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

, a Greek scholar and critic, was born at Dijon Oct. 18, 1659. By much study he made himself master of the beauties of the Greek tongue, a merit not common in his time; and has left us poetical translations of Anacreon, Sappho, Bion, and Moschus, with notes. He wrote several tragedies in imitation of the Greek poets; and he copied them chiefly in thisj that, in subjects of terror and cruelty, he never introduced love. But he also copied them in common-place prolixity and want of action and plot; while he could never equal the beauty of their diction. Of those tragedies in the Grecian taste h never brought but two upon the stage, viz. the “Medea” and “Electra.” He died March 30, 1721.

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

His stay at Athens seems to have been of long continuance; and, whilst he taught there, he had, amongst others, the famous Porphyry for his pupil. The system of philosophy, which he adopted, was the academic; for whose founder (Plato) he had so great a veneration, that he celebrated the anniversary of his birth with the highest solemnity. But it was his lot to be drawn from the contemplative shades of Athens, to mix in more active scenes: to train up young princes to virtue and glory; to guide the busy and ambitious passions of the great to noble ends; to struggle for, and, at last, to die in, the cause of liberty. Zenobia, queen of the East, prevailed upon him to undertake the education of her sons. He quickly gained an uncommon share in her esteem; and in his conversation she spent the vacant hours of her life, modelling her sentiments by his instructions, and steering herself by his counsels in the whole series of her conduct. Zenobia was at war with the emperor Aurelian, was defeated by him near Antioch, and was compelled to retire to her fortified capital, Palmyra. The emperor sent her a written summons to surrender; to which she returned an answer drawn up by Longinus, which raised his highest indignation. The emperor exerted every effort, and the Palmyrians were at length obliged to open their gates, and receive the conqueror. The queen and Longinus endeavoured to fly into Persia, but were overtaken and made prisoners as they were crossing the Euphrates. When the captive qoeen was brought before the emperor, her spirits sunk; she laid the blame of her conduct on her counsellors, and fixed the odium of the affronting letter on its true author. This was no sooner heard, than Aurelian, who was hero enough to conquer, but not to forgive, poured all his vengeance on the head of Longinus. He was carried away to immediate execution, amidst the generous condolence of those who knew his merit. He pitied Zenobia, and comforted his friends. He looked upon death as a blessing, since it rescued his body from slavery, and gave his soul the most desirable freedom. “This world,” said he, with his expiring breath, “is nothing but a prison; happy therefore he, who gets soonest out of it, and gains his liberty.” His death took place in the year 273.

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

And fill their critic with a poet’s fire

With warmth gives sentence, and is always just;

And is himself the great Sublime he draws."

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

The first edition of Longinus was that of Robertelli, printed at Basil, in 1554, 4to, with a preface by the printer, Oporinus. The best editions since, are those of Tollius, Utrecht, 1694, 4to, Gr. Lat. and French; of Hudson, Oxon. 1710, 1718, and 1730, 8vo; of Pearce, Lond. 1724, 4to and 8vo, often reprinted; and the very celebrated edition of Toup, Oxford, 1778, 4to and 8vo, which reflects the highest honour on the learning and judgment of that excellent scholar. There is an accurate Oxford edition of 1806, formed on the basis of Toup, in 8vo.

, a learned prelate, was born in 1473 at Henley in Oxfordshire, and educated at Magdalen -college, Oxford, where he was much esteemed as a man of eloquence, and of a regular life. His character is recorded in the East window of the founder’s chamber over the great gate of this college, in these lines:

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

His works are: 1. “Conciones Tres,” printed by Pynson, fol. dedicated to archbishop Warhatn. 2. “Quinque sermones, sextis quadragesimis feriis, coram Hen. VIII.” anno 1517, printed also by Pynson, Lond. 1528. 3. “Expositio concionalis Psalmi Sexti,” 1518. 4. “Expositio cone, secundi psalmi pcenitentialis, coram rege,” 1519. 5. “Conciones expositive in tertium psalm, pcenit.” 6, 44 Conciones in 50 psalm, pcenit. coram rege,“1521, 1522. Most of these sermons were preached in English, but translated into Latin by Thomas Key, of All Souls college, and printed by Robert Redman in 1532, fol. 7.” Sermon before the King on Good-Friday/' Lond. 1538, mentioned by Fox.

, the reputed author of “The Visions of Pierce Plowman,” is considered as one of our most ancient English poets, and one of the first disciples of Wickliff. He was a secular priest, born at Mortimer’s Cleobury, in Shropshire, and was a fellow of Oriel college, Oxford. According to Bale, he completed his work in 1369, when John Chichester was mayor of London. It is divided into twenty parts (passus, as he styles them), and consists of many distinct visions, which have no mutual dependance upon each other, but form a satire on almost every occupation of lite, particularly on the Romish clergy, in censuring whom his master Wickliff had led the way. The piece abounds with humour, spirit, and imagination; all which are drest to great disadvantage in a very uncouth versification and obsolete language. It is written without rhyme, an ornament which the poet has endeavoured to supply, by making every verse to consist of words beginning with the same letter. This practice has contributed not a little to render his poem obscure and perplexed, exclusive of its obsolete style; for, to introduce his alliteration, he must have been often necessarily compelled to depart from the natural and obvious way of expressing himself. Dr. Hickes observes, that this alliterative versification was drawn by Langelande from the practice of the Saxon poets, and that these visions abound with many Saxonisms. As he did not follow the example of Gower and Chaucer, who sought to reform the roughness of their native tongue, by naturalizing many new words from the Latin, French, and Italian, and who introduced the seven-lined stanza from Petrarch and Dante into our poetry, the inquirer into the original of our language will find in him a greater fund of materials to elucidate the progress of the Saxon tongue.

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

, an eminent astronomer, was born at Longomontum, a town in Denmark, whence he took his name, in 1562. Vossius, by mistake, calls him Christopher. He was the son of Severinus, a poor labourer, and was obliged to divide his time between following the plow and attending to the lessons which the minister of the parish gave him, by which he profited so much as to acquire considerable knowledge, especially in the mathematics. At length, when he was fifteen, he stole from his family, and went to Wiburg, where there was a college, in which he spent eleven years, supporting himself by his talents: and on his removing thence to Copenhagen, the professors of this university soon conceived a high esteem for him, and recommended him to Tycho Brahe, who received him very kindly. He lived eight years with this eminent astronomer, and assisted him so much in his observations and calculations, that Tycho conceived a very particular affection for him, and having left his native country to settle in Germany, he was desirous of having the company of Longomontanus, who accordingly attended him. Afterwards being, in 1600, desirous of a professor’s chair in Denmark, Tycho generously consented to give up his assistant and friend, with the highest testimonies of his merit, and supplied him plentifully with money for his journey. On his return to Denmark, he deviated from his road, in order to view the places whence Copernicus had made his astronomical observations; and passed so much time in this journey, that it was not till 1605 that he was nominated to the professorship of mathematics in the university of Copenhagen. In this situation he continued till his death, in 1647, when he was eighty-five years old. He married, and had children; but the whole of his family died before him. He was the author of several works, in mathematics and astronomy. His “Astronomia Danica,” first printed in 1611, 4to, and afterwards at Amsterdam, 1640, in folio, is the most distinguished. He amused himself with endeavouring to square the circle, and pretended that he had made the discovery of it; but our countryman Dr. John Pell attacked him warmly on the subject, and proved that he was mistaken. It is remarkable, that, obscure as his village and father might be, he dignified and perpetuated both; for he took his name from his village, and, in the title-page of his works, wrote himself “Christianus Longomontanus Severini films.”

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

In the mean time, it is certain that his attachment to other studies soon diverted him from his law practice. He appears in particular to have considered Pliny as an author meriting his most assiduous application, and whose works would furnish him with employment for many years. With this view he not only studied Pliny’s “Natural History,” with the greatest care, as well as every author who had treated on the same subject, but determined also to travel in pursuit of farther information, as well as to inspect the productions of nature, wherever found. But before this it became necessary for him to learn Greek, with which he had hitherto been unacquainted, and he is said to have made such progress, as to be able, within a year, to read the best Greek authors, on whom he found employment for about five years. Besides selecting from these works whatever might serve to illustrate his favourite Pliny, he now determined to commence his travels, and accordingly went to England, Germany, and Italy, and would have travelled to the East had not the war with the Turks prevented him. In England, in which he appears to have been in 1518, he became very intimate with Pace and Linacre. He encountered many dangers, however, in his continental tour. As he was travelling, with two friends, through Switzerland, the natives of that country, who, after the battle of Marignan, regarded the French with horror, conceived that Longueil and his party were spies, and pursued them as far as the banks of the Rhone. One was killed, the other made his escape by swimming; but Longueil, being wounded in the arm, was taken prisoner, and treated with great severity for about a month, at the end of which he was released by the interposition of the bishop of Sion, who furnished him with money and a horse, to convey him to France. At Rome he was afterwards honoured with the rank of citizen, and received with kindness by Leo X. who had a great opinion of his talents and eloquence, made him his secretary, and employed him to write against Luther. He visited France once more after this, but the rec<*ption he met with in Italy determined him to settle there, at Padua, where he resided, first with Stephen Sauli, a noble Genoese, and on his departure, with Reginald Pole, afterwards the celebrated cardinal, to whom we are indebted for a life of Longueil. Here he died Sept. 11, 1522, in the thirty-third year of his age, and was interred in the church of the Franciscans, in the habit of that order, as he had desired. He was honoured with a Latin epitaph by Bembo, who was one of his principal friends, and recommended to him the writings of Cicero, as a model of style. Longueil became so captivated with Cicero, as to be justly censured by Erasmus on this account. Longueil, however, was not to be diverted by this, but declared himself so dissatisfied with what he ha4 written before he knew the beauties of Cicero’s style, *s to order all his Mss. written previous to that period, to be destroyed. We have, therefore, but little of Longueil left. Among the Mss. destroyed was probably his commentary on Pliny, which some think was published, but this is very doubtful. We can with more certainty attribute to him, 1. “Oratio de laudibus D. Ludovici Francorum regis, &c.” Paris, 1510, 4to. Some remarks on the court of Rome in this harangue occasioned its being omitted in the collection of his works, but Du Chesne printed it in the fifth volume of his collection of French historians. 2. “Christ. Longolii, civis Roman ae perduellionis rei defensiones duae,” Venice, 8vo. This is a vindication of himself against a charge preferred against him, when at Rome, that he had advanced sentiments dishonourable to the character of the Romans in the preceding oration. 3. “Ad Lutheranos jam damnatos Oratio,” Cologn, 1529, 8vo. It appears from his letters that he had been, requested both to write for and against Luther, that he was long in great perplexity on the subject, but that at length Leo X. prevailed with him to write the above. These last two pieces with his letters, &c. have been often reprinted, under the title of “Christ. Longolii Orationes, Epistolcc, et Vita, necnon Bembi et Sadoleti epistolse,” the first edition, at Paris, 1533, 8vo. There are many curious particulars of literary history and character scattered through this correspondence. The life prefixed is now known to have been written by Pole, who was his most intimate friend and admirer, and to whom he bequeathed his library.

, a skilful physician of the sixteenth century, was born in 1507, at Utrecht, and died in 1543, at Cologn, aged thirty-six. He was physician to Herman, archbishop of that city, and left the following works, “Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” 1533, 8vo; “Remarks in Latin on Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Plautus, Cornelius Nepos, the Rhetoric of Herennius, and on Laurentius Valla,” in several volumes 8vo an edition in Greek and Latin of the “Life of Apollonius Tyaneus,” by Philostratus, 8vo, and a Latin translation of Plutarch’s seven “Gpuscula,” 8vo Notes on Cicero’s familiar Epistles, and a second edition of the Council of Nice, &c.

, son of Peter Dufour, seigneur de Longuerue, a Norman gentleman, king’s lieutenant of Charleville, in which city he was born, 1652, discovered such uncommon genius for learning t four years old, that Louis XIV. passing through Charleville, and hearing him mentioned, desired to see him. His tutor was the celebrated Richelet; and Peter d'Ablancourt, who was related to him, superintended his education and studies. He was taught both the oriental and European languages, and acquired an extensive knowledge of history, antiquities, the sacred writings, the holy fathers, &c. To an uncommon memory he joined very considerable critical talents. He held two abbeys, that of Sept- Fontaines in the diocese of Rheims, and of Jard in the diocese of Sens. He died November 22, 1733, at Paris, aged eighty-two. Hi works are, 1. A Dissertation in Latin, on Tatian, in the edition of that author, published at Oxford, 1700, 8vo 2. “La Description Historique de la France,” Paris, 1719, folio. This work his countrymen think unworthy of the abbe“de Longuerue, from the changes which have been made in it, and the hurry in which it was printed. The original maps, which have been altered, may be found in some copies. 3.” Annales Arsacidarum,“Strasburg, 1732. 4.” Dissertation on Transubstantiation," which passed under the name of his friend the minister Allix, because unfavourable to the catholic faith. He wrote also Remarks on the Life of Cardinal Wolsey, and left numerous works in Mss. on different subjects in several volumes, folio. There is a collection of his bon mots among the Ana.

