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

, son of the preceding, was born in 1729 at Stratford in Essex, where his father, the subject of the preceding article, practised as a physician. He had a liberal classical education at Cambridge; but being by principle a nonjuror, from his father, he could not be matriculated, nor take any degree at that university. He afterwards studied medicine in London and in Leyden; and from the unive sity in the latter city he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine. Upon settling in London he entered as licentiate of the college of physicians; and in 1768 he was elected a fellow of that body. He was for some time physician both to St. George’s hospital, and to the Westminster infirmary. As a practitioner he became so eminent, that when the duke of Gloucester fell dangerously ill in Italy, he was requested to go abroad to attend the health of that prince; and on this occasion his conduct gave so much satisfaction that he was called abroad ii second time to visit the same prince, on a future illness, in 1777. About this time he was made physician-extraordinary to the king; and in 1780 was appointed physician in ordinary to the prince of Wales. He not only held these offices about the royal family, but was for several years one of the physicians chiefly employed by them. Upon the death of sir Edward Wilmot, in 1786, he was appointed one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty; but this office he did not enjoy many months; for, being in attendance on two of the princesses, who were affected with the measles, he was suddenly attacked with a fever in their apartments at Windsor, and fell a victim to the disease, after a few days illness, on the 4th day of July, 1787, in the 58th year of his age.

Leland, Bale, and Pits inform us, that Walter Mapreus, or Mapes, alias Calenius, who was at this time archdeacon of Oxford, and of whom Henry of Huntingdon, and other historians, as well as Jeffery himself, make honourable mention, as a man very curious in the study of antiquity, and a diligent searcher into ancient libraries, and especially after the works of ancient authors, happened while he was in Armorica to meet with a history of Britain, written in the British tongue, and carrying marks of great antiquity. Being overjoyed at his discovery, he in a short time came over to England, where inquiring for a proper person to translate this curious but hitherto unknown book, he very opportunely met with Jeffery of Monmouth, a man profoundly versed in the history and antiquities of Britain, excellently skilled in the British tongue, and besides (considering the time) an elegant writer, both in verse and prose; and to him he recommended the task. Jeffery accordingly undertook to translate it into Latin; which he performed with great diligence, approving himself, according to Matthew Paris, a faithful translator. At first he divided it into four books, written in a plain simple style, a copy of which is said to be at Bene't-college, Cambridge, which was never yet published; but afterwards made some alterations, and divided it into eight books, to which he added the book of “Merlin’s Prophecies,” which he had also translated from British verse into Latin prose. A great many fabulous and trifling stories are inserted in the history, upon which account Jeffery’s integrity has been called in question and many authors, Polydore Vevgil, Buchanan, and some others, treat the whole as fiction and forgery. On the other hand, he is defended by very learned men, such as Usher, Leland, Sheringham, sir John Rice, and many more. His advocates do not deny, that there are several absurd and incredible stories inserted in this book; but, as he translated or borrowed them from others, the truth of the history ought not to be rejected in the gross, though the credulity of the historian may deserve censure. Canulen alleges, that his relation of Brutus, and his successors in those ancient times, ought to be entirely disregarded, and would have our history commence with Caesar’s attempt upon the island, which advice has since been followed by the generality of our historians. But Milton pursues the old beaten tract, and alleges thai we cannot be easily discharged of Brutus and his line, with the whole progeny of kings to the entrance of Julius Ca-sar; since it is a story supported by descents of ancestry, and long continued laws and exploits, which have no appearance of being borrowed or devised. Cainden, indeed, would insinuate, that the name of Brutus was unknown to the ancient Britons, and that Jeffery was the first person who feigned him founder of their race. But Henry of Huntingdon had published, in the beginning of his history, a short account of Brutus, and made the Britons the descendants of the Trojans, before he knew any thing of Jeffery’s British history: and he professes to have had this account from various authors. Sigibertus Gemblacensis, a French author, somewhat more early than Jeffery, or Henry of Huntingdon (for he died, according to Beilarmine, in 1112) gives an account of the passage of Brutus, grandson of Ascanius, from Greece to Albion, at the head of the exiled Trojans and teljs us, that he called the people and country after his own name, and at last left three sons to succeed him, after he had reigned twentyfour years. Hence he passes summarily over the affairs of the Britons, agreeably to the British history, till they were driven into Wales by the Saxons.

The controversy, says Mr. Coxe, in his “Tour in Monmouthshire,” is at length finally decided, and the best Welsh critics allow, that Jeffery’s work was a vitiated translation of the History of the British Kings, written by Tyssilio, or St. Talian, bishop of St. Asaph, who flourished in the seventh century. Jeffery in his work omitted many parts, made considerable alterations, additions, and interpolations, latinised mariy of the British appellations, and in the opinion of a learned Welshman , murdered Tyssilio we may therefore conclude, that Jeffery ought to be no more cited as historical authority than Amadis de Gaul, or the Seven Champions of Christendom. But, says the same judicious author, whatever opinion may be entertained in regard to its authenticity, Jetfery’s British History forms a new epoch in the literature of this country; and next to the history, of Charlemagne, by Turpin, probably written in the eleventh Century, was the first production which introduced that species of composition called romance.

On the bench, judge Jeffreys talked fluently, and with spirit; but his weakness was, that he could not reprehend without scolding, and in the very lowest language. He called it “giving a lick with the rough side of his tongue.” It was ordinary to hear him say,-“Go, you are a filthy, lousy, nitty rascal;” with much more of like elegance. He took a pleasure iir mortifying fraudulent attorneys. His voice and visage made him a terror to real offenders, and formidable indeed to all. A scrivener of Wapping having a cause before him, one of the opponent’s counsel said, “that he was a strange fellow, and sometimes went io church, sometimes to conventicles and none could tell what to make of him, and it was thought that he was a Trimmer.” At that the chancellor fired. “A Trimmer!” said he, “I have heard much of that monster, but never saw one; come forth, Mr. Trimmer, and let me' see your shape:” and he treated the poor fellow so roughly, that, when he came out of the hall, he declared “he would not undergo the terrors of that man’s face again to save his life; and he should certainly retain the frightful impressions of it as long as he lived.”

, an English poet, born in 1678, was the son of Christopher Jeffreys, esq. of Weldron in Northamptonshire, and nephew to James the eighth lord Chandos. He was educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1694, where he took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1701, and presided in the philosophyschools as moderator in 1706. He was also sub-orator for. Dr. Ayloffe, and not going into orders within eight years, as the statutes of that college required, he quitted his fellowship in 1709. Though Mr. Jeffreys was called to the bar, he never practised the law, but, after acting as secretary to Dr. Hartstronge bishop of Derry, at the latter end of queen Anne’s and the beginning of George the First’s reign, spent most of the remainder of his life in the families of the two last dukes of Chandos, his relations. In 1754 he published, by subscription, a 4to volume of “Miscellanies, in verse and prose,” among which are two tragedies, “Edwin,” and “Merope,” both acted at the theatre-royal in Lincoln’s- inn- fields, and “The Triumph of Truth,” an oratorio. “This collection,” as the author observes in his dedication to the late duke of Chandos, then marquis of Carnarvon, “includes an uncommon length of time, from the verses on the duke of Gloucester’s death in 1700, to those on his lordship’s marriage in 1753.” Mr. Jeffreys died in 1755, aged seventy-seven. In sir John Hawkins’s “History of Music,” his grandfather, George, is recorded as Charles the First’s organist at Oxford, in 1643, and servant to lord Hatton in Northamptonshire, where he had lands of his own; and also his father, Christopher, of Weldron in Northamptonshire, as “a student of Christ church, who played well on the organ.” The anonvmous verses prefixed to “Cato,” were by this gentleman, which Addison never knew. The alterations in the Odes in the “Select Collection” are from the author’s corrected copy.

, a learned English divine, son of Thomas Jenkin, gent, of Minster in the Isle of Thanet, was born Jan. 1656, and bred at the King’s school at Canterbury. He entered as sizar at St. John’s college, Cambridge, March 12, 1674, under the tuition of Mr. Francis Roper; became a fellow of that society March 30, 1680; decessit 1691 became master in April 1711; and held also the office of lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. Dr. Lake being translated from the see of Bristol to that of Chichester, in 1685, made him his chaplain, and collated him to the precentorship of that church, 1688. Refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, he quitted that preferment, and retired to his fellowship, which was not subject then to those conditions, unless the bishop of Ely, the visitor, insisted on it; and the bishop was, by the college statutes, not to visit unless called in by a majority of the fellows. By these means he and many others kept their fellowships. Retiring to the college, he prosecuted his studies without interruption, the fruits of which he gave to the public in several treatises which were much esteemed. Upon the accession of George I. an act was passed, obliging all who held any post of 5l. a-year to take the oaths, by which Dr. Jenkin was obliged to eject those fellows who would not comply, which gave him no small uneasiness and he sunk by degrees into imbecility. In this condition he removed to his elder brother’s house at South Rungton, in Norfolk, where he died April 7, 1727, in his seventieth year; and was buried, with his wife Susannah, (daughter of William Hatfield, esq. alderman and merchant of Lynne, who died 1713, aged forty-six), his son Henry, and daughter Sarah, who both died young in 1727, in Holme chapel, in that parish, of which his brother was rector. Another daughter, Sarah, survived him. A small mural monument was erected to his memory.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, was born at Sudbury, in 1612, where his father was minister, and died when this his son was very young. His mother was grand- daughter to John Rogers, the protomartyr in queen Mary’s persecution. He was sent to Cambridge in 1626, and placed under Mr. Anthony Burgess. Here he pursued his studies with great success, and although a young man of a sprightly turn, and much courted by the wits of the university, was distinguished for a circumspect and pious behaviour. After he had completed his degrees in arts, he was ordained; and doming to London, was chosen lecturer of St. Nicholas Aeons, $n'd thence was invited to Hithe, near Colchester, in, Essex^ 5 but the air of the place disagreeing with him, he obeyed the solicitations of his friends, and returned to London in 1641, where he was chosen minister of Christ-church, Newgate- street, and some months after, lecturer of St. Anne’s Blackfriars. He continued to fill up this double station with great usefulness, until, upon the destruction of monarchy, he peremptorily refused to observe the public thanksgivings appointed by the parliament, for which he was suspended from his ministry, and had his benefice of Christ-church sequestered, and afterwards was imprisoned in the Tower on suspicion of being concerned in what was called Love’s plot. (See Love.) On petition-, the parliament granted him a pardoft, and he was afterwards re-elected by the governors of St. Bartholomew’s hospital to the living of Christ-church. On the restoration, as he did not conform, he was of coarse ejected from this, and retired to a house he had at Langley, in Hertfordshire, where he occasionally preached, as he did afterwards in London, until 1684, when he was apprehended for preaching, and committed to Newgate. Here he was treated with the utmost rigour, and his death precipitated by the noxious air of the place. He died before he had been imprisoned four months, on Jan. 19, 1685. The inveteracy of Charles II. against this man seems unaccountable. He had been a great sufferer for loyalty to Charles I. and was one of those who not only resisted the decrees of the parliament, but was even implicated in Love’s plot, the object of which was the restoration of the king. When, however, Charles II. was petitioned for his release, with the attestation of his physicians, that Mr. Jenkin’s life was in danger from his close imprisonment, no other answer could be obtained than that “Jenkin shall be a prisoner as long as he lives.” Calamy informs us that a nobleman having heard of his death, said to the king, “May it please your majesty, Jenkin has got his liberty.” Upon which he asked with eagerness, “Aye, who gave it him?” The Nobleman replied, “A greater than your majesty, the king of kings!” with which the king seemed greatly struck, and remained silent. Mr. Jenkin was buried with great pomp in Bunhill-fields, and in 1715 a monument was erected to his memory in that place, with a Latin inscription. He published some controversial pieces and a few sermons.Baxter calls him a “sententious elegant preacher,” a character which may be justly applied to his principal work, “An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude,” 2 vols. 4to and fol. a book yet in high request.

, an English lawyer, distinguished for his learning and eminence in his profession, and for his loyalty to Charles I. was descended from an ancient and honourable family, and born at flensol, in Glamorganshire, about 1586. He became commoner of Edmundhall, Oxford, in 1597, and after taking the degree of B. A. removed to Gray’s-inn, studied the law, and when admitted to the bar, rose to a considerable share of practice. In the first of Charles I. being a bencher, he was elected summer reader, but, for what reason we are not told, refused to read. He was afterwards made one of the judges for South Wales, an office which he accepted purely out of respect to the king, who gave him the patent without his paying any fees for it, as it cost him twice the annual salary (So/.) in travelling expences. He continued, however, in this office until the rebellion broke our, at which time he either imprisoned or condemned to death several persons in his circuit, for being guilty of high treason in bearing arms against the king. At length, being taken prisoner at Hereford, when that city was surprized by the parliamentary forces, he was carried up to London, and sent to the Tower, whence, being brought to the bar in chancery, he denied the authority of that court, because their seal was counterfeited, and consequently the commissioners of such a seal were constituted against law. On this he was committed to Newgate, impeached of treason, and brought to the bar of the House of Commons. On this occasion he behaved with undaunted spirit, denying their authority, and refusing to kneel. “In your speech,” said he, “Mr. Speaker, you said the House was offeuded with my behaviour, in not making any obeisance to you upon my coming here; and this was the more wondered at, because I pretended to be knowing in the laws of the land (having made it my study for these five-and-forty years), and because I am so, that was the reason of such my behaviour: For as long as you had the king’s arms engraved on your mace, and acted under his authority, had 1 come here, I would have bowed my body in obedience to his authority, by which you were first called. But, Mr. Speaker, since you and this house have renounced all your iduty and allegiance to your sovereign and natural liegelord the king, and are become a den of thieves, should I bow myself in this house of llimmon, the Lord would not pardon me in this thing.”

But this could not long continue unobserved by the parliament party, who grew so jealous, that they were resolved to put a stop to it; and, as the most effectual means of dispersing the scholars, the master was seized by some soldiers quartered in those parts; and being sent to prison, was indicted at the quarter sessions for keeping a seminary of rebellion and sedition. He was however discharged by the interest of Dr. Wilkins, then warden of Wadham-college, in Oxford; to which place he removed with his pupils in 1651, and settled in a house, thence called Little Welch-hall, in the High-street. During his residence in Oxford, he was recommended to the warden of Wadham by judge Jenkins, the subject of the preceding article; and employed on several messages and correspond-? ences between the judge, Dr. Sheldon, Dr. Mansell, Dr. Fell, and others. But Dr. Wilkins, his protector, being promoted to the mastership of Trinity-college Cambridge, in 1655, Jenkins was obliged to remove; and being talked of as a dangerous man, sought his safety by flight. He withdrew with his pupils out of the kingdom, and resided occasionally in the most celebrated of the foreign universities. He thus kept a kind of moving academy; and by that method the best opportunities of improving the students in all sorts of academical learning were obtained; while they had the further advantage of travelling over a great part of France, Holland, and Germany. They returned home in 1658; and Mr. Jenkins, delivering up his pupils to their respective friends, gladly accepted an invitation to live with sir William Whitmore, at his seat at Appley, in Shropshire.

