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

It remains to be observed, in justice to this pope, that the charge of his causing the noble monuments of the ancient splendour of the Romans o be destroyed, in order to prevent those who went to Rome from paying more attention to the triumphal arches, &. than to things sacred, is rejected by Platina as a calumny. Nor is the story, though credited by several learned authors, particularly by Brucker, of his reducing to ashes the Palatine library founded by Augustus, and the burning an infinite number of pagan books, particularly Livy, absolutely certain. However, it is undeniable, he had a great aversion to all such books, which he carried to that excess, that he flew in a violent passion with Didier, archbishop of Venice, for no other reason than because he suffered grammar to be taught in his diocese. In this he followed the apostolical constitutions: the compiler whereof seems also to have copied from Gregory Nazianzen, who thought reading pagan books would turn the minds of youth in favour of their idolatry; and we have seen more recently the same practice zealously defended, and upon the same principle too, by Mr. Tillemont. Yet Julian the apostate is charged with using the same prohibition, as a good device to effect the ruin of Christianity, by rendering the professors contemptible on account of their ignorance. Dupin says, that his genius was well suited to morality, and he had acquired an inexhaustible fund of spiritual ideas, which he expressed nobly mough, generally in periods, rather than sentences: his :omposition was laboured, and his language inaccurate, but sy, well connected, and always equally supported. He left more writings behind him than any other pope from the foundation of the see of Rome to the present period. 'hese consist of twelve books of “Letters,” amounting to ipwards of eight hundred in number. “A comment on :he book of Job,” generally known by the name of “Grejry’s Morals on Job.” “A Pastoral,” or a treatise on duties of a pastor. This work was held in such veneration by the Gallican church, that all the bishops were jbiiged, by the canons of that church, to be thoroughly icquainted with it, and punctually to observe the rules contained in it. He was author also of “Homilies” on the prophet Ezekiel; and on the gospels, and of four books of “Dialogues.” His works have been printed over and over again, in almost all forms, and at a number of different places on the continent, as Lyons, Paris, Rouen, Basil, Antwerp, Venice, and Rome. The best edition is that of Paris, in 1705, in 4 vols. folio.

, the principal event in whose life is the reformation he introduced in the Roman calendar, was born at Bologna in 1502. His name before his promotion was Hugh Buoncompagno. He was brought up to the study of the civil and canon law, which he taught in his native city with uncommon reputation. He was afterwards appointed judge of the court of commerce at Bologna. From this city he removed to Rome, where, after various preferments, he was on the death of Pius V. in 1572, unanimously elected his successor, and at his consecration he took the name of Gregory XIII. His reformation of the calendar, was according to a method suggested by Lewis Lilio, a Calabrian astronomer, which after his death was presented to the pope by his brother. This method, which was immediately adopted in all catholic countries, but was rejected by the protestants and by the Greeks, was intended to reform the old or Julian year, established by Julius Caesar, which consisted of'365 days 6 hours, or 365 difys and a quarter, that is three years of 365 days each, and the fourth year of 366 days. But as the mean tropical year consists only of 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 57 seconds, the former lost 11 minutes 3 seconds every year, which in the time of pope Gregory had amounted to 10 <lays, and who, by adding these 10 days, brought the account of time to its proper day again, and at the same time appointed that every century after, a day more should be added, thereby making the years of the complete centuries, viz. 1600, 1700, 1800, &c. to be common years of 365 days each, instead of leap-years of 366 days, which makes the mean Gregorian year equal to 365 days 5 hours 45 minutes 36 seconds. This computation was not introduced into the account of time in England, till 1752, when the Julian account had lost 11 days, and therefore the 3d of September, was in that year by act of parliament accounted the 14th, thereby restoring the 11 days which had thus been omitted.

In 1584 Gregory incurred the suspicion, although some think without foundation, of having encouraged the assas, smation of Elizabeth queen of England, by Parr, an Eng* lisn catholic, who was detected in a conspiracy against the queen’s life. This pope contributed greatly to correct and amend Gratian’s decretals, which he enriched with learned He died of a quinsey, in the eighty-fourth year of Jbis age, and the 14th of his pontificate, in 1586. Several of his “Letters,” “Harangues,”&c. are said to be in existence.

, LL. D. an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was of a Yorkshire family, originally from France. He was born in 1687, and was admitted a pensioner in Jesus college, Cambridge, April 18, 1704, but afterwards removed to Trinity-ball, where he was admitted scholar of the house, Jan. 6, 1706-7; LL. B. 1709 LL. D. 1720; and though he was never fellow of that college, he was elected one of the trustees for Mr. Ayloffe’s benefaction to it. He was rector of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire: and vicar of St. Peter’s and St. Giles’s parishes in Cambridge, where he usually passed the winter, and the rest of his time at Ampthill, the neighbouring market-town to his living. He died Nov. 25, 1766, at Ampthill, and was buried at Houghton Conquest. Very little of his history has descended to us. How he spent his life will appear by a list of his works. He is said to have been of a most amiable, sweet, and communicative disposition; most friendly to his acquaintance, and never better pleased than when performing acts of friendship and benevolence. Being in the commission of the peace, and a man of reputable character, he was much courted for his interest in elections. He was not, however, very active on those occasions, preferring literary retirement. His works were, 1. “A Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to Mr. Pearce’s Vindication of the Dis^ senters; by a Presbyter of the Church of England.” 1720, 8vo. 2. “Presbyterian Prejudice displayed,” 1722, 8vo. 3. “A pair of clean Shoes and Boots for a Dirty Baronet; or an answer to Sir Richard Cox,” 1722. 4. “The Knight of Dumbleton foiled at his own weapons, &c. In a Letter to Sir Richard Cocks, knt. By a Gentleman and no Knight,” 1723. 5. “A Century of eminent Presbyterians: or a Collection of Choice Sayings, from the public sermons before the two houses, from Nov. 1641 to Jan. 31, 1648, the day after the king was beheaded. By a Lover of Episcopacy,” 1723, 6. “A Letter of Thanks to Mr. Benjamin Bennet,” 1723. This Bennet published “A memorial of the Reformation,” full of gross prejudices against the established church, and “A defence of it.” 7. “A Caveat against Mr. Benj. Bennet, a mere pretender to history and criticism. By a lover of history,” 1724, 8vo. 8. “A Defence of our ancient and modern Historians against the frivolous cavils of a late pretender to. Critical History, in which the false quotations smd unjust inferences of the anonymous author are confuted and exposed in the manner they deserve, la two parts,” 1725, 4vo. In reply, Oldmixon, the critical historian alluded to, published “A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern historians. Wherein, instead of dwelling upon his frivolous cavils, false quotations, unjust inferences, &c it is proved (to his glory be it spoken) that there is not a book in the English tongue, which contains so many falsehoods in so many pages. Nori vitiosus homo es, Zachary, sed vitium. By the author,” &c. y. “An Appendix by way of Answer to the Critical Historian’s Review,” 1725. 10. * f A Looking-glass for Fanatics, or the true picture of Fanaticism; by a gentleman of the university of Cambridge,“1725. 11.” The Ministry of the Dissenters proved to be null and void from Scripture and antiquity,“1725. 12. In 1732 he wrote a preface to his relation dean Moss’s sermons,” by a learned hand.“Mr. Masters in his history of C. C. C. C. ascribes this to Dr. Snape, who might perhaps have been editor of the sermons, but it was written by Dr. Grey. 13.” The spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to Barbeyrac, with a defence of Dr. Waterland,“1735, 8vo. 14.” English Presbyterian eloquence. By an admirer of monarchy and episcopacy,“1736, 8vo. 15.” Examination of Dr. Chandler’s History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 16.” The true picture of Quakerism,“1736. 17.” Caveat against the Dissenters,“1736, 8vo. 18.” An impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,“1736, 8vo. The first volume of Neal had been examined by Dr. Madox, assisted in some degree by Dr. Grey, who published his examination of the third volume in 1737, and that of the fourth in 1739. J 9.” An examination of the fourteenth chapter of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel,“1736, 8vo. This is in answer to sir Isaac’s notion of the rise of Saintworship. 20.” An attempt towards the character of the Royal Martyr, king Charles I.; from authentic vouchers,“1738. 21.” Schismatics delineated from authentic vouchers, in reply to Neal, with Dowsing' s Journal, &c. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,“1739, 8vo. 22.” The Quakers and Methodists compared,“&c. 1740. 23.” A Review of Mr. Daniel Neil’s History of the Puritans, with a Postscript. In a letter to Mr. David Jennings;“a pamphlet, Cambridge, 174-4. 24.” Hudibras with large annotations, and a prelate,“&c. 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 2b.” A serious address to Lay Methodists: by a sincere Protestant,“1745, 8vo. 27.” Popery in its proper colours, with a list of Saints invocated in England before the Reformation,“17, 8vo. 28,” Remarks upon a late edition of Shakspeare, with a long string of emendations borrowed by the celebrated editor from the Oxford edition without acknowledgement. To which is prefixed, a Defence of the late sir Thomas Hanmer, bart. addressed to the rev. Mr. Warburton, preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn,“8vo, no date, but about 1745. 29.” A word or two of Advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words; by a friend. With an Appendix, containing a taste of William’s Spirit of Railing,“1746, 8vo. 30.” A free and familiar Letter to that great refiner of Pope and Shakspeare, the rev. William Warburton, preacher at Lincoln’s-Inn. With Remarks upon the epistle of friend W. E. (query if not T. E. i. e. Thomas Edwards). In which his unhandsome treatment of this celebrated writer is exposed in the manner it deserves. By a Country Curate,“1750, 8vo, 31.” A Supplement to Hudibras,“1752, 8vo. 32.” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on Shakspeare, with emendations on the text and metre,“1755, 2 vols. 8vo. 33.” Chronological account of Earthquakes,“1757, 8vo. In 1756 he assisted iVIr. Whalley in his edition of Shakspeare; he had also contributed to Mr. Peck’s” Desiderata,“and” Life of Cromwell," and collected some materials for a Life of Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, which were afterwards enlarged and published by the rev. Robert Masters. Dr. Grey left some other Mss. and a collection of letters, now in Mr. Nichols’s possession.

, called Bolognese, was born at Bologna in 1606, and studied under A. Caracci, to whom he was related. He was a good designer of figures, but became chiefly distinguished for his landscapes. When he arrived at Rome, Innocent X. did justice to his merit, employed him to paint in the Vatican and the Q,uirinal, and even in churches. This pope used to visit him when at work, and talk familiarly with him. His reputation reached cardinal Mazarine at Paris, who sent for him, settled a large pension on him, and employed him for three years in embellishing hi? palace and the Louvre, by the order of Lewis XIII. The troubles of the state, and the clamours raised against the cardinal, whose party he warmly espoused, put him so much in danger, that his friends advised him to retire among the Jesuits, for whom he painted a decoration for the exposition of the sacrament during the holy days, according to the custom of Rome. This piece was much relished at Paris: the king honoured it with two visits, and commanded him to paint a similar piece for his chapel at the Louvre. Grimaldi after that returned to Italy, and at his arrival at Rome found his great patron Innocent X. dead; but his two successors Alexander VII, and Clement IX. honoured him equally with their friendship, and found him variety of employment. His chief power lay in landscape, though he designed figures well, and his pencil equalled his design, light, and flowing with great depth of colour, bolder in the masses and the dash of bushy foliage than Caracci’s, but perhaps tc-o green. The gallery Colon n a, at Rome, has many of his views, which remained chiefly in Italy, less known on this side of the Alps than those of Poussin and Claude. He understood architecture, and has engraved in aqita fortis forty-two landscapes in an excellent manner, five of which are after Titian. Grimaldi was amiable in his manners, as well as skilful in his profession: he was generous without profusion, respectful to the great without meanness, and charitable to the poor. The following instance of his benevolence may serve to characterise the man. A Sicilian gentleman, who had retired from Messina with his daughter, during the troubles of that country, was reduced to the misery of wanting bread. As he lived over-against him, Grimaldi was soon informed of it; and in the dusk of the evening, knocking at the Sicilian’s door, without making himself known, tossed in money and retired. The thing happening more than once, raised the Sicilian’s curiosity to know his benefactor; who, finding him out, by hiding himself behind the door, fell down on his knees to thank the hand that had relieved him: Grimaldi remained confused, offered him his house, and continued his friend till his death. He died of a dropsy at Rome in 1G60, and left a considerable fortune among six children; of which the youngest, named Alexander, was a pretty good painter.

, a learned cardinal, was born at Venice in 1460. His father being procurator of St. Mark, and afterwards doge of the city, the son was soon brought into public notice, and employed by the state in important offices. In 1493 he was raised to the purple by pope Alexander VI. having previously acquired great fame on account of the piety which he displayed towards his father, who was commander of a fleet, and being defeated by the Turks, was imprisoned and treated with great rigour. The son offered to take his place, which being refused, he attended him in prison, and rendered him all the service in his power. Grimani was also an eminent patron of the fine arts: he collected a choice and valuable library, consisting of eight thousand volumes in all languages, which, at his decease, in 1523, he bequeathed to the canons regular of St. Salvadore, in Venice. It was afterwards increased by the addition of many valuable works by the cardinal patriarch Marino Grimani, and was preserved until nearly the end of the seventeenth century, when it was unfortunately destroyed by fire. Dominick Grimani also made a fine collection of statues, and other remains of antiquity. In 1509, he was visited by Erasmus, who relates the particulars of. his reception, in one of his letters, with interesting minuteness, and afterwards dedicated to him his “Paraphrasis in hlpistol. Pauli ad Romanes.” On another occasion we find Erasmus soliciting cardinal Grimani for a copy of Origen’s commentary on the Psalms, a translation of which he had been urged to undertake by Warham, archbishop of Canterbury. Grimani is said to have transiated irom the Greek some homilies of Chrysostom.

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

, an eminent patron of literature, was born at Lyons in 1479; and very early displayed a propensity towards those elegant and solid pursuits, which afterwards secured him the admiration and esteem of his contemporaries. His address was easy, his manners were frank, yet polished; his demeanour was engaging, and his liberality knew no bounds. As he advanced in years, he advanced in reputation; enjoying a princely fortune, the result, in some measure, of a faithful and honourable discharge of the important diplomatic situations which he filled. He was grand treasurer to Francis I. and ambassador from that monarch to pope Clement VII. During his abode at Rome he employed the Alduses to print for him an edition of Terence in 1521, 8vo, and another of Budaeus’s work “De Asse,” 1522, 4to. Of his liberality while in thiscity Egnatio gives the following instance “I dined along with Aldus, his son Manutius, and other learned men at Grollier’s table. After dinner, and just as the dessert had been placed on the table, our host presented each of his guests with a pair of gloves filled with ducats.” De Thou speaks very highly of his character. During his travels he had secured from Basil, Venice, and Rome, the most precious copies of books that could be purchased, which he bound in a peculiar style, described in our authority. Every library and every scholar has boasted of a book from Grollier’s library since it was dispersed, and during his life-time it was his pride to accommodate his friends with the use of them. He died at Paris in 1565.

, an English prelate, and the most learned ecclesiastic of his time, was born probably about 1175, of obscure parents at Stradbrook in Suffolk. He studied at Oxford, where he laid the foundation of his skill in the Greek tongue, and was thus enabled to make himself master of Aristotle, whose works had been hitherto read only in translations: at Oxford too he acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew. He afterwards went to Paris, where he prosecuted his studies of Greek and Hebrew, and made himself master of French. Here he also studied the divinity and philosophy of the age, his proficiency in which was so remarkable as to draw upon him the suspicion of being a magician. At Oxford, on his return, he became celebrated as a divine, and was the first lecturer in the Franciscan school in that university. In 1235 he was elected, by the dean and chapter, bishop of Lincoln, which see was then, and continues still, the largest in England, although Ely, Oxford, and Peterborough have been since taken from it. Grosseteste, who was of an ardent and active spirit, immediately undertook to reform abuses, exhorting 'both clergy and people to religious observances, and perhaps would have been in a considerable degree successful, had he not confided too much in the Dominican and Franciscan friars, as his helpers in the good work. But they being appointed by him to preach to the people, hear their confessions, and enjoin penance, abused these op-­portunities by exercising dominion over the superstitious minds of the laity, and enriched themselves at their expence. Although, however, the hypocrisy of the Dominicans and Franciscans in this instance escaped his penetration, he could not be deceived in the dissolute character and ignorance of the more ancient orders, and was very strict in his visitations, and very severe in his censures of their conduct. Partly through this sense of his duty, and his love of justice, and partly from his warmth of temper, he was frequently engaged in quarrels with convents, and other agents of the pope. At one time he was even excommunicated by the convent of Canterbury; but treating this with contempt, he continued to labour in promoting piety, and redressing abuses with his usual zeal, firmness, and perseverance. Although the friars continued to be his favourites, and he rebuked the rectors and vicars of his diocese, because they neglected to hear them preach, and be^ cause they discouraged the people from attending and confessing to them, in time he began to see more clearly into the character of those ecclesiastics. In 1247, two English Francisqans were sent into England with credentials to extort money for the pope; and when they applied, with some degree of insolence, to Grosseteste, for six thousand marks, as the contribution for the diocese of Lincoln, he answered them that (with submission to his holiness), the demand was as dishonourable as impracticable; that the whole body of the clergy and people were concerned in it as well as himself; and that for him to give a definitive answer in an instant to such a demand, before the sense of the kingdom was taken upon it, would be rash and absurd.

He continued afterwards to exert himself in promoting the good of the church as to doctrine and morals, with the most upright intentions, and to the best of his knowledge, although it must afford the present age but a poor opinion of his knowledge in such matters, when we find him translating, and illustrating with commentaries, such works as those of John Damascenus, and of the spurious Dionysius the Areopagite; and even ^ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," which he thought a valuable monument of sacred antiquity, and equal in importance with the scriptures. But the ignorance of the times, and the difficulties of acquiring divine knowledge, were in that age greatly beyond what can now be conceived. In the case, however, of external morals, Grosseteste showed more discernment. In 1248 he obtained, at a great expence, from pope Innocent IV. letters to empower him to reform the religious orders, fortified by this authority, he first turned his attention to die waste of large revenues by the monastic orders, and determined to take into his own hand the rents of the religious houses, probably with a design to institute and ordain vicarages in his diocese, and to provide for the more general instruction of the peopled But the monks having appealed to the pope, Crosseteste, in his old age^ was obliged to travel to Lyons, where Innocent resided, and where he immediately decided against our bishop, and treated him with much harshness of language, to which Grosseteste replied with great spirit, and went so far as to insinuate the power of money at the court of Rome. All, however, that he could do was to leave a kind of remonstrance, in the shape of a long sermon, one copy of which he delivered to the pope, and others totwo of the cardinals, in which he sharply inveighed against the flagitious practices of the court of Rome, particularly the appropriation of churches to religious houses, the appeals of the religious to the pope, and the scandalous clause in the bulls of nan obstantd, which was the great engine of the pope’s dispensing power, anil enabled him to set aside all statutes and customs. He was for some time so dejected with the disappointment he had met with, that he intended to resign his bishopric, but upon more mature -reflection, thought it his duty to remain in his office, and do all the good which the bigotry and ignorance of the times would permit.

At home he still opposed the lazy Italians, who had procured the pope’s letters for provisions, and were the objects of Grosseteste 1 s greatest detestation, for he said “if he should commit the care of souls to them, he should be the friend of Satan.” Upon such principles he would often, with indignation, cast the bulls out of his hand, and absolutely refused to comply with them. He was suspended at one time for disobeying a papal mandate of this kind. Pope Innocent, persisting in his old courses, notwithstanding all the fair promises and assurances he had given to the contrary, commanded the bishop to admit un Italian, entirely ignorant of the English language, to a rich benefice in his diocese, and be refusing to comply, was suspended for it the Lent following. This sentence, however, seems to have been soon relaxed, as we find the bishop singing mass at Hales the same year. A more remarkable instance of Grosseteste’s spirited opposition to the papal usurpations occurred in 1253, when Innocent ordered his nephew, aa Italian youth, to be promoted to the first canonry that should be vacant in the cathedral of Lincoln, and declared that any other disposal of the canonry should be null and void; and that he would excommunicate every one who should dare to disobey his injunction. The pope also wrote to the archdeacon of Canterbury, and to one Mr. Innocent, both Italians, to see this business completed, with a clause of non obstante and to cite all coiuraveners to appear before him without any manner of plea or excuse and under another clause of non obstante^ in two months time.

Grosseteste wrote immediately to the pope, or to his agents, in the most resolute and spirited terms, almost retorting, as Brown in his “Fasciculus rerum expetendarum,” &c. observes, “excommunication for excommunication.” This epistle, of which we have many copies notv extant, both in manuscript and printed, is a most celebrated performance, and has immortalized the bishop’s memory, and endeared it to all generations. He insists, that the papal mandates cannot be repugnant to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, and that, therefore, the tenor of his holifiess’s epistles was not consonant to toe sanctity of the holy see, on account of the accumulated clauses of non obstante. Then, that no sin can be more adverse to the doctrine of the apostles, more abominable to Jesus Christ, or more hurtful to mankind, than to defraud and rob those souls, which ought to be the objects of the pastoral care, of that instruction which by the scriptures they have a right to, &c. Hence he infers that the holy see, destined to edify and not to destroy, cannot possibly incur a sin of this kind; and that no one that is not an excommunicate, ought to obey any such absurd mandate, though an angj^l from heaven should command him, but rather to revolt and oppose them, &c.

The pope, on receiving this flat denial, which he little expected, written, as our readers may perceive, in a sarcastic styje implying much more than is expressed, fell into a furious passion, exclaiming, with a stern countenanc, and with all the pride of Lucifer, “Who is this old dotard, deaf, and absurd, that thus rashly presumes to judge of my actions? By Peter and Paul, if the goodness of my own heart did not restrain me, I should so chastise him, as to make him an example and a spectacle to all the world. Is not the king of England my vassal, my slave, and for a word speaking, would throw him into prison, and load him with infamy and disgrace?” And, when the cardinals interposed, they had much ado to mollify him, by telling him, “it was little for his interest to think of animadverting on the bishop; since, as they must all own, what he said was true, and they could not condemn or blame him, &c.” giving the bishop, at the same time, a most noble testimony, in respect of his piety, learning, and general character, as acknowledged by all the world: in all which, they confessed frankly, they were none of them to be compared to him. The pope, however, excommunicated the bishop, and even named a successor to his see; but the bishop, on his part, contented himself with appealing from the sentence to the tribunal of Christ, after which he troubled himself no more about it, and remained quietly in possession of his dignity.

Towards the end of this summer (1253) he fell sick at his palace at Buckden, and sent for friar John de St. Giles, who was a physician and a divine, in both which capacities he wanted his assistance, as he foresaw, to the great uneasiness of his mind, the troubles that would shortly befall the church. He then gave orders to the clergy of his diocese to renew the sentence of excommunication upon all who should infringe the magna charta concerning the liberties of the kingdom, which made the incumbents very obnoxious to many of the courtiers. In all his conversations on this subject in his last illness, he appears to have retained the strength of his understanding, and conscious of the uprightness of his conduct towards the pope, he still fully approved it in his heart; nor was his courage in the least broken, or his spirits dejected, by any fulminations that had Hfcen launched against him from that quarter. His conversations on this occasion, given by his biographer, display his real sentiments on the depraved and corrupt state of the papacy in his time, the particulars or articles on which he grounded his charge, and that abhorrence of its proceedings which does him so much honour.

He died at Buckden, Oct. 9, 1255, and the corpse was carried to Lincoln, where it was met by archbishop Boniface, who attended the funeral. He was interred in the upper south transept. For an account of his tomb, &c. we must refer to our principal authority. The pope, who rejoiced at his death, ordered a Letter to be written to king Henry, enjoining him to take up the bishop’s bones, cast them out of the church, and burn them, but this letter was not sent. As Grosseteste was a person of acknowledged piety and strictness of manners, he easily arrived at the beatitude, or title of Beatus, and even at sanctity 9 in the general estimation; but he could never obtain these jhonours from the church, though they were solicited for him in the strongest terms. Indeed, as l>r. Pegge observes, it would have been improper and absurd for the popes to repute and proclaim a person to be now an holy beatified saint in heaven, who in their opinion had so openly traduced, insulted, and vilified both the see and court of Rome, which were still pursuing the very same measures he condemned, and continued to be invariably the same depraved, venal, and corrupt body. It is, however, for the honour of bishop Grosseteste, that for his piety and integrity, his learning and abilities, he still lives valued and revered in the breasts of all sober and reasonable men. It is plain that he did not suffer the least in the esteem of the world, any more than he did in his own opinion, by the anathema which pope Innocent had denounced against him. Indeed the papal censures, of which our prelates stood so much in dread at Lyons, in 1245, had been of late so infamously prostituted, that they seem to have lost their efficacy. Grosseteste, in particular, paid no regard to that which was denounced against him, for he still continued to exercise his function; his clergy also made no scruple of obeying him when under the sentence; and his exequies were solemnized not only by the secular but even by the regular clergy of his diocese.

Few authors, ancient or modern, ever mention bishop Grosseteste without an eulogium, and from the many evidences brought by his biographer, he appears to have excelled all his contemporaries in learning, piety, judgment, and conscientious integrity in the discharge of his episcopal duties, and to have powerfully aided in producing what we may term the preliminaries of that reformation which was afterwards to take place in a church so corrupt, and so weak, that even at this time it was not able to support itself against the arguments of one English prelate, a point of religion, the papists are very desirous of having bishop Grosseteste for their own; and it must be acknowledged that he was much with them doctrinally, and at first entertained a high opinion of the power of the keys, and the personal authority of the pope; but at last, in a case manifestly unscriptural and injurious to the welfare of religion, he openly contemned it, and did not even regard dying in a state of excommunication. He had also at one time conceived a most elevated idea of the hierarchy in general, thinking it superior to the regal dignity. To this he was led, exceeding in this respect even Becket himself, by the authority of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and this is the best excuse that can be made for him; the blindness of the times being sucb, that men of the best learning, and the greatest acuteness, had not critical skill sufficient, though this be the first and proper object of criticism, to distinguish a spurious composition from the true word of God. But, however, he afterwards changed his mind in regard to the hierarchy. Had he lived in more enlightened times, when points formerly taken fur granted as principles not to be controverted, were more maturely canvassed and considered, his ideas on many religious topics would have been greatly enlarged, and he would not have been at all averse to a separation from a church so venal and corrupt as that of Home, nor to a reformation both of her doctrines and discipline.

His theological works, printed in 3 vols. fol. but usually bound in four, include his Commentaries on the Bible, concerning which there have been various opinions. Some esteem him one of the best general commentators, and plead for him that he must not be thought to oppose a doctrine because he rejects some of the texts which have been quoted in support of it. This is plausible; but others conceive that doubts as to his orthodoxy are well founded, and it is evident that none of his biographers have been able to set up a good defence of him in this respect. Calmet has justly remarked the ambiguity of his notions respecting the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of original sin the indecency of his prefaces and explanation of the Canticles and objects to him that he weakens or reduces almost to nothing the prophecies relating to Jesus Christ. Nor was he less offensive to protestants for his notions conr cerning the pope’s not being antichrist, and concerning St. Paul’s expectation of living until the general judgment. With regard to the prophecies, he is said to have been the first interpreter of Scripture (though some are inclined to doubt this priority) who endeavoured to prove that the greater part of the prophecies of the Old Testament had a double sense, and have received a double accomplishment. He maintains that the predictions even of the evangelical prophet Isaiah, related in their primary and literal sense to the times and circumstances of the Jewish people, but that they respected the Messiah in a secondary and allegorical sense. It is unnecessary to inform such of our readers as are acquainted with the history of theological controversy, that these notions have met with able opponents both in the churches of Rome and England, and it is perhaps as unnecessary to add that they sufficiently account for the general suspicion entertained of Grotius’s religious principles, as well as for the various systems to which his friends or enemies wished, or suspected him to be at one time or other attached.