, a learned French ecclesiastical historian, was born at Santerre in Picardy in 1680, and was educated at Amiens and Paris. In 1699 he entered into the society of the Jesuits at Paris, and devoted himself with great ardour to writing a “History of the Gallican Church.” Of this he published the first eight volumes, and had nearly completed the ninth and tenth, when he died of an apoplexy, January 14, 1735, aged fifty-four. Besides this history, which is his principal work, and has been continued by the fathers Fontenai, Brumoy, and Berthier, to J 8 vols. 4to, he left a treatise “On Schism,” 1718, 12mo; a “Dissertation on Miracles,” 4to, and some other works, which all display great genius, and are written with much spirit, and in pure language. The first eight volumes of the “History of the Gallican Church,” contain learned remarks on the religion of the ancient Gauls, en the ancient geography of Gaul, on the religion of the French, and on many other important subjects.

was an ancient Greek author, probably of the fifth century, who seems to have written after Heliodorus, and, in some places, to have imitated him. He is called a sophist; but we have no remains of his except four books of “Pastorals upon the Loves of Daphnis and Cloe.” Huet speaks advantageously of this work, and had proposed, when he was young, to have made a translation of it; but he also takes notice of several defects in it, and, doubtless, its obscenities made him lay aside his purpose of translating it. None of the ancient writers mention Longus. There is a good edition of the original by Petrus Moll, a professor of the Greek language at Franeker, 1660, in 4to, but Villoison’s, Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1778, '2 vols. 8va, is the best. It was translated into English by George Thorney, and printed at London in 1657. The last edition of the English version, of which there have been four, is inscribed to James Craggs, esq. secretary of state. The French, with whom this work has always been a favourite, have many translations of it. That by Amyot has passed through many editions; the most elegant of which is that of 1718, 12mo, with 29 plates, drawn by the regent, Philip duke of Orleans, and engraved by Benoft Audran; the 29th is not his engraving, and is seldom found in the edition of 1718, the reason of which, some say, was, that only 250 copies were taken, which the prince disposed of as presents; but Brunei thinks it is too common for so small an impression. Next to this edition, that of 1745, 8vo, is preferred, with the same plates retouched.

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

, commonly called Glareanus, from Claris, a town in Switzerland, where he was born in 1488, was educated at Cologne, Basil, and Paris, and in the course of his studies acquired the friendship of some eminent scholars, particularly Erasmus. He had a strong turn to music, and made it a great part ol his study. After having contributed to the advancement of letters, both by discourse and writing, he died in 1563, aged seventy- five. He composed the following works: 1. “Isagoge in Arithmeticam.” 2. “Descriptio de Situ Helvetia & vicinis Gentibus.” 3. “De quatuor Helvetiorum Fcedere Panegyricon.” 4. “Isagoge in Musicatn.” 5. “De Geographia Liber.” 6. “Judicium in Terentii Carmina.” 7. “In Horatium Annotationes.” 8. “Annotationes in Ovidii Metamorphoses.” 9. “Annotationes in Ciceronis Librum de Senectute.” 10. “Annotationes in Sallustii, quae adhuc extant, Historiarum Fragmenta.” 11. “Commentariusin Arithmeticam & Musicam Boethii.” 12. “Annotationes in Johannis Csesarii Dialecticam.” 13. “Annotationes in Ccesaris Cotnmentaria.” 14. “Annotationes in Titum Liviurn.” 15. “Annotationes & Cbronologia in totam Historiam Romanam.” 16. “Annotationes in Dionysiurn Halicarnasseum.” 17. “Elegiarum Libri duo.” 18. “De Arte Musica.” 19. “De Ponderibus ac Mensuris.” 20. “Annotationes in Valerium, Suetonium, & Lucanum.” 21. “Annotationes in Eutropium.” 22. “Epistola ad Johannem Hervagium.” 23. “Scholia in J\n Donati Methodum.” 24. “Brevis Isagoge de Katione Syllabarum & de Figuris quibus Poetae utuntur.” 25. “De Asse Libellus.”

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

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

, an eminent sculptor, was born at Paris in November 1666. From his infancy he made so rapid a progress in the art of designing, that, at eighteen, the celebrated Girardon intrusted him with the care of teaching his children, and of correcting the designs of his disciples. He committed to him also, in conjunction with Noulisson, the execution of the famous tomb of cardinal Richelieu in the Sorbonne, and of his own tomb at St. Landres, in Paris. On his return from Rome, he finished several pieces at Marseilles, which had been left imperfect by the death of M. Pu-get. He was received into the academy of sculpture, Oct. 1701, when he composed his Galatea for his chef d'ceuvre, a work universally esteemed. Lorrain afterwards made a Bacchus for the gardens at Versailles, a fawn for those at Marli, and several bronzes; among others, an Andromeda, &c. The academy elected him professor May 29, 1717; and he died their governor June 1, 1743, aged 77.

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

, a French poet, who flourished about the middle of the thirteenth century, was the author of the “Roman de la Rose,” a poem much in request in the middle ages, and known in this country by Chaucer’s translation. It was left unfinished by Lorris, and was completed in the next century by John de Meuu. The part by Lorris, though the shortest, is by much the most poetical, abounding in rich and elegant description, and in lively portraiture of allegorical personages. The early French editions of this poem are of great rarity and value, and are enumerated by Brunei, and other bibliographers. Of the author nothing is known.

, a learned French physician, was born at Crosny, near Paris, in 1725. In 1748, he was admitted doctor of the faculty of medicine at Paris, and became doctor-regent of the faculty. He was author of several works, some of which still maintain their value. His first publication was entitled “Essai sur l'Usage des Alimens, pour servir de Commentaire aux livres diete”­tiques d'Hippocrate,“Paris, 1753, 12mo; the second part of which appeared in 1757. His next publication was an edition of the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, Greek and Latin, in 1759. Afterwards he produced a treatise” De Melancholia et Morbis Melancholicis,“-ibid. 1765, in two volumes 8vo, and edited Dr. Astruc’s” Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire de la Faculte de Medecine dp Montpeliier,“ibid, 1767, 4to; and” Sanctorii de Medicina Statica,“with a commentary, 1770, in 12mo. His last work, which combined the merits of much erudition and accurate observation, with great clearness of arrangement and perspicuity of language, was” Tractatus de Morbis Cutanais," Paris, 1777, in 4to. Dr. Lorry also edited a Latin edition of the works of Mead, and a French one of Barker’s dissertation on the conformity of the doctrines of ancient and modern medicine. He died at the baths of Bourbonne, in 1783.

, a learned and amiable clergyman, and some time Greek professor of the university of Cambridge, was descended from an ancient family in Pembrokeshire, and was the son of major Lort, of the Welsh fusileers, who was killed at the battle of Fontenoy, in 1745. He was born in 1725, and was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1743, from whence he removed into the family of Dr. Mead, to whom he was librarian until the death of that celebrated physician, in 1754; and while in that situation probably acquired the taste for literary history and curiosities which enabled him to accumulate a very valuable library, as well as to assist many of his contemporaries in their researches into biography and antiquities. In the mean time he kept his terms at college; and proceeded A. B. in 1746; was elected fellow of his college in 1749; and took his degree of M. A. in 1750. In 1755 he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries, and was many years a vice-president, until his resignation in 1788. During this time he made some communications to the “Archxologia,” vols. IV. and V. In 1759, on the resignation of Dr. Francklin, he was appointed Greek professor at Cambridge, and in 1761 he took the degree of B. D. and was appointed chaplain to Dr. Terrick, then bishop of Peterborough. In January 1771 he was collated by Dr. Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of St. Matthew, Friday-street, on which he resigned his Greek professorship; and in August 1779 he was appointed chaplain to the archbishop, and in the same year commenced D.D. In April 1780, the archbishop gave him a prebend of St. Pau Ps (his grace’s option) and he continued at Lambeth till 1783, when he married Susanna Norfolk, one of the two daughters of alderman Norfolk, of Cambridge. On the death of Dr. Ducarel, in 1785, he was appointed by archbishop Moore, librarian to the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth. He was also for some years librarian to the duke of Devonshire. In April 1789, he was presented by Dr. Porteus, bishop of London, to the sinecure rectory Jqf Fulham, in Middlesex; and in the same year was instituted to the rectory of Mile-end, near Colchester. He died Nov. 5, 1790, at his house in Savile-row; his death was occasioned by a fall from a chaise while riding near Colchester, which injured his kidnies, and was followed by a paralytic stroke. He was buried at his church in Friday-street, of which he had been rector nineteen years. A monumental tablet was put up to his memory, which also records the death of his widow, about fifteen months afterwards. They had no issue.

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

, surnamed Secundus, a distinguished modern Latin poet, was nephew to a celebrated abbot of the monastery of Solitaire, in the county of Hanau, in Germany, who in 1543 established the protestant religion in his society, and died in 1567. He was born Nov. 2, 1528, at Solitaire, received the early part of his education at a convent in his native place, and pursued his tnaturer studies at Francfort, Marpurg, and Wittemburg, at which last place he contracted an intimacy with Melancthon and Camerarius. During the war in Saxony in 1546, when Melancthon and his colleagues were obliged to leave Wittemburg, Lotich being in great perplexity what to do, at length entered, among the troops of John Frederic, elector of Saxony, with some of his fellow-students; but in 1548 we find him again at Erfurth, and afterwards at Wittemburg, pursuing his studies. In 1550 he visited France with some young persons to whom he was governor, and he continued there nearly four years. He afterwards went to Italy, where he had nearly been destroyed by poison prepared for another purpose: he recovered from the effects of it, but was subject to frequent relapses, one of which carried him off in the year 1560. He had taken his degree of doctor of physic at Padua, and in 1557 was chosen professor in that science at Heidelberg. In this situation he was honoured with the friendship of the elector-palatine, and by the excellence of his disposition, and the singular frankness and sincerity of his character, rendered himself universally beloved. A collection of his Latin poems was published in 1561, the year after his decease, with a dedicatory epistle by Joachim Camerarius, who praises him as the best poet of his age. This has been often reprinted, but a complete and correct edition of all his works was published at Amsterdam in 1754, 2 vols. 4to, by Peter Burman, nephew of the celebrated writer of those names. Lotich had a younger brother Christian, likewise a poet, and educated by his uncle, the abbot. A collection of his poems was published in 1620, along with those of his relation John- Peter Lotich, a physician of eminence, and grandson of the above- mentioned Christian, who exercised his profession at Minden and at Hesse, and became professor of medicine at Rintlen in Westphalia. He died very much regretted in 1652. His principal works are, “Conciliorum et Observationum Medicinalium;” “Latin Poems;” “A Commentary on Petronius,” and “A History of the Emperors Ferdinand II. and III.” in four volumes, is attributed to him.

, a French poet, was born in 1642, of a respectable family at Toulouse. He was originally secretary of the embassy to M. de St. Remain, ambassador in Switzerland, and went to Siam, 1687, as envoy extraordinary from the French king. On his return to France, he was entrusted with a secret commission in SpaVi and Portugal, s-trpposed to have had for its object the detachment of those two courts from the alliance which had produced the revolution in England; but his design transpiring, he was arrested at Madrid, and with difficulty obtained his liberty. M. dela Loubere attached himself afterwards to the chancellor de Pontchartrain, and travelled with his son. He was admitted into the French academy in 1693, and that of the belles lettres in 1694; and retired at last to Toulouse, where he married at sixty, established the Floral Games, and died March 26, 1729, aged eightyseven. His works are, Songs, Vaudevilles, Madrigals, Sonnets, Odes, and other poetical pieces; an account of his voyage to Siam, 2 vols. 12rno, and a treatise “de la Resolution des Equations,” 1729, 4 to. &c. Of his voyage to Siam, there is an English translation, published in 1693, folio. It is the only one of his productions now in request. There is reason to think he was not much admired by some of the academicians. It being by means of M. de Pontchartrain that he was admitted into the French academy, Fontaine said,

, an eminent French surgeon, was born at Metz, February 13, 1723. He attained to great reputation in his profession, and was honoured with the numerous appointments of secretary of the royal academy of surgery at Paris, consulting surgeon to the king’s forces, surgeon-major to the hospital La Charité, doctor in surgery of the faculty of Halle, in Saxony, honorary member of the royal college of physicians of Nancy, and member of many of the learned societies, not only in France, but in foreign countries. He died, May 20, 1792, and desired to be interred among the poor in the burial-ground of the hospital de la Salpetriere. In addition to the surgical part of the “Encyclopédie,” which M. Louis wrote, and to several interesting papers presented to the academy of surgery, he was author pf a great number of works on medical, chirnrgical, and anatomical subjects, the principal of which we shall mention 1. “Observations sur l'Electrical,” &c. Paris, 1741, 12mo. 2. “Essai sur la Nature de PAme, oft l‘on tache d’expliquer son union avec le corps,” ibid. 1746, 12mo. 3. “Cours de Chirurgie pratique sur les plaies d'armes a feu,” ibid. 1746, 4to. 4. “Observations et llemarques sur les eHets du virus cancereux,” &c. ibid. 1748. 4. “Posiiiones Anatomico-chirurgicae de capite ejusque vulneribus,” ibid. 1749. 6. “Lettre sur la certitude des signes de la mort, avec des observations et des experiences sur les noyes,” ibid. 1749, 12mo. In this he fell into the mistake of attributing the death of persons drowned to the entrance of water into the lungs. 7. “Experiences sur la Lithotomie,” 1757. 8. “Memoire sur une question anatomique, relatif a la jurisprudence,” &.c. 1763. This memoir, written after the shocking affair of Calas, was intended to establish the distinction of the appearances after voluntary death by hanging, and after murder by that mode; and although he has not resolved the difficulty, the performance is ingenious, and the advice given to surgeons excellent. 9. “Memoire sur la lgitimite des naissances pr^tendues tardives,” 1764, in 8vo; to which he published a supplement in the same year. 10. “Recueil d‘Observations d’Anatomie et de Chirurgie, pour servir de base a la Theorie des lesions de la t^te par contrecoup,” 1766. 11. “Histoire de PAcademie Royale de Chirurgie depuis son dtablissement jusqu'en 1743,” printed in the fourth volume of the memoirs. His last publication was a translation of M. Astruc’s work “De Morbis Venereis,” into French. In addition to these works, M. Louis also translated Boerhaave’s Aphorisms of Surgery, with Van Swieten’s Commentary; and wrote several eulogies on deceased members of the academy of surgery, and various controversial tracts, especially concerning the disputes between the physicians and surgeons of Paris, in 1748, &.C.

