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

, an eminent physician, the son of captain Thomas Lawrence of the royal navy, and grandson of Dr. Thomas Lawrence, first physician to queen Anne, was born May 25, 1711, in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster. His mother was Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Gabriel Soulden, merchant of Kinsale in Ireland, and widow of colonel Piers. His father’s residence being at Southampton, he was placed under the care of the rev. Mr. Kingsman, master of the free-school at that place, but had previously received some education at Dublin, where his father was in 1715. In 1727 he was entered as a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, under the tuition of the rev. George Huddesford, afterwards president of that college; and here he pursued his studies until some time in 1734. He then removed to London, and took a lodging in the city for the convenience of attending St. Thomas’s hospital, and became a pupil of Dr. Nicholls, who was at that time reading anatomical lectures, with uncommon celebrity. Mr. Lawrence made a suitable progress under so able an instructor, and at those lectures formed many of the friendships which he most valued during the remainder of his life; among others he became here first acquainted with Dr. Bathurst, who introduced him to the friendship of Dr. Johnson.

In 1740 he took his degree of M. D. at Oxford, and was, upon the resignation of Dr. Nicholls, chosen anatomical reader in that university, where he read lectures for some years, as he did also in London, having quitted his lodgings in the city for a house in Lincoln’s inn-fields, which had been before occupied by Dr. Nicholh, and was vacated by him upon his marriage with the daughter of Dr. Mead. On May 25, 1744, Dr. Lawrence was married to Frances, daughter of Dr. Chauncy, a physician at Derby, and took a house in Essex- street, in the Strand, where he continued to read his anatomical lectures till 1750, after which he laid them aside. He now devoted himself to his practice, which became very considerable, and which he obtained solely by the reputation of his skill and integrity, for he laboured under the disadvantage of frequent fits of deafness, and knew no art of success but that of deserving it. In the same year (1744), he was chosen fellow of the royal college of physicians in London, where he read successively all the lectures instituted in that society with great reputation, both for his professional knowledge, and for the purity and elegance of his Latin; nor did he confine himself to the oral instruction of his contemporaries, for in 1756 he published a medical disputation “De Hydrope,” and in 1759, “De Natura Musculorum prelectiones tres;” and when the College published the works of Dr. Harvey in 1766, Dr. Lawrence wrote the life which is prefixed to that edition, for which he had a compliment of 100 guineas. In 1759 he was chosen elect, and in 1767 president of the college, to which office he was re-elected for the seven succeeding years.

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

By his wife he had six sons and three daughters. The deatii of one of his sons in India, in 1783, gave occasion to a very elegant Latin ode by Dr. Johnson. Another of his sons was the late sir Soulden Lawrence, one of the judges of the king’s bench; and Elizabeth, widow of George Gipps, esq. M. P. for Canterbury, is now, we believe, the only survivor of Dr. Lawrence’s family.

, physician and historian to the emperor Ferdinand L was born at Vienna in 1504, and there taught the belles lettres and physic for some years with great reputation. He died in 1555. His numerous works shew him to have been indefatigable in his researches, but not so judicious in digesting his materials. The principal are, 1. “Commentariorum Reipublicse Romanae in exteris Provinciis bello acquisitis constitutae,” Libri XII. 1598, fol. 2. “De Gentium migrationibus,” 1572, fol. in which he examines particularly the migrations of the northern people, which weakened and divided the Roman empire. 3. “Geographia Pannonise,” in Ortelius.“4.” De rebus Viennensibus,“1546. 5.” In Genealogiam Austriacam Commentarii," 1564, fol. &c. The greatest part of this author’s works were collected and printed at Francfort, 1698, 2 vols. fol.

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

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

Upon his return home, he was appointed rear-admiral of the Blue, and vice-admiral of the same squadron; but declined the honour of knighthood, which, however, he accepted the following year, when he was engaged with admiral Rooke in taking Gibraltar. Soon after this he particularly distinguished himself in the general engagement off Malaga; and, being left with a winter-guard at Lisbon for those parts, he relieved Gibraltar in 1705, which the French had besieged by sea, and the Spaniards by land, and reduced to the last extremity. He arrived Oct. 29, and so opportunely for the besieged, that two days would, in all probability, have decided their fate; but this was prevented by sir John’s seasonable arrival. In Feb. 1705, he received a commission, appointing him vice-admiral of the white, and, in March, relieved Gibraltar a second time. On March 6 he set sail for that place; and, on the 10th, attacked five ships of the French fleet coming out of the Bay, of whom two were taken, two more run ashore, and were destroyed; and baron Pointi died soon after of the wounds he received in the battle. The rest of the French fleet, having intelligence of sir John’s coming, had left the Bay the day before his arrival there. He had no sooner anchored, but he received the letter inserted below from the prince of Hesse : his highness also presented him with a gold cup on the occasion. This blow struck a panic along the whole coast, of which sir John received the following account, in a letter from Mr. Hill, envoy to the court of Savoy: “I can tell you,” says he, “your late success against Mr. Pointi put all the French coast into a great consternation, as if you were come to scour the whole Mediterranean. All the ships of war that were in the road of Toulon were hauled into the harbour; and nothing durst look out for some days.” In short, the effect at Gibraltar was, that the enemy, in a few days, entirely raised the siege, and marched off, leaving only a detachment at some distance to observe the garrison; so that this important place was secured from any farther attempts of the enemy. There are but few instances in which the sea and land officers agreed so well together in an expedition, and sacrificed all private views and passions to a disinterested regard for the public good.

The same year, 1705, sir John was engaged in the reduction of Barcelona; after which, being left at the head of a squadron in the Mediterranean, he concerted an expedition to surprize the Spanish galleons in the bay of Cadiz; but this proved unsuccessful, by the management of the confederates. In 1706, he relieved Barcelona, reduced to the last extremity, and thereby occasioned the siege to be raised by king Philip. This was so great a deliverance of his competitor, king Charles, afterwards emperor of Germany, that he annually commemorated it, by a public thanksgiving on the 26th of May, as long as he lived. The raising of the siege was attended with a total eclipse of the sun, which did not a liitle increase the enemy’s consternation, as if the heavens concurred to defeat the designs of the French, whose monarch had assumed the sun for his device; in allusion to which, the reverse of the medal struck by queen Anne on this occasion, represented the sun in eclipse over the city and harbour of Barcelona. Presently after this success at Barcelona, sir John reduced the city of Carthagena, whence, proceeding to those of Alicant and Joyce, they both submitted to him; and he concluded the campaign of that year with the reduction of the city and island of Majorca. Upon his retnrrt home, prince George of Denmark presented him with a diamond-ring of four hundred pounds value; and he had the honour of receiving a gratuity of a thousand pounds from the queen, as a reward for his services. Upon the unfortunate death of sir Cloudesly Shovel, 1707, he was advanced to be admiral of the white, and commander in chief of her majesty’s 'fleet. In this command he returned to the Mediterranean, and, surprizing a convoy of the enemy’s corn, sent it to Barcelona, and saved that city and the confederate army from the danger of famine, in 1708. Soon after this, convoying the new queen of Spain to her consort, king Charles, he was presented by her majesty with a diamond-ring of three hundred pounds value. From this service he proceeded to the island of Sardinia, which being presently reduced by him to the obedience of king Charles, that of Minorca was soon after surrendered to the fleet and land-forces.

Having brought the campaign to so happy a conclusion, he returned home; where, during his absence, he had been appointed one of the council to the lord-high-admiral, and was likewise elected member of parliament both for Harwich and Rochester, for the latter of which he made his choice. In December the same year, he was made a second time admiral of the fleet. In May 1709, he was constituted rear-admiral of Great -Britain, and appointed one of the lords of the admiralty in December. Upon the change of the ministry in 1710, lord Orford resigning the place of first commissioner of the admiralty, sir John Leake was appointed to succeed him; but he declined that post, as too hazardous, on account of the divisions at that juncture. In 1710, he was chosen a second time member of parliament for Rochester, and made admiral of the fleet the third time in 1711, and again in 1712, when he conducted the English forces to take possession of Dunkirk. Before the expiration of the year, the commission of admiral of the fleet was given to him a fifth time. He was also chosen for Rochester a third time. Upon her majesty’s decease, 'Aug. l, 1714, his post of rear-admiral was determined; and he was superseded as admiral of the fleet by Matthew Aylmer, esq. Nov. 5. In the universal change that was made in every public department, upon the accession of George I. admiral Leake could not expect to be excepted. After this he lived privately; and, building a little box at Greenwich, spent part of his time there, retreating sometimes to a country-house he had at Beddington in Surrey. When a young man, be had married a daughter of captain Richard Hill of Yarmouth; by whom he had one son, an only child, whose misconduct had given him a great deal of uneasiness. In Aug. 1719, he was seized with an apoplectic disorder; but it went off without any visible ill consequence. Upon the death of his son, which happened in March following, after a lingering incurable disorder, he discovered more than ordinary affliction; nor was he himself ever well after; for he died in his house at Greenwich, Aug. 1, 1720, in his sixty-fifth year. By his will, he devised his estate to trustees for the use of his son during life: and upon his death without issue, to captain Martin, who married his wife’s sister, and his heirs.

, a herald and antiquary, son of captain Stephen Martin, mentioned in the preceding article, was born April 5, 1702. He was educated at the school of Mr. Michael Maittaire, and was admitted of the Middle-temple. In 1724 he was appointed a deputylieutenant of the Tower-hamlets; in which station he afterwards distinguished himself by his exertions during the rebellion in 1745. On the revival of the order of the Bath in 1725, he was one of the esquires of the earl of Sussex, deputy earl-marshal. He was elected F. A. S. March 2, 1726-7. In the same year he was created Lancaster herald, in the room of Mr. Hesketh; in 1729 constituted Norroy; in 1741 Clarenceux; and by patent dated December 19, 1754, appointed garter. In all his situations in the college Mr. Leake was a constant advocate for the rights and privileges of the office. He obtained, after much solicitation, a letter in 1731, from the duke of Norfolk to the earl of Sussex, his deputy earl -marshal, requesting him to sign a warrant for Mr. Leake’s obtaining a commission of visitation, which letter, however, was not attended with success. In the same year he promoted a prosecution against one Shiets, a painter, who pretended to keep an om'ce of arms in Dean’s-court. The court of chivalry was opened with great solemnity in the paintedchamber, on March 3, 1731-2, in relation to which he had taken a principal part. In 1733, he appointed Francis Bassano, of Chester, his deputy, as Norroy, for Chester and North Wales; and about the same time asserted his right, as Norroy, to grant arms in North Wales, which right was claimed by Mr. Longville, who had been constituted Gloucester King at Arms partium Walii<t, annexed to that of Bath King at Arms, at the revival of that order. He drew up a petition in January 1737-8, which was presented to the king in council, for a new charter, with the sole power of painting arms, &c. which petition was referred to the attorney and solicitor general; but they making their report favourable to the painters, it did not succeed. He printed, in 1744, “Reasons for granting Commissions to the Provincial Kings at Arms for visiting their Provinces.” Dr. Cromwell Mortimer having, in 1747, proposed to establish a registry for dissenters in the college of arms, he had many meetings with the heads of the several denominations, and also of the Jews, and drew up articles of agreement, which were approved by all parties: proposals were printed and dispersed, a seal made to affix to certificates, and the registry was opened on February 20, 1747-8; but it did not succeed, owing to a misunderstanding between the ministers and the deputies of the congregations. A bill having been brought in by Mr. Potter, in the session of parliament in the year 1763, for taking the number of the people, with their marriages and births, he solicited a claim in favour of the college: but the bill did not pass. In 1755-6, he made an abstract of the register- books belonging to the order of the garter, which being translated into Latin, was deposited in the register’s office of the order.

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

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

, a young lady of considerable poetical talent, was born Feb. 26, 1722. Her father, at thistime was gardener to judge Blencowe, at Marston St. Lawrence, in Northamptonshire. She was brought up under the care of a pious and sensible mother, who died a few years before her. The little education which she received, consisted wholly in being taught to read and write, and it is said that she was for some time cook-maid in a gentleman’s family: with all these disadvantages, however, she began at a very early age to compose verses, at first with the approbation of her parents, who afterwards, imagining an attention to poetry would be prejudicial to her, endeavoured by every possible means to discountenance such pursuits. These, however, were ineffectual, and she was at last left to follow her inclination. She died the 12th of November, 1746, at Brackley; and after her death two volumes of her Poems were printed in 8vo, in. 1748 and 1751, by subscription, the proposals for which were drawn up by Mr. Garrick. Mr. Hawkins Browne was editor of the second volume. Our late amiable poet and critic, Cowper, had a high opinion of Mrs. Leapor’s poetry.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born at Auxerre in 1687, and became a member of the academy of belles lettres and inscriptions of Paris in 1750. He died in 1760, aged 73. Among his productions are, 1. “Recueil de divers Merits servant a Pe‘claircissement de l’histoire fie France,” 1738, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Dissertations sur l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Paris;” to which are added several matters that elucidate the history of France; 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traité historique et pratique sur le chant ecciesiastique,” 1741, 8vo. This was dedicated to Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, who had employed him in composing a chant for his new breviary and missal. 4. “M6moires sur l‘Histoire d’Anxerre,” 1743, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Histoire de la ville et de tout le diocese de Paris,” 15 vols. 12mo. 6. Several dissertations dispersed in the journals, and in the memoirs of the academy of which he was member. The learned are indebted to him likewise for the discovery of a number of original pieces, which he found in various libraries, where they had long remained unknown. He was a man of extensive learning and laborious research; and undertook several journeys through the different provinces of France for the purpose of investigating the remains of antiquity. In such matters he was an enthusiast, and so engaged in them, as to know very little of the world, being content with the very small competency on which he lived.

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

, a learned Italian mathe. matician, was born at Milan, Nov. 17, 1702. He was educated among the Jesuits, and entered into their order in 1718. He afterwards taught the belles-lettres at Vercelli and Pavia, and was appointed rhetoric- professor in the university of Brera, in Milan. In 1733 the senate of Milan appointed him professor of mathematics at Pavia, and afterwards removed him to the same office at Milan, the duties of which he executed with reputation for twenty years. In F75J) his fame procured him an invitation to Vienna from the empress Maria Teresa, who honoured him with her esteem, and appointed him mathematician to the court, with a pension of 500 florins. What rendered him most celebrated, was the skill he displayed as superintendant and chief director of the processes for measuring the bed of the Reno and other less considerable rivers belonging to Bologna, Ferrara, and Ravenna. On this he was employed for six years, under Clement XIII.; and Clement XIV. ordered that these experiments should be continued upon Leccln’s plans. He died August 24, 1776, aged seventy-three years. Fabroni, who has given an excellent personal character of Lecchi, and celebrates his skill in hydraulics, has, contrary to his usual practice, mentioned his works only in a general way; and for the following list we have therefore been obliged to have recourse to a less accurate authority: 1. “Theoria lucis,” Milan, 1739. 2. “Arithmetica universalis Jsaaci Newton, sive de compositione, et resolutione arithmetica perpetuis commentariis illustrata et aucta,” Milan, 1752, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Elementa geometrise theoricx et practices,” ibid. 1753, 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Elementa Trigonometric,” &c. ibid. 1756. 5. “De sectionibus conicis,” ibid. 1758. 6. “Idrostatica csaaiinata,” &c. ibid. 1765, 4 to. 7. “Relazione della visita alle terre dannegiate dalle acque di Bologna, Ferrara, e Ravenna,” &c. Rome, 17G7, 4to. 8. “Memorie idrostatico-storiche delle operazioni esequite nella inalveazione del Reno di Bologna, e degli altri minori torrenti per la linea di primaro al mare dalP anno 1765 al 1772,” Modena, 1775, 2 vols. 4to. 9. “Trattato de' canali navigabili,” Milan, 1776, 4to.

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

On this event he came over, accompanied by many of his brethren, to England, and wajs so fortunate as to bring with him the greater part of his valuable library, and property enough to enable him to relieve many of his suffering companions. He might probably have received some church-preferment in this country, had he not objected to re-ordination. He died at London, in 1703. He wrote some controversial pieces, but the chief object of his labours was to make a good translation of the Bible, which was published by his son at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. fol. It contains some valuable preliminary dissertations. He had in 1696 announced his intention in a volume entitled “Projet d'une nouvelle version Francois de la Bible,” from which a high opinion was formed of his undertaking. This projet was published in English, under the title of " An Essay for a new translation of the Bible/' and so well received, that a second edition appeared in 1717. The translation itself, however, although ably executed, did not answer the expectation of the public, which was principally owing to the author’s introducing certain whims and fancies of his own, and taking unnecessary liberties with the text.

, an eminent Hebrew and Greek scholar and critic, was the son of a poor mechanic at Strasburgh, where he was born July 18, 1672. His parents were so unable to give him education, that he must have been obliged to work at his father’s trade, had he not found an early patron in Froereisen, a learned townsman, who placed him at ten years old in the public school, at his own expence. Lederlin’s extraordinary proficiency rewarded this generous friend, whom, however, he had the misfortune to lose by death in 1690. This would have been irreparable, if his talents had not already recommended him to other patrons, and his school education being finished, he was enabled to pursue his studies at the university with great reputation. He received his master’s degree in 1692, and at the persuasion of Boeder the medical professor, Obrecht, and others, he opened a school for the Hebrew and Greek, of which languages, he was in 1703, constituted professor, and was for many years one of the greatest ornaments of the university of Strasburgh. He died Sept. 3, 1737, leaving various monuments of learning and critical skill. Among those, we may enumerate, i. his edition of Julius Pollux’s “Onomasticon,” 1706, 2 vols. fol. 2. His “Homer’s Iliad,” Amst. 1707, 8 vols. 12mo, Gr. & Lat. Lederlin edited only a part of this edition, which on his death, Mr. Dibdin says, was completed by Bergler. But in this case there must have been an edition posterior to 1737, when Lederlin died. 3. “Vigerus de praecipuis Grsecae dictionis idiotismis,” Strasburgb, 1709, 8vo. 4. “Brissonii de regio Persarum principatu,” ibid. 1710. 5. “Æliani varise historiae,” ibid. 1713, 8vo, which Harles says is superior to Scheffer*s edition, but must yield to that of Perizonius. He published also some critical dissertations on parts of the Greek Testament, on which he was accustomed to lecture.