The late bishop Kurd’s mode of accounting for the apparent inconsistencies in the religious principles of Grotius, is the most favourable we have yet seen, and not improbable. “Grotius,” says that learned prelate, " is justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age that abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of Scripture profound. And yet with two such requisites for unlocking the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove in form, that the pope was not antichrist. The account of this mischance is as extraordinary as the mischance itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable than his intellectual; and its these qualities we shall find the true spring of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us. He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him the more in a love of those pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed With a clue sense of that exalted charity which is the characteristic of that religion but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs which proceed from theological quarrels and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend to peace, and above all, to peace among Christians. An union of the catholic and protestant churches seemed necessary to this end; and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, drew him into the belief that such a project was not impracticable. Henceforth it became the ruling object of his life; and permitting himself too easily to conclude that the protestant doctrine of antichrist was the sole or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine. Thus was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can be so justly applied to any other:

This employ suited his genius, and soon after he published the most useful of his works, his large collection of inscriptions, whjch is dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. who bestowed great encomiums upon it, and gave Gruterus the choice of his own reward. He answered that he would leave it to the emperor’s pleasure, only begged it might not be pecuniary. In the same temper, upon hearing there was a design to give him a coat of arms, in order to raise the dignity of his extraction, he declared, that, so far from deserving a new coat of arms, he was too much burthened with those which had devolved to him from his ancestors. The emperor was then desired to grant him a general licence for all the books of his own publishing, which he not only consented to, but also granted him a privilege of licensing others. His majesty also intended to create him a count of the sacred palace; and the patent was actually drawn, and brought to be ratified by his sign manual; but this monarch happening to die in the interim, it was left without the signature, which it never afterwards received. Yet Gruterus bestowed the same encomiums on the good emperor as if it had been completed; and his privilege of licensing books continued to be of great advantage to him, being one of the most voluminous writers of his age. This task he was the better enabled to execute by the help of his library, which was large and curious, having cost him no less than twelve thousand crowns in gold; but the whole was destroyed or plundered, together with the city of Heidelberg, in 1622. Oswald Smendius, his son-in-law, endeavoured in vain to save it, by writing to one of the great officers of the duke of Bavaria’s troops; but the licentiousness of the soldiers could not be restrained. Afterwards he went to Heidelberg, and having witnessed the havock that had been made at his father’s house, he tried to save at least what Gruterus’s amanuensis had lodged in the elector’s libra^, and brought the Pope’s commission to give him leave to remove them. He received for answer, that as to the Mss. the pope had ordered them all to be sought for carefully, and carried to Home; but as to the printed books, leave would be given to restore them to Gruterus, provided it was approved by Tilly under his hand: but this pretended favour prove4 of no effect, as no access could be had to Tilly,

, an eminent Orientalist of Italy, was born about 1596, at Magliano. After going through his studies, he entered among the regular minor clerks, and made his profession at Rome in 1612. His genius prompted him to the study of languages, to which he devoted himself entirely; so that he acquired the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Persian, and Arabic languages, but excelled chiefly in the Arabic. He spent the greatest part of his life in translating books from that language, and in writing books in it, to facilitate the learning of it to others. He taught it many years in the college della Sapienza at Rome; and was indeed so perfect a master of it, that he spoke an oration in it before Christina, queen of Sweden, in 1656. The eastern prelates presented a petition to Urban VIII. to have the Bible translated into Arabic; and, the congregation “de propaganda fide” complying with their desires, Guadagnolo was immediately selected as the person best qualified to undertake this great work. He began it in 1622, and finished it in 1649; having, however, assistants under him, and sometimes only acting the part of a corrector. During the time that he was employed in it, he gave an account twice a week of ?vhat progress he had made to a congregation assembled for that purpose. It was published ai Home, 1671, in 3 vols. folio, with this title, “Biblia Sacra Arabica Sacra? Congregationis de propaganda fide jussu edita ad usuia ecclesiarum orientalium. Additis c regione Bibliis Vulgatis Latinis.” In 1631 he published a Latin work entitled “Apologia pro Christiana Religione, qua responde* tur ad objectiones Ahmed filii Zin Alabedin Persoe Asphaensis contetitas in Ifbro inscripto, Politor Speculi,” 4to. The history of this work was as follows: A Spaniard had published a religious book entitled “The true Lookingglass;” which falling into the hands of a learned Persian, he wrote an answer to it in his native tongue, entitled ‘.’ The Polisher of the Looking-glass“and added these words at the end of it” Let the pope answer it.“This book being brought to Rome in 1625, Urban VIII. ordered Guadagnolo to refute it; which he did so effectually, that the Persian, to whom it was sent, renounced the Mahometan faith, and became as zealous a defender of Christianity as he had before been an opposer of it. Guadagnolo published his apology in Arabic, in 1637, 4to. He wrote another work in Arabic and Latin, entitled” Considerations against the Mahometan Religion;“in which he shews, that the Koran is a mere rhapsody of falsehood and imposture. He published also at Rome, in 1642,” Breves Institutiones Linguae Arabicae," folio; a very methodical grammar. He had also compiled a dictionary in that language, but the publication of it was prevented by his death, which happened in 1656. The ms. is preserved in the convent of San Lorenzo in Lucina.

, surnamed Veronese, the first branch of a family celebrated in the republic of letters, and one of the revivers of literature, was born at Verona in 1370. After being taught Latin by John of Ravenna, he went to Constantinople, with the sole view of learning Greek in the school of Emanuel Chrysoloras, who had not then come to Italy. Pontico Virunio, in his life of Chrysoloras, says that Guarino was of an advanced age when he set out for Constantinople, and that he returned to Italy with a large collection of Greek manuscripts, the loss of which by shipwreck so affected him, that his hair turned white in one night; but Maffei and Apostolo Zeno have justly considered this as a fable. It appears, on the other hand, on comparing various circumstances, that Guarino was very young when he went into Greece, and was only twenty years of age when he returned. After this return he first kept school at Florence, and afterwards successively at Verona, Padua, Bologna, Venice, and Ferrara, in which last city he resided longest. Nicolas III. of Este had invited him thither in 1429 to superintend the education of his son Lionel. Six or seven years after, he was appointed professor of Greek and Latin in the university of Ferrara. This office he filled until the assembling of the grand council, to which the emperor John Paleologus came, accompanied with several Greeks, who found Guarino. sufficient employment, as he mentions in his letters, and on the council being removed to Florence, he accompanied them thither as interpreter between the Latins and Greeks. He returned again to Ferrara, where he held his professorship until his death in 1460. His principal works consist of Latin translations from Greek authors; particularly of many of Plutarch’s lives, part of Plutarch’s morals, and Strabo’s geography. Of this author he at first translated only ten books, by order of pope Nicholas V.; the other seven were translated by Gregory of Typhernuin, and in this state the work was first printed at Rome in 1470, folio. But, at the request of the Venetian senator Marcello, Guarino made a translation of these seven books, of which there are manuscript copies at Venice, Modena, &c. Maffei, in his “Verona Illustrata,” mentions also a translation of the whole seventeen in the hand-writing of Guarino, which was at one time in the library of the senator Soranzo at Venice. To his translation of Plutarch’s lives, he added those of Aristotle and Plato. He also compiled a Greek grammar, “Em. Chrysolorae erotemata lingusc Graecse, in compendium redacta, a Guarino Veronesi,” Ferrar. 1509, 8vo and a Latin grammar, “Grammatical institutiones,” without date or place, but printed at Verona, 1487, and reprinted in 1540, the model, says Maffei, from which all others have been taken. Annexed are some lesser treatises, “Carmina ditiferentialia,” “Liber de Diphtongis,” &c. Guarino also wrote commentaries or notes on various authors, both Greek and Latin, among the latter on Cicero’s orations and Persius’s satires, and was the author of various Latin orations delivered at Verona, Ferrara, and other places, and of some Latin poems, and a great number of letters which have not been printed. He was the first who recovered the poems of Catullus, a manuscript which was mouldering in a garret, and almost destroyed, and rendered the whole legible, with the exception of a very few verses. If it be thought that even all this is insufficient to justify the high reputation which Guarino enjoyed in his lifetime, and for ages afterwards, we must add that, independently of rendering these services to the cause of learning, which were of great importance at its revival, Guarino derived no small share of fame from the vast number of scholars whom he formed, with a like taste for classical literature, which they dispersed throughout all Europe. Guarino, likewise, was one of the most indefatigable student* of his time. Even in old age his memory was extraordinary, and his application incessant. He took little nourishment and little sleep, and rarely went abroad, yet he preserved his strength and faculties to the last. By his wife he had at least twelve children, two of whom followed his steps Jerome became secretary to Alphonso, king of Naples and Baptist, or Battista, rather better known, was professor of Greek and Latin at Ferrara, like his fathev, and like him educated some eminent scholars, among whom were Giraldi and Aldus Manutius. He left a collection of Latin poetry, “Baptists Guarini Veronensis poemata Latina,” Modena, 1496; a treatise on study, “De ordine docendi ac studendi,” without place or date; but there is a subsequent edition of Heidelberg, 1489. He wrote also other treatises, translations from the Greek, discourses, and letters, which latter remain in manuscript. It is to him we owe the first edition of the Commentaries of Servius on Virgil; and he assisted his father in recovering and making legible the manuscript of Catullus above mentioned.

In his thirtieth year he entered into the service of the duke Alphonso II.; but there seems some difficulty in understanding the order and nature of the business on which he was employed, and the origin of the title of knight which is usually joined to his name, and which he had engraven on the seal with which he sealed his letters. It is probable, however, that the duke bestowed this title on him as a necessary appendage to the rank of ambassador. The first office of this kind which he filled, was in 1567, when he was sent to Venice, with the congratulations of the duke Alphonso to the new doge Pier Loredano, and the address which he spoke on this occasion being printed, gave the Italian literati a very favourable idea of his talents. The duke then sent him as resident ambassador to Emmanuel Philebert, duke of Savoy, and after continuing there some years, he was sent to Rome in 1571, to compliment pope Gregory XIII. as successor to Pius V. He arrived by post in the evening, passed the night in writing his address, and delivered it next morning in a full consistory. Two years afterwards, the duke sent him to Germany to the emperor Maximilian, whence he went to Poland, to congratulate Henry of Valois on his accession to the throne, in 1571.

He continued thus employed in the proper business of his profession till 1511; but that year the cKsis of the public affairs gave occasion to call forth his abilities for more important matters. The Florentines were thrown into great difficulties by the league, which the French and Spaniards had entered into against the pope. Perplexed about their choice to remain neuter or engage in the league* they had recourse to our advocate, whom they sent ambassador to Ferdinand, king of Spain, to treat of this matter; and at the same time charged him with other affairs of the highest importance to the state. With this character he left Florence in 1512, and arriving safely afc Bruges, where his Spanish majesty then resided, remained two years at that court. Here he had an opportunity of exerting and improving his talents as a statesman. Many events happened in that time, the consequences whereof came within his province to negociate; such as the taking and plundering Ravenna and Prato by the Spaniards, the deposing of Piero Soderini, and the restoration of the family of Medici. In these and several other occurrences, which happened at that time, he adopted such measures, and with such address, that the republic found no occasion to employ any other minister; and the king testified his satisfaction by a great quantity of fine-wrought plate, which he presented to him at his departure. On his arrival at Florence in 1514, he was received with, uncommon marks of honour; and, in 15 15, constituted advocate of the consistory by Leo X. at Cortona. The pope’s favours did not stop here. Guicciardini’s extraordinary abilities, with a hearty devotion to the interest of the church, were qualifications of necessary use in the ecclesiastical state. Leo, therefore, that he might reap the full advantage of them, sent for him not long after to Rome, resolving to employ him where his talents might be of most service. In 1518, when Modena and Reggio were in great danger of being lost, he was appointed to the government of those cities, and proved himself equal to the charge.

His merit in this government recommended him, in 1521, to that of Parma, whence he drove away the French, and confirmed the Parmesans in their obedience; and this at a time when the holy see was vacant by the death of Leo, and the people he commanded full of fears, disheartened, and unarmed. He retained the same post under Adrian VI, to whom he discovered the dangerous designs of Alberto Pio da Carpi, and got him removed from the government of Reggio and Rubiera. Clement VII. on his exaltation to the pontificate, confirmed him in that government. This pope was of the house of Medici, to which Guicciardini was particularly attached; and, in return, we find him presently raised to the highest dignities in the ecclesiastical state. Having in 1523 prevented the duke of Ferrara from seizing Modena, the pope, in acknowledgement thereof, not only made him governor of that city, but constituted him president of Romagna, with unlimited authority. This was a post of great dignity and power, yet as factions then ran very high, the situation was both laborious and dangerous. However, he not only by his prudence overcame all these difficulties, but found means, in the midst of them, to improve the conveniences and delight of the inhabitants. Their towns which lay almost in rubbish, he embellished with good houses and stately buildings; a happiness, of which they were so sensible, that it rendered the name of Guicciardini dear to them, and they were overjoyed, when, after a farther promotion of Francis, they understood he was to be succeeded in his government by his brother. This happened June 6,

1526, when the pope, by a brief, declared him lieutenantgeneral of all his troops in the ecclesiastical state, with authority over his forces in other parts also, that were under the command of any captain-general. It has been observed, that he was the chief favourite of pope Clement, and his present situation is a most illustrious proof of that remark. This post of lieutenant-general of the forces, added to what he held in the civil government, were the highest dignities which his holiness could bestow: but this honour was yet more increased by the command of the confederate army, which was given him soon after; for, in

In 1531 the pope made him governor of Bologna, contrary to all former precedents, that city having never before been committed to the hands of a layman. He was in this post when his holiness met Charles V. there, in December 1532; and he assisted at the pompous coronation of the said emperor, on St. Matthias’s day following. This solemnity was graced with the presence of several princes, who all shewed our governor particular marks of respect, every one courting his company, for the sake of his instructive conversation. He had at this time laid the plan of his history, and made some progress in it; which coining to the ears of the emperor before he left Bologna, his imperial majesty gave orders, when Guicciardini should attend his levee, to admit him into his dressing-room, where he conversed with him on the subject of his history. So particular a distinction gave umbrage to some persons of quality and officers of the army, who had waited many days for an audience. The emperor, being informed of the pique, took Guicciardini by the hand, and, entering into the drawing-room, addressed the company in these terms: “Gentlemen, I am told you think it strange that Guicciardini should have admission to me before yourselves; but I desire you would consider, that in one hour I can create a hundred nobles, and a like number of officers in the army; but I shall not be able to produce such an historian in twenty years. To what purpose serve the pains you take to discharge your respective functions honourably, either in the camp or cabinet, if an account of your conduct is not to be transmitted to posterity for the instruction of your descendants Who are they that have informed mankind of the heroic actions of your great ancestors, but historians? It is necessary then to honour them, that they may be encouraged to convey the knowledge of your illustrious deeds to futurity. Thus, gentlemen, you ought neither to be offended nor surprised at my regard for Guicciardini, since you have as much interest in his province as myself.”

Guicciardini did not remain continually at Bologna, but divided his time between that city and Florence. In February this year, he sent a letter of instructions to Florence; and in April received orders from the Pope to reform the state there, and to put Alessandro in the possession of the government. Wise and prudent, however, as he was, discontents and faction at length arose. As long as Clement sat in the papal chair, the discontented murmured only in private; but upon that Pope’s death, in 1534, the disgust shewed itself openly: two noblemen in particular, Castelli and Pepoli, who till then had been fugitives, entered the city at noon-day, with a retinue of several of their friends, and some outlawed persons, well armed. The governor, looking upon this as done in contempt of his person, meditated how to revenge the affront. One evening two proscribed felons, under Pepoli’s protection, were taken up by the officers as they were walking the streets, and carried to prison: and Guicciardini, without any farther process, ordered them to be immediately executed. Pepoli, highly incensed, assembled a number of hrs friends, and was going in quest of the governor to seek his revenge, when the senate sent some their members to desire him to return home, and not to occasion a tumult, which> for fear of disobliging that body, he complied with. It was this good disposition of the senate towards him, which prevailed with Guicciardini to remain in the government after the death of Clement. He foresaw that the people would no longer submit to his commands, and therefore had resolved to quit the government; but the senate, considering that many disorders might happen, if they were left without a governor in the time of the vacant see, begged him to continue, promising that he should have all the assistance requisite. To this he at last consented; and, with true magnanimity and firmness of mind, despising the danger that threatened him, remained in the city, till he understood that a new governor was appointed, when he resolved to quit the place. Some time after his arrival in Florence, upon the death of the duke, he had influence enough in the senate to procure the election of Cosmo, son of John de Medici, to succeed in the sovereignty. But, though he had interested himself so much in the election, yet he soon quitted the court, and meddled in public affairs no farther than by giving his advice occasionally, when required. He was now past fifty, an age when business becomes disgusting to persons of a reflecting turn. His chief wish was, that he might live long enough, in a quiet recess, to finish his history. In this resolution he retired to his delightful country-seat at Emma, where he gave himself up entirely to the work; nor could he be drawn from it by all the intreaties and advantageous offers that were made him by pope Paul III. who, in the midst of his retirement, passing from Nice to Florence, earnestly solicited our historian, first in person, then by letters, and at last by the mediation of cardinal Ducci, to come to Rome. But he was proof against all solicitations, and, excusing himself in a handsome manner to his holiness, adhered closely to his great design; so that, though he enjoyed this happy tranquillity a few years only, yet in that time he brought his history to a conclusion; and had revised the whole, except the four last books , when he was seized with a fever, May 27, 1540, of which he died.

Guicciardini wrote several other pieces, as “The Sacking of Rome;” “Considerations on State-Affairs;” “Councilu and Admonitions,” and there are extant several of his “Law-Cases,” with his opinion, preserved in the famous library of Signior Carlo Tomaso Strozzi and an epistle in verse, which has given him a place among the Tuscan poets, in the account of them by Crescimbeni. It were to be wished, that we could look into his correspondence but all his letters, by fatal negligence, have perished our curiosity in that point can only be satisfied by some written to him: part of these are from cardinal Pietro Bern bo, secretary to pope Leo X. and are to be seen in his printed letters; and oners from Barnardo Tasso. Berabo’s letters shew, that his correspondent possessed the agreeable art of winning the affections both of private persons and princes. Guicciardini was survived by his wife (who lived till 1559) and three daughters. Two married into the family of Capponi, and the third into that of Ducci.

In 1709, he took a journey to his own country, to settle some private affairs. He was there when the emperor made a new regulation for the state of Milan, which was very grievous to it; and having political talents, was employed to represent to prince Eugene of Savoy the inconveniences and burden of this regulation, prince Eugene being then governor of the country, and deputed by the emperor to manage the affair. For this purpose Guidi drew up a memorial, which was thought so just and argumentative, that the new regulation was immediately revoked. The service he did his country, in this respect, procured him a mark of distinction from the council Pavia; who, in 1710, enrolled him in the list of and decurions of the town. He was now solely intent upon returning to Rome; but made his will first, as if he had foreseen what was shortly to happen to him. Upon his arrival there, he applied himself to a versification of six homilies of the Pope, which he caused to be magnificently printed, and would have presented it to the pontiff, who was then at Castel-Gandolfe. With this view he set out from Rome in June 17 12, and arrived at Frescati, where he was seized with an apoplectic fit, of which he died in a few hours, aged almost sixty-two. His body was carried back to Rome, and interred in the church of St. Onuphrius, near Tasso.

, an Italian poet, was born at Lucca in 1550. Having received an excellent education, he was introduced to the service of cardinal Alexander Farnese, afterwards pope Paul III. He became very intimate with Annibal Caro, and with many other men of letters at Rome. When his patron was elevated to the popedom, he was made governor of the city, and bishop of Fossombrone. In 1535 he was sent nuncio to the emperor Charles V. whom he accompanied in his expedition to Tunis, and on other journeys. He was, about 1539, made president of Romagna, and afterwards commissary-general of the pontifical army, and governor of the Marche. So well did he act his part in all these employments, that he would have been raised to the dignity of cardinal had he not been carried off by a disease in 1541. He was author of an oration to the republic of Lucca, of many letters, and of a number of poems which gave him a high reputation. His works ka*e been several times printed. The best edition is that of 1749—50, 2 vols. 4to.

Great were the honours this painter received from Paul V. from all the cardinals and princes of Italy, from Lewis XIII. of France, Philip IV. of Spain, and from the king of Poland and Sweden, who, besides a noble reward, made him a compliment, in a letter under his own hand, for an Europa he had sent him. He was extremely handsome arul graceful in his person; and so very beautiful in his younger days, that his master Luclovico, in painting his angels, took him always for his model. Nor was he an angel only in his looks, if we may jDelieve what Gioseppino told the pope, when he asked his opinion of Guido’s performances in the Capella Quirinale, “Our pictures,” said he, “are the works of men’s hands, but these are made by hands divine.” In his behaviour he was modest, gentle, and very obliging; lived in great splendour both at Bologna and Rome; and was only unhappy in his immoderate love of gaming. To this in his latter days he abandoned himself so entirely, that all the money he could get by his pencil, or borrow upon interest, was too little to supply his losses: and he was at last reduced to so poor and mean a condition, that the consideration of his present circumstances, together with reflections on his former reputation and high manner of living, brought a languishing distemper on him, of which he died in 1642.

About this time (1729), he came to London with the Danish ambassador, baron Stoelenthal, and here he composed some of his most beautiful odes, and his best songs. In 1733 he was appointed secretary of the English factory at Hamburgh, which united him with our countrymen, whom he always esteemed. In 1734 he married the daughter of an English taylor, of the name of Butler, a step which does not seem to have added to his happiness. In 1738 he published the first volume of his “Fables,” an original work, which contributed much to his reputation. In 1740, he composed the beautiful satire of “The Philosopher;” in 1741, the sublime picture of the “Sage;” in 1742, the Universal Prayer, from the Paraphrase of Pope; and, in 1743, his celebrated poem on “Happiness.” This last piece is equally favourable to his opinions and his poetical talents. His modest muse does not succeed in sublime descriptions, or the dithirambic flights: it has more of the elegance that pleases, than the splendour that dazzles; more Socratic wisdom, than oriental sublimity. His Moral Poems are like the Sermones of Horace. His “Considerations on some of the Attributes of God” contains the sublimest passages of Scripture “The Prattler” is a dialogue full of familiar descriptions of human life */ The Letter to a Friend“is an instructive commentary on the” Nil Adrnirari" of Horace. Various other pieces followed; but, in 1750, he first excited the gaiety of his nation, by mixing sports and graces with the solemn poetry of the Germans. His odes and songs are highly pleasing. Nature, sprightliness, simplicity, enthusiasm, and harmony, unite to render them seductive: for spirit and elegance, he may be said to resemble our own Prior.

, professor of canon law in the university of Paris, was born at Bayeux in Normandy, September 8, 1611. He studied philosophy, law, and divinity, for five years in the university of Caen; and also applied himself to poetry, under the direction of his uncle Anthony Halle, who was a Latin poet of some note, with such success, that he gained the prizes in the poetical exercises that are performed every year in these two cities, “to the honour of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary.” This procured him so much reputation, that, though he was still very young, he was chosen professor of rhetoric in the university of Caen. Some time afier, being rector of the university, he made an oration to M. Seguier, chancellor of France, then in Normandy, to -suppress some popular insurrections; which was so much approved by that head of the law, that he received a doctor of law’s degree from him in 1640. He attended M. Seguier to Paris, and gained such reputation by some pieces he published, that they offered him the mastership of five different colleges; and he was incorporated in his absence (a very unusual thing) into the body of the university in 1641. He was made king’s poet, and reader of the Latin and Greek tongues in the royal college in 1646. His assiduous application to study having ruined his health, he was obliged to rest for two years, in order to recover it. He afterwards resolved to raise the glory of the faculty of the law, which was miserably sunk; and in 1655 he obtained the post of regius professor of the canon law, when he vigorously began, and, though he met with great difficulties, successfully executed what he had resolved. Besides “Canonical Institutions,” which he published in 1685, he wrote also for the use of his pupils several treatises upon the civil and canon laws; as, concerning councils, the Pope’s authority, the regale, simony, usury, censures, regular persons, ecclesiastical benefices, matrimony, last wills and testaments, &c. He had published in 1G55, 8vo. “A Collection of Latin Poems and Orations.” He died December 27, 1689.

9. That auricular confession is not necessary to salvation. 10. That there is no purgatory. H. That the holy patriarchs were in heaven before Christ’s passion. 12. That the pope is Antichrist, and that every priest has as much power as the pope.

Handel was now settled in England, and well provided for. The first three years he was chiefly, if not constantly, at the earl of Burlington’s, where he frequently met Pope. The poet one day asked his friend Arbuthnot, of whose knowledge'in music he had an high idea, what was his real opinion of Handel, as a master of that science? who re-, plied, “Conceive the highest you can of his abilities, and they are much beyond any thing that you can conceive.” Pope nevertheless declared, that Handel’s finest things, so untoward were his ears, gave him no more pleasure than the airs of a common ballad. The two next years Handel spent at Cannons, then in its glory, and composed music for the chapel there. About this time a project was formed by the nobility for erecting an academy in the Haymarket; the intention of which was to secure a constant supply of operas, to be composed by Handel, and to be performed under his direction. For this purpose the sum of 50,000^. was subscribed, the king subscribing lOOOl. and a society was formed called “the Royal Academy.” Handel immediately was commissioned to go to Dresden in quest of singers, whence he brought Senesino and Duristanti. At this time Buononcini and Attilto, whom we have mentioned before, composed for the opera, and had a strong party in their favour, which produced a violent opposition, ridiculed by Swift and the other wits of the time, although of great importance to the fashionable world; but at last the rival composers and performers were all united, and each was to have his particular part.

, a learned Dutch catholic divine, and called in that language Van der Haer, was born at Utrecht in 1550, and after the usual course of academical instruction, taught rhetoric at Douay, and travelled afterwards into Germany, Italy, and Muscovy. He accompanied father Pousse vin, who was sent there by the pope as nuncio. On his return, he was made canon of Bois-Ie-duc, then of Namur, and Louvain, at which last place he died, January 12, 1632. His principal works are, “Biblia sacra expositionibus priscorum Patrum litteralibus *t mysticis illustrata,” Antwerp, 1630, folio; “Catena aurea in IV Evangelia,” 1625, 8vo; “Annales Ducum Brabantiae, ac tumultuum Belgicorum” an abridgment of the “Lives of the Saints,” taken chiefly from Surius, 8vo and “A Chronology,” Antwerp, 1614, 4to, &c.

He had a rich vein of humour; and his English muse, though never inelegant, had a peculiar turn for it. His “Denhill Iliad,” a poem occasioned by the hounds running through lady Gray’s gardens at Denhill, in East Kent, is very much in the manner of Pope; and his “Dialogue in the Senate-house of Cambridge,” written in 1750, was much admired for its poetry and humour: the former of these is in Mr. Nichols’s “Select Collection of Poems,” the latter in the “Poetical Calendar,” vol. IX. In 1780, his son, the present George Hardinge, esq. solicitor-general to the queen, printed for private distribution, an octavo volume of his Latin verses, with a corrected copy of the ode in Mr. Nichols’s collection. The Latin poems are of various dates; some of them school exercises at Eton in 1717 and 1718, and are remarkable specimens of classical taste at so early a period of life.