, an able advocate in the seventeenth century, and master of requests to queen Margaret, was born at Reinville, a village two leagues from Beauvais. He died in 1646. His works are, I. “L'Histoire et les Antiqnités de Beauvuis,” vol. I. 1609, and 1631, 8vo vol. II. Rouen, 1614, 8vo. The first treats of the ecclesiastical affairs of Beauvais the second, of the civil affairs. 2. “Nomenclatura et Chronologia rerum Ecclesiasticarum Dioecesis Bellovacensis,” Paris, 1618, 8vo. 3. “Hist, des Antiquity’s du Diocese de Beauvais,” Beauvais, lh.3.5, 8vo. 4. “Anciennes Remarques sur la Noblesse Beaiuoisme, et de plusieurs Families de France,” 1631, and 1640, 8vo. This work is very scarce it is in alphabetical order, but has only been printed from A to M inclusively, with one leaf of N. Father Triboulet, prior of the Dominicans at Beauvais, and afterwards procurator- general of' his order, being authorised to establish a college in the Dominican convent of Beauvais, and to enforce the observance of the rules and statutes of reformation respecting studies there, was imprisoned by his brethren. On this occasion Louvet published, “Abrég6 d: s Constitutions et Reglemens pour les Etu;les et Reformes du Convent des Jacobins de Beauvais,” and addressed it to tht- king, in 1618, by an epistle dedicatory, in which he petitioned that Triboulet might be set at liberty. There was another French historian of the same names, who was born at Beauvais. His father was a native of Amiens, and not related to the preceding. He studied physic at Montpellier also the belles lettres and geography; taught rhetoric with reputation in Provence during a considerable time; and geography at Montpellier; and published several works from 1657 to 1680, respecting the history of Languedoc, Provence, &c. under the following titles: 1. “Remarques sur l'Histoire de Langnedoc,” 4to 2.“Abrégé de l‘Histoire d’Aquitaine, Guienne, et Gascogne, jusqu'à present,” foourdeaux, 1659, 4to. 3 “La France dans sa Splendeur,” 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Ahrege* de I'Histoire de Provence,” 2 vols. 12mo, with additions to the same history in 2 vols. folio. 5. “Projet de I'Histoire du Pays de beanjolots,” 8vo. 6. “Hist, des Troubles de Provence deputs 1481 jusqu'en 159S,” 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Le Mercure Hollandois. ou Ifs Conquetes du Roi, lepuisn7J, jusqira la fin de 1679,” 10 vols 12mo. This last may be useful, and is the best of Peter Louvet’s works; but Hoik of the rest are much esteemed.

, a presbyterian divine of considerable tame in the time of Cromw< II, was born at Cardiff in Glamorganshire, in 1618. In his earlier days he was of a dissipated turn; and his religious education, at least, must have been neglected by his parents, if what his biographer says be true, that he was fifteen years of age before he ever heard a sermon. The effect of this sermon, however, preached by Mr. Erbery, was such that he became not only reformed, but so strict and precise in his religious duties, as to give offence to his father, who at length placed him as an apprentice in London. His son, who was averse to this measure, earnestly intreated that he might be sent to the university; to which having obtained a very reluctant consent, he became a servitor of New Inn, Oxford, in 1635. Here, however, as his father denied him a proper support, he subsisted by the help of the above-mentioned Mr. Erbery, and such supplies as his mother could afford. After taking a bachelor’s degree in arts, he went into holy orders, and preached frequently at St. Peter in the Bayley, but his principles were so unacceptable, that after he had taken his master’s degree, and had refused to subscribe the canons enjoined by archbishop Laud, relative to the prelates and the Book of Common Prayer, he was expelled the congregation of masters.

On leaving Oxford, he went to London, where his fixed aversion to the hierarchy prevented his promotion to any living, and procured his being silenced, on which he went to Scotland to obtain presbyterian ordination; but, according to the laws of that church, he could not be ordained without settling there. On his return to England, he preached occasionally at various places, always introducing sentiments of the bitterest hostility to the church of England. At length, when his wishes were accomplished, by the establishment of the presbyterian government in England, he was ordained, according to their method, in Aldermanbury church, London, in January 1644. Next year he gave proof that he had as little prudence as moderation, by going to Uxbridge, when the commissioners for the treaty of peace were there, and preaching a sermon, in which he inveighed with great violence against his majesty’s commissioners, who complained of the insult to those of the parliament. He was, in consequence, sent for to London, and although acquitted by order of the House of Commons, yet, according to Neal, was confined to his house during the treaty, and then discharged. That language must have been very gross which induced the parliament to act thus towards one of their greatest favourites.

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

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

, an elegant poet of the seventeenth century, was the eldest son of sir William Lovelace of Woolwich, in Kent, and was born in that county about 1618. He received his grammar-learning at the Charterhouse; and, in 1634, bt came a gentleman-commoner of Gloucester hall, Oxford, being then, as Wood observes, “accounted the most amiable and beautiful person that eye ever beheld a person also of innate modesty, virtue, and courtly tieponmerit, which made him then, and especially after, when he retired to die great city, much admired and adored by the female sex.” In 1636 he was created M. A. and, leaving the university, retired, as Wood phmses it, in great splenlour to the court; where being taken into the favour of lord Goring he became a soldier, and was fir.it an ensign, and aiterwards a captain. On the pacification at Berwick he returned to his native country, and took possession of his estate, worth about five hundred pounds per annum; and, about the same time, was deputed by the county to deliver the Kentish petition to the House of Commons, which Diving offence, he was ordered into custody, and confined in the Gate-house, whence he was released on giving bail of 40,000*. not to go beyond the lines of communication without a pass from the Speaker. During the time of his confinement to London he lived beyond the income of his estate, chiefly to support the credit of the royal cause; and, in 1646, he formed a regiment for the service of the French king, was colonel of it, and wounded at Dunkirk. In 1648 he returned to England with his brother, and was again committed prisoner to Peter-house in London, where he remained till after the king’s death. At that period he was set at liberty, but, “having then consumed all his estate be grew very melancholy, which at length brought him into a consumption, became very poor in body and purse, was the object of charity, went in ragged cloaths (whereas when he was in his glory he wore cloaths of gold and silver), and mostly lodged in obscure and dirty places, more befitting the worst of beggars and poorest of servants.” He died in a very poor lodging in Gunpowder-alley, near Shoe-lane, in 1658, and was buried at the west end of St. Bride’s church, tyis pieces, which are light and easy, had been models in their way, were their simplicity but equal to their spirit; but they were the offspring of gallantry and amusement, and seldom received a requisite degree of polish. Under the name of Lucasta, which is the title to his poems, contained in two volumes (the latter published by his brother Dudley Posthumus Lovelace, in 1659), he compliments a Miss Lucy Sacheverel, a lady, according to Wood, of great beauty and fortune, whom he was accustomed to call *' Lux Casta.“On the report of Lovelace’s death of his wounds, at Dunkirk, she married. Winstanly has, and not improperly, compared him to sir Philip Sidney. He wrote also two plays,” The Scholar,“a comedy, and” The Soldier," a tragedy.

, a modern poet whose personal history has been neglected, was, according to the preface to his poems, “a gentleman of fortune, who passed the greater part of his years in the neighbourhood of Hampton, in Middlesex, where he lived greatly beloved by those who best knew him. He was an admirable scholar, of very amiable manners, and of universal benevolence, of which all his writings bear strong testimony. The little pieces which compose (his works) were chiefly written on such incidents as occasionally arose in those societies of intimate acquaintance which he most frequented. After his death, which happened in 1775, his poems being dispersed in the hands of different friends, to whom they had been given by himself, many people expressed to his only brother, Anthony, Lovibond Collins, esq. a wish to have them collected together, and preserved. This gentleman, equally zealous for the reputation of a brother he affectionately loved, hath put into the editor’s hands those pieces he hath selected for that purpose.”

Of a man of so many virtues, and so greatly beloved, the public might reasonably have expected a more detailed account. His father, we are told, was a director of the East India company, and died in 1737, leaving him probably that fortune on which he was enabled to pass his days in the quiet enjoyment of the pleasures of rural life. He died September 27, 1775, at his house at Hampton, but the register of that parish is silent on his interment. We have been informed also that he was married, and not very happily.

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

, a clergyman of Scotland, and an ingenious natural historian, was born at Edzal in Forfarshire, in 1746. He was educated at the colleges of Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s, and afterwards was tutor in the family of Graham, at Stromness in Orkney. During his residence at this place, Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks and Dr. Soiander arrived at the island on their return from the last voyage of discovery, in which capt. Cook lost his life; and Mr. Low, having early acquired a taste for natural history, was much noticed by those distinguished philosophers, and was requested to accompany them in their excursions through the Orkneys, and also to the Shetland islands, which he accordingly lid.

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

, a surgeon of the sixteenth century, was born in Scotland. In a work entitled “A Discourse on the whole Art of Chirurgery,” published at Glasgow in 1612, he acquaints his readers, that he had practised twenty- two years in France and Flanders; that he had been two years surgeon- major to the Spanish regiment at Paris and had then followed his master, the king of France (Henry IV.) six years in his wars. In the titlepage of his book, he calls himself doctor in the faculty of surgery at Paris, and ordinary surgeon to the king of France and Navarre. It does not appear how long he had resided at Glasgow; but he mentions that, fourteen years before the publication of his book, he had complained of the ignorant persons who intruded into the practice of surgery, and that in consequence the king (of Scotland) granted him a privilege, under his privy seal, of examining all practitioners in surgery in the western parts of Scotland. He refers to a former work of his own, entitled “The Poor Man’s Guide,” and speaks of an intended publication concerning the diseases of women. He died in 1612. The “Discourse on Chirurgery” appears to have been in esteem, as it reached a fourth edition in 1654, but it is founded more on authority than observation. Ames mentions another work of his with the title “An easy, certain, and perfect method to cure and prevent the Spanish Sickness; by Peter Lowe, doctor in the Facultie of Chirurgerie at Paris, chirurgeon to Henry IV” London, 1596, 4to.

, an eminent physician and anatomist, was born at Tremere, in Cornwall, about 1631. He was descended from a good family, and received a liberal education, being admitted as king’s scholar at Westminster school, and thence elected to Christ-church college, Oxford, in 1649, where he took the degree of M. A. in 1655, and then studied medicine. The celebrated Dr. Willis, who employed him as coadjutor in his dissections, found him so able an assistant, that he afterwards became his steady friend and patron, and introduced him into practice. In 1665, Lower took the degree of M. D.; and in the same year published a defence of Dr. Willis’s work on fevers, entitled “Diatribae Thomae Willisii M. D. et Prof. Oxon. de Febribus Vindicatio adversus Edm. de Meara Ormondiensem Hibern. M. D.” 8vo, a work of considerable learning and force of argument, but not without some fallacies, as he afterwards himself admitted. But his most important work was, his “Tractatus de Corde, item de motu et calore Sanguinis, et Chyli in eum transitu,” which was first printed in London in 1669. In this work the structure of the heart, the origin and course of its fibres, and the nature of its action, were pointed out with much accuracy and ingenuity. He likewise demonstrated the dependance of its motions upon the nervous influence, referred the red colour of the arterial blood to the action of the air upon it in the lungs, and calculated the force of the circulation, and the quantity and velocity of the blood passing through it. The work excited particular notice, in consequence of the chapter on the transfusion of blood from the vessels of one living animal to those of another, which the author had first performed experimentally at Oxford, in February 1665, and subsequently practised upon an insane person before the royal society. Lower claims the merit of originality in this matter; but the experiment had certainly been suggested long before by Ia­bavius (see Libavius), and experience having soon decided, that the operation was attended with pernicious consequences, it was justly exploded. Lower had removed to London soon after the commencement of these experiments, and in 1667 had been a fellow of the royal society, and of the college of physicians. The reputation acquired by his publications brought him into extensive practice and after the death of Dr.- Willis,. he was considered as one of the ablest physicians in London. But his attachment to the Whig party, at the time of the Popish plot, brought bun iufao discredit at court, so that his practice dedlned considerably before his death, Jan 17, 1690-91. He was buried at St. Tudy, near his native place, in Cornwall, where he had purchased an estate. In addition to the writings above-mentioned, he communicated some papers containing accounts of anatomical experiments to the royal society; a small tract on catarrh, which was added, as a new chapter, to the edition of the treatise de Corde of 1680; and a letter on the state of medicine in England. He is said to have been the first discoverer of Astrop Wells.