, an eminent French surgeon, was born at Paris in 1685, and received his education under his father, Henry Le Dran, who had acquired considerable reputation as an operator, particularly in cancers of the breast. Under his auspices our young surgeon turned his thoughts principally to the operation of lithotomy, which he performed in the lateral method, as practised by Cheselden, and was enabled to make some valuable improvements in the art. These he communicated to the public in his “Paralele des differentes manieres de tirer la Pierre hors de la Vessie,” printed in 1730, 8vo, to which he added a supplement in 1756, containing the result of his later practice. The work was well received, has been frequently reprinted, and translated into most of the modern languages. He published also, 2. “Observations de Chirurgie, auxquelles on a joint plusieurs reflections en faveur des Etudiens,” Paris, 1731, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traite” ou reflections tiroes de la pratique sur les playes d'Armes a feu,“Paris, 1737, 12mo. 4.” Traite“des Operations de Chirurgie,” Paris, 1743, 12mo. To the translation of this work into English, by Gataker, Cheselden made some valuable additions. 5. “Consultations sur la plupart des Maladies qui sont du report de la Chirurgie,” 1765, 8vo a work well calculated for the instruction of students in surgery. The author also sent several observations of considerable merit to the academy of surgeons, which are published in their memoirs. He died, at a very advanced age, in 1770.

, a native of America, of a very enterprising turn, was born at Groton in Connecticut. Having lost his father in his infancy, he was taken undef the care of a relation, who sent him to a grammar-school, and he studied for some time at Dartmouth college, in New Hampshire. Here it appears to have been his intention to apply to theological studies, l>ut the friend who sent him to college being dead, he was obliged to quit it, and by means of a canoe of Ins own const ruction, he found his way to Hartford, and thence to New York, where he went on board ship as a common sailor, and in this capacity arrived at London in 1771. When at college, there were several young Indians there for their education, with whom he used to associate, and learned their manners and hearing of capt. Cook’s intentions to sail on his third voyage, Ledyard engaged himself with him in the situation of a corporal of marines and on his return from that memorable voyage, during which his curiosity was rather excited than gratified, feeling an anxious desire of penetrating from the north-western coast of America, which Cook had partly explored, to the eastern coast, with which he himself was perfectly familiar, he determined to traverse the vast continent from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. His first plan for the purpose was that of embarking in a vessel, which was then preparing to sail, on a voyage of commercial adventure, to Nootka sound, on the western coast of America; and with this view he expended in sea-stores the greatest part of the money with which he had been supplied by the liberality of sirJoseph Banks, who has eminently distinguished himself in this way on other occasions for the promotion of every kind of useful science. But this scheme was frustrated by the rapacity of a customhouse officer; and therefore Mr. Ledyard determined to travel over land to Kamtschatka, from whence the passage is extremely short to the opposite coast of America. Accordingly, with no more than ten guineas in his purse, which was all that he had left, he crossed the British channel to Ostend, towards the close of 1786, and by the way of Denmark and the Sound, proceeded to the capital of Sweden. As it was winter, he attempted to traverse the gulf of Bothnia on the ice, in order to reach Kamtschatka by the shortest course; but finding, when he came to the middle of the sea, that the water was not frozen, he returned to Stockholm, and taking his course northward, walked to the Arctic circle, and passing round the head of the gulf, descended on its eastern side to Petersburg, where he arrived in the beginning of March 1787. Here fae was noticed as a person of an extraordinary character; and though he had neither stockings nor shoes, nor means to provide himself with any, he received and accepted an, invitation to dine with the Portuguese ambassador. From him he obtained twenty guineas for a bill, which he took the liberty, without being previously authorized, to draw on sir Joseph Banks, concluding, from his well-known disposition, that he would not be unwilling to pay it. By the interest of the ambassador, as we may conceive to have been probably the case, he obtained permission to accompany a detachment of stores, winch the empress had ordered to be sent to Yakutz, for the use of Mr. Billings, an Englishman, at that time in her service. Thus accommodated, he left Petersburg on the 2 1st of May, and travelling eastward through Siberia, reached Irkutsk in August; and from thence he proceeded to Yakutz, where he was kindly received by Mr. Billings, whom he recollected on board captain Cook’s ship, in the situation of the astronomer’s servant, but who was now entrusted by the empress in accomplishing her schemes of discovery. He returned to Irkutsk, where he spent part of the winter; and in the spring proceeded to Oczakow, on the coast of the Kamtschatkan sea, intending, in the spring, to have passed over to that peninsula, and to have embarked on the eastern side in one of the Russian vessels that trade to the western shores of America; but, finding that the navigation was completely obstructed, he returned to Yakutz, in order to wait for the termination of the winter. But whilst he was amusing himself with these prospects, an express arrived, in January 1788, from the empress, and he was seized, for reasons that have not been explained, by two Russian soldiers, who conveyed him in a sledge through the deserts of Northern Tartary to Moscow, without his clothes, money, and papers. From Moscow he was removed to the city of Moialoff, in White Russia, and from thence to the town of Tolochin, on the frontiers of the Polish dominions. As his conductors parted with him, they informed him, that if he returned to Russia he would be hanged, but that if he chose to go back to England, they wished him a pleasant journey. Distressed by poverty, covered with rags, infested with the usual accompaniments of such clothing, harassed with continual hardships, exhausted by disease, without friends, without credit, unknown, and reduced to the most wretched state, he found his way to Konigsberg. In this hour of deep distress, he resolved once more to have recourse to his former benefactor, and fortunately found a person who was willing to take his draft for five guineas on the president of the royal society. With this assistance he arrived in England, and immediately waited on sir Joseph Banks. Sir Joseph, knowing his disposition, and conceiving, as we may well imagine, that he would be gratified by the information, told him, that he could recommend him, as he believed, to an adventure almost as perilous as that from which he had just returned; and then communicated to him the wishes of the Association for discovering the Inland Countries of Africa. Mr. Ledyard replied, that he had always determined to traverse the continent of Africa, as soon as he had explored the interior of North America, and with a letter of introduction by sir Joseph Banks, he waited on Henry Beaufoy, esq. an active member of the fore-mentioned association. Mr. Beaufoy spread before him a map of Africa, and tracing a line from Cairo to Sennar, and from thence westward in the latitude and supposed direction of the Niger, informed him that this was the route by which he was anxious that Africa might, if possible, be explored. Mr. Ledyard expressed great pleasure in the hope of being employed in this adventure. Being asked when he would set out? “To-morrow morning” was his answer. The committee of the society assigned to him, at his own desire, as an enterprise of obvious peril and of difficult success, the task of traversing from east to west, in the latitude attributed to the Niger, the widest part of the continent of Africa. On the 30th of June 1788, Mr. Ledyard left London; and after a journey of thirty-six days, seven of which were consumed at Paris, and two at Marseilles, he arrived in the city of Alexandria. On die 14th of August, at midnight, he left Alexandria, and sailing up the Nile, arrived at Cairo on the 19th. From Cairo he communicated to the committee of the society all the information which he was able to collect during his stay there: and they were thus sufficiently apprized of the ardent spirit of inquiry, the unwearied attention, the persevering research, and the laborious, indefatigable, anxious zeal, with which he pursued the object of his mission. The next dispatch which they were led to expect, was to be dated at Sennar; the terms of his passage had been settied, and the day of his departure was appointed. The committee, however, after having expected with impatience the description of his journey, received with great concern and grievous disappointment, by letters from Egypt, the melancholy tidings of his death. By a bilious complaint, occasioned probably by vexatious delay at Cairo, and by too free an use of the acid of vitriol and tartar emetic, the termination of his life was hastened. He was decently interred in the neighbourhood of such of the English as had ended their days in the capital of Egypt,

Mr. Ledyard, as to his person, scarcely exceeded the middle size, but he manifested very remarkable activity and strength: and as to his manners, though they were unpolished, they were neither uncivil nor unpleasing. “Little attentive to difference of rank,” says his biographer, “he seemed to consider all men as his equals, and as such he respected them. His genius, though uncultivated and irregular, was original and comprehensive. Ardent in his wishes, yet calm in his deliberations; daring in his purposes, but guarded in his measures; impatient of controul, yet capable of strong endurance; adventurous beyond the conception of ordinary men, yet wary and considerate, and attentive to all precautions, he appeared to be formed by nature for achievements of hardihood and peril.”

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

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

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

, a learned Scotch divine, was born at Dolphinston, in Lanerkshire, in 1706. He received his academical education at the university of Edinburgh, where he distinguished himself by his great proficiency in different branches of learning. He began his theological studies in 1724, and in 1727 he undertook the education of a young gentleman at Caldwell, in Renfrewshire, where he resided in the summer months, but during the remainder of the year he lived at Glasgow, and was honoured with the friendship of professors Hutcheson and Dunlop. About the beginning of 1731 he was licensed as a preacher, but it was not till 1736 that he was ordained minister of Beith, on which charge he continued seven years. In 1740 he was elected moderator of a meeting of the synod at Irvine, and opened the assembly at Glasgow on the 7th of April 1741, with a sermon to the clergy “On the temper, character, and duty, of a minister of the gospel,” which has passed through many editions, and is still in high reputation. In 1743 he published a much longer discourse on “The nature, reasonableness, and advantages of Prayer; with an attempt to answer the objections against it.” This, likewise, added much to his reputation, and has been frequently reprinted. He was shortly after elected to the professorship of theology at the university of Glasgow; an honour which he obtained only by the casting vote of the president, owing to some suspicions entertained of the orthodoxy of his sentiments, founded on his sermon on prayer, in which he v.a thought to have laid too little stress on the atonement and intercession of Christ. A prosecution for heresy was the consequence, which was ultimately decided in his favour by the synod, the members of which almost unanimously determined, that there was no reason to charge him with any unsoundness in the passages of the sermon complained against. After this the prejudices against him appear to have subsided, and his character became very generally and highly respected, even by some who had thought it their duty to promote the prosecution. Soon after he had been established in the professorship, he took the degree of doctor in divinity; and continued in the theological chair seventeen years, vindicating and establishing the grand truths of natural and revealed religion, in answer to the principal objections made to them by Mr. Hume, lord Bolingbroke, and other sceptical writers. He had, in his lectures, a remarkable talent of selecting what was most important and striking on every subject that he handled: his arguments were solid, founded on indisputable facts; and they were urged with a degree of warmth which carried his auditors along with him; for they were addressed equally to the judgment and the heart. Dr. Leechman’s fame extended far and wide, the divinity-hall at Glasgow was crowded, in his time, with a greater number of scholars than any other in Scotland: and his numerous scholars, however they might differ in their sentiments on speculative theology and church government, were all cordially united in their affection and veneration for their master. In 1761, Dr. Leechman was raised to the office of principal of the university of Glasgow by a presentation from the king. He had previously to this been in a very bad state of health, and this change in his avocations was probably the means of prolonging his life; yet, though released from the more fatiguing part of his duties, he gave a lecture, for some time, once a week, to the students in divinity, and weekly lectures to the whole university. Dr. Leechman’s faculties remained in full vigour amidst the increasing infirmities of old age, and his taste for knowledge continued as acute as ever. In September and October 1785, he experienced two violent paralytic strokes, from which he partially recovered; but a third attack carried him off on the 3d of December, 1785, when he was almost eighty years of age. Dr. Leechman committed nothing to the press, except nine sermons, which went through several editions during his life-time. These were republished, with others, forming together two volumes, in 1789. To the first of these volumes is prefixed an account of the author, by Dr. Wodrow, from which the preceding particulars are taken.

, a learned Protestant divine, was born in 1594, at Ville Seiche, in the valley of St. Martin in Piedmont. Going to Constantinople as chaplain to the ambassador from the States-general, he formed a friendship in that city with the famous Cyrillus Lucar, and obtained from him a confession of the faith of the Greek and Eastern churches. On his return to the Vallies he was appointed minister there; but being condemned to death by the duke of Savoy, took refuge in Geneva, where he was made professor of divinity, and died in 1661. He left an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek, and vulgar Greek, 2 vols. 4to. His son, Anthony Leger, born 1652, at Geneva, was a celebrated preacher, and five volumes of his sermons have been published since his death, which happened at Geneva, in 1719.

, a learned protestant divine, born in 1615, at Ville-Seiche, in the valley of St. Martin, in Piedmont, was nephew of Anthony Leger the elder. He was minister of several churches, particularly that at St. Jean, and escaped from the massacre of the Waldenses in 1655. Having been deputed to several protestant powers in 1661, the court of Turin ordered his house at St. Jean to be razed to the ground, and declared him guilty of high treason. He became pastor afterwards of the Walloon church at Leyden, in which city he was living in 1665, and there published his “Hist, des Eglises Evangeliques des Vallees de Piemont,” fol. The year of his death is unknown.

, baron of Dartmouth, an eminent naval commander, was the eldest son of colonel William Legge, groom of the bed-chamber to king Charles I. and brought up under the brave admiral sir Edward Spragge. He entered the navy at seventeen years of age, and, before he was twenty, his gallant behaviour recommended him so effectually to king Charles II. that in 1667, he promoted him to the command of the Pembroke. In 1671, he was appointed captain of the Fairfax, and the next year removed to the Royal Catharine, in which ship he obtained high reputation, by beating off the Dutch after they had boarded her, though the ship seemed on the point of sinking; and then finding the means of stopping her leaks, he carried her safe into port. In 1673, he was made governor of Portsmouth, master of the horse, and gentleman to the duke of York. Several other posts were successively conferred upon him, and in December 1682, he was created baron of Dartmouth. The port of Tangier having been attended with great expence to keep the fortifications in repair, and to maintain in it a numerous garrison to protect it from the Moors, who watched every opportunity of seizing it, the king determined to demolish the fortifications, and bring the garrison to England; but the difficulty was to perform it without the Moors having any suspicion of the design. Lord Dartmouth was appointed to manage this difficult affair, and, for that purpose, was, in 1683, made governor of Tangier, general of his majesty’s forces in Africa, and admiral of the fleet. At his arrival he prepared every thing necessary for putting his design in execution, blew up all the fortifications, and returned to England with the garrison; soon after which, the king made him a present of ten thousand pounds. When James II. ascended the throne, his lordship was created master of the horse, general of the ordnance, constable of the tower of London, captain of an independent company of foot, and one of the privy-council. That monarch placed the highest confidence in his friendship; and, on his being thoroughly convinced that the prince of Orange intended to land in England, he appointed him commander of the fleet; and, had he not been prevented by the wind and other accidents from coming up with the prince of Orange, a bloody engagement would doubtless have ensued.

After the prince landed, lord Dartmouth returned to Spithead, in November, with forty-three ships of war, the rest of the fleet being put into other ports. Yet, notwithstanding he brought the fleet safe home, and had acted by order of king James when in power, he was deprived of all his employments at the revolution; and in 1691 committed prisoner to the Tower of London, where, after three months imprisonment, he died suddenly of an apoplexy, Oct. 25 of that year, in the forty-fourth year of his age. When he was dead, lord Lucas, who was constable of the Tower, made some difficulty of permitting his body to be removed without order; on which, application being made to king William, he was pleased to direct that the same respect should be paid at his funeral, that would have been due to him if he had died possessed of all his employments in that place; and accordingly, the Towerguns were fired when he was carried out to be interred near his father, in the vault of the church in the Minories, where a monument of white marble is erected to his memory.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Leipsic, July 4, 1646. His father, Frederic Leibnitz, was professor of moral philosophy, and secretary to that university; but did not survive the birth of his son above six years. His mother put him under messieurs Homschucius and Bachuchius, to teach him Greek and Latin; and he made so quick a progress as to surpass the expectations of his master; and not content with their tasks, when at home, where there was a well-chosen library left by his father, he read with attention the ancient authors, and “especially Livy. The poets also had a share in his studies, particularly Virgil, many of whose verses he could repeat in his old age, with fluency and accuracy. He had himself also a talent for versifying, and is said to have composed in one day’s time, a poem of three hundred lines, without an elision. This early and assiduous attention to classical learning laid the foundation of that correct and elegant taste which appears in all his writings. At the age of fifteen, he became a student in the university of Leipsic, and to polite literature joining philosophy and the mathematics, he studied the former under James Thomasius, and the latter under John Kuhnius, at Leipsic. He afterwards went to Jena, where he heard the lectures of professor Bohnius upon polite learning and history, and those of Falcknerius in the law. At his return to Leipsic, in 1663, he maintained, under Thomasius, a thesis,” De Principiis Individuationis.“In 1664, he was admitted M. A.; and observing how useful philosophy might be in illustrating the law, he maintained several philosophical questions taken out of the” Corpus Juris." At the same time he applied himself particularly to the study of the Greek philosophers, and engaged in the task of reconciling Plato with Aristotle; as he afterwards attempted a like reconciliation between Aristotle and Des Cartes. He was so intent on these studies, that he spent whole days in meditating upon them, in a forest near Leipsic.

His views being at this time chiefly fixed upon the law, he commenced bachelor in that faculty in 1665, and the year after supplicated for his doctor’s degree; but was denied, as not being of sufficient standing, that is, not quite twenty; but the real cause of the demur was his rejecting the principles of Aristotle and the schoolmen, against the received doctrine of that time. Resenting the affront, he went to Altorf, where he maintained a thesis, “De Casibus perplexis,” with so much reputation, that he not only obtained his doctor’s degree, but had an offer of being made professor of law extraordinary. This, however, was declined; and he went from Altorf to Nuremberg, to visit the learned in that university. He had heard of some literati there who were engaged in the pursuit of the philosopher’s stone; and his curiosity was raised to be initiated into their mysteries. For this purpose he drew up a letter full of abstruse terms, extracted out of books of chemistry; and, unintelligible as it was to himself, addressed it to the director of that society, desiring to be admitted a member. They were satisfied of his merit, from the proofs given in his letter; and not only admitted him into their laboratory, but even requested him to accept the secretaryship, with a stipend. His office was, to register their processes and experiments, and to extract from the books of the best chemists such things as might be of use to them in their pursuits. About this time, baron Boinebourg, first minister of the elector of Mentz, passing through Nuremberg, met Leibnitz at a common entertainment; and conceived so great an opinion of his parts and learning from his conversation, that he advised him to apply himself wholly to law and history; giving him at the same time the strongest assurances, that he would engage the elector, John Philip of Schonborn, to send for him to his court. Leibnitz accepted the kindness, promising to do his utmost to render himself worthy of such a patronage; and, to be more within the reach of its happy effects, he repaired to Francfort upon the Maine, in the neighbourhood of Mentz. In 1668, John Casimir, king of Poland, resigning his crown, the elector palatine, among others, became a competitor for that dignity; and, while baron Boinebourg went into Poland to manage the elector’s interests, Leibnitz wrote a treatise to shew that the Polonnois could not make choice of a better person for their king. With this piece the elector palatine was extremely pleased, and invited our author to his court. But baron Boinebourg, resolving to provide for him at the court of Mentz, would not suffer him to accept this last offer from the palatine; and immediately obtained for him the post of counsellor of the chamber of review to the elector of Mentz. Baron Boinebourg had some connexions at the French court; and as his son, who was at Paris, was not of years to be trusted with the management of his affairs, he begged Mr. Leibnitz to undertake that charge.

