has forced me to contract an intimacy with, after I had sworn never to love a man more, since the sorrow it cost me to have loved so many now dead, banished, or unfortunate, I mean Mr. Lyttelton, one of the worthiest of the rising generation,” &c. In another letter Mr. Lyttelton is mentioned in a manner with which Dr. Warton says he was displeased .

When, after a long struggle, Wai pole gave way, and honour and profit were distributed among his conquerors, Lyttelton was made in (1744) one of the lords of the treasury; and from that time was engaged in supporting the schemes of ministry. Politics did not, however, so much engage him as to withhold his thoughts from things of more importance. He had, in the pride of juvenile confidence, with the help of corrupt conversation, entertained doubts of the truth of Christianity; but he thought the time now come when it was no longer fit to doubt or believe by chance, and applied hiniself seriously to the great question. His studies being honest, ended in conviction. He found that Religion was true, and what he had learned he endeavoured to teach, by “Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul,” printed in 1747; a treatise to which infidelity has never been able to fabricate a specious answer. This book his father had the happiness of seeing, and expressed his pleasure in a letter which deserves to be inserted, and must have given to such a son a pleasure more easily conceived than described: “I have read your religious treatise with infinite pleasure and satisfaction. The style is fine and clear, the arguments close, cogent, and irresistible. May the King of kings, whose glorious cause you have so well defended, reward your pious labours, and grant that I may be found worthy, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to be an eye-witness of that happiness which I don't doubt He will bountifully bestow upon you! In the mean time, I shall never cease glorifying God, for having endowed you with such useful talents, and given me so good a son. Your affectionate father, Thomas Lyttelton.” When the university of Oxford conferred the degree of LL. D. on Mr. West for his excellent work on the “Resurrection,” the same honour is said to have been offered to our author for the above piece, but he declined it in a handsome manner, by saying that he chose not to be under any particular attachments, that, if he should happen to write any thing of the like kind for the future, it might not appear to proceed from any other motive whatsoever, but a pure desire of doing good.

A few years afterwards, in 1751, by the death of his father, he inherited the title of baronet, with a large estate, which, though perhaps he did not augment, he was careful to adorn, by a house of great elegance and expence, and by much attention to the decoration of his park at Hagley. As he continued his exertions in parliament, he was gradually advancing his claim to profit and preferment; and accordingly was made in 1754 cofferer and privy-counsellor. This place he exchanged next year for that of chancellor of the exchequer, an office, however, that required some qualifications which he soon perceived himself to want. It is an anecdote no less remarkable than true, that he never could comprehend the commonest rules of arithmetic. The year after, his curiosity led him into Wales; of which he has given an account, perhaps rather with too much affectation of delight, to Archibald Bower, a man of whom he had conceived an opinion more favourable than he seems to have deserved, and whom, having once espoused his interest and fame, he never was persuaded to disown. It must indeed have proceeded from a strong conviction of Bower’s innocence, however acquired, that such a man as Lyttelton adhered to him to the very last. About 1758, he prevented Garrick from bringing Bower on the stage in the character of a mock convert, to be shewn in various attitudes, in which the profligacy of his conduct was to be exposed: and a very few years before his own death, he declared to the celebrated Dr. Lardner his opinion of Bower in these words, “I have no more doubt of his having continued a firm protestant to the last hour of his life, than I have of my not being a papist myself.” About this time he published his “Dialogues of the Dead,” which were very eagerly read, though the production rather, as it seems, of leisure than of study, rather effusions than compositions. When, in the latter part of the last reign, the inauspicious commencement of the war made the dissolution of the ministry unavoidable, sir George Lyttelton, losing his employment with the rest, was raised to the peerage, Nov. 19, 1157, by the title of lord Lyttelton, baron of Frankley, in the county of Worcester. His last literary production was, “The History of Henry the Second,” 1764, elaborated by the researches and deliberations of twenty years, and published with the greatest anxiety, which Dr. Johnson, surely very improperly, ascribes to vanity. The story of the publication, however, we allow to be remarkable. The whole work was printed twice over, greatest part of it three times, and many sheets four or five times . The booksellers paid for the first impression ; but the charges and repeated alterations of the press were at the expence of the author, whose ambitious accuracy is known to have cost him at least a thousand pounds. He began to print in 1755. Three volumes appeared in 1764; a second edition of them in 1767; a third edition in 1768 and the conclusion in 1771. Andrew Reid, a man not without considerable abilities, and not unacquainted with letters or with life, undertook to persuade the noble author, as he had persuaded himself, that he was master of the secret of punctuation; and, as fear begets credulity, he was employed, we know not at what price, to point the pages of “Henry the Second,” as if, said Johnson once in conversation, “another man could point his sense better than himself.” The book, however, was at last pointed and printed, and sent into the world. His lordship took money for his copy, of which, when he had paid the pointer, he probably gave the rest away; for he was very liberal to the indigent. When time brought the history to a third edition, Reid was either dead or discarded; and the superintendence of typography and punctuation was committed to a man originally a comb -maker, but then known by the style of Dr. Saunders. Something uncommon was probably expected, and something uncommon was at last done; for to the edition of Dr. Saunders is appended, what the world had hardly seen before, a list of errors of nineteen pages.