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

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born in 1680. He was originally destined for the law, and in 1697 entered as a student in the Middle-Temple, but in about two years he changed his purpose and determined to study divinity. With this view he went over to Holland in 1699, where he studied partly at Utrecht and partly at Leyden. In 1710, after being admitted to the ministry among the dissenters, he settled with the congregation at Claphana, as assistant to Mr. Grace, whom he succeeded as their pastor, and was ordained in 1714. In this situation he continued to his death, preaching twice each Sunday until within a few weeks of that event. He distinguished himself, from the period of his academical studies, in metaphysics and divinity: and, to the close of his life, he was an indefatigable reader, and acquired an extraordinary stock of useful knowledge, particularly in Jewish learning and antiquities, to which last he was much devoted. The result of this application appeared in the learned works he published, and which constituted his chief fame; for as a pulpit orator, it does not appear that he was much admired. Dr. Chandler, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him a very high personal character. He died May 3, 1752, in the seventy-third year of his age.

His pen was first employed, in 1716, in a kind of periodical work, called the “Occasional Papers,” which now form three volumes, 8vo, and in which he wrote, No. I. (vol. H.) “On Orthodoxy” and No. VI. “On the danger of the Chqrcb.” His colleagues in this paper were Mr. Simon Brown, Dr. Grosvenor, Dr. Evans, and others. The subjects are in general on points in controversy with the church. In 1718, he wrote a treatise against Collins, the title of which, says his biographer, is forgotten, but it is mentioned by the accurate Leland, as “The Argument from prophecy, in proof that Jesus is the Messiah, vindicated, in some considerations on the prophecies cf the Old Testament, as the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” It was not printed, however, until 1733. In 1735, he was one of the preachers at Salttr’s-H ill, against popery: the subject of his sermon, “The Principles of Popery schismatical.” He had published before this, two occasional sermons. Another of his pamphlets, entitled “An Argument to prove the Unity and Perfections of God d prioi'i,” uas more admired for its novelty and ingenuity than usefulness: but the works of Mr. Lowman on which his reputation is most securely founded, are, 1. “A Dissertation on the Civil Government of the Hebrews,” in answer to Morgan’s “Moral Philosopher.” This, whicU appeared in 1740, was esteemed a very judicious performance, and was highly approved of by bishop Sherlock and' other clergymen of the established church. The second edition, in 1745, has an appendix. 2. “A rationale of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship: in which the design and usefulness of that ritual are explained and vindicated from objections/ 1 1748. 3.” A Paraphrase and Notes upon the Revelation of St. John,“4to, twice, and 8vo, lately. 4.” Three (posthumous) Tracts," on the Schechina, the Logos, &c.

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

He published, 1. “A Vindication of the Divine Authority, and Inspiration of the Old and New Testament, 1692,” 12mo. And a second edition with “amendments, and a new preface, wherein the antiquity of the Pentateuch is asserted, and vindicated from some late objections, 16iy.” 2. “Directions for the profitable reading of the Holy Scriptures; together with some observations for confirming their Diving Authority, and illustrating the difficulties thereof, 1708,” 12mo. This useful tract has gone through several editions. 3. “Two Sermons preached in the cathedral church of Winchester, at the assizes in 1714, entitled” Religion the distinguishing Character of Human Nature, on Job xxviii. 28,“and,” The Wisdom of acknowledging Divine Revelation, on Matt. xi. 10.“4.” A Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, 1714.“5.” On Jeremiah, 1718.“6.” On Ezekiel, 1723.“7.” On Daniel and the Minor Prophets, 1726.“These, originally published in 4to, were afterwards republished together, with additions, in one vol. folio, as a continuation of bishop Patrick’s” Commentary on the other parts of the Old Testament, in which form it has had several editions. 8. “The Characters of an Apostolical Church fulfilled in the Church of England, and our obligations to continue in the Communion of it.” 9. “A Sermon preached in the Church of PetersfieM, in the county of Southampton, 1752.” This drew him unwillingly into some controversy with John Norman, a dissenter, of Portsmouth; but he soon dropped it, thinking him an unfair adversary, for his more useful studies and duties.

, a very learned and eminent prelate, and second son to the preceding, was born Nov. 27, 1710. He received his education at Winchester-school, und while there gave the first specimen of his“great abilities, in a poem, entitled” The Genealogy of Christ, as it is represented on the East window of Winchester-college chap-el,“since inserted in Pearch’s Collection of Poems. He also, as an exercise, in 1729, wrote another poem, entitled” Catharine Hill," the place where the Winchester scholars are allowed to play on holidays. From Winchester he was elected to New-college, Oxford, in 1730, where he took his degree of M. A. June 8, 1737. At Oxford he was not more distinguished for proficiency in his studies, than for the excellence of his taste, and the politeness of his manners: and being now more immediately under Wykeham’s roof, he conceived the design, which he afterwards so ably accomplished, of investigating the history of his college, and writing the life of that wise and munificent founder. The first distinction he obtained in the university was the office of professor of poetry, which was conferred upon him in 1741, on the resignation of his friend Mr. Spence. In performing the duties of this office he struck out a new path, by giving a course of lectureg on Hebrew poetry, which have since added so much to hii reputation.

In 1746, Mr. Lowth published “An Ode to the people of Great Britain, in imitation of the sixth ode of the third book of Horace;” a spirited performance, severely reproving the vices of the times. This was afterwards inserted in Dodsley Collection, vol. III. and was followed by his “Judgment of Hercules,” in his friend Mr. Spence’s “Poly metis.” His first preferment in the church was to the rectory of Ovington, in Hampshire, which he received from bishop Hoadly. In 1748, he accompanied Mr: Legge, afterwards chancellor of the Exchequer, to Berlin, who went to that court in a public character; and with whom, from his earliest years, Mr. Lowth lived on terms of the mosc intimate and uninterrupted friendship. In tha following year he became acquainted with the duke of Devonshire, in consequence of his attending his brothers lord George and lord Frederic Cavendish, on their travels, and especially at Turin, which place was their principal residence during th*. ir absence from this country. The duke was so amply satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Lowth, as the travelling tutor of his brothers, that he afterwards proved his steady friend and patron. In 1750, bishop Hoadly conferred on him the archdeaconry of Winchester, and in 1753, the rectory of East Wooclhay, in Hampshire.

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

In July 1754-, probably as a reward for the distinguished ability displayed in his “Praelectiones,” he received the degree of D. D. conferred by the university in the most honourable manner in their power, by diploma; and in 1755 he went t > Irela d as first chaplain to Uie marquis of Harrington (afterwards duke of Devonshire, and then) lord lieutenant. In consequence of this appointment he had the offer of the bishopric of Limeric, but this * he exchanged with Dr Lesl.e, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Sedgefiild, near that place, for these preferments, which were accordingly given to him by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who was not a little pleased to rank among his clergy a gentleman of such rare accomplishments.

In 1758 he published that admirable specimen of recondite biography, his “Life of William of Wykeham,” 8vo, founder of Winchester and New colleges. It is collected from authentic evidences, and affords the most certain information of the manners of the times, and of many of the public transactions in which Wykeham was concerned, with such an account of the origin and foundation of his college, as was scarcely to be supposed recoverable at so remote a period. This work has gone through three editions. In the dedication to bishop Hoadly, Dr. Lowth gives the sanction of his approbation to a decision which Hoadly, as visitor, had recently made respecting the wardenship of Winchester college. This produced a sarcastic address to him, which he replied to in a pamphlet entitled “An Answer to an anonymous Letter to Dr. Lowth concerning the late Election of a Warden of Winchester college.” This was written in his usual masterly manner.

The next work of importance with which he favoured the public was his “Short Introduction to English Grammar,” first published in 1762, and which has since gone through numerous editions. It was originally designed only for domestic use; but its utility in recommending a greater attention to grammatical form and accuracy in our language than had hitherto been observed in it, and the many judicious remarks which occur, fully justified the publication, as well as the favourable reception it has met with.

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

This was followed by “Remarks on Dr. Lowth’s Letter to the bishop of Gloucester,” anonymous, but now known to have been written by Mr. Towne, archdeacon of Stow in Lincolnshire; to which is annexed “The second epistolary Correspondence” between Warburton and Lowth, in which Warburton accuses Lowth of a breach of confidence in publishing the former correspondence. A more petty controversy arose from Dr. Lowth’s letter, between him and Dr. Brown, author of “Essays on the Characteristics,” who fancied that Lowth had glanced at him as one of the servile admirers of Warburton. He therefore addressed “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Lowth,” which was answered in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Brown,” written in a polite and dispassionate manner. It was followed by two anonymous addresses to Dr. Brown, censuring him for having introduced himself and his writings into a dispute which had nothing to do with either f.

degraded by the pride and presump- professor of Oxford (Dr. Lowth) in a

tion with which he pronounced his in- pointed and polished epistle (Aug. 31, fallible decrees. In his polemic writ- 1765) defended himself, and attacked

ings he lashed his antagonists without the bishop; and whatsoever might be

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

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

When archbishop Cornwallis died, the king made an offer of the archiepiscopal see to Dr. Lowth; but this dignity he declined. He was now advanced in life, and was

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

His second daughter, Frances, died as she was presiding at the tea-table, in July 1783; she was going to place a cup of coffee on the salver. “Take this,” said she, “to the bishop of Bristol;” immediately the cup and her hand fell together upon the salver, and she instantly expired. His eldest son also, of whom he was led to form the highest expectations, was hurried to the grave in the bloom of youth. Amid these scenes of distress, the venerable bishop, animated by the hopes which the religion of Jesus alone inspires, viewed, with pious resignation, the king of terrors snatching his dear and amiable children from his fond embrace, and at length met the stroke with fortitude, and left this world in full and certain hope of a better. He died Nov. 3, 1787, aged seventy-seven, and was buried at Fulham.

Dr. Lowth married, in 1752, Mary, the daughter of Lawrence Jackson, of Christ Church, in the county of Southampton, esq. by whom he had two sons and five daughters, of whom two only, a son and daughter, survived him. Mrs. Lowth died March 14, 1803.

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

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

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

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

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

Loyola was thought in two years to have made a progress sufficient for being admitted to the lectures of philosophy; upon which he went to Alcala de Henares, in 1526. His mendicant life, his apparatus, and that of four companions, who had already espoused his fortune, together with 'the instructions he gave to those who flocked about him, brought him at length under the cognizance of the inquisition. Inquiries were made concerning his life and doctrines; and it being observed, that a widow with her daughter had undertaken a pilgrimage on foot, as beggars, under his direction, he was thrown into prison. He obtained his release upon promising not to vent feis opinions for four years but, this restraint not suiting at all with his design, he determined not to comply with it and, therefore, going to Salamanca, he continued to discourse on religious matters, as before. He was thrown again into prison, and was not discharged till he had made some promises, as at Alcala de He-nates. He then resolved to go to Paris, where he arrived in Feb. 1528, with a firm resolution to pursue his studies vigorously; but the wretched circumstances to which he was reduced, being forced to beg about the streets, and to retire to St. James’s hospital, were great obstacles to his design; not to mention, that he was then impeached before the inquisition. Notwithstanding these difficulties, he went through a course of philosophy and divinity, and prevailed over a certain number of companions, who bound themselves by a vow to enter upon his new way of life. They did this in the church of iMontmartre, on the 15th of August, 1534; and renewed thc'ir vow twice in the same place, and on the same day, with the same ceremonies. At first they were but seven in number, including Loyola; but were at last increased to ten. They agreed, that Loyola should return to Spain to settle some affairs, that afterwards he-should proceed to Venice,>nd that they should all set out from Paris, Jan. 25, 1537, to meet him. Ribadeneira says that Loyola came a-begging to England in 1531, and found his account in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Langoworde, in Friesland, about 1556, and studied at Bremen, Wittemberg, and Geneva, where he diligently attended the lectures of Beza, Casaubon, and Francis Portus. At Newstadt also he heard the lectures of the learned Zachary Ursinus, who had so high an opinion of him as to recommend him as his own successor in the chair of logic; but this honour he declined. Soon after he became pastor of a congregation at Embden, the duties of which office he discharged with singular fidelity and zeal. In 1584 he was appointed preacher to the governor and deputies of the states of Friesland, and professor of divinity in the new liniversity of Franeker, which offices he filled with reputation nearly forty years, and was in that time often employed in very important affairs. He died at Franeker, Jan. 21, 1625, at the age of sixty-nine. He was author of many learned pieces against Bellannin, Socinus, Arminius, Vorstius, Grotius, and the other defenders of the cause of the remonstrants. One of his best works is that “De Papa Romano,” 1594, 8vo.