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

While he was in England he received an account of the death of the elector of Mentz, by which he lost his pension. He then returned to France, whence be wrote to the duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, to inform him of his circumstances. That prince sent him a very gracious answer, assuring him of his favour, and, for the present, appointed him counsellor of his court, with a salary; but gave him leave to stay at Paris, in order to complete his arithmetical machine, which, however, was not completed until after his death. In 1674 be went again to England, whence he passed, through Holland, to Hanover, and from his first arrival there made it his business to enrich the library of that prince with the best books of all kinds. That duke dying in 1679, his successor, Ernest Augustus, then bishop of Osnabrug, afterwards George I. extended the same patronage to Leibnitz, and directed him to write the history of the house of Brunswick. Leibnitz undertook the task; and, travelling through Germany and Italy to collect materials, returned to Hanover in 1690, with an ample store. While he was in Italy he met with a singular instance of bigotry, which, but for his happy presence of mind, might have proved fatal. Passing in a small bark from Venice to Mesola, a storm arose, during which the pilot, imagining he was not understood by a German, whom being a heretic he looked on as the cause of the tempest, proposed to strip him of his cloaths and money, and throw him overboard. Leibnitz hearing this, without discovering the least emotion, pulled out a set of beads, and turned them over with a seeming devotion. The artifice succeeded; one of the sailors observing to the pilot, that, since the man was no heretic, it would be of no use to drown him. In 1700 he was admitted a member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. The same year the elector of Brandenburg, afterwards king of Prussia, founded an academy at Berlin, by the advice of Leibnitz, who was appointed perpetual president of it; and, though his other affairs did not permit him to reside constantly upon the spot, yet he made ample amends by the treasures with which he enriched their memoirs, in several dissertations upon geometry, polite learning, natural philosophy, and physic. He also projected to establish at Dresden another academy like that at Berlin. He communicated his design to the king of Poland in 1703, who was inclined to promote it; but the troubles which arose shortly after in that kingdom, hindered it from being carried into execution.

Besides these projects to promote learning, there is another still behind of a more extensive view, both in its nature and use; he set himself to invent a language so easy and so perspicuous, as to become the common language of all nations of the world. This is what is called “The Universal Language,” and the design occupied the thoughts of our philosopher a long time. The thing had been attempted before by d'Algarme, and Dr. Wilkins, bishop of Chester; but Leibnitz did not approve of their method, and therefore attempted a new one. His predecessors in his opinion had not reached the point; they might indeed enable nations who did not understand each othe,r, to correspond easily together; but they had not attained the true real characters, which would be the beat instruments of the human mind, and extremely assist both the reason and memory. These characters, he thought, ought to resemble as much as possible those of algebra, which are simple and expressive, and never superfluous and equivocal, but whose varieties are grounded on reason. In order to hasten the execution of this vast project, he employed a young person to put into a regular order the definitions of all things whatsoever; but, though he laboured in it from 1703, yet his life did not prove sufficient to complete it*. In the meantime, his name became famous over Europe; and his merit was rewarded by other princes, besides the elector of Hanover. In 1711, he was made aulic counsellor to the emperor; and the czar of Moscovy appointed him privy-counsellor of justice, with a pension of a thousand ducats f. Leibnitz undertook at the same time to establish an academy of sciences at Vienna; but that project miscarried a disappointment which some have ascribed to the plague. However that be, it is certain he only had the honour of attempting it, and the emperor rewarded him for it with a pension of 2000 florins, promising him to double the sum, if he would come and reside at Vienna, which his death prevented. In the mean time, the History of Brunswick being interrupted by other works which he wrote occasionally, he found at his return to Hanover, in 1714, that the elector had appointed Mr. Eckard for his colleague in that history. The elector was then raised to the throne of Great Britain; and soon after his arrival, the electoral princess, then princess of Wales, and afterwards queen Caroline, engaged Leibnitz in a dispute with Dr. Samuel Clarke upon the subject of free-will, the reality of space, and other philosophical subjects. This controversy was carried on by letters which passed through her royal' high ness’s bands, and ended only with the death of Leibnitz, Nov. 14, 1716, occasioned by the gout and stone, at the age of seventy.

tie was contriving, which, it is very that Leibnitz refused the place of

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

“This great man,” says the abbé“,” owed his death to a medicine given him by a Jesuit at Vienna, which he took from a desire to obtain a too speedy cure for the gout. This removed the disorder suddenly from his foot to his stomach, and killed him. At the time of his death, he was sitting on the side of his bed, with an ink-stand and Barclay’s Argenis beside him. They say that he was continually reading this book, the style of which pleased him exceedingly; and that it was from this taste he intended to form his history.

"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.

"He read all books without exception the more odd and whimsical the title was, the more curious he was to examine the contents. He found a romance written in German by Mr. Eckard: this romance contained the history of a father, who having consulted an astrologer about the future destiny of his son, learnt that to preserve him from death, there was no other method than to make him pass for the son of a hangman. Leibnitz found this romance so excellent that he read it through at one sitting.

“The first time he visited Hanover, he never went out of his study. He never spoke of the sacred Scriptures without reverence; they are full, he would say, of lessons useful to mankind. He was unwilling to engage in religious disputes, but when his own principles were attacked, he defended himself with much warmth. He was fond of the Estern manners, had a great esteem for the Arabic and Chinese languages, and recommended the study of them. He formed a project for making a voyage to China, and the Czar promised to fit him out; but on reflexion, he found himself too far advanced in life to undertake it He collected many Chinese books in which were contained the antiquities of that empire.”

Leibnitz was author of a great multitude of writings; several of which were published separately, and many others in the memoirs of different academies. He invented a binary arithmetic, and many other ingenious matters. His claim to the invention of Fluxions, we have already noticed. Hanschius collected, with great care, every thing that Leibnitz had said, in different passages of his works, upon the principles of philosophy; and formed of them a complete system, under the title of “G. G. Leibnitzii Principia Philosophise more geometrico demonstrate,” &c. 1728, 4to. There came out a collection of our author’s letters in 1734 and 1735, entitled, “E pis tolas ad diversos theologici, juridici, medici, philosophic!, mathematici, historici, & philologici argument! e Mss. auctores^ cum annotationibus suis priuium divulgavit Christian Cortholtus,” and another collection of his letters was published in 1805 at Hanover, by M. Feder, under the title of “Commercii epistolici Leibnitziani typis nondum vulgati selecta specimina,” 8vo. Of his collected works, the best edition, distributed into classes by M. Dutens, was published at Geneva in six large volumes 4to, in 1768, entitled, “Gothofredi Guillelmi Leibnitzii Opera omnia,” &c.

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

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

The translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History observes, that the progress of Arminianism has declined in Germany and several parts of Switzerland, in consequence of the influence of the Leibnitzian and Wolfian philosophy. Leibnitz and Wolf, by attacking that liberty of indifference, which is supposed to imply the power of acting not only without, but against motives, struck, he says, at the very foundation of the Arminian system. He adds, that the greatest possible perfection of the universe, considered as the ultimate end of creating goodness, removes from the doctrine of predestination those arbitrary procedures and narrow views, with which the Calvinists are supposed to have loaded it, and gives it a new, a more pleasing, and a more philosophical aspect. As the Leibnitzians laid down this great end as the supreme object of God’s universal dominion, and the scope to which all his dispensations are directed, so they concluded, that, if this end was proposed, it must be accomplished. Hence the doctrine of necessity, to fulfil the purposes of a predestination founded in wisdom and goodness; a necessity, physical and mechanical, in the motions of material and inanimate things; but a necessity, moral and spiritual, in the voluntary determinations of intelligent beings, in consequence of prepollent motives, which produce their effects with certainty, though these effects be contingent, and by no means the offspring of an absolute and essentially immutable fatality. Tbese principles, says the same writer, are evidently applicable to the main doctrines of Calvinism; by them predestination is confirmed, though modified with respect to its reasons and its end; by them irresistible grace (irresistible in a moral sense) is maintained upon the hypothesis of prepollent motives and a moral necessity; the perseverance of the saints is also explicable upon the same system, by a series of moral causes producing a series of moral effects. But Maclaine adds, that the Leibnitzian system has scarcely been embraced by any of the English Calvmists, because, as he supposes, they adhere firmly to their theology, and blend no pnilosophical principles with their system.

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

, a naturalist and physician of the seventeenth century, was born at Grange, in Lancashire. He entered in 1679, of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, and took a bachelor’s degree in arts, whence he removed to Cambridge, and proceeding in the faculty of medicine, afterwards practised in London with considerable reputation. He was admitted a member of the royal society in May 1685. He left the following works: “The Natural History of the Counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire, &c.” London, 1700, folio, with plates. Into this is incorporated the best part of the following publication “Phtbisiologia Lancastrieusis, cum tentamine philosophico de Miueralibus Aquis in eodem comitatu observatis,” London, 1694, 8vo. “Exercitationes quinque de Aquis Mineralibus, Thermis calidis, Morbis acutis, Morbis intermittentibus, Hydrope,” ibid. 1697. “History of Virginia,” drawn up from observations made during a residence in that country, London, 1705, 12mo. Of his “Natural History of Lancashire,” bishop Nicolson speaks with great, and, as Mr. Gough thinks, deserved contempt. The coini described in this book were left to Mr. Prescot of Catherine-­hall, Cambridge. The time of his death is not mentioned in any of the accounts we have seen of him.

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

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

Be this as it may, after eleven years imprisonment in the Fleet, he was set at liberty by the parliament, 1640, and appointed keeper of Lambeth-palace, which at that time was made use of as a state-prison. There he remained till 1644, when he died rather insane of mind from the hardships he had suffered. He has no works extant, except those already mentioned. He was the father of archbishop Leighton, the subject of the next article.

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

After the death of the king, Dr. Leighton sometimes visited London during the vacations, but was disgusted with the proceedings there, and particularly conceived a dislike to the conduct of the independents as well as to their form of church-government. He made several excursions, likewise, to Flanders, that he might observe the actual state of the Romish church on the spot, and carried on a correspondence with some of his relations at Doway, who were in popish orders; but with the exception of some Jansenists, of whom he entertained a favourable opinion, his general aversion to popish divines and popery appears to have been increased by his experience abroad.

When Charles II. after the restoration determined to establish episcopacy in Scotland, Dr. Leighton was persuaded to accept a bishopric. This his presbyter! an biographers seem to consfder as a part of his conduct which is not to be reconciled with his general character for wisdom and caution. They deduce, however, from the following circumstances, that he did not enter cordially into the plan, and was even somewhat averse to it. “He chose the most obscure and least lucrative see, that of Dunblane; he disapproved of the feasting at the time of consecration, and plainly testified against it; he objected to the title of Lord; he refused to accompany the other Scotch bishops in their pompous entry into Edinburgh. He hastened to Dunblane; did not accept of the invitation to parliament, and almost the only time he took his seat there Whs for the purpose of urging lenity toward the presbyterians he detested all violent measurespersecuted uo man, upbraided no man; had little correspondence with his brethren, and incurred their deep resentment by his reserve and strictness; acknowledged that Providence frowned both ou the scheme and the instruments; and confined himself to his diocese.”

All this might be true, and yet not interfere with the conclusion, that Dr. Leighton saw nothing in the character and olrice of a bishop which could hinder the success of the gospel; on the contrary, bishop as he was, for which these biographers cannot forgive him, he exhibited such an example of pious diligence as could not be exceeded by the divines of any church and although during his holding this sec, the presbyterians were persecuted with the greatest severity in other dioceses, not one individual was molested in Dunblane on account of his religious principles. But as he had no power beyond his own boundaries, anil could not approve the conduct of Sharp and others of his brethren, he certainly became in time dissatisfied with his situation, and it is possible he might be so with himself for accepting it. In an address to his clergy, in 1665, not four years after his settlement at Dunblane, he intimated to them that it was his intention to resign, assigning as a reason, that he was weary of contentions.

Before taking this step, however, he had the courage to try the effect of a fair representation of the state of matters to the king, and notwithstanding his natural diffidence, went to London, and being graciously received by Charles, detailed to him the violent and cruel proceedings in Scotland protested against any concurrence in such measures; declared that being a bishop he was in some degree accessary to the rigorous deeds of others in supporting episcopacy, and requested permission to resign his bishopric. The king heard him with attention, and with apparent sorrow for the state of Scotland; assured him that lenient measures should be adopted, but positively refused to accept his resignation. Leigbton appears to have credited his majesty’s professions, and returned home in hopes that the violence of persecution was over; but, finding himself disappointed, he made a second attempt in 1667, and was more urgent with the king than before, although still without effect.

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

Disappointed in his scheme of comprehension, archbishop Leighton endeavoured to execute his office with his usual care, doing all in his power to reform the clergy, to promote piety among the people, to suppress violence, and to soothe the minds of the presbyterians. For this last purpose he held conferences with them at Glasgow, Paisley, and Edinburgh, on their principles, and on his scheme of accommodation, but without effect. The parties could not be brought to mutual indulgence, and far less to religious concord. Finding his new situation therefore more and more disagreeable, he again determined to resign his dignity, and went to London for that purpose in the summer of 1673. The king, although he still refused to accept his resignation, gave a written engagement to allow him to retire, after the trial of another year; and that time being expired, and all hope of uniting the different parties having vanished, his resignation was accepted. He now retired to Broadhurst, in Sussex, where his sister resided, the widow of Edward Lightmaker, esq. and here he lived in great privacy, dividing his time between study, devotion, and acts of benevolence, with occasional preaching. In, 1679 he very unexpectedly received a letter, written in the king’s own hand, requesting him to go to Scotland and promote concord among the contending parties, but it does not appear that he complied with his majesty’s pleasure. It is certain that he never again visited Scotland, nor intermeddled with ecclesiastical affairs, but remained quietly in his retirement until near his death. This event, however, did not take place at Broadhurst. Although he had enjoyed this retirement almost without interruption for ten years, he was unexpectedly brought to London to see his friends. The reason of this visit is not very clearly explained, nor is it of great importance, but it appears that he had been accustomed to express a wish that he might die from home, and at an inn; and this wish was gratified, for be died at the Bell-inn, in Warwick-lane, far apart from his relations, whose concern, he thought, might discompose his mind. He was confined to his room about a week, and to his bed only three days. Bishop Burnet, and other friends, attended him constantly during this illness, and witnessed his tranquil departure. He expired Feb. 1, 1684, in the seventy-first year of his age. By his express desire, his remains were conveyed to Broadhurst, and interred in the church; and a monument of plain marble, inscribed with his name, office, and age, was erected at the expence of his sister.

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

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

Leland not only sought out and rescued antique monuments of literature from the destructive hands of time, by a faithful copy and register of them, but likewise saved many from being despoiled by the hands of men. In those days the English were very indifferent and negligent in this particular: they took little heed and less care about these precious monuments of learning; which, being perceived by foreigners, especially in Germany, young students were frequently sent thence, who cut them out of the books in the libraries; and, then, returning home, published therti at the press of Frobenius, and other printers. This pilferage, together with the havock made of them at the dissolution of the monasteries, was observed by our antiquary with great regret; and he wrote a letter to Cromwell, then secretary of state, begging his assistance to bring to light many ancient authors buried in dust, and sending them to the king’s library. His majesty was truly sensible of the indefatigable industry and labour of his antiquary, and on his return from his travels in 1542, presented him to the rich rectory of Basely, in Oxfordshire, and the year following gave him, by the name of John Leland, scholar, and king’s chaplain, a canonry of King’s college, now Christ Church, in Oxford; and, about the same time, the prebend of East and West Knowle, in the church of Sarum. In 1545 he lost the canonry of Christ Church, upon the surrendry of that college to the king, and had no pension allowed him in the lieu of it, as other canons had, yet as he is said to have been “otherwise prov ided for,” it was probably at this time that the prebend of East and West Knowle was given him. In 1545, having digested into four books that part of his collections which contains an account of the illustrious writers in the realm, with their lives and monuments of literature, he presented it to his majesty, under the title of “A Newe Year’s Gifte;” with a scheme of what he intended to do farther *. For that purpose he retired to a house of his own, in the parish of St Michael le Querne, London; where he spent near six years in digesting and bringing into form and order, the immense collections he had with so great assiduity amassed together. It appears by a letter of his published by Hearne, that he was desirous of procuring an able assistant, but we are not informed whether he succeeded. It is certain that some assistance was necessary; for though he was a person of a clear judgment, and of great insight, to discern the difference “between substantial and superstitious learning,” notwithstanding these and other natural endowments of his mind, it is no wonder this double labour, this augaean task, to realize these undigested heaps, should overpower the strength of his constitution, and the spirits submit to what nature could no longer support. This was the fate of Leland; and by this unfortunate event an end was put to his labours, “a fatal stop to the satisfaction he was anxious to give to his king and country.”

* This was, to gire a map of Eng- books as there are shires in England

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

His distemper being made known to Edward VI. his majesty, by letters patents, dated March 5, 1550, granted the custody of him, by the name of John Lay I on d, junior, of St. Micuael’s parish in le Q aerne, clerk, to his hrother John Laylond, senior and, for his maintenance, to receive the profits of Hasely, Popeling, and his Salisbury prebend above-mentioned. In this distraction he continued) without ever recovering his senses, two years, when tue disorder put a period to his life, April 18, 1552. He was interred in the church of St. Michael le Querne, which stood at the west end of Cheapside, between the conduit there and Paternoster- row but, being burnt in the gri-at tire of 1666, the site of it was laid out to enlarge the street.

This event, as his illness before had, was deemed a national misfortune, greatly lamented by contemporaries, and by succeeding ages. On his demise, Leland’s papers were sought after by persons of the lirst rank and learning in the kingdom. King Edward, aware of their value, committed them to the custody of sir John Cheke, his tutor, who probably would have made some important use of them had he not been hindered by the confusions which followed the death of his sovereign. Sir John, being then obliged to go abroad, left four folio volumes of Leland’s collections to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. and these descended to Burton, the author of the History of Leicestershire, who obtained possession also of eight other volumes of Leland’s Mss. called his “Itinerary,” all which he deposited, in 1632, in the Bodleian library. The only other portion of Leland’s Mss. is in the Cottonian collection. Of all these, Holinshed, Drayton, Camden, Dugdale, Stowe, Lambard, Battely, Wood, &c. &c. have made much use in their historical researches; but we cannot too deeply regret that the author did not live to execute his own plans. His collections were in truth but labores incepti, begun, not completed. In that light he mentions them himself in an address to archbishop Cranmer, intreating the favour of that prelate’s protection of his indigested papers. Yet in this imperfect state they have been justly deemed a national treasure, have always been consulted by our best antiquaries, and their authority is cited as equal, if not superior to any, in points that concern antiquities. Dr. Tanner had once formed a plan for publishing Leland’s papers, but various avocations prevented him: at length Hearne undertook the task, and produced those two invaluable collections, the “Itinerary,” and “Collectanea,” both too well known to require a more minute description. To these may be added a work not so well edited, “Commentarii tie scriptoribus Britannicis,” Oxon. 1709, 2 vols. 8vo.(See Amthony Hall.) Some unpublished Mss. still remain, and it appears that Leland had prepared a large work entitled “De Antiquitate Britannica, sive, Historia Civilis.” It also appears that he had made large collections towards the antiquities of London, but these have long been lost to the public, as well as his quadrate table on silver, mentioned in the preceding note, and the “Description of England,” which he said would be published in twelve months.