He stayed, however, but a short time in Holland; no temptations or offers could divert or restrain him from the resolution he had formed to pursue his travels, and therefore, taking Flanders in his way, he set out on a tour through part of Germany, France, and Italy. While he was at Rome, the pope performed the ceremony of consecrating wax-lights on Candlemas-day. When his holiness had sanctified these torches, they were distributed among the people, who fought for them very eagerly. Harrington was desirous to have one of them; but, perceiving that it was not to be obtained without kissing the pope’s toe, he declined to accept it on such a condition. His companions were not so scrupulous, and when they came home spoke of his squeamishness to the king. The king told him, “he might have done it only as a piece of respect to a temporal prince;” but Harrington replied, that “since he had the honour to kiss his majesty’s hand, he thought it beneath him to kiss any other prince’s foot.” He is said to have preferred Venice to all other places in Italy, as he did its government to that of the whole world; it being, in his opinion, immutable by any external or internal causes, and to finish only with mankind. Here he cultivated an acquaintance with all the men of letters, and furnished himself with the most valuable books in the Italian tongue, such especially as were written upon politics and government.

, president of Trinity-college, Oxford, was born at Broad Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1578, and sent for education to the free-school of Chipping-Campden, where owing to irregular conduct of the masters and their frequent changes, he appears to have profited little. From thence he was removed to the city of Worcester, and lastly to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which was preferred from his relationship to Mr. Robert Lyster, then principal, a man somewhat popishly inclined. Here, however, he had a tutor of a different stamp, a reputed puritan, under whom he studied with great assiduity. Although his parents designed him for the law, as soon as he took his bachelor’s degree, he determined to make trial of his talents for the pulpit, and went to Chipping-Campden, where he preached a sermon which gave satisfaction. He afterwards officiated for a clergyman in Oxfordshire, and in both cases without being ordained. At length he was examined by bishop Barlow, who found him a very accomplished Greek, and Latin scholar, and he had the living of Hanweli given him, near Ban bury, in Oxfordshire. During his residence here he was often invited to London, and preached at St. Paul’s cross, also before the parliament, and on other public occasions. He had also considerable offers of preferment in* London, but preserved his attachment to Hanweli, where he was extremely useful in confirming the people’s minds, then much unsettled, in the reformed religion, as well as in attachment to the church of England, although he afterwards concurred with those who overthrew it so far as to accept preferment under them. On the commencement of the civil war, tjie tranquillity of his part of the country was much disturbed by the march of armies, and himself obliged at last to repair to London, after his premises were destroyed by the soldiery. On his arrival in London, he became a member of the assembly, but appears to have taken no active part in their proceedings.or some time, Hanwell having now been taken from him, he officiated at the parish-church of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate-street, until the rilling powers ordered him to Oxford, as one of the reforming visitors. Here during the visitation of the earl of Pembroke, the chancellor of the university, he was admitted; D. D. and president of Trinity-college in April 1,648, in the room of Dr. Hannibal Potter, who was ejected by the visitors. This situation he retained until his death, Uec. 11, 1658,. in his eightieth year. He was buried in^ Trinity-college chapel, with an inscription from the ele-“gant pen of Dr. Bathurst, one of his successors, and contaming praises of his conduct as a president more than sufficient to answer the charges brought against him by others. The only words Dr. Bathurst is said to have struck out are these in Italics,” per decennium hujus collegii Præses æternum cdebrandus“nor was this alteration made in the epitaph itself, but in Wood’s ms. of the” Hist, et Antiquitates Univ. Oxon.“The only fault of which Dr. Harris can be accused, and which was very common with other heads of houses put in by the parliamentary visitors, was taking exorbitant fines for renewals of college leases, by which they almost sold out the whole interest of >the college in such estates. On the other hand he appears to have made some liberal grants of money to the posterity of the founder, sir Thomas Pope.” One is surprized,“says Warton,” at those donations, under the government of Dr. Robert Harris, Cromwell’s presbytenan president. But Harris was a man of candour, and I believe a majority of the old loyal fellows still remained.“Durham, the author of Harris’s life, gives him the character of” a man of admirable prudence, profound judgment, eminent gifts and graces, and furnished with all qualifications which might render him a complete man, a wise governor, a profitable preacher, and a good Christian." He appears to have very little relished some of the innovations of his time, particularly that easy and indiscriminate admission into the pulpits, which filled them with illiterate enthusiasts of every description. His works, consisting of sermons and pious treatises, were collected in 1 vol. fol. published in 1654.

He received his education at Marlborough school, under the rev. Mr. Hildrop, to whom he dedicates the few divine poems in the volume published in 1727. At what time he went to Oxford does not appear, but he took his master’s degree June 30, 1720, according to the last edition of the graduates of that university, a clear proof that he must have been born long before 1707. With Pope he acquired an early intimacy, and shared rather more of his friendship than that poet was wont to bestow on his brethren. Pope encouraged his poetical enthusiasm, and inserted many lines in his poems; and Harte repaid the instructions of so distinguished a preceptor, by compliments introduced, not without elegance and propriety, in his Essays on Painting and on Satire, and elsewhere.

In 1727, he published the volume of poems, already mentioned, dedicated to the gallant and eccentric earl of Peterborough, who was, as the, author acknowledges, the first “who took notice of him.” This volume was ushered in by a very numerous list of subscribers, among whom is the name of Alexander Pope, for four copies. An edition of these poems may be sometimes picked up, dated 1739, and printed for John Cecil, instead of Bernard Lintot, the original publisher. As the same list of subscribers is repeated, it is probable that these were the remaining copies bought at Lintot’s sale (who died in 1737), and published with a new title-page.

In 1730 he published his “Essay on Satire,” 8vo, and in 1735 the “Essay on Reason,” folio, to which Pope contributed very considerably, although no part of his share can be exactly ascertained, except the first two lines. He afterwards published two sermons, the one entitled “The Union and Harmony of Reason, Morality, and Revealed Religion,” preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, February 27, 1736-7, which excited so much admiration, or curiosity, as to pass through five editions. The other was a “Fastsermon,” preached at the same place, Jan. 9, 1739-40. He was afterwards vice-principal of St. Mary-hall, and in so much reputation as a tutor, that lord Lyttelton, who was one of his earliest friends, recommended him to the earl of Chesterfield, as a private and travelling preceptor to his natural son. With this young man, to whom his lordship addressed those letters which have so much injured his reputation, Mr. Harte travelled from 1746 to 1750. Lord Chesterfield is said to have procured for him a canonry of Windsor, in 1751, “with much difficulty,” arising from his college connections, St. Mary-hall, of which Dr. King was principal, being at that time noted for jacobitism.

With Pope, Harte appears to have been on very intimate terms, and we find his encomiastic lines among the testimonies of authors prefixed to the “Dunciad.” He had even attained so much character both as a poet and a philosopher, that the “Essay on Man” was at first attributed to him. It may not be impertinent to introduce here an anecdote, related by Dr. Warton, who was very intimate with Harte. " Pope told Mr. Harte, that in order to disguise his being the author of the second epistle of the Essay on Man, he made, in the first edition, the following bad rhyme:

And Harte remembered to have often heard it urged, in inquiries about the author, whilst he was unknown, that it was impossible it could be Pope’s, on account of this very passage." Warton, it may be added, always spoke with respect of Harte’s abilities.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate reception of his history, he projected another undertaking of the same kind. This we learn from the concluding passage of his Gustavus, in which he says his intention was to carry the history of Germany down to the peace of Munster, but that he was deterred by the magnitude of the undertaking. He adds, however, in a note, that he had completed the history of the thirty years’ war, from the breaking out of the troubles in Bohemia in 1618, to the death of Gustavus in 1632. These papers, with whatever else he left, are supposed to have fallen into the hands of his servant Edward Dore, who afterwards kept an inn at Bath. Dore and his family are no more, and the manuscripts are probably irrecoverably lost. We have his own authority also, that he intended to have written a criticism on the poetry of Dryden, which he seems to have appreciated with just taste. The advertisement to “Religious Melancholy,” from which this information is taken, is inserted almost entire, by Dr. Warton in his edition of Pope, as the result of a conference between Pope and Harte.

Harte’s poems, in general are entitled to considerable praise, although it may probably be thought that he was a better critic than a poet, and exhibited more taste than genius. His attachment to Pope led him to an imitation of that writer’s manner, particularly in the “Essay on Rear son,” and that on “Satire.” His “Essay on Reason” has been somewhere called a fine philosophical poem. It might with more propriety be called a fine Christian poem, as it has more of religion than philosophy, and might be aptly entitled An Essay on Revelation. The “Essay on Satire” has some elegant passages, but is desultory, and appears to have been written as a compliment to the “Dunciad” of Pope, whose opinions he followed as far as they respected the merits of the dunces whom Pope libelled.

For his “Essay on Painting,” he pleads that it was written at intervals, upon such remarks as casually occurred itv his reading, and is therefore deficient in connection. He adds that he had finished the whole before he saw Du Fresnoy, which may readily be believed. He discovers, however, a very correct notion of an art which was not at that time much studied in this country, and has laid down many precepts which, if insufficient to form a good painter, will at least prevent the student from falling into gross improprieties. So much knowledge of the art, and acquaintance with the works of the most eminent painters, argues a, taste surprizing at his early age. He had some turn for drawing, and made several sketches when abroad, which were afterwards engraved as head pieces for the poems in the “Amaranth.” In this essay, he delights in images which, although in general pleasing and just, are perhaps too frequently, and as it were periodically, introduced. With all his admiration of Pope, he was not less attached to Dryden as a model; and if he has less harmony than Pope, has at the same time less monotony.

Dr. Hartley was industrious and indefatigable in the pursuit of all collateral branches of knowledge^ and lived in personal intimacy with the learned men of his age. The bishops Law, Butler, and Warburton, and Dr. Jortin, were his intimate friends, and he was much attached to bishop Hoadiy. Among his other friends or correspondents may be mentioned Dr. Hales, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Dr. Young, Dr. Byrom, and Mr. Hooke the Roman historian. Pope was also admired by him, not only as a man of genius, but as a moral poet; yet he soon saw the hand of Bolingbroke in the “Essay on Man.” Dr. Hartley’s genius was penetrating and active his industry indefatigable his philosophical observations and attentions unremitting. From his earliest youth he was devoted to the sciences, particularly to logic and mathematics. He studied mathematics, together with natural and experimental philosophy, under the celebrated professor Saunderson. He was an enthusiastic admirer and disciple of sir Isaac Newton in every branch of literature and philosophy, natural and experimental, mathematical, historical, and religious. His first principles of logic and metaphysics he derived from Locke. He took the first rudiments of his own work, the “Observations on Man,' 7 from Newton and Locke; the doctrine of vibrations, as instrumental to sensation and motion, from the former, and the principle of association originally from the latter, further explained in a dissertation by the rev. Mr. Gay. He began this work when about twenty-five years of age, and published it in 1749, when about forty-three years of age, under the title of” Observations on Man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations,“2 vols. 8vo. His biographer informs us that” he did not expect that it would meet with any general or immediate reception in the philosophical world, or even that it would be much read or understood; neither did it happen otherwise than as he had expected. But at the same time he did entertain an expectation that at some distant period it would become the adopted system of future philosophers.“In this, however, he appears to have been mistaken. We know of no” future“philosophers of any name, who have adopted his system. Dr. Priestley, indeed, published in 1775” Hartley’s Theory, &c. with Essays on the subject of it," but all he has done in this is to convince us of his own belief in materialism, and his earnest desire to prove Hartley a materialist, who dreaded nothing so much, although it must be confessed that hie doctrines have an apparent tendency to that conclusion. Since that time, Hartley’s work was nearly forgotten, until 1791, when an edition was published by his Son, in a handsome 4to volume, with notes and additions, from the German of the rev. Herman Andrew Pistorius, rector of Poseritz, in the island of Rugen; and a sketch of the life and character of Dr. Hartley. The doctrine of vibrations, upon which he attempts to explain the origin and propagation of sensation, although supported by much ingenious reasoning, isnot only built upon a gratuitous assumption, but as Haller has shewn, it attributes properties to the medullary substance of the brain and nerves, which are totally incompatible with their nature.

, bishop of Durham. Of this great prelate we meet with few accounts previous to his promotion to the see of Durham, except his being a prebendary of Lincoln and York, and secretary to Edward III. by whom he appears to have been much esteemed. Before this time the popes had for many years taken upon them the authority of bestowing all the bishoprics in England, without even consulting the king: this greatly offended the nobility and parliament, who enacted several statutes against it, and restored to the churches and convents their ancient privilege of election. Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, dying April 24, 1345, king Edward was very desirous of obtaining this see for his secretary Hatfield; but, fearing the convent should not elect, and the pope disapprove him, he applied to his holiness to bestow the bishopric upon him, and thereby gave him an opportunity of resuming his former usurpations. Glad of this, and of obliging the king, and showing his power at the same time, the pope immediately accepted him; objections, however, were made against him by some of the cardinals, as a man of light behaviour, and no way fit for the place; to this the pope answered, that if the king of England had requested him for an ass, he would not at that time have denied him: he was therefore elected the 8th of May, and consecrated bishop of Durham, 10th of July, 1345.

What his former behaviour, on which the cardinals grounded their objections, may have been, is uncertain; but it is scarce to be imagined, that a king of Edward’s judgment and constant inclination to promote merit, would have raised him to such a dignity had he been so undeserving; nor would he have employed him in so many affairs of consequence as he appears to have done had he not been capable of executing them. In 1346, David king of Scotland, at the head of 50,000 men, invaded England, and after plundering and destroying the country wherever he came, encamped his army in Bear-park, near Stanhope, 141 the county of Durham, from which he detached parties to ravage the neighbouring country; to repel these invaders, a great number of the northern noblemen armed all their vassals, and came to join the king, who was then at Durham; from thence they marched against the Scots in four separate bodies, the first of which was commanded by lord Percy and bishop Hatfield, who on this occasion assumed the warrior, as well as several other prelates. The Scots were defeated, and their king taken prisoner. In 13 54 the bishop of Durham and lords Percy and Ralph Nevill were appointed commissioners to treat with the Scots for the ransom of their captive monarch. In 1355, when king Edward went into France at the head of a large army, he was attended by our prelate; to whom, however, It is more important to mention, that Trinity college, in Oxford, owed its foundation; it was at first called Durham college, and was originally intended for such monks of Durham as should chuse to study there, more particulars of which may be seen in Warton’s Anglia Sacra. Wood, in his Annals, relates the matter somewhat differently. At the dissolution it was granted, in 1552, to Dr. Owen, who sold it to sir Thomas Pope, by whom it was refounded^ endowed, and called Trinity college. Before Hatfield’s time, the bishops of Durham had no house in London to repair to when summoned to parliament; to remedy this, this munificent prelate built a most elegant palace in the Strand, and called it Durham-house (lately Durham-yard), and by his will bequeathed it for ever to his successors in the bishopric. This palace continued in possession of the bishops till the reformation, when it was, in the fifth of Edward VI. demised to the princess Elizabeth. In the fourth of Mary it was again granted to bishop Tunstall and his successors, and afterwards let out on a building lease, with the reservation of 200l. a year out-rent, which the bishop now receives. On this pfat of ground the Adelphi buildings are erected.

, an English artist, much celebrated in his day, was born in 1708, at Exeter, and was the scholar of Brown. He appears to have come to London in the early part of his life, and was much employed by Fleetwood, the proprietor of Drury-lane theatre, for whom he painted many scenes. In the pursuit of his profession, he was not extremely assiduous, being more convivial than studious; yet he acquired a very considerable degree of power in his art, and was the best historical painter in the kingdom, before the arrival of Cipriani. It was this superiority of talent that introduced him to the notice of Mr. Jonathan Tyers, the founder and proprietor of Vauxhall, by whom he was employed in decorating those well-known gardens, and where some of his best historical pictures are still to be seen. He also painted four pictures from subjects taken from Sbakspeare, for what is called the prince’s pavilion in Vauxhall, but Mr. Tyers had such an high opinion of them, as to remove them to his own residence, and place copies in their room. His reputation procured him much employment from the booksellers, whom he furnished with drawings for their editions of Moore’s Fables, Congreve’s Works, Newton’s Milton, Hammer’s Shakspeare, Smcllet’s Don Quixote, Pope’s Works, &c. These drawings have in general great merit.

* Pope (Dunciad, I. 289), calls the strange bird from Switzerland, and not

The learned have all joined in their praises of Heinsius. Gerard Vossius says that he was a very great man; and calls him the ornament of the muses and the graces. Casaubon admires him equally for his parts and learning. Pareus calls him the Varro of his age. Barthius ranks him with the first writers. Bochart pronounces him a truly great and learned man and Selden speaks of him as “tarn severiorum quam amceniorum literarum sol” a light to guide us in our gay as well as severe pursuits in letters. Some, however, have thought that, he was not so well formed for criticism; and Le Clerc, in his account of the Amsterdam edition of Bentley’s “Horace,” says that though doubtless a learned man, who had spent his life in the study of criticism, yet if we may judge by his Horace, he was by no means happy in his conjectures; but he speaks much more advantageously of his son Nicolas Heinsius; and agreed, with the rest of the world, that though not so learned a man as his father, he had a better taste for criticism. Daniel Heinsius was, however, highly honoured abroad as well as at home; and received uncommon marks of respect from foreign potentates. Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, gave him a place among his counsellors of state: the republic of Venice made him a knight of their order of St. Mark: and pope Urban VIII. was such an admirer of his fine talents and consummate learning, that he made him great offers if he would come to Rome; “to rescue that city from barbarism,” as the pontiff is said to have expressed himself.

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

Henley lectured, in this style, on Sundays upon theological matters, and on Wednesdays upon all other sciences. He declaimed some years against the greatest persons, and occasionally, says Warburton, did Pope that honour. The poet retorts upon him in the well-known lines:

, an able divine, a Carmelite, born at Ath in Flanders, taught theology with reputation, and passed through the most important offices of his order. He made a long stay at Rome in the beginning of the pontificate of Clement XI. by whom he was much esteemed, and died in a very advanced age at Cavee, a Carmelite convent, about 1720. His chief work is a complete system of moral theology, entitled “Ethica amoris,” Liege, 1709, 3 vols. fol. in which he strongly opposes the relaxed casuists, but supports the principles of the Ultramontanes. He has also left another theological work, where he explains the first part of the Sum of St. Thomas, fol. This last is very scarce. “Molinismus profligatus,” 2 vols. 8vo; “Artes Jesuiticse in sustinendis novitatibus laxitatibusque Sociorum;” the best edition is 1710. “Tuba magna mirum clangens sonum de necessitate reformandi Societatem Jesu, per Liberium Candidum.” This is a collection of pieces; the best edition is 1717, in two thick vols. 12mo. These two works are dedicated to pope Clement XI. Henry de St. Ignace openly declared himself, in his writings, a friend to the cause and sentiments of M. Arnauld and P. Quesnel.

, an eminent linguist, was born at Hamstocks, in Haddingtonshire, Scotland, July 14, 1573. His father, a disciple of John Knox, was rector of that place. The son was educated at St. Andrew’s, where, for some reason, he embraced the popisfi religion, and went to France and Italy. He afterwards travelled through Turkey, Persia, Syria, and most other countries of the East, devoting his attention principally to the study of their languages: on his return he entered into a convent of Minims in. the neighhourhood of Avignon, which he exchanged after some time for the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Rome, belonging to the same order. His fame as a linguist having reached the ears of pope Paul V. he appointed him librarian of Oriental books and Mss. in the Vatican, in which office he remained six years. He is said to have been at Venice in 1620, whither he had gone with an intention of translating from Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldaic writings, and is supposed to have died there in that or the following year. Wonders are told of his proficiency in languages; we may allow that it was great for his time, but must hesitate in believing that he knew seventy-two languages. Of his works, Dempster mentions “A Hebrew and Chaldaic Dictionary, and an Arabic Grammar,” forming one volume, quarto, printed at Rome in 1591. The rest of his works, enumerated by Mackenzie, are translations from the Hebrew manuscripts, most of them of legendary authority, and not printed.

, or Hersan, a French divine, known chiefly for a violent satire which he wrote against cardinal Richelieu, under the feigned name of Optatus Gallus, which, having been condemned and burnt by the parliament of Paris, is become very scarce, and therefore sells at from 60 to 100 livres, among French collectors. It is entitled “Optati Galli de cavendo Schismate, Liber Paraeneticus,” and was published at Paris in 1640, in 8vo. There is, however, a counterfeit edition, bearing the same date, which is distinguished from the true by a very few differences, as superiorum for Superiore, in p. 7, and by the sentence of parliament which takes up twelve pages, and only eleven in the counterfeit. In this book the author maintained that the Galilean church was in danger of separating from Home, like the English, and strenuously maintained the supremacy of the pope. The cardinal employed three or four writers to answer this anonymous assailant, the best of whom was Isaac Habert in his treatise “De consensu hierarchies et monarchic;” but the author in the mean time retired to Rome, where after a time his violence and indiscretion involved him with the inquisition, on some points respecting the doctrine of grace, which he handled in a “Panegyric on St. Louis.” He was cited, refused to appear, and was excommunicated. He therefore returned to France, where he died in 1660. There are extant also by him, a paraphrase on Solomon’s Song, in prose, published in 1635, 8vo; some funeral orations, sermons, and attacks against the congregation of the oratory, which he had quitted; with a few other pieces. His chief promotion was that of chancellor to the church of Metz.

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

The man, however, whom Pope thus affected to despise, possessed very considerable talents both as a statesman and a man of literature. Dr. Middleton, in his dedication to the “Life of Tuily,” has praised his good sense, consummate politeness, real patriotism, his knowledge and defence of the laws of his country, his accurate skill in history, and his unexampled and unremitted diligence in literary pursuits. To Middleton’s work he contributed the translations of the passages from Cicero. Lord Hervey also wrote some of the best political pamphlets in defence of Sir Robert Walpole’s administration, of which lord Orford has given a long list. One attributed to him was entitled, “Sedition and Defamation displayed,' 7 and contained a severe invective against Pulteney and Bolingbroke. In answer to this, Pulteney wrote” A proper reply to a late scurrilous libel, &c.“and treated lord Hervey with such contempt, that the latter challenged him: a duel ensued, and Pulteney slightly wounded his antagonist. It afterwards appeared that lord Hervey did not compose this pamphlet, and Pulteney acknowledged his mistake. It was written by Sir William Yonge, secretary at war, a circumstance of which lord Orford appears to have bea ignorant. Though sometimes too florid and pompous, lord Hervey was a frequent and able speaker in parliament, and possessed more than ordinary abilities, and much classical erudition. He was remarkable for his wit, and the number and appositeness of his repartees. Although his manner and figure were, at first acquaintance, highly forbidding, yet he seldom failed to render himself, by his lively conversation, an entertaining companion to those whom he wished to conciliate. Hence he conquered the extreme prejudice which the king had conceived against him; and from being detested, became a great favourite. He was particularly agreeable to queen Caroline, as he helped to enliven the uniformity of a court with sprightly repartees, and lively sallies of wit. His defects were, extreme affectation, bitterness of invective, prodigality of flattery, and great servility to those above him. Of his poetical effusions, which are easy, elegant, and sufficiently satirical to” have made Pope feel, the best are in Dodsley’s collection. The advice of George II. to him must not be forgotten, although in our days it is less likely to be taken than at that period “My lord Hervey, you ought not to write verses 'tis beneath your rank leave such work to little Mr. Pope it is his trade”

Lord Hervey married, Oct. 25, 1720, Mary, daughter of brigadier-general Nicholas Lepell, an amiable woman, often mentioned, and always with praise, in Pope’s and lord Orford’s works; and had by her four sons and four daughters. Two of the sons are the subjects of the following articles.

, a voluminous female writer, was the daughter of a tradesman of London, of the name of Fowler, and was born about 1693. An unfortunate marriage reduced her *o the necessity of depending on her pen, for the support of herself and two children, the eldest of whom was then only seven years of age. Her genius leading her to novel-writing, she took Mrs. Manley’s “Atalantis” for her model, and produced “The Court of Arimania,” “The New Utopia,” with other pieces of a like kind. The looseness of these works were the ostensible reason of Pope for putting her into his “Dunciad;” but it is most probable, that some provocation of a private and personal nature was the real motive to it. She seemed, however, to be convinced of her error; since, in the numerous volumes she published afterwards, she generally appeared a votary of virtue, and preserved more purity and delicacy of sentiment. Her latter writings are, 1. “The Female Spectator,” 4 vols; 2. “Epistles for the Ladies,” 2 vols. 3. “Fortunate Foundling,” 1 vol. 4. “Adventures of Nature,” 1 vol. 5. “History of Betsey Thoughtless,” 4 vofs. 6. “Jenny and Jemmy Jessamy,” 3 vols. 7. “Invisible Spy,” 2 vols. 8. “Husband and Wife,” 2 vols. all in 12mo; and a pamphlet, entitled “A Present for a Servant Maid.”

the society of the Jesuits; which was about 1572.—The youngest, Jasper, was born in London about 1535, and educated at Merton college in Oxford of which he was chosen fellow, but obliged to resign, for fear of expulsion, on account of his immoralities, in 1558. He was then elected fellow of All Souls, but left the university, and soon after England. In 1561, he became a popish priest and the year after, being at Rome, was entered among the Jesuits. After he had passed two years in the study of divinity, he was sent to Diling in Switzerland; whence being called away by pope Gregory XIII. in 1581, he was sent into England, where he was appointed provincial of the Jesuits. After many peregrinations, he died at Naples Jan. 9, 1598. Before he left England the first time, he translated three tragedies of Seneca and wrote “Various Poems and Devices” some of which are printed in “The Paradise of Dainty Devices,” 1573," 4to.

Now drain this goblet, potent to digest." Pope.

, another Romish saint of that name, bishop of Aries, was born in the year 401, of rich and noble parents, and educated under St. Honoratus, abbot of Lerins. When Honoratus was promoted to the see of Aries, Hilarius, afterwards his successor, attended him, and when he was himself promoted to that dignity, beheld several councils, and presided in that at Rome in 441. In consequence of some false accusations, he was partly degraded by pope Leo, but his merit was afterwards fully perceived by that prelate. He died at the age of 48, May 5, 449, and although so young, was yet worn out by his ecclesiastical labours. In sentiments he was a Semi-Pelagian, yet he bore the highest character for piety, and all virtues. His works are, 1. “Homilies,” under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, which are in the library of the fathers. 2. “The Life of St. Honpratus,” his predecessor, Paris, 1578, 8vo; 3. Various smaller works, but no collection has been made of them.

As a writer, we cannot follow his panegyrists so far, as to allow him to stand in a very exalted rank of merit. The rigid correctness with which he constantly re-perused his works for alteration, the frequent use of compound epithets, and an ordo verborum in great measure peculiar to himself, have justly laid him open to the charge of being very generally turgid and obscure; yet he is not in some parts without a portion of nervous power, and of intrinsic sterling sense. The sera of his fume, however, is gone by, and although four volumes of his works, in 8vo, have been published since his death, they have never been in much favour with the public. His quarrel with Pope would have scarcely been worth reviving in this place, if a recent publication had not thrown new light on Hill’s conduct. He seems to have lived in perfect harmony with all the writers of his time excepting Pope, with whom he had a short paper war, occasioned by that gentleman’s introducing him in the “Dunciad,” as one of the competitors for the prize offered by the goddess’ of Dulness, in the following lines:

This, though far the gentlest piece of satire in the whole poem, and conveying at the same time a very elegant compliment, roused Hill to the taking some notice of it, which he did by a poem, written during his peregrination in the North, entitled “The Progress of Wit, a Caveat for the use of an eminent writer,” which he begins with the following eight lines, in which Pope’s too well-known disposition is elegantly, yet very severely characterized:

The “sneakingly approves,” in the last couplet, Pope was much affected by; and, indeed, through their whole controversy afterwards, in which it was generally thought Hill had considerably the advantage, Pope seems rather to express his repentance by denying the offence, than to vindicate himself, supposing it to have been given.