, in Latin Lubieniecius, a celebrated Socinian divine, was descended from a very noble family, related to the house of Sobieski, and born at Racow in that kingdom, in 1612—3. His father, a minister, bred him up with great care under his own eye; and, even while he was a school-boy, brought him into the diet of Poland, in order to introduce him to the acquaintance of the grandees, and instruct him in knowledge suitable to his birth, fn 1644 he sent him to Thorn in Saxony, where, young as he was, he joined the two Socinian deputies at the conference then held in that city, for the re-union of different religions among the reformed, drew up a diary of the conference, and then attended a young nobleman as travelling tutor through Holland and France, where he acquired the esteem of several learned men, with whom he conferred on subjects of religion, and on the death of his father, in 1648, he returned to Poland.

In 1652 he married the daughter of a zealous Socinian, and was appointed ro:idjntor to John Ciachovuis, minister of Siedlieski; and the synod of Czarcow having admitted him into the ministry, he was appointed pastor of that tliurch; but, on the Swedish invasion in 1655, he retired to Cracow with his family, where he employed himself in offices of devotion with the Hungarian Unitarians, who were come thither with prince Ragotski. At the same time he insinuated himself much into the king of Sweden’s favour; and the city reverting again to the dominion of Poland in 1657, he followed the Swedish garrison, with a view to obtain of that prinpe, that the Unitarians, who had put themselves under his protection, might be comprehended in the general amnesty, by the treaty of peace with Poland. On his arrival at Wolgast in October this year, he was well received by the Swedish monarch, and conversed intimately upon his religion with some Swedish lords; but when the peace was concluded at Oliva, he was disappointed in his object, and the Unitarians were excepted out of the general amnesty granted to all other dissenters from popery.

On this, instead of returning into Poland, he embarked for Copenhagen, in order to seek a settlement there for his exiled brethren, and arrived in that city in Nov. 1-660, where he made himself very acceptable to the Danish nobility. He had an extensive epistolary correspondence, which furnished him with many particulars from foreign countries. With this news he entertained the nobility; and, when it was read to the king (Frederic III.) he was so delighted with it, that he created a new place for him, that of secretary for transcribing these news-letters for his majesty’s use, and he was promised an annual pension for it. The king, who never received him at court, but often heard him discourse on religious subjects, engaged his confessor in a controversy with Lubienietski in the royal presence. But this giving umbrage to the Lutheran divines, Frederick found it necessary to tell him privately that all he could grant him was to connive at his followers settling at Altena. On this he returned, in 1661, to Stetin, in Pomerania, but his principles being equally obnoxious there, he was obliged to go to Hamburgh, whither he sent his family the next year, 1662. He had now three, several conferences with queen Christina, upon points of Socinianism, in the presence of some princes; and the king endeavoured to persuade the magistrates to suffer him to live quietly, but his intercession did not prove sufficient; and being several times commanded to retire, he went to the king at Copenhagen, in 1667.

His next remove was to Fredericksburg, where he obtained leave to settle with his banished brethren, aad a promise not to be disturbed in the private exercises of their religion. He acquainted the brethren with this news, and spared no pains nor cost, even to the impairing of his own estate, that he might settle them there; he also supported them at his own expence. But neither did they enjoy this happiness long. The duke of Holstein-Gottorp, without whose knowledge the above permission had been granted, at the persuasion of John Reinboht, one of his chaplains, and the Lutheran superintendant, banished them both from that city, and from all his dominions. In this exigence he returned to Hamburgh, by the advice of his friends, who had also procured him the title of secretary to the king of Poland, in hopes to oblige the magistrates to let him live quietly in that city; the king of Denmark likewise interceded again for him, all which prevailed for a considerable time, but at last the magistrates sent him positive orders to remove. Before, however, he could obey this order, he had poison given him in his meat, of which he died May 18, 1675, having lamented in verse the fate of his two daughters, who fell a sacrifice to the same poison two days before. His body was buried at Altena, against all the opposition that the Lutheran ministers could make. He had obtained a retreat for his banished brethren at Manheim, in the Palatinate, that elector being a prince of latitudinarian principles in matters of religion.

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

The Socinians, who look upon him as a saint, if not a martyr, pretend that he was favoured with a very remarkable revelation during the siege of Stetin; and the following story is told in his life: “Two powerful reasons ei aged Lubienietski to pray that God would be pleased to cause this siege to be raised: his wife and children were in the town; and there was a Swedish count, who promised that be would turn Socinian, in case Lubienietski could by his prayers prevent the taking of it. This minister, animated by the private interest of his family, and by the hopes of gaining an illustrious proselyte to his religion, continued three weeks fasting and praying; after which he went to meet the count, and assured him that the town would not be taken. The count, and the persons about him, treated this as the effect of a delirium; and were the more confirmed in that opinion, as Lubienietski fell sick the moment he left them. But they were all extremely surprised, when, at the end of six days, there came news that the siege was raised; since it was impossible that any person should have acquainted Lubienietski with that good news, when he first told it. However, when the count was called upon to perform his promise, he answered, That he had applied to God in order to know whether he should do well to embrace that minister’s religion, and that God had confirmed him in the Augsburg confession.'”

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

, one of the most learned protestants of his time, was born at Westersted, in the county of Oldenburg, March 24, 1556, of which place his father was minister, who sent him first to Leipsic, where he prosecuted his studies with great success, and for further improvement went thence to Cologne. After this he visited the several universities of Helmstadt, Strasburg, Jena, Marpurg, and, last of all, Rostock, where he was made professor of poetry in 1595. Having there read lectures with great applause for ten years, he was advanced to the divinity chair in the same university, in 1605. In 1620 he was seized with a tertian ague, under which he laboured for ten months before it put a period to his life in June 162 1. He has the character of having been a good Greek scholar, and was well skilled in the Latin language, in which he made good verses, and he had much reputation as an orator, a mathematician, and a divine. He published several books, namely, 1. “Antiquarius, sive priscorum et minus usitatorum vocabulorum brevis et dilucida interpretatio.” 2. “Clavis Graecae linguae.” 3. “Anacreon, Juvenal, and Persius, with notes.” 4. “Horace and Juvenal, with a paraphrase.” 5. “The Anthologia, with a Latin version,” 1604, 4to. 6. “Epistolae veterum Grsecorum, Greece et Latine, cum methodo conscribendarum epistolarum.” 7. “Commentaiies upon some of the Epistles of St. Paul.” 8. “Monotessaion,sive historia evangelica,” &c. &c. i. e. a harmony of the four Evangelists. 9. “Nonni Dionysiaca,” in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, 1605, 8vo. 10. “Latin Poems,” inserted in the third volume of “Deliciae ^oetarum Germanorum.”

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

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1617, of an obscure family at Venozza in the Basilicate, and raised himself by his learning and merit. He died February 5, 1683, aged sixty-six. He left Notes on the Council of Trent, in Latin; a curious “Account of the Court of Rome,” in Italian, Rome, 1680, 4to; and an elaborate work on the ecclesiastical law, entitled “Theatrum justitiae et veritatis.” The best edition of this last is that printed at Rome, 21 vols. fol. bound in 12.

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

Lucan first appeared from the press of Sweynheym and Pannartz, in 1469, a folio, of which only 275 copies were printed, and not above three have been seen in this country, one at Dr. Askew’s sale, one is in lord Spencer’s collection, and a third in the Bodleian. The best editions of more modern times are: that of Grotius, Antwerp, 1614, 8vo, reprinted 1619 and 1626; the Variorum, Leyden, 1658, 8vo; that of Oudendorp, Leyden,' 1728, 4 to of Burmann, ibid. 1740, 4to; of Bentley, at the Strawberryhill press, 1760, 4to; and that by Didot, Paris, 1795, fol. edited by Renouard, a superb as well as accurate edition. We have three English translations by Gorges, May, and Rowe, all of indifferent merit, but the classical scholar will be better pleased to hear that there are in the British Museum, no less than five editions of this poet enriched with the ms notes of the celebrated Bentley.

, surnamed Brugensis, from being a native of that city, was a doctor of Louvain, and dean of the church of St. Omer. He studied under Arias Montanus, and acquired an extensive knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac languages. He has left, 1. “Critical notes on the Holy Scriptures,” Antwerp, 3 vols. 4to, which are commended by Simon, in his Critical History. 2. Latin commentaries on the New Testament, in 3 vols. folio. 3. Concordances of the Bible, published at Cologne in 8vo, by Egmond, in 1684, which are convenient in size, and printed with correctness and beauty. He died Feb. 19, 1619.

, a French traveller, was the son of a merchant at Rouen, and born there in 1664. From his youth he felt a strong inclination for travelling, which he gratified by several voyages to the Levant, Egypt, Turkey, and other countries. He brought home a great number of medals and other curiosities for the king’s cabinet, who made him his antiquary in 1714, and ordered him to write the history of his travels. Louis XV. sent him again to the Levant in 1723, whence he brought abundance of curiosities for the king’s library; particularly medals and manuscripts. His passion for travelling reviving again in 1736, he went to Madrid; and died there in 1737, after an illness of eight months. His travels, which were edited by Baudelot de Dairval, Fourmont, and Banier, are not ill written, and sufficiently amusing; yet not of the first authority, being supposed to contain some exaggerated, and some false representations. They consist of 7 vols. 12mo, published in 1699 1714.

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

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

, a Greek author, was born at Samosata, the capital of Comagene; the time of his birth is uncertain, though generally fixed in the reign of the emperor Trajan; but Mr. Moyle, who has taken some pains to adjust the age of Lucian, fixes the fortieth year of his age to the 164th year of Christ, and the fourth of Marcus Antoninus; and consequently, his birth to the 124th year of Christ, and the eighth of Adrian. His birth was mean; and his father, not being able to give him any learning, resolved to breed him a sculptor, and in that view put him apprentice to his brother-in-law; but, taking a dislike to the business, he applied himself to the study of polite learning and philosophy; being encouraged by a dream, which he relates in the beginning of his works, and which evidently was the product of his inclination to letters. He tells us also himself, that he studied the law, and practised some time as an advocate; but disliking the wrangling oratory of the bar, he threw off his gown, and took up that of a rhetorician. In this character he settled first at Antioch; and passing thence into Ionia in Greece, he travelled into Gaul and Italy, and returned at length into his own country by the way of Macedonia. He lived four and twenty years after the death of Trajan, and even to the time of Marcus Aurelius, who made him register of Alexandria in Egypt. He tells us himself, that when he entered upon this office, he was in extreme old age, and had one leg in Charon’s boat. Suidas asserts that he was torn to pieces by dogs. He died, however, in the year 214, aged 90.

As Lucian made a figure in various employments, his works exhibit him sometimes as a rhetorician and panegyrist; in others he is distinguished chiefly as a pleader; in a few he assumes a more serious tone, and reasons on the subject before him in a vein of manly sense, united to deep observation and knowledge of mankind. Of far the greater part of his " Dialogues/' however, the leading and prominent feature is ridicule, in dispensing which he is so often guilty of obscenity and impiety, that moralists in all ages have united in condemning him. In this country he has, notwithstanding, found many translators, Spence, Mayne, Hickes, Carr, and Francklin, who have doubtless bespoke attention to his wit by omitting the objectionable passages. The best editions of the original, which was first printed in 1496, at Florence, are those of Bourdelot, Paris, 1615, folio; of Grevius, Amst 1687, 2 vols. 8vo; of Hemsterhusius, ibid. 1743, 4 vols. 4 to, edit. opt. which has been followed by all subsequent editors.

, bishop of Cagliari, the metropolis of Sardinia, is known in ecclesiastical history as the author of a schism, the occasion of which was, that Lucifer would not allow the decree made in the council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, for receiving the apostate Arian bishops. This he opposed so resolutely, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the communion of the rest, and to form a new schism, which bore his name, and -soon gained a considerable footing, especially in the West; several persons no less distinguished for piety than learning, and among the rest Gregory, the famous bishop of Elvira, having adopted his rigid sentiments. As Lucifer is honoured by the church of Rome as a saint, where his festival is kept on the 20th of May, Baronius pretends that he abandoned his schism, and returned to the communion of the church, before his death. But his contemporary, Ruffinus, who probably knew him, assures us, that he died in the schism which he had formed, A D. 370. His works are written in a harsh and barbarous style. According to Lardner, they consist very much of passages of the Old and New Testament, cited one after another, which he quotes with marks of the greatest respect. He farther adds, that the works of this prelate have not yet been published with all the advantage that might be wished. The titles of these works are, “Ad Constantinum Imperatorem, lib. ii.” “De Regibus Apostaticis” “De non conveniendo cum Hereticis” “De non parcendo Delinquentibus in Deum” “Quod moriendurn sit pro Filio Dei” and “Epistola brevis ad Florentium.” They were collected together, and published at Paris by John Till, bishop of Meaux, in 1568, and at Venice about 1780, in fol. with additions.