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

Dr. Leland being now justly considered a master in this branch of controversy, at the desire of some valuable friends he sent to the press, in 1754, “A View of the principal Deistical Writers that have appeared in England, in the last and present century, with observations upon them, &c. In several letters to a friend.” This friend was Dr. Wilson, to whom the letters were sent by the author, in the form in which they appear. When the work was ready for the press, the copy was so little esteemed that no bookseller would give more than 50l. for it; on which Dr. Wilson generously printed a numerous edition at his own risque, and the subsequent editions sold with great rapidity and profit. The design of this work was to give some idea of the productions of the deistical writers, and of the several schemes which they have advanced, as far as the cause of revealed religion is concerned. He afterwards published a supplement relating to the works of Mr. Hume and lord Bolingbroke, and this was followed by a third volume, comprehending the author’s additions and illustrations, with a new edition of “Reflections upon lord Bolingbroke’s Letters,” &c. The whole of this work is now comprised in two volumes; it secured the author general public approbation, and encouraged him to continue his exertions to a very advanced age. Accordingly, when he was upwards of seventy years old, he published, in 2 vols. 4to, “The advantage and necessity of the Christian Revelation, shewn from the state of religion in the ancient heathen world, especially with respect to the knowledge and worship of the one true God; a rule of moral duty, and a state of t'uture rewards and punishments,” &c. This work was afterwards reprinted in two volumes, 8vo. Dr. Leland died in'his seventy-fifth year, on the 16th of January 1766; he was distinguished by considerable abilities, and very extensive learning; he had a memory so tenacious, that he was often called “the walking library.” After his death a collection of his sermons was published in four volumes octavo, with a preface containing some account of the life, character, and writings of the author, by the Rev. Dr. Isaac Weld, who preached his funeral sermon at the meeting in Eustace-street, Dublin, of which Dr. Leland had for ma-jy years been the pastor. The extensive circulation 01 luticiel writings about twenty years ago, induced the Rev. Dr. W. L. Brown, principal of Marishal college, Aberdeen, to superintend a new edition of the “View of the Deistieal writers,” 1798, 2 vols. 8vo, to which he added an excellent * View of the Present Times, with regard to religion and morals, and other important subjects."

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

In 1763, he was appointed by the board of senior fellows of Trinity college, professor of oratory. His course of study, and the labour he had bestowed on his translations, had furnished turn with a perspicuous and energetic style, which he displayed both in the professor’s chair and in the pulpit, being the most admired preacher of his time in Dublin; nor was he less esteemed for his talents as a controversial writer, of which he now afforded a specimen. Bishop Warburton having noticed in his “Doctrine of Grace,” the argument used by infidel writers against the divine inspiration of the New Testament, from its want of purity, elegance, &c. opposed this opinion by some of his own which appeared equally untenable; namely, 1. That the evangelists and apostles, writing in a language, the knowledge of which had been miraculously infused, could be masters of the words only, and not of the idioms; and therefore must write barbarously. 2. That eloquence was not any real quality; but something merely fantastical and arbitrary, an accidental abuse of human speech. 3. That it had no end but to deceive by the appearance of vehement inward persuasion, and to pervert the judgment by inflaming the passions; and that being a deviation from, the principles of logic and metaphysics, it was frequently vicious. Dr. Leland quickly perceived the danger of these positions, and in 1764 published “A Dissertation on the principles of human Eloquence; with particular regard to the style and composition of the New Testament; in which the observations on this subject by the lord bishop of Gloucester, in his discourse on the Doctrine of Grace, are distinctly considered; being the substance of several lectures read in the oratory school of Trinity college, Dublin,” 4to. In this he refuted Warburton’s positions in a candid and liberal manner, but was attempted to be answered by Dr. Hurd (without his name), in a manner grossly illiberal and unmanly, from which Dr. Hurd could derive no other advantage than that of flattering Warburton; and from the manner in which he notices his controversial tracts (See Hurd, vol. Xvhl p. 342) in the latter part of his life, it would appear that he was himself of this opinion. Dr. Leland published a reply to Dr. Hurd, in which, by still preserving the dignity of the literary character, he gained, in manners as well as argument, a complete victory over his antagonist.

In 1765, through the suggestion of Dr. Leland, the university of Dublin bestowed on Dr. Johnson their highest honour, by creating him doctor of laws, a favour which he acknowledged in a letter to Dr. Leland, which may be seen in the last edition of Boswell’s Life. In 1768, Dr. Leland was appointed chaplain to lord Townsend, lord lieutenant of Ireland and his friends entertained hopes that his merits would have raised him to the episcopal bench but he obtained only in that year the prebend of Rathmichael, in the cathedral church of St. Patrick, Dublin, united with the vicarage of Bray, both of small value, but tenable with his fellowship. In 1773, appeared his “History of Ireland, from the invasion of Henry II. with a preliminary discourse on the ancient state of that kingdom,” 3 vols. 4to. The merit of this work has been disputed by critics. It may be pronounced, however, an elegant sketch of Irish history, and calculated for common use; but he appears to have taken no pains to consult original materials, and therefore has brought very little accession to our knowledge of Irish affairs.

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

, a celebrated chemist, was born Nov. 17, 1645, at Rouen in Normandy, of which parliament his father was a proctor, and of the reformed religion. Having received a suitable education at the place of his birth, he was put apprentice to an apothecary, who was a relation; but, finding in a short lime that his master knew little of chemistry, he left him in 1666, and went to improve himself in that art at Paris, where he applied to Mr. Glazer, then demonstrator of chemistry in the royal gardens; but as Mr. Glazer was one of those professors who are full of obscure ideas, and was also far from being communicative, Lemery stayed with him only two months, and then proceeded to travel through France in quest of some better masters. In this resolution he went to Montpelier, where he continued three years with Mr. Vernant, an apothecary, who gave him an opportunity of performing several chemical operations, and of reading lectures also to some of his scholars. By these means he made such advances in chemistry, that in a little time he drew all the professors of physic, as well as other curious persons at Montpelier, to hear him; having always some new discoveries, which raised his reputation so high, that he practised physic in. that university without a doctor’s degree.

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

In 1681 his tranquillity began to be disturbed on account of his religion; and he received orders to quit his employ. At this time the elector of Brandenburgh, by Mr. Spanheini, his envoy in France, made him a proposal to go to Berlin, with a promise of founding a professorship in chemistry for him there; but the trouble of transporting hu family to such a distance, added to the hopes of some exception that would be obtained in his favour, hindered him from accepting that offer, and he was indulged to read some courses after the time limited by the order was expired; but at length, this not being suffered, he came to England in 1G83, where Charles II. gave him great encouragement. Yet, as the face of the public affairs here appeared not more promising of quiet than in France, he resolved to return thither, though without being able to determine what course he should then take.

In this dilemma, imagining that the title of doctor of physic might procure him some tranquillity, he took that degree at Caen about the end o/ the year; and, repairing to Paris, had a great deal of business for a while, but the edict of Nantz being revoked in 1685, he was forbid to practise his profession, as well as other protestants. He read, however, two courses of chemistry afterwards, under some powerful protections; and having no longer courage to support his religious principles, entered into the Romish church, in the beginning of 1686. This change procured him a full right to practise physic, and having obtained the king’s letters for holding his course of chemistry, and for the sale of his medicines, although not now an apothecary, what uith his pupils, his patients, and the sale of his chemical secrets, he made considerable gains.

Upon the revival of the royal academy of sciences, in 1699, he was made associate chemist, and at the end of the year became a pensionary. In 1707 he began to feel the infirmities of age, and had a slight attack of apoplexy, which not being so severe as to hinder him from going abroad, he attended the academy for a considerable time, but at length being confined to his house, he resigned his pensionary’s place. Another stroke of apoplexy in 1715, after seven days, put a period to his life June 19, at 4ie age of seventy. His principal works are, 1. The “Cours cle Chymie” before mentioned. 2. “An universal Pharmacopeia.” 3. “Diet. Universel des Drogues simples,” a very useful work. 4. “A Treatise of Antimony; containing the chemical analysis of that mineral,” which involved him in a controversy with an anonymous critic, irv which he was not very successful.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in January 1677, and was intended lor the profession of the law; but he had imbibed from the pursuits of his father so great a taste for those sciences, that he entered the faculty of medicine of his native city, and received the degree of doctor in 1698. Two years afterwards he was admitted into the academy of sciences, and in 1708 h delivered lectures on chemistry in the royal garden. In 1710 he was appointed physician to the Hotel-Dieu, a post which he occupied during the remainder of his life. In 1712 he obtained the rank of associate in the academy, and succeeded his father as pensionary in 1715. He purchased the office of king’s physician in 1722; and in that capacity he accompanied the infanta of Spain on her return from France, whither she had gone with the view of being married to Louis XV. Soon after his return to Paris 'he was honoured by the queen of Spain with the title of her consulting physician. In 1731 he was appointed professor of chemistry in the royal garden, in the place of Geoffroy. At a subsequent period he became particularly attached to the establishment of the duchess of Brunswick, whom he frequently visited in the palace of Luxembourg; and he likewise obtained the patronage of the princess of Conti, in whose hotel he regularly passed a part of every day, and there composed several of the chemical papers which he read before the academy of sciences. These papers treat of the subjects of iron, of nitre, and some other salts, of vegetable and animal analyses, of the origin and formation of monsters, &c. He died on June 9, 1743, and the loss of him was much regretted; for to the mild and polished manners of the gentleman, he united great sincerity and constancy in his attachments, and sentiments of liberality and generosity in all his proceedings.

In addition to the papers published in the Memoirs of the academy, he left the following works: 1. “Trait des Alimens,” Paris, 1702, which was frequently reprinted, and greatly augmented by Bruhier, in the edition of 1755, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Dissertation sur le Nourriture des Os,” Paris, 1704, 12tno. He likewise published three letters on the generation of worms in the human body, in opposition to the treatise of Andry, with whom a sharp controversy was carried on upon this topic.

, 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.”

, a learned English prelate, was born at Norwich in 1665, and educated at St. Paul’s school, London, whence he removed to Catherine-hall, Cambridge; and took his degrees of A. B. in 1636, A.M. 1690, and B. D. 1698. He was, in 1708, presented to the rectory of Beddington in Surrey, by sir Nicholas Carew, bart. who had been his pupil; and he was appointed chaplain to king George I. who also promoted him to the see of Norwich in 1723. He died Oct. 26, 1727, of the small-pox, which he caught at the coronation of George II. He lies buried in the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, where is a monument to his memory. Richardson, in his continuation of Godwin, calls him a man of the first-rate genius and abilities. In 1695, he published two of the comedies of Aristophanes, the “Plutus” and “Nubes,” Gr. & Lat. 8vo, with notes; and in 1719 preached the sermons at Boyle’s lecture, which are printed, as are a set of his sermons preached at Tunbridge, and a few others upon occasional subjects. He was editor also of one of the most magnificent and correct editions of “Terence,” that printed at Cambridge in 1701, 4to. For this he consulted thirteen manuscripts, and many ancient editions, and enriched the work with critical notes, and a dissertation “De ratione et licentia metri Terentiani.” It was reprinted at Cambridge, in octavo, 1701 and 1723, which last Dr. Harwood thinks the best editon. Dr. Leng corrected and revised the sixth edition of sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation of Cicero de Officiis, an employment which we are surprized he should have undertaken, who could with more ease and elegance have given a new one.

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

, an English writer, was related to Sampson Lennard, who married Margaret baroness Dacre, and of whom honourable mention is made in Camden’s Britannia. In early life he followed the profession of arms, and was attached to sir Philip Sidney, with whom he fought at the battle of Zutphen. He was afterwards distinguished as a man of letters, and published various translations from the Latin and French, particularly Perrin’s “History of the Waldenses;” Du Plessis Mornay’s History of Papacie;“and Charron” On Wisdom.“He was of some note as a topographer, and of considerable eminence as a herald, having been, in the latter part of his life, a member of the college of arms. Some of his heraldical compilations, which are justly esteemed, (see” Catalogue of the Harleian Mss.") are among the manuscripts in the British Museum. He died in August 1633, and was buried at St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf. Mr. Granger received this brief memoir of Lennard, from Thomas the late lord Dacre.

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

She published, in 1751, “The Memoirs of Harriot Stuart,” and, in 1752, ' The Female Quixote.“In the latter of these novels, the character of Arabella is the counter-part of Don Quixote; and the work was very favourably received. Dr. Johnson wrote the dedication to the earl of Middlesex. In the following year she published” Shakespeare illustrated,“in 2 vols. J2mo, to wnich she afterwards added a third. This work consists of the novels and histories on which the plays of Shakspeare are founded, collected and translated from the original authors: to which are added critical notes, censuring the liberties which Shakspeare has generally taken with the stories on which his plays are founded. In 1756, Mrs. Lennox published,” The Memoirs of the Countess of Berci, taken from the French,“2 vols. 12mo; and,” Sully’s Memoirs,“translated, 3 vols. 4to; which have since been frequently reprinted in 8vo, and are executed with no small ability. In 1757, she translated” The Memoirs of Madame Maintenon.“In 1758, she produced” Philander, a Dramatic Pastoral,“and” Henrietta,“a novel of considerable merit, 2 vols. 12mo; and, in 1760, with the assistance of the earl of Cork and Orrery, and Dr. Johnson, she published a translation of” Father Brumoy’s Greek Theatre,“3 vols. 4to; the merit of which varies materially in different parts of the work. In 1760-1, she published a kind of Magazine, under the name of the” Ladies Museum,“which extended to two volumes, octavo, and seems to have been rather an undertaking of necessity than choice. Two years after, she published” Sophia, a Novel,“2 vols. 12mo, which is inferior to her earlier performances; and, after an interval of seven years, she brought out, at Covent-garden theatre,” The Sisters, a Comedy,“taken from her novel of Henrietta, which was condemned on the first night of its appearance. In 1773, she furnished Drurylane theatre with a comedy, entitled,” Old City Manners.“Her last performance, not inferior to any of her former in that species of composition, was” Euphemia, a Novel, 17yO,“4 vols. 12mo. In 1775, we find Dr. Johnson assisting her in drawing up proposals for an edition of her works, in 3 vols. 4to; but it does not appear to have been published. Dr. Johnson had such an opinion of Mrs. Lennox that, on one occasion, not long before his death, he went so far as to pronounce her superior to Mrs. Carter, miss Hannah Moore, and miss Burney. Sir John Hawkins has given a ludicrous account of the doctor’s celebration of the birth of Mrs. Lennox’s first literary child, ' The Life of Harriot Stuart.” This, however, was certainly not her first production, for in 1747, she published “Poems on several occasions,” printed for Sam. Paterson. She was then Miss Ramsay.

It is to be regretted, that the latter days of this ingenious lady were clouded by penury and sickness; calamities which were in a considerable degree alleviated by the kindness of some friends, who revered alike her literary and her moral character. Among these it would be unjust not to mention the names of the right hon. George Rose, and the rev. W. Beloe. But the most effectual aid she received was from The Literary Fund society, in consequence of which her only son was, a few years since, enabled to fit himself out for an employment in the Anglo-American States; and from the same source the means of decent subsistence were, for the last twelvemonth of her life, afforded to the mother. She died Jan. 4, 1804.

, 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.

From the preceding circumstances, gleaned from Mr. Roscoe’s elaborate account of Leo, a judgment may be formed of his character, in which, although some things may have been exaggerated by the enemies of the Romish church, enough remains uncontested to prove that he had many of the worst vices, and, when it became necessary to his aggrandizement, practised the worst crimes of his predecessors. His biographer, by embodying the history of literature and the arts in the life of Leo, one of the most pleasing and truly valuable parts of the work, has, we think, failed, in attributing much of their advancement to Leo. And indeed it has been too much a fashion to speak of the “age of Leo” as of a glorious period which his patronage created. Too much stress, perhaps, is frequently laid on patronage; and we ought to hesitate in declaring how much it has produced, when we consider how much in all ages has been produced without it. But Leo’s patronage was not general, for it excluded Ariosto and Erasmus, two of the greatest men of the age; nor was it judicious in selection, for he bestowed it on such worthless characters as Aretin and Niso, not to speak of a number of less known characters, whose merit rises no higher than that of being able to write amorous Italian sonnets, and panegyrical Latin verses. With respect to the arts, it has been justly remarked, that when he ascended the throne they were at their meridian. He found greater talents than he employed, and greater works commenced than he completed. Leonard Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, and Raffaello, performed their greatest works before the accession of Leo X.; Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s, died in the second year of his pontificate; and Da Vinci and Michael Angelo shared none of his favours. It is from his attachment to Raflfaello that he derives his strongest claims as a patron of art; yet a part of his conduct to this great artist makes us question whether Leo had a refined taste. Raffaello made thirteen cartoons of religious subjects to complete the decoration of the hall of Constantine, and had sent them into Flanders, to be returned in worsted copies, without any care to preserve the originals, nor any inquiry made concerning them after the subjects were manufactured into tapestry. By accident, seven of these are yet to be seen in this country, and may enable us to estimate the taste of the pontiff who could so easily forget them. Yet Leo must not be deprived of the merit that justly belongs to him. He drew together the learned men of his time, and formed eminent schools, and he did much in promoting the art of printing, then of incalculable importance to literature. In these respects, and upon account of the share he had in precipitating the reformation, his short pontificate of eight years and eight months must be allowed to form one of the most interesting periods in papal history, and worthy of the illustration it has received.

emperor of the East, surnamed The Wise, and the Philosopher, succeeded his father Basilius the Macedonian, March 1, 886. He drove Photius from the see of Constantinople, fought with success against the Hungarians and Bulgarians, and died June 11, 911, leaving one son> Constantine Porphyrogeneta. This emperor was surnamed The Philosopher, from his attachment to learning, and not from his manners, which were very irregular. He was fond of writing sermons, and there are several of his composing in the library of the fathers. The following works are also attributed to him; a treatise on Tactics, a useful work for those who would acquire a knowledge of the lower empire it was printed in German by Bourscheid, at Vienna, and in French by M. de Maiserrti, 1770, 2 vols. 8vo “Novelise Constitutiones,” in which several of the novels introduced by Justinian are abolished; “Opus Basilicon,” where all the laws contained in Justinian’s works are new modelled. This system of law was adopted by the Greeks afterwards. In Constantine Manasses, printed at the Louvre, may be found “Leonis sapientis oracula.”

, 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.