* The words which gave offence, be- ing of him to be a reflection upon his sides those mentioned in the text, were, master, and under that apprehension “And do what you will with me, I will he could not but resent it.” I am not go.“Whereupon many called, heartily sorry,” continues he, “I have” To the bar/' and moved that, his incurred the displeasure of the House, words should be written down before and I hope they will pardon the freehe explained them. The chief speakers dom of the expression.“To which he against him were the famous J. Tren- added a little after,” I am ready to chard and sir William Jones. At length obey the order of the House, and am the secretary made a sofiening speech, sorry my worrfs gave offence. “Colalleging, he did apprehend the send- lectiou of Debates, p. 316, 3116. be new modelled by the court, and a quo warranto was brought against the city of London, the secretary shewed a dislike of such violent measures; and gave his opinion, for punishing only the most obnoxious members in their private capacities, without involving the innocent, who would equally suffer by proceeding to the forfeiture of the city’s privileges*. In many other instances, sir Leqline differed from the general disposition of the court. He was a determined foe to all ideal projects that came before the privy-council; and had resolution to dissent, and experience enough to distinguish what was practicable and really useful, from what was merely chimerical. He also constantly declared against every irregular or illegal proceeding; but, not having strength to sustain the business and conflicts of those turbulent times, he begged leave to resign for a valuable consideration, which was granted by his majesty on April 14, 1684. Having obtained his wish, he retired to a house in Hammersmith, where learning and learned men continued to be his care and delight. Upon the accession of James II. he was sworn again of the privycouncil, and elected a third time for the university of Oxford. He had gained some little return of strength, and fresh application was accordingly made to him to appear in business; but, indisposition soon returning, he was never able to sit in that parliament, and paid the last debt to nature on Sept. 1, 1685. His body was conveyed to Oxford, and interred in the area of Jesus college chapel. Being never married, his whole estate was bequeathed to charitable uses; and he was, particularly, a great benefactor to his college, leaving to it estates to the amount of 700l. per annum. All his letters and papers were collected and printed in two folio volumes, 1724, under the title of his” Works," by W. Wynne, esq. who prefixed an account of his life, which has furnished the substance of this memoir. This is now a work which bears a very high price, and is considered as a valuable repository of diplomatic information, knowledge, and skill.

* Some of the city were so much freedom, and afterwards chose master satisfied with the part he acted in this of the Sailers’ company, Wynne, p. affair, that he was presented with his 57. Colonel Jenkinson, who died in 1750, had married Amantha, daughter of Wolfran Cornwall, a captain in the royal navy, by whom he had the subject of this memoir, who was born May 16, 1727, and educated at the Charter-house. He went afterwards to University college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. in Nov. 1752, and thence came to London, having previously distinguished himself by the active part he took in an election controversy for the county of Oxford, where his alliances were numerous, and not unconnected with the contending parties. On this occasion his literary talents were supposed to have contributed materially to the interests of the side he espoused; and those talents are likewise said to have been sometimes displayed in the Monthly Review about the period of its commencement. By the first earl of Harcourt, who was governor to the king, when prince of Wales, he was introduced to his majesty, and through the same channel obtained the notice and confidence of the eail of Bute, to jvhom he was private secretary. In 1761 he sat in parliament for Cockermouth, and held the office of under-secretary of state. In 1763 and 1764 he was secretary to the treasury; in 1766 he was nominated one of the lords of the admiralty; and from 1767 to 1773, was a lord of the treasury. In 1772 he was appointed joint vice-treasurer of Ireland, and called to the privy-council; and in exchange for this office, had afterwards the clerkship of the pells in Ireland, which had been purchased back by government of Mr. Charles Fox. In 1778 he was made secretary at war, which he held until the dissolution of lord North’s administration in 1782. On this occasion his principles led him to join that branch of the old administration which supported Mr. Pitt; and when that minister came into power in 1783-4, Mr. Jenkinson was appointed president of the board of trade, of which office he continued to discharge the duties with uncommon industry and abilities until age and bad health incapacitated him, in 18CU, from farther exertions in this department. In 1786 he obtained the situation of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, which he held till 1803. He was elevated to the peerage in 1786 by the title of baron Hawksbury, of Hawksbury, in the county of Gloucester; and advanced to be carl of Liverpool in 1796. His lordship died at his house in Hertford-street, May Pair, Dec. 17, 1808. At that time he held the place of collector of the customs inwards, in the port of London, and clerk of the pells in Ireland. He was interred in the family vault at Hawksbury, in Gloucestershire, and was succeeded in honours and estate by his eldest son, Robert Banks, second earl of Liverpool, and now first lord of the treasury.

The late earl of Liverpool made a very conspicuous figure during the whole of the present reign as a statesman; and for the greater part of it, shared the severe obloquy which attached to all the confidential friends of the Bute administration; and as he possessed the favour and confidence of his sovereign, he was called the king’s secret adviser. A suspicion of this kind the people were taught to cherish with uncommon animosity. Burke’s celebrated pamphlet on “Popular Discontents” encouraged the notipn; and the leaders of this party of supposed private power, were the incessant objects of clamour with the multitude and the disaffected. His lordship, however, lived long enough to weather this storm; to see his solid powers of mind, and solid services, crowned with the reward of high honours and great wealth; and to behold his ancient family, which in early life he had seen sadly decline in its property and consideration, placed by his own efforts near the pinnacle of ambition. Senseless cries and prejudices had gradually died away; and he was allowed to have deserved, as a laborious and profound statesman, the splendid public recompeuces which his sovereign had conferred upon him.

, an eminent dissenter, the son of an ejected nonconformist, was born at Kibworth, in Leicestershire, in 1691. He obtained a good stock of grammar learning at the free-school of his native place, and about 1709 he was sent to pursue a course of academical studies in London, under the care of Dr. Chauncey. Having finished his studies he was appointed one of the preachers at an evening lecture at Rotherhithe, and in 1716 chosen assistant preacher at the meeting near Haberdashers’ hall. Two years afterwards he was elected pastor to the congregational church in Old Gravel-lane, Wapping, in which office he continued during forty-four years. Within a year after he entered upon it, he refused to comply with the requisition brought forwards by many of his brethren at Salters’-hall, to sign certain articles relating to the Trinity. Mr. Jennings, about 1730, published a small volume of sermons addressed to the young, entitled “The Beauty and Benefit of early Piety,” which was followed by other publications of a practical nature. In 1740- he entered the lists against Dr. John Taylor, concerning original sin, which doctrine he strenuously justified; but notwithstanding their difference in doctrinal points, they continued in habits of intimacy and friendship. In 1743 Mr. Jennings was elected trustee of Mr. Coward’s charities, and one of the lecturers at St. Helen’s; and in the following year he became divinity tutor, in the room of Mr, Eames, at the academy, at that time chiefly supported by Mr. Coward’s funds. In this work he was earnestly intent: nothing ever diverted him from a daily attendance in the lecture room; and he was indefatigable in the discharge of the duties belonging to his office. The habits of early rising, of order in the arrangement of business, and of punctuality in his engagements, enabled him to perform more than most men would have been able to get through. As a relief to the studies of the mind he employed himself in the common mechanical arts of life. His method of communicating instruction was easy and familiar, and his general deportment towards his pupils affable and friendly. He, however, determined to maintain in his academy the reputation for orthodoxy which it had acquired, and would not suffer young men to deviate from his standard of faith; and in some cases he had recourse to expulsion. In 1747 Mr. Jennings published “An introduction to the Use of the Globes,” &e. which maintained a considerable degree of popularity for more than half a century. In 1749 the university of St. Andrew’s in Scotland conferred on the author the degree of D.D. After this he published “An appeal to reason and common sense for the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.” He died in September 1762, when he was seventy-one years of age. He was highly valued by his acquaintance, and he had the honour to educate many pupils who proved ornaments to the dissenting interest, and have rendered eminent service to science and the world. After his death was printed, from a ms copy, “An introduction to the knowledge of Medals.” Of this science Dr. Jennings seems to have known very little, and the editor of his work less. The blunders in this work are numerous, and gross. In 1766 a more elaborate work was published by Dr. Furneaux from the Mss. of Dr. Jennings, entitled “Jewish Antiquities; or a course of lectures on the Three First Books of Godwin’s Moses and Aaron: to which is annexed a dissertation on the Hebrew language,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a work of great merit, and deserves the perusal of all who would obtain an intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures, particularly of the Old Testament. A new edition of the “Jewish Antiquities” was published about three years since, it having been long out of print, and very much called for.

But the performance which excited most attention was published by our author in 1776, and seems, indeed, to form an important sera in his life. In his younger days he had imbibed the principles of infidelity; and, it has been said, was not sparing in his avowal of them. Time and reflection brought him to a sense of his folly. He studied the Holy Scriptures with care, and probably called to his aid some of those able defence*, of Christianity which the infidels of the eighteenth century had provoked. It is certain, however, that he had now adopted the common creed, although with some singular refinements of his own, and determined to avow his sentiments in justice to the cause he had neglected or injured. With this honourable resolution, he published “A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,” which, was at first read as an able defence of Christianity; and the accession of an ingenious layman to the supporters of religion was welcomed by the clergy at large. Others, however, could not help being suspicious of its tendency, and regarded the author as in many points proving himself to be an insidious enemy to the cause he pretended to plead. Those who call themselves rational Christians thought he yielded too much to the orthodox believer; and the orthodox believer was shocked that he had conceded the possibility of certain miracles being forgeries. A controversy immediately took place, and continued for some time, greatly to the advantage of Mr.Jenyns’s book, which sold most extensively while the controvery was kept alive, and disappeared with the last answer. During its circulation it excited the attention of persons of rank, and probably did good. The great error is his neglect of the external evidences, and his admitting the use of reason in some instances, while he refuses it in others.

, so called from the place of his birth, where he is held to be a Protestant martyr. It does not appear in what year he was born, but it is certain that he was neither a monk nor an ecclesiastic: but that, being endowed with excellent natural parts, he had a learned education, and studied at Paris, Heidelberg, Cologne, and perhaps at Oxford. The degree of M. A. was conferred on him in the three first-mentioned universities, and he commenced D. D. in 1396. He began to publish the doctrine of the Hussites in 1408, and it is said he had a greater hare of learning and eloquence than John Huss himself. In the mean time, the council of Constance kept a watchful eye over him; and, looking upon him as a dangerous person, cited him before them April 17, 1415, to give an account of Jiis faith. In pursuance of the citation, he went to Constance, in order to defend the doctrine of Huss, as he had promised; but, on his arrival, April 24, finding his master Huss in prison, he withdrew immediately to Uberlingen, whence he sent to the emperor for a safe conduct, which was refused. The council, very artfully, were willing to grant him a safe-conduct to come to Constance, but not for his return to Bohemia. Upon this he caused to be fixed upon all the churches of Constance, and upon the gates of the cardinal’s house, a paper, declaring that he was ready to come to Constance, to give an account of his faith, and to answer, not only in private and under the seal, hut in full council, all the calumnies of his accusers, offering to suffer the punishment due to heretics, it he should be convinced of any errors; for which reason he had desired a safe-conduct both from the emperor and the council; but that if, notwithstanding such a pass, any violence should be done to him, by imprisonment or otherwise, all the world might be a witness of the injustice of the council. No notice being taken of this declaration, he resolved to return into his own country: but the council dispatched a safe-conduct to him, importing, that as they had the extirpation of heresy above all things at heart, they summoned him to appear in the space of fifteen days, to be heard in the first session that should be held after his arrival; that for this purpose they had sent him, by those presents, a safe-conduct so far as to secure him from any violence, but they did not mean to exempt him from justice, as far as it depended upon the council, and as the catholic faith required. This pass and summons came to his hands, yet he was arrested in his way homewards, April 25, and put into the hands of the prince of Sultzbach; and, as he had not answered the citation of April 17, he was cited again May 2, and the prince of Sultzbach, sending to Constance in pursuance of an order of the council, he arrived there on the 23d, bound in chains. Upon his examination, he denied receiving of the citation, and protested his ignorance of it. He was afterwards carried to a tower of St. Paul’s church, there fastened to a post, and his hands tied to his neck with the same chains. He continued in this posture two days, without receiving any kind of nourishment; upon which he fell dangerously ill, and desired a confessor might be allowed, which being granted, he obtained a little more liberty. On July 19, he was interrogated afresh, when he explained himself upon the subject of the Eucharist to the following effect: That, in the sacrament of the altar, the particular substance of that piece of bread which is there, is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, but that the universal substance of bread remains. Thus, with John Huss, he maintained the “universalia ex parte rei.” It is true, on a third examination, Sept. 11, he retracted this opinion, and approved the condemnation of Wickliff and John Huss; but, on May 26, 1416, he condemned that recantation in these terms: “I am not ashamed to confess here publicly my weakness, Yes, with horror, I confess my base cowardice It was only the dread of the punishment by fire, which drew me to consent, against my conscience, to the condemnation of the doctrine of Wickliff and John Huss.” This was decisive, and accordingly, in the 21st session, sentence was passed on him; in pursuance of which, he was delivered to the secular arm, May 30. As the executioner led him to the stake, Jerome, with great steadiness, testified his perseverance in his faith, by repeating his creed with aloud voice, and singing litanies and a hymn to the blessed Virgin; and, being burnt to death, his ashes, like those of Huss, were thrown into the Rhine.

Burnet informs us, that her majesty declared, at her accession, that she would force no man’s conscience, nor make any change in religion. These specious promises, joined to Jewel’s fondness for the university, seem to have been the motives which disposed him to entertain a more favourable opinion of popery than before. In this state of his mind, he went to Clive, to consult his old tutor Dr. Parkhurst, who was rector of that parish; but Parkhurst, upon the re-establishment of popery, having fled to London, Jewel returned to Oxford, where he lingered and waited, till, being called upon in St. Mary’s church to subscribe some of the popish doctrines under the several penalties, he took his pen and subscribed with great reluctance. Yet this compliance, of which his conscience severely accused him, was of no avail; for the dean of Christ church, Dr. Martial, alleging his subscription to be insincere, laid a plot to deliver him into the hands of bishop Bonner; and would certainly have caught him in the snare, had he not set out the very night in which he was sent for, by a bye-way to London. He walked till he was forced to lay himself on the ground, quite spent and almost breathless: where being found by one Augustine Berner, a Swiss, first a servant of bishop Latimer, and afterwards a minister, this person provided him a horse, and conveyed him to lady Warcup, by whom he was entertained for some time, and then sent safely to the metropolis. Here he lay concealed, changing his lodgings twice or thrice for that purpose, till a ship was provided for him to go abroad, together with money for the journey, by sir Nicholas Throgmorton, a person of great distinction, and at that time in considerable offices. His escape was managed by one Giles Lawrence, who had been his fellow-collegian, and was at this time tutor to sir Arthur Darcy’s children, living near the Tower of London. Upon his arrival at Francfort, in 1554, he made a public confession of his sorrow for his late subscription to popery; and soon afterwards went to Strasburgh, at the invitation of Peter Martyr, who kept a kind of college for learned men in his own house, of which he made Jewel his vice-master: he likewise attended this friend to Zurich, and assisted him in his theological lectures. It was probably about this time that he made an excursion to Padua, where he contracted a friendship with Sig. Scipio, a Venetian gentleman, to whom he afterwards addressed his “Epistle concerning the Council of Trent.” During all the time of his exile, which was about four years, he studied hard, and spent the rest of his time in consoling and confirming his friends, frequently telling them that when their brethren endured such “bitter tortures and horrible martyrdoms at home, it was not reasonable they should expect to fare deliciously in banishment,” always concluding with “These things will not last an age,” which he repeated so often as to impress their minds with a firm belief that their deliverance was not far off. This, however, was not peculiar to Jewel. Fox was likewise remarked for using the same language, and there was among these exiles in general a very firm persuasion that the dominion of popery and cruelty, under queen Mary, would not be of long duration.

