and Froben, and the sons of Ammerbach, who were Hebrew scholars, his time was very pleasantly spent. He also became acquainted with Beatus Rhenanus, Oecolampadius, Berus, and the Bishop of Basle, who used every effort to induce him to remain there.

On his return to Brussels, he was urged to accompany King Charles to Spain, but could not be prevailed upon. Soon after, he received a pressing invitation to reside at Paris, which was communicated to him by Budaeus from Francis I. himself. This offer,though he gave no positive refusal, he did not accept. His roving habits had become so fixed, that he was now unwilling to accept of any offer, which would lay him under obligations to forego the capricious independence which was his delight. From the same motive he declined repeated invitations to reside in different countries, and among the rest, an application from the Duke of Bavaria, who wished to give respectability to his new university at Ingolstadt, by the name and influence of so great a man, and who, with this view, offered him two hundred ducats yearly, without requiring any other service in return, than residence at Ingolstadt. The five years intervening between 1516 and 1521, he appears to have passed in constant motion, sometimes in Flanders, sometimes in England, and seldom many months successively in either. Our author mentions here, the impossibility of tracing the movements of Erasmus accurately, by the dates and contents of his letters; it being notorious, that in his printed correspondence the dates are often falsified, and the epistles mutilated. During the period in question, his external circumstances were more comfortable than at any former time. He mentions incidentally, himself, that he enjoyed a constant income of three hundred ducats, besides the benefactions of his patrons, and occasional supplies from other sources. During the same period, he published his Querela Pacis, and began his edition of

the Works of Jerome, which he dedicated to Archbishop Warham.

The last of the three sections, into which the work before us is divided, contains a view of the relations which Erasmus bore to the Reformation. On a subject so familiar as the origin of that great revolution, detail must be unnecessary. Our author has rendered this part of the subject interesting by inserting facts and extracts, which exhibit in a clearer light the sentiments and feelings of Luther and Erasmus towards each other, at an early period. It appears, that the latter took no notice for some time, of the dispute about indulgences, regarding it as nothing more than one of those dissentions, which were constantly arising in the bosom of the church. The Reformer on the contrary, had watched Erasmus, keenly, and with great anxiety, and in his letters had expressed opinions in relation to his character, evincing great sagacity, and fully verified by subsequent events. While he gave him all due praise for classical learning, eloquence, and wit, he appeared to doubt the soundness and firmness of his principles; and although he coincided with him in opinion, respecting the abuses and corruptions in the church, which Erasmus had exposed, he disapproved in toto of the unbecoming levity with which the latter had described and ridiculed them.

When the dispute with Tetzel grew more serious, and threatened to produce momentous consequences, the attention of Erasmus was attracted to the subject, and he seems to have regarded it with lively interest. Our author here suggests a supposition, which we think affords a satisfactory solution of the fickle and capricious conduct of Erasmus during this eventful period. It is, that he at first imagined Luther to be just such another as himself, a reformer in the same sense, and with the same design; that is, a zealot in the cause of learning, and an enemy to superstition for the sake of learning. Under this impression, he appears to

have applauded the first movements of the reformation, as a mere continuation of his own proceedings; for it must be owned, that the exposure of the gross abuses which existed in the Romish church, was made in the first instance by Erasmus, though with motives very different from those which subsequently governed the Reformers. When at length he discovered his mistake, and was aware, that Luther acted upon principles and with intentions wholly diverse from his own, and that he was engaged in an enterprize which if unsuccessful, must be ruinous, he instantly drew back. The interests of religion manifestly had no place among his motives, or at least no influence upon his conduct. He acknowledges himself that he, at one time, was opposed to Luther, because he thought his movements were inimical to learning a sufficient explanation of his whole history. For our own part, we believe, that there is not on record an instance of more deep and exclusive devotion to an object, than that of Erasmus, to the interests of Greek and Roman learning. We need not go back to his early life, for proof of the assertion. All his motions seem to have been regulated by a reference to this ruling passion. Such, indeed, was the intensity with which he clung to his favourite pursuits, that although he changed his residence so often, and enjoyed such opportunities of intercourse with different nations, he actually lived and died in ignorance of the English, French, German, and Italian languages. In fact, if we leave out this circumstance, his history is an enigma, and his character a riddle. It is not surprising, therefore, that when consistency and conscience, came into contact with the god of his idolatry, he chose to sacrifice the former, as he did, when he endeavoured to retract his first opinions, and entered the arena of religious controversy, as the antagonist of Luther. But it was too late. The treatise on free-will which he composed, (in compliance with the wish repeatedly expressed by the Pope, the King of England, and innumera