, whose proper name was R. Jehudah Arie, was born at Modena about 1574 was for a considerable time chief of the synagogue, and esteemed a good poet both in Hebrew and Italian. He was author of a valuable work on the ceremonies and customs of the Jews, which is held in estimation by the learned of all nations. It is entitled “Istoria de Riti Hebraici vita et Osservanze de gli Hebre'i di questi Tempi;” the best edition of which is that of Venice, 1638. It was translated into the French language in 1674, by Richard Simon, with supplements relating to the sects of the Karaites^and Samaritans. He intended to have given an Italian translation of the Old Testament, but the inquisition laid its commands on him to desist. His Hebrew and Italian dictionary, entitled “The Mouth of the Lion,” was published at Venice in 1612, and was afterwards reprinted in an enlarged form at Padua, in 1640. Leo died at Venice in 1654.

, a French monk, was born at Rennes in the year 1600. Before he entered into the religious profession his name was John Mace. He was nominated to all the honourable and confidential posts of his order, and for his eloquence had the honour of preachjng before Louis XIII. and Louis XIV. His early patrons were popes Leo XL and Alexander VIII.; and in France cardinal Richelieu was his friend. He died in 1671, leaving behind him numerous works, the principal of which are, “Studium Sapientise Universalis,” 3 vols. fol. A “History of the Carmelites” “Lives of different Romish Saints” and “Journal of what took place during the last Sickness, and at the Death of cardinal Richelieu.”

, an Italian mathematician, who flourished at the commencement of the thirteenth century, was the first person who brought into Europe the knowledge of the Arabic cyphers and algebra. He travelled into the East for instruction, and being at Bugia, a town in Africa, was taught the Arabic method of keeping accounts, and finding it more convenient and preferable to the European method, he drew up a treatise for the purpose of introducing it into Italy, where it was cultivated with success, and became speedily known to all mathematicians From Italy the knowledge of the Arabic cyphers and algebra was afterwards communicated to the other countries of Europe. He was author of a treatise on surveying,preserved in the Magliabecchi library at Florence.

, principal organist of the chapel royaj at Naples, was not only admired and respected by his contemporaries, but his memory still continues to be held in reverence by every professor that is acquainted with his works. He was born in 1689. The first opera of his composition is thought to be “Sofonisba,” which was performed in Naples in 1718, and the last, “Siface,” in Bologna, 1737. Between these he produced three operas for Venice, and four for Rome. Leo likewise set the “Olimpiade” of Metastasio. “Dirti ben mio vovice” was in extreme high favour, as set by Leo, about the middle of the last century, in England, where it was sure to be heard at every musical performance, both public and private. Leo likewise set Metastasio' s oratorio of “St. Elena al Calvario,” in which there are some very fine airs. His celebrated “Miserere,” in eight real parts, though imperfectly performed in London at the Pantheon, for Ansani’s benefit, 1781, convinced real judges that it was of the highest class of choral compositions.

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

, an eminent Italian phy-, sician, was born in one of the Venetian states in 1428. He was professor of medicine at Ferrara during upwards of, sixty years, and was the first person who undertook to translate the works of Galen into Latin. His attachment to literary pursuits alienated him from practice; and in excuse he used to say, “I do more service to the public than if I visited the sick, by instructing those who are to cure them.” Extending his attention also to the belles lettres, he wrote some poetry, and translated into Italian the history of Dion Cassius, and the dialogues of Lucian. Until the age of thirty, Leonicenus was tormented with frequent attacks of epilepsy, which reduced him at times to melancholy and despair. This disease, however, afterwards left him, and, by means of great regularity and temperance, he attained the age of ninety-six years, and died in 1524, possessed of all his faculties. To one who in quired, with astonishment, by what secret he had preserved this entire possession of his faculties, together with an erect body and vigorous health, at so great an age, he replied, that it was the effect of innocence of manners, tranquillity of mind, and frugality in diet. The duke and senate of. Ferrara erected a monument to his memory. He left several works, most of which have been several times reprinted, but are not now in request, except perhaps his examination of the errors of Pliny, &c. “Plinii et aliorurn plurimum auctorum qui de simplicibus medicaminibui scripserunt, crrores notati,” Bude, 1532, folio, which involved him in a controversy, sustained with his usual tranquillity; and his “Liber de Epidemia quam Itali morbum Gallicum vocant,” Venice, 1497, 4to, a book of great rarity. He was the first in Italy who treated of this disorder 1 There is an edition of all his works, printed at Bale, 1533, fol.

, a celebrated astronomer in the sixteenth century, was born in Bohemia, and was appointed mathematician to Otho Henry, elector palatine. He acquired a high reputation by his astronomical productions, of which the principal were, “Ephemerides ab anno 1556 ad ann. 1606;” “Expedita Ratio constituendi Tin-mat is coelestis” “Loca stellarum fixarum ab anno Dom. 1549 usque in ann. 2029” and “De Eclipsibus Liber.” Tycho Brahe paid him a visit in 1569, when they had several conversations on their favourite subjects. Notwithstanding the great learning of Leowitz, he was weak enough to become the dupe of judicial astrology. He died in Swabia 1574. He had predicted that the world would come to an end in 1584; and of this prophecy many priests and preachers took advantage as the important period approached, and enriched themselves at the expence of the fears of their people.

, a poet of Scotland, who flourished in the thirteenth century, is familiarly known by the name of Thomas the Rhymer. The history of his life is involved in much obscurity. What has been unravelled may be seen in our authority. He was a prophet as well as a poet. His merit in the former character may be disputed, but of his poetical talents, Mr. Walter Scott has enabled the public to judge, by giving an excellent edition of his metrical romance of “Sir Tristrem,” published in 1804, and very ably illustrated with notes, &c. by Mr. Scott, who has in this work shown that the most arduous labours of the antiquary are not incompatible with the genius and spirit of the poet.

, a native of Mitylene, who flourished in the first century of the Christian aera, was a disciple of Timocrates, afterwards became a teacher of philosophy in his native city, and obtained a great number of scholars. He was author of many books of philosophy, and Photius says he had read sixteen orations written by him. Two of these were first published by Aldus, in his edition of the ancient orators, in 1513; afterwards by Henry Stephens, with the orations of JEschines, Lysias, and others; and in 1619, by Gruter. Lesbonax is said. to have been the author of a treatise “De Figuris Grammaticis,” printed with Ammonius, Leyden, 1739, 4to. He left a son named Potamon, an eminent rhetorician at Rome, in the reign of the emperor Tiberius. So sensible were the magistrates of Mitylene of his merits, and of the utility of his labours, that they caused a medal to be struck in his honour: one of which was discovered in the south of France about 1740, and an engraving of it, with a learned dissertation, published in the year 174-4, by M. Gary, of the Academy of Marseilles, but there seems some reason to think that Lesbonax the philosopher, and Lesbonax the grammarian, were different persons.

, a celebrated Dutch printer, was born in 1610 of an illustrious family at Geneva, which removed to Holland, where his press became famous for the number of beautiful and accurate editions which issued from it. He was also esteemed an excellent poet; and his daughter, Catherine Lescaille, who died June 8, 1711, was so much admired for her poetical talents, as to be called the Dutch Sappho, and the tenth Muse. A collection of her Poems was printed in 1728, with the following tragedies: Genseric, Wenceslaus, Herod and Mariamne, Hercules and Deianira, Nicomedes, Ariadne, Cassandra, &c. which, although they are not written according to the ordinary rules of the drama, frequently discover marks of superior genius. James Lescaille was honoured with the poetic crown by the emperor Leopold in 1663, and died in 1677.

, 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.

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

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

Soon after his arrival, he was appointed one of the senators of the college of justice, and sworn into the privycouncil. In 1564, the abbey of Lundores was conferred upon him; and, upon the death of Sinclair bishop of Ross, he was promoted to that see. This advancement was no more than he merited from the head of the Roman church in Scotland, in whose defence he was always an active and able disputant with the reformed party. His learning was not inferior to his other attainments; nor was his attention so entirely absorbed in ecclesiastical matters, as to prevent his introducing some important improvements in the civil state of the kingdom. To this end, having observed that all the ancient laws were growing obsolete, for want of being collected into a body, he represented this matter to the queen, and prevailed with her majesty to appoint proper persons for the work. Accordingly, a commission was made out, granting to Lesley, and fifteen others, privycounsellors and advocates in the law, authority to print the same. Thus it is to the care principally of the bishop of Ross, that the Scots owe the first impression of their laws at Edinburgh, in 1566, commonly called the black acts of parliament, from their being printed in the black Saxon character. Upon the queen’s flying into England from her protestant subjects, who had taken up arms against her, queen Elizabeth appointed commissioners at York to examine the case between her and them, and bishop Lesley was one of those chosen by Mary, in 1568, to defend her cause, which he did with great vigour and strength of reasoning; and, when this method proved ineffectual, appeared afterwards in the character of ambassador at the English court, to complain of the injustice done to his queen. Finding no notice taken of his public solicitations, he began to form schemes to procure her escape privately, and at the same time seems to have been concerned with foreign courts in conspiracies against queen Elizabeth. With a view, however, to serve queen Mary, he hit upon the unfortunate expedient of negotiating her marriage with the duke of Norfolk; which being discovered, the duke was convicted of treason, and executed. Lesley being examined upon it, pleaded the privileges of an ambassador; alleging, that he had done nothing but what his place and duty demanded for procuring the liberty of his princess; and that he came into England with sufficient warrant and authority, which he had produced, and which had been admitted. It was answered, that the privileges of ambasjadors could not protect those who offended against the majesty of the princes to whom they were sent; and that they werfe to be considered in no other light than as enemies who practised rebellion against the state. To this our prelate replied, that he had neither raised nor practised rebellion; but, perceiving the adversaries of queen Mary countenanced, and her deprived of all hope of liberty, he could not abandon his sovereign in her afflictions, but do his best to procure her freedom; and that it would never be found that the privileges of ambassadors were violated, via juris, by course of law, but only via facti, by way of fact, which seldom had good success.

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.

His character is represented much to his advantage, by several writers, both at home and abroad; and all parties agree in speaking of him as a man of great learning, an able statesman, and a zealons churchman. His fidelity to his queen was certainly honourable in its motive, although it is impossible to defend all his proceedings. Dodd informs us that when at Paris he laid the foundation of three colleges for the education of popish missionaries; one for his countrymen at Paris, which was completed; another at Home, which fell into the hands of the Jesuits; and a third at Doway, the superior of which, for some years, was a Scotch Jesuit.

Bishop Lesley’s writings are, 1. “Afflicti Aninw Consolationes, & tranquilli Animi Conservatio,” Paris, 1574, 8vo. 2. “De Origine, Moribus, & Rebus gestis Scotorum,” Romae, 1578, 4to. It consists of ten books, of which the three last, making half the volume, are dedicated to queen Mary; to whom they had been presented in English, seven years before the first publication in Latin. There are separate copies of them in several libraries. See Catalog, Mss. Oxon. This valuable history is carried down to the queen’s return from France in 1561. He seems unwilling to divulge what he knew of some transactions after that period. “Some things,” says he, “savoured so much of ingratitude and perfidy, that, although it were very proper they should be known, yet it were improper for me to record them, because often, with the danger of my life, I endeavoured to put a stop to them; and I ought to do all that is in me, not to let them be known unto strangers.” With this work are published, 3. “Paraenesis ad Nobilitatem Populumque Scotorum” and, 4. “Regionum & Insularum Scotiae Descriptio.” 5.“” Defence of the Honour of Mary Queen of Scotland; with a Declaration of her right, title, and interest, to the crown of England,“Liege, 1571, 8vo, which was immediately suppressed. 6.” A Treatise, shewing, that the Regimen of Women is conformable to the Law of God and Nature.“These two last are ascribed, by Parsons the Jesuit, to Morgan Philips, but Camden asserts them to be our author’s, Annal. Eliz. sub. ann. 1569. 7.” DeTitulo & Jure Marias Scotorum Reginae, quo Anglias Successionem Jure sibi vindicat,“Rheims, 1580, 4to. 8. There is a ms. upon the same subject in French, entitled” Remonstrance au Pape,“&c. Cotton library, Titus, cxii. 1. and F. 3. 14. 9.” An Account of his Embassage in. England, from 1568 to 1572,“ms. in the advocates’ library in Scotland. Catal. of Oxford Mss. 10.” An Apology for the Bishop of Ross, as to what is laid to his Charge concerning the Duke of Norfolk,“ms. in the library of the lord Longueville. 11.” Several Letters in the hands of Dr. George Mackenzie," who wrote his life.

, bishop of Cloghcr in Ireland, was descended from an ancient family, and born at Balquhaine, in the north of Scotland. The first part of his education was at Aberdeen, whence he removed to Oxford. Afterwards he travelled into Spain, Italy, Germany, and France: he spoke French, Spanish, and Italian, with the same propriety and fluency as the natives; and was so great a master of the Latin, that it was said of him, when in Spain, Solus Lcsleius Latine loquitur. He continued twenty-two years abroad; and, during that time, was at the siege of Rochelle, and the expedition to the isle of Rhee, with the duke of Buckingham. He was all along conversant in courts, and at home was happy in that of Charles I. who admitted him into his privy. council both in Scotland and Ireland; in which stations he was continued by Charles II. after the restoration. His chief preferment in the church of Scotland was the bishopric of the Orkneys, whence he was translated to Raphoe in Ireland, in 1633; and, the same year, sworn a privy-counsellor in that kingdom. He built a stately palace in his diocese, in the form and strength of a castle, one of the finest episcopal palaces in Ireland, and proved to be useful afterwards in the rebellion of 1641, by preserving a good part of that country. The good bishop exerted himself, as much as he could, in defence of the royal cause, and endured a siege in his castle of Raphoe, before he would surrender it to Oliver Cromwell, being the last which held out in that country. He then retired to Dublin, where he always used the liturgy of the church of Ireland in his family, and even had frequent confirmations and ordinations. After the restoration, he came over to England; and, in 1661, was translated to the see of Clogher. He died in 1671, aged above 100 3'ears, having been above 50 years a bishop; and was then consequently the oldest bishop in the world.

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

As the papists had got possession of an episcopal see, they engrossed other offices too; and a popish high-sheriff was appointed for the county of Monaghan. This proceeding alarmed the gentlemen in that country; who, depending much on Leslie’s knowledge as a justice of peace, repaired to him, then confined by the gout to his house. He told them, that it would be as illegal in them to permit the sheriff to act, as it would be in him to attempt it. But they insisted that himself should appear in person on the bench, at the approaching quarter-sessions, and all promised to act as he did; so he was carried there with much difficulty, and in great pain. Upon the question, whether the sheriff was legally qualified, the latter replied, “That he was of the king’s own religion, and it was his majesty’s will that he should be sheriff.” Leslie then observed, “That they were not inquiring into his majesty’s religion, but whether he (the pretended sheriff) had qualified himself according to law, for acting as a proper officer; that the law was the king’s will, and nothing else to be deemed such; that his subjects had no other way of knowing his will but as it is revealed to them in his laws; and it must always be thought to continue so, till the contrary is notified to them in the same authentic manner.” This argument was so convincing, that the bench unanimously agreed to commit the sheriff for his intrusion and arrogant contempt of the court. Leslie also committed gome officers of that tumultuous army which the lord Tyrconnel raised, for robbing the country.

In this spirited conduct Leslie acted like a sound divine and an upright magistrate; but, while he thought himself authorized to resist the illegal mandates of his sovereign, be never approved of carrying these principles of resistance so far as to deprive the king of the supreme power; and persevering steadily in that opinion, he continued, after the revolution, in allegiance to king James. In consequence, refusingto take the new oaths appointed upon that change, he lost all his preferments and in 1689, when the troubles began to arise in Ireland, withdrew, with his family, into England. Here he employed his time in writing a great many political pieces in support of the cause he had embraced; and being confessedly a person of extraordinary wit and learning, he became a very formidable champion of the nonjurors. His first piece in this cause was an answer to Abp. King’s “State of the Protestants in Ireland, under the late King James’s Government,” in which he shewed himself as averse from the principles and practices of the Irish and other Papists, as he was from those of the author whom he refuted. Neither did his sufferings make him forget his duty to the church of England; in defence of which he shewed himself a strenuous champion against the quakers, many of whom were converted by him. But, as these converts were desirous of returning to presbytery, whence they had last sprung, he was obliged to treat the subject of church government in defence of episcopacy. He likewise employed his pen in the general cause of the Christian religion, against Jews, Deists, and Socinians. In the mean time, however, these writings, and his frequent visits to the courts of St. Germain’s and Bar le Due, rendered him obnoxious to the government; but he became more so upon the publication of the “Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted;” of which he was the reputed author. Finding himself, on this account, under a necessity of leaving the kingdom, he repaired to the Pretender at Bar le Due; where he was allowed to officiate, in a private chapel, after the rites of the Church of England; and it is said he took much pains to convert the Pretender to the Protestant religion, but in vain . However, to promote the said Pretender’s interest, when some hopes of his restoration were entertained by his party in England, he wrote a letter from Bar le Due, dated April 23, 1714, which was printed and dispersed among his adherents, in which, after giving a flattering description of the Pretender’s person and character, his graceful mien, magnanimity of spirit, devotion free from bigotry, application to business, ready apprehension, sound judgment, and affability, so that none conversed with him without being charmed with his good sense and temper; he concludes with a proposal, “on condition of his being restored to his crown, that, for the security of the church of England as by law established, he would so far wave his prerogative, in the nomination of bishops, deans, and all other ecclesiastical preferments in the gift of the crown, that five bishops should be appointed, of which the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being always to be one, who, upon any vacancy, might name three persons to him, from whom he would chuse.” Many other proposals of the like nature were made soon after, and several projects were concerted not only in England, but an actual insurrection begun in Scotland by his party, in 1715, all which ended in the crushing and dispersing of the rebels, and in the Pretender’s being obliged to leave the French dominions.

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

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

“A charge, however,” says the writer whom we have already quoted in the preceding note, “has been lately brought against him of such a nature, as, if well founded, must detract, not only from his literary fame, but also from his integrity. `The short and easy Method with the Deists’ is unquestionably his most valuable, and, apparently, his most original work; yet this tract is published in French among the works of the abbé St. Real, who died in 1692; and therefore it has been said, that unless it was published in English prior to that period, Charles Leslie must be considered as a shameless plagiary.”