Amidst these important employments, the care of his health was too much neglected. He rose at four o'clock in the morning; and after prayers with his family at five, and in the cathedral about six, he was so intent on his studies all the morning, that he could not, without great violence, be drawn from them. After dinner, his doors and ears were open to all suitors; and it was observed of him, as of Titus, that he never sent any sad from him. Suitors being thus dismissed, he heard, with great impartiality and patience, such causes debated before him, as either devolved on him as a judge, or were referred to him as an arbitrator; and, if he could spare any time from these, he reckoned it as clear gain to his study. About nine at night, he called all his servants to an account how they had spent the day, and then went to prayers with them: from the chapel he withdrew again to his study, till near midnight, and from thence to his bed; in which when he was laid, the gentleman of his bed-chamber read to him till he fell asleep. Mr. Humfrey, who relates this, observes, that this watchful and laborious life, without any recreation at all, except what his necessary refreshment at meals, and a very few hours of rest, afforded him, wasted his life too fast, and undoubtedly hastened his end. In his fiftieth year, he fell into a disorder which carried him off in Sept. 1571. He died at Monkton Farley, in his diocese, and was buried in his cathedral, where there is an inscription over his grave, written by Dr. Laurence Humfrey, who also wrote an account of his life, to which are prefixed several copies of verses in honour of him. Dr. Jewel was of a thin habit of body, which he exhausted by intense application to his studies. In his temper he was pleasant and affable, modest, meek, temperate, and perfectly master of his passions. In his morals he was pious and charitable; and when bishop, became most remarkable for his apostolic doctrine, holy life, prudent government, incorrupt integrity, unspotted chastity, and bountiful liberality. He had naturally a very strong memory, which he greatly improved by art so that he could exactly repeat whatever he had written after once reading and therefore generally at the ringing of the bell, he began to commit his sermons to his memory; which was so firm, that he used to say, that “if he were to deliver a premeditated speech before a thousand auditors, shouting or fighting all the while, yet he could say all that he had provided to speak.” On one occasion, when the bishop of Norwich proposed to him many barbarous words out of a Kalendar, and Hooper bishop of Gloucester forty strange words, Welsh, Irish, and foreign terms, he after once or twice reading at the most, and a little recollection, repeated them all by heart backward and forward. Another time, when sir Nicholas Bacon, lord keeper of the great seal, read to him only the last clauses of ten lines in Erasmus’s Paraphrase, confused and dismembered on purpose, he, sitting silent a while, and covering his face with his hand, on the sudden rehearsed all those broken parcels of sentences the right way, and the contrary, without any hesitation. He professed to teach others this art, and taught it his tutor Parkhurst beyond the seas; and in a short time learned all the Gospel forward and backward. He was also a great master of the ancient languages, and skilled in the German and Italian.

, abbot of Corazzo, and afterwards of Flora in Calabria, distinguished for his pretended prophecies and remarkable opinions, was born at Celico near Cosenza, in 1130. He was of the Cistertian order, and had several monasteries subject to his jurisdiction, which he directed with the utmost wisdom and regularity. He was revered by the multitude as a person divinely inspired, and even equal to the most illustrious of the ancient prophets. Many of his predictions were formerly circulated, and indeed are still extant, having passed through several editions, and received illustration from several commentators. He taught erroneous notions respecting the holy Trinity, which amounted fully to tritheism; but what is more extraordinary, he taught that the morality of the Gospel is imperfect, and that a better and more complete law is to be given by the Holy Ghost, which is to be everlasting. These reveries gave birth to a book attributed to Joachim, entitled < The Everlasting Gospel,“or” The Gospel of the Holy Ghost.“” It is not to be doubted,“says Mosheim,” that Joachim was the author of various predictions, and that he, in a particular manner, foretold the reformation of the church, of which he might see the absolute necessity. It is, however, certain, that the greater part of the predictions and writings which were formerly attributed to him, were composed by others. This we may affirm even of the “Everlasting Gospel,” the work undoubtedly of some obscure, silly, and visionary monk, who thought proper to adorn his reveries with the celebrated name of Joachim, in order to gain them credit, and render them more agreeable to the multitude. The title of this senseless production is taken from Rev. xiv. 6; and it contained three books. The first was entitled “Liber concordiae veritatis,” or the book of the harmony of truth the second, “Apocalypsis Nova,” or new revelation and the third, “Psalterium decem Chordarum.” This account was taken from a ms. of that work in the library of the Sorbonne.“It is necessary, we should observe, to distinguish this book from the” Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel," written by a friar named Gerhard, and published in 1250. Joachim died in 1202, leaving a number of followers, who were called Joachimites. His works have been published in Venice, 1516, folio, &c. and contain propositions which have been condemned by several councils. The part of his woi>ks most esteemed is his commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse. His life was written by a Dominican named Gervaise, and published in 1745, in 2 vols. 12mo.

, called by Platina John VIII. seems to require some notice in this work, although her history is involved in much doubt, and even her existence is thought by some uncertain. This subject has been treated with as much animosity on both sides, between the papists and the protestants, as if the whole of religion depended on it. There are reckoned upwards of sixty of the Romish communion, and among them several monks and canonized saints, by whom the story is related thus:

About the middle of the ninth century, viz. between the pontificates of Leo IV. and Benedict III., a woman, called Joan, was promoted to the pontificate, by the name of John; whom Platina, and almost all other historians, have reckoned as the VIIIth of that name, and others as the Vllth: some call her only John. This female pope was born at Mentz, where she went by the name of English Johnf whether because she was of English extraction, or for what other reason, is not known: some modern historians say she was called Agnes, that is, the chaste, by way of irony, perhaps, before her pontificate. She had from her infancy an extraordinary passion for learning and travelling, and in order to satisfy this inclination, put on the male habit, and went to Athens, in company with one of fcer friends, who was called her favourite lover. From Athens she went to Rome, where she taught divinity; and, in the garb of a doctor, acquired so great reputation for understanding, learning, and probity, that she was unanimously elected pope in the room of Leo IV.

Such is the story, as related in the history of the popes, which was certainly received and avowed as a truth for some centuries. Since it became a matter of dispute, some writers of the Romish church have denied it; some have apologized for it absurdly enough; others in a way that might be admitted, did not that church claim to be infallible: for it was that claim which first brought the truth of this history under examination. The protestants alleged it as a clear proof against the claim; since it could not be denied that in this instance the church was deceived by a woman in disguise. This induced the Roman catholics to search more narrowly than before into the affair; and the result of that inquiry was, first a doubt, and next an improbability, of Joan’s real existence. This led to a further inquiry into the origin of the story; whence it appeared, that there were no footsteps of its being known in the church for near 200 years after it was said to have happened. Æneas Sylvius, who was pope in the fifteenth century under the name of Pius II. was the first who called it in question, and he touched it but slightly, observing, that in the election of that woman there was no error in a matter of faith, but only an ignorance as to a matter of fact; and also that the story was not certain. Yet this very Sylvius suffered Joan’s name to be placed among those of the other popes in the register of Siena, and transcribed the story in his historical work printed at Nuremburg in 1493. The example of Sylvius emboldened others to search more freely into the matter, who, finding it to have no good foundation, thought proper to give it up.

, commonly called the Maid of Orleans, one of the most remarkable heroines in history, was the daughter of James d' re, and of Isabella Rome his wife, two persons of low rank, in the village of Domremi, near Vauconleurs, on the borders of Lorraine, where she was born in 1402. The instructions she received during her childhood and youth were suited to her humble condition. She quitted her parents at an early age, as they were ill able to maintain her, and engaged herself as a servant at a small inn. In this situation she employed herself in attending the horses of the guests, and in riding them to the watering-place, and by these exercises she acquired a robust and hardy frame. At this time the affairs of France were in a desperate condition, and the city of Orleans, the most important place in the kingdom, was besieged by the English regent, the duke of Bedford, as a step to prepare the way for the conquest of all France. The French king used every expedient to supply the city with a garrison and provisions; and the English left no method unemployed for reducing it. The eyes of all Europe were turned towards this scene of action, and after numberless feats of valour on both sides, the attack was so vigorously pushed by the English,' that the king (Charles VII.) gave up the city as lost, when relief was brought from a very unexpected quarter. Joan, influenced by the frequent accounts of the rencounters at this memorable siege, and affected with the distresses of her country and king, was seized with a wild desire of relieving him; and as her inexperienced mind worked day and night on this favourite object, she fancied she saw visions, and heard voices, exhorting her to re-establish the throne of France, and expel the English invaders. Enthusiastic in these notions, she went to Vaucouleurs, and informed Baudricourt, the governor, of her inspirations and intentions, who sent her to the French court, then at Chinon. Here, on being introduced to the king, she offered, in the name of the Supreme Being, to raise the siege of Orleans, and conduct his majesty to Rheims, to be there crowned and anointed; and she demanded, as the instrument of her future victories, a particular sword which was kept in the church of St. Catherine de Fierbois. The king and his ministers at first either hesitated or pretended to hesitate; but after an assembly of grave and learned divines had pronounced her mission to be real and supernatural, her request was granted, and she was exhibited to the whole people, on horseback in military habiliments. On this sight, her dexterity in managing her steed, though acquired in her former station, was regarded as a fresh proof of her mission her former occupation was even denied she was converted into a shepherdess, an employment more agreeable to the fancy. Some years were subtracted from her age, in order to excite still more admiration; and she was received with the loudest acclamations, by persons of all ranks.

The English at first affected to speak with derision of the maid and her heavenly mission; but were secretly struck with the strong persuasion which prevailed in all around them. They found their courage daunted by degrees, and thence began to infer a divine vengeance hanging over them. A silent astonishment reigned among those troops formerly so elated with victory, and so fierce for the combat The maid entered the city of Orleans at the head of a convoy, arrayed in her military garb, and displaying her consecrated standard. She was received as a celestial deliverer by the garrison and its inhabitants; and with the instructions of count Dunois, commonly called the Bastard of Orleans, who commanded in that place, she actually obliged the English to raise the siege of that city, after driving them from their entrenchments, and defeating them in several desperate attacks.

The Maid of Orleans, as she is called, declared after this coronation, that her mission was now accomplished; and expressed her inclination to retire to the occupations and course of life which became her sex. But Dunois, sensible of the great advantages which might still b- reaped from her presence in the army, exhorted her to persevere till the final expulsion of the English. In pursuance of this advice, she threw herself into the town of Compiegne, at that time besieged by the duke of Burgundy, assisted by the earls of Arundel and Suffolk. The garrison, on her appearance, believed themselves invincible; but Joan, after performing prodigies of valour, was taken prisoner in a sally, and no efforts having been made by the French court to deliver her, was condemned by the English to be burnt alive, which sentence she sustained with great courage in the nineteenth year of her age, 1431. Such are the outlines of the history of this extraordinary heroine, which however is involved in many doubts and difficulties, and has too many of the features of romance for serious belief. It has lately even been doubted whether she was actually put to death; and some plausible evidence has been brought forward to prove that the judges appointed by the duke of Bedford to try her, passed a sentence from which they saved her on the day of execution by a trick, and that she afterwards made her appearance, was married to a gentleman of the house of Amboise in 1436, and her sentence was annulled in 1456. Be this as it may, her memory has long been consecrated by her countrymen, none of whom, however, have done her so much honour as our present poet-laureat, in his admirable poem of “Joan of Arc.”

Though, as we have observed, he was a man of a very inoffensive behaviour, he could not escape the satire of Pope, who, too ready to resent even any supposed offence, has, on some trivial pique, immortalized him in the “ Dimciad;” and in one of the notes to that poem has quoted from another piece, called “The Characters of the Times,” the following- account of him “Charles Johnson, famous for writing a play every year, and for being at Button’s every day. He had probably thriven better in his vocation, had he been a small matter leaner; he may be justly called a martyr to obesity, and be said to have fallen a victim to the rotundity of his parts.” The friends of Johnson knew that part of this account was false, and probably did not think very ill of a man of whom nothing more degrading could be said than that he was fat. The dramatic pieces this author produced, nineteen in all, are enumerated in the Biographia Dramatica.

The court, however, having information of it, he was summoned, about two months after lord Russel was beheaded, to appear before the king and council, where the lord keeper North examined him upon these points 1. “Whether he was the author of a book called `Julian’s Arts and Methods to undermine and extirpate Christianity'?” To which having answered in the affirmative, he was aked, “Why, after the book-had been so long entered at Stationers’-hall, it was not published?” To which he replied, “That the nation was in too great a ferment to have the matter further debated at that time.” Upon this he was commanded to produce one of those books to the council, being told that it should be published if they approved it; but he answered, “he had suppressed them himself, so that they were now his own private thoughts, for which he was not accountable to any power upon earth.” The council then dismissed him; but he was sent for twice afterwards, and the same questions urged, to which he returned the same answers, and was then sent prisoner to the Gatehouse, by a warrant of commitment dated Aug. 3, 1683, and signed by sir Leoline Jenkins, one of the privy council, and principal secretary of state. He was bailed out of prison by two friends, and the court used all possible means to discover the book; but, being disappointed in the search, recourse was had to promises, and a considerable sum, besides the favour of the court, was offered for one of the copies, to the person in whose hands they were supposed to be lodged. This was refused; and, as neither threats nor promises prevailed, the court was obliged to drop the prosecution upon that book, and an information against Johnson was lodged in the King’s-bench, for writing “Julian the Apostate,” &c. The prosecution was begun and carried on by the interest of the duke of York. The following was one of the first of the passages on which the information was founded: “And therefore, I much wonder at those men who trouble the nation at this time of day, with the unseasonable prescription of prayers and tears, and the passive obedience of the Thebean legion, and such-like last remedies, which are proper only at such a time as the laws of our country are armed against our religion.” The attack of this apparently innocent sentence gives a strong idea of the violence of the times.

Violence produces violence; and his enemies were so much exasperated against him, that his life was frequently endangered. After publishing his famous tract, entitled “An Argument proving that the Abrogation of King James,” &c. which was levelled against all those who complied with the Revolution upon any other principles than his own, in 1692, a remarkable attempt was actually made upon him. Seven assassins broke into his house in Bondstreet, Nov. 27, very early in the morning; and five of them, with a lantern, got into his chamber, where he, with his wife and young son, were in bed. Mr. Johnson was fast asleep but his wife, being awaked by their opening the door, cried out, Thieves and endeavoured to awaken her husband the villains in the mean time threw open the curtains, three of them placed themselves on that side of the bed where he lay, with drawn swords and clubs, and two stood at the bed’s feet with pistols. Mr. Johnson started up; and, endeavouring to defend himself from their assaults, received a blow on the head, which knocked him backwards. His wife cried out with great earnestness, and begged them not to treat a sick man with such barbarity; upon which they paused a little, and one of the miscreants called to Mr. Johnson to hold up his face, which his wife begged him to do, thinking they only designed to gag him, and that they would rifle the house and be gone. Upon this he sat upright; when one of the rogues cried, “Pistol him for the book he wrote” which discovered their design for it was just after the publishing of the book last mentioned. Whilst he sat upright in his bed, one of them cut him with a sword over the eye-brow, and the rest presented their pistols at him; but, upon Mrs. Johnson’s passionate intreaties, they went off without doing him further mischief, or rifling the house. A surgeon wa immediately sent for, who found two wounds in his head, and his body much bruised. With due care, however, he recovered; and though his health was much impaired and broken by this and other troubles, yet he handled his pen with the same unbroken spirit as before. He died in May 1703. In 1710 all his treatises were collected, and published in one folio volume; to which were prefixed some memorials of his life. The second edition came out in 1713, folio.