ble friends, that he would write against the heretics,) not only drew upon him a tremendous castigation from the hand of Luther, but actually exasperated the resentment and suspicion of those whom it was intended to conciliate. Do what he would, he never could persuade the monks and common people that he was not an accomplice of the reformers. He was denounced from the pulpit and the press, and held up to execration, even in his presence. His early writings could not be forgotten. It grew into a proverb, that Erasmus laid the egg, and Luther hatched it, and he had the mortification to hear prayers put up for the conversion of Luther and Erasmus, the persecutors of the church. At the same time the reformed regarded him as a temporizing hypocrite, a very Gallio, who cared not for these things. Rejected, thus, by both parties, he would have sunk into insignificance, but for a reputation independent of religious controversy. For it is a curious fact, that amidst the very heat of this contention, while Luther was heaping him with coarse, but just reproach, on one hand, and the Sorbonne were burning his productions on the other, he continued to receive most pressing invitations and attractive offers, from the Emperor, the King of England, and the Pope himself!

In 1521, he had removed to Basle, where he continued to reside, with occasional interruptions, till 1529, when the magistrates and people of that city made a public renunciaation of popery. On this event, Erasmus found himself compelled to change his residence; not that he apprehended violent or unkind treatment on the part of the inhabitants, but because he thought that his remaining there would be construed into an adhesion to the new opinions. He accordingly removed to Friburg, where he was received with great distinction-and lodged in a palace built for Maximilian, and once occupied by the Archduke Ferdinand. He had in view, at first, nothing more than a temporary stay, but was so well pleased with the city and the people,

and felt himself so weakened by disease and age, that he bought a house and took up his abode there.

Our author gives detailed accounts of several disputes, in which Erasmus was involved during his residence at Basle, of which we shall only say, that he owed them all to his disingenuous and timid policy of siding with the strongest, and that they all resulted in a partial diminution of his dignity and influence. His principal literary labours during the same period, were, his edition of the works of Hilary, and his celebrated Colloquies; afterwards condemned by the Sorbonne and the Inquisition.

At Friburg, he continued to dispute, and write, and pub- . fish, as at Basle, without ceasing. His most important publications at this period, were editions of the Fathers and the classics, with introductions, notes, and a correct text. Each of these he inscribed to some distinguished man, and seldom failed to receive a handsome present in exchange. This was, indeed, an honour which the great men of the day prized extravagantly high, as a passport to immortal fame. In the mean time, Erasmus still maintained a correspondence with the crowned heads and learned men of Europe, some of whom testified their friendship in a way more substantial than mere letter-writing. But while thus receiving honour at the hands of Kings, he once more sacrificed his peace and dignity by entering the lists with Luther, in reply to a letter of the latter, printed probably without his knowledge, and containing much severe reproach upon Erasmus. From this affair neither party reaped much honour, and Erasmus certainly deserved none.

In 1535, he yielded to the importunities of his imperial patrons, and agreed to visit Flanders; but first paid a visit to Basle for the purpose of saluting his old friends, and of putting to press, his Ecclesiastes, then just finished. He was detained, however in that city, a whole winter, by ill health, after which he never left it. While at Basle, he re