In answer to this Dr. Gleig observes, that “The English work was certainly not published prior to the death of the abbé St. Réal; for the first edition bears date July 17th, 1697 and yet many reasons conspire to convince us, that our countryman was no plagiary. There is, indeed, a striking similarity between the English and the French works; but this is no complete proof that the one was copied from the other.” Dr. Gleig, after stating some remarkable intances of a similar coincidence, asks, “After these instances of apparent plagiarism, whsch we know to be only apparent, has any man a right to say that Charles Leslie and the abbé St. Réal might not have treated their subject in the way that they have done, without either borrowing from the other” And adds:

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

“But farther, Burnet bishop of Sarum was an excellent scholar, and well-readj as every one knows, in the works of foreign divines. Is it conceivable, that this prelate, when smarting under the lash of Leslie, would have let slip so good an opportunity of covering with disgrace his most formidable antagonist, had he known that antagonist to be guilty of plagiarism from the writings of the abbé St. Réal? Let it be granted, however, that Burnet was a stranger to these writings and to this plagiarism; it can hardly be supposed that Le Clerc was a stranger to them likewise. Yet this author, when, for reasons best known to himself, he chose (1706) to depreciate the argument of the” Short Method,“and to traduce its author as ignorant of ancient history, and as having brought forward his four marks for no other purpose than to put the deceitful traditions of popery on the same footing with the most authentic doctrines of the gospel, does not so much as insinuate that he borrowed these marks from a popish abbe, though such a charge, could he have established it, would have served his purpose more than all his rude railings and invective. But there was no room for such a charge. In the second volume of the works of St. Real, published in 1757, there is indeed a tract entitled” Methode courte et aisee pour combattre les Deistes,“and there can be little doubt but that the publisher wished it to be considered as the work of his countryman. Unfortunately, however, for his design, a catalogue of the abbe’s works is given in the first volume; and in that catalogue the * Methode courte et aisee' is not mentioned.”

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

IV. Against the Jews: 15. “A short and easy Method with the Jews.” This is dated at the end, “Good-Friday,” 1689; and the fourth edition was published in 1715.

26. “A Dissertation concerning the Use and Authority of Ecclesiastical History.” 27. “The Case of the Regal and the Pontificate.” 2f8. “A Supplement, in answer to a book entitled t The regal Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs asserted',” &c. These two last pieces were occasioned by the dispute about the rights of convocation, between Wake, &c. on one side, and Atterbury and his friends, among whom was Leslie, on the other. All his theological pieces, except that against Tillotson, were collected and published by himself in two vols. fol. 1721.

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

lu 1762, he accompanied his general to the siege of Schweidnitz; but after the peace, he was introduced to the king of Prussia, and then resumed his literary occupations at Berlin. Though he produced many works, yet they were not the source of much profit, and, in 1769, his circumstances were so narrow, that he was obliged to sell his library for support. At this critical juncture he met with a generous patron in Leopold, heir-apparent to the duke of Brunswick, through whose means he was appointed librarian at Wolfenbuttle. One of the fruits of this very desirable situation was a periodical publication, entitled “Contributions to Literary History,” containing notices and extracts of the most remarkable Mss. The “Contributions” were made the vehicle of “Fragments of an anonymous Writer discovered in the Library at Wolfenbuttle,” which consisted of direct attacks upon the Christian revelation. They occasioned a great commotion among the German theologians, and would not have been printed but for the interference of prince Leopold with the licensers of the press. In 1778 they were suppressed. Lessing, from his rising fame, and connection with prince Leopold, with whom he went on a tour to Italy, was so distinguished among the German literati, that several potentates of that country made him offers. of an advantageous settlement. Nothing, however, could lead him to break his connection with his liberal patron the prince of Brunswick, who, by his accession in 1730 to the sovereignty, was enabled to augment his favours towards him. His latter publications were “Nathan the Wise;” a second part of the same drama, entitled “The Monk of Lebanon;” and “A Dissertation on the Education of the Human Race.” He died at Hamburgh in the month of February, 1781. Lessing had more genius than learning, and his fame, therefore, even in his own country, rests on his plays, fables, songs, and epigrams. His life was published at Berlin in 1793, and is more replete with anecdote than instruction, as may be gathered from the few circumstances we have detailed. He was a decided deist, and his morals corresponded.

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

His sentence being passed, he *was cast into Newgate; whence he dispatched a petitionary appeal to the lords, the time appointed for his execution being the Thursday following; but with great difficulty he got a reprieve for fourteen days, and, after that, a prolongation for a farther hearing. In this condition he lay almost four years a prisoner, in continual fear of being executed. He published in the mean time, “An Appeal from the Courtmartial to the Parliament:” and about the time of the Kentish insurrection, in 1648, he escaped out of the prison, with the keeper’s privity, and went into Kent. He retired into the house of Mr. Hales, a young gentleman, heir to a great estate in that county, and spirited him to undertake an insurrection; which miscarrying, L'Estrange with much difficulty was enabled to reach the continent, where he continued till 1653. Upon the long parliament’s being dissolved by Cromwell, he returned into England, and immediately dispatched a paper to the council at Whitehall to this effect; “that, finding himself within the act of indemnity, he thought it convenient to give them notice of his return.” On his being summoned to that board, he was told by one of the commissioners, that his case was not comprehended in the act of indemnity, and he therefore formed the bold resolution of applying in person to Cromwell himself, which he effected in the Cockpit; and, shortly after, received his discharge by the following order, dated October 31 1653: “Ordered, that Mr. Roger L 1 Estrange be dismissed from his farther attendance upon the council, he giving in two thousand pounds security to appear when he shall be summoned so to do, and to act nothing prejudicial to the commonwealth. Ex. John Thurloe, secretary.”

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

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

Mr. Granger has very justly remarked that L'Estrange was one of the great corruptors of the English language, and he might have added, exhibits one of the worst models of political controversy. He had, however, often to contend with men whose language was equally vulgar and intemperate; and having at all times more zeal than judgment, we can but just discover real talents in a vast mass of declamation, which few will now have patience to examine. His newspapers, and some of his political pieces, may yet be consulted with advantage for the information they contain, and the many traits of characters and manners which they exhibit; but a cautious reader will find it often necessary to verify his reports by contemporary evidence. Coarse, virulent, and abusive writers have sometimes been thought necessary to the support of political parties, and the present age is not without them; but such men leave no impression of respect on the minds even of those who employ them, and are generally condemned as the mercenary tools of a party. In the character of sir Roger L' Estrange we see not much to distinguish him from this class of writers, except that he sometimes discovers a portion of ease, elegance, and perspicuity, and might probably have displayed these qualities more frequently had he not written more from passion than reflection. It may be added too, that he was more consistent than some of his successors; and being the first who regularly “enlisted himself under the banners of a party for pay, he fought for the cause through right and wrong for upwards of forty campaigns.” This intrepidity gained him the esteem of Cromwell himself, and the papers which he wrote even just before the revolution, with almost a rope about his neck, have the same character of perseverance.

, gentleman-commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, was the second son of John Lethieullier, esq. of Aldersbrook, in Essex, where he had a noble collection of Mss. choice books, medals, and na-, tural curiosities, which he had collected in his travels through France, Italy, and Germany. His father dying Jan. 1, 1736-7, and his elder brother being dead before, he became heir to the paternal estates, which were very considerable. He was elected F. S. A. in July 1724. He married, Feb. 6, 1725-6, Margaret, daughter of William Sloper, esq. of Woodhay, in Berkshire; but died Aug. 27, 1760, aged fifty-nine, without issue. He was succeeded in his estates, to which he had added the manor of Birch- hall in They don Bois, by Mary, only daughter of his next brother Charles Lethieullier, LL.D. fellow of All Souls college, F. A. S. and counsellor at law, who died the year before him. He was an excellent scholar, a polite gentleman, and universally esteemed by all the learned men of his time. Some papers of his are printed in Phil. Trans. No. 497, and Archseologia, I. p. 26, 57, 73, 75; II. 291. His library was sold by auction, 1760. The following eloge was written by the late Mr. Collinson immediately after the death of Mr. Lethieullier: “He was descended from an ancient family from France in time of persecution, and a gentleman every way eminent for his excellent endowments. His desire to improve in the civil and natural history of his country led him to visit all parts of it; the itineraries in his library, and the discoveries he made relating to its antiquities, with drawings of every thing remarkable, are evidences of his great application to rescue so many ancient remains from mouldering into oblivion. His happy turn of mind was not confined solely to antiquities, but in these journeys he was indefatigable in collecting all the variety of English fossils, with a view to investigate their origin: this great collection, which excels most others, is deposited in two large cabinets, disposed under their proper classes. The most rare are elegantly drawn, and described in a folio book, with his observations on them. As the variety of ancient marbles had engaged his attention, and he found so little said of them with respect to their natural history, it was one of his motives, iti visiting Italy, to furnish himself with such materials as he was able to procure from books, and learned men, relating to them. He collected specimens of the most curious, and had drawings, finely painted, of the most remarkable monuments of the ancient marbles; they are bound up in a folio volume, with all the observations he could gather relating to their natural history and antiquity. His cabinet of medals, his collection of antiquities of various kinds, and most elegant books of the finest engravings, are ‘instances of the fine taste with which he has enriched his library and cabinet with the spoils of Italy. This short but imperfect memoir is candidly offered as a tribute due to a Jong friendship. It is wished it may excite an abler pen ’to do more justice to the memory of this great and good man. But it is humbly hoped that these hints will be accepted not only as a testimony of respect, but may also inform an inquisitive genius in these branches of science where he may be assisted with such valuable materials for the prosecution of his future studies.”

His cousin, Colonel William Lethieullier, who was also F. A. S. travelled into Egypt, and brought over a very perfect mummy, now in the British museum, with most of the colonel’s collections, the rest having been in Mr. Smart Lethieullier' s hands. A committee of the trustees waited on the colonel’s executors, Feb. 23, 1756, toreturn thanks for the valuable legacy of a fine mummy, and a curious collection of English antiquities. On this occasion Pitt Lethieullier; esq. nephew to the colonel, presented them with several antiquities, which he himself had collected during his residence at Grand Cairo.

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

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

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

, a native of Amelbrun in Westphalia, descended from a noble family, was born about 1533. He visited almost all the European courts, and, during his stay in Turkey, collected such excellent materials for an Ottoman history, that the public are indebted to him for their best information respecting that empire. His knowledge of law, as well as of the learned languages, enabled him also to succeed in translating the “Abridgment of the Basilica,” 1596, 2 vols folio. He was indeed one of the most celebrated translator* which Germany has produced. He died June 1593, at Vienna, aged sixty. His works are, “The Mussulman History,” 1591, folio, Latin; “Annals of the Ottoman Sultans,” folio, which he translated into Latin, from the translation made of it, by John Gaudier, otherwise Spiegel, from Turkish into German. The supplement to these Annals he continued to 1588, under the title of

, an eminent oriental and classical scholar, was born at Utrecht, April 26, 1624, of reputable parents, who died when he was very young. He studied at the schools and university of Utrecht, and took his degree of master of arts in 1647. To his philosophical course, he then added the study of theology, and particularly the oriental languages, in which he made great proficiency. In 1649, he was admitted among the number of candidates for the ministry, and then went to Amsterdam to acquire a more perfect knowledge of the Hebrew, and of the Jewish customs, availing himself of the instructions of two learned Jews, one of whom, being an Arabian, gave him a favourable opportunity of adding that language to his stock. On his return to Utrecht in January 1650, he was licensed to teach the oriental languages, an honour which induced him to return once more to Amsterdam, to study the Talmud and the Rabbins. In July of the same year, the curators of the university of Utrecht appointed him professor extraordinary of Hebrew. He was required to give only two lectures per week, which, however, he increased to three, and included the oriental languages and theology; and when he received a call to a congregation in Flanders, the curators of the university, unwilling to part with a man of such ability, promoted him to the chair of professor in ordinary, which he filled with great reputation. In 1658 he travelled through the Palatinate and the neighbourhood, and afterwards visited France and England. On his return he married, and had a numerous family. Three of his sons attained considerable eminence, Rodolph as a physician, John William as a counsellor and burgomaster, and James as a divine. After long enjoying a good state of health, the result of temperance and exercise, he was attacked by the nephritic colic, which, afte'r tormenting him for some weeks, occasioned his death, Sept. 30, 1699, in his seventy-fifth year. He was a man of a frank, liberal temper, and benevolent he was very kind to foreign students, particularly those from Hungary, and used to be called the Father of the Hungarians. His manner of teaching was clear and methodical; and by that, and a strict discipline, he produced many eminent scholars.

Leusden, as far as we know, published very little that was original; but as a critical editor, he is entitled to high commendation for skill and accuracy, and many of his publications are well known in this country. Among these we may notice, 1. “Philologus Hebraeus,” Utrecht, 1652, 4to, twice reprinted. 2. “Jonas illustratus Heb. dial, et Latin.” &c. ibid. 1656, 1692, 8vo. 3. “Joel explicatus per paraplirasim Chaldaicam,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. The book of Obadiah is added to this. 4. “Philologus Hebraeo-mixtus, una cum spicilegio Philologico,” containing various critical dissertations, ibid. 1663, Leyden, 1682, and 1699, 4to. 5. “Onomasticum Sacrum,” au explanation of all the names in the Old and New Testament, ibid. 1665, and 1684, 8vo. Crenius notices a singular mistake of his, making Bernice the name of a man. 6. “Psalterium Hebrseum,” Amst. 1666, 8vo. 7. “Biblia Hebraea,” Amst. 1667, 2 vols. 8vo. 8. “Clavis Grxca Nov. Test.” 1672, 8vo. 9. “Nov. Test. Gracum,” Utrecht, 1675, 12mo, repeatedly printed, and well known in this country. 10. “Versio Septuaginta Interpretum,” Amst. 1683. 11. “Lexicon novum Hebroeo-Latinum,” in the manner of Schrevelius, Utrecht, 1687, 8vo. 12, An edition of “Pool’s Synopsis,” ibid. 5 vols. fol.; an edition of Bochart’s works, and another of Lightfoot’s.

, a celebrated Dutch philosopher, was born at Delft, in 1632 and acquired a great reputation throughout all Europe, by his experiments and discoveries in natural history, by means of the microscope. He particularly excelled in making glasses for microscopes and spectacles; and he was a member of most of the literary societies of Europe; to whom he sent many memoirs. Those in the Philosophical Transactions, and in the Paris Memoirs, extend through many volumes; the former were extracted and published at Leyden in 1722. He died in 1723, at ninety -one years of age. His Select Works have lately been translated into English from the Dutch and Latin editions published by the author, by Mr. Samuel Boole, 1798 1800, 3 parts 4to.

, the founder of a valuable museum, was the son of sir D'Arcy Lever of Alkington, near Manchester. He finished his education at Corpus Christi college, Oxford; and on leaving the university went to reside with his mother, and afterwards settled at his family-seat, which he rendered famous by the best aviary in the kingdom. He next extended his views to all branches of natural history, and became at length possessed of one of the finest museums in the world, sparing no expence in procuring specimens from the most distant regions. This was removed to London about 1775, and opened for the public in Leicester-house, Leicester-square; but for want of suitable patronage, sir Ashton was in 1785 obliged to dispose of it by way of lottery, to his very great loss. It fell to the lot of a Mr. Parkinson, who built rooms on the Surrey side of Black-friars bridge for its reception, and did every thing in his power to render it interesting to the public, but after some years, was obliged to dispose of it by auction, when the whole of the articles were dispersed. Sir Ashton died in 1788, of an apoplectic attack while sitting with the other magistrates at Manchester.

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

, a learned French writer, who spent a long life in the study of history and general literature, was born at Paris, March 28, 1736. Of his private life we have no account; and our authority apologizes for this by assuring us that it contained none of those incidents that are interesting in biography, and that he was known only by his numerous publications. He was, however, in the course of his life, professor of morals and history in the college of France, a member of the old academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, a member of the institute of the class of ancient history, and a knight of the legion of honour. He died at Paris, March 12, 1812, leaving the following proofs of his talents and industry. 1. “Le reves d‘Aristobule, philosophe Grec, suivis d’un abrege de la vie de Formose, philosophe Francais,” Paris, 1761, 12mo. 2. “Choix-de poesies de Petrarque,” translated from the Italian, 1774, 8vo, reprinted in 1787, 2 vols. 12mo. This translation is faithful, but wants the spirit and graces of the original. 3. “L'homme moral,” Amst. 1775, a work which has been often reprinted, and is said to have been written at Petersburgh, for the use of the Russian youth. Its object seems to be to take a survey of man in the savage and social state, and during all the modifications of the latter; and its contents are a series of remarks on all subjects connected with happiness, not always profound, but often striking, lively, and agreeable. From its being printed oftener in Holland than in France, it is probable that this work, as well as the following, was written with more freedom of sentiment than was then agreeable. 4. “L‘homme pensant, ou Essai sur l’histoire de l'esprit humain,” Amst. 1779, 12mo. 5. “Histoire de Russie,” Paris, 1785, 5 vols. 12mo. This is esteemed a very accurate sketch of Russian history and was followed by a sequel, 6. “Histoire des differens peuples soumis a la domination des Russes,” 2 vols. Both were reprinted in 1800, with a continuation to the end of the reign of Catherine, 8 vols. 8vo. In this last, he offers a very able vindication of the conduct of that empress in the early part of her reign. 7. “Eloge historique de l'abbé Mably,” Paris, 1787, 8vo. This obtained the prize of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. 8. “La France sous les cinq premier Valois,” Paris, 1788, 4 vols. 12mo. 9. “Dictionnaire des arts, de peinture, sculpture, et gravure,” Paris, 1792, 5 vols. 8vo. He compiled this dictionary in conjunction with Watelet, to whom our authority attributes the principal merit of it. 10. A translation, highly praised, of “Thucydides,” Paris, 1795, 4 vols. 4to. Levesque also contributed various essays to the memoirs of the institute, and wrote many of the articles in that collection of the ancient moralists which was published by Didot and Debure. Not long before his death he published “L‘etude de l’histoire de la Grece,” 4 vols. 8vo; not, as is said, a learned work, but a popular introduction to the knowledge of Grecian history.