In 1758 the worthy John Newbery, bookseller, who frequently employed Johnson in his literary projects, began a news-paper called the “Universal Chronicle, or Weekly Gazette,” in conjunction with Mr. John Payne. To give it an air of novelty, Johnson was engaged to write a short periodical paper, which he entitled “The Idler.” Most of these papers were written in haste, in various places where he happened to be, on the eve of publication, and with very little preparation. A few of them exhibit the train of thought which prevails in the “Rambler,” but in general they have more vivacity, and exhibit a species of grave humour in which Johnson excelled. When the “Universal Chronicle” was discontinued, these papers were collected into two small volumes, which he corrected for the press, making a few alterations, and omitting one whole paper, which has since been restored. No. 41 of the “Idler alludes to the death of his mother, which took place in 1759. He had ever loved her with anxious affection , and had contributed liberally to her support, often when he knew not where to recruit his finances. On this event he wrote his Rasselas, with a view to raise a sum sufficient to defray the expences of her funeral, and pay some little debts she had left. His mind appears to have been powerfully excited and enriched both with the subject and the motive, for he wrote the whole of this elegant and philosophical fiction during the evenings of one week, and sent it to press in portions as it was written. He received one hundred pounds from Messrs. Strahan, Johnston, and Dodsley, for the copy, and twenty-five more when it came, as it soon did, to a second edition. Few works of the kind have been more generally or more extensively diffused by means of translation. Yet the author, perhaps from the pain he felt in recollecting the melancholy occasion which called forth his pen, appears to have dismissed it with some degree of indifference, as soon as published; for from that time to 1781, when he found it accidentally in a chaise while travelling with Mr. Boswell, he declared he had never looked into it. His translation of” Lobo“probably suggested his placing the scene in Abyssinia, but there is a little scarce volume, unnoticed by his biographers, from which it may be suspected he took some hints. It is entitled” The late Travels of S. Giacomo Baratti, an Italian gentleman, into the remotest countries of the Abyssins, or of Ethiopia Interior," London, 1G70, 12mo.

About this time, an ineffectual attempt was made by his steady friend Mr. Strahan, his majesty’s printer, to procure him a seat in parliament. His biographers have amused their readers by conjectures on the probable figure he would make in that assembly, and he owned frequently that he should not have been sorry to try. Why the interference of his friends were ineffectual, the minister only could tell, but he was probably not ill advised. It is not improbable that Johnson would have proved an able assistant on some occasions, where a nervous and manly speech was wanted to silence the inferiors in opposition, but it may be doubted whether he would have given that uniform and open consent which is expected from a party man. Whatever aid he might be induced to give by his pen on certain subjects, which accorded with his own sentiments, and of which he thought himself master, he by no means approved of many parts of the conduct of those ministers who carried on the American war; and he was ever decidedly against the principle (if it may be so called), that a man should go along with his party right or wrong, “This,” he once said, “is so remote from native virtue, from scholastic virtue, that a good man must have undergone a great change before he can reconcile himself tosuch a doctrine. It is maintaining that you may lie to the public, for you do lie when you call that right which you think wrong, or the reverse.”

During his absence, his humble friend and admirer, Thomas Davies, bookseller, ventured to publish two volumes, entitled “Miscellaneous and Fugitive Pieces,” which he advertised in the newspapers, as the productions of the “Author of the Rambler.” Johnson was inclined to resent this liberty, until he recollected Davies’s narrow circumstances, when he cordially forgave him, and continued his kindness to him as usual. A third volume appeared soon after, but all its contents are not from Dr. Johnson’s pen. On the dissolution of parliament in 1774, he published a short political pamphlet entitled “The Patriot,” the principal object of which appears to have been to repress the spirit of faction which at that time was too prevalent, especially in the metropolis. It was a hasty composition, called for, as he informed Mr. Boswell, on one day, and written the next. The success, since his days, of those mock-patriots whom he has so ably delineated, is too decisive a proof that the reign of politic delusion is not to be shortened by eloquence or argument. During his tour in Scotland, he made frequent inquiries respecting the authenticity of “Ossian’s Poems,” and received answers so unsatisfactory that both in his book of travels and in conversation, he did not hesitate to treat the whole as an imposture. This excited the resentment of Macpherson, the editor, to such a degree that he wrote a threatening letter to Johnson, who answered it in a composition, which in the expression of firm and unalterable contempt, is perhaps superior to that he wrote to lord Chesterfield. In it he mixed somewhat of courtesy; but Macpherson he despised both as a man and a writer, and treated him as a ruffian.

It is not improbable, however, that he felt the force of some of the replies made to his pamphlet, seconded 'as they were by the popular voice, and by the discomfiture of the measures of administration. It is certain that he complained, and perhaps about this time, of being called upon to write political pamphlets, and threatened to give up his pension. Whether this complaint was carried to the proper quarter, Mr. Boswell has not informed us; but he wrote no more in defence of the ministry, and he received no kind of reward for what he had done. His pension, neither he or his friends ever considered in that light, although it might make him acquiesce more readily in what the minister required. He was willing to do something for gratitude, but nothing for hire.

In 1777, he was engaged by the London booksellers to write short lives or prefaces to an edition of the English Poets; and this “being one of the most important of his literary undertakings, some account of its origin is necessary, especially as the precise share which belongs to him has been frequently misrepresented. It is perhaps too late now to inquire into the propriety of the decision of the House of Lords respecting literary property. It had not, however, taken place many months before some of the predicted consequences appeared. Among other instances, an edition of the English Poets was published at Edinburgh, in direct violation of that honourable compact by which the booksellers- of London had agreed to respect each others’ property, notwithstanding their being deprived of the more effectual support of the law. This,. therefore, induced the latter to undertake an edition of the Poets in a more commodious form, and with suitable accuracy of text. A meeting was called of about forty of the most respectable booksellers of London, the proprietors, or the successors and descendants of the proprietors, of copyrights in these worlds; and it was agreed that an elegant and uniform edition of” The English Poets" should be printed, with a concise account of the life of each author, by Dr. Samuel Johnson, and that Messrs. Strahan, Cadell, and T. Davies, should wait upon him with their proposals.

In 1781, the public demand rendered it necessary to print an edition of the Lives in four 8vo volumes, and in 1783, another edition of the same number, but considerably enlarged, altered, and corrected by the author. We- cannot here suppress a circumstance communicated by our worthy friend Mr. Nichols, which may check the murmurs of the public, respecting improved editions. Although the corrections and alterations of the edition of 1783 were printed separately and offered gratis to the purchasers of the former, scarcely a single copy was called for!

, an English botanist, of the seventeenth century, was born at Selby, in Yorkshire, and bred an apothecary in London. He afterwards kept a shop on Snow- hill, where, says Wood, by his unwearied pains and good natural parts, he attained to be the best herbalist of his age in England. He was first known to the public by a small piece under the title of “Iter in agrum Cantianum,” 1620; and “Ericetum Hamstedianum,” 16&2; which were the first local catalogues of plants published in England. He soon after acquired great credit by his new edition and emendation of Gerard’s “Herbal.” In the rebellion, “his zeal for the royal cause led him into the army, in which he greatly distinguished himself;- and the university of Oxford, in consideration of his merit, learning, and loyalty, conferred upon him the degree of M. D. May 9, 1643. In the army he had the rank of lieutenantcolonel to sir Marmaduke Rawdon, governor of Basinghouse. Near this place, in a skirmish with the enemy, in Sept. 1644, he received a shot in the shoulder, of which he died in a fortnight after, and, as there is reason to think, in the meridian of life. Besides the works abovementioned, and his improved edition of Gerard’s” Herbal,“which was twice printed in his life-time, in 1633 and in 1636, fol. he published in 1634,” Mercurius Botanicus, sive plantarum gratia suscepti Itineris, anno 1634, descriptio,“Lond. 8vo. This was the result of a journey, with some associates of the company of apothecaries, through Oxford, to Bath and Bristol, and back by Southampton, the Isle of Wight, and Guiklford, with the professed design to investigate rare plants. To this was added his small tract,” De Thermis Bathonicis,“with plans of the baths, and one of the city, which, to antiquaries, are now interesting. This was followed by a second part of his excursion,” Pars altera," which extends to Wales. He was among the earliest botanists who visited Wales and Snowdon, with the sole intention of discovering the rarities of that country in the vegetable kingdom, He also translated the works of Ambrose Parey, the celebrated French surgeon, published at London in 1643, and reprinted in 1678. Miller consecrated the name of Johnson by assigning it to a berry-bearing shrub of Carolina, belonging to the tetrandrous class, but it has not been retained in the LinnaDan system, where the plant is called callicarpa.

, author of <c Chrysal, or the Adventures 'of a Guinea,“and other works of a similar kind, was a native of Ireland, and descended from a branch of the Johnstons of Annandale. He was born in the early part of the last century, but in what year we have not been able to discover. After receiving a good classical education, he was called to the bar, and came over to England for practice in that profession, but being unfortunately prevented by deafness from attending the courts, he confined himself to the employment of a chamber counsel. It does not appear that his success was great, and embarrassed circumstances rendered him glad to embrace any other employment, in which his talents might have a chance to succeed. His” Chrysal“is said to have been his first literary attempt, two volumes of which he wrote while on a visit to Mount Edgecumbe, the seat of the late earl of Mount Edgecumbe. He appears to have had recourse to some degree of art, in order to apprize the public of what they were to expect from it. In the newspapers for April 1760, it is announced that” there will be speedily published, under the emblematical title of the f Adventures of a Guinea/ a dispassionate, distinct account of the most remarkable transactions of the present times all over Europe, with curious and interesting anecdotes of the public and private characters of the parties principally concerned in these scenes, especially in England; the whole interspersed with several most whimsical and entertaining instances of the intimate connection between high and low life, and the power of little causes to produce great events.“This, while it has the air of a puff, is not an unfaithful summary of the contents of these volumes, which were published in May of the same year, and read with such avidity, that the author was encouraged to add two more volumes in 1765, not inferior to the former, in merit or success; and the work has often been reprinted since. The secret springs of some political intrigues on the continent, are perhaps unfolded in these volumes, but it was the personal characters of many distinguished statesmen, women of quality, and citizens, which rendered the work palatable. A few of these were depicted in such striking colours as not to be mistaken; and the rest, being supposed to be equally faithful, although less obvious, the public were long amused in conjecturing the originals. With some truth, however, there is so much fiction, and in a few instances so much of what deserves a worse epithet, that” Chrysal“does not appear entitled to much higher praise than that of the best” scandalous chronicle of the day." In one case, it may be remembered, the author occasioned no little confusion among the guilty parties, by unfolding the secrets of a club of profligates of rank, who used to assemble at a nobleman’s villa in Buckinghamshire. In this, as well as other instances, it must be allowed, that although he describes his bad characters as worse than they were, he everywhere expresses the noblest sentiments of indignation against vice and meanness.

, an eminent physician at Worcester, was the fourth son of John Johnstone, esq. of Galabank, one of the most ancient branches of the family of Johnstone of Johnstone: he was born at Annan in 1730, and received the rudiments of his classical education under the rev. Dr. Henry, author of the History of Great Britain. In the school of Edinburgh, under Whytt, Plummer, Monro, and Rutherford, he learned the science of medicine; and in Paris, under Ferrein and Rouelle, he studied anatomy and chemistry. In 1750, before he had completed twenty-one years, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, publishing a thesis “De Aeris factitii imperio in corpore humano,” which gained him much credit, and some valuable friends. The following year he seated himself at Kidderminster, in Worcestershire; which at that time, and some years afterwards, was subject to a putrid fever of such peculiar malignity, as to be called the Kidderminster fever. His name first became known by the successful treatment he adopted for the cure of this dreadful disorder. Instead of bleeding and purging, means then in common use, he recommended bark, wine, mineral acids, free ventilation of air, and the affusion of water and vinegar; and so prominent was his success, that he was immediately introduced into considerable practice. Of this fever, as it appeared in 1756, he published an account in 1758, which proves him to be the discoverer of the power of mineral acid vapours to correct or destroy putrid febrile contagion: He orders for this purpose, vitriolic acid to be poured upon common salt, in a convenient vessel, over a proper heat. It is not a little singular, that the same means should be recommended by the celebrated Guyton de Morveau for the same purpose, more than twenty years after they were published by Dr. Johnstone, and be then; cried up as a great discovery.

, a French writer, was born at Paris in 1607, and obtained a canonry in the cathedral there in 1631. Discovering also a capacity for state affairs, he was appointed to attend a plenipotentiary to Munster; and, during the commotions at Paris, he took a journey to Rome. In 1671, he was made precentor of his church, and several times official. He lived to the great age of ninety-three, without experiencing the usual infirmities of it; when, going one morning to matins, he fell into a trench, which had been dug for the foundation of the high altar. He died of this fall in 1700, after bequeathing a very fine library to his church. He was the author of many works in both Latin and French, and as well upon civil as religious subjects. One of them in French, 1652, in 12mo, is entitled t( A Collection of true and important Maxims for the Education of a Prince, against the false and pernicious politics of cardinal Mazarine;“which, being reprinted in 1663, with two” Apologetical Letters,“was burnt in 1665 by the hands of the common hangman. The same year, how-. ever, 1665, he published a tract called” Codicil d'Or, or the Golden Codicil," which relates to the former; being a further collection of maxims for the education of a prince, taken chiefly from Erasmus, whose works he is said to have read seven times over.

, an eminent German divine, and one of the first reformers, was born at Northausen, in Thuringia, June 5, 1493, where his father was chief magistrate. He first made considerable progress in the study of civil law, but relinquishing that, devoted his whole attention to theology, in which faculty he took his doctor’s degree. This was about the time that the reformation was begun and Jonas having been present at various disputations on the subject, espoused the principles of the reformers with great zeal, and, from his knowledge of civil law as well as divinity, was enabled to contribute very important assistance to their efforts, particularly Luther and Melancthon, with whom he became early acquainted. In 1521 he was made a canon of the collegiate church at Wittemberg, and appointed principal of the college and professor; and, with Spalatinus and Amsdorff, was employed by the elector of Saxony to reform the church in Misnia and Thuringia. From thence he was called to Halle in Saxony, where he greatly promoted the reformation. Luther sometimes resorted thither to him, and took him with him in his last journey to Isleben, where he died in his arms. After Luther’s death he continued for some time in the duke of Saxony’s court, and was at length appointed pastor of the church at Eisfield, where he died Oct. 9, 1555. Jonas has been ranked among the moderate reformers, being desirous of making no further alteration in the established modes of worship and even doctrine, than he thought absolutely necessary for the introduction of piety and truth. His death was therefore a serious loss to his brethren, whose cause suffered by the intemperate zeal of some of its supporters. Among his writings are enumerated a treatise in. defence of the marriage of priests, against Faber printed at Helmstadt, 1651, fol. another uponthe study of divinity and notes upon the Acts" of the Apostles; but of these his biographers have given very imperfect accounts.

, a pious divine and great benefactor to his country, Wales, was born in 1684, in the parish of Kilredin in the county of Carmarthen, and educated at Carmarthen school, where he made great proficiency in Greek, Latin, and other studies, but does not appear to have been at either university. Having, however, qualified himself for the ministry, he received deacon’s orders from bishop Bull in Sept. 1708, and priest’s orders from the same prelate in Sept. 1709. His learning and piety having recommended him to sir John Phillips, of Picton castle, bart. he was preferred by that gentleman to the rectory of Llanddowror, in Carmarthenshire. He was soon after fixed upon by the “Society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts,” as a person every way qualified to be sent as a missionary amongst the Indians, and at first gave his consent, but circumstances occurred which prevented his country from being deprived of his services. In his parish he soon became popular by his fervent and well digested discourses, delivered with a voice and action tranquil, easy, yet strongly impressive; and by his affectionate discharge of the other duties of his station in risking, catechizing, &c. But he was principally distinguished for his zeal in procuring subscriptions for the support of what were called circulating Welsh schools, to teach poor Welsh men, women, and children to read their native language; and such was his diligence, and the effect of his superintendence of these schools, that he could enumerate 158,000 poor ignorant persons who had been taught to read; and equal care was taken to catechize and instruct young people in the principles of the Christian religion. Having applied to the “Society for promoting Christian knowledge,” of which he was a corresponding member, that body caused to be printed two large editions of the Welsh Bible, of 15,000 copies each, which were sold cheap for the benefit of the poor in Wales. He likewise wrote and published several instructive treatises in the Welsh as well as the English language; and was enabled by the assistance of some charitable friends to print editions of from 8000 to 12,000 of these useful manuals, which were distributed throughout all Wales. His own charitable exertions were extensive, and having studied medicine in a certain degree, he laid in a large stock of drugs, which he made up and dispensed to the poor gratis, taking that opportunity also to give them spiritual advice. This truly good man died April 8, 1761, lamented as a father to his flock, and a general benefactor to the whole country.