All this, however, might have passed among two of the genus irritabile without creating perpetual animosity, and indeed we have been told that the parties were afterwards, reconciled; but from Hill’s letters, published in “The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson,” we find him expressing sentiments of Pope, which not only detract from his memory as a man of taste, but even lessen much of that respect which the character his friends gave him has a tendency to create. In these letters he gravely tells Richardson that Pope’s “popularity arose from meditated little personal assiduities, and a certain bladdery swell of management” and again exclaims, “But rest iiis memory in peace It will very rarely be disturbed by that time he himself is in ashes.”

, nephew of the preceding on the mother’s side, was made bishop of Laon before the age prescribed by the canons. His irregular conduct, injustice, and violent proceedings against his clergy, occasioned the council of Verberie, in which he was accused by Charles the Bald; but the proceeding was suspended by an apneal to the pope. Hincmar was less fortunate in the council of Douzi in 871, where being accused of sedition, calumny, and disobedience to the king by open force, his uncle pronounced sentence against him, and he was banished, confined in irons, and his eyes put out. Another bishop was appointed in his room;however in 878 he was reinstated; but died soon after. His vindications may be found in the History of the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

The prodigious degree of authority, so long attached to the writings of Hippocrates, has occasioned such a multitude of editions, versions, commentaries, dissertations, &c. that many pages would be required to enumerate them. The principal Greek editions are those of Aldus, at Venice, in 1526, folio; and of Frobenius at Basle, in 1538, folio; and the Latin editions are those of Cratander, at Basle, in 1526, folio, translated by several hands; of M. F. Calous, at Rome, 1525 and 1549, translated from Mss. in the Vatican, by order of pope Clement VII.; of J. Cornarius, at Venice, in 1545, 8vo, whose version has been frequently reprinted; and the version of Anutius Foesius, at Francfort, 1596, 8vo, by Wechel. The Greek and Latin editions are those of Hieronyrnus Mercurialis, at Venice, 1578, folio; of Z winger, with the version of Cornarius, at Basle, 1579, folio; of Anutius Foesius, at Francfort, 1595, several times reprinted; of J. A. Vander Linden, also with the Latin version of Cornarius, at Leyden, 1665, 2 vols. 8vo. reprinted at Venice, 1757, in 2 vols. 4to.; of Renatus Chartrier, together with the works of Galen, at Paris, in 14 vols. folio; and of Steph. Mack, at Vienna, 1743, 1749, and 1759, 2 vols. folio.

As a writer, he possessed uncommon talents; his greatest defect was in his style, extending his periods to a disagreeable length, for which Pope has thus recorded him:

His eminent success in his portraits brought to his gallery all the distinguished characters of the time, who occasionally visited Bath for health or pleasure; among whom, were Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Legge, Mr. Grenville, Lord Chesterfield, &c. &c. and his acquaintance with them was improved into friendship on their part, by the variety of his learning, the amenity of his manners, the ingenuousness of his mind, and the high respectability of his domestic establishment. To the list of his friends and patrons were soon added the virtuous Allen, and his learned nephew-in-law, Warburton; and Mr. Allen’s house, where he was always a welcome visitor, gave him also an introduction to Pope, and other distinguished inmates of Prior-park.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

The editions of Homer are numerous beyond those of any other classic, and there are many excellent ones; perhaps the best are, that by Dr. Barnes with the Greek scholia, in two vols. 4to; that by Dr. Clarke published in 1729, 4to and that by the learned Heyne, 1802, 8 vols. 8vo. The most elaborate commentary is that by Eustathius, bishop of Thessalonica, and the best English translation is that by Pope: though Cowper’s, in blank verse, is thought to come nearer to the original. The French, and almost every nation, has its translation of Homer.

, celebrated for a “Roman History,” died July 19, 1763, but we know not at what age; as indeed few particulars of him are recorded, though he is said, “from 1723 till his death, to have enjoyed the confidence and patronage of men not less distinguished by virtue than hy titles.” The first particular that occurs of him is from a letter to lord Oxford, dated Oct. 17,1722, by which it appears, that, having been “seized with the late epidemical distemper of endeavouring to be rich,” meaning the South-sea infatuation, “he was in some measure happy to find himself at that instant just worth nothing,” Some time after, however, he was recommended to Sarah duchess of Marlborough, who presented him with 5000l. the condition of which donation was expressly, that he the said Hooke should aid and assist her the said duchess in drawing up and digesting “An account of the conduct of the dowager duchess of Marl borough, from her first coming to court to the year 1710.” This was done, and the work was published in 1742, 8vo; but soon after she took occasion, as was usual with her, to quarrel with him, “because,” finding her without religion, “he attempted,” as she affirmed, “to convert her to popery.” Hooke was a mystic and quietist, and a warm disciple of Fenelon, whose life he translated from the French, and published in 1723, 12mo. It was he who brought a catholic priest to take Pope’s confession upon his death-bed: the priest had scarcely departed, when Bolingbroke coming in, flew into a great passion upon the occasion. He is said to have been a remarkably fine reader. Richardson informs us, that he once read some speeches of his Roman History to the speaker Onslow, who piqued himself too upon reading, and begged him to give his opinion of the work: the Speaker answered, as in a passion, “he could not tell what to think of it: it might be nonsense for aught he knew; for that his manner of reading had bewitched him.”

, an eminent English mathematician, and one of the most inventive geniuses that the world has ever seen, was son of Mr. John Hooke, rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and born there July 18, 1635. He was designed for the church; but being of a weakly constitution, and very subject to the head-ache, he was left to follow the bent of his genius, which led him to mechanics, and first appeared in his making little toys, which he did with wonderful art and dexterity. Seeing, on one occasion, an old brass clock taken to pieces, he made a wooden one that would go: he made likewise a small ship about a yard long, fitly shaped, masted, and rigged, with a contrivance to make it fire small guns, as it was sailing across a haven of some breadth. These indications led his friends to think of some trade for him in which such talents might be useful; and after his father’s death in 1648, as he had also a turn for drawing, he was placed with sir Peter Lely, but the smell of the oil-colours increased his headaches, and he quitted painting in a very short time. Afterwards he was kindly taken by Dr. Busby into his house, and supported there while he attended Westminster-school. Here he not only acquired Greek and Latin, together with some knowledge of Hebrew and other oriental languages, but also made himself master of a good part of Euclid’s Elements; and Wood adds, that while he lived with Dr. Busby he “learned of his own accord to play twenty lessons on the organ, and invented thirty several ways of flying as himself and Dr. Wilkins of Wadham- college have reported.” About 1653 he went to Christ-church, Oxford, and in 1655 was introduced to the philosophical society there; where, discovering his mechanic genius, he was first employed to assist Dr. Willis in his operations of chemistry, and afterwards recommended to Mr. Boyle, whom he served many years in the same capacity. He was also instructed about this time by Dr. Seth Ward, Savilian professor of astronomy, in that science; and from henceforward distinguished himself by a greater number of important inventions and improvements of the mechanic kind, than any one man had ever discovered. Among these were several astronomical instruments for making observations both at sea and land; and he was particularly serviceable to Boyle, in completing the air-pump. Wood tells us, that he also explained “Euclid’s Elements,” and “Des Cartes’s Philosophy,” to Boyle. In Nov. 1662, sir Robert Moray, then president, having proposed him for curator of experiments to the Royal Society, he was unanimously accepted, and it was ordered that Boyle should have the thanks of the society for dispensing with him for their use; and that he should come and sit among them, and both exhibit every day three or four of his own experiments, and take care of such others as should be mentioned to him by the society. He executed this office so much to their satisfaction, that when that body was established by the royal charter, his name was in the list of those who were first nominated by the council, May 20, 1663; and he was admitted accordingly, June 3, with a peculiar exemption from all payments. Sept. 28 of the same year, he was nominated by Clarendon, chancellor of Oxford, for the degree of M.A.; and Oct. 19, it was ordered that the repository of the Royal Society should be committed to his care, the white gallery in Gresham-college being appointed for that use. In May 1664, he began to read the astronomical lecture at Gresham for the professor, Dr. Pope, theri in Italy; and the same year was made professor of mechanics to the Royal Society by Sir John Cutler, with a salary of 50l. per annum, which that gentleman, the founder, v settled upon him for life. On Jan. 11, 1664-5, he was elected by that society curator of experiments for life, with an additional salary of“30l. per annum to sir John Cutler’s annuity, settled on him” pro tempore:“and, March folJowing, was elected professor of geometry in Greshamcollege. In 1665, he published in folio his” Micrographia, or some philosophical descriptions of minute bodies, made by magnifying glasses, with observations and enquiries thereupon:" and the same year, during the recess of the Royal Society on account of the plague, attended Dr. Wilkins and other ingenious gentlemen into Surrey, where they made several experiments. In Sept. 1666, he produced his plan for rebuilding the city of London, then destroyed by the great fire; which was approved by the lord -may or and court of aldermen. According to it, all the chief streets were to have been built in regular lines; all the other cross streets to have turned out of them at right angles; and all the churches, public buildings, marketplacesj &c. to have beetl fixed in proper and convenient places; but the nature of the property, and the impossibility of raising funds to indemnify the landholders who would be injured by this scheme, prevented its being carried into execution. The rebuilding of the city, however, according to the act of parliament, requiring an able person to set out the ground to the several proprietors, Hooke was appointed one of the city surveyors, and Oliver, a glass-painter, the other. In this employment he acquired the greatest part of that estate of which he died possessed; as appeared sufficiently evident from a large iron chest of money found after his death, locked down with a key in it, and a date of the time, which shewed that the contents had been so shut up for above thirty years, and seldom disturbed, for he almost starved himself and all in his house.

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

, cardinal, was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503, of low parents, but being welleducated, bore such a character after taking his degrees, as to be admitted into the Polish se.nate. He was, here distinguished by the acuteness of his genius, the retentiveness of his memory, and other accomplishments mental and personal and was advanced successively to the places ofsecretary to the king, canon of Crac.ow, bishop of Culm, and bishop of Warmia. He was sentby the. pope Pius IV. to engage the emperor Ferdinand to continue the council of Trent; and the emperor was sq charmed with his eloquence and address, that he granted whatever he asked. Pius then made him a cardinal, and employed him as his legate, to open and preside at the council.Hosius was a zealous advocate for the Rpmish church, and de.? fended it ably, both in speeches and writings the latter of which amounted to two tolio, volumes, and were often printed during his life. He died in 1579, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the chmrch of St. Lawrence, from which he took hie title as cardinal. By his will he left his library to the university of Cracow, with an annual sum to provide for its support and increase. Am.ong his works, th^ chief are, 1. “Confessio Catholicae Fidei,” said to have been reprinted in various languages, thirty- four times. 2. “De Communione sub utraque specie.” 3. “De sacerdotum conjugio.” 4, " De Missa vulgari lingua celebrandaV' &c. His works were first collectively published, at Cologne, in 1584.

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

Surrey’s poems were in high reputation among his contemporaries and immediate successors, who vied with each other in compliments to his genius, gallantry, and personal worth. They were first printed in 1557, by Tottel, in 4to, with die title of “Songes and sonnettes by the right honorable Henry Howard, late earl of Surrey, and other.” Several editions of the same followed in 1565, 1567, 1569, 1574, 1585, and 1587. So many editions prove a degree of popularity which fell to the lot of very few poems of that age. But after the time of Elizabeth they became gradually obscure, and we find no modern edition until Pope’s incidental notice of him (in Windsor-Forest), as the “Granville of a former age,” induced the booksellers to employ Dr. Sewell to be the editor of Surrey’s, Wyat’s, and the poems of uncertain authors. But the doctor performed his task, with so little knowledge of the language, that this is perhaps the most incorrect edition extant of any ancient poet. It would have been surprizing had it contributed to revive his memory, or justify Pope’s comparison and eulogium.

, successively bishop of Oxford and Durham, was born in St. Bride’s parish, London, in 1556, and educated at St. Paul’s school, whence he became student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1577. After taking his degrees in arts, and entering into holy orders, he was vicar of Bampton in Oxfordshire, rector of Brightwell in Berkshire, a fellow of Chelsea college, and canon of Hereford. When vice-chancellor of Oxford he exerted himself against those puritans who opposed the discipline and ceremonies, but was afterwards a more distinguished writer and preacher against popery. He appears to have entered the lists against Bellarmine and his friends with determined resolution, declaring “that he'd loosen the pope from his chair, though he were fastened thereto with a tenpenny nail.” King James commanded his polemical discourses, which are the most considerable of his works, to be printed, in 1622, 4to. They are all in the form of sermons.

, a saint of the Romish calendar, was of a very distinguished family in Burgundy, and was born in 1023. When he was only fifteen, he rejected all worldly views, and entered into the monastic life at Cluni, under the guidance of the abbot Odilon. After some years, he was created prior of the order, and abbot in 1048, at the death of Odilon. In this situation he extended the reform of Cluni to so many monasteries, that, according to an ancient author, he had under his jurisdiction above ten thousand monks. In 1058 he attended pope Stephen when dying, at Florence; and in 1074 he made a religious pilgrimage to Rome. Some epistles written by him are extant in Dacheri Spicilegium. There are also other pieces by him in the “Bibliotheque de Cluni.” He died in 1108 or 9. He is said to have united moderation with his exemplary piety; and was embroiled, at one time, with the bishop of Lyons, for saying the prayer for the emperor Henry IV. when that prince was under excommunication.

, born in 1065, was a monk of St. Vannes at Verdun, and afterwards abbot of Flavigny in the 12th century, but was dispossessed of that dignity by the bishop of Autun, who caused another abbot to be elected. Hugh, however, supplanted St. Laurentius, abbot of Vannes, who was persecuted by the bishop of Verdun for his attachment to the pope, and kept his place till 1115, after which time it is not known what became of him. He wrote the “Chronicle of Verdun,” which is esteemed, and may be found in P. Labbe’s * Bibl. Manuscript."

, a celebrated cardinal of the Dominican order, was so called from the place of his birth, at the gates of Vienne, where there is a church dedicated to St. Cher. He acquired great reputation in the 13th century by his prudence, learning, and genius; was doctor of divinity of the faculty of Paris, appointed provincial of his order, afterwards cardinal by Innocent IV. May 28, 1244, and employed by this pope and his successor Alexander IV. in affairs of the greatest consequence. He died March 19, 1263, at Orvieto. His principal works are a collection of the various readings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Mss. of the bible, entitled “Correctorium Bibliae,” which is in the Sorbonne in ms.; a “Concordance of the Bible,” Cologn, 1684, 8vo; the earliest work of this kind. He is said to have been the inventor of concordances. “Commentaries on the Bible” “Speculum Ecclesiae,” Paris, 1480, 4to, &c.

His numerous performances, for he had all along employed his leisure hours in translations and imitations from the ancients, had by this time introduced him, not only to the wits of the age, Addison , Congreve, Pope, Southerne, Rowe, and others, but also to some men of rank in the kingdom, and among these to the earl of Wharton, who offered to carry him over, and to provide for him, when appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but, having other other views at home, he declined the offer. His views, however, were not very promising, until in 1717 the lord chancellor Cowper made him secretary to the commissions of the peace; in which he afterwards, by a particular request, desired his successor, lord Parker, to continue him. He had now affluence; but such is human life, that he had it when his declining health could neither allow him long possession nor full enjoyment. His last work was his tragedy, “The Siege of Damascus;” after which a Siege became a popular title. This play was long popular, and is still occasionally produced; but is not acted or printed according to the author’s original draught, or his settled intention. He had made Phocyas apostatize from his religion; after which the abhorrence of Eudocia would have been reasonable, his misery would have been just, and the horrors of his repentance exemplary. The players, however, required that the guilt of Phocyas should terminate in desertion to the enemy; and Hughes, unwilling that his relations should lose the benefit of his work, complied with the alteration. He was now weak with a lingering consumption, and not able to attend the rehearsal; yet was so vigorous in his faculties, that only ten days before his death he wrote the dedication to his patron lord Cowper. On Feb. 17, 1720, the play was represented, and the author died. He lived ta hear that it was well received; but paid no regard to the intelligence, being then wholly employed in the meditations of a departing Christian.

A man of his amiable character was undoubtedly regretted; and Steele devoted an essay in the paper called “The Theatre,” to the memory of his virtues. In 1735 his poems were collected and published in. 2 vols. 12 mo, under the following title: “Poems on several occasions, with some select Kssays in prose.” Hughes was also the author of other works in prose. “The Advices from Parnassus,” and “The Political Touchstone of Boccalini,” translated by several hands, and printed in folio, 1706, “were revised, corrected, and had a preface prefixed to them, by him. He translated himself” Fontenelle’s Dialogues of the Dead, and Discourse concerning the Ancients and Moderns;“”the Abbé Vertot’s History of the Revolutions in Portugal;“and” Letters of Abelard and Heloisa.“He wrote the preface to the collection of the” History of England“by various hands, Called” The Complete History of England,“printed in 1706, in 3 vols. folio; in which he gives a clear, satisfactory, and impartial account of the historians there collected. Several papers in the” Tatlers,“” Spectators,“and” Guardians,“were written by him. He is supposed to have written the whole, or at least a considerable part, of the” Lay Monastery,“consisting of Essays, Discourses, &c. published singly under the title of the” Lay Monk,“being the sequel of the” Spectators.“The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 12mo. Lastly, he published, in 1715, an accurate edition of the works of Spenser, in 6 vols. 12mo; to which are prefixed the” Life of Spenser,“”An Essay on Allegorical Poetry,“” Remarks on the Fairy Queen, and other writings of Spenser,“and a glossary, explaining old words; all by Mr. Hughes. This was a work for which he was well qualified, as a judge of the beauties of writing, but he wanted an antiquary’s knowledge of the obsolete words. He did not much revive the curiosity of the public, for near thirty years elapsed before his edition was reprinted. The character of his genius is not unfairly given in the correspondence of Swift and Pope.” A month ago,“says Swift,” was sent me over, by a friend of mine, the works of John Hughes, esq. They are in prose and verse. I never heard of the man in my life, yet I find your name as a subscriber. He is too grave a poet for me; and I think among the mediocrists, in prose as well as verse.“To this Pope returns:” To answer your question as to Mr. Hughes; what he wanted in genius, he made up as an honest man; but he was of the class you think him."

, waiwode of Transylvania, and general of the armies of Ladislas, king of Hungary, was one of the greatest commanders of his time. He fought against the Turks like a hero, and, in 1442 and 1443, gained important battles against the generals of Arnurath and obliged that prince to retire from Belgrade, after besieging it seven months. In the battle of Varnes, so fatal to the Christian cause, and in which Ladislas fell, Corvinus was not less distinguished than in his more fortunate contests; and, being appointed governor of Hungary, became proverbially formidable to the Turks. In 1448, however, he suffered a defeat from them. He was more fortunate afterwards, and in 1456, obliged Mahomet U. also to relinquish the siege of Belgrade; and died the 10th of September in the same year. Mahomet, though an enemy, had generosity enough to lament the death of so great a man; and pride enough to allege as one cause for his regret, that the world did not now contain a man against whom he could deign to turn his arms, or from whom he could regain the glory he had so lately lost before Belgrade. The pope is said to have shed tears on the news of his death; and Christians in general lamented Huniades as their best defender against the infidels.

Mr. Kurd’s first literary performance, as far as can be ascertained, was “Remarks on a late book entitled ‘An Enquiry into the rejection of the Christian miracles by the Heathens, by William Weston, B. D.’” 1746. On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, he contributed some verses to the university collection of 1749. In the same year he took the degree of B. D. and published his “Commentary on Horace’s Ars Poetica,” in the preface to which he took occasion to compliment Mr. Warburton in a manner which procured him the acquaintance of that author, who soon after returned the eulogium, in his edition of Pope’s works, in which he speaks of Mr. Kurd’s Commentary in terms of the highest approbation. Hence arose an intimacy which remained unbroken during the whole of their lives, and is supposed to have had a considerable effect on the opinions of Mr. Hurd, who was long considered as the first scholar in what has been called the Warburtonian school. His Commentary was reprinted in 1757, with the addition of two Dissertations, one on the Province of the Drama, the other on Poetical Imitation, and a letter to Mr. Mason, on the “Marks of Imitation.” A fourth edition, corrected and enlarged, was published in 3 vols. 8vo. in 1765, with the addition of another Dissertation on the idea of universal Poetry; and the whole were again reprinted in 1776. It is needless to add that they fully established Mr. Kurd’s character as an elegant, acute, and judicious critic.

, a celebrated divine and martyr, was born at a town in Bohemia, called Hussenitz, about 1376, and liberally educated in the university of Prague. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1393, and that of master in 1395; and we find him, in 1400, in orders, and a minister of a church in that city. About this time the writings of our countryman Wickliffe had spread themselves among the Bohemians, which was owing to the following circumstance: Queen Anne, the wife of Richard II. of England, was daughter to the emperor Charles IV. and sister to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, and Sigismund emperor of Germany. She was a princess of great piety, virtue, and knowledge, nor could she endure the implicit service and devotion of the Romish church. Her death happened in 1394, and her funeral was attended by all the nobility of England. She had patronized Wickliffe, and after her death, several of Wickliffe’s books were carried by her attendants into Bohemia, and were the means of promoting the reformation there. They had also been carried into the same country by Peter Payne, an Englishman, one of his disciples, and principal of Edmund-hall. Fox mentions another person, a young nobleman of Bohemia, who had studied some time at Oxford, and carried home with him several of Wickliffe’s tracts. They were particularly read by the students at Prague, among the chief of whom was Huss; who, being much taken with Wickliffe’s notions, began to preach and write with great zeal against the superstitions and errors of the church of Rome. He succeeded so far, that the sale of indulgences gradually decreased among the Bohemians; and the pope’s party declared, that there would soon be an end of religion, if measures were not taken to oppose the restless endeavours of the Hussites. With a view, therefore, of preventing this danger, Subinco, the archbishop of Prague, issued forth two mandates in 1408; one, addressed to the members of the university, by which they were ordered to bring together all Wickliffe’s writings, that such as were found no contain any thing erroneous or heretical might be burnt; the other, to all curates and ministers, commanding them to teach the people, that, after the consecration of the elements in the holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the real body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hjiss, whose credit and authority in the university were very great, as well for his piety and learning, as on account of considerable services he had done, found no difficulty in persuading many of its members of the unreasonableness and absurdity of these mandates: the first being, as he said, a plain encroachment upon the liberties and privileges of the university, whose members had an indisputable right to possess, and to read all sorts of books; the second, inculcating a most abominable error. Upon this foundation they appealed to Gregory XII. and the archbishop Subinco was summoned to Rome. But, on acquainting the pope that the heretical notions of WicklifTe were gaining ground apace in Bohemia, through the zeal of some preachers who had read his books, a bull was granted him for the suppression of all such notions in his province. By virtue of this bull, Subinco condemned the writings of Wickliffe, and proceeded against four doctors, who bad not complied with his mandate in bringing in their copies. Huss and others, who were involved in this sentence, protested against this projcedure of the archbishop, and appealed from him a second time, in June 1410. The matter was then brought before John XXIII. who ordered Huss, accused of many errors and heresies, to appear in person at the court of Rome, and gave a special commission to cardinal Colonna to cite him. Huss, however, under the protection and countenance of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, did riot appear, but sent three deputies to excuse his absence, and to answe'r all which should be alledged against him. Colonna paid no regard to the deputies, nor to any defence they could make; but. declared Huss guilty of contumacy to the court of Rome, and excommunicated him for it. Upon this the deputies appealed from the cardinal to the pope, who commissioned four other cardinals to examine into the affair. These commissaries not only confirmed all that Colonna had done, but extended the excommunication, which was limited to Huss, to his friends and followers: they also declared him an Heresiarch, and pronounced an interdict against him.

All this time, utterly regardless of what was doing at Rome, Huss continued to preach and write with great zeal against the errors and superstitions of that church, and in defence of Wickliffe and his doctrines. His discourses were pointed directly against the pope, the cardinals, and the clergy of that party; and at the same time he published writings, to shew the lawfulness of exposing the vices of ecclesiastics. In 1413, the religious tumults and seditions were become so violent, that Subinco applied to Wenceslaus to appease them. Wenceslaus banished Huss from Prague; but still the disorders continued. Then the archbishop had recourse to the emperor Sigismond, who promised him to come into Bohemia, and assist in settling the affairs of the church; but, before Sigismond could be prepared for the journey, Subinco died in Hungary. About this time bulls were published by John XXIil. at Prague against Ladislaus king of Naples; in which a crusade was proclaimed against that prince, and indulgences promised to all who would go to the war. This furnished Huss, who had returned to Prague upon the death of Subinco, with a favourable occasion of preaching against indulgences and crusades, and of refuting these bulls: and the people were so affected and inflamed with his preaching, that they declared pope John to be Antichrist. Upon this, some of the ringleaders among the Hussites were seized and imprisoned; which, however, was not consented to" by the people, who were prepared to resist, till the magistrate had promised that no harm should happen to the prisoners; but the Hussites discovering that these persons had been executed in prison, took up arms, rescued their bodies, and interred them honourably, as martyrs, in the church of Bethlehem, which was Huss’s church. Huss, says Mr. Gilpin, discovered on this occasion a true Christian spirit The late riot had given him great concern; and he had now so much weight with the people as to restrain them from attempting any farther violence, whereas, at the sound of a bell, he could have been surrounded with thousands, who might have laughed at the police of the city.

Matters were in this state at Prague and in Bohemia, till the council of Constance was called where it was agreed between the pope and the emperor, that Huss should appear and give an account of himself and his doctrine. The emperor promised him security against any danger, and that nothing should be attempted against his person; upon which he set out, after declaring publicly, that he was going to the council of Constance, to answer the accusations that were formed against him and challenging all people who had any thing to except to his life and convey sation, to do it without delay. He made the same declaration in all the towns through which he passed, and arrived at Constance, Nov. 3, 1414. Here he was accused in form, and a list of his heretical tenets laid before the pope and the prelates of the council. He was summoned to appear the twenty-sixth day after his arrival; and declared himself ready to be examined, and to be corrected by them, if he should be found to have taught any doctrine worthy of censure. The cardinals soon after withdrew to deliberate upon the most proper method of proceeding against Huss; and the result of their deliberations was, that he should be imprisoned. This accordingly was done, notwithstanding the emperor’s parole for his security; nor were all his prince’s endeavours afterwards sufficient to release him, though he exerted himself to the utmost. Huss was removed from prison to prison for six; months, suffering great hardships from those who had the care of him; and at last was condemned of heresy by the council in his absence, and without a hearing, for maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be administered to the people in both kinds. The emperor, in the mean time, complained heavily of the contempt that was shewn to himself, and of the usage that w is employed towards Huss; insisting, that Huss ought to be allowed a fair and public hearing. In pretended compliance with this, he was on the 5th and 7th of June 1415, brought before the council, and permitted to say what he could in behalf of himself and his doctrines; but every thing was carried on with noise and tumult, and Huss soon given to understand that they were not disposed to hear any thing from him but a recantation of his errors; which, however, he absolutely refused, and was ordered back to prison. On July 6, he was brought again before the council, where he was condemned of heresy, and ordered to be burnt. The ceremony of his execution was this he was first stripped of hi& iacerdotal vestments by bishops nominated for that purpose; next he was formally deprived of his university-degrees; then he had a paper-crown put upon his head, painted round with devils, and the word heresiarch inscribed in great letters; then he was delivered over to the magistrate, who burnt him alive, after having first burnt his books at the door of the church. He died with great firmness and resolution; and his ashes were afterwards gathered up and thrown into the Rhine. His writings, which are very numerous and learned, were collected into a body and published, 1558, in two volumes folio, under this title, “Joannis Hussi Opera, quse extant.” To preserve his memory, it is said that the 7th of July was, for many years, held sacred among the Bohemians. In some places large fires were lighted in the evening of that day upon the mountains, to preserve the memory of his sufferings; round which the country people would assemble and sing hymns. Huss, although a martyr for the opinions of Wickliffe, did not imbibe the whole of them. He was in most points a strenuous Calvinist, if we may anticipate the epithet, but neither he nor Jerora of Prague denied the real presence in the eucharist, and transubstantiation. It is said that at his execution he asked the excutioner, “Are you going to burn a goose?” (the meaning of Huss in the Bohemian language) “In one century you will have a swan you can neither roast nor boil.” This was afterwards interpreted to mean Luther, who had a swan for his arms. Much of Huss’s writings are in Fox, Gilpin, and other ecclesiastical writers.