Lord Lyttelton had never the appearance of a strong or a healthy man; he had a slender uncompacted frame, and a meagre face : he lived, however, above sixty years, and then was seized with his last illness. Of his death this very affecting and instructive account has been given by his physician, Dr. Johnstone of Kidderminster. “On Sunday evening the symptoms of his lordship’s disorder, which for a week past had alarmed us, put on a fatal appearance, and his lordship believed himself to be a dying man. From this time he suffered by restlessness rather than pain; and though his nerves were apparently much fluttered, his mental faculties never seemed stronger, when he was thoroughly awake. His lordship’s bilious and hepatic complaints seemed alone not equal to the expected mournful event; his Iqng want of sleep, whether the consequence of the irritatton in the bowels, or, which is more probable, of causes of a different kind, accounts for his loss of strength, and for his death, very sufficiently. Though his lordship wished his approaching dissolution not to be lingering, he waited for it with resignation. He said, ‘ It is a folly, a keeping me in misery, now to attempt to prolong life;’ yet he was easily persuaded, for the satisfaction of others, to do or take any thing thought proper for him. On Saturday he had been remarkably better, and we were not without some hopes of his recovery. On Sunday, about eleven in the forenoon, his lordship sent for me, and said he felt a great hurry, and wished to have a little conversartion with me in order to divert it. He then proceeded to open the fountain of that heart, from whence goodness had so long flowed as from a copious spring. `Doctor,‘ said he, `you shall be my confessor: When I first set out in the world, I had friends who endeavoured to shake my belief in the Christian religion. I saw difficulties which staggered me; but I kept my mind open to conviction. The evidences and doctrines of Christianity, studied with attention, made me a most firm and persuaded believer of the Christian religion. I have made it the rule of my life, and it is the ground of my future hopes. I have erred and sinned; but have repented, and never indulged any vicious habit. In politics, and public life, I have made the public good the rule of my conduct. I never gave counsels which I did not at the time think the best. I have seen that I was sometimes in the wrong, but I did not err designedly. I have endeavoured, in private life, to do all the good in my power, and never for a moment could indulge malicious or unjust designs upon any person whatsoever.’ At another time he said, `I must leave my soul in the same state it was in before this illness; I find this a very inconvenient time for solicitude about any thing.‘ On the evening when the symptoms of death came on him, he said, `I shall die; but it will not be your fault.’ When lord and lady Valentia came to see his lordship, he gave them this solemn benediction, and said, `Be good, be virtuous, my lord. You must come to this.‘ Thus he continued giving his dying benediction to all arourvd him. On Monday morning a lucid interval gave some small hopes, but these vanished in the evening; and he continued dying, but with very little uneasiness, till Tuesday morning, August 22, when between seven and eight o’clock he expired, almost without a groan.” His lordship was buried at Hagley; with an inscription cut on the side of his lady’s monument.

We have more pleasure, however, in returning to the character of George lord Lyttelton, which has been uniformly delineated by those who knew him best, in favourable colours. Of the various sketches which we have seen, we are inclined to give a place to the following, which, although somewhat long, is less known than those to be found in the accounts of his biographers, and appears to have been written by a near observer “Few chapters,” says the writer, “recorded in the annals of this country, ever united so many rare, valuable, and amiable qualities, as that of the late lord Lyttelton. Whether we consider this great man in public or private life, we are justified in affirming, that he abounded in virtues not barely sufficient to create reverence and esteem, but to insure him the love and admiration of all who knew him. Look upon him as a statesman, and a public man; where shall we find another, who always thought right and meant well, and who so seldom acted wrong, or was misled or mistaken in his ministerial, or senatorial conduct? Look upon his lordship in the humbler scene of private and domestic life; and if thou hadst the pleasure of knowing him, gentle reader, point out the breast warm or cold, that so copiously abounded with every gift and acquirement which indulgent nature could bestow, or the tutored mind improve and refine, to win and captivate mankind.

“His personal accomplishments, and the sweetness and pliability of his temper, which accompanied and swayed them, always recalled to my memory, that line of his own, only varying the sex his * Wit was Nature by the Graces drest.' His affability and condescension to those below him, was not the effect of art, or constrained politeness, dictated by the hackneyed sterile rules of decorum and good breeding: no, the benevolence of his heart pervaded the whole man; it illuminated his countenance, it softened his accents, it mixed itself with his demeanour, and gave evidence at once of the goodness of his heart, and the soundness of his understanding.

“To such as were honoured with his friendship and his intimacy, his kindness was beyond example he shared at once his affections and his interests among his friends, and towards the latter part of his life, when his ability to serve them ceased, he felt only for those who depended on him for their future advancement in life. The unbounded authority he possessed over them was established in parental dominion, not in the cold, haughty, supercilious superiority of a mere patron. Among this latter description, the author of the present rude outline is proud of ranking himself, and is happy in recollecting, that he obeyed, or rather anticipated, the wishes of his noble friend, as far as lay in his power, with more chearfulness and alacrity than he would in executing even the confidential mandates of the greatest monarch or minister in Christendom.