Scriptures, man may be translated from hence without passing through Death, although the Human Nature of Christ himself could not thus be translated till he had passed through Death.” The publication of this work excited so much indignation against the writer that he was expelled from the Irish House of Commons, after having held his seat but four days. He subsequently obtained a seat in the British Parliament, and having been arrested for debt, some members who considered themselves disgraced by the circumstance, made his book an excuse for expelling him a second time.

Perhaps as strange and original a notion as ever entered the head of man, was that started by John Hardouin, a learned French Jesuit, respecting the authenticity of the writings of the ancients. In his "Chronologiæ ex nummis antiquis, restitutae, specimen primum," 2 to., Paris, 1696, he supports the hypothesis, that almost all the writings which bear the names of the Greek and Roman poets and historians, are the spurious productions of the 13th century. He excepts, however, Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, and Pliny, as well as the satires and epistles of Horace and the Georgics of Virgil, but contends that the two latter are allegorical writers, who had, under the names of Lalage and Encas, represented the Christian religion and the life of its founder. His clerical superiors thought proper to call upon him for a public recantation of his errors, and they proscribed and condemned his book.

An idea of the state of Medical Science in the reign of Edward the Second, may be formed from a perusal of the "Rosa Anglica" of John of Gateseten, who was Physician to that King. In this he states that he cured one of the Royal children of the Small Pox by wrapping him in scarlet cloth, and hanging scarlet curtains round the bed. The work abounds with superstitious absurdities, and yet it appears that the author was acquainted with the process of rendering salt water fresh by distillation.

If the contents of a book were always equal to the title, the "Examen de ingenios para las scienzias," of John Huarte, (known as the "Tryal of wits of Carew and Bellamy) would be invaluable to parents and directors of youth. It professes to be "An examination of such geniuses as are born fit for acquiring the science, wherein by marvellous and useful secrets, drawn from true philosophy, both natural and divine, are

shewn the gifts and different abilities found in man, and for what kind of study the genius of every man is adapted, in such a manner that whoever shall read this book attentively will discover the properties of his own genius, and be able to make choice of that science in which he will make the greatest improvement." To render the value of his work inestimable the author prescribes the formalities to be observed by those who would wish to have children of a virtuous turn of mind, or of either sex this, however, is but the theory of Aristotle. Huarte also published, as authentic, a pretended letter of Lentulus, the proconsul, from Jerusalem, in which a particular description is given of the person of our Saviour. Our readers have doubtless frequently seen a portrait answering the description given in this letter, and with the letter itself appended, exposed for sale in shop windows, and purchased eagerly by old and young. We have often thought what reception any attempt to impeach the genuineness of the inscription would meet with from those persons, and remembering moreover the happiness of being well deceived, have forborne the task.

Gaspar Tagliacozzi, immortalised in Hudibras by the latinized name of Taliacotius, was an Italian surgeon, born at Bologna in 1516; he applied himself chiefly to curing wounds of the ears, lips and nose, and published a curious work entitled, "De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem additis cutis traducis, Instrumentorum omnium atque deligatiorum Iconibus et tabulis," lib II. fol. Venice, 1597. He is said to have practised the operation in question, of cutting out a portion of skin and flesh from the upper part of the arm, applying it to the raw skin of the face over the place of the nose, and keeping it in that position by ligatures till the parts were properly united. The piece must then have been entirely separated from the arm, which till then had been kept in contact with the face. The more modern plan consists of dissecting a part of the integuments of the forehead, and bringing it down to the proper place, where it is confined till adhesion takes place.* The study of medicine is suggestive of many curious and interesting enquiries; while the knowledge which it imparts of the human frame, and of the mysterious connexion of soul with body, produces in men of a sober and contemplative turn, habits of deep thought and religious tendency; it frequently, on the other hand, is the cause of misleading and daz

See post, p. 300, "Strange Cure for a Cut Off Nose,"

zling men of sceptical turn of mind, and of leading them to view every thing with material eyes.

This is well illustrated in the case of Bernard Connor, an Irish physician born in the county Kerry in 1666, and who obtained the appointment of Physician to the King of Poland. His extraordinary work is entitled "Evangelium Medicii vel Medicina Mystica De suspensis naturae legibus sive Miraculis reliquisque vous Bißis memoratis, quæ medicinae indagini subjici possunt, ubi perpensis prius corporum natura sano et morboso corporis humani statu, nec non motus legibus, rerum status super naturam, præcipuæ qui corpus humanum et animam spectant, juxta medicinæ principia explicantur. A Bernard Connor, medicus doctor eregia societate Londinensi etc." Londini sumptibus bibliopolaruin Richardi Wellington, etc, etc. M.DC.XC.VII., and is devoted to an attempt to prove that certain miracles related in Scripture can be traced to natural causes. It is curious to find in the beginning of the book a permission to print it, granted by the London censors, Thomas Millington, Thomas Burwel, Richard Torless, William Dawes, and Thomas Gill. Certainly in the year 1697 England had no great reason to boast of the liberty of the press.