Believing Luther’s cause a very good one, he joined in it with great warmth; and published Leo the Xth’s bull against Luther in 1520, with interlineary and marginal glosses, in which that pope was made an object of the strongest ridicule. The freedom with which he wrote against the irregularities and disorders of the court of Rome, exasperated Leo in the highest degree; and induced him to command the elector of Mentz to send him to Rome bound hand and foot, but the elector suffered him, to depart in peace. Hutten then withdrew to Brabant, and was at the court of the emperor Charles V. but did not stay long there, being told that his life would be in danger. He then retired to Ebernberg, where he was protected by Francis de Sickingen, Luther’s great friend and guardian, to whom the castle of Ebernberg belonged. There he wrote in 1520 his complaint to the emperor, to the electors of Mentz and Saxony, and to all the states of Germany, against the attempts which the pope’s emissaries made against him. From the same place also he wrote to Luther in May 1521, and published several pieces’ in favour of the Reformation. He did not declare openly for Luther, till after he had left the elector of Mentz’s court; but he had written to him before from Mentz, and his first letter is dated June 1520. While he was upon his journey to Ebernberg, he met with Hochstratus-, and, drawing his sword, run up to him, and swore he would kill him, for what he had done against Reuchlin and Luther: but Hochstratus, throwing himself at his feet, conjured him so earnestly to spare his life, that Hutten let him go, after striking him several times with the flat sword. Such was his turbulent zeal, so disgraceful to the cause he espoused, that Luther himself, warm as he was, blamed it. During his stay at Ebernberg, however, he performed a very generous action in regard to his family. Being the eldest son, and succeeding to the whole estate, he gave it all up to his brothers; and even, to prevent their being involved in the misfortunes and disgraces which he expected, by the suspicions that might be entertained against him, he enjoined them not to remit him any money, nor to hold the least correspondence with him.

It was now that he devoted himself wholly to the Lutheran party, to advance which he laboured incessantly both by his writings and actions. We do not know the exact time when he quitted the castle of Ebernberg; but it appears, that in January 1523, he left Basil, where he had flattered himself with the hopes of finding an asylum, and had only been exposed to great daggers. Erasmus, though his old acquaintance and friend, had here refused a visit from him, for fear, as he pretended, of heightening the suspicions which were entertained against him but his true reason, as he aftersvards declared, in a letter to Melancthon, was, “that he should then have been under a necessity of taking into his house that proud boaster, oppressed with poverty and disease, who only sought for a nest to lay himself in, and to borrow money of every one he met.” This refusal of P>asmus provoked Hutten to attack him severely, and accordingly he published an “Expostulatio” in 1523, which Erasmus answered the same year, in _a very lively piece, entitled, “Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Ilutteni.” Hutten probably intended to reply, had he not been snatched away by death; but he died in an island of the lake Zurich, where he had liimself for security, August 1523. tie was a man of little stature; of a weak and sickly Constitution; extremely brave, but passionate: for he was mot satisfied with attacking the Roman Catholics with his pen, he attacked them also with his sword. He acquainted Luther with the double war which he carried on against the clergy. “I received a letter from Hutten,” says Luther, “filled with rage against the Roman pontiff, declaring he would attack the tyranny of the clergy both with his pen and sword: he being exasperated against the pope for threatening him with daggers and poison, and commanding the bishop of Mentz to send him bound to Rome.” Camerarius says, that Hutten was impatient, that his aif and discourse shewed him to be of a cruel disposition and applied to him what was said o Demosthenes, namely, that “he would have turned the world upside down, had his power been equal to his will.” His works are numerous, though he died young. A collection of his “Latin Poems” was published at Francfort in 1538, 12mo; all which, except two poemsj were reprinted in the third part of the “Deliciae Poetarum Germanorum.” He was the author of a great many works, chiefly satirical, in the way of dialogue; and Thuanus has not scrupled to compare him to Lucian. Of this cast were his Latin Dialogues on Lutheranism, published in 4to, in 1520, and now very scarce. He had also a considerable share in the celebrated work called “Epistolae virorum obscurorum,” which Meiners, in his “Liv$s of Illustrious Men,” says, was the joint work of Ulrick and Crotus Rubianus, alias John Jaeger, of Dornheim,in Thuringia. The produc“­tions of each, according to Meiners, may easily be distinguished. Wherever we are struck with the” peculiar levity, rapidity, and force of the style with a certain sol- ­dier-like boldness and unclerical humour, in obscene jests and pictures, and comical representations of saints, reliques, &c. with no small degree of keenness in the relation of laughable anecdotes, with a knowledge of Italy, to be obtained only by experience, with a pleasant explanation and derivation of words in the style of the monkish schools; 'in all these places, the hand of Ulrick Hutten may be traced.“That these letters were the work of different hands, says an acute critic, is not improbable; but we are not certain that Crotus Rubianus had any share in them; nor can we tell from what authority it is sq affirmed. Goethe, who wrote his” Tribute to the memory of Ulrick of Hutten," translated into English by Antony Aufrtre, esq. 1789, and who wrote that some years before the appearance of Meiners’ Biography, seems to have led the latter into this opinion. With much more probability might Reuchlin have been mentioned, who, indeed, by some has been supposed the sole author. Upon the whole, however, there is most reason to think them Hutten' s.

, a celebrated doctor of Louvain, was born in 1631, at Lier, or Lyre, a town in Brabant, He professed philosophy at Louvain with reputation, and was made president of the college of pope Adrian VI. where he died, October 27, 1702, leaving several works in Latin: the principal are, “The Method of remitting and retaining Sins,” 1686, 12mo; it has been translated into French “Theses on Grace,” 4to; “Theological Conferences,” 3 vols. 12mo, &c.; a “Course of Divinity,” 15 vols. 12mo, &c. He refused to write against the four articles of the French clergy, which displeased the court of Rome. Huyghens was P. Quesnel’s intimate friend, and zealously defended his cause and his opinions. M. Arnauld speaks highly in his praise.

The first open attack upon lord Clarendon was made by the earl of Bristol; who, in 1663, exhibited against him a charge of high treason to the house of lords. There had been a long course of friendship, both in prosperity and adversity, between the chancellor and this earl: but they had gradually fallen into different measures in religion and politics. In this state of things, the chancellor refusing what lord Bristol considered as a small favour (which was said to be the passing a patent in favour of a court lady), the latter took so much offence, that he resolved upon revenge. The substance of the whole accusation was as follows: “That the chancellor, being in place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arrogated a supreme direction in all thingjs, had, with a traiteroas intent to draw contempt upon his majesty’s person, and to alienate the affections of his subjects, abused the said trust in manner following. 1. He had endeavoured to alienate the hearts of his majesty’s subjects, by artfully insinuating to his creatures and dependent);, that his majesty was inclined to popery, and designed to alter the established religion. 2. He had said to several persons of his majesty’s privy council, that his majesty was dangerously corrupted in his religion, and inclined to popery: that persons of that religion had such access and such credit with him, that, unless there were a careful eye had upon it, the protestant religion would be overthrown in this kingdom. 3. Upon his majesty’s admitting sir Henry Bennet to be secretary of state in the place of sir Edward Nicholas, he said, that his majesty had given 10,000^. to remove a most zealous Protestant, that he might bring into that place a concealed Papist. 4. In pursuance of the same traiterous design, several friends and dependents of his have said aloud, that ‘ were it not for my lord chancellor’s standing in the gap, Popery would be introduced into this kingdom.’ 5. That he kad persuaded the king, contrary to his opinion, to allow his name to be used to the pope and several cardinals, in the solicitation of a cardinal” cap for the lord Aubigny, great almoner to the queen: in order to effect which, he had employed Mr. Richard Bealing, a known Papist, and had likewise applied himself to several popish priests and Jesuits to the same purpose, promising great favour to the Papists here, in case it should be effected. 6. That he had likewise promised to several Papists, that he would do his endeavour, and said, * he hoped to compass taking away all penal laws against them; to the end they might presume and grow vain upon his patronage; and, by their publishing their hopes of toleration, increase the scandal designed by him to be raised against his majesty throughout the kingdom. 7. That, being intrusted with the treaty between his majesty and his royal consort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and dangerous to the Protestant religion. Moreover, he brought the king and queen together without any settled agreement about the performance of the marriage rites; whereby, the queen refusing to be married by a Protestant priest, in case of her being with child, either the succession should be made uncertain for want of the due rites of matrimony, or else his majesty be exposed to a suspicion of having been married in his own dominions by a Romish priest. 8. That, having endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects upon the score of religion, he endeavoured to make use of all his scandals and jealousies, to raise to himself a popular applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant religion, &c. 9. That he further endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects, by venting in his own discourse, and those of his emissaries, opprobrious scandals against his majesty’s person and course of life; such as are not fit to be mentioned, unless necessity shall require it. 10. That he endeavoured to alienate the affections of the duke of York from his majesty, by suggesting to him, that ‘ his majesty intended to legitimate the duke of Monmouth.’ 11. That he had persuaded the king, against thie advice of the lord general, to withdraw the English garrisons out of Scotland, and demolish all the forts built there, at so vast a charge to this kingdom; and all without expecting the advice of the parliament of England. 12. That he endeavoured to alienate his majesty’s affections and esteem from the present parliament, by telling him, ‘ that there never was so weak and inconsiderable a house of lords, nor never so weak and heady a house of commons’ and particularly that ’ it was better to sell Dunkirk than be at their mercy for want of money.' 13. That, contrary to a known law made last session, by which money was given and applied for maintaining Dunkirk, he advised and effected the sale of the same to the French king. 14. That he had, contrary to law, enriched himself and his treasures by the sale of offices. 15. That he had converted to his own use vast sums of public money, raised in Ireland by way of subsidy, private and public benevolences, and otherwise given and intended to defray the charge of the government in that kingdom. 16. That, having arrogated to himself a supreme direction of all his majesty’s affairs, he had prevailed to have his majesty’s customs farmed at a lower rate than others offered; and that by persons with some of whom he went a share, and other parts of money resulting from his majesty’s revenue."

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

In 1742, he had an epistolary debate with his friend William Whiston, concerning the order and times of the high priests. In 1744, he published “An Address to the Deists, &c.” in answer to Morgan’s “Resurrection of Jesus considered by a Moral Philosopher;” and, in 1745, entered the lists against Warburtori, in “The Belief of a Future State proved to be a fundamental article of the religion of the Hebrews, and held by the philosophers, &c.” and two or three polemic pieces with Warburton were the consequence of this. His next work was, “Remarks upon Middleton’s Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.” and, after this, he does not appear to have published any thing till 1752, except that, in 1751, he communicated to Mr. John Gilbert Cooper, for the use of his “Life of Socrates,” some learned notes; in which he contrived to avenge himself upon his old antagonist Warburton. At the same time he exposed the young and incautious writer to the resentment of that veteran, who did not fail to shew it in one of his notes upon Pope. In 1752, came out his last and best work, “Chronological Antiquities,” in 3 vols. 4to. He afterwards made many collections and preparations for an edition of the New Testament in Greek, with Scholia in the same language; and would have inserted all the various readings, had not the growing infirmities of age prevented him. An account of the materials of this intended edition, with notes containing alterations, corrections, additions to his “Chronology,” are inserted in an appendix to “Memoirs” of him printed in 1764, by Dr. Sutton of Leicester.

, a celebrated Dominican, so called from the place of his birth in the state of Genoa, was born about 1230. He was provincial and counsellor of his order, and afterwards appointed archbishop of Genoa, by pope Nicholas IV. 1292. He ruled his church with great wisdom and prudence, held a provincial council in 1293, and died July 14, 1298. He left a “Chronicle of Genoa,” published in tom. XXVI. of the collection of Italian authors by Muratori; a great number of “Sermons,” 1589, and 1602, 2 vols. 8vo, and other works; among the most celebrated is a collection of legends of the saints, known by the name of “The Golden Legend;” the first edition is Cologna, 1470, fol. scarce; the Italian translation, Venice, 1476, fol. is also very scarce, as is the first edition of the French translation by John Batallier, Lyons, 1476, folio. This work contains so many puerile and ridiculous fables, that Melchior Cano said, “the author had a mouth of iron, a heart of lead, and but little wisdom, or soundness of judgment.”

But Jansen had another war to maintain, which may be called a Protestant one; for Theodore Simonis, a wavering Roman Catholic, who wanted a master, waited upon him at Louvain, desiring him to clear up some doubts he had about the pope’s infallibility, the worship of the eucharist, and some other points. Jansen, being puzzled with this man’s objections, told him one day, that he would not dispute with him by word of mouth, but in writing; and that he saw plainly he had to do with a Roman Protestant Catholic, who would soon go to Holland, and there boast he had overcome him. Simonis, with some difficulty, complied with the proposal; but after both had written twice on the subject in question, his lodgings were surrounded with soldiers, and himself threatened with the punishment due to heretics. The duke d'Archot’s secretary exclaimed aloud against him, and said, that there was wood enough in his master’s forests to burn that heretic. But as the person who examined Simonis, in the name of the archbishop of Malines, declared that he had found him a good Catholic, and fully resolved to persevere in the Romish communion, the prisoner was set at liberty, and Jansen obliged to pay the expences of the soldiers. Yet this Simonis, two years after, turned Protestant, and published a book, entitled “De statu et religione propria Papatus adversus Jansenium.” He appears to have been a man of no stability, for he tirst quitted the Lutheran communion to go over to that of Home, then turned Lutheran again, and at last Socinian. He was principal of the Socinian college of Kisselin in Lithuania, was well versed in the Greek tongue, and translated Comenius’s “Janua linguarum” into that language.

Jansen was no sooner possessed of the bishopric of Ypres, than he undertook to reform the diocese; but before he had completed this good work, he fell a sacrifice to the plague, May 16, 1638. He was buried in his cathedral, where a monument was erected to his memory; but in 1665, his successor, Francis de Robes, caused it to be taken down privately in the night; there being engraved on it an eulogium of his virtue and erudition, and particularly on his book entitled “Augustinus;” declaring, that this faithful interpreter of the most secret thoughts of St. Austin, had employed in that work a divine genius, an indefatigable labour, and his whole life-time; and that the church would receive the benefit of it upon earth, as he did the reward of it in heaven; words that were highly injurious to the bulls of Urban VIII. and Innocent X. who then had censured that work. The bishop destroyed this monument by the express orders of pope Alexander VII. and with -the consent of the archduke Leopold, governor of the Netherlands, in spite of the resistance of the chapter, which went such lengths that one of the principal canons had the courage to say, “it was not in the pope’s nor the king’s power to suppress that epitaph;” so dear was Jansen to this canon and his colleagues. He wrote several other books besides those already mentioned: 1. “Oratio de interioris hominis reformatione.” 2. “Tetrateuchus sive commentarius in 4 evangelica.” 3. “Pentateuchus sive commentarius in 5 libros Mosis.” 4. The Answer of the Divines of Louvain, “de vi obligandi conscientias quam habent edicta regia super re monetaria.” 5. Answer of the Divines and Civilians, “De juramento quod publica auctoritate magistratui designate imponi solet.” But his “Augustinus” was his principal work, and he was employed upon it above twenty years. He left it finished at his death, and submitted it, by his last will, in the completes! manner, to the judgment of the holy see. His executors, Fromond and Calen, printed it at Louvain, in 1640, but suppressed his submission. The subject is divine grace, freewill, and predestination. “In this book,” says Mosheim, “which even the Jesuits acknowledge to be the production of a man of learning and piety, the doctrine of Augustine, concerning man’s natural corruption, and the nature and efficacy of that divine grace which alone can efface this unhappy stain, is unfolded at large, and illustrated, for the most part, in Augustine’s own words. For the end which Jansenius proposed to himself in this work, was not to give his own private sentiments concerning these important points; but to shew in what manner they had been understood and explained by that celebrated father of the church, whose name and authority were universally revered in all parts of the Roman Catholic world. No incident could be more unfavourable to the Jesuits, and the progress of their religious system, than the publication of this book; for as the doctrine of Augustine differed but very little from that of the Dominicans; as it was held sacred, nay almost respected as divine, in the church of Rome, on account of the extraordinary merit and authority of that illustrious bishop; and at the same time was almost diametrically opposed to the sentiments generally received among the Jesuits; these latter could scarcely consider the book of Jansenius in any other light, than as a tacit but formidable refutation of their opinions concerning human liberty and divine grace; and accordingly they not only drew their pens against this famous book, but also used their most strenuous endeavours to obtain, a public condemnation of it from Rome.” In Louvain, where it was first published, it excited prodigious contests. It obtained several violent advocates, and was by others opposed with no less violence, and several theological theses were written against it. At length they who wished to obtain the suppression of it by papal authority, were successful; the Roman inquisitors began by prohibiting the perusal of it, in Ihe year 1641; and, in the following year, Urban VIII. condemned it as infected with several errors that had been long banished from the church.This bull, which was published at Louvain, instead of pacifying, inflamed matters more; and the disputes soon passed into France, where they were carried on with equal warmth. At length the bishops of France drew up the doctrine, as they called it, of Jansen, in five propositions, and applied to the pope to condemn them. This was done by Innocent X. by a bull published May 31, 1653; and he drew up a formulary for that purpose, which was received by the assembly of the French clergy. These propositions contained the following doctrines: 1. That there are divine precepts, which good men, notwithstanding their desire to observe them, are nevertheless absolutely unable to obey; nor has God given them that measure of grace which is essentially necessary to render them capable of such obedience. 2. That no person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the influence of divine grace, when it operates upon the mind. 3. That in order to render human actions meritorious, it is not requisite that they be exempt from necessity, but only that they be free from constraint. 4. That the Semipelagians err grievously in maintaining that the human will is endowed with the power of either receiving or resisting the aids and influences of preventing grace. 5. That whoever affirms that Jesus Christ made expiation by his sufferings and death, for the sins of all mankind, is a Semipelagian.

Of these propositions the pontiff declared the first four only heretical; but he pronounced the fifth rash, impious, and injurious to the Supreme Being. Jansenius, however, was not named in the bull, nor was it declared that these five propositions were maintained in the book entitled “Augustinus,” in the sense in which the pope had condemned them. Hence Antony Arnauld, doctor of the Sorbonne, invented a distinction, which the other Jansenists took up as a defence. He separated the matter of doctrine, or right, and of fact, in the controversy; and acknowledged that they were bound to believe the five propositions justly condemned by the Roman pontiff, but did not acknowledge that these propositions were to be found in the book of Jansenius, in the sense in which they were condemned. Hence arose the famous distinction between the fact and the right. They did not, however, long enjoy the benefit of this artful distinction. The restless and invincible hatred of their enemies pursued them in every quarter, and at length engaged Alexander VII. the successor of Innocent, to declare by a solemn bull, issued in 1656, that the five propositions were the tenets of Jansenius, and were contained in his book. The pontiff did not stop here; but to this flagrant instance of imprudence added another still more shocking: for, in the year 1665, he sent into Fiance the form of a declaration, which was to be subscribed by all who aspired to any preferment in the church; and in which it was affirmed that the five propositions were to be found in the book of Jansenius, ia die same sense in which they had been condemned by the church. This declaration, the unexampled temerity of which, as well as its contentious tendency, appeared in the most odious light, not only to the Jansenists, but also to the wiser part of the French nation, produced the most deplorable divisions and tumults. It was immediately opposed with vigour by the Jansenists, who, thus provoked, went so far as to maintain that, in matters of fact, the pope was fallible, especially when his decisions were merely personal, and not confirmed by a general council; and consequently that it was neither obligatory or necessary to subscribe this papal declaration, which had, as they alleged, only a matter of fact for its object. The assembly of the clergy, nevertheless, insisted upon subscription to the formulary; and all ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, and others, in every diocese, were obliged to subscribe. Those who refused, were interdicted and excommunicated; and they even talked of entering a process against four bishops, who in their public instruments had distinguished the fact from the right; and declared, that they desired only a respectful and submissive silence in regard to the fact. The affair wasat length accommodated in 1668, under the pontificate of Clement IX. who was satisfied that the bishops should subscribe themselves, and make others subscribe purely and simply; though they declared expressly, that they did not desire the same submission for the fact, but for the right. This accommodation, styled the Peace of Clement, was for a time complied with; yet the dispute about subscribing was afterwards renewed both in Flanders and France; and therefore Innocent XII. by a brief, in 1694, directed to the bishops in Flanders, declared that no addition should be made to the formulary, but that it should be sufficient to subscribe sincerely, without any distinction, restriction, or exposition, condemning the propositions extracted from Jansen’s book, in the plain and obvious sense of the words. A resolution of a case of conscience, signed by forty doctors, in which the distinction of the fact from the right was tolerated, re-inflamed the dispute in France about the beginning of the last century: when pope Clement XIII. by a bull dated July 15, 1705, declared, that a respectful silence is not sufficient to testify the obedience due to the constitutions; but that all the faithful ought to condemn as heretical, not only with their mouths, but in their hearts, the sense of Jaoseu’s book, which is condemned in the five propositions, as the sense which the words properly import; and that it is unlawful to subscribe with any other thought, mind, or sentiment. This constitution was received by the general assembly of the French clergy in 1705, and published by the king’s authority. Nevertheless, it 'did not put an end to the disputes, especially in the Low Countries, where various interpretations of it were made it may even be said that the contest grew hotter than ever, after the pope, by his constitution of Sept. 13, 1713, condemned 101 propositions, extracted from the “Paraphrase on the New Testament,” by Pere Quesnel, who was then at the head of the Jansenists.

, metropolitan of Larissa, was raised to the patriarchal chair or' Constantinople in 1572, when only in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The Lutherans presented to him the confession of Augsburg, in hopes of his approbation; but he opposed it, both in his speeches and writings. He seemed even not far from uniting the Greek to the Roman church, and had adopted the reformation of Gregory XIII. in the calendar; but some persons, who were envious of him, taking occasion from thence to accuse him of corresponding with the pope, procured his banishment in 1585. Two years after he was recalled and restored to his dignity, but from that time we find no account of him. His correspondence with the Lutherans was printed at Wittemberg, in Greek and Latin, 1584, folio. It had previously been published by a Catholic, in Latin, 1581.

, a painter of this country, more known from the praises of Pope, who took instructions from him in the art of painting, and other wits, who were influenced probably by the friendship of Pope, than for any merits of his own, was a native of Ireland, and studied for a year under sir Godfrey Kneller. Norris, framer and keeper of the pictures to king William and queen Anne, was the first friend who essentially served him, by allowing him to study from the pictures in the royal collection, and to copy them. At Hamptou-cour the made small copies of the cartoons, and these he sold to Dr. George Clark of Oxford, who then became his protector, and furnished him with money to visit France and Italy. In the eighth number of the Tatler, (April 18, 1709), he is mentioned as “the last great painter Italy has sent us.” Pope speaks of him with more enthusiasm than felicity, and rather as if he was determined to praise, than as if he felt the subject. Perhaps some of the unhappiest lines in the works of that poet are in the short epistle to Jervas. Speaking of the families of some ladies, he says,

In this passage the whole is obscure, the connection with the preceding part particularly so; and part is parodied from Denham. It is no wonder that Jervas did not better inspire his friend to praise him, if the judgment of lord Orford be accurate, on which we may surely rely. He says, that “he was defective in drawing, colouring, and composition, and even in that most necessary, and perhaps most easy talent of a portrait- painter, likeness. In general, his pictures are a light, flimsy kind of fan-painting, as iargv as life.” His vanity, inflamed perhaps by the undeserved praises he received from wits and poets, was excessive. He affected to be violently in love with lady Bridgewater; yet, after dispraising the form of her ear, as the only faulty part about her face, he ventured to display his own as the complete model of perfection. Jervas appeared as an author in his translation of Don Quixote, which he produced, as Pope used to say of him, without understanding Spanish. Warburton added a supplement to the preface of Jervas’ s translation, on the origin of romances of chivalry, which was praised at the time, but has since been totally extinguished by the acute criticisms of Mr. Tyrwhitt. Jervas died about 1740.

About the middle of the ninth century, viz. between the pontificates of Leo IV. and Benedict III., a woman, called Joan, was promoted to the pontificate, by the name of John; whom Platina, and almost all other historians, have reckoned as the VIIIth of that name, and others as the Vllth: some call her only John. This female pope was born at Mentz, where she went by the name of English Johnf whether because she was of English extraction, or for what other reason, is not known: some modern historians say she was called Agnes, that is, the chaste, by way of irony, perhaps, before her pontificate. She had from her infancy an extraordinary passion for learning and travelling, and in order to satisfy this inclination, put on the male habit, and went to Athens, in company with one of fcer friends, who was called her favourite lover. From Athens she went to Rome, where she taught divinity; and, in the garb of a doctor, acquired so great reputation for understanding, learning, and probity, that she was unanimously elected pope in the room of Leo IV.

Such is the story, as related in the history of the popes, which was certainly received and avowed as a truth for some centuries. Since it became a matter of dispute, some writers of the Romish church have denied it; some have apologized for it absurdly enough; others in a way that might be admitted, did not that church claim to be infallible: for it was that claim which first brought the truth of this history under examination. The protestants alleged it as a clear proof against the claim; since it could not be denied that in this instance the church was deceived by a woman in disguise. This induced the Roman catholics to search more narrowly than before into the affair; and the result of that inquiry was, first a doubt, and next an improbability, of Joan’s real existence. This led to a further inquiry into the origin of the story; whence it appeared, that there were no footsteps of its being known in the church for near 200 years after it was said to have happened. Æneas Sylvius, who was pope in the fifteenth century under the name of Pius II. was the first who called it in question, and he touched it but slightly, observing, that in the election of that woman there was no error in a matter of faith, but only an ignorance as to a matter of fact; and also that the story was not certain. Yet this very Sylvius suffered Joan’s name to be placed among those of the other popes in the register of Siena, and transcribed the story in his historical work printed at Nuremburg in 1493. The example of Sylvius emboldened others to search more freely into the matter, who, finding it to have no good foundation, thought proper to give it up.

Though, as we have observed, he was a man of a very inoffensive behaviour, he could not escape the satire of Pope, who, too ready to resent even any supposed offence, has, on some trivial pique, immortalized him in the “ Dimciad;” and in one of the notes to that poem has quoted from another piece, called “The Characters of the Times,” the following- account of him “Charles Johnson, famous for writing a play every year, and for being at Button’s every day. He had probably thriven better in his vocation, had he been a small matter leaner; he may be justly called a martyr to obesity, and be said to have fallen a victim to the rotundity of his parts.” The friends of Johnson knew that part of this account was false, and probably did not think very ill of a man of whom nothing more degrading could be said than that he was fat. The dramatic pieces this author produced, nineteen in all, are enumerated in the Biographia Dramatica.