, a dramatic writer, was a native of Drogheda, in Ireland, and was bred a bricklayer; but, having a natural inclination for the muses, pursued his devotions to them even during the labours of his mere mechanical avocations, and composing a line of brick and a line of verse alternately, his walls and poems rose in growth together, but not with equal degrees of durability. His turn, as is most generally the case with mean poets, or bards of humble origin, was panegyric. This procured him some friends; and, in 1745, when the earl of Chesterfield went over to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, Mr. Jones was recommended to the notice of that nobleman, who, delighted with the discovery of this mechanic muse, not only favoured him with his own notice and generous munificence, but also thought proper to transplant this opening flower into a warmer and more thriving climate. He brought him with him to England, recommended him to many of the nobility there, and not only procured him a large subscription for the publishing a collection of his “Poems,” but it is said, even took on himself the alteration and correction, of his tragedy, and also the care of prevailing on the managers of Covent-garden theatre to bring it on the stage. This nobleman also recommended him in the warmest manner to Colley Gibber, whose friendly and humane disposition induced him to shew him a thousand acts of friendship, and even made strong efforts by his interest at court to have secured to him the succession of the laurel after his death. With these favourable prospects it might have been expected that Jones would have passed through life with so much decency as to have ensured his own happiness, and done credit to the partiality of his friends; but this was not the case. “His temper,” says one, who seems to have known him, “was, in consequence of the dominion of his passions, uncertain and capricious; easily engaged, and easily disgusted; and, as ceconomy was a virtue which could never be taken into his catalogue, he appeared to think himself born rather to be supported by others than under a duty to secure to himself the profits which his writings and the munificence of his patrons from time to time afforded.” After experiencing many reverses of fortune, which an overbearing spirit, and an imprudence in regard to pecuniary concerns, consequently drew on him, he died in great want, in April 1770, in a garret belonging to the master of the Bedford coffee-house, by whose charity he had been some time supported, leaving an example to those of superior capacities and attainments, who, despising the common maxims of life, often feel the want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,” appeared in 1753, and he also left a tragedy unfinished, called “The Cave of Idra,” which falling into the hands of Dr. Hiffernan, he enlarged it to five acts, and brought it out under the title of “The Heroine of the Cave.” His last publications were, “Merit” “The Relief;” and “Vectis, or the Isle of Wight,” poems but his poetical worth, though not contemptible, was far from being of the first-rate kind.

, a learned dissenting divine, was born in 1693, and received his academical learning under his uncle, the rev. Samuel Jones, first of Gloucester, then of Tewksbury, the tutor of Chandler, Butler, and Seeker. He was fellow-student with the latter in 1711, and was a distinguished scholar, when he entered upon academical studies. It is apprehended, that he was a native of the North of England, and that his father was a gentleman in affluent circumstances. There was with him, at the above seminary, a younger brother, a youth of quick parts, who afterwards settled as a dissenting minister at Manchester. Mr. Jones, soon after he had finished his course of preparatory studies, became the minister of the congregation of Protestant dissenters, who assembled for worship in Forest Green, Avening, Gloucestershire, and resided at Nailsworth, where he also kept an academy. He had the character of being an eminent linguist. He was popular as a preacher; for the place of worship was considerably enlarged in his time. His discourses met with the approbation of the more judicious, for his salary amounted to one hundred pounds per annum, and the whole subscription came from persons of superior rank in life. Though a deep scholar and hard student, he was not a man of severe manners; but of an open and social disposition, and one of a bowling party at a place still called the Lodge, on Hampton common, at which healthy exercise he relaxed from his studies, and by his presence and influence preserved decorum in the company. His character secured him the marked respect of a neighbouring clergyman. His anxiety to fulfil an engagement, which he had made, to perform some ministerial service at a place on the other side of the Severn, hastened his death. It escaped his recollection, till the time drew near; to prevent disappointment, he made so much speed, that his tender constitution was injured by it, and a complaint contracted, from which he never recovered. He died in 1724, aged 31.

The king, in his progress 1620, calling at Wilton, the seat of the earl of Pembroke, among other subjects, fell into a discourse about that surprising group of stones called Stonehenge, upon Salisbury plain, near Wilton. Our architect was immediately sent for by lord Pembroke, and received his majesty’s commands to make observations and deliver his sentiments on the origin of Stone-henge. In obedience to this command, he presently set about the work; and having, with no little pains and expence, taken an exact measurement of the whole, and diligently searched the foundation, in order to find out the original form and aspect, he proceeded to compare it with other antique buildings which he had any where seen. After much reasoning, and along series of authorities, his head being full of Rome, and Roman edifices and precedents, he concluded, that this ancient and stupendous pile must have been originally a Roman temple, dedicated to Ccelus, the senior of the heathen gods, and built after the Tuscan order; that it was built when the Romans flourished in peace and prosperity in Britain, and, probably, betwixt the time of Agricola’s government and the reign of Constantine the Great. This account he presented to his royal master in the same year, 1620, and was immediately appointed one of the commissioners for repairing St. Paul’s cathedral in London.

During this reign he gave many proofs of his genius and fancy in the pompous machinery for masques and interludes so much in vogue then. Several of these representations are still extant in the works of Chapman, Davenant, Daniel, and particularly Ben Jonson. The subject was chosen by the poet, and the speeches and songs were also of his composing; but the invention of the scenes, ornaments, and dresses of the figures, was the contrivance of Jones . And in this he acted in harmony with father Ben for a while; but, about 1614, there happened a quarrel between them, which provoked Jonson to ridicule his associate, under the character of Lantern Leatherhead, a hobby-horse seller, in his comedy of “Bartholomew Fair.” Nor did the rupture end but with Jonson’s death; a very few years before which, in 1635, he wrote a most virulent coarse satire, called “An Expostulation with Jnigo Jones;” and, afterwards, “An Epigram to a Friend;” and also a third, inscribed to “Inigo Marquis Would-be.” The quarrel not improbably took its rise from our architect’s rivalship in the king’s favour; and it is certain the poet was much censured at court for this rough usage of his rival: of which being advised by Mr. Howell, he suppressed the whole satire .

In the mean time, Mr. Jones received such encouragement from the court, that he acquired a handsome fortune ; which, however, was much impaired by what he suffered during the rebellion; for, as he had a share in his royal master’s prosperity, so he had a share too in his ruin. Upon the meeting of the long parliament, Nov. 1640, he was called before the house of peers, on a complaint against him from the parishioners of St. Gregory’s in London, for damage done to that church, on repairing the cathedral of St. Paul. The church being old, and standing very near the cathedral, was thought to be a blemish to it, and therefore was taken down, pursuant to his majesty’s signification, and the orders of the council in 1639, in the execution of which, our surveyor no doubt was chiefly concerned. But, in answer to the complaint, he pleaded the general issue; and, when the repairing of the cathedral ceased, in 1642, some part of the materials remaining were, by order of the house of lords, delivered to the parishioners of St. Gregory’s, towards the rebuilding of their church. This prosecution must have put Mr. Jones to a very large expence; and, during the usurpation afterwards, he was constrained to pay 545l. by way of composition for his estate, as a malignant. After the death of Charles Ihe was continued in his post by Charles II.; but it was only an empty title at that time, nor did Mr. Jones live long enough to make it any better. In reality, the grief, at his years, occasioned by the fatal calamity of his former munificent master, put a period to his life July 21, 1652, and he was buried in the chancel of St. Rennet’s church, near St. Paul’s wharf, London, where there was a monument erected to his memory, which suffered greatly by the dreadful fire in 1666.

, an eminent and learned tutor of the university of Cambridge, was born at Beriew in Montgomeryshire, June 23, 1756. His education, till he entered on his twelfth year, was confined to the instruction of a common country school, first at Beriew, and afterwards in the neighbouring parish of Kerry. During the time that he frequented the latter school, the vicar of the parish, discovering in him those talents which he afterwards so eminently displayed, advised his mother (for he lost his father at an early age) to send him to the grammar-school at Shrewsbury, where he continued nearly seven years, and was inferior to none of his schoolfellows, either in attention to study or in regularity of conduct. In May 1774, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and came to reside there in October following. From that time the excellence of his genius became more particularly conspicuous. He had acquired, indeed, at school, a competent share of classical learning; but his mind was less adapted to Greek and Latin composition than to the investigation of philosophical truths. At the public examinations of St. John’s college he not only was always in the first class, but was without comparison the best mathematician of his year. His first summer vacation was devoted entirely to his favourite pursuit; and at that early period he became acquainted with mathematical works, which are seldom attempted before the third year of academical study. He remained at St. John’s college till after the public examination in June 1776, when, having no prospect of obtaining a fellowship, there being already a fellow of the diocese of St. Asaph in that college, and the statutes limiting the fellowships to one from each diocese, he removed to Trinity college. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1779, and his superiority was so decided, that no one ventured to contend with him. The honour of senior wrangler, as it is called in academical phrase, was conceded before the examination began, and the second place became the highest object of competition. If any thing was wanting to shew his superiority, it would be rendered sufficiently conspicuous by the circumstance, that he was tutor to the second wrangler, now the learned Dr. Herbert Marsh, professor of divinity at Cambridge, who acknowledged that for the honour which he then obtained, he was indebted to the instruction of his friend. In the same year in which Mr. Jones took his bachelor’s degree he was appointed assistant tutor at Trinity college. In Oct. 1781 he was elected fellow, and in Oct. 1787, on the resignation of Mr. Cranke, he was appointed to the office of head tutor, which he held to the day of his death. In 1786 and 1787 he presided as moderator in the philosophical schools, where his acuteness and impartiality were equally conspicuous. It was about this time that he introduced a grace, by which fellow-commoners, who used to obtain the degree of bachelor of arts with little or no examination, were subjected to the same academical exercises as other under-graduates. During many years he continued to take an active part in the senate-house examinations; but for some years before his death confined himself to the duties of college- tutor. These, indeed, were sufficiently numerous to engage his whole attention and he displayed in them an ability which was rarely equalled, with an integrity which never was surpassed. Being perfect master of his subjects, he always placed them in the clearest point of view; and by his manner of treating them he made them interesting even to those who had otherwise no relish for mathematical inquiries. His lectures on astronomy attracted more than usual attention, since that branch of philosophy afforded the most ample scope for inculcating (what, indeed, he never neglected in other branches) his favourite doctrine of final causes; for arguing from the contrivance to the contriver, from the structure of the universe to the being and attributes of God. And this doctrine he enforced, not merely by explaining the harmony which results from the established Jaws of nature, but by shewing the confusion which would have arisen from the adoption of other laws. His lectures on the principles of fluxions were delivered with unusual clearness; and there was so much originality in them, that his pupils often expressed a wish that they might be printed. But such was his modesty, that though frequently urged, he never would consent; and when he signed his will a short time before his death, he made the most earnest request to Dr. Marsh, that none of his manuscripts should be printed. But it is a consolation to know, that his lectures in philosophy will not be buried in oblivion: all his writings on those subjects were delivered to his successor in the tuition, and, though less amply than by publication, will continue to benefit mankind. The only things he ever published were “A Sermon on Duelling,” and “An Address to the Volunteers of Montgomeryshire.” The former was published as a warning to the young men of the university, soon after a fatal duel had taken place there. The latter, which he wrote with great animation (for he was a zealous advocate of the volunteer system) was calculated to rouse the volunteers to a vigorous defence of their country.

On his return from this tour, he appears to have contemplated his situation as not altogether corresponding with the feelings of an independent mind, and with the views he entertained of aiming at the dignity and usefulness of a public character. The advice given by some of his friends, when he left Harrow school, probably now recurred to his memory, and was strengthened by additional and more urgent. motives, for he finally determined on the law as a profession; and, having resigned his charge in lord Spencer’s family, was admitted into the Temple on the 19th of September, 1770, in the twenty -fourth year of his age. Those who consider the study of the law as incompatible with a mind devoted to the acquisition of polite literature, and with a taste delighting in frequent excursions to the regions of fancy, will be ready to conclude that Mr. Jones would soon discover an invincible repugnance to his new pursuit. But the reverse was in a great measure the fact. He found nothing in the study of the law so 'dry or laborious as not to be overcome by the same industry which had enabled him to overcome, almost in childhood, the difficulties which frequently deter men of mature years; and he was stimulated by what appears to have predominated through life, an honest ambition to rise to eminence in a profession which, although sometimes successfully followed by men of dull capacity, does not exclude the most brilliant acquirements. Still, however, while labouring to qualify himself for the bar, he regarded his progress in literature as too important or too delightful to be altogether interrupted; and from the correspondence published by lord Teignmouth, it appears that he snatched many an hour from his legal inquiries, to meditate plans connected with his oriental studies. What he executed, indeed, did not always correspond with what he projected, but we find that within the first two years of his residence in the Temple, he sketched the plan of an epic poem, and of a Turkish history, and published a French letter to Anquetil du Perron, who, in his Travels in India, had treated the university of Oxford, and some of its learned members and friends of Mr. Jones, with disrespect In this letter he corrected the petulance of the French writer with more asperity than perhaps his maturer judgment would have approved, but yet without injustice, for Perron stood convicted not only of loose invective, but of absolute falsehood. Besides these Mr. Jones published, in 1772, a small volume of poems, consisting chiefly of translations from the Asiatic languages, with two elegant prose dissertations on Eastern poetry, and on the arts commonly called imitative. Most of these poems had been written long before this period, but were kept back until they had received all the improvements of frequent revisal, and the criticisms of his friends.

In 1789 the first volume of the “Asiatic Researches” was published, and the same year sir William Jones finished his translation of “Sacontala, or the Fatal Ring,” an ancient Indian drama, and one of the greatest curiosities that the literature of Asia had yet brought to light. In 1794 he published, as an institute, prefatory to his larger work, a translation of the ordinances of Menu, who is esteemed by the Hindus the first of created beings, and not only the oldest, but the holiest of legislators. The judgment and candour of the translator, however, led him to appreciate this work no higher than it deserved, as not being calculated for general reading, but exhibiting the manners of a remarkable people in a remote age, as including a system of despotism and priestcraft, limited by law, yet artfully conspiring to give mutual support, and as filled with conceits in metaphysics and natural philosophy, which might be liable to misconstruction. Amidst these employments, he still carried on his extensive correspondence with his learned friends in Europe, unfolding with candour his various pursuits and sentiments, and expressing such anxiety about every branch of science, as proved that even what he called relaxation, was but the diversion of his researches from one channel into another. In addition to the various studies already noticed, botany appears to have occupied a considerable share of his attention; and in this, as in every new acquisition, he disdained to stop at a moderate progress, or be content with a superficial knowledge.

