to the bottom, while others afcend to the top, on account of fome air bubbles, confined in the curdled matter, which, on breaking at the furface, fall directly to the bottom; but if the air is not discharged, the curd will be fufpended thereby, and form a kind of fcum; if the fining is good, and the beer in proper condition to receive it, that part in the middle of the glafs will become of a blackish transparent hue in a short time, and if prudently drawn off by a fyphon, will be found very bright; in twenty-four hours the fining will fettle pretty close to the bottom, and very little remain at top, unless the beer be in a fretting ftate; in which cafe the fining will be carried tumultuously up to the surface, by means of the vast number of air bubbles perpetually generating and afcending in all fermenting fluids; but as foon as that action is over, the fining will fall to the bottom, and produce its proper effect, especially if a small addition be flightly ftirred in at the furface the next day, with caution not to disturb what is already fubfided; thus it is evident, that at the very inftant that fining is commixed with beer to be clarified, the ftale beer, in which the Ifinglafs was diffolved, or divided,. quits the fibres, and unites with the body of the beer; while at the fame time the fibres, now fet loose, and every where interspersed in the beer, attract and unite with the loofe feculent particles, which, before this union, being of the fame specific gravity with the beer, could not poffibly fubfide alone, but by this reciprocal attraction having obtained an additional weight, are now rendered proportionably heavier, and precipitate together of course in form of the curdly magma juft mentioned.' The above phenomena, we apprehend, are not to be explained from any mechanical confideration of the fibrous texture of Ifinglafs, but manifeftly point out what the chemists call an ELEC

TIVE ATTRACTION.

Where the beer is fpecifically heavier than the fining, the fining rifes and floats at the furface, fays our Author: but where the beer and the fining are of the fame specific gravity, they remain united, the feculencies do not fubfide, and the beer is then faid to be flubborn.-Stubbornness, however, we imagine, does not fo much depend upon a fameness as to the specific gravities, as upon fome fault either in the beer or the fining, by which the elective attraction is prevented taking place. When beer is ftubborn, Mr. Jackfon recommends a particular attention to experiments made with his proof-glasses: thefe, he says, are made of the best glafs, and contain about two quarts each, with a mouth about one inch and half, and bottom three inches diameter; their form is pyramidal, the better to prevent the fining from adhering to the fides, and examine the colour of beer under different denfities,

Thus, if we want to know the condition of different guyles or butts of beer, a glafs muft be appointed to every butt, which must be marked or numbered; each glafs muft be filled two thirds full, or more, with the refpective beers placed in a good light, and the tafte, colour, and fretting difpofition firft examined; then having a little good fining ready whifked up in a bason, as before directed, put into cach glass a common spoonful by meafure, with the ufual precautions; 'twift a little paper over each g'afs, and let them ftand quiet; in a fhort time a perfon of tolerable difcernment will perceive what beer, according to the common phrafe, fal's kindly, or turns out ftubborn, proves cloudy or fretting, high or low coloured, &c. he will likewife perceive what quantity of fining is neceffary for one fort more than another, the difference of time in becoming bright, and furnish himfelf with the moft eligible methods of redreffing general defecis; and thus, by experiments in the fmall way, he will be enabled to form right prognoftics, and may fafely proceed to the large; for whatever phænomena, occur in the glafs, will turn out exactly the fame in the butt, due regard being had to difference in proportion.'-Our Author would have performed a very acceptable fervice to the brewer, had he pointed out the particular means and management, neceflary to remedy cach particular fault.

Mr. Jackfon has precluded any obfervations on his language or manner of philofophifing. The preffing folicitations, fays he, of fome friends, and the urgent neceflity of publication at this juncture, I flatter myfelf, will apologize for fome inaccuracies, &c.'-We cannot enter into any detail of our Author's hints on malting, brewing, fermenting, &c. but recommend his eflay to the perufal of thofe who are interested in thefe fubjects.

Conclufion of the Account of Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Seç our Review for October, p. 330.

H

'AVING, in two preceeding articles, endeavoured to give fome idea of the first volume of this excellent work, we shall now conclude our account of it, by laying before our Readers fome extracts from the fecond volume, which is introduced with a history of the Reformation. This hiftory is divided into four parts: the fift contains an account of the state of Chriftianity before the commencement of the Reformation; the fecond comprehends the hiftory of the Reformation from its first beginnings until the date of the confeffion drawn up at Augfburg; the third exhibits

a view

a view of the fame hiftory, from this latter period to the commencement of the war of Smalcald; and the fourth carries it down to the peace that was entered into with the abettors of the Reformation, in the year 1555.

The view which Dr. Mofheim gives of this glorious revolution in the fate of Chriftianity, to which we are indebted for many ineftimable advantages, though fhort, is clear and distinct, and contains many just and pertinent obfervations. He introduces it in the following manner:

While the Roman pontif flumbered in fecurity at the head of the church, and faw nothing throughout the vaft extent of his dominion but tranquillity and fubmiffion, and while the worthy and pious profeffors of genuine Chriftianity almoft defpaired of fecing that reformation on which their most ardent defires and expectations were bent, an obfcure and inconfiderable perfon arofe, on a fudden, in the year 1517, and laid the foundation of this long-expected change, by oppofing, with undaunted refolution, his fingle force to the torrent of papal ambition and defpotifm. This extraordinary man was Martin Luther, a native of Aileben in Saxony, a monk of the Auguftinian Eremites, who were one of the Mendicant orders, and, at the fame time, profeffor of divinity in the academy that had been erected at Wittemberg, a few years before this period, by Frederick the Wife. The papal chair was, at this time, filled by Leo X; Maximilian I, a prince of the house of Auftria, was king of the Romans, and emperor of Germany; and Frederick, already mentioned, elector of Saxony. The bold efforts of this new adverfary of the pontifs were honoured with the applauses of many, but few or none entertained hopes of their fuccefs. It feemed fcarcely poffible that this puny David could hurt a Goliah, whom fo many heroes had oppofed in vain.