By what means his father was enabled to defray the expence of an university education has not been very accurately told. It is generally reported that he went to assist the studies of a young gentleman of the name of Corbet. His frfend, Dr. Taylor, assured Mr. Boswell that he never could have gone to college, had not a gentleman of Shropshire, one of his schoolfellows, spontaneously undertaken to support him at Oxford, in the character of his companion,- though, in fact, he never received any assistance whatever from that gentleman. He was, however, entered a commoner of Pembroke college on the 31st October, 1728. His tutor was Mr. Jordan, a fellow of Pembroke, a man whom Johnson mentioned with respect many years after, but to whose instructions he did not pay much regard, except that he formally attended his lectures, as well as those in the college hall. It was at Jordan’s request that he translated Pope’s Messiah into Latin verse, as a Christmas exercise. Pope is said to have expressed his high approbation of it; but critics in that language, among whom Pope could never be ranked, have not considered Johnson’s Latin poems as the happiest of his compositions. When Jordan left college to accept of a living, Johnson became the scholar of Dr. Adams, who was afterwards the head of Pembroke, and with whom Johnson maintained a strict friendship to the last hour of his life.

In 1738 he m.ade his name at once known and highly respected among the eminent men of his time, by the publication of “London,” a poem in imitation of the third satire of Juvenal. The history of this publication is not uninteresting. Young authors did not then present themselves to the public without much cautious preparation. Johnson conveyed his poem to Cave as the production' of another, of one who was “under very disadvantageous circumstances of fortune;” and as some small encouragement to the printer, he not only offered to correct the press, but even to alter any stroke of satire which he might dislike. Cave, whose heart appears to more advantage in this than in some other of his transactions with authors, sent a present to Johnson for the use of his poor friend, and afterwards, it appears, recommended Dodsley as a purchaser. Dodsley had just begun business, and had speculated but on a few publications of no great consequence. He had, however, judgment enough to discern the merit of the poem now submitted to him, and bargained for the whole property. The sum Johnson received was ten guineas, and such were his circumstances, or such the state of literary property at that time, that he was fully content, and was ever ready to acknowledge Dodsley’s useful patronage. The poem was accordingly published in May 1738, and on the same morning with Pope’s satire of “Seventeen hundred and thirty-eight.” Johnson’s was so eagerly bought up, that a second edition became necessary in less than a week. *Pope behaved on this occasion with great liberality. He bestowed high praise on the “London,” and intimated that the author, whose name had not yet appeared, could not be long concealed. In this poem may be observed some of those political prejudices for which Johnson frequently contended afterwards. He thought proper to join in the popular clamour against the administration of sir Robert YValpole; but lived to reflect with more complacency on the conduct of that minister, when compared with some of his successors.

His “London” procured him fame, and Cave was not sorry to have engaged the services of a man whose talents had now the stamp of public approbation. Whether he had offers of patronage, or was thought a formidable enemy to the minister, is not certain; but, having leisure to calculate how little his labours were likely to produce, he soon began to wish for some establishment of a more permanent kind. With this view an offer was made to him of the mastership of the school of Appleby in Leicestershire, the salary of which was about sixty pounds, but the laws of the school required that the candidate should be a master of arts. The university of Oxford, when applied to, refused to grant this favour. Earl Gower was then solicited, in behalf of Johnson, by Pope, who knew him only as the author of “London.” His lordship accordingly wrote to Swift, soliciting a diploma from the university of Dublin, but, for what reason we are not told, this application, too, was unsuccessful. Mr. Murphy says, “There is reason to think, that Swift declined to meddle in the business; and to that circumstance Johnson’s known dislike of Swift has been often imputed.” That Swift declined to meddle in the business is not improbable, for it appears by his letters of this date (August 1738) that he was incapable of attenc(­ing to any business; but Johnson’s Life of Swift proves that his dislike had a more honourable foundation. About this time Johnson formed a design of studying the civil law, in order to practise in the Commons, yet this also was rendered impossible for want of a degree, and he was obliged to resume his labours in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The various articles which came from his pen are enumerated in chronological series by Mr. Boswell. It will be sufficient for our purpose to notice only his more important productions, or such as were of sufficient consequence to be published separately. In 1739, he wrote “A Complete Vindication of the Licensers of the Stage, from the malicious and scandalous aspersions of Mr. Brooke, author of Gustavus Vasa;” and a political tract entitled t( Marmor Norfolciense, or an Essay on an ancient prophetical inscription, in monkish rhyme, lately discovered near Lynne in Norfolk, by Probus Britannicus.“These pieces, it is almost needless to add, were ironical, a mode of writing in which our author was not eminently successful. Some notice has already been taken of” Gustavus Vasa“in the Life of Brooke. The” Marmor Norfolciense" was a severe attack on the Walpole administration, and on the reigning family; but whether it was not well understood, or when understood, considered as feeble, it certainly was not much attended to by the friends of government, nor procured to the author the reputation of a dangerous opponent. Sir John Hawkins indeed says that a prosecution was ordered, but of this no traces can be found in any of the public offices. One of his political enemies reprinted it in 1775, to shew what a change had been effected in his principles by a pension; but the publisher does not seem to have known what a very small change was really effected, and how little was necessary to render Johnson a loyal subject to his munificent sovereign, and a determined enemy of the popular politics of that time.

Jn 1779 the first four volumes of his Lives of the Poets were published, and the remainder in 1781, which he wrote by uis own confession, “dilatorily and hastily, unwilling to work, and working with vigour and haste.” He had, however, performed so much more than was expected, that his employers presented him with an hundred pounds in addition to the stipulated sum. As he never was insensible to the pleasure or value of fame, it is not improbable that he was yet more substantially gratified by the eagerness with which his Lives of the Poets were read and praised. He enjoyed likewise another satisfaction, which it appears he thought not unnecessary to the reputation of a great writer. He was attacked on all sides for his contempt for Milton’s politics, and the sparing praise or direct censure he had bestowed on the poetry of Prior, Hammond, Collins, Gray, and a few others. The errors, indeed, which on any other subject might have passed for errors of judgment, were by the irascible tempers of his adversaries, magnified into high treason against the majesty of poetic genius. During his life, these attacks were not few, nor very respectful, to a veteran whom common consent had placed at the head of the literature of his country; but the courage of his adversaries was observed to rise very considerably after his death, and the name which public opinion had consecrated, was now reviled with the utmost malignity. Even some who during his life were glad to conceal their hostility, now took an opportunity to retract the admiration in which they had joined with apparent cordiality; and to discover faults in a body of criticism which, after all reasonable exceptions are admitted, was never equalled, and perhaps never will be equalled for justice, acuteness, and elegance. Where can we hope to find discussions that can be compared with those introduced in the lives of Cowley, Milton, Dryden, and Pope? His abhorrence, indeed, of Milton’s political conduct, Jed him to details and observations which can, never be acceptable to a certain class of politicians; but when he comes to analyze his poetry, and to fix his reputation on its proper basis, it must surely be confessed that no man, since the first appearance of Paradise Lost, has ever bestowed praise with a more munificent hand. He appears to have collected his whole energy to immortalize the genius of Milton; nor has any advocate for Milton’s democracy appeared, who has not been glad to surrender the guardianship of his poetical fame to Johnson.

His connexion with Shakspeare, noticed above, has lately become the subject of a controversy. Pope, in the preface to his edition of Shakspeare, says, “I cannot help thinking that these two poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms, and in offices of society with each other. It is an acknowledged fact that Ben Jonson was introduced upon the stage, and his first works encouraged by Shakspeare. And after his death, that author writes 4 To the Memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakspeare,' which shows as if the friendship had continued through life.” Mr. Malone, the accuracy of whose researches are entitled to the highest respect, has produced many proofs of their mutual dislike, amounting, as he thinks on the part of Jonson, to malignity. Mr. Steevens and Mr. George Chalmers are inclined likewise to blame Jonson; but Dr. Farmer considered the reports of Jonsou’s pride and malignity as absolutely groundless. Mr. O. Gilchrist, in a pamphlet lately published, has vindicated Jonson with much acuteness, although without wholly effacing the impression which Mr. Malone’s proofs and extracts are calculated to make. That Jonson was at times the antagonist of Shakspeare, and that they engaged in what Fuller calls “Wit-combats,” may be allowed, for such occurrences are not uncommon among contemporary poets but it is inconsistent with all we know of human passions and tempers that a man capable of writing the high encomiastic lines alluded to by Pope, could have at any time harboured a malignity in his heart against Shakspeare. Malignity rarely dies with its object, and more rarely turns to esteem and veneration.

From these accounts it may surely be inferred that Jonson in his life-time occupied a high station in the literary world. So many memorials of character, and so many eulogiums on his talents, have not fallen to the lot of many writers of that age. His failings, however, appear to have been so conspicuous as to obscure his virtues. Addicted to intemperance, with the unequal temper which habitual intemperance creates, and disappointed in the hopes of wealth and independence, which his high opinion of his talents led him to form, degenerating even to the resources of a libeller who extorts from fear what is denied to genius, he became arrogant, and careless of pleasing even those with whom he associated. Of the coarseness of his manners there can be no doubt, but it appears at the same time that his talents were such as made his temper be tolerated for the sake of his conversation. As to his high opinion of himself, he did not probably differ from his contemporaries, who hailed him as the reformer of the stage, and as the most learned of criticsand it is no great diminution of his merit, that an age of more refinement cannot find enough to justify the superior light in which he was contemplated. It is sufficient that he did what had not been done before, that he displayed a judgment to which the stage had been a stranger, and furnished it with examples of regular comedy which have not been surpassed. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, and his learning certainly superior to that of most of his contemporaries. Pope gives him the praise of having “brought critical learning into vogue,” and having instructed both the actors and spectators in what was the proper province of the dramatic muse. His “English Grammar,” and his “Discoveries,” both written in his advanced years, display a-n attachment to the interests of literature, and a habit of reflection, which place his character as a scholar in a very favourable point of view. The editor of a recent edition: of his Discoveries, justly attributes to them “a closeness and precision of style, weight of sentiment, and accuracy of classical learning.”

In May 1715, he was admitted of Jesus-college, Cambridge; and, about two years after, recommended by his tutor Dr. Styan Thirlby, who was very fond of him, and always retained a friendship for him, to make extracts from Eustathius, for the use of Pope’s “Homer.” He was not employed directly by Pope, nor did it ever happen to him to see the face of that poet: for, being of a shy modest nature, he felt no impulse to force his way to him; nor did the other make inquiry about him, though perfectly satisfied with what he had done for him. He took the degree of B. A. in 1718-19, and M. A. in 1722: he had been chosen fellow of his college soon after the taking of his first degree. This year he distinguished himself by the publication of a few Latin poems, entitled, “Lusus Poetici;” which were well received, and were twice reprinted, with additions. In Sept. 1723, he entered into deacon’s orders, and into priest’s the June following. In Jan. 1726 -7, he was presented by his college to Swavesey, near Cambridge; but, marrying in 1728, he resigned that living, and spon after settled himself in London, where he was engaged as a reader and preacher at a chapel in street, near Russell-street, Bloomsbury. ID this town he spent the next twenty-five years of his life: for though, in 1737, the earl of Winchelsea gave him the living of Eastvvell in Kent, where he resided a little time, yet he very soon quitted it, and returned to London. Here for many years he had employment as a preacher, in the abovementioned and other chapels; with the emoluments of which occasional services, and a competency of his own, he supported himself and family in a decent though private manner, dividing his leisure hours between his books and his friends, especially those of the literati, with whom he always kept up a close and intimate connection. In 1730, he published “Four Sermons upon the Truth of the Christian Religion:” the substance of which was afterwards incorporated in a work, entitled, “Discourses concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, 1746,” 8vo.

, a learned Hollander, was born, in 1511 or 1512, at Hoorn, of which place his father had been secretary, and five times burgomaster. Having passed through his first studies at Haeriem and Louvain, he fixed Upon physic for his profession, and, for his improvement, resolved to travel abroad. Accordingly, going first to France, he put himself under the care of James Houlier, a celebrated physician at Paris. Thence he went to Bologna in Italy, where he was admitted M. D. and afterwards, passing through several parts of Germany, arrived in England, and became physician to the duke of Norfolk in 1543, and was afterwards retained in that quality by a certain great lady. He continued in England several years, and wrote many books there; among others, a Greek and Latin lexicon, to which he added above 6500 words. He dedicated this work, in 1548, to Edward VI. with the title of king. Edward not being acknowledged such by the pope> our author, who was of that religion, fell under the displeasure of the court of Rome for his dedication, and was prosecuted for it a long time after. His works were put into the “Index Expurgatorius,” where he was branded as a Calvinist, and an author “damnatae memories,” of condemned memory; a disgrace which gave him great uneasiness and concern; and, in order to be freed from it, having laid his case before cardinal Granville, he applied, by the advice of Arias Montanus, directly to the pope, and prepared an apology, shewing the indispensable necessity he was under of giving Edward the title of king, and at the same time protesting he had always been a good catholic.

The empire being now in the full enjoyment of profound peace and tranquillity, Justinian made the best use of it, by collecting the immense variety and number of the Roman laws into one body. To this end, he selected ten of the most able lawyers in the empire; who, revising the Gregorian, Theodosian, and Hermogenian codes, compiled out of them one body, called “The Code,” to which the emperorgave his own name. This may be called the statute law, as consisting of the rescripts of the emperors: but the compilation of the other part was a much more difficult task. It was made up of the decisions of the judges and other magistrates, together with the authoritative opinions of the most eminent lawyers; all which lay scattered, without any order, in above 2000 volumes. These, however, after the labour of ten years, chiefly by Tribonian, an eminent lawyer, were reduced to the number of 50; and the whole design was completed in the year 533, and the name of “Digests,” or “Pandects,” given to it. Besides these, for the use chiefly of young students in the law, Justinian ordered four books of “Institutes” to be drawn up, by Tribonian, Dorotheus, and Theophilus, containing an abstract or abridgement of the text of all the laws: and, lastly, the laws of modern date, posterior to that of the former, were thrown into one volume in the year 541, called the “Noveilx,” or “New Code.” This most important transaction in the state has rendered Justinian’s name immortal. His conduct in ecclesiastical affairs was rash and inconsiderate. On one occasion, when Theodotus, king of Italy, had obliged pope Agapetus to go to Constantinople, in order to submit and make peace with the emperor, Justinian received him very graciously, but enjoined him to communicate with Anthenius, patriarch of Constantinople. That patriarch being deemed a heretic at Rome, the pontiff refused to obey the command; and, when the emperor threatened to punish his disobedience with banishment, he answered, without any emotion, “I thought I was come before a Christian prince, but I find a Diocletian.” The result was, that the hardiness and resolution of the pope brought the emperor to a submission. Accordingly Anthenius was deprived, and an orthodox prelate put into his place.

, the first patriarch of Venice, was descended of a noble family, and born there, 1381. He took the monk’s habit in the monastery of St. George, in Alga, before he was a deacon; and in 1424 became general of that congregation, to whom he gave an excellent set of rules, which were afterwards observed, and made him esteemed as one of their founders. Pope Eugenius IV. gave him the bishopric of Venice, of which he was the first patriarch, from 1451. This prelate died Jan. 8, 1455, and was canonized in 1690 by Alexander VIII. He left several works of piety, which were printed together at Brescia, 1506, 2 vols. folio; and again at Venice, 1755, folio; to which is prefixed his life, by his nephew.

, nephew of the above, was born at Venice in 1408. He pursued his first studies under Guarini of Verona, and continued them at Padua, where he took his doctor’s degree. Notwithstanding he put on the senator’s robe at the age of nineteen, yet he still prosecuted his studies under Francis Philelphi and George de Trebisonde, whom he took into his house, and retained there, till pope Calixtus III. sent for him to Rome, and employed him in several commissions. Upon his return to Venice, he was sent ambassador to Lewis XI. of France, who made him a knight in 1461. He went afterwards several times ambassador to Rome from the republic; and, in 1467, was made commandant of Padua. He afterwards became a member of the council of ten, and bore the dignity of Sage Grand no hers than twenty times. In 1474, he was elected procurator of St. Mark, a post next to that of doge. He died in 1489.

, bishop of Nebo or Nebbio, one of the most learned men of his time, was descended from a branch of the same noble family with the former; and born at Genoa, in 1470. After having resided some time at Valencia, in Spain, he entered into the order of St. Dominic, at Paris, in 1488; when he took the name of Augustin in the room of Pantaleon, which he received at his baptism. Soon after he distinguished himself by his learning, and knowledge in the languages, which he acquired in a very short time; so that Leo X. named him to the bishopric of Nebo, in the island of Corsica, in which capacity he assisted in the fifth council of Lateran, where he opposed some articles of the concordat between France and the court of Rome. The revenue of his diocese being small, he petitioned the pope for a better; but Francis I. who was a patron of learned men, drew him to France, by making him his almoner, with a good pension; and he was also regius professor of Hebrew for five years at Paris. Returning to Genoa in 1522, he found every thing in confusion, by the sedition of the Adornes; on which he went to visit his diocese, and discharged all the duties of a good prelate, till 1531. In a voyage from Genoa to Nebc, he perished, together with the vessel in which he was embarked, 1536. By his last will, he left his library to the republic of Genoa.

, a famous cardinal, was born April 26, 1651, of an illustrious family at Genoa. He was appointed general of the mint, then treasurer of the apostolical chamber, afterwards cardinal, February 13, 1690. The popes employed him in the most important affairs, and he was within one vote of being elected pope in the conclave 1730. His probity, talents, and love of learning, made him universally esteemed. He died January 4, 1737, at Rome, aged 86. He ordered, by will, that his noble library should be made public, of which a catalogue was printed at Rome in 1711, fol. by Justus Fontanini. This library was long one of the ornaments of Rome.

Soon after the accession of Alexander VI. he was nominated by that pontiff a canon of St. Peter’s, and dignified with the rank of a prelate. In 1495 he was sent as papal nuncio into the Milanese, to treat with the emperor-elect, Maximilian, on which embassy he obtained not only the approbation of the pope, but also the favour of the emperor, who soon after the return of Inghirami to Rome, transmitted to him from Inspruck an imperial diploma, by which, after enumerating his various accomplishments, and particularly his excellence in poetry and Latin literature, he created him count palatine and poet-laureat, and conceded to him the privilege of adding the Austrian eagle to his family arms. Nor was he less favoured by Julius II. who, besides appointing him librarian of the Vatican, conferred on him the important office of pontifical secretary, which he afterwards quitted for that of secretary to the college of cardinals. Leo X. also enriched him with many ecclesiastical preferments, and continued him in his office of librarian until his death, which was occasioned by an accident in the streets of Rome, Sept. 6, 1516, when he had not yet completed the forty- sixth year of his age. To this unfortunate event it is probably owing, that so few of his writings have reached the present times. From the testimony of his contemporaries, it is well known that he was the author of many books. Among these are enumerated a defence of Cicero a compendium of the history of Rome a commentary on the poetics of Horace and remarks on the comedies of Plautus; but these works were left at his death in an unfinished state, and have since been dispersed or lost. It has been supposed that he was the author of the additions to the “Aulularia” of Plautus, printed at Paris, 1513.

, an exemplary and learned bishop of Carpentras, at which place he was born in 1683, was first a Dominican, and in that order he successfully pursued his theological studies; but, thinking the rule of the Cistertians more strict and perfect, he afterwards took the habit of that order. His merit quickly raised him to the most distinguished offices among his brethren, and being dispatched on some business to Rome, he completely gained the confidence and esteem of Clement XII. By that prelate he was named archbishop of Theodosia in partibus, and bishop of Carpentras in 1733. In this situation he was distinguished by all the virtues that can characterize a Christian bishop; excellent discernment, and knowledge, united with the completest charity and humility. His life was that of a simple monk, and his wealth was all employed to relieve the poor, or serve the public. He built a vast and magnificent hospital, and established the most extensive library those provinces had ever seen, which he gave for public use. He died in 1757, of an apoplectic attack, in his seventy-fifth year. This excellent man was not unknown in the literary world, having published some original works, and some editions of other authors. The principal of these productions are, 1. “Genuinus character reverendi admodiim in Christo Patris D. Armandi Johannis Butillierii Rancsei,” Rome, 1718, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of a book entitled “Theologie Religieuse,” being a treatise on the duties of a monastic life, Rome, 1731, 3 vols. folio. 3. An Italian translation of a French treatise, by father Didier, on the infallibility of the pope, Rome, 1732, folio. 4. An edition of the works of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, with his Life, 2 vols. folio. 5. “La Vie separee,” another treatise on monastic life, in 2 vols. 1727, 4to.

, bishop of Lyons in France, was undoubtedly by birth a Greek, and, not improbably, born at or near the city of Smyrna. He was trained in the studies of philosophy and human learning: in the doctrines of Christianity, two disciples of St. John the apostle, Papias and Polycarp, were his masters. The latter he is said to have accompanied in his journey, about the Paschal controversy, to Rome; where, by his and Anicetus’s persuasioiij he was prevailed upon to go to France; great numbers of Greeks residing in some parts of that kingdom, especially about Marseilles, and the church there beginning to be disturbed by several pernicious heresies. In his journey, arriving at Lyons, he continued several years there, in the station of a presbyter, under the care add government of Pothinus, the bishop of that city; and, by his behaviour, distinguished himself so much, that, about the year 177, he was chosen to draw up the judgment and opinion of the churches of Lyons and Vienna, which were sent to those in Asia, in order to compose the differences lately raised by Montanus and his followers, who pretended to the prophetic spirit. In the same letter, they took occasion also to give an account of the persecution, which then raged peculiarly among them, under Marcus Antoninus. The opinions of the confessors in. those times were always received with esteem and veneration. The same churches therefore sent other letters about these controversies to Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, which were probably carried by Irenseus, who undertook that journey at their request. Two years after, in the year 174, upon the martyrdom of Pothinus at Lyons, Irenaeus succeeded to that chair, in a troublesome and tempestuous time, when the church was assaulted by enemies from without, and betrayed by heretics from within. These circumstances required both courage and conduct in the governors, and our new bishop gave conspicuous proofs of his qualifications in both respects. He is said to have held a provincial synod at Lyons, where, by the assistance and suffrage of twelve other bishops, he condemned the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides. He had personally encountered some of these ringleaders among the Gnostics, and read the books of others; when, at the request of many who importuned him, he set about the elaborate work “against Heresies,” part of which is still extant under his name. It was composed in the time of Eleutherius; upon whose decease, Victor, succeeding to the see of Rome, headed afresh the dispute abput the time of celebrating Easter, and endeavoured imperiously to oppose the Roman custom upon the Asiatics. To heal the sclmrn, synods were called in several places; and, among the rest, Irenaeus convened one of the churches of France under his jurisdiction;. where, having determined the matter, he wrote a synodical epistle to pope Victor, and told him, that they agreed with him in the main of the controversy, but withal advised him to take heed how he excommunicated whole churches, for observing the custom derived down to them from their ancestors. He observed, that there was as little agreement in the manner of the preparatory fast before Easter, as in the day itself, some thinking they were to fast but one day, others two, others more, and some measuring the time by a continued fast of forty hours; and that this variety was of long standing, and had crept into several places, while the governors of the church took less care about these different customs than about maintaining a sincere and mutual love and peace towards one another; putting him in mind too of Anicetus and Polycarp, who, though they could not agree about their different usages, did yet mutually embrace, orderly receive the communion together, and peaceably part from one another. Irenaeus wrote also, to the same effect, to several other bishops, for allaying this unhappy difr fere nee.

, or Yves, in Latin Ivo, the celebrated bishop of Chartres, was born in the territory of Beauvais, in 1035. He was raised to the see of Chartres in 1092 or 1093, under the pontificate of Urban XI. who had deposed Geofroy, our author’s predecessor in the see, for various crimes of which he was accused. Ives particularly signalized his zeal against Philip I. who had put away his wife Bertha, of Holland, and taken Bertrade of Montford, the wife of Fouques de Requin, count of Anjou. This divorce was contrary to the ecclesiastical law; and the affair would have been attended with bad consequences had not the prince’s friends interposed. After this, the bishop employed himself wholly in the functions of his ministry, made several religious foundations, and died 1115. His corpse was interred in the church of St, John in the Vale, which he had founded. Pope Pius V. by a bull, dated Dec. l&, 1570, permitted the monks of the congregation of Lateran to celebrate the festival of St. Ives. We have, of his compiling, “A collection of Decrees;” “Exceptiones ecclesiasticarum regularum;” besides “22 Sermons,” and a “Chronicon;” all which were collected in 1647 by John Baptist Souciet, a canon of Chartres, in one vol. folio, divided into parts. The “Decrees” were printed in 1561, and there has been another edition since. A collection of canons called the “Pannomia,” or “Panormia,” and some other pieces printed in the “Bibliotheca patrum,” are also ascribed to our bishop.

, an English Roman catholic of considerable eminence as a controversial writer, was born in Northamptonshire, about 1560, and brought up in lord Vaux’s family, whence he was sent for education to the English colleges at Doway and Rheims, and afterwards, in 1582, to Rome, where he remained about seven years, and acquired the reputation of a very able divine. In 1589, he was invited to Rheims to lecture on divinity, and, proceeding in his academical degrees, was created D. D. and, in 1606, had the dignity of rector magnificus, or chancellor of the university, conferred upon him. After being public professor at Rheims for twelve years, he returned to Doway in 1613, and a few months after was declared president of the college, by a patent from Rome. In this office he conducted himself with great reputation, and ably promoted the interests of the college. He died Jan. 21, 1641. Among his works are, 1. “Survey of the new religion/' Doway, 1603, 8vi. 2.” A reply to Sutcliffe’s answer to the Survey of the new religion,“Rheims, 1608, 8vi. 3.” Oratio coram Henrico IV. rege Chris4. “The Gagg of the reformed gospel.” This, the catholics tell us, was the cause of the conversion of many protestants. It was answered, however, by Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester, in a tract called “The new Gagger, or Gagger gagged/ 7 1624. Montague and he happened to coincide in so many points that the former was involved with some of his brethren in a controversy, they thinking him too favourable to the popish cause. 5.” Examen reformations, prajsertim Calvinisticae,“8vo, Doway, 1616. 6.” The right and jurisdiction of the prince and prelate,“1617, 1621, 8vo. This he is said to have written in his own defence, having been represented at Rome as a favourer of the oath of allegiance. In the mean time the work was represented to king James I. as allowing of the deposing power, and of murdering excommunicated princes, and his majesty thought proper to inquire more narrowly into the matter; the result of which was, that Dr. Kellison held no such opinions, and had explained his ideas of the oath of allegiance with as much caution as could have been expected. 7.” A treatise of the hierarchy of the church: against the anarchy of Calvin,“1629, 8vo. In this treatise, he had the misfortune to differ from the opinion of his own church in some respect. His object was, to prove the necessity of episcopal government in national churches; and he particularly pointed at the state of the catholics in England, who were without such a government. Some imagined that the book would be censured at Rome, because it seemed indirectly to reflect upon the pope, who had not provided England with bishops to govern the papists there, although frequently applied to for that favour; and because it seemed to represent the regulars as no part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and consequently not over-zealous in supporting the dignity of the episcopal order. The court of Rome, however, took no cognizance of the matter; but others attacked Dr. Kellison’s work with great fury. The controversy increasing, the bishops and clergy of France espoused his cause, and condemned several of the productions of his antagonists, in, which they had attacked the hierarchy of the church. Dr. Kellison’s other works were, 8.” A brief and necessary Instruction for the Catholics of England, touching their pastor,“1631. 9.” Comment, in tertiam partem Summse Sancti Thomas,“1632, fol. 10.” A Letter to king James I." in ms. Sutcliife and Montague were his principal antagonists among the protestants.