O'Connor commences his book with a mistake. He expresses his opinion that an explanation and reference to natural causes of those miracles relative to the human frame related in Scripture, would have a powerful effect in converting sceptics and deists, by reconciling reason with the doctrine of miracles; but he does not see that, on the contrary, nothing could be more opposed to such results than success in his demonstration, which would only shew that miracles are not in fact miracles. The work is nevertheless learned and ingenious, and excited about the time of its appearance considerable comment and discussion.

It would be a matter of no small surprise to many, to learn what fruitful source of contention, the question of the existence of witchcraft formed some 250 years ago, and perhaps more, to learn that those who denied its existence were greatly in the minority, and were looked upon as impious and daring sceptics. Meric Casaubon is the author of a work entitled "A treatise proving spirits, witches, and supernatural operations," which one would be inclined to suppose, was intended by him rather as a compliment to the opinion of his patron, James

the First, than as an expression of his own opinions, from the fact that he was also the writer of "A treatise concerning enthusiasm, as it is an effect of nature," a work approved by Sir William Temple, who regarded it as a happy attempt to account for delusions upon natural principles.

One of the latest defenders of witchcraft was Joseph Glanville, who died in 1680, who was the author of an elaborate and credulous work entitled "Some philosophical considerations touching the being of witches and witchcraft." almost incredible, that the same man who produced this weak and narrow treatise, should at the time, be one of the warmest defenders of the philosophy of Bacon, against that of Aristotle, defended by Stubbe.

John Wierus, born in the Duchy of Brabant in 1555, and Physician to the Duke of Cleves, maintained in his "De prestigiis et Incantationibus," that persons accused of witchcraft were hypochondriacs; and Reginald Scott, a learned Englishman of the 16th century, undertook their defence in the work which is now known as "Scott's discovery of witchcraft," proving the common opinion of witches contracting with devils, spirits, familiars, &c., to be but imaginary erroneous conceptions and novelties, with a treatise on the nature of spirits, devils, &c. In the preface he declares that his views are "to prevent the abasement of God's glory, the rescue of the gospel from an alliance with such peevish trumpery, and to advocate favour and christian compassion towards the poor souls accused of witchcraft, rather than rigour and extremity.'

It was against what he himself calls "the damnable opinion of Wierus and Scott," that King James the First wrote his "Demonologie," printed at Edinburgh in 1597.

The history of the principal attempts which have been made. at imposture in literary matters, is tolerably well known to most readers. The amount of genius, industry, and ingenuity expended in the elaboration of those deceptions is indeed wonderful, and makes our regret for their ill direction proportionably greater.

The Rowley poems of Chatterton; the Shakspere forgeries of Ireland, and the less decided imposition of Macpherson's Ossian are known to every reader. The positive injury inflicted by these, and such as these, is after all inconsiderable, and the indignation excited in those, whose vanity and self-esteem were wounded by the discovery by others, of impostures which

had escaped their own research, was the chief agent in raising the storm of rage and obloquy which overwhelmed the authors.

The unworthy means by which, about the year 1750, a Mr. William Lauder attempted to detract from the poetical candor and originality of Milton, give however, to his case, a very different complexion. Lauder was a native of Scotland, and having been disappointed in obtaining a professorship in Edinburgh removed to London, and began his career as author. In the year 1747, he published, in The Gentleman's Magazine, an "Essay on Milton's use and imitation of the moderns," in which he attempted to prove that Milton had largely borrowed from some modern Latin poets in the composition of Paradise Lost.

Several answers were attempted in the Magazine, but none of them succeeded in vindicating the character of the Poet; and Lauder, encouraged by his success, proceeded to republish his essay in a separate form. In the preface to this essay he says, "I have ventured to publish the following observations on Milton's imitation of the Moderns, having lately fallen on four or five moderu authors in Latin verse, which I have reason to believe Milton consulted in composing his 'Paradise Lost.' The novelty of the subject will entitle me to the favor of the reader, since I in no way intend unjustly to derogate from the real merit of the writer." The first author alluded to was Jacobus Massenius. He was professor of Rhetoric in the Jesuits' College at Cologue, about 1650, and he wrote "Sarcotis" in five books, which," said Lauder, "is not so much a complete model as a rough draft of an epic poem. Milton follows this author tolerably closely through the first two books. In it Adam and Eve are described under the single name of sarcothea or human nature, whose antagonist, the infernal serpent, is called Lucifer. The infernal council or Pandemonium, Lucifer's habits, and the fights of the angels, are too obvious not to have been noticed. Milton's exordium appears to have been almost directly taken from Massenius and Ramsay."

The charge made by Lauder against Milton amounted in fact to this, that he had borrowed the plan, and in many parts particular passages from other authors; and to the refutation of this charge, soon after the appearance in a separate form of Lauder's Essay, Dr. Douglas, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, applied himself with complete success. In a published letter