None of the qualities or talents that diftinguished Luther were of a common or ordinary kind. His genius was truly great and unparalleled; his memory vaft and tenacious; his patience in fupporting trials, difficulties, and labour, incredible; his magnanimity invincible and independent on the viciffitudes of human affairs; and his learning moft extenfive, confidering the age in which he lived. All this will be acknowledged even by his enemies, at leaft by fuch of them as are not totally blinded by a fpirit of partiality and faction. He was deeply verfed in the theology and philofophy that were in vogue in the fchools during this century, and he taught them both with the greateft reputation and fuccefs in the academy of Wittemberg. As a philofopher, he embraced the doctrine of the Nominalists, which was the fyftem adopted by his order; while, in divinity, he followed chiefly the fentiments of Auguftin; but in both he preferred the decifions of fcripture and the dictates of right reafon

Ff4

before

before the authority and opinions of fallible men. It would he equally rafh and abfurd to reprefent this great man as exempt from error and free from infirmities and defects; yet, if we except the contagious effects of the age in which he lived, and of the religion in which he had been brought up, we fhall, perhaps, find but a few things in his character that render him liable to reproach [m].'

Dr. Mofheim has taken no notice of the calumnies invented and propagated by fome late authors, in order to make Luther's zealous oppofition to the publication of indulgences appear to be the effect of felfish and ignoble motives. His ingenious Translator, however, has, in a very judicious manner, fet this matter in a true light; not that the caufe of the Reformation, he says, (which muft ftand by its own intrinfic dignity, and is, in no way, affected by the views or characters of its inftruments) can derive any frength from this enquiry, but as it may tend to vin dicate the perional character of a man, who has done eminent fervice to the caufe of religion.

Mr. Hume, fays Mr. Maclaine, in his Hiftory of the Reiga of Henry VIII. has thought proper to repeat what the enemies of the Reformation, and fome of its dubious or ill-informed friends, have advanced with refpect to the motives that engaged Luther to oppose the doctrine of indulgences. This elegant and perfuafive hiftorian tells us, that the Austin friars had ufually been employed in Sexony to preach indulgences, and from this truft had derived both profit and confideration; that Arcimboldi gave this accupation to the Dominicans; that Martin Luther, an Austin friar, profeffor in the university of Wittemberg, refenting the affront put upon his Order, began to preach against the abuses that were com mitted in the fale of indulgences, and, being provoked by opposition, proceeded even to decry indulgences themselves t. It were to be wifhed, that Mr. Hume's candor had engaged him to examine this accufation better, before he had determined to repeat it, For, in the first place, it is not true, that the Austin friars had been ufually employed in Saxony to preach indulgences. It is well known, that that commiffion had been offered alternately, and fometimes jointly to all the Mendicants, whether Auftin friars, Dominicans, Francifcans, or Carmelites. Nay, from the year 1229, that lucrative commiffion was principally intrusted with

[m] The writers, who have given any circumftantial account of Luther, and his tranfactions, are accurately enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fa bricius, in his Centifolium Lutheranum, the first part of which was pub lifhed at Hamburg in the year 1728, and the fecond in 1730, in 8vo.' • Hume's Hillory of England, under the House of Tudor, vol. i.

119.

+ Id. Ib.

P. 120.

the

the Dominicans; and in the records, which relate to indulgences, we rarely mect with the name of an Austin friar, and not one fingle act by which it appears that the Roman pontif ever named the friars of that order to the office under confideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that, for half a century before Luther (i..e. from 1450 to 1517) during which periods indulgences were fold with the moft fcandalous marks of avaritious extortion and impudence, we scarcely meet with the name of an Auftin friar employed in that fervice; if we except a monk, named Palzius, who was no more than an underling of the papal queftor Raymond Peraldus; fo far is it from being true, that the Auguftine order were exclufively, or even ufually, employed in that fervice +. Mr. Hume has built his affertion upon the fole authority of a fingle expreffion of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly refuted by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Gravefon, the mortal enemies of Luther. But it may be alledged, that, even fuppofing it was not ufual to employ the Auguftin friars alone in the propagation of indulgences, yet Luther might be offended at feeing fuch an important commiffion given to the Dominicans exclufively, and that, confequently, this was his motive in oppofing the propagation of indulgences. To fhew the injuftice of this allegation, I observe,

Secondly, That in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences was become fuch an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far from being probable, that Luther would have been follicitous about obtaining fuch a commiffion either for himself or for his order. The princes of Europe, with many bishops, and multitudes of learned and pious men, had opened their eyes upon the turpitude of this infamous traffic; and even the Francifcans and Dominicans, towards the conclufion of the fifteenth century, oppofed it publicly, both in their difcourfes and in their writings 1. Nay more, the very commiffion which is fuppofed to have excited the envy of Luther, was offered by Leo to the general of the Francifcans, and was refufed both by him and his order, who gave it over entirely to Albert bishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. Is it then to be imagined, that either Luther or the other Auftin friars afpired after a commiffion of which the Francifcans were afhamed? Befides, it is a mistake to affirm, that this office was given to the Dominicans in general;

..See Weifmanni Memorabilia Hiftoriæ Sacræ N. T. p. 1051, 1115.

Happii Differtat. de Nonnullis Indulgentiarum, Sæc. xiv. et xv. Quæftoribus, p. 384. 387.

I See Walch. Opp. Luther, tom. xv. p. 114. 283. 212. 349.Seckendorf. Hift. Lutheranifmi, lib. i. Sect. vi. p. 13.

Walch, loc. cit. p. 371.