, bishop of St. Andrew’s, Scotland, and founder of the college of St. Salvator there, was the younger son of James Kennedy, of Dunmure, by the lady Mary, countess of Angus, his wife, daughter of Robert III. king of Scotland. He was born in 1405, or 1406, and after some preparatory education at home, was sent abroad for his philosophical and theological studies. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by James I. to the bishopric of Dunkeld in 1437. In order to be better qualified to reform the abuses which had crept into his diocese, he undertook a journey to pope Eugenius IV. then at Florence, but the schism which then prevailed in the church of Rome prevented his procuring the necessary powers. The pope, however, to show his esteem for him, gave him the abbey of Scoon in commendam. In 1440, while he was at Florence, the see of St. Andrew’s becoming vacant, was conferred upon him: and on his return, after being admitted in due form, he restored order and discipline throughout his diocese. In 1444 he was made lord chancellor, but not finding his power equal to his inclination to do good in this office, he resigned it within a few weeks. The nation being much distracted by party feuds during the minority of James II. and bishop Kennedy finding himself unable to compose these differences, determined to go again abroad, and try what he could do in healing that schism in the papacy which had so long disturbed the quiet of the church. With this view he undertook a journey to Rome, with a retinue of thirty persons; and it being necessary to pass through England, he obtained a safe conduct from Henry VI. dated May 28, 1446.

"Dr. Swift came into the coffee-house, and had a bow from every body but me, who, I confess, could not but despise him. When I came to the an ti- chamber to wait before prayers, Dr. Swift was the principal man of talk and business, and acted as a master of requests. He was soliciting the earl of Arran to speak to his brother the duke of Ormond, to get a chaplain’s place established in the garrison of Hull for Mr. Fiddes, a clergyman in that neighbourhood, who had lately been in gaol, and published sermons to pay fees. He was promising Mr. Thorold to undertake with my lord treasurer, that, according to his petition, he should obtain a salary of 200l. per annum, as minister of the English church at Rotterdam. Then he stopt F. Gwynne, esq. going in with his red bag to the queen, and told him aloud he had somewhat to say to him from my lord treasurer. He talked with the son of Dr. Davenant to be sent abroad, and took out his pocket-book and wrote down several things, as memoranda, to do for him. He turned to the fire, and took out his gold watch, and, telling the time of the day, complained it was very late. A gentleman said, ‘ he was too fast.’ * How can I help it,‘ says the doctor, ’ if the courtiers give me a watch that won‘t go right’ Then he instructed a young nobleman, that the best poet in England was Mr. Pope (a papist), who had begun a translation of Homer into English verse for which ‘ he must have ’em all subscribe' for, says he, the author shall not begin to print till I have a thousand guineas for him. Lord Treasurer, after leaving the queen, came through the room beckoning Dr. Swift to follow him: both went off just before prayers. 11 Nov. 3. I see and hear a great deal to confirm a doubt, that the pretender’s interest is much at the bottom of some

The same year he was, by the interest of his brother, appointed chaplain to the English factory at Leghorn; where he no sooner arrived than he met with great opposition from the papists, and was in great danger of the inquisition. This establishment of a church-of-England chaplain was a new thing; and the Italians were so jealous of the Northern heresy, that, to give as little offence as possible, he performed the duties of his office with the utmost privacy and caution. But, notwithstanding this, great offence was taken at it; and complaints were immediately sent to Florence and Rome. Upon this, the pope, and the court of inquisition at Home, declared their resolution to expel heresy, and the public teacher of it, from the confines of the holy see; and therefore secret orders were given to apprehend Mr. Kennet at Leghorn, and to hurry him away to Pisa, and thence to some other religious prison, to bury him alive, or otherwise dispose of him in the severest manner. Upon notice of this design, Dr. Newton, the English envoy at Florence, interposed his offices at that court; where he could obtain no other answer, but that “he might send for the English preacher, and keep him in his own family as his domestic chaplain; otherwise, if he presumed to continue at Leghorn, he must take the consequences of it; for, in those matters of religion, the court of inquisition was superior to all civil powers.” The envoy communicated this answer of the great duke to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state, who sent a menacing letter by her majesty’s order; and then the chaplain continued to officiate in safety, though he was with much difficulty preserved from their intended fury till that letter arrived.

, an ingenious artist, was born in Yorkshire, in 1685, and put apprentice to a coach-painter, but, feeling the superiority of his talents, he left his master, and came up to London, where he soon proved himself worthy of encouragement and patronage. In 1710 he was sent, by the munificence of some gentlemen of his own country, to Rome, whither he accompanied Mr. Tallman. There he studied under Cavalier Luti, and in the academy gained the second prize of the second class. He also became acquainted with lord Burlington, whose sagacity discovered the rich vein of genius that had been hid even from himself; and, on their return to England in 1719, lodged him in his own house, and shewed for him all the marks of the most disinterested friendship. By his interest he was employed in various works, both as a painter in history and portrait; and yet there appear but very faint traces of that creative talent he displayed in a sister art. His portraits did not resemble the persons that sat for them. His colouring was worse than that of the most errant journeyman to the profession; and his drawing was defective, witness the hall at Wanstead, and his picture at St. Clement’s. Fie designed some of the drawings of Gay’s Fables, the prints for Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and the vignettes to the large edition of Pope’s works. In architecture, however, of the ornamental kind, he was deservedly admired he executed the temple of Venus at Stowe the earl of Leicester’s house at Holkham in Norfolk; the great hall at Mr. Pelham’s, Arlington-street; and the stair-case at lady Isabella Finch’s in Berkeley-square. Mr. Walpole considers him likewise as the inventor of modern gardening, in which it is certain that he excelled, and every thing in that branch has been since his time more natural, graceful, and pleasing. By the patronage of the dukes of Grafton and Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and the earl of Burlington, he was made master-carpenter, architect, keeper of the pictures, and, after the death of Jervas, principal painter to the crown; the whole, including a pension of 100l. a year, which was given him for his works at Kensington, produced 600l. a year. In 1743 he was disordered in his eyes, but recovered, and in March 1748 an inflammation in his bowels put an end to his life at Burlington-house, April 12, 1748, aged sixty-three years. He was buried in lord Burlington’s vault at Chiswick.

In 1690 he translated from the French of Monsieur and Madame Dacier, “The Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Roman Emperor; together with some select remarks on the said Antoninus’s Meditations concerning himself, treating of a natural man’s happiness, &c. as also upon the Life of Antoninus.” About the same time he wrote “A Dialogue shewing the way to Modern Preferment,” a humourous satire, which contains some solid truths, under the disguise of a conversation between three illustrious personages; the tooth-drawer to cardinal PortoCarero; the corn-cutter to pope Innocent XI.; and the receiver-general to an Ottoman mufti. On July 7, 1692, he took his degree of B. and D. LL. and Nov. 12, that year, by favour of abp. Tillotson, obtained a fat, which, admitting him an advocate at Doctor’s commons, enabled him to plead in the courts of the civil and ecclesiastical law. In 1693 he published a translation of “New Manners and Characters of the two great Brothers, the Duke of Bouillon and MareschalTurenne, written in French by James de Langdale, Baron of Saumieres.” Either in this, or early in the following year, appeared a very extraordinary morçeau, under the title of “An Answer to a Book which will be published next week entitled A Letter to the Rev. Dr. South, upon occasion of a late Book entitled Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s Book, entiiled A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity. Being a Letter to the Author.” In August 1694, Mr. Molesworth publishing his “Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692,” in which he treata the Danes and their monarch with great contempt, and takes the opportunity of insinuating those wild principles, by which he supposes liberty to be established, and by which his adversaries suspect that all subordination and government is endangered. Dr. King therefore took up his pen once more in his country’s cause, the honour of which was thought to be blemished by that account, Mr. Scheel, the Danish minister, having presented a memorial against it. Animated with this spirit, Dr. King drew up a censure of it, which he printed in 1694, under the title of “Animadversions on the pretended Account of Denmark.” This was so much approved by prince George, consort to the princess Anne, that the doctor was soon after appointed secretary to her royal highness.

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

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

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

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

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

, brother of the former, born at Paris, 1725, was the author likewise of many dictionaries, in the taste of the times, which seems t he the age among the French for subjecting all subjects to alphabetical order. The period of his death is likewise omitted in our authority. His most useful publications are, “Dictionnaire du Citoycn,” 1761, 2 vols. 8vo. “Dictionnaire de Jurisprudence,” 1763, 3 vols. 8vo. “Les Tense’s de Pope, avec sa vie,” 1766, 12mo. “Dictionnaire de Portraits et d'Anecdotes des Hommes ceMebres,” 2 vols. 8vo, &c. He is not to be confounded with another author of the same time, name, and nation, who has left a very useful dictionary of old French, 1765, 1 vol. 8vo.

, brother to the preceding, was born in 1685, at Bourdeaux. He entered among the Jesuits early in life, and distinguished himself by his talents for the pulpit; but being sent to Rome on account of the disputes concerning the bull Unigenitus, Clement XI. was so pleased with his lively sallies, that he could not part with him; and Lafitau, taking advantage of the pope’s partiality, quitted his order, and was appointed bishop of Sisteron. His diocese was not much edified by him at first,­but in the latter part of his life, he is said to have been an example to his clergy, and devoted himself wholly to episcopal duties. Duclos, however, gives him a shocking characterfor immorality. He died April 5, 1764. His attachment to the bull Unigenitus, induced him to publish some works written with more ease of style, than truth as to facts, such as “Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 12mo; the “History of Clement XI.;” and some volumes of Sermons," and devotional tracts.

, a painter of histories on ceilings, staircases, halls, &c. and an assistant and imitator of Verrio, was born in France; and his father being master of the menagerie at Versailles, he had Louis XIV. for his godfather, and after him he was named. At first he was intended for the church, and was placed in the Jesuits’ college for education; but, having a hesitation in his speech, and having exhibited some taste in drawing, the king recommended to his parents to bring him up to the profession of painting. He then studied in the school of Le Brun, and in the royal academy of Paris; and made so much progress, that, in 1683, at the age of twenty, he came to England, and was immediately employed by Verrio upon the large work at St. Bartholomew’s hospital; in which he succeeded so well, that he soon obtained considerable employment on his own account, and executed a great number of ceilings, halls, and staircases, in the houses of the principal nobility of the country, particularly at lord Exeter’s at Burleigh, at Devonshire house, Piccadilly, Petworth, and Blenheim. King William gave him lodgings at Hampton Court, where he painted the “Labours of Hercules,” and repaired the large pictures called “The Triumphs of Caesar,” by Andrea Mantegna. His talents were not of a cast to demand very high respect, but they were fully equal to the mode in which they were employed, which requiring a certain portion of ingenuity, is a certain waste of talents of a superior class. In a few years, it is probable, his name will repose for perpetuity on the records of history, and the unlucky satire of Pope, “where sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.' He died in 1721, and in a place very seldom disturbed by such an event, viz. in the theatre of Drury-lane. He had gone there to see the” Island Princess" acted for the benefit of his son, who was newly entered upon the stage as a singer; but, before the play began, he was seized by an apoplexy, and carried away senseless.

In 1647 he went to Italy, still under the direction of Holstein, whom he met there, but who had much reason to be dissatisfied with his conduct towards him, which was not respectful. What other faults Lambecius may have been guilty of, are not clearly explained; one at least, we hope, was not true, that he disgusted his uncle by proposing to steal some manuscripts before he left Rome. After remaining nearly two years at Rome, Lambecius returned to France, and went to Toulouse, where he studied law for a year. He again went to Paris, resumed his acquaintance with his former literary friends, and consulted the libraries for materials to enrich a history of the city of Hamburgh, which he had undertaken; but at the request of his parents, he returned home in 1650. About a year after, he was appointed professor of history, and commenced his office in January 1652, with an oration on the connection of history with other sciences, “De historiarum cum caeteris sapientise et literarum studiis conjunctione.” He was uow only in his twenty-fourth year. During his professorship, he took the degree of doctor of laws in France. In 1659, he was elected rector of the college of Hamburgh, and entered on the office in Jan. 1660, with an oration on the origin of the college of Hamburgh. His departure, however, from Hamburgh was approaching; for which various reasons have been assigned. It appears from the evidence produced by Chaufepie, that his religious principles began to be suspected and that he was querulous and ambitious but what, in the opinion of some, precipitated his retreat, was his marriage to an old maid, rich, but avaricious, with whom he found it impossible to live, when he found it impossible to get possession of her fortune. Perhaps all these causes might determine him to leave Hamburgh, which he did in April 1662, and arrived at Vienna, where, being introduced by Miller, the Jesuit, to the emperor Leopold, he presented to his majesty, his “Prodromus Historiae Literariae,” which he printed in 1659, and dedicated to Leopold, and his history of Hamburgh. The emperor received him very graciously, and presented him with a gold chain and medal. In May he left Vienna for Italy, and on his arrival at Venice, sent to the senate of Hamburgh, a formal resignation of his offices of rector and professor. From Venice he went to Rome, and made public profession of the Roman catholic religion. Here he was received into the house of his former patron cardinal Barberini, but was much chagrined to find that his uncle Holstein, who died in 1661, had made the cardinal his heir. In other respects he had no reason to be dissatisfied with his reception at Rome, being very kindly treated by Gudius, Leo AUatius, queen Christina of Sweden, the cardinals Azzolini and Chigi, and the pope himself. At Florence his reception was equally flattering on the part of Charles Dati, and Magliabecchi, who introduced him to Ferdinand II.

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

, a celebrated physician, was born at Rome in October 1654. His parents were rather low in rank, but cherished the disposition for learning which he early displayed; and having finished his classical studies, he went through the course of philosophy in the Roman college, and then commenced the study of divinity. He had always evinced a great taste for natural history, which at length induced him to abandon the study of divinity, and apply himself entirely to that of medicine, and after a regular course he was created doctor in philosophy and medicine in 1672. In 1675, he was appointed physician to the hospital of the Holy Ghost, in Sassia, where he pursued his clinical inquiries with great accuracy and acuteness: but he quitted this situation in 1678, and was received a member of the college of St. Saviour; and his talents and acquirements being soon acknowledged, he was appointed professor of anatomy in the college de la Sapienza, in 1684, and continued his duties as a teacher for thirteen years with great reputation. In 1688, pope Innocent XI. chose Lancisi for his physician and private chamberlain and some time afterwards gave him a canon’s stall in the church of St. Lawrence but on the death of the pope, in 1689, he resigned it. He was now in high public estimation, attended Innocent XII. during his whole illness, was elected physician to the conclave, and was immediately appointed first physician and private chancellor to the succeeding pope Clement XI. He was indefatigable in the discharge of all his duties, as well as in the pursuit of his studies, reading and writing at every interval of leisure, and in his attendance on the learned societies of the time. He died in January, 1720, at the age of 65. He was a man of small stature, with a lively countenance, and cheerful disposition his manners were extremely engaging and he was possessed of much knowledge of mankind. His ardour for the advancement of his art was extreme and unceasing. He collected a library of more than twenty thousand volumes, which he presented in his life -time to the hospital of the Holy Ghost, for the use of the public, particularly the young physicians and surgeons who attended the patients in that hospital. This noble benefaction was opened in 1716. He published an edition of his works, entitled, “Mar. Lancisi archiatri pontificii Opera, qua; hactenus prodierunt omnia, &c. Genevae, 1718,” 2 vols. 4to. The first volume contains the following pieces: “De subitaneis mortibus; Dissertatio de nati vis deque ad ventitiisRomani cceli qualitatibus; Denoxiis Paludum effluviis.” The contents of the second volume are, “Dissertatio historica de Bovilla Peste ex Campaniae finibus, an. 1713;” “Latio iraportata, &c. 1715” “Dissertatio de recta medicorum studiorum instituenda” “Humani corporis anatomica synopsis” “Kpistola ad J. Baptist. Bianchi de humorum secretionibus et genere ac praecipue bilis in hepate separatione” “An acidum ex sanguine extrahi queat” (the negative had been maintained by Boyle) “Epistolae duse de triplici intestinorum polypo; de physiognomia,” and many small pieces, in Italian as well as Latin.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century, was an Italian, and born in 1005 at Pavia, being son of a counsellor to the senate of that town; but, losing his father in his infancy, he went to Bologna. Hence, having prosecuted his studies for some time, he removed into France in the reign of Henry I. and taught some time at Avranches, where he had many pupils of high rank. In a journey to Rouen, he had the misfortune to be robbed, and tied to a tree on the road, where he remained till next day, when being released by some passengers, he retired to the abbey of Bee, lately founded, and there took the monk’s habit in 1041. He was elected prior of this religious house in 1044; and opened a school, which in a little time became very famous, and was frequented by students from all parts of Europe. Amongst others, some of the scholars of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, and master of the school at Tours, left that, and went to study at the abbey of Bee. This, it is said, excited the envy of Berenger, and gave rise to a long and violent controversy between him and Lanfranc, on the subject of the eucharist. (See Berengarius). In 1049, Lanfranc took a journey to Rome, where he declared his sentiments to pope Leo IX. against the doctrine of Berenger; for Berenger had xvritten him a letter, which gave room to suspect Lanfranc to be of his opinion. Soon after, he assisted in the council of Verceil, where he expressly opposed Berenger’s notions. He returned a second time to Rome in 1059, and assisted in the council held at the Lateran by pope Nicholas II. in which Berenger abjured the doctrine that he had till then maintained. Lanfranc now obtained a dispensation from the pope, for the marriage of William duke of Normandy with a daughter of the earl of Flanders his cousin. On his return to France, he rebuilt his abbey at Bee; but was soon removed from it by the duke of Normandy, who in 1062 made him abbot of St. Stephen’s at Caen in that province, where he established a new academy, which became no less famous than his former one at Bee. This duke, coming to the crown of England, sent for Lanfranc, who was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, in the room of Stigand, who had been deposed by the pope’s legate. He was no sooner consecrated to this see, than he wrote to pope Alexander II. begging leave to resign it; which not being complied with, he afterwards sent ambassadors to Rome to beg the pall; but Hildebrand answering, in the pope’s name, that the pall was not granted to any person in his absence (which was not strictly true, as it had been sent to Austin, Justus, and Honorius), he went thither to receive that honour in 1071. Alexander paid him a particular respect, in rising to give him audience this pontiff, indeed, had a special regard for him, having studied under him in the abbey of Bee and kissed him, instead of presenting his slipper for that obeisance, nor was he satisfied with giving him the usual pall, but invested him with that pall of which he himself had made use in celebrating mass. Before his departure, Lanfranc defended the metropolitical rights of his see against the claims of the archbishop of York, and procured them to be confirmed by a national council in 1075, wherein several rules of discipline were established. At length, presuming to make remonstrances to the Conqueror upon some oppressions of the subjects, though he offered them with a becoming respect, the monarch received them with disdain and asked him, with an oath, if he thought it possible for a king to keep all his promises From this time, our archbishop lost his majesty’s favour, and was observed afterwards with a jealous eye. He enjoyed, however, the favour of William II. during the remainder of his life. Some years before this, Gregory VII. having summoned him several times to come to Rome, to give an account of his faith, at length sent him a citation to appear there in four months, on pain of suspension: Lanfranc, however, did not think proper to obey the summons. He died May 28, 1089.

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

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

His conduct hitherto had been becoming his station, but we have now to record one action of his which, as Anthony Wood says, it is impossible to defend. This was the removal of the celebrated John Wickliff from his situation as head of a hall at Oxford, called Canterbury-hall, founded by his predecessor Simon Islip. Whether his holding tenets which might then be deemed heretical was the archbishop’s true reason for ejecting him, does not appear. That which he avowed was, that having a desire that the hall should be a college for the education of monks, he thought a secular priest (between whom and the monastic order it is well known a considerable jealousy subsisted) would be an improper person for their governor. But although this might have been the opinion of the prelate, it does not appear to have been that of the society; the fellows of which convened a meeting, in whichfthey drew up a spirited remonstrance against the tyranny of their superior. This was so ill receded by him, and their subsequent conduct considered as so contumacious, that he sequestered a large portion of their revenue. War was now declared on both sides. The society appealed to the pope, the archbishop sent an agent to Rome to answer for him; and he had interest enough to induce his holiness to confirm the decree by which Wickliff and some other refractory members of the fraternity were removed, and their places filled with those who were more steady adherents to nonachism, and consequently more devoted to the will of the archbishop.

In Sept. 1368, the pope promoted Langham to the dignity of cardinal, as it is said, without solicitation, and merely because he thought a man of his talents would be an ornament to the sacred college. The king, however, was not pleased with this promotion, probably because he had uot been consulted, and ordered the temporalities of the archbishopric to be seized, as if the see were vacant, which, on promotion to the dignity of cardinal, was a natural consequence, unless the party had conditioned to hold his preferments. Langham, as far as can be discovered, made no opposition to the king’s pleasure, but merely attended at court to ask leave to retire to Otford; which being granted, he reduced his establishment, repaired to his rural mansion, and continued for some months to live very privately.

The death of pope Urban happened at a period, as it was thought, critical to the affairs of the cardinal, as well as to those of the two kingdoms of England and France, as he had just appointed him to mediate a peace between them. But Gregory the Eleventh, who succeeded Urban, as sensible of his merit as his predecessor, confirmed his appointment, and even enlarged his powers. This treaty Tailing, as nad been foreseen by the cardinal, he proceeded from Melun, the place where he had met cardinal de Beauvois, to England with the sense of the French court upon the negotiation. Although unsuccessful in this business, he had, whilst abroad, an opportunity of displaying his diplomatic talents, wnich had a more fortunate issue. Through his (oediation a peace was made betwixt the king and the earl of Flanders, who had been at variance upon the account of the earl’s breaking his engagement to marry his daughter to Edmund earl of Cambridge, and betrothing her to Philip, the brother of Charles the Fifth, king of France. In the beginning of 1372, cardinal Langham left England in order to return to the pope; and when he arrived at Avignon, he found that his conduct had, during the course of his mission, been misrepresented to the pope, but he so amply satisfied his holiness on that point, that, in the same year, he elevated him to the dignity of cardinal bishop of Praeneste. On the death of Wittelsey, who succeeded him as archbishop of Canterbury, the monks endeavoured to persuade the king to allow Langham to return; but the king was enraged at their insolence, and in this was seconded by the pope, who preferred employing the cardinal at Avignon, where the affairs of the holy see rendered his presence necessary. From this situation, however, Langham had a strong desire to remove, and visit his native country, where he had projected some architectural plans, and meant to devote a large sum of money to the rebuilding of the abbey at Westminster. With this view he procured some friends at court to solicit leave to return, and their applications were successful; but before he could know the issue, he died suddenly of a paralytic stroke, July 22, 1376. His body was, according to 'the direction of his will, first deposited in a new-built church of the Carthusians, near the place of his decease, where it remained for three years. It was then with great state and solemnity removed to Saint Benet’s chapel, in Westminster abbey, where his tomb with his effigy upon it, and the arms of England, the monastery of Saint Peter, and the sees of Canterbury and Ely, engraved in tablets around it, still remains.

, a gentleman of Westphalia, and provost of the cathedral church of Minister towards the end of the fifteenth century, distinguished himself by his learning, and by his zeal for the restoration of polite literature. He went through his first studies at Deventer, and was afterwards sent into Italy, where, under the greatest masters in literature, Laurence Valla, Mapheus Vegius, Francis Philelphus, and Theodore Gaza, he acquired an elegant Latin style both in verse and prose. His fellow-travellers in this journey were Maurice count of Spiegelberg and Rodolph Agricola, who, on their return to Germany, were the first to introduce proper methods of classical teaching, and to restore the purity of the Latin language. Langius being sent to the court of Rome by the bishop and chapter of Munster, under pope Sixtus IV. acquitted himself with great credit, and came back with letters from this pope and from Lorenzo de Medici, which gave him so much consequence in the eyes of his countrymen, that he was enabled more successfully to banish from the schools the ignorance which prevailed there. He was obliged, however, to struggle some years with those who objected that the introduction of a new method of teaching was dangerous; but at length he overcame those prejudices, and persuaded his bishop to found a school at Munster, the direction of which was committed to learned men, to whom he pointed out the method they were to follow, and the books they were to explain, ann gave them the use of his fine library. This school being thus established a little before the end of the fifteenth century, became very flourishing, and served as a nursery of literature to all Germany till the Revolutions which were occasioned at Munster by the anabaptists in the year 1554. Langius died in 1519, at the age of fourscore. He published some poems at Munster, 1486, 4to, by which, says Bayle, it appears that there were Latin poets of some reputation in Germany before Conrad Celtes. Rodolph Agricola dedicated his Latin translation of Plato’s “Axiochus” to Langius.

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

It does not appear that Larcher published any thing before his translation of the “Electra” of Euripides, which appeared in 1750; for the “Calendrier perpetuel” of 1747, although attributed to him, was certainly not his. The “Electra,” as well as many other of his publications, appeared without his name, which, indeed, he appended onJy to his “Memoire sur Venus,” his “Xenophon,” “Herodotus,” and “Dissertations acaderaiques.” The “Electra” had not much success, and was never reprinted, unless by a bookseller, who blunderingly inserted it among a collection of acting plays. In 1751 Larcher is supposed to have contributed to a literary journal called “Lettres d'une Societe;” and afterwards, in the “Melange litteraire,” he published a translation of Pope’s essay on Pastoral Poetry. He was also a contributor to other literary journals, but his biographer has not been able to specify his articles with certainty, unless those in the “Collection Academique” for 1755, where his articles are marked with an A. and in which he translated the Philosophical Transactions of London. He translated also the “Martinus Scribleru.s” from Pope’s works, and Swift’s ironical piece on the abolition of Christianity. Having while in England become acquainted with sir John Pringle, he published a translation of hi* work “On the Diseases of the Army,” of which an enlarged edition appeared in 1771.

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

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

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

, a learned scholastib divine of the sixteenth century, a native of Gambron, in Hainault, doctor of Louvain, and canon of St. Peter’s in the same city, wrote against Luther, and was esteemed by his party one of the best controversialists of his time. He died 1544. All his works were collected and published, 1550, fol. by his nephew, James Latomus, who died 1596. They are in Latin, and consist of “Treatises on the Church,” the “Pope’s Primacy,” aud “Auricular Confession” a*' Defence of the Articles of Louvain“a tract” On the study of Divinity, and of the three Languages," in which he defends scholastic divinity. Erasmus having refuted this work, Latomus answered him by an Apology. He wrote Latin with facility, but without elegance, and neither understood Greek nor Hebrew. Luther’s confutation of Latomus’s defence of the articles of Louvain is accounted one of the ablest productions of that eminent reformer.

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

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

, a celebrated Spanish Dominican, was born about 1550, of an illustrious family at Rivadavia, in Gallicia. He defended so forcibly the doctrine of the Thomists, on grace, in opposition to the opinions of Molina, that he was sent with Alvarez, by the general chapter of his order, held at Naples, 1600, to support this doctrine against the Jesuits at Rome, and excited the famous disputes held in the congregations de Auxiliis, assembled in that city under pope Clement VIII. and Paul V. in which he had the principal part. This made him so celebrated, that the king of Spain offered him a bishopric; but he refused it, being contented with a pension, and died at Rome, August 23, 1629, aged eighty-four, in the convent de la Minerve. He lost his sight three years before. Many of his writings on the subject of grace remain, composed during the congregation de Auxiliis; and a very minute journal of what passed there, printed at Kheims, under the name of Louvain, 1702, fol. He also compiled a large work, entitled “Panoplia Gratise,” 2 vols. fol. printed at Beziers, under the name of Leige, 1676.

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

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

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

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

, a skilful geographer, born at Grenada, retired into Africa when his native place was taken in 1492, whence he had the surname of A fricanus. After having travelled a considerable time in Europe, Asia, and Africa, he was taken at sea by some pirates, and abjured the Mahometan religion under pope Leo X. He died about 1526. He wrote a “Description of Africa,” in Arabic, which he afterwards translated into Italian. Marmol has translated this work, almost entirely, without mentioning it. There is a Latin translation by John Florian, not very accurate, and a French one by John Temporal, Lyons, 1556, fol. John Leo. also left the “Lives of the Arabian Philosophers,” which was printed by Hottinger in Latin, at Zurich, 1664, and is in torn. 13 of the Bibliotheca of Fabricius, from a copy which Cavalcanti sent from Florence.