, an ancient Latin poet, and a Roman knight, was born at Suessa, in the county of the Aurunci, about the year 148 B. C. He served under Scipio Africanus in the war with the Numantines, and was very much esteemed by him and Laelius. He wrote thirty books of “Satires,” in which he lashed several persons of quality by name, and with great severity; and if he was not the inventor of that kind of poem, he certainly was the first considerable satirist among the Romans. Horace says,

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

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

Soon after the death of the earl of Essex, Sept. 1646, Ludlow had reason to suspect, from, a conversation with Cromwell, who expressed a dislike to the parliament and extolled the army, that his ambition would lead him to destroy the civil authority, and establish his own; and therefore he gave a flat negative to the vote for returning Cromwell thanks, on his shooting ' Arnell, the agitator, and thereby quelling that faction in the army. In the same spirit of what has been called pure rep ublicanism, he joined in the vote for not addressing the king, and in the declaration for bringing him to a trial: and soon alter, in a conference with Cromwell and the leaders of the army, he harangued upon the necessity and justice of the king’s execution, and, after that, the establishment of an equal commonwealth, in which he differed from another pure republican, Lilburne, who was for new-modelling the parliament first, and then, as a natural consequence, putting the king to death. Ludlow induced the Wiltshire people to agree to the raising of two regiments of foot, and one of horse, against the Scots, when they were preparing to release the king from Carisbrook- castle. After which, he went to Fairfax, at the siege of Colchester, and prevailed with him to oppose entering into any treaty with the king; and when the House of Commons, on his majesty’s answer from Newport, voted that his concessions were ground for a future settlement, Ludlow not only expressed his dissatisfaction, but had a principal share both in forming and executing the scheme of forcibly excluding all that party from the house by colonel Pride, in 1648. Agreeably to all these proceedings, he sat upon the bench at the trial and condemnation of the king, concurred in the vote that the House of Peers was useless and dangerous, and became a member of the council of state.

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

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

Upon this, he embarked for England; and in the way, at Mi.lford-Comb, found by the public news, that sir Charles Coote had exhibited a charge of high treason against him. On his arrival at London, he took his place in the house; and, obtaining a copy of his charge, moved to be heard in his defence, but the approach of general Monk gave a new turn to public affairs. Ludlow, who waited upon him, was so far deceived as to believe that Monk was inclined to a republic. On learning Monlc’s real design, however, he first applied to sir Arthur Haslerig, to draw their scattered forces together to oppose Monk; and that proposal not being listened to, he endeavoured, with the other republicans, to prevent the dissolution of the Rump, by ordering writs to be issued to fill up the vacant seats; but the speaker refused to sign the warrants. He also pressed very earnestly to be heard concerning the charge of high treason, lodged against him from Ireland, to no purpose; so that when the members secluded in 16448 returned to the house, with Monk’s approbation, he withdrew himself from it, until being elected for the borough of Hindon, (part of his own estate) in the convention parliament, which met the 24th of April, 1660, he took his seat in the House of Commons in pursuance of an order he had received, tQ attend his duty there. He now also sent orders to collect his rents, and dispose of his effects in Ireland; but was prevented by sir Charles Coote, who seized both, the stock alone amounting to 1500l.; and on the vote in parliament, to apprehend all who had signed the warrant for the king’s execution, he escaped by shifting his abode very frequently. During his recess, the House was busy in preparing the bill of indemnity, in which he was, more than once, very near being inserted as one of the seven excepted persons; and a proclamation being issued soon after the king’s return, for all the late king’s judges to surrender themselves in fourteen days time, on pain of being left out of the said act of indemnity, he consulted with his friends, whether he should not surrender himself according to the proclamation. Several of these, and even sir Harbottle Grimston, the speaker, advised him to surrender, and engaged for his safety; but he chose to follow the more solid and friendly opinion of lord Ossory, son to the marquis of Ormond, and determined to quit England. He instantly took leave of his friends, and went over London bridge in a coach, to St. George’s church, in the borough of Southwark; where he took horse, and travelling all night, arrived at Lewes, in Sussex, by break of day the next morning. Soon after, he went on board a small open vessel prepared for him; but the weather being very bad, he quitted that, and took shelter in a larger, which had been got ready for him, but struck upon the sands in going down the river, and lay then a-ground. He was hardly got a-board this, when some persons came to search that which he had quitted, without suspecting any body to be in the boat which lay a-shore, so that they did not examine it, by which means he escaped; and waiting a day and a night for the storm to abate (during which the master of the vessel asked him, whether he had heard that lieutenant-general Ludlow was confined among the rest of the king’s judges), the next morning he put to sea, and landed at Dieppe that evening, before the gates were shut.

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

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

, a learned orientalist, was born at Erfurt in Thuringia, June 15, 1624, of one of the best families in the city, then in reduced circumstances. He began his studies at home, under very insufficient masters, and having acquired some knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, applied himself to the French, Italian, and Spanish, and afterwards to those of the East. He also made some progress in physic and law, but without any view to a profession. In 1645 he went to Leyden, a studied the languages under Erpenius, Golius, and other: eminent teachers, and likewise maintained some disputations in law. After residing here ahove a year, he was appointed travelling tutor to a young man of family, with whom he went to France, and at Caen contracted a friendship with Bochart, and taught t him the elements of the Ethiopic language. He afterwards went with his pupil to England but the rebellion being at its height at this time, he soon returned to Holland. The baron de Rosenhahn, ambassador from Christina queen of Sweden at the court of France, happened to have in his retinue a brother of Ludolf, who recommended our author to that nobleman so effectually, that he sent for him from Holland to Paris, to be preceptor to his two sons. Soon after, in 1619, he sent. him to Rome, to search for papers and memoirs, which John Magnus, archbishop of Upsal, was said to have conveyed formerly to Rome, and which Christina was desirous to recover. Ludolph performed this journey in company with two Polish gentlemen, of whom he learned their language. At Rome he found no manuscripts relating to Sweden; but this journey was not useless to himself, for by his conversation with four Abyssinians, then at Rome, be perfected himself in the knowledge of the Ethiopic language. Immediately after his return to Paris he was obliged to go to Sweden with the ambassador, where he found a great many learned men at queen Christina’s court, and had an opportunity of learning there the Portuguese, Moscovite, an. I Finland languages. In 1652, Ernest duke of Saxe-Gotha sent for him to his court, and made him his Aulic-counsellor, and governor to the princes his sons, and employed him in various political affairs and negociations. In 1678 he desired leave to retire, resolving upon a private life, and went to Fraucfort, where he had a commission from the dukes of Saxony to act in their names in the conferences held there in 1681 and 1682, in order to settle a pacification between the emperor, the empire, and France. The elector palatine likewise gave him the direction of some of his revenues; and the electors of Saxony honoured him with the titles of their counsellor and resident. But Abyssinia was the chief object of the attention of our author, who concerted measures to form an alliance between that remote nation and the powers of Europe. He had addressed himself for that purpose, in 1679, to the court of Vienna, who referred him to the English and Dutch, as more capable of contributing to that great design. He vyent, there- i fore, to England in 168,'i, but did not find any disposition there to execute his scheme for establishing a commerce with the Abyssinians, and although he found rather more encouragement in Holland, the scheme was defeated by the Abyssinians themselves. In 1684, Ludolph returned to Francfort, having passed through France, and began to apply himself vigorously to the writing of his “History of Ethiopia.” In 1690 he was appointed president of an academy of history, which was’ established in that city. He lived several years after, and died April 8, 1704, agfcd almost eighty years.

He understood twenty-five languages: Hebrew, and that of the Rabbins; the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, learned, literal, and vulgar; Greek, learned and vulgar; Ethiopic, learned and vulgar, Called Amharic; Coptic, Persian, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Flemish, English, Polish, Sclavonic, and the ancient language of Sclavonia, and of the Finnes. He was equally esteemed for his manners as for his talents; and was very communicative; hardy and indefatigable in business, and so much inured to study, that he had always a book open before him at his ordinary repasts. He left a son, Christian Ludolph, who was the only child he had, and was counsellor and secretary to the duke of Saxe-Eysenach. ' His works are: 1. “Schola Latinitatis, &c.” Gothae, 1672, 8vo. 2. “Historia Kthiopica, &<.” Franc. 1681, folio. 3. “Epistola Ethiopice scripta,” 1685, in folio. This was the letter he wrote to persuade the Abyssinians to an alliance with the princes of Europe. 4. “De bello Turcico feliciter conficiendo, &c.” Franc. 1686. 4to. 5. “Remarque* sur les pensees enjouez & serieux, &c.”' Leipsic, 1689, 8vo. 6. “Epistolse Samaritans Sichetnitarum ad Jobum Ludolphum, &c.” Leipsic, 1688, 4to. 7, “Specimen commentarii in historian! Ethiopicam,” 1687. 8. “Comaientarins in historiam Ethiopicam, &c.” Franc. 1691, folio. 9. “Appendix ad hist. Ethiopicam illiusque commentarium, &c.” ibid. 1693, folio. 10. “Jugerrtent d‘un anonyme sur une lettre a un ami touchant une systeme d’etymologie Hebraique.” II. “Dissertatio de locustis, &c.” Franc. 1694, folio. 12. “Grammatica Amharicae liiifmse qua; est vernacula Habessinorum,” ibid. 1698, fojio. 13.“Lexicon Amharico-Latinnm, &c.” ibid. 1698, folio. J4. Lexicon Ethiopico-Latinum, ibid, editio secunda,“1699, folio. 15.” Gratnmatica linguae Ethiopian, secunda,“ibid. 1702, folio. 16.” Psalterium Davidis, Ethiopice & Latine, &c.“ibid. 1701, 4to. J7.” Theatre historique de ce que s’est passé en Europe, pendant le xvii siécle,“in German,” avec des figures de Remain de Hoog,“ibid. 2 vols. folio. 18.” Confessio fidei Claudii Regis Ethiopicse," &c. in 4to.

, also a native of Erfurt, and born in 1655, was son to George Henry Ludolpb, a counsellor of that city, and nephew to the preceding Job Ludolpb, who had some share in the care of his education, and* the regulation of his studies. He thus became qualified for the post he afterwards enjoyed, of secretary to Mr. Lenthe, envoy from Christian V. king of Denmark, to the court of Great Britain. This gentleman, for his faithfulness and ability, recommended him afterwards to prince George of Denmark, and in 1680 he became his secretary, which office he enjoyed for some years, until, being incapacitated by illness, he was discharged, with a handsome pension. After his recovery, he took a resolution to visit some foreign countries, particularly Russia, which then was hardly known to travellers; and, as he had some knowledge of the Russian language before be left England, he easily became acquainted with the principal men of that country. He also met with some Jews there, with whom he frequently conversed, and became so great a master of the Hebrew tongue, that he could talk with them in that language; and he gave such uncommon proofs of his knowledge, that the Russian priests took him for a conjuror. He also understood music, and had the honour to play before the czar at Moscow, who expressed the utmost surprise and delight at his performance. Ludolph returned to London in 1694, when he was cut for the stone. As soon as his health would permit, in gratitude for the civilities he had received in Russia, he undertook to write a grammar of their language; by which the natives might be taught their own tongue in a regular form. This book was printed by the university press at Oxford, and published in 1696. This essay, as he says in his preface, he hoped might be of use to traders and travellers; as it was an introduction to the knowledge of a language, which was spoken through a vast tract of country, from Archangel as far as Astracan, and from Ingermania as far as the confines of China.

Ludolph did not here conclude his travels. He had a great desire to go into the East, and to inform himself of the state. of the Christian church in the Levant. He began this journey in March 1698, and in November following arrived at Smyrna. Hence he travelled to Jaffa, from Jaffa to Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to Cairo; and made manyuseful observations relating to the productions of nature and art, and the government and religion of the countries through which he passed. The conversation he had with the commander of a Turkish ship in his passage to Alexandria is not the least remarkable thing in his travels. While he was on board, he was reading our Saviour’s sermon on the mount in the New Testament in Arabic, which was printed in that language at the charge of Mr. Boyle. The captain, having listened some time, asked, “what book that was r” to which Ludolph answering, “that it was the system of the Christian religion,” he replied, “that could not possibly be, since they practised quite the contrary.” To this Ludolph rejoined, “that he was mistaken; and that he did not wonder at it, as the Turks had little opportunity of conversing with any other than sailors and merchants, few of whom they reckoned to be good Christians,” c. The Turk seemed to be very-well satisfied, and afterwards was extremely kind to him.