The indisposition of lady Jones in 1793, rendered it absolutely necessary thatsiie should return to England; and her affectionate husband proposed to follow her in 1795, but still wished to complete a system of Indian laws before he left the situation in which he could promote this great work with most advantage. But he had not proceeded long in this undertaking before symptoms appeared of that disorder which deprived the world of one of its brightest ornaments. The following account of his dissolution is given in the words of his biographer. "On the evening of the twentieth of April, or nearly about that date, after prolonging his walk to a late hour, during which he had imprudently remained in conversation, in an unwholesome situation, he called upon the writer of these sheets, and complained of aguish symptoms, mentioning his intention to take some medicine, and repeating jocularly an old proverb, that * an ague in the spring is medicine for a king. 7 He had no suspicion at the time of the real nature of his indisposition, which proved, in fact, to be a complaint common in Bengal, an inflammation in the liver. The disorder was, however, soon discovered by the penetration of the physician, who, after two or three clays, was called in to his assistance; but it had then advanced too far to yield to the efficacy of the medicines usually prescribed, and they were administered in vain. The progress of the complaint was uncommonly rapid, and terminated fatally on the twenty-seventh of April 1794. On the morning of that day his attendants, alarmed at the evident symptoms of approaching dissolution, came precipitately to call the friend who has now the melancholy task of recording the mournful event. Not a moment was lost in repairing to his house. He was lying on his bed in a posture of meditation; and the only symptom of remaining life was a small degree of motion in the heart, which after a few seconds ceased, and he expired without a pang or groan. His bodily suffering, from the complacency of his features and the ease of his attitude, could not have been severe; and his mind must have derived consolation from those sources where he l?ad been in the habit of seeking it, and where alone, in our last moments, it can ever be found.' 1

Mr. Jones’s work on the Trinity having procured him much reputation, archbishop Seeker presented him, first to the vicarage of Bethersden in Kent in 1764, and soon after to the more valuable rectory of Pluck ley in the same county, as some reward for his able defence of that important doctrine. The income he derived from his vicarage riot being equal to what he expected, it was thought expedient by his friends, that he should eke out Ins slender pittance by taking a few pupils; and having undertaken the tuition of two young gentlemen, he continued the practice for many years after he removed to Pluckley. In 1766 he preached the “Visitation Sermon” before archbishop Seeker at Ashford, greatly to the satisfaction of his grace and the whole audience. Owing to some delicacy, it was not printed at the time, though much wished but in 1769 the substance of it was published in the form of a “Letter to a young gentleman at Oxford intended for holy orders, containing some seasonable cautions against errors in doctrine.” On the publication of “The Confessional,” the archbishop considered Mr. Jones as a proper person to write an answer to it; and accordingly he drew up some remarks, but had then neither health nor leisure to fit them for the press. But a new edition being called for of the “Answer to an Essay on Spirit,” Mr. Jones thought it advisable to add, by way of sequel, the remarks he had originally drawn up on the principles and spirit of the “Confessional,” which were published in 1770.

It is mentioned in bishop Porteus’s Life of archbishop Seeker, that all the tracts, written by Dr. Sharp in the Hutchinsonian controversy, were submitted to his grace’s inspection previous to their publication, who corrected and improved them throughout; from whence we are to conclude he approved them. But whatever his prejudices were originally against what is called Hutchinsonianism, and they were supposed at one time to be pretty strong, they must have been greatly done away before he became the patron of Mr. Jones. When the “Essay on the first principles of Natural Philosophy” was published, his grace observed to a gentleman who saw it lying on his table, “this work of Mr. Jones’s is not to be treated with neglect; it is sensibly and candidly written, and if it is not answered, we little folks shall conclude it is, because it cannot be answered:” and he told Mr. Jones himself by way of consolation (knowing probably how difficult it was to get rid of old prejudices) that he must be contented to beaccounted, for a time, an heretic in philosophy. In 1773 Mr. Jones collected together into a volume, Disquisitions on some select subjects of Scripture, which had been before printed in separate tracts; and, in 1776, in the character of a “Presbyter of the church of England,” he published, in a Letter to a friend at Oxford, “Reflections on the growth of Heathenism among modern Christians.”

When he was induced to remove from Pluckley, and accept the perpetual curacy of Nayland in Suffolk, he went thither to reside with his family. Soon after, he effected an exchange of Pluckley for Paston in Northamptonshire, which he visited annually, but he determined to settle at Nayland for the remainder of his days, nor was he (as his biographer notices with some regret for neglected merit) ever tempted to quit that post by any offer of higher preferment. The “Physiological Disquisitions” before alluded to, having received their last revise, were published in 1771, and the impression was soon sold off. A notion, says his biographer, is entertained by some persons, that the elementary philosophy naturally leads to Atheism,' and sir Isaac Newton himself is charged with giving countenance to materialism by his aether; but nothing can be farther from the truth. “It is,” adds Mr. Stevens, “the aim and study of the elementary, called the Hutcliinsoniau, philosophy, not to confound God and nature, but to distinguish between the Creator and the creature; not with the heathens to set up the heavens for God, but to believe and confess, with all true worshippers, ”that it is Jehovah who made the heavens." And td maintain that the operations in nature are carried on by the agency of the elements, which, experiment demonstrates, is no more excluding God from being the Creator of the world, than to maintain that motion once given to a watch will continue without the immediate application of the artist’s hand every moment to it, is asserting that the watch made itself. Let any one read the Physiological Disquisitions, and he will soon be convinced that North and South are not more opposite than Hutchinsonianism and materialism.

Having failed in these more creditable attempts to gain a iubsistence, he began his theatrical career, at first among the strolling companies, and was afterwards admitted into an obscure theatre called the Green Curtain, in the neighbourhood of Shored itch, from which the present Curtainroad seems to derive its name. He had not been there long, before he attempted to write for the stage, but was not at first very successful either as an author or actor. Mere* enumerates him among the writers of tragedy^; but no tragedy of his writing exists, prior to 1598, when his comedy of * Every Man in his Humour“procured him a name. Dexter, in his” Satyromastix," censures his acting as awkward and mean, and his temperas rough and untractable.

In the following year he produced the counterpart of his former comedy, entitled “Every Man out of his Humour,” and continued to furnish a new play every year until he was called to assist in the masks and entertainments given in honour of the accession of king James to the throne of England, and afterwards on occasions of particular festivity at the courts of James and Charles I. But from these barbarous productions, he occasionally retired to the cultivation of his comic genius, and on one occasion gave an extraordinary proof of natural and prompt excellence in his “Volpone,” which was finished within the space of five weeks.

In 1613 he went to Paris, where he was admitted to an interview with cardinal Perron, and with his usual frankness told the cardinal that his translation of Virgil was “nought.” About this time he commenced a quarrel with Inigo Jones, and made him the subject of his ridicule in a comedy called “Bartholomew- Fair,” acted in 1614. Jones was architect or machinist to the masques and entertainmerits for which Jon son furnished the poetry, but the particular cause of their quarrel does not appear. “Whoever,” says lord Orford, “was the aggressor, the turbulent temper of Jonson took care to be most in the wrong. Nothing exceeds the grossness of the language that he poured out, except the badness of the verses that were the vehicle. There he fully exerted all that brutal abuse which his contemporaries were willing to think wit, because they were afraid of it; and which only serves to show the arrogance of the man who presumed to satirize Jones and rival Shakspeare. With the latter, indeed, he had not the smallest pretensions to be compared, except in having sometimes written absolute nonsense. Jonsort translated the ancients, Shakspeare transfused their very soul into his writings.” If Jonson was the rival of Shakspeare, he deserves all this; but with no other claims than his (t Cataline,“and” Sejanus,“how could he for a moment fancy himself the rival of Shakspeare?” Bartholomew Fair“was succeeded by the” Devil’s an Ass,“in 1616, and by an edition of his Works in folio, in which his” Epigrams" were first printed, although they appear to have been written at various times, and some long before this period. He was now in the zenith of his fame and prosperity. Among other marks of respect, he was presented with the honorary degree of M. A. by the university of Oxford. He had been invited to this place by Dr. Corbet, senior student, and afterwards dean of Christchurch and bishop of Norwich. According to the account he gave of himself to Drummond, he was M. A. of both universities.

Although it is not our purpose to notice all his dramatic pieces, it is necessary to mention, that in 1629 he produced a comedy called the “New Inn, or the light heart,” which was so roughly handled by the audience, that he was provoked to write an “Ode to Himself,” in which he threatened to abandon the stage. Threats of this kind are generally impotent, and Jonson gained nothing but the character of a man who was so far spoiled by public favour as to overrate his talents. Feltham and Suckling reflected on him with some asperity on this occasion, while Randolph endeavoured to reconcile him to his profession. His temper, usually rough, might perhaps at this time have been exasperated by disease, for we find that his health was declining from 1625 to 1629 , when his play was condemned. He was also suffering about this time the usual vexations which attend a want of ceconomy; in one case of pecuniary embarrassment, king Charles relieved him by the handsome present of an hundred pounds. This contradicts a story related by Gibber and Smollett, that when the king heard of his illness, he sent him ten pounds, and that Jonson said to the messenger, “His Majesty has sent me ten pounds, because I am old and poor, and live in an alley; go and tell him that his soul lives in an alley.” Jonson’s blunt manners and ready wit make the reply sufficiently credible, had the former part of the story been true, but the lines of gratitude which he addressed to his majesty are a satisfactory refutation. Jonson, however, continued to be thoughtlessly lavish and poor, although in addition to the royal bounty he is said to have enjoyed a pension from the city, and received occasional assistance from his friends. The pension from the city appears to have been withdrawn in 1631, if it be to it he alludes in the postscript of a letter in the British Museum, dated that year, “Yesterday the barbarous court of aldermen have withdrawn their chandler-ly pension for verjuice and mustard 33l. 6s. 8rf.” Sutton, the founder of the Charter-house, is said to have been one of his benefactors, which renders it improbable that Jonson could have intended to ridicule so excellent a character on the stage: yet, according to Mr. Oldys, “Volpone” was intended for him. But although it is supposed that Jonson sometimes laid the rich under contributions by the dread of his satire, it is not very likely that he would attack such a man as Sutton.

“Mr. Camden recommended (Jonson) to sir Walter Raleigh, who trusted him with the care and instruction of his eldest son Walter, a gay spark, who could not brook Ben’s rigorous treatment, but, perceiving one foible in his disposition, made use of that to throw oft* the yoke of his government. And this was an unlucky habit Ben had contracted, through his love of jovial company, of being overtaken with liquor, which sir Walter did of all vices most abominate, and hath most exclaimed against. One day, when Ben had taken a plentiful dose, and was fallen into a sound sleep, young Raleigh got a great basket, and a touple of men, who laid Ben in it, and then with a pole carried him between their shoulders to sir Walter, telling him their young master had sent home his tutor. This I had from a ms memorandum-book written in the time of the civil wars by Mr. Oldisworth, who was secretary, I think, to Philip earl of Pembroke. Yet in 1614, when sir Walter published his History of the World, there was a good understanding between him and Ben Jonson; for the verses, which explain the grave frontispiece before that history, were written by Jonson, and are reprinted in his” Underwoods,“where the poem is called” The Mind of the frontispiece to a book;“but he names not this book.”

“About the year 1622 some lewd, perjured, woman deceived and jilted him; and he writes a sharp poem on the occasion. And in another poem, called his picture, left in Scotland, he seems to think she slighted him for his mountain belly and his rocky face.” We have already seen by bishop Morley’s account that he lived with a woman in his latter days, who assisted him in spending his money.

“He was accused by sir James Murray to the king, for writing something against the Scots in a play called” Eastward Hoe," and voluntarily imprisoned himself with Chapman and Marston, who had written it amongst them, and it was reported should have their ears and noses cut. After their delivery, he entertained all his friends; there were present Camden, Selden, and others. In the middle of the feast, his old mother drank to him, and showed him a paper which she designed (if the sentence had past) to have mixed among his drink, and it was strong and lusty poison; and to show that she was no churl, she told that she designed first to have drank of it herself.

In 1758, appeared his “Life of Erasmus,” in one vol. 4to; and in 1760, another vol. 4to, containing “Remarks upon the Works of Erasmus,” and an “Appendix of Extracts from Erasmus and other Writers.” In the preface to the former volume, he says, that “Le Clerc, while publishing the Works of Erasmus at Leyden, drew up his Life in French, collected principally from his letters, and inserted it in the ‘ Bibliotheque Choisie;’ that, as this Life was favourably received by the public, he had taken it as a groundwork to build upon, and had translated it, notsuperstitiously and closely, but with much freedom, and with more attention to things than to words; but that he had made continual additions, not only with relation to the history of those days, but to the life of Erasmus, especially where Le Clerc grew more remiss, either wearied with the task, or called off from these to other labours.” After mentioning a few other matters to his readers, he turns his discourse to his friends “recommending himself to their favour, whilst he is with them, and his name, when he is gone hence and intreating them to join with him in a wish, that he may pass the evening of a studious and unambitious life in an humble but not a slothful obscurity, and never forfeit the kind continuance of their accustomed approbation.” The plan of this work, however, is highly objectionable, unless as a book to be consulted. It contains, in that respect, a vast mass of tacts and opinions respecting Erasmus and his contemporaries, put together in chronological order, and of great importance in ecclesiastical or biographical researches.

, a learned physician, and royal professor at Montpellier, was born at Valence, in the province of Dauphine, in France, on the 16th of December, 1529, of a good family. After he had finished his school education, he went to Mompellier, where he was matriculated in the faculty of medicine on the 1st of March, 1550, and took his degree of bachelor the following year. He afterwards studied at Padua, where he attended the lectures of the celebrated Fallopius, and at some other places; but, returning to Montpellier, he finished his exercises, and received the degree of doctor in 1558. The manner in which he had performed his acts procured for him so much of the confidence and esteem of Honore Castellan, that this professor, being summoned to court in the following year, to hold the office of first physician of Catharine de Medicis, queen of Henry II. he nominated Joubert to give the lectures in the schools during his absence; and Joubert acquitted himself in so distinguished a manner, that on the death of professor Rondelet in 1566, he was immediately named his successor, in the chair. He was likewise the second successor of Rondelet, in the dignity of chancellor, having followed Saporta in 1574. He was called to Paris by Henry III. in 1579, who entertained hopes that Joubert would be able to cure the barrenness of Louisa de Lorraine, his queen. But his attempts proved unsuccessful; and he returned to Montpellier with the title of physician in ordinary to the king, and continued to practise there to his death, October 21, 1583.

, or Jehuda, Hakkadosh, or the Saint, a rabbi celebrated for his learning and riches, according to the Jewish historians, lived in the time of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, whom he made a proselyte to Judaism, and it was by his order that Jehuda compiled the Mishna, the history of which is briefly this: The sect of the Pharisees, after the destruction of Jerusalem, prevailing over the rest, the study of traditions became the chief object of attention in all the Jewish schools. The number of these traditions had, in a long course of time, so greatly increased, that the doctors, whose principal employment it was to illustrate them by new explanations, and to confirm their authority, found it necessary to assist their recollection by committing them, under distinct heads, to writing. At the same time, their disciples took minutes of the explanations of their preceptors, many of which were preserved, and grew up into voluminous commentaries. The confusion which arose from these causes was now become so troublesome, that, notwithstanding what Hillel had before done in arranging the traditions, Jehuda found it necessary to attempt a new digest of the oral law, and of the commentaries of their most famous doctors. This arduous undertaking is said to have employed him forty years. It was completed, according to the unanimous testimony of the Jews, which in this case there is no sufficient reason to dispute, about the close of the second century. This Mishna, or first Talmud, comprehends all the laws, institutions, and rules of life, which, beside the ancient Hebrew scriptures, the Jews supposed themselves bound to observe. Notwithstanding the obscurities, inconsistencies, and absurdities with which this collection abounds, it soon obtained credit among the Jews as a sacred book. But as the Mishna did not completely provide for many cases which arose in the practice of ecclesiastical law, and many of its prescriptions and decisions were found to require further comments and illustrations, the task of supplying these defects was undertaken by the rabbis Chiiam and Oschaiam, and others, disciples of Jehudah; who not only wrote explanations of the Mishna, but made material additions to that voluminous compilation. These commentaries and additions were collected by the rabbi Jochanan ben Eliezer, probably in the fifth century, under the name of the “Gemara,” because it completed the Mishna. This collection was afterwards called the Jerusalem Gemara, to distinguish it from another of the same kind made in Babylon, at the beginning of the sixth century.