, a learned Jew, and zealous defender of the opinions of that people, was born in London in 1740, and after a regular apprenticeship to a shoemaker, settled in that business; but, not succeeding in it, commenced hat-dresser; and in this new profession, though surrounded with domestic cares, still finding time for study, produced a volume on the “Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews,” 1783, 8vo. He next published “Lingua Sacra,” 3 vols. 8vo, containing an Hebrew Grammar with points, clearly explained in English, and a complete Hebrew-English Dictionary, which came out in numbers, 1785 1789. This performance, though by no means the most perfect of its kind that might be produced, is a great instance of industry and perseverance in a person who was confined all the time to a mechanical business to supply domestic wants. In 1787 he published his first “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” in answer to his “Letters addressed to the Jews,” inviting them to an amicable discussion of the evidences of Christianity; in which he says, “I am not ashamed to tell you that I am a Jew by choice, and not because I was born a Jew; far from it; for I am clearly of opinion that every person endowed with ratiocination ought to have a clear idea of the truth of revelation, and a just ground of his faith, as far as human evidence can go.” In 1789 he published his second “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” and also “Letters to Dr. Cooper, of Great Yarmouth,” in answer to his one great argument in favour of Christianity from a single prophecy; 2. to Mr. Bicheno; 3. to Dr. Krauter; 4. to Mr. Swain; 5. to Anti-Socinus, alias Anselm Bailey; occasioned by their Remarks on his first Letters to Dr. Priestley. In this year he published the “Pentateuch, in Hebrew and English,” with a translation of the notes of Lion Socsmaan, and the 613 precepts contained in the law, according to Maimonides. At the end of the same year, at the earnest request of the most considerable of the Portuguese Jews, he undertook to translate their prayers from Hebrew into English; which he accomplished in four years (though confined to his bed by illness twenty-seven weeks), the last of six volumes appearing in 1793. The first volume of his “Dissertations on the Prophecies” was also published in 1793; and in 1794 his Translation of the Service for the two first Nights of the Passover, as observed by all the Jews at this day, in Hebrew and English. In 1795 he published “Letters to Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, M. P. in answer to his Testimony of the Authenticity of the Prophecies of Richard Brothers, and his pretended mission to recall the Jews.” A second volume of his “Dissertations on the Prophecies” appeared in 1796, which he intended to complete in six volumes; and of which, in May 1797, more than half of the third volume was printed. In the beginning of 1797 he published a “Defence of the Old Testament,” in a series of letters addressed to Thomas Paine, in answer to his Age of Reason, part II. For the German Jews he translated their Festival Prayers, as he had done those of the Portuguese, in 6 vols. 8vo; a labour of four years. By all the synagogues in London Mr. Levi was regularly employed to translate the prayers composed on any particular occasion, as those used during the king’s illness in 1788, and the thanksgiving in 1789; with various others for the use of the several synagogues. He wrote also a sacred ode in Hebrew, 1795, on the king’s escape from assassination. On Nov. 14, 1798, he had a violent stroke of the palsy, which nearly deprived him of the use of his right hand. He died in July 1799, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, and was interred in the Jews’ burial-ground near Bethnal-green, with a Hebrew epitaph, of which the following is a translation “And David reposed with his fathers, and was buried. Here lieth a correct and proper person, of perfect carriage, who served the Lord all his days, turned away from evil, and was supported by his own industry all the days of his life; Rabbi David the son of Mordecai the Levjte, of blessed memory, who departed for the rtext world on the Sabbath night, 3d of Ab., and was buried with good reputation on Monday the fourth; the days of his life were 59 years. May his soul be enveloped with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Mayest tbon come to the grave at full age.”

, an eminent French surgeon and accoucheur, was born in 1703, and was admitted a member of the royal academy of surgery at Paris in February 1742. He obtained a hiu;h and extensive reputation in his department of the art by the improvements which he made in some of the instruments necessary to be employed in certain difficult cases (especially the forceps), and by the prodigious number of pupils whom he instructed. He was employed and honoured with official appointments by all the female branches of the royal family. He published several works, which underwent various editions and translations. 1 “Observations sur les causes et les accidens deplusieurs accouchemens laborieux,” Paris, 1747. To the fourth edition, in 1770, were added, “Observations on the lever of Roonhuysen.” 2. “Observations sur la cure radicale de plusieurs polypes de la matrice, de la gorge, et du nez, operée par de nouveaux nioyens,” ibid. 1749, &c. 3. “Suite des observations sur les causes et les accidens de plusieurs accouchemens laborieux,” ibid. 1751. 4. “Explication de plusieurs figures sur le mechanisme de la grossesse, et de Paccouchement,” ibid. 1752. 5. “L'Art des accouchemens démontré par des principes de physique et de mechanique,” ibid. 1753, &c. 6. “Essai sur Tabus des regies generales, et centre les prejuges qui s’opposent aux progres de Tart des accouchemens,” ibid. 1766. This author died Jan. 22, 1780.

, a learned English divine and antiquary, was the eldest son of John Lewis, wine-cooper, in the parish of St Nicholas, Bristol, where he was born, Aug. 29, 1675. His father dying while he was in his infancy, he was committed to the care of his maternal grandfather John Eyre, merchant of Poole in Dorsetshire, who instilled into his infant mind the first principles of religion. Losing this relation, however, before he was seven years old, he was taken into the house of the rev. Samuel Conant, rector of Liichet Matravers (an intimate acquaintance of his grandfather Eyre), and educated along with a nephew whom Mr. Conant was preparing for a public school. This was an assistance peculiarly acceptably to Mr. Lewis’s mother, who appears to have been left in circumstances which were not adequate to a liberal education. After remaining with Mr. Conant two years, he was placed under the instruction of the learned Mr. John Moyle, at the grammar-school of Winborne, in 1687, upon whose decease the year following, he was removed to Poole, but reaped little benefit there, until he was put under the care of Mr. John Russel, who was encouraged to establish a grammar-school there. Mr. Russel, finding him to be a youth of talents and industry, employed him as his assistant: and after his removal to Wapping in London, conr tinued his favours to him, placing him at the free-school of Ratcliffe-cross, belonging to the Coopers’ company.

Two years after, when he was about sixteen years old, Mr. Daniel Wigfall, a merchant, took him into his family as tutor to his sons, and after continuing here until 1694, he went to Oxford, and was admitted batteler of Exetercollege: but his scanty fortune not allowing him to reside constantly, he was recommended to Mr. William Churchey, then minister at Poole, to be assistant in the free-school of that town. By this gentleman’s indulgence in allowing him to keep his terms in the university, he proceeded A. B. in 1697, when he returned to Mr. Russel at Wapping, and was ordained deacon by bishop Compton soon after. In April following he took upon him the cure of Acryse in Kent, and lived at the same time in the family of Philip Papillon, esq. to whom his behaviour rendered him so acceptable, that although he had left the parish, and was then chaplain to Paul Foley, esq. upon the recommendation of Dr. Barton, prebendary of Westminster, yet, upon the death of the incumbent, he procured him a presentation from the lord chancellor Somers, upon which he was instituted Sept. 4, 1699. He now applied himself to re-, pair a dilapidated parsonage-house, as well as to discharge his pastoral duties with all diligence, particularly that of catechising the young, which he looked upon as a very important part of his ministry. While here, he soon after met with a singular instance of unfair dealing. Being appointed to preach at the archdeacon’s visitation at Canterbury in 1701, his sermon (on 2 Cor. vi. 4.) was lent to William Brockman, esq. upon his earnest request, wb.o printed it under the title of a “Summary,” &c. with a preface calculated to injure him. He found a kinder friend, however, in archbishop Tenison, who had heard a good character of him, and granted him the sequestration of the little rectory of Hawkinge, near Dover, in 1702, telling him at the same time, that he hoped he should live to consider him farther. It was at that time his acquaintance began with Mr. Johnson of Margate, who recommended him for his successor in that laborious cure; but his old friend and patron Mr. Papillon being unwilling to part with him, he excused himself to the archbishop at that time: afterwards, upon Mr. Warren’s resignation, he accepted it in 1705. On his becoming a member of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he was desired to draw up a short and plain exposition of the Church Catechism, fit for the children educated in charity-schools; and this, which he executed to the entire satisfaction of the society, has passed through many editions. In 1706, archbishop Tenison collated him to the rectory of Saltwood with the chapel of Hythe, and the desolate rectory of Eastbridge; but, being here disturbed by a dispute with a neighbouring 'squire, his patron removed him to the vicarage of Mynstre, on the cession of Dr. Green, in March 1708, where he rebuilt the house, in a more elegant and commodious manner.

In his “Apology for the Clergy of the Church of England,” published in 1711, he attacked the veracity of the historian of the nonconformists, by asserting, “that Mr. Calamy was too much biassed to have any thing he said concerning the party he espoused believed on his bare word.” This harsh opinion naturally provoked Calamy to make some very severe reflections on him, both in the preface to the second edition of “Baxter’s Life abridged,” in 1714, and in his “Continuation,” in 1727; against which Mr. Lewis had drawn up a vindication; but, Mr. Calamy’s death intervening, he would not war with the dead, and desisted from publishing it.

In May 1712, he was appointed to preach at the archbishop’s visitation, and took his subject from Isa. xi. 9. but such was the violence of party spirit at that time, that both he and his sermon were roughly treated by some of the audience. It was this year that he commenced M. A. as a member of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge. Not long after he incurred the displeasure of his friend Mr! Johnsou by writing against his “Unbloody Sacrifice,” and was treated by him with more contempt than he deserved. Archbishop Tenison, however, and Dr. Bradford approved of his pamphlet, and Dr. Waterland considered it as containing much in a little, and as being close, clear, and judicious. His sermon preached at Canterbury cathedral on January 30, 1717, being severely reflected upon, he printed it in his own defence, and it was so highly approved by archbishop Wake that he rewarded him with the mastership of Eastbridge- hospital soon after. From that time he was continually employed on his various publications and correspondence with the literary men of his time. He died Jan. 16, 1746, and, at his own desire, was buried in the chancel of his church at Mynstre (where he had been vicar upwards of thirty-seven years), under a plain black marble with an inscription.

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

, an eminent lawyer in the early part of the seventeenth century, was the sixth and youngest son of Henry Ley, esq. of Tesfont Evias, in Wiltshire, and was born about 1552. In 1569 he entered of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, whence he removed to Lincoln’s-inn, studied the law, and was appointed Lent reader in 1601, after which his learning and abilities raised him to the highest rank of his profession. In 1603, he was made serjeant at law, and the year following chief justice of the king’s bench in Ireland; on the ancient history of which country he appears to have bestowed some attention, and collected with a view to publication, “The An.­nals of John Clynne, a Friar Minor of Kilkenny,” who lived in the reign of Edward III.; the “Annals of the Priory of St. John of Kilkenny,” and the “Annals of Multiferman, Rosse, and Clonmell.” All these he had caused to be transcribed, but his professional engagements prevented his preparing them for the press. They afterwards fell into the hands of Henry earl of Bath. Extracts from them are in Dublin college library.

In 1609, being then a knight, sir James was made the king’s attorney in the court of wards. In 1620 he was created a baronet; in 1621, chief justice of the court of king’s bench, England; and in 1625, lord high treasurer. From this office he was removed, under pretence of his great age, to make room for sir Richard VVeston. Lord Clarendon seems to intimate that his disability as well as age might be the cause, and that upon these accounts there was little reverence shewn towards him. This, however, is scarcely reconcileable with the honours bestowed on him immediately afterwards, for he was not only created baron Ley, and earl of Marlborough, but soon after made president of the council. Lloyd says he had better abilities for a judge than a statesman. He died at Lincoln’sinn, March 14, 1628, and was buried in the church at Westbury, where a sumptuous monument was erected to his memory. We have noticed his attention to Irish history while in that country. Lloyd has given us another trait of his character while there, which is highly honourable to him. “Here he practised the charge king James gave him at his going over (yea, what his own tender conscience gave himself), namely, not to build his estate upon the ruins of a miserable nation, hut aiming, by the impartial execution of justice, not to enrich himself, but civilize the people. But the wise king would no longer lose him out of his own land, and therefore recalled him home about the time when his father’s inheritance, by the death of his five elder brethren, descended upon him.”

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

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

, an eminent protestant divine, was born January 25, 1652, at Middleburg. He acquired great skill in controversy and ecclesiastical antiquity, and wrote much against the Socinians and other sectaries. He was one of Frederic Spanheim’s friends, and appointed professor of divinity at Utrecht, 1678. He died January 6, 1721, aged sixty-nine. The following are the principal among his numerous Latin works: 1. a treatise “On the Hebrew Republic,” Amsterdam, 17 14 and 1716, 2 vols. fol. a very valuable work for the history of Judaism. 2. “Fax veritatis,” Ludg. Batav. 1677, 8vo. 3. “A Continuation of the Ecclesiastical History began by Hornius,” Francfort, 1704, 8vo. 4. History of the African Church,“curious, and full of interesting inquiries. 5.” Synopsis controversiarum de fredere.“6. A” Commentary in the Heidelburg Catechism.“7. A” Dissertation against Becker’s World bewitched.“8.” An Analysis of Scripture,“with the” Art of Preaching.“9. A” History of Jansenism,“Utrecht, 1695, 8vo. What Leydecker says in this work against the sovereignty of kings, has been refuted by P. Quesnel, in his” Sovereignty of Kings defended," Paris, 1704, 12mo.

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

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

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

"He was certainly a very extraordinary man, both for natural abilities, and sedulous and successful application, He deserved more encouragement.

"This little story of him was told me lately by a very knowing person, who had it from good hands; viz. ‘ That during his travels in Bretagny, in the time of our wars with France, he was taken up for a spy, confined for a few days to prison, and all his papers seized. The papers being examined by the priests and Jesuits, and found to be to them unintelligible, raised die greater suspicion. But the principal managers against him, receiving assurances, by letters from learned and respectable men in England, that he was only pursuing inquiries relating to the antiquities of Britain, and had not the least concern with state-affairs, honourably dismissed him.’ I wish I had more little anecdotes of this kind to add, relating to that truly great man. He would have done wonders if he bad lived to complete his designs; and posterity would have wondered, and thanked him.

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

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

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

"At evenings, after his hard study in the day-time, he used to refresh himself among men of learning and inquiry, and more particularly Cambro-Britons, in friendly conversations upon subjects of British antiquity; communicating his extensive knowledge therein, with much good humour, freedom, and cheerfulness, and, at the same time, receiving from them farther and more particular informations, subservient to his great and laudable designs. This, I have been informed by good hands, was his general manner. His travels furnished him with many more materials for his work, and he knew how to make the best use of them all.

, a learned English antiquary in the sixteenth century, was son and heir of Mr. Robert Lhwyd alias Rossenhall of Denbigh in Denbighshire, by Joan his wife, daughter of Lewis Pigott. He was born at Denbigh, and was educated in the university of Oxford; but in what college is not known. It is certain, however, that after he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, which was in 1547, he was commoner of Brasen-nose college; and in 1551 took the degree of master of arts as a member of that college; at which time he studied physic. Afterwards retiring to his own country, he lived mostly within the walls of Denbigh castle, but, Granger thinks, never practised as a physician, employing his time chiefly in his antiquarian researches. He died about 1570, and was interred near the church of Whitchurch near Denbigh; where a monument was erected to him. He had married Barbara daughter of George Lmnley, and sister of John lord Lumley, by whom he had issue Splendian and John, who both died without issue, Henry, who lived at Cheam in Surrey, and Jane the wife of Rob. Coytmore. Camden gives him a very great character, as one of the best antiquaries of his time; and be is by Daines Barrington esteemed very accurate in what relates to the history of Wales. He had a taste for the arts, particularly music, and executed the map of England for the “Theatrum Orbis.” He collected a great number of curious and useful books for his brother-in-law lord Lumley, which were purchased by James I. and became the foundation of the royal library. They are now a very valuable part of the British Museum.

His writings are, 1. “An Almanack and Kalendar; containing the day, hour, and minute, of the change of the moon for ever,” &c. 8vo. 2. “Commentarioli Britannicae Descriptionis Fragmentuni. Colon. Agrip.” 1572: of which a new edition was published by Mr. Moses Williams, under the title of “Humfredi Lhwyd, Armigeri, Britannicie Descriptionis Comrnentariolum: necnon de Monfi Insula, & Britannica Arce sive Armamentario Romano Disceptatio Epistolaris. Accedunt^raa Cambro-Britannicae. Accurante Mose Gulielmo, A.M. R. S. Soc.” Lond. 1731, 4to. Thi? was translated into English by Tho. Twyne, who entitled it, “The Breviary of Britain,” Lond. 1753, 8vo. 3. “De JVionfi Druidum Insula, Antiquitati sine restitutfi;” in a letter to Abraham Ortelius, April 5, 1568. 4. “De mentario Romano.” These two last are printed at the end of “Historic Britannicae Defensio; written by sir John Price,” Lond. 1573, 4to. 5. “Chronicon Wallisr, a Rege Cadtvalladero, usque ad Ann. Dom. 1294,” ms. in the Cottontail library. 6. “The History of Cambria, now called Wales, from Caradoc of Lancarvan, the Registers of Con­^ray and Stratflnr; with a Continuation, chiefly extracted from Mat. Paris, Nic. Trivet, &c.” He died before this was quite finished; but sir Henry Sidney, lord -president of Wales, having procured a copy of it, employed Dr. David Powel to prepare it for the press, who published it under this title: “The Historic of Cambria, now called Wales; a part of the most famous yland of Britaine; written in the Brytish language above two hundred years past; translated into English by H. Lloyd, gent, corrected, augmented, and continued out of Records and best approved Authors,” Lond. 1584, 4to. Our author translated also, 7. “The Treasure of Health; containing many profitable Medicines, written by Peter Hispanus.” To which were added, “The Causes and Signs of every Disease, with the Aphorisms of Hippocrates,” Lond. 1585. And 8. “The Judgment of Urines,” Lond. 1551, 8vo.

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

The writings of Libanius are numerous, and he composed and delivered various orations, as well demonstrative as deliberative, and also many fictitious declamations and disputations. Of these Frederic Morell published as many as he could collect in 2 vols. folio, in Greek and Latin. In the first vol. Paris, 1606, are XIII “Exercises” (Progymnasmala) XLIV “Declamations;” and in “Moral Dissertations” and in the second vol. Paris, 1627, are the “Life of Libanius,” and xxxvi other orations, most of them long and on serious subjects. This edition of Morcll having long been discovered to be very erroneous, the learned Reiske undertook a new edition, collated with six Mss. which he did not live to complete, but which was at last published by his widow in 1791—1797, 4 vols. 8vo. Of the productions of Libanius, Gibbon says that they are, for the most part, the vain and idle compositions of an orator who cultivated the science of words; the productions of a recluse student, whose mind, regardless of his contemporaries, was incessantly fixed on the Trojan war and the Athenian commonwealth.

, a physician and chemist, born at Hall, in Saxony, was professor of history and poetry at Jena, in 1588, but removed to Rothenburg, on the Tauber, in 1591, and to Coburg, in Franconia, in 1605, where he was appointed principal of the college of Casimir, at that place. He died at Coburg in 1616. Libavius obtained a considerable reputation in his time by his chemical works, having pursued that science upon better principles than most of his contemporaries, although he did not altogether escape the delusions of alchemy. Although he employed many chemical preparations in medicine, he avoided the violence of Paracelsus and his disciples, against whom he frequently defends the doctrines of the Galenical school. He left his name long attached, in the laboratories, to a particular preparation of tin with muriatic acid, which was called “the fuming liquor of Libavius.” It is unnecessary to enumerate the titles of his many works, which have now become obsolete, and are almost forgotten. His last work, published at Francfort in 1615, under the title of “Exarnen Philosophise Novae, quae veteri abrogandac opponitur,” folio, is remarkable for the first mention of the transfusion of blood from the vessels of one living animal to those of another, of which he speaks with great confidence, and which once excited great expectations, which have confessedly been disappointed.