The deplorable state of Christianity, in the countries through which he travelled, undoubtedly moved him to undertake after his return the impression of the New Testament in vulgar Greek, with the ancient Greek in tbie opposite column, and to make a charitable present of it to the Greek church. He printed it from a copy in two volumes which had been published several years before in Holland. These two volumes were by the industry of Ludolph, and the generous contributions of the bishop of Worcester, and their friends, printed in one volume, 12mo, in London; and afterwards distributed among the Greeks by Ludolph, by means of his friendship and correspondence with some of the best-disposed among them. He often expressed his wishes, that the Protestant powers in Europe would settle a sort of college at Jerusalem; and in some degree imitate the great zeal of the papists, who spare neither cost nor pains to propagate their religion everywhere. He wished also, that such men as were designed for that college, might be acquainted with the vulgar Greek, Arabic, and Turkish languages, and might by universal love and charity be qualified to propagate genuine Christianity: “for many,” says he, “propagate their own particular systems, and take this to be the gospel of Christ.”

In 1709, when a vast number of Palatines came over into England, Ludolph was appointed one of the commissioners by her majesty to manage the charities of her subjects to these unhappy strangers, and to find out ways to employ them to the best advantage. He died Jan. 25, 1710, aged 54.

His works, besides the Russian grammar already mentioned, are, 1. “Meditations on Retirement from the World.” 2. Also “upon divers Subjects tending to promote the inward Life of Faith,” &c. 3. “Considerations on the Interest of the Church Universal.” 4. “A Proposal for promoting the Cause of Religion in the Churches of the Levant.” 5. “Reflections on the present State of the Christian Church.” 6. “A Homily of Macarius, done out of Greek.” Some of these were printed singly, and all of them together in London, 1712, under the title of his “Remains,” with his funeral sermon, by Mr. Boehm, chaplain to the late prince George of Denmark.

, a botanical writer, was born in Silesia in 1709,. and educated for the medical profession. Having a strong bias towards natural history, he was appointed to accompany Hebenstreit in his expedition to the north of Africa, and soon after his return in 1733, became professor of medicine at Leipsic. In 1737 be published a “Programma” in support of the doctrine of the sexes of plants, from his own observations upon the date palm, but two years afterwards advanced some objections to the Linnaean system of arrangement by the organs of impregnation, under the title of “Observationes in Metbodum Plantarum Sexualem Cel. Linnaei,” in which he very unjustly attempts to deprive him of the merit of originality, by insinuating that this system had been “indicated by others;” without saying by whom. In other dissertations he betrays an uncommon propensity to find fault with Linnæus; but, as his late biographer observes, such critics are useful to science, as they promote inquiry and examination; and it must be allowed that Lud wig justly blames Linnæus for confounding the bulbous Fumari<e a$ one species, and he may also be correct in some other femarks. The late lord Bute has well observed, that Ludwig, like Haller, was only a Linnasan in disguise, having frequently applied principles in unison with his, if not imbibed from, him, to build systems, and to exercise criticism, against him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, of Udina in the Venetian territory, was an eminent scholar in the sixteenth century. He was born in 1523, and was remarkable for the integrity of his life, part of which was employed in teaching Greek and Latin at Reggio: he was afterwards secretary to the duke of Parma, and died in 1568, at the age of forty-five. He wrote, 1. “Parergon libri tres,” inserted in the third volume of Gruter’s “Fax Critica;” and consisting of illustrations of various obscure passages in ancient authors. 2. A Latin commentary on Horace’s Art of Poetry, published in 4to, at Venice, in 1544. 3. A treatise “de componendis Animi affectibus,” Bale, 1562, in 8vo.

, a physician, probably a relation of the preceding, was also born at Udina, and was not less distinguished by his acquisitions in literature, than by his medical skill. He was author of the following works “Aphorismi Hippocratis hexametro carmine conscripti,” Venice, 1552; “De compescendis animi affectibus per moralem philosophiam et medendi artem, Tractatus in tres Libros divisus,” Basle, 1562; “Aphrodisiacus, sive de Lue Venerea, in duos Tomos bipartitus, continens omnia quaecumque hactenus de hac re sunt ab omnibus Medicis conscripta,” Venice, 1566, folio. The first volume contained an account of the prinled treatises on the lues up to that year; the second, published the year following, comprehended principally the manuscript works on the subject, which had not then been committed to the press.

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

, superintendant of music to Louis XIV. was born at Florence in 1634, of obscure parents; but an ecclesiastic, discovering his propensity to music, taught him the practice of the guitar. At ten years of age he was sent to Paris, in order to be a page of Mad. de Montpensier, a niece of Louis XIV. but the lady not liking his appearance, which was mean and unpromising, he was removed into the kitchen as her under-scullian. This degradation, however, did not affect his spirit, for he used, at his leisure, to scrape upon a scurvy fiddle; and, being heard by some person who, had discernment, was mentioned to his mistress as a person of both talents and a hand for music. She then employed a master to teach him the violin; and in a few months he became so good a proficient, that he was removed from the kitchen to the chamber, and ranked among the musicians.

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

In 1686, the king was seized with an indisposition which threatened his life; but, recovering from it, Lulli was required to compose a “Te Deum” upon the occasion, and produced one not more remarkable for its excellence, than for the unhappy accident which attended the performance of it. He had neglected nothing in the composition of the music and the preparations for the execution of it; and, the better to demonstrate his zeal, he himself beat the time; but with the care he used for this purpose, he gave himself in the heat of action, a blow upon the end of his foot; and this ending in a gangrene, which baffled all the [efforts of] his surgeons, put an end to his life, March 22, 1687. The following story is related of this musician in his last illness. Some years before, he had been closely engaged in composing for the opera; from which his confessor took occasion to insinuate, that unless, as a testimony of sincere repentance, he would throw the last of his compositions into the fire, he must expect no absolution. He consented: but one of the young princes coming to see him, when he was grown better, and supposed to be out of danger, “What, Baptiste,” says the prince, “have you thrown your opera into the fire? You were a fool for giving credit thus to a dreaming Jansenist, and burning good music.” “Hush, my lord,” answered Lulli, “I knew very well what I was about; I have a fair copy of it.” Unhappily this ill-timed pleasantry was followed by a relapse: the gangrene increased, and the prospect of inevitable death threw him into such pangs of remorse, that he submitted to be laid upon an heap of ashes, with a cord about his neck. In this situation he expressed a deep sense of his late transgression; and, being replaced in his bed, he, further to expiate his offence, sung to an air of his own composing, the following words: Il faut mourir, pecheur, il faut mourir. Lulli is considered as the person who brought French music to perfection, and his great operas and other pieces were long held in the highest estimation. He was no less remarkable for his humourous talents, than for his musical genius; and even Moliere, who was fond of his company, would often say, “Now, Lulli, make us laugh.”

Lulli, says Dr. Burney, was a fortunate man to arrive in a country where music had been so little cultivated, that he never had any rival, nor was there throughout the whole kingdom of France an individual who had the courage to doubt of his infallibility in his art. He was fortunate in so magnificent a patron, and still more fortunate in a lyric poet, who could interest an audience by all the powers of poetry, by the contexture of his fables, and variety and force of his characters. Lulli was rough, rude, and coarse in his manners, but without malice. His greatest frailties were the love of wine and money. There was found in his coffer 630,000 livres in gold, an exorbitant sum for the time in which he lived.

, was a native of Majorca, born in 1236. He was considered in his own time as a prodigy of learning and sagacity, and honoured with the title of Doctor illuminatus. His logic, and his art of memory, have been particularly celebrated, but are not found to deserve the commendations they once received. After applying most diligently to almost all sciences, he lost his life in the character of a missionary. Having gone thither to preach the truths of the Gospel, he suffered great hardships in Africa, and died on his passage home, in March 1315, at the age of eighty. His body was carried to Majorca, where he was honoured as a martyr. His works were published collectively, within these few years, at Mentz; and treat of theology, morals, physic, chemistry, natural philosophy, law, &c. in a truly barbarous style, with much erudition and subtlety, but very little of sound judgment. There are few instances of a great fame so completely extinct as that of Raimond Lully. His art of memory, indeed, for which he was most celebrated, is a most ridiculous invention, wholly unworthy of notice, except, says Brucker, as a specimen of the artifice with which men, who have more ingenuity than honesty, frequently impose upon vulgar weakness and credulity.

, an eminent scholar, was the son of William Lupset, goldsmith and citizen of London. He was born in the parish of St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, in 1498, and was educated at St. Paul’s school under the celebrated Lily. After this he is supposed to have studied some time at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, whence he went to Paris, and took his bachelor’s degree in arts. On his return to England, he settled, about 1519, in Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and succeeded John Clement in the place of lecturer in rhetoric, founded by cardinal Wolsey; and such appears to have been his reputation, that the university publicly thanked the cardinal for his recommendation of so able a man. In 1521 he proceeded M. A. When Richard Pace was sent agent to Italy, Lupset accompanied him as his secretary, and in the course of his travels became acquainted with many of the most learned men of the time, particularly Pole, afterwards cardinal, sir Thomas More, and Erasmus. After returning to England, He was sent to France by cardinal Wolsey, as tutor to his natural son Thomas Winter. In 1529 he was presented to the living of St. Martin’s Ludgate, and in 1530 was made prebend of Salisbury. He died in the flower of his age, Dec. 27, 1532, having scarcely completed his thirty-sixth year. He was reputed a man of very general learning, and of great piety, modesty, and candour, in all which respects Lelaiul and sir Thomas More have celebrated his praises. Wood says that he left a wife named Alice, and thai she died in 1545.; but this Alice appears to have been his mother. Lupset, being in priest’s orders, and a prebendary of Salisbury, could not have been married. Wood likewise doubts his having studied at Cambridge, because Dr. Caius, who mentions this circumstance, does not give his authority; but Caius was his contemporary at that university, and is, therefore sufficient authority for the fact. Of his works, the following have been printed: 1. A Treatise of Charity,“1546, 8vo. a.” An Exhortation to young Men,“1540, 8vu 3. V A. treatise teaching how to die well,” 1534. 4. “Epistolie varive,” dated from Corpus Christi college, and printed in “Epist. aliquot eruditorum vivorum,” Basil, 1520. He also translated into English a homily of St. Chrysostom’s, another of St. Cyprian’s, Picus of Mirandula’s Rules for a godly life, and the Councils of Isidorus, all printed at London in 1560, 8vo. Pts mentions other works by him, but of doubtful authority.

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

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

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

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

In 1501 he was sent to the university of Erfurt, where he went through the usual courses of logic and philosophy. But Luther did not find his account in these studies; did not feel that use and satisfaction arising from such verbose and thorny sciences as logic and philosophy then were, which he wanted and wished to feel. He very wisely, therefore, applied himself to read the best ancient writers, such as Cicero, Virgil, Livy, &c. and from them laid in such a fund of good sense as enabled him to see through the defects in the systems of the schools, as well as the superstitions and errors of the church. He took a master’s degree in the university when he was twenty; and read lectures upon Aristotle’s physics, ethics, and other parts of philosophy. Afterwards, at the instigation of his parents, he studied the civil law, with a view of advancing himself to the bar; but was diverted from this pursuit by an event which he considered as admonitory, and which, by wonderful gradations, led to his future eminence. Walking out into the fields one day, he was struck with lightning, so as to fall to the ground, while a companion was killed by his side; and this affected him so sensibly, that, without communicating his purpose to any of his friends, he withdrew himself from the world, and retired into the order of the hermits of St. Augustine.

Here he employed himself in reading St. Augustine and the schoolmen; but, in turning over the books of the library, he found a copy of the Latin Bible, which he had uever seen before. This raised his curiosity to a high degree; he read it over with great avidity, and was amazed to find what a small portion of the scriptures was allowed to reach the ears of the people. He made his profession in the monastery of Erfurt, after he had been a novice one year; and took priest’s orders, and celebrated his first mass in 1507. The year after he wa removed from the convent of Erfurt to the university of Wittemberg which being just founded, nothing was thought more likely to bring it into immediate credit than the authority and presence of a man so celebrated for his great parts and learning as Luther. Here he read public lectures in philosophy for three years, not in that servile, dull, mechanical way in which lectures were usually read, but with so much active spirit and force of genius, as to make it presaged that a revolution might one day happen in the schools under his direction and management.