, an Italian Jesuit, and a celebrated writer of panegyrics, was born at Nice, and admitted into the society in 1622. He taught rhetoric for the space often years. Being afterwards called to the court of Savoy, to be entrusted with the education of prince Charles Emanuel, he began to publish his first works at Turin. He died at Messina, Nov. 15, 1653. All his works were printed together at Lucca, in 1710. This collection contains, I. A hundred panegyrics upon Jesus Christ; printed the first time at Genoa in 1641. 2. Forty panegyrics written in honour of Lewis XIII. printed at Lyons in 1644. 3. Many inscriptions, epitaphs, and encomiums, upon several subjects; printed likewise at Lyons in the same year. 4. Panegyrics upon the greatest bishops that have been in the church; printed also at Lyons in the same year, and reprinted at Genoa in 1653, with this title, “Pars Secunda Elogiorura humana complectens.”

, a Roman emperor, commonly, although perfcaps not very justly, styled the Apostate, was the younger son of Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. He was the first fruit of a second marriage of his father with Basilina, after the birth of Gallus, whom he had by Galla his first consort. He was born Nov. 6, in the year 331, at Constantinople; and, according to the medals of him, named Fiavius Claudius Julianus. During the life of Constantine, he received the first rudiments of his education at the court of Constantinople; but, upon the death of this emperor, all his relations being suspected of criminal actions, Julian’s father was obliged to seek his safety by flight; and his son Julian’s escape was entirely owing to Marc, bishop of Arethusa, without whose care he had inevitably perished in the persecution of his family. As soon as the storm was over, and Constantius, the son of Constantine, quietly seated on the imperial throne, he sent young Julian to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was related to him by his mother’s side, and who educated him in the Christian faith; but at the same time employed an eunuch called Mardonius, who was a pagan, to teach him grammar, while Eulolius, a Christian of doubtful character, was his master in rhetoric. Julian made a very quick progress in learning; and, being sent afterwards to Athens to complete his education, he became the darling of that nursery of polite literature, and particularly commenced an acquaintance with St. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen. This last, however, observed something in him which rendered his sincerity in the Christian faith suspected: and it is certain, that, notwithstanding all the care of his preceptor Eusebius, this young prince was entirely perverted by Maximus, an Ephesian philosopher and magician. His cousin Constantius the emperor was advertised of his conduct; and Julian, to prevent the effects, and save his life, professed himself a monk, and took the habit, but, under this character in public, he secretly embraced paganism. Some time before, his brother Gallus and he had taken orders, and executed the office of reader in the church; but the religious sentiments of the two brothers were widely different.

With these dispositions he came to the empire, and consequently with a determined purpose of subverting the Christian and restoring the pagan worship. His predecessors had left him the repeated experience of the inefficacy of downright force. The virtue of the past times then rendered this effort fruitless, the numbers of the present would have made it now dangerous: he found it necessary, therefore, to change his ground. His knowledge of human nature furnished him with arms; and his knowledge of the faith he had abandoned, enabled him to direct those arms to most advantage. He began with re-establishing paganism by law, and granting a full liberty of conscience to the Christians. On this principle, he restored those to their civil rights who had been banished on account of their religion, and even affected to reconcile to a mutual forbearance the various sects of Christianity. Yet he put on this mask of moderation for no other purpose than to inflame the dissensions in the church. He then fined and banished such of the more popular clergy as had abused their power, either in exciting the people to burn and destroy pagan temples, or to commit violence on an opposite sect: and it cannot be denied, but that in the turbulent and insolent manners of some of them, he found a plausible pretext for this severity. He proceeded to revoke and take away those immunities, honours, and revenues, which his uncle and cousin had granted to the clergy. Neither was his pretence for this altogether unreasonable. He judged the grants to be exorbitant; and, besides, as they were attendant on a national religion, when the establishment came to be transferred from Christianity to paganism, he concluded they must follow the religion of the state. But there was one immunity he took away, which no good policy, even under an establishment, should have granted them and this was an exemption from the civil tribunals. He went still farther he disqualified the Christian laity for bearing offices in the state and even this the security of the established religion may often require. But his most illiberal treatment of the Christians, was his forbidding, the professors of that religion to teach polite letters, and the sciences, in the public schools; and Amm. Marcellinus censures this part of his conduct as a breach in his general character of humanity, (lib. xx. c. 10.) His more immediate design, in this, was to hinder the youth from taking impressions to the disadvantage of paganism; his remoter view, to deprive Christianity of the support of human literature. Not content with this, he endeavoured even to destroy what was already written in defence of Christianity. With this view he wrote to the governor and treasurergeneral of Egypt, to send him the library of George bishop of Alexandria, who, for his cruelty and tyranny, had been ton) in pieces by the people: nay, to such a length did his aversion to the name of Christ carry him, as to decree, by a public edict, that his followers should be no longer called Christians, but Galileans; well knowing the efficacy of a nick-name to render a profession ridiculous. In the mean time, the animosities between the different sects of Christianity, furnished him with the means of carrying on these projects. Being, for example, well assured that the Arian church oi Edessa was very rich, he took advantage of their oppressing and persecuting the Valentinians to seize every tiling belonging to that church, and divided the plunder among his soldiers; scornfully telling the Edessians, he did this to ease them of their burthens, that they might proceed more lightly, and with less impediment, in their journey to heaven. He went farther still, if we may believe the historian Socrates, and, in order to raise money to defray the extraordinary expence of his Persian expedition, he imposed a tax or tribute on all who would not sacrifice to the pagan idols. The tax, it is true, was proportioned to every man’s circumstances, but was as truly an infringement upon his act of toleration. And though he forbore persecuting to death by law, which would have been a direct contradiction to that act, yet he connived at the fury of the people, and the brutality of the governors of provinces, who, during his short reign, brought many martyrs to the stake. He put such into governments, whose inhumanity and blind zeal for their country superstitions were most distinguished. And when the suffering churches presented their complaints to him, he dismissed them with cruel scoffs, telling them, their religion directed them to suffer without murmuring.

Jungius seems to have eminently distinguished himself in the several studies of theology, medicine, mathematics, metaphysics, and botany, upon all which pursuits his opinions and observations are handed down to us in his writings, though the most famous part of his work, entitled “Doxoscopiae Physicze Minores,” is upon the last mentioned subject, botany. This book was first printed at Hamburgh, in 4to, A.D. 1662, and again, in 1679, under the care of Martin Fogel, with this additional title, “Prsecipuarum opinionum physicarum.” A copy of the former edition of this work is in the Linnoean library, having been presented to Linnæus by his pupil, professor P. D. Giseke, of Hamburgh. The botanical part of it, included in the third section of the second part, occupies about 100 pages, and contains many judicious and acute rules for making distinct species of plants, as well as some curious remarks upon genera. He was a great critic in botanical nomenclature; and constructed a variety of terms which agree with those of Linnasus, and his remarks upon botanical discrimination have been of considerable advantage to succeeding botanists, and many of his definitions are repeatedly made use of by our immortal countryman, Ray. He was the first who projected and raised a literary society in Germany, though this institution did not share a better fate than the one which had just before been founded in this country (and which appears to have served for its model) by Hugh Latimer, Thomas Linacre, and others, for the purpose of discussing and illustrating Aristotle’s philosophy. They both Bourished but for a short period, though the Heunetic or Ereunetic society, as it was called, established by professor Jungius, was on a far more comprehensive plan than the other, and may indeed be considered as having, in some measure, embraced the same views with which the royal society was afterwards instituted in Great Britain. The fame of Jungius was originally diffused through this country by his noble pupil, the honourable Charles Cavendish, who appears to have studied under him at Hamburgh. This gentleman was brother to the earl of Newcastle, who had the care of Charles I. when a youth.

After a careful course of these studies and researches, he announced his having discovered that the Gothic was the mother of all the Teutonic tongues; whence sprang the old Cimbrian, transmitted to posterity by the remains of the Runic, as likewise the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, in which the inhabitants of the country expressed their thoughts at that time. From the AngloSaxon, which itself is either a branch of the Gothic or its sister, and daughter of the same mother, sprang the English, Scotch, Belgtc, and the old language of Friesland. From the Gothic and Saxon languages sprang that of the Francs, which is the mother-tongue of Upper-Germany. He was so passionately fond of this study, that, after thirty years chiefly spent upon it in England, being informed there were some villages in Friesland where the ancient language of the Saxons was preserved, he went thither and lived two years among them. Then, returning into Holland, he met with the old Gothic ms. called the Silver One, because the four gospels are written there in silver Gothic letters. He devoted his whole study in the explication of it, which he completed in a little time, and published it, with notes of Dr. Marshall, in 1665, under the title “Glossarium Gothicum in quatuor evangelia Gothica,” Dordrac, 1665, 4-to. Dr. Marshall’s performance is entitled <e Observationes in evangeliorum versiones per antiquas duas, Gothicam sc. & Anglo-Saxonicam," &c. ibid. Junius returned into England in 1674, in order to peruse such English-Saxon books as had hitherto escaped his diligence, especially those in the Cottonian library. In Oct. 1676, he retired to Oxford. He was now 87, and intended not to leave that beloved university any more. At first he had lodgings opposite to Lincoln college, for the sake of Dr. Marshall, rector of that society, who had been his pupil in the study of the Northern languages, and was then a great critic, as well as Junius, in them. Afterwards, he intended to put some of his notes and collections into order; and, to avoid the interruption of frequent visits, he removed to an obscure house in St. Ebbe’s parish, where he digested some things for the press^ and made a deed of gift of all his Mss. and collections to the public library.

, a French protestant divine, sometimes called by the catholics the Goliah of the protestants, was born Dec. 24, 1637. His father, Daniel Jurieu, was minister of the reformed religion at Mer his mother, the daughter of Peter du Moulin, minister and professor at Sedan. He was sent, after the first rudiments of his education under Rivet in Holland, to his maternal uncle Peter du Moulin, then in England where, having finished his theological studies, he took orders in that church but, upon the death of his father, being called home to succeed him at Mer, and finding what he had done in England disliked by the reformed in his own country, he submitted to a re-ordination by presbyters, according to the form of the foreign protestant churches. After some time, he officiated in the French church of Vitri, where the people were so much pleased with him, that they endeavoured to procure his settlement among them; and here he composed his “Treatise, of Devotion.” Before this, in 1670, he had attracted public attention by refuting a project for reuniting all the sects of Christianity, wrote by d'Huisseau, minister of Saumur. He was afterwards invited to Sedan, where he discharged the office of professor in divinity and Hebrew with great reputation. In 1673 he wrote his “Preservative against Popery,” which he opposed to the exposition of the doctrine of the catholic church by M. de Meaux, bishop of Condom. This treatise did great credit to the author, who endeavoured to prove that the prelate had disguised the doctrine of his church. In 1675, Jurieu. published the first part of his work (the whole of which appeared in 1685), entitled “La Justification de la Morale,” &c. or, “A Vindication of the Morality of the Protestants against the Accusations of Mr. Arnauld,” &c. la 1681, the university of Sedan being taken from the protestants, our professor resolved to accept an invitation sent to him from that of Rouen; but discovering, in the mean time, that the French court knew him to be the author of a work he had published anonymously, under the title of “La Politique du Clerge,” which was a severe satire on the Roman catholics, he was apprehensive of being prosecuted, and therefore retired hastily into Holland, where be almost immediately received an offer of the divinitychair in the university of Groningen; but his friends having founded the same professorship for him at Rotterdam, he preferred this residence to the other; and he was also appointed minister of the Walloon church in the same town. He had not been long in this happy situation, when he produced to the public “Les derniers Efforts de PInnocence afflige'e,” or “The last Efforts of afflicted Innocence.”

, one of the earliest writers of the Christian church, was born at Neapolis, the ancient Sichem of Palestine, in the province of Samaria. His father Priscius, being a Gentile Greek, brought him up in his own religion, and had him educated in all the Grecian learning and philosophy. To complete his studies he travelled to Egypt, the usual tour on this occasion, as being the seat of the more mysterious and recondite literature at this time he was shewn, as he tells you, at Alexandria, the remains of those cells where the seventy translators of the Bible performed what is called the Septuagint version. He had, from his first application to philosophy, disliked the stoic and peripatetic; and chose the sect of Plato, with whose ideas he was enamoured, and of which he resolved to make himself master. He was prosecuting this design in contemplation and solitary walks by the sea-side, as he informs us in his “Dialogue with Trypho,” when there met him one day a grave and ancient person of a venerable aspect, who, falling into discourse upon the subject of his thoughts, turned the conversation, by degrees, from the fancied excellence of Platonism to the superior perfection of Christianity; and performed his part so well, as to raise an ardent curiosity in our Platonist to inquire into the merits of that religion, the result of which was his conversion, which happened about the 16th year of Trajan’s reign, A. C. 132.

, the first Roman emperor of his name, and more celebrated for his code of laws, was nephew of Justin I. and succeeded his uncle in the Imperial throne Aug. 1, 527. He began his reign with the character of a most religious prince, publishing very severe laws against heretics, and repairing ruined churches; in this spirit,- he actually declared himself protector of the church. While he was thus re-establishing Christianity at home, he carried his arms against the enemies of the empire abroad, with so much success, that he reinstated it in its ancient glory. He was very happy in having the best general of the age, Belisarius, who conquered the Persians for him in 528, 542, and 543; and in 533 exterminated the Vandals, and took their king Gillimer prisoner. He also recovered Africa to the empire by a new conquest vanquished the Goths in Italy and, lastly, defeated the Moors and the Samaritans. But, in the midst of these glorious successes the emperor was endangered by a potent faction at home. Hypalius, Pompeius, and Probus, three nephews of the emperor Anastasius, the immediate predecessor of Justin, combining together, raised a powerful insurrection, in order to dethrone Justinian. The conspirators formed two parties, one called the Varti, and the other Veneti, and at length became so strong, that the emperor, in despair of being able to resist them, began to think of quitting the palace; and had certainly submitted to that disgrace had not the empress Theodosia, his consort, vexed at his betraying so much tameness, reproached him with his pusillanimity, and induced him to fortify himself against the rebels, while Belisarius and Mundus defended him so well, that the conspiracy was broken, and the ringleaders capitally punished.

The empire being now in the full enjoyment of profound peace and tranquillity, Justinian made the best use of it, by collecting the immense variety and number of the Roman laws into one body. To this end, he selected ten of the most able lawyers in the empire; who, revising the Gregorian, Theodosian, and Hermogenian codes, compiled out of them one body, called “The Code,” to which the emperorgave his own name. This may be called the statute law, as consisting of the rescripts of the emperors: but the compilation of the other part was a much more difficult task. It was made up of the decisions of the judges and other magistrates, together with the authoritative opinions of the most eminent lawyers; all which lay scattered, without any order, in above 2000 volumes. These, however, after the labour of ten years, chiefly by Tribonian, an eminent lawyer, were reduced to the number of 50; and the whole design was completed in the year 533, and the name of “Digests,” or “Pandects,” given to it. Besides these, for the use chiefly of young students in the law, Justinian ordered four books of “Institutes” to be drawn up, by Tribonian, Dorotheus, and Theophilus, containing an abstract or abridgement of the text of all the laws: and, lastly, the laws of modern date, posterior to that of the former, were thrown into one volume in the year 541, called the “Noveilx,” or “New Code.” This most important transaction in the state has rendered Justinian’s name immortal. His conduct in ecclesiastical affairs was rash and inconsiderate. On one occasion, when Theodotus, king of Italy, had obliged pope Agapetus to go to Constantinople, in order to submit and make peace with the emperor, Justinian received him very graciously, but enjoined him to communicate with Anthenius, patriarch of Constantinople. That patriarch being deemed a heretic at Rome, the pontiff refused to obey the command; and, when the emperor threatened to punish his disobedience with banishment, he answered, without any emotion, “I thought I was come before a Christian prince, but I find a Diocletian.” The result was, that the hardiness and resolution of the pope brought the emperor to a submission. Accordingly Anthenius was deprived, and an orthodox prelate put into his place.