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

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

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

In 1607, having a strong inclination to pass the remainder of his days in his native country, which he had frequently visited during his residence at Helmstadt, he took a final leave of that city, and after travelling for some time through Germany and Italy, at length settled in Scotland. The first account we have of him after his return relates to his giving some lands, purchased by him near Aberdeen, to the university there for the education and support of six poor scholars. This occurred in 1612, and the following year he gave a sum to found a professorship of mathematics, and bequeathed his whole collection of books and mathematical instruments to Marischal college, directing a small sum to be expended annually in adding to the collection, and another to be distributed among the poor. This appears to have been the last act of his life, for he died Dec. 17th of that year, 1613, in the fiftysecond year of his age, and was buried in the West church of Aberdeen, where the magistrates placed in memory of him a large tablet of brass, upon which is engraved a figure of the deceased in his professor’s gown and cap, surrounded by books and instruments, and accompanied by a suitable inscription. An engraved portrait, taken from this plate at the expeiice of the late sir David Dairy mple, lord Hailes, is prefixed to the life of Dr. Liddel, drawn up by professor Stuart, of Aberdeen, and published in 1790, 4to. To this we are indebted for the present sketch.

, a Prusian anatomist, was bnrn at Berlin in 1711. His inclinations led him early to cultivate philosophy and anatomy: but it was not until he was about his twenty-fifth year that he was permitted entirely to indulge them. His acquisitions before that period had, indeed, been considerable; and after it he pursued his studies at Hall, Jena, Leyden, Paris, and London. In 1740, he was elected a member of the royal society of London, and of other learned societies on the continent. He returned to Berlin in that year, by the express command of the king of Prussia, and became celebrated for his anatomical researches, and a fine museum of anatomical preparations which he accumulated. He died at Berlin of a peripneumony, in 1756. The only works he left were reprinted at London, in 1782, by John Sheldon, esq. lecturer on anatomy, 4to, under the title of “Dissertationes quatuor.” The first is the author’s thesis on the structure of the valve of the colon, and the use of the processus vermicularis; the second, on the structure and action of the villi of the small intestines of the human body: the third, on the proper methods of discovering the structure of the viscera: the fourth, on the anatomical microscope. It is said that his eye-sight had almost the power of a microscope, and that he could perceive with the naked eye objects to which other men were obliged to apply microscopes and magnifiers. This account may perhaps have been a little exaggerated, but we cannot doubt that a description of his anatomical microscope will affect every humane mind with horror. To it belongs an apparatus for the purpose of crucifying living animals, and fixing them and their bowels in such a manner, with pointed hooks, as that they cannot move, in the midst of their protracted tortures, so as to disturb the operator, after he has opened their bellies, and dragged out their intestines, for his deliberate inspection. We have no words to express our detestation of such cruelty, nor, we trust, are any necessary. 1

LflEUTAUD (Joseph), a celebrated physician and anatomist, was born at Aix, in Provence, June 21, 1703. His family, long established at Aix, had produced many distinguished officers, ecclesiastics, lawyers, &c. He was at first intended by his parents for the church; but the reputation of his maternal uncle Garidel, the professor of medicine at Aix, gave him a bias to the study of medicine, and particularly botany, in which his researches and skill soon occasioned him to be promoted to the chairs of botany and anatomy at Aix, which his uncle had long filled. His lectures on anatomy were much attended, and by an audience comprising many persons not engaged in the study of medicine, and among others, the marquis d'Argens, the intimate friend of the king. M. Lieutaud published, in 1742, a syllabus of anatomy for the use of his pupils, entitled “Essais auatomiques, contenant l'Histoire exacte de toutes les parties qui composent le corps humaine;” it was several times reprinted, with improvements, and in 1777 was edited by M. Portal, in 2 volumes. He communicated also several papers on morbid anatomy, and on physiology, to the academy of sciences, of which he was elected a corresponding member. In 1749, however, he quitted his post at Aix, and went to Versailles, at the instance of the celebrated Senac, who then held the highest appointment at court, and who obtained for Lieutaud the appointment of physician to the royal infirmary. This act of friendship is said to have originated from the private communication of some errors, which Lieutaud had detected in a work of M. Senac, and which he did not deem it proper to publish. At Versailles he continued his anatomical investigations with unabated zeal, and was soon after his arrival elected assistant anatomist to the royal academy, to which he continued to present many valuable memoirs. He also printed a volume entitled “Elementa Physiologice,” &c. Paris, 1749, which had been composed for the use of his class at Aix. In 1755, he was nominated physician to the royal family; and twenty years afterwards, he obtained the place of first physician to the king, Louis XVI. In 1759 he published a system of the practice of medicine, under the title of *' Precis de la Medicine pratique,“which underwent several editions, with great augmentations, the best of which is that of Paris, 1770, in 2 vols. 4to. In 1766, he published a” Precis de la Matiere medicale,“in 8vo, afterwards reprinted in 2 vols. But his most important work, which still ranks high in the estimation of physicians, is that which treats of the seats and causes of diseases, ascertained by his innumerable dissections. It was entitled” Historia Anatomico-medica, sistens numerosissima cadaverum humanorum extispicia," Paris, 1767, in 2 vols. 4to. M. Lieutaud died September 6, 1780, after an illness of five days.

, a historical painter of great merit, was born in 1607, at Ley den, and placed under the care of Joris Van Schooten, and afterwards of Peter Lastman. Portrait was perhaps that branch of the art in which he uniformly excelled, yet some of his historical pieces are deserving of the highest praise. His,“Resurrection of Lazarus” is a work, Mr. Fuseli says, which, in sublimity of conception, leaves all attempts of other masters on the same subject far behind. His “Contiqence of Scipio,” is also celebrated in very high terms. Another of his performances, applauded by the poets as well as the artists of his time, is his “Student in his library,” the figures as large as life. This was purchased by the prince of Orange, and presented by him to Charles I. It was the means of procuring him a favourable reception at the English court, where he painted the portraits of the royal family and many of the nobility. After residing in England for three years, he went to Antwerp, and was incessantly employed. The time of his death is not specified.

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

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

Thinking himself now fixed for life, he built a study in the garden, retired from the noise of the house; and applied himself for twelve years with indefatigable diligence in searching the Scriptures. Thus employed, the days passed very agreeably; and he continued quiet and unmolested till the great change which happened in the public affairs, brought him into a share of the administration relating to the church; for he was nominated a member of the memorable assembly of divines, for settling a new form of ecclesiastical polity. This appointment was purely the effect of his distinguished merit; and he accepted it purely with a view to serve his country as far as lay in his power; but, although he contended on some points with many of the most able innovators in that assembly, it cannot be denied that he had a favourable opinion of the Presbyterian form of church- government. The necessity for residing in London, in consequence of this appointment, induced him to resign his rectory; and, having obtained the presentation for a younger brother, he set out for London in 1642. He had now satisfied himself in clearing up many of the abstrusest passages in the Bible, and had provided the chief materials, as well as formed the plan, of his “Harmony;” and an opportunity of inspecting it at the press was, no doubt, an additional motive. for his going to the capital. Here, however, he had not beert long, before he was chosen minister of St. Bartholomew’s, behind the Royal Exchange. He lived at this time at the upper end of Moore-lane, whence he dedicated to his parishioners of St. Bartholomew, his “Handful of Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus.” The assembly of divines meeting in lf>43, our author gave his attendance diligently there, and made a distinguished figure in their debates; where he used great freedom, and gave signal proofs of his courage as well as learning, in opposing many of those tenets which the divines were endeavouring to establish. His learning recommended him to the parliament, whose visitors, having ejected Dr. William Spurstow from the mastership of Catharine-hall in Cambridge, put Lightfoot in his room this year, 1643; and he was also presented to the living of Much-Mundeii, in Hertfordshire, void by the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, Margaret- professor of divinity in that university, before the expiration of this year. In the mean time he had taken his turn with other favourites in preaching before the House of Commons, most of which sermons were printed; and in them we see him warmly pressing the speedy settlement of the church in the Presbyterian form, w^ich he cordially believed to be according to the pattern in the Mount. His leisure hours he employed in preparing and publishing the several branches of his “Harmony;” all which, although decidedly proving the usefulness of human learning to true religion, occasioned to him great difficulties and discouragements, chiefly owing to the vulgar prejudices of the illiterate part of the revolutionists, which threatened even the destruction of the universities. In 1655, he entered upon the office of vice-chancellor of Cambridge, to which he was chosen that year, having taken the degreeof doctor of divinity in 1652. He performed all the regular exercises for his degree with great applause*, and executed the vice-chancellor’s office with exemplary diligence and fidelity; and, particularly at the commencement, supplied the place of professor of divinity, then undisposed of, at an act which was kept for a doctor’s degree in that profession f. At the same time he was engaged, with others, in completing the celebrated Polyglott Bible, then in the press; which being encouraged by Oliver Cromwell, he expressed his joy at this high patronage, in his speech at the commencement. He also took occasion to commiserate the oppressed state of the clergy of the church of England, and to extol their learning, zeal, and confidence, in God.

* His thesis was upon this question: nor extraordinary gifts, in the church.

turn non sunt novae Revelationes ex- the state of innocency was a state of

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

As to his rabbinical learning, he was excelled by none, and had few equals; and foreigners who came to England for assistance in their rabbinical studies, usually paid their court to him, as one of the most eminent scholars in that branch. Among these were Frederic Miege and Theodore Haak, who were peculiarly recommended also to Dr. Pocock, with whom our author had a correspondence as also Dr. Marshal of Lincoln-college, in Oxford Samuel Clarke, keeper of the Bodleian library Dr. Bernard, of St. John’s; and the famous Buxtorf were all correspondents of his. Castell acknowledges his obligations to him, when he had little encouragement elsewhere. It is true, he is charged with maintaining some peculiar opinions t; of which he says, “Innocua, ut spero, semper proponens;” yet he bore the reputation of one of the most ingenious as well as learned of our English commentators, and has been of great service to his successors. He bequeathed his whole library of rabhinical works, oriental books, &c. to Harvard college, in America, where the whole were burnt in 1769. The doctor was twice married; his first wife, already mentioned, brought him four sons and two daughters. His eldest son, John, who was chaplain to Bryan Walton, bishop of Chester, died soon after that prelate. His second was Anastasius, who had also these additions to that name, Cotton us Jackson us, in memory of sir Rowland Cotton and sir John Jackson, two dear friends of our author; he was minister of Thundridge, in Hertfordshire, and died there, leaving one son. His third son was Anastasius too, but without any addition; he was brought up to trade in London. His fourth son was Thomas, who died young. His daughters was Joice and Sarah, the former of whom was married to Mr. John Duckfield, rector of Aspeden, in Hertfordshire, into whose hands fell the doctor’s papers, which he communicated to Mr. Strype. The other married Mr. Coclough, a Staffordshire gentleman. This lady died in 1656, and was interred in the church of Munden, in Hertfordshire. The doctor’s second wife was relict of Mr. Austin Brograve, uncle of sir Thomas Brograve, bart. of Hertfordshire, a gentleman well versed in rabbinical learning, and a particular acquaintance of our author. He had no issue by her. She also died before him, and was buried in Munden church.

Df. Lightfoot was comely in his person, of 'full proportion, and of a ruddy complexion. “He was exceeding temperate in his diet. He ordinarily resided among his parishioners at Munden, with whom he lived in great harmony and affection, and in a hospitable and charitable manner. He never left them any longer than to perform, the necessary residence at Cambridge and Ely; and during that absence would frequently say” he longed to be with his russet coats." He was a constant preacher; and Munderr being a large parish, and the parsonage-house a mile from the church, and as he attended there every Sunday, read prayers and preached morning and afternoon, he frequently continued all day in the church, not taking any refreshment till the evening service was over. He was easy of access, grave, but yet affable and communicative. His countenance was expressive of his disposition, which was uncommonly mild and tender.

Dr. Lightfoot’s works were collected and published first in 1684, in 2 vols. folio. The second edition was printed at Amsterdam, 1686, in 2 vols. folio, containing all his Latin writings, with a Latin translation of those which he wrote in English. At the end of both these editions there is a list of such pieces as he left unfinished. It is the chief of these, in Latin, which make up the third volume, added to the former two, in a third edition of his works, by John Leusden, at Utrecht, in 1699, fol. They were communicated by Mr. Strype, who in 1700 published another collection of these papers, under the title of “Some genuine Remains of the late pious and learned Dr. John Lightfoot.” This contains some curious particulars of his life.

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

His first patron was the honourable Mr. Lane, son to the late lord Bingley. Lord chancellor Northington presented him to the living of Shelden, in Hants, which he resigned on taking the rectory of Gotham, co. Nottingham. He had also Sutton in Lownd, in the same county; to both of which he was presented by his grace the duke of Portland. His ecclesiastical preferments amounted to above 500l. a year. He was also domestic chaplain to his illustrious patroness the late duchess dowager of Portland, and by her liberality enjoyed during her grace’s life, an annuity of a hundred a year. During her grace’s summer residence at Bulstrode, he performed duty in the family twice a week, and at other times was of very considerable use to her grace in arranging her magnificent collection of natural history, particularly the shells and the botanical part. He also drew up the catalogue of her museum for sale. He was an excellent scholar in many branches of literature, but, next to the study of his profession, he addicted himself chiefly to botany and conchy I iology, excelling in both, but particularly in botany, and he was equally versed in the knowledge of foreign as of British botany.

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

Mr. Lightfoot was for some years a fellow of the royal society, and was one of the original fellows of the Linnaean society, the formation of which he contemplated with great pleasure, though his death happened before he could attend any of its public meetings. Having married the daughter of Mr. William Burton Raynes, an opulent miller at Uxbridge, he resided in that town, and died there suddenly, Feb. 18, 1788, aged fifty-three, leaving a widow, two sons, and three daughters. Mrs. Lightfoot was married in 1802 to John Springett Harvey, esq. barrister at law. He was buried in Cowley church, where his grave remained, for some time at least, without any memorial. He is supposed never to have recovered from a disappointment respecting a living which his patron, the late duke of Portland, solicited from lord chancellor Thurlow, but which the latter did not think fit to bestow. Mr. Lightfoot had in the course of his botanical studies collected an excellent British herbarium, consisting of abundant specimens, generally gathered wild, and in many cases important for the illustration of his work. He had also amassed from sir Joseph Banks and other friends, a number of exotic plants. The whole was bought after his death, for 100 guineas, by his majesty, as a present to the queen, and deposited at Frogmore, the price being fixed by an intelligent friend of the family.

, a remarkable English enthusiast, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Durham, where his father, Richard Lilburne, was possessed of a handsome estate*, especially at Thickney-Purcharden, the seat of the family upon which he resided, and Lad this son, who was born in 1613. Being a younger child, he was designed for a trade; and was put apprentice at twelve years of age, to a wholesale clothier in London, who, as well as his father, was disaffected to the hierarchy. The youth, we are told, had a prompt genius and a forward temper above his years, which shewed itself conspicuously, not long after, in a complaint to the citychamberlain of his master’s ill-usage; by which, having obtained more liberty, he purchased a multitude of books favourable to his notions of politics and religion; and having his imagination warmed with a sense of suffering and resentment, he became at length so considerable among his party, as to be consulted upon the boldest of their undertakings against the hierarchy, while yet an apprentice.

The consequence he attained flattered his vanity, and he could no longer think of following his trade. In 1636, being introduced by the teacher of his congregation, to Dr. Bastwick, then a star-chamber prisoner in the Gatehouse for sedition, Bastwick easily prevailed with him to carry a piece he had lately written against the bishops, to Holland, and get it printed there. Lilburne, having dis­* It is worth police that he was the when the trial was put off by the

last person who joined itsue in the an- judge* till at last it was ordered, at

was with one Ralph Auxton, for lands a bill should be brought in to take

two champions appeared in the court, “Collections,” vol. I. armed cap-a-pie, with sand l>ag, &c. patched this important affair, returned to England in a few months with the pamphlet, Bastwick’s “Merry Liturgy,” as it was called, and a cargo of other pieces of a similar kind. These he dispersed with much privacy, until, being betrayed by his associate, he was apprehended; and, after examination before the council-board and high commission court, to whose rales he refused to conform, he was found guilty of printing and publishing several seditious books, particularly “News from Ipswich,” a production of Prynne’s. Lilburne was condemned Feb. 1637, to be whipped at the cart’s tail from the Fleet-prison to Old Palace Yard, Westminster; then set upon the pillory there for two hours; afterwards to be carried back to the Fleet, there to remain till he conformed to the rules of the court; also to pay a fine of 500l. to the king; and, lastly, to give security for his good behaviour. He underwent this sentence with an undismayed obstinacy, uttering many bold speeches against the bishops, and dispersing many pamphlets from the pillory, where, after the star-chamber then sitting had ordered him to be gagged, he stamped with his feet. The spirit he shewed upon this occasion procured him the nickname of “Free-born John” among the friends to the government, and among his own party the title of Saint. In prison he was loaded with double irons on his arms and legs, and put into one of the closest wards; but, being suspected to have occasioned a fire which broke out near that ward, he was removed into a better, at the earnest solicitation both of the neighbours and prisoners. The first nse he made of his present more convenient situation, was to publish a piece of his own writing, entitled “The Christian Man’s Trial,” in 4to, “Nine arguments against episcopacy,” and several “Epistles to the Wardens of the Fleet.”

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

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

* See the trial, which was printed power of the law, as well as fact. In

singular address to the jury, that in October 26, 1649." them alone was inherent the judicial May 1650, and finding Lilburne in a peaceable disposition witli regard to the parliament, procured him the remainder of his grant for reparations above-mentioned. This was gratefully acknowledged by his antagonist, who, however, did not continue long in that humour; for, having undertaken a dispute in law, in which his uncle George Lilburne happened to be engaged, he petitioned the parliament on that occasion with his usual boldness in 1651; and this assembly fined him in the sum of 7000l. to the state, and banished him the kingdom. Before this, however, could be carried into execution, he went in Jan. 1651-2, to Amsterdam; where, having printed an apology for himself, he sent a copy of it, with a letter, to Cromwell, charging him as the principal promoter of the act of his banishment. He had also several conferences with some of the royalists, to whom he engaged to restore Charles II. by his interest with the people, for the small sum of 10,000l. but no notice was taken of a design which, had it been plausible, could never have been confided to such a man. He then remained in exile, without hopes of re-visiting England, till the dissolution of the long parliament; on which event, not being able to obtain a pass, he returned without one, in June 1657; and being seized and tried at the Old Bailey, he was a second time acquitted by his jury. Cromwell, incensed by this contempt of his power, which was now become despotic, had him curried to Portsmouth, in order for transportation; but the tyrant’s wrath was averted, probably by Lilburne* s brother Robert, one of his major-generals, * upon whose bail for his behaviour he was suffered to return. After this, he settled at Khham, in Kent, where he passed the short remainder of his days in tranquillity, giving, however, another proof of his versatile principles, by joining the quakers, among whom he preached, in and about Eltham, till his death, Aug. 29, 1657, in his forty- ninth year. He was interred in the then new burial place in Moor-fields, near the place now called Old Bedlam; four thousand persons attending his burial.

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

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

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

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