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

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

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

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

History of the Council of Trent, and to 1517, the name of an Austin friar

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

ed at first to oppose Tetzel and his a commission of this kind, at a time

associates, and to deny indulgences, when the preaching of indulgences

injury offered to his order. Such was the princes of Europe, and many

the representation of Bossuet; and bishops, as well as other learned men,

other writers, misled by his authority, abhorred the traffic; and even the

have circulated a similar opinion. It Franciscans and Dominicans, towards

the publication of indulgences in Ger- opposed it publicly, both in their dismany was not usually committed to courses and writings: nor wag this

live commission was principally in- in general, but solely to Tetzel. Fitrusted with the Dominicans; and they nally, Luther was never accused of

granted to the Franciscans, and the writers, who defended the cause of

guardian of the "Franciscans was joined Rome from 1517 to 1546, and who

sion, though he refused to accept it; inrectives and calumnies. See on this

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

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

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

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

In 1518, Luther, though dissuaded from it by his friends, yet, to shew his obedience to authority, went to the monastery of St. Augustine at Heidelberg/ while the chapter was held; and here maintained, April 26, a dispute concerning “justification by faith,” which Bucer, who was present, took down in writing, and afterwards communicated to Beatus Rhenanus, not without the highest commendations. Luther has given an account of this dispute, and says, that “the doctors there opposed him with such moderation and good manners, that he could not but think the better of them for it. And although the doctrine he maintained was perfectly new to them, yet they all acquitted themselves very acutely, except one of the juniors, who created much mirth and laughter by observing, that if the country peopl9 were to hear what strange positions were admitted, they would certainly stone the whole assembly.”

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

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

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

The next day, which was Oct. 12 r Luther returned to a second conference with the legate, accompanied with four counsellors of the empire, and a notary; and brought with

On the eve of his departure on your part properly, as you have altliis expedition, so hazardous to him- ways done and teach the youth irvself and so important in its conse- trusted to your care. I go, for you,

quences to the world, he wrote a short and for them, to be sacrificed if it

thon, which strongly marks the intre- to perish, and, what is more afflicting,

subject of conversation throughout the means of affording the stupid adversawhole city, and that every one wishes ries of all liberal studies an opportuto see the man who is to be the victim nily of accomplishing their purpose."

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

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

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

During all these treaties, the doctrine of Luther spread, and prevailed; and he himself received great encouragement at home and abroad. The Bohemians about this time sent him a book of the celebrated John Huss, who had fallen a martyr in the work of reformation; and also letters, in which they exhorted him to constancy and perseverance, owning, that the divinity which he taught was the pure, sound, and orthodox divinity. Many great and learned men had joined themselves to him: among the rest Philip Melancthon, whom Frederic had invited to the university of Wittemberg in August 1518, and Andrew Carolostadius, archdeacon of that town, who was a great linguist. They desired, if possible, to draw over Erasmus to their party; and to that end we find Melancthon thus expressing himself in a letter to that great man, dated Leipsic, Jan. 5, 1519: “Martin Luther, who has a very great esteem for you, wishes of all things that you would thoroughly approve of him;” and Luther himself wrote to Erasmus, in very respectful and even flattering terms. The elector of Saxony was desirous also to know Erasmus’s opinion of Luther, and might probably think, that as Erasmus had most of the monks for his enemies, and some of those who were warmest against Luther, he might easily be prevailed on to come over to their party. It would, indeed, have, been a considerable object, if they could have gained this point; for the reputation of Erasmus was so great, that if he had once declared for Luther, almost all Germany would have declared along with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before this resolution of the diet appeared, the elector of Saxony, and landgrave of Hesse, proposed to the deputies of Strasbiirji and Nuremberg, to nuke1 league in the defence of those who should follow the new doctrine, and to bring the cities of Francfort and Ulm into it; but the deputies could then give no other answer, than that they would consult their cities about it. Affairs were now in great confusion in Germany; and they were not less so in Italy; for a quarrel arose between the pope and the emperor, during which Rome was twice taken, and the pope imprisoned. While the princes were thus employed in quarrelling with each other, Luther persisted in carrying on the work of the Reformation, as well by opposing the papists, as by combating the anabaptists and other fanatical sects; which, having taken the advantage of his contest ^with the church of. Rome, had sprung up and established themselves in several places. In 1527, Luther was suddenly seized with a coagulation of the blood about the heart, which had like to have put an end to his life; but recovering from this, he was attacked a second time with a spiritual temptation, which he calls, “Colaphum Satanae, a blow of Satan.” He seemed, as he tells us, to perceive at his left ear a prodigious beating, as it were of the waves of the sea, and this not only wiihin, but also without his head; and so violent withal, that he thought every moment he was going to expire. Afterwards, when he felt it only in the inner part of his head, he grew almost senseless, was all over chilly, and not able to speak: but, recovering himself a little, he applied himself to prayer, made a confession of his faith, and lamented grievously his unworthiness of martyrdom, which he had so often and so ardently desired. In this situation, he made a will, for he had a son, and his wife was again with child, in which he recommanded his family to the care of heaven: “Lord God,” says he, “I thank thee, that thou wouldst have me poor upon earth, and a beggar. I have neither house, nor land, nor possessions, nor money, to leave. Thou hast given me a wife and children take them, I beseech thee, under thy care, and preserve them, as thou hast preserved me.” He was, however, permitted to recover from this terrible condition; but he often spoke of it afterwards to his friends as one of the severest bufferings he had ever received from Satan. Perhaps our medical readers will be disposed to consider it in a very different light.

The troubles of Germany still continuing, the emperor was forced to call a diet at Spires in 1529, to require the assistance of the princes of the empire against the Turks, who had taken Buda, and to Bud out some means of allaying the contests about religion, which increased daily. In this diet were long and violent debates, utter winch the decree of the former diet oi Spues was again agreed to, in which it was ordered, that concerning me execution of the edict of Worms, the princes of the empire should act in such a manner, as that they might give a good account of their management to God and the emperor, but, because some had taken occasion from these general terms, to maintain all sorts of new doctrines, they made a new decree in this diet, to explain that of the former; by which it was appointed, “That in those places where the edict of Worms had hitherto been observed, they should still keep to the execution of it, nil a council should be called by the emperor; that those, who had taken up new opinions, and could not be brought to quit them without the hazard of some sedition, should be quiet for the future, and not admit of any alterations till the meeting of the council; that the new doctrine about the eucharist, which had been started of late, should not be entertained; that the mass should not be left off, nor the celebration of it be hindered, even in those places where the reformed doctrine prevailed; that the anabaptists should be proscribed; that the ministers of the word of God should preach it according to the interpretation of the church, and should abstain from speaking of any other doctrines, till the council should meet; that all the provinces of the empire should live in peace, and not commit acts of hostility upon one another, under a pretence of religion; and that one prince should not protect the subjects of another.”

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

After this, the protestant princes laboured to make a firm league among themselves, and with the free cities, that they might be able to defend each other against the emperor, and the catholic princes. This league had been several times proposed before; but, after the protestation just related, they judged it necessary not to delay it any longer, and so drew up a form of it at Nuremberg. The deputies of the princes and cities being met at Swaback, the affair was there proposed; but the deputies of the elector of Saxony alledging, that since this league was made for the security of the true Christian doctrine, they ought all unanimously to agree about this doctrine; they ordered, therefore, that a summary of their doctrine, contained in several heads, should be read, that it might be received, and approved unanimously by the whole assembly. The deputies of the protestaius at the diet of Spires soon after, viz. Sept. 12, waited upon the emperor at Placentia, where he stayed a little, as he returned from his coronation at Bologna; and assured him, that “their masters had opposed the decree of that diet for no other reason, but because they foresaw it would occasion many troubles; that they implored his imperial majesty not to think ill of them, and to believe, that they would bear their part in the war against the Turks, and other charges of the empire, according to their duty; that they begged his protection, and a favourable answer to the memorial they had presented him.” The emperor, content with their submjssion, promised them an answer, when he had communicated it to his council: and Oct. 13, sent them word in writing, that “the decree of the diet seemed to prevent all innovations, and preserve the peace of the empire; that the elector of Saxony, and his allies, ought to approve of it; that he desired a council as much as they, though that would not have been necessary, if the edict of Worms had been duly executed that what had been once enacted by the major part of the members of the diet could not be disannulled by the opposition of some of them; that he had written to the elector of Saxony and others, to receive and execute the decree of the diet; and hoped they would the sooner submit to his order, because an union and peace were necessary at this time, when the Turk was in Germany.”

The deputies having received this answer, drew up an act of appeal, and caused it to be presented to the emperor; which enraged him so extremely, that he confined them to their lodgings, and forbade them to write into Germany upon pain of death. One of the deputies, who happened to be absent when this order was given, wrote immediately to the senate of Nuremberg an account of what had passed; and this was transmitted to the elector of Saxony, the landgrave of Hesse, and other confederates, who met at Smalkald in November. Here it was first of all proposed, to agree upon a confession of faith; which accordingly was prepared, and afterwards offered at the diet of Augsburg, in June 1530. The emperor would not suffer it to be read in a full diet, but only in a special assembly of the princes and other members of the empire; after which the assembly was dismissed, that they might consult what resolutions should be formed. Some thought that the edict of Worms should be put in execution; others were for referring the matter to the decision of a certain number of honest, learned, and indifferent persons; a third party were for having it confuted by the catholic divines, and the confutation to be read in a full diet before the protestants; and these prevailed. The protestants afterwards presented an apology for their confession; but the emperor would not receive it; they were, however, both made public. This confession of faith, which was afterwards called “The confession of Augsburg,” was drawn up by Melancthon, the most moderate of all Luther’s followers, as was also the apology. He revised and corrected it several times, and, as Dupin tells us, could hardly please Luther at last. Maimbourg says, however, that Luther was exceedingly pleased with it, when Melancthon sent him a copy of it; and Seckendorf allows that Luther was very glad of the opportunity which was offered of letting the world know what he and his followers taught. It was signed by the elector of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg, Ernest and Francis dukes of Brunswick and Lurtenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, the princes of Anhalt, and the deputies of the cities of Nuremberg and Retlingen.

Luther had now nothing else to do but to sit down and contemplate the mighty work he had finished; and the remainder of his life was spent in exhorting princes, states, and universities, to confirm the reformation which had been brought about through him, and in publishing from time to time such writings as might encourage, direct, and aid them. The emperor threatened temporal punishments with armies, and the pope eternal with bulls and anathemas; but Luther cared for none of their threats. His friend and coadjutor Melancthon was not so indifferent, owing to the moderation and diffidence of his temper; and hence we find many of Luther’s letters, written on purpose to comfort him under his anxieties. “I am,” says he, in one of these letters, “much weaker than you in private conflicts, if I may call those conflicts private which I have with the devil; but you are much weaker than me in public. You are all diffidence in the public cause; I, on the contrary, am very sanguine, because I am confident it is a just and a true cause, the cause of God and of Christ, which need not look pale and tremble; whereas the case is very different with me in my private conflicts, who am a very miserable sinner, and therefore have great reason to look pale and tremble. Upon this account it is, that I can be almost an indifferent spectator amidst all the noisy threats and bullyings of the papists; for if we fall, the kingdom of Christ falls with us; and, if it should fall, I had rather fall with Christ, than stand with Caesar.” So again a little farther: “You, JNlelancthon, cannot bear these disorders, and labour to have things transacted by reason, and agreeable to that spirit of calmness and moderation which your philosophy dictates. You might as well attempt to be mad with reason. Do not you see that the matter is entirely out of your power and management, and that even Christ himself forbids your measures to take place?” This letter was written in 1530.

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

In 1534 the Bible translated by him into German was first printed, as the old privilege, dated “at Bibliopolis, under the elector’s own hand, shews, and was published the year after. He also published this year a book” against masses and the consecration of priests,“in which he relates a conference he had with the devil upon those points; for it is remarkable in Luther’s whole history, that he never had any conflicts of any kind within, which he did not attribute to the personal agency of the devil. In Feb. 1537, an assembly was held at Smalkald about matters of religion, to which Luther and Melancthoii were called. At this meeting Luther was seized with so dangerous an illness, that there was no hope of his recovery. He was afflicted with the stone, and had a stoppage of urine for eleven days. In this condition he insisted on travelling, notwithstanding all his friends could do to prevent him: his resolution, however, was attended with a good effect, for the night after his departure he began to be better. As he was carried along he made his will, in which he bequeathed his detestation of popery to his friends and brethren; agreeably to what he often used to say,” Pestis cram vivus, moriens ero mors tua, papa;“that is,” I was the plague of popery in my life, and shall be its destruction in my death."

This year the court of Rome, finding it impossible to deal with the protestants by force, began to have recourse to stratagem. They affected therefore to think, that though Luther had indeed carried things to a violent extreme, yet what he had pleaded in defence of these measures was not entirely without foundation. They talked with a seeming shew of moderation; and Pius 111. who succeeded Clement VII. proposed a reformation first among themselves, and even went so far as to fix a place for a council to meet at for that purpose. But Luther treated this farce as it deserved to be treated; unmasked and detected it immediately; and, to ridicule it the more strongly, caused a picture to be drawn, in which was represented the pope seated on high upon a throne, some cardinals about him with fox’s tails, and seeming to evacuate upwards and downwards, “sursum deorsum repurgare,” as Melchior Adam expresses it. This was fixed against the title-page, to let the readers see at once the scope and design of the book which was, to expose that cunning and artifice with which those subtle politicians affected to cleanse and purify themselves from their errors and superstitions. Luther published about the same time “A Confutation of the pretended grant of Constanline to Sylvester bishop of Rome,” and also “Some letters of John Huss,” written from his prison at Constance to the Bohemians.