It was, however, his misfortune, that the archbishop carried his esteem for him too far, and involved him in a scheme which Laud vainly fancied would raise the power and consequence of the church. This was no other than to place churchmen in high political stations;.and by way of experiment, he prevailed on the king to appoint bishop Juxon to the office of lord high treasurer, to which he was accordingly promoted in 1635. This office no churchman had held since the time of Henry VII. and although that was not such a very distant period, as not to afford something like a precedent to the promotion, yet the sentiments of the nation were now totally changed, and the noble families, from which such an officer was expected to have been chosen, were not more astonished than displeased to see the staff put into the hands of a clergyman scarcely known out of the verge of his college until called to the bishopric of London, which he had not filled two years. Notwithstanding this, it is allowed un all hands that Dr. Juxon conducted himself in such a manner, as to give no offence to any party; while, in the management of official concerns, he was so prudent and oeconomical, as considerably to benefit the exchequer. There cannot, indeed, be a greater proof of his good conduct than this, that when the republican party ransacked every office for causes of impeachment, sequestration, and death, they found nothing to object to bishop Juxon. He was not, however, made for the times; and when he saw the storm approaching which was to overset the whole edifice of church and state, he resigned his office May 17, 1641, just after the execution of the earl of Strafford, in consequence of the king’s passing the bill of attainder, contrary to Juxon’s express and earnest advice.

, one of the apostolical fathers of the church, was born in Syria, educated under the apostle and evangelist St. John, intimately acquainted with some other of the apostles, especially St. Peter and St. Paul; and being fully instructed in the doctrines of Christianity, was, for his eminent parts and piety, ordained by St. John; and confirmed about the year 67, bishop of Antioch by these two apostles, who first planted Christianity in that city, where the disciples were first called Christians. In this important seat he continued to sit upwards of forty years, both an honour and safeguard to the Christian religion; in the midst of very stormy and tempestuous times, undaunted himself, and unmoved with the prospect of suffering a cruel death. So much seems to be certain in general, though we have no account of any particulars of his life till the year 107, when Trajan the emperor, elated with his victory over the Scythians and Daci, came to Antioch to prepare for a war against the Parthians and Armenians. He entered the city with the pomp and solemnities of a triumph; and, as he had already commenced a persecution against the Christians in other parts of the empire, he now resolved to carry it on here. However, as he was naturally mild and humane, though he ordered the laws to be put in force against them, if convicted, yet he forbad any extraordinary means to be used for discovering or informing against them.

, was a printer, and a son of a printer; but he applied himself to letter-cutting in 1730, and carried on a foundery and a printing-house together. He was an expeditious compositor, and was said to know the letters by the touch; but being not perfectly sound in mind, produced some strange works. In 1751 he published a pretended translation of “The Book of Jasher;” said to have been made by one Alcuin of Britain. The account given of the translation is full of glaring absurdities; but the publication, in fact, was secretly written by him, and printed off by night. He published, in 1733, an Oration, intended to prove the plurality of worlds, and asserting that this earth is hell, that the souls of men are apostate angels, and that the fire to punish those confined to this world at the day of judgment will be immaterial. This was written in 1729, and spoken afterwards at Joiners- hall, pursuant to the will of his mother, who had held the same extraordinary opinions. In this strange performance the author unveils his deistical principles, and takes no small liberty with the sacred Scriptures, especially the character of Moses. Emboldened by this first adventure, he determined to become the public teacher of infidelity, or, as he calls it, “The religion of nature.” For this purpose, he hired the use of Carpenters’-hall, where, for some considerable time, he delivered his orations, which consisted chiefly of scraps from Tindal, and other similar writers. In the course of the same year, 1733, appeared a second pamphlet called “A Dialogue between a Doctor of the Church of England and Mr. Jacob Hive, upon the subject of the oration.” This strange oration is highly praised in HolwelPs third part of “Interesting Events relating to Bengal.” For publishing “Modest Remarks on the late bishop Sherlock’s Sermons,” Hive was confined in Clerkenwell- bridewell from June 15, 1756, till June 10, 1758; during which period he published “Reasons offered for the Reformation of the House of Correction in Clerkenwell,” &c. 1757, and projected several other reforming treatises, enumerated in Gough’s “British Topography;” where is alsjo a memorandum, communicated by Mr. Bowyer, of Hive’s attempt to restore the company of Stationers to their primitive constitution. He died in 1763,

He was thus employed when all the schools of Saiony were dispersed by the war, on which, Flacius went to Brunswick, where he acquired great reputation by his lectures. In 1547 he returned to his former employment at Wittenberg, and here first began his differences with his brethren on the subject of the Interim, that famous edict of Charles V. which was to be observed with the articles of religion then in dispute, until they should be determined by a council, and therefore was called interim. But as it retained most of the doctrines and ceremonies of the Romanists, though expressed for the most part in the softest words, or in scriptural phrases, or in terms of studied ambiguity, excepting that of marriage, which was allowed to priests, and communion, which was administered to th6 laity under both kinds, most of the Protestants rejected it, and none with more warmth than Flacius. This involved him also with Melancthon, against whom he wrote with so much intemperance, that the latter called him “Echidna Illyrica,” the Illyrian viper. Flacius, however, that he might be at liberty to oppose popery in his own way, retired, in 1549, to Magdeburg, which town was at that time proscribed by the emperor. Here he published several books, and began that ecclesiastical history which we have mentioned in the article Judex, called the “Centuries of Magdeburg,” of which he had the chief direction. Of this work the first four centuries, and part of the fifth, were composed at Magdeburg. The fifth was finished at Jena. The sixth was written in the place to which the authors had retired on account of the persecution of their two coadjutors, Gallus and Faber. The seventh was composed in the country of Mecklenburgh, and the remaining in the city of Wismar, in the same country. The first three centuries were published in 1559, though dated in 1560, according to the booksellers’ custom, with a dedication to queen Elizabeth, earnestly exhorting her to establisn the pure, uncorrupt religion, and particularly the doctrine of the corporal presence in the sacrament. The best edition of this work is that of Basil, 1624, 3 vols. folio. This is the most considerable of Flacius’s works, and employed him during the whole of his lite, at such times as he could spare from his public employments and controversies, which last he carried on with too much violence.

In 1557 he accepted the offer made to him, of the Hebrew and divinity professorship in the new university of Jena, where he had read lectures for five years, and where he engaged in a dispute with his colleague, Strigelius, on the nature of original sin, which Strigelius held to be accidental of the soul, and Flacius maintained that it was of the soul’s substance and essence. This dispute was held before the duke of Saxony at Weimar, and carried on to thirteen meetings, the acts of which were published, with a preface by Musaeus, one of Flacius’s followers. His opinion on this subject, however, was so unpalatable, that he was obliged to leave Jena and go to Ratisbon, where he published some more works, and was in such reputation among the adherents to the Au^sburgh confession, that, in 1567, he was called into Brabant, to establish churches there according to that rule of faith; but these new churches were soon dispersed by the persecution arisen in that country, which obliged him to fly to Antwerp and Strasburg, and finally to Francfort. Here he maintained his opinion on original sin with such rigid adherence as to be charged with Manicheism on this point, which greatly injured his reputation, and deprived him of many of his followers. He died in this city, March 11, 1575. He is said to have been a man of extensive learning, but of a controversial turn, which frequently embroiled him with his brethren; but on the other hand he must be allowed to have been a powerful agent in promoting the Reformation. His works were numerous. Teissier, in his “Eloges des homines savans,” has given the titles of seventy-eight treatises, the greater part of which are also enumerated by Niceron. The principal are his “Clavis Scripturae,” 2 vols. fol. of which there have been seven editions, the last at Leipsic in. 1695; no inconsiderable test of its merit. To this may be added his “Catalogus testium veritatis,” of which there have been several editions in 4to and fol.; and an edition of the “Ancient Latin Mass,” Strasburg, 1557, 8vo. He thought this work would assist the common cause; but the Lutherans, perceiving the contrary, did all they could to suppress it, which is the reason of its scarceness; nor has the republication in P. le Cointe’s “Annals,” and in cardinal Bona’s “Liturgies,” reduced the very high price. In the edition of Sulpicius Severus, published by him ut Basil, 1556, 8vo, there is an “Appendix to the Latin Mass,” which may be added to it. There is another very rare work of his, entitled “Varia doctorum piorumque virorum de corrupto ecclesise statu, Poemata,” Basil, 1557.

Ingrassias cultivated anatomy with great assiduity, and is esteemed one of the improvers of that art, especially in regard to the structure of the cranium, and the organ of hearing. He discovered the small bone of the ear, called the stapes, which has been claimed as the discovery of others, but is admitted even by Fallopius to have been his. He described minutely the cavity of the tympanum, the fenestra rotunda and ovalis, the cochlea, semicircular canals, mastoid cells, &c. and Eloy thinks, from a view of his plates, that he was acquainted with the muscle of the malleus, the discovery of which is ascribed to Eustachius. He is said also to have discovered the seminal vesicles. He was author of the following works: 1. “Jatropologia Liber quo multa adversus Barbaros Medicos disputantur,” Venice, 1544, 1558, 8vo. 2. “Scholia in Jatropologiam,” Naples, 1549, 8vo. 3. “De Tumoribus practer naturam,” ibid. 1553, folio, vol. I. This is properly a commentary on some of the books of Avicenna. 4. “Raggionamento fatto sopra Tinfermita epidemica dell* anno 1558,” Palermo, 1560, 4to, together with “Trattato di due mostri nati in Palermo in diversi tempi.” 5. “Constitutiones et Capitula, necnoh Jurisdictiones Regii Proto-Medicatds officii, cum Pandectis ejusdem reformatis,” Palermo, 1564, 1657, 4to. 6. “Quxstio de Purgatione per meclicamentum, atque obiter etiam de sanguinis missione, an sextd die possit fierii” Venice, 1568, 4to. 7. “Galeni Ars Medica,” ibid. 1573, folio. 8. “De frigidye potu post medicamentum purgans Epistola,” ibid. 1575, “4 to, reprinted at Milan, 1586. 9.” Informatione del pestifero e contagioso morbo, &c.“Palermo, 1576, 4to. This work was translated into Latin by Joachim Camerarius, and published under the title of” Methodus curandi pestiferum contagium,“at Nurimberg, 1583. 10.” In Galeni librum de ossibus doctissima et expertissima Commentaria," a posthumous publication, printed at Messina, in 1603, under the inspection of his nephew, Nicholas Ingrassias. This, which may be deemed the principal work of Ingrassias, contains the text of Galen, in Greek and Latin, with a very diffuse and learned commentary, in which there is much minute and accurate description, particularly of the parts belonging to the organ of hearing. The figures are those of Vesalius. The author defends Galen as far as he is able, but riot against the truth of modern discovery.

, bishop of Lyons in France, was undoubtedly by birth a Greek, and, not improbably, born at or near the city of Smyrna. He was trained in the studies of philosophy and human learning: in the doctrines of Christianity, two disciples of St. John the apostle, Papias and Polycarp, were his masters. The latter he is said to have accompanied in his journey, about the Paschal controversy, to Rome; where, by his and Anicetus’s persuasioiij he was prevailed upon to go to France; great numbers of Greeks residing in some parts of that kingdom, especially about Marseilles, and the church there beginning to be disturbed by several pernicious heresies. In his journey, arriving at Lyons, he continued several years there, in the station of a presbyter, under the care add government of Pothinus, the bishop of that city; and, by his behaviour, distinguished himself so much, that, about the year 177, he was chosen to draw up the judgment and opinion of the churches of Lyons and Vienna, which were sent to those in Asia, in order to compose the differences lately raised by Montanus and his followers, who pretended to the prophetic spirit. In the same letter, they took occasion also to give an account of the persecution, which then raged peculiarly among them, under Marcus Antoninus. The opinions of the confessors in. those times were always received with esteem and veneration. The same churches therefore sent other letters about these controversies to Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, which were probably carried by Irenseus, who undertook that journey at their request. Two years after, in the year 174, upon the martyrdom of Pothinus at Lyons, Irenaeus succeeded to that chair, in a troublesome and tempestuous time, when the church was assaulted by enemies from without, and betrayed by heretics from within. These circumstances required both courage and conduct in the governors, and our new bishop gave conspicuous proofs of his qualifications in both respects. He is said to have held a provincial synod at Lyons, where, by the assistance and suffrage of twelve other bishops, he condemned the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides. He had personally encountered some of these ringleaders among the Gnostics, and read the books of others; when, at the request of many who importuned him, he set about the elaborate work “against Heresies,” part of which is still extant under his name. It was composed in the time of Eleutherius; upon whose decease, Victor, succeeding to the see of Rome, headed afresh the dispute abput the time of celebrating Easter, and endeavoured imperiously to oppose the Roman custom upon the Asiatics. To heal the sclmrn, synods were called in several places; and, among the rest, Irenaeus convened one of the churches of France under his jurisdiction;. where, having determined the matter, he wrote a synodical epistle to pope Victor, and told him, that they agreed with him in the main of the controversy, but withal advised him to take heed how he excommunicated whole churches, for observing the custom derived down to them from their ancestors. He observed, that there was as little agreement in the manner of the preparatory fast before Easter, as in the day itself, some thinking they were to fast but one day, others two, others more, and some measuring the time by a continued fast of forty hours; and that this variety was of long standing, and had crept into several places, while the governors of the church took less care about these different customs than about maintaining a sincere and mutual love and peace towards one another; putting him in mind too of Anicetus and Polycarp, who, though they could not agree about their different usages, did yet mutually embrace, orderly receive the communion together, and peaceably part from one another. Irenaeus wrote also, to the same effect, to several other bishops, for allaying this unhappy difr fere nee.

, called also Wernerus, or Guarnerus, a celebrated German lawyer, was born at Bologna, about the middle of the eleventh century. After studying the law at Constantinople, he taught it at Ravenna, where a dispute arising between him and his colleagues about the word “al,” he sought for the meaning of it in the Roman law; and thence took a liking to it, applied to the study of it, and at last taught it publicly at Bologna in 1128. He had a great number of disciples, became the father of the Glossators, and had the title of “Lucerna Juris.” Thus he was the restorer of the Roman law, which had been destroyed by the invasion of the barbarians. He had great credit in Italy with the princess Matilda; and, having engaged the emperor Lotharius to order, by an edict, that Justinian’s law should resume its ancient authority at the bar, and that the code and digest should be read in the schools, he was the first who exercised that profession in Italy: his method was to reconcile the “responsa jurisprudentum” with the “leges,” when they seemed to clash.

, or Yves, in Latin Ivo, the celebrated bishop of Chartres, was born in the territory of Beauvais, in 1035. He was raised to the see of Chartres in 1092 or 1093, under the pontificate of Urban XI. who had deposed Geofroy, our author’s predecessor in the see, for various crimes of which he was accused. Ives particularly signalized his zeal against Philip I. who had put away his wife Bertha, of Holland, and taken Bertrade of Montford, the wife of Fouques de Requin, count of Anjou. This divorce was contrary to the ecclesiastical law; and the