, an able lawyer, and celebrated advocate of the parliament of Paris, was born in that city in 1550, of a reputable family. When Henry IV. to whom he had remained faithful during the fury of the League, wanted to support the annuities charged on the H6tel de Ville, Leschassier had influence enough to dissuade him from his design by two very able petitions. He was consulted by the Venetian republic, in 1605, respecting their disputes with pope Paul V. and replied by his “Consultatio Parisini cujusdam,” printed in 1606, 4to, which proves him to have been a learned and judicious canonist. He died April 28, 1625, at Paris, aged seventyfive. The most complete edition of his works is that of Paris, 1652, 4to, which contains several curious and interesting particulars concerning the liberties of the Galilean church, and other affairs of great importance.

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

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

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 eminent historical painter, was born at Florence, probably about the beginning of the fifteenth century, as he was a scholar of, and of course nearly contemporary with, Massaccio. At the age of sixteen, being entered a noviciate in the convent of Carmelites at Florence, he had there an opportunity of seeing that extraordinary artist at work upon the astonishing frescoes with which he adorned the chapel of Brancacci, in the church there; and being eager to embrace the art, such was his success, that after the death of his master, it was said by common consent, that the soul of Massaccio still abode with Fra. Filippo. He now forsook the habit of his convent, and devoted himself entirely to painting; but his studies were for a time disturbed by his being unfortunately taken, while out on a party of pleasure, by some Moors, and carried prisoner to Barbary; where he remained in slavery eighteen months. But having drawn, with a piece of charcoal, the portrait of his master upon a wall, the latter was so affected by the novelty of the performance, and its exact resemblance, that, after exacting a few more specimens of his art, he generously restored him to his liberty. On his return home he painted some works for Alphonso, king of Calabria. He employed himself also in Padua; but it was in his native city of Florence that his principal works were performed. He was employed by the grand duke Cosmo di Medici, who presented his pictures to his friends; and one to pope Eugenius IV. He was also employed to adorn the palaces of the republic, the churches, and many of the houses of the principal citizens; among whom his talents were held in high estimation. He was the first of the Florentine painters who attempted to design figures as large as life, and the first who remarkably diversified the draperies, and who gave his figures the air of antiques. It is to be lamented that such a man should at last perish by the consequences of a guilty amour he indulged in at Spoleto; where he was employed at the cathedral to paint the chapel of the blessed virgin. This is differently told by different writers, some saying that he seduced a nun who sat to him for a model of the virgin, and others that the object of his passion was a married woman. In either case, it is certain that he was poisoned by the relations of the lady whose favours he was supposed to enjoy. Lorenzo di Medici erected a marble tomb in the cathedral to his memory, which Politian adorned with a Latin epitaph. His son Lippi Filippo, was renowned for excellent imitations of architectural ornaments. He died in 1505, at the age of forty-five. There was also a Florentine painter, Lorenzo Lippi, born in 1606, and likewise a great musician and a poet. In the latter character he published “II Malmantile racquistato,” which is considered as a classical work in the Tuscan language. He died in 1664.

, a Venetian, distinguished himself much at the council of Trent, where he strongly opposed the plurality of benefices, and was one of the three presidents of that council under pope Julius III. Paul IV. sent him into Poland as nuncio in 1556, and afterwards appointed him his secretary. The sanctity of Lippomani’s life gained him no less esteem than his doctrine; he was bishop of Mondonedo, then of Verona, and afterwards of Bergamo, and acquitted himself honourably in various nunciatures, but was justly accused of great cruelties towards the Jews and protestants when in Poland. He died in 1559. His works are, a compilation of “Lives of the Saints,” in 8 vols. but little valued and “Catena in Genesim, in Exoiiuni, etin aliquot Psalmos,” 3 vols. fol. &c.

He then retired to his own native seat at Isch, intending to devote himself entirely to letters; but the war, which was still raging, disturbed his plans, and he was obliged to go to Louvain, where he resumed the study of the civil law, though with no intent to practise. At Louvain he published his “Epistolicae Quaestiones,*' and some other things; but, being again obliged to quit his residence, went to Holland, and spent thirteen years at Leyden, during which time he composed and published, what he calls, his best works. These are,” Electorum Libri duo;“” Satyra Menippaea;“” SaturnalSum Libri duo;“” Commentarii pleni in Cornelium Taciturn;“” De Constanti& Libri duo;“” De Amphitheatre Libri duo;“”Ad Valerium Maximum Notae“” Epistolarum Centuriae duae“” Epistolica Institutio“” De recta Pronunciatione Linguae Latinas“” Animadversiones in Senecos Tragoedias“” Animadversiones in Velleium Paterculum“”Politicorum Libri sex“” De una Religione Liber.“These he call his best works, because they were written, he says, in the very vigour of his age, and when he was quite at leisure;” in flore aevi, & ingenii in alto otio;“and he adds too, that his health continued good till the latter part of his life;” nee valetudo, nisi sub extremos annos, titubavit.“The intolerant principles, however, which he divulged here, raised so much indignation against him that he was obliged to retire suddenly and privately from Leyden, in 1590; and, after some stay at Spa, went and settled at Louvain, where he taught polite literature, as he had done at Leyden, with the greatest credit and reputation. He spent the remainder of his life at Louvain, though he had received powerful solicitations, and the offers of vast advantages, if he would have removed elsewhere. Pope Clement V11I. Henry IV. of France, and Philip IL of Spain, applied to him by advantageous proposals. Several cardinals would gladly have taken him under their protection and patronage; and all the learned in foreign countries honoured him in the highest degree. The very learned Spaniard, Arias Montanus, who, at the command of Philip II. superintended the reprinting the Complutensian edition of the Bible at Plantin’s press. had such a regard for him, that he treated him as a son rather than a friend, and not only admitted him into all his concerns, but even offered to leave him all he had. Lipsius, nevertheless, continued at Louvain, and, among others, wrote the following works” De Cruce Libri tres;“”De Militia Romana Libri quinque“” Poliorceticon Libri quinque“” De Magnitudine llomana Libri quatuor“” Dissertatiuncula & Commentarius in Plinii Panegyricum;“” Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam," &c. All his works have been collected and printed together, in folio, more than once. The best edition is that of Vesel, 1675, 4 vols. fol. usually bound in eight. His critical notes upon ancient authors are to be found in the best editions of each respective author; and several of his other pieces have, for their peculiar utility, been reprinted separately.

Our author had shown his zeal in several tracts against popery; and in the same spirit he published in 1677, “Considerations touching the true way to suppress Popery in this kingdom,” &c. with an historical account of the reformation here in England; but having proposed to tolerate such papists as denied the pope’s infallibility, and his power to depose kings, excluding the rest, a method which had been put in practice both by queen Elizabeth and king James with good success, he was suspected of complying with the court measures. This suspicion increasing upon his being promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph, in 1680, he thought it necessary to vindicate himself by shewing, that at the very time he made the above proposal, the papists themselves were in great apprehension of the thing, as being the most likely to blast their hopes, and to preserve the nation from that ruin which they were then bringing upon it*.

* Coleman at that time wrote to the those that require it, on conditions pope’s internuncio thus: “There is prejudicial to the authority of the pope, but one thing to be feared (whereof! and so to persecute the rest of them with have a great apprehension) that ran more appearance of justice, and ruin hinder the success of our designs; which the one half of them more easily than is, a division among the catholics them- the whole body at once.” And carselves; by propositions to the parlia- dinal Howard delivered it as their ment to accord their conjunction to judgment at Rome. ' Division of CaAll suspicion, however, of his principles vanished in James IPs reign, when the nation saw him one of the six prelates, who, with archbishop Sancroft, were committed to the Tower in June 1688, for resisting his majesty’s order to distribute and publish in all their churches the royal declaration for liberty of conscience; and about the end of the same year, having concurred heartily in therevolution, he was made lord almoner to king William III. In 1692 he was translated to the see of Litchfield and Coventry, and thence to Worcester in 1699. He continued in the office of lord almoner till 1702, when, together with his son, having too warmly interested himself in the election for the county of Worcester, a complaint was made to the House of Commons, and a resolution passed of addressing the queen “to remove William lord bishop of Worcester from being lord almoner to her majesty; and that Mr. Attorney General do prosecute Mr. Lloyd, the lord bishop of Worcester’s son, for his said offence, after his privilege as a member of the lower house of convocation is out.” In consequence of this vote, an address Was presented to the queen, with which her majesty complied, and dismissed the bishop from his office.

, a man of much literary industry, and known for half a century as a translator, was born in 1698. Of his early history we find no particulars recorded. He appears to have been acquainted with Pope, and to have been respected by that poet, doubtless, on account of his amiable and inoffensive character, which procured him, among the wits of that time, the name of the Lamb. The only time he ever deviated from the gentleness of this animal was when Cooke, the translator of Hesiod, abused his poetry to his face. On this provocation Mr. Lockman proved his relationship to the genus irritabile, by retorting, with a quickness not usual to him, “It may be so; but thank God! my name is not at full length in the Dunciad.” Mr. Lockman’s poetical talents were certainly not very extensive, as the greatest part of his effusions are only a few songs, odas, &c. written on temporary subjects, and set to music for Vauxhall and other places of public entertainment. Mr. Reed, however, found two pieces of the dramatic kind, both of them designed to be set to music; but only the second of them, he thinks, was ever performed, viz. 1. “Rosalinda, a musical drama, 1740,” 4to. 2. “David’s Lamentations, an oratorio;” which we believe were not successful.

The writings of Longinus were numerous, some on philosophical, but the greatest part on critical, subjects. Dr. Pearce has collected the titles of twenty-five treatises, none of which, except that on “the Sublime,” has escaped the depredations of time and the barbarians. On this mutilated and imperfect piece has the fame of Longinus been erected. The learned and judicious have bestowed extraordinary commendation upon it. Its general title is “The Golden Treatise.” Pope is more than usually happy in characterizing Longinus

, master of the works to the French kin;', was born at Lyons about the beginning of the sixteenth century. At fourteen, he went into Italy, to study the beauties of antiquity. There he became acquainted with Cervius, afterwards pope Marceilus II. who had a good taste for the polite arts, and, conceiving a great esteem for Lorme, communicated to him every thing that he knew. Enriched with the spoils of antiquity, he returned to Lyons in 1536, and banished thence the Gothic taste. At length, going to Paris, to work for the cardinal de Bellay, he was soon employed in the court of Henry II. He made the Horse-shoe, a fortification at Fontainbleau, built the stately chateau of Anet and Meudon; the palace of the Thuilleries, and repaired and ornamented several of the royal houses, as Villiers, Colerets, St. Germain then called the castle of the Muette, the Louvre, &c. These services were recompensed above his expectations. He was made almoner and counsellor to the king, and had the abbies of St. Eloy and St. Serge of Angers conferred upon him.

, 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.”

When the “World” was conducted by Edward Moore, and his many noble and learned contributors, Mr. Lovibond furnished five papers; of which Nos. 93 and 94 contain some just remarks on the danger of extremes, and the impediments to conversation. In Nos. 132 and 134 he opposes the common erroneous notions on the subject of Providence with considerable force of argument, and concludes with some ironical remarks, not ill applied. In No. 82 he first published “The Tears of Old May Day,” the most favourite of all his poems. The thoughts are peculiarly ingenious and happy, yet it may be questioned whether it is not exceeded by his “Mulberry Tree,” in which the distinguishing features of Johnson’s and Garrick’s characters are admirably hit off the frivolous enthusiasm of the one, and the solid and sturdy veneration of the other for our immortal bard, are depicted with exquisite humour. Julia’s printed letter appears to haVe been a favourite with the author. There are some bursts of genuine passion, and some tenderness displayed occasionally, but it wants simplicity. It was probably suggested by Pope’s Eloisa, and must suffer in proportion as it reminds us of that inimitable effort. His “Lines on Rural Sports” are both poetical and moral, and contain some interesting pictures sweetly persuasive to a humane treatment of the brute creation. His love verses, some of which are demi-platonic, are tender and sprightly. The Miss K P < was Miss Kitty Phillips, a relation of the family, now ennobled by the title of MilforJ. The “Tale of the Hitchin Convent;” the “Lines to a young Lady,” a very good actress; the “Verses to Mr. Woodeson,” and those on converting that gentleman’s house into a poor-house, are all distinguished by original turns of thought. His pieces were generally circulated in private, as he had not the ambition of an author, and was contented to please those whom he intended to please; yet he never attempted, any subject which he did not illustrate by novelty of manner, and upon the whole may be considered as among the most successful of that class who are rather amateurs, than professional poets.

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.

Having embarked at Barcelona, in order to go to Jerusalem, he arrived at Cajeta in five days; but, as he would not proceed in his enterprise till he had received the pope’s benediction, he went to Rome on Palm-Sunday, in 153; and after paying his respects to Hadrian VI. departed foe Venice. He embarked there on the 14th of July, 1523, arrived at Joppa the last of August, and at Jerusalem the 4th of September. Having gratified his devout curiosity in that country, he returned to Venice, where he embarked for Genoa; and from thence came to Barcelona, where he stopped, as at the most convenient place with respect to the design he had of studying the Latin tongue. The miraculous adventures, the e^tatic visions, which he bad during this voyage, were innumerable; and it would be endless to transcribe, from his historians, on these occasions. Bishop Stillingfleet has drawn a good proof from them, that the institution of the Jesuits, as well as other monks, is founded originally in fanaticism. Loyola began to learn the rudiments of grammar in 1524, and soon came to read the “Enchiridion militis Christiani” of Erasmus; a work of great purity of style and morals; but Loyola soon laid it aside, and applied himself to the stiuly of. Thomas a Kempis. It was, he thought, like so much ice, which abated the fervour of his devotion, and cooled the fire of divine love in him; for which reason he took an aversion to it, and would never read the writings of Erasmus, nor even suffer his disciples to read them.

He went to Spain in 1535, preached repentance there, and drew together a prodigious crowd of auditors. He exclaimed, among other things, against the licentious livcsT of the priests. After transacting the affairs which his associates had recommended to his care, he went by sea to Genoa; am! travelled from thence to Venice, where they met him, Jan. 8, 1537. This was somewhat sooner than the time agreed on; yet he was there before them, and had employed his time in making converts; and what was of much greater consequence to the forwarding his grand scheme, he had got acquainted with John Peter Caraffa, who was afterwards pope, by the name of Paul III. As they had bound themselves by a vow to travel to Jerusalem, they prepared for that expedition; but were first determined to pay their respects to the pope, and obtain his benediction and leave.- Accordingly they went to Rome, and were gratified in their desires. Having returned to Venice, in order to embark, they found no opportunity thewar with thp- grand seignior having put an entire stop to the peregrination of pilgrims by sfca. They resolved, however, not to be idle, and therefore dispersed theiriselvei among the towns in the Venetian territories. It was resolved at length, that Loyola and two others, Faber and Laynez, should go to Rome, and represent to the pope the intentions of the whole company; and that the rest, in the mean time, should be distributed into the most famous universities of Italy, to insinuate piety among the young stqdents, and to increase their own number with such as God should call in to them. But, before they separated, they established a way of life, to which they were all to conform; and bound themselves to observe these following rules: “First, that they should lodge in hospitals, and live only upon alms. Secondly, that they should be superiors by turns, each in his week, lest their fervour should carry them too far, if they did not prescribe limits to one another for their penances and labour. Thirdly, that they should preach in all public places, and every other place where they could be permitted to do it; should set forth in their sermons the beauty and rewards of virtue, with the deformity and punishments of sin, and this in a plain, evangelical manner, without the vain ornaments of eloquence. Fourthly, that they should teach children the Christian doctrine, and the principles of good manners: and, Fifthly, that they should take no money for executing their functions; but do all for the glory of God, and nothing else.” They all consented to these articles; but, as they were often asked, who they were, and what was their institute, Ignatius declared to them in precise terms what they were to answer: he told them that being united to fight against heresies and vices, under the standard of Jesus Christ, the only name which answered their design was, “The Society of Jesus.”

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.”

Loyola had already presented the pope with the plan of his new society; and he now continued his application with more waruuh than ever, that it might be approved by the holy see. Accordingly Paul III. confirmed it in 1540, on condition that their number should never exceed threescore; and again in 1543, without any restrictions. Loyola was created general of this new order in 1541, and made Rome his head- quarters, while his companions- dispersed themselves over the whole earth. He employed himself in several occupations, as the conversion of the Jews, the reforming of lewd women, and the assisting of orphans. Rome was at that time full of Jews, who were, many of them, ready to embrace Christianity, if they had not feared poverty; upon which, Paul III. at Loyola’s request, enacted, that they should preserve all their possessions; and that if any of them, who might be well born, should turn Christians, contrary to their parents’ consent, the whole substance of the family should devolve to them. Julius Hi. and Paul IV. added a new ordinance, namely, that all the synagogues in Italy should be taxed every year at a certain. sum, to be applied to the maintenance of the proselytes. There was at that time a convent of Magdalenes, into which such dissolute women as were desirous of leaving their infamous course of life, were admitted, provided they would oblige themselves to lead a conventual life for the rest of their days, and take all the vows of their order. But Loyola, thinking this condition, and some others, too severe, founded a new community of this kind of penitents, into which maids and married women might be indifferently admitted. It was called “The community of the grace of the blessed Virgin.” He caused apartments to be built in St. Mary’s church; and he frequently conducted them thither himself. He was sometimes told, that he lost his time, for that such women were never heartily converted; to which he replied, “If I should hinder them but one night from offending God, I should think' my time and labour well employed.”

Calumny levelled all her artillery at him from every quarter; notwithstanding which, he employed his utmost endeavours to heighten the glory of his order, and settle it on a firm foundation. Some women would have submitted to his discipline; but the great trouble, which the spiritual direction of three of that sex had given him, obliged him to free his society for ever from that perplexing task. Having got his order confirmed by pope Julius III. in 1550, he would have resigned his employment of general; but, the Jesuits not permitting him, he continued in it till his death, which happened July 31, 1556, in his sixty-sixth year. He died thirty- five years after what has been called his conversion, a,nd sixteen after his society was founded, and had lived to see his followers spread over the face of the whole earth, and giving laws, under him, to almost all nations. He was of a middle stature, rather low than tall; of a brown complexion, bald-headed, his eyes deep set and full of fire, his forehead large, and his nose aquiline. He halted a little, in consequence of the wound he received at the siege of Pampeluna; but he managed himself so well in walking, that it was hardly perceived. It was not pretended at first, that Loyola wrought any miracles; but when his canonization began to be talked of, his miracles became innumerable, and were confirmed by all sorts of witnesses. Paul V. beatified him in 1609; Gregory XV. inserted him in the catalogue of saints in 1622; Innocent X. and Clement IX. increased the honours that were paid him.

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.

They experienced, however, from time to time, the strorigest opposition in several countries; in Spain, and particularly in France. No society ever had so many enemies as the Jesuits have had; the very books which have been written against them, would form a considerable library. Nor has this opposition been without the justest foundation. However serviceable they were to the see of Rome, to which they were always most devoutly attached, they were very pernicious in other countries, by propagating doctrines which have exposed sovereign princes to slaughter, and states to revolutions; and by corrupting religion and morality by mental reserves and logical distinctions to such a degree, that, according to them, the vilest and most profligate wretches in the world might do what they pleased, yet not offend against their rules; and for this they have often been thoroughly exposed, especially in the “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal. They also became merchants, thinking by their riches to make dependents in every court, and, by that means to have absolute sway; while the individuals who, without gaining any particular advantage, laboured to aggrandize the body, were the victims of the infatuation of their superiors. The king of Portugal, persuaded that they instigated the assassins who attempted his life in 1758, drove them from his dominions in 1759. The king of France, considering this institution, which had been only tolerated in that kingdom, as being incompatible with its laws, suppressed it in 1763; and the king of Spain, for reasons which he concealed, for fear of raising troubles in his dominions, drove them out in 1767. The king of Naples, the duke of Parma, and the grand master of Malta followed his example in 1768; and pope Clement XIV. obliged to yield to the united power of the house of Bourbon, issued a bull for their final suppression, dated July 21, 1773.

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.

, a celebrated Lombard historian of the tenth century, was born at Pavia. He was bred in the court of Hugo king of Italy, and was afterwards secretary to Berengarius II. by whom, in the year 948, he was sent ambassador to Cpnstantine Porphyrogenitus. After having long served Berengarius, he was disgraced, merely, as it is said, because he censured some of the proceedings with which the latter years of that prince were dishonoured. His goods were confiscated, and he fled for refuge to Otho emperor of Germany. Otho amply avenged his cause by driving Berengarius from the throne; and in the year 963, advanced Luitprandus to the bishopric of Cremona. In the year 968 he sent him ambassador to the emperor Nicephorus Phocas. That emperor had taken great offence that Otho had assumed the style of Roman emperor, and Luitprandus, who undertook boldly to justify his master, irritated him so much, that he received very harsh treatment, and was even thrown for a time into prison, nor was he suffered to return into Italy till the expiration of the year. The precise time of his death is not known. He wrote the history of his own times in six books; the best edition of which is that of Antwerp, in folio, published in 1640. His style is harsh, but he throws great light on the history of the lower empire. He is among the “Scriptores return Italicarum,” published by Muratori. Luitprandus was one of the bishops who subscribed the condemnation of pope John XII.; and in the last six chapters of his book, he gives a distinct account of all ilie transactions of that synod, which was held at Rome by the bishops of Italy. The lives of the popes, and the chronicle of the Goths, have been falsely ascribed to him.

, a learned Roman catholic writer, was born at Ypres, June 12, 1612, and at the early age of fifteen, joined the society of the hermits f St. Augustine. Having afterwards studied at Cologne, he was sent to Louvain to teach philosophy; in which he acquired such celebrity, as to secure the particular esteem of the learned Fabio Chigi, then the papal nuncio in Germany, afterwards pope Alexander VII. In 1655, Lupus was one of the deputies sent to Rome by the university of Louvain, on some matters of importance with the papal court; and on his return was appointed professor of divinity At Louvain. Pope Clement IX. would willingly have made him a bishop; and from Innocent XL and the grand duke of Tuscany, he received repeated marks of esteem: latter was desirotts of settling upon him a considerable pension, that he might attach him to his court. He died July 10, 16-81, at the age of seventy. Of his numerous works the principal are, “Commentaries on the History and Canons of the Councils,” 1665, and 1673, 5 vols. 4to; a “Treatise on Appeals to the Holy See,” according to the Ultramontane opinions, 4to a “Treatise on Contrition,” 12mo; a collection of “Letters and Memorials respecting the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,” 2 vols. 4to; a great number of “Dissertations” on various subjects; a “Commentary on Tertullian’s Prescriptions;” “The Life and Letters of St. Thomas of Canterbury,” &c. All the above were republished at Venice in 12 volumes, folio, the first of which appeared in 1724.

In 1512 seven convents of his order having a quarrel with their vicar-general, Luther was chosen to go to Rome to maintain their cause. He was indeed a proper person for such employments; for he was a man of a most firm and steady temper, with a share of natural courage which nothing could subdue. At Rome he saw the pope and the court, and had an opportunity of observing also the manners of the clergy, whose hasty, superficial, and impious way of celebrating mass he has severely noted. “I performed mass,” says he, “at Home; I saw it also performed by others, but in such a manner that I never think of it without the utmost horror.” He often spoke afterwards with great pleasure of his journey to Rome; and to say that he “wonld not bnt have made it for a thousand florins,” As soon as he had adjusted the dispute which was the business of his journey, he returned to Wittemberg, and was created doctor of divinity, at the expence of Frederic, elector of Saxony, who had often heard him preach, was perfectly acquainted with his merit, and reverenced him highly. Luther, it appears, at first declined the honour of this degree on account of his being, in his own opinion, too young, for he was only in his thirtieth year; but it was told him that “he must suffer himself to be dignified, for that God intended to bring about great things in the church by his means;” which, though it was certainly said in jest, proved at length a very serious truth.

In this manner was he employed when the general indulgences were published in 1517. Leo X. who succeeded Julius II. in March 1513, formed a design of building the magnificent church of St. Peter’s at Rome, which was, indeed, begun by Julius II. but still required very large sums to be finished. The treasure of the apostolic chamber was much exhausted, and the pope himself, though of a rich and powerful family, yet was far from being able to do it at his own proper charge, on account of the excessive debts he had contracted before his advancement to the popedom. There was nothing new in the method of raising money by indulgences. This had been formerly on several occasions practised by the court of Rome; and none had been found more effectual. Leo, therefore, in 1517, published general indulgences throughout all Europe, in favour of those who would contribute any sum to the building of St. Peter’s; and appointed persons in different countries to preach up these indulgences, and to receive money for them. Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, who was soon after made a cardinal, had a commission for Germany; and Luther assures us that he was to have half the money that was to be raised, which does not seem improbable, for Albert’s court was at that time very luxurious and splendid; and he had borrowed 30,000 florins of that opulent family the Fuggers of Augsburg, to pay the pope for the bulls of his archbishopric, which sum he was bound to repay. Be this however as it will, Albert gave out this commission to John Tetzel, orTecelius, a Dominican friar, and others of his order. These indulgences were immediately exposed to sale; and Tetzel boasted of “having so large a commission from the pope, that though a man should have deflowered the virgin Mary, yet for money he might be pardoned.” He added further, that “he did not only give pardon for sins past, but for sins to come.” A book came out also at the same time, under the sanction of the archbishop, in which orders were given to the commissioners and collectors to enforce and press the power of indulgences. These persons performed their offices with great zeal indeed, but not with sufficient judgment and policy. They over-acted their parts, so that the people, to whom they were become very troublesome, saw through the cheat;' being at length convinced, that under a pretence of indulgences they only meant to plunder the Germans; and that, far from being solicitous about saving the souls of others, their only view was to enrich themselves.

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

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.

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.

In the mean time Luther, as soon as he understood what was transacting about him at Rome, used all imaginable means to prevent his being carried thither, and to obtain a hearing of his cause in Germany. The university of Wittemberg interceded for him, and wrote a letter to the pope, to excuse him from going to Rome, because his health would not permit it; and assured his holiness that he had asserted nothing contrary to the doctrine of the church, and that all they could charge him with was his layingdown some propositions in disputation too freely, though without any view of deciding upon them. The elector also was against Luther’s going to Rome, and desired of cardinal Cajetan, that be might be heard before him, as his legate in Germany. Upon these addresses, the pope consented that the cause should be tried before cardinal Cajetan, to whom he had given power to decide it. Luther, therefore, set off immediately for Augsburg, poor, and on foot, as he says in his narrative, and carried with him letters from the elector*. He arrived here in October 1518, and upon an assurance of his safety, was admitted into the cardinal’s presence. The legate told him that he did not intend to enter into any dispute with him, but should only propound three things to him, on the pope’s behalf; and he did admonish him, “First, to become a sound member of the church, and to recant his errors; secondly, to promise that he would not teach such pernicious doctrines for the future; and thirdly, to take care that the peace of the church was not broken by his means.” Luther beseeched the legate to acquaint him what his errors were, who alleged to him a decretal of Clement VI. in which “the merits of Jesus Christ are affirmed to be a treasure of indulgences,” which he the said Luther-denied; and objected to him also his teaching, that “faith was necessary for all who should receive the sacrament, so as to obtain any benefit by it.” Luther replied, that “he had read the decretal of Clement, which the legate alleged; but did humbly conceive that it was not of sufficient authority to retract any opinion which he believed to be conformable to Holy Scripture.” The legate had then recourse to the authority of the pope, who, he said, “could only decide upon the sense of Scripture;” upon which Luther desired time to deliberate upon what the legate had proposed to him, and so the dispute ended for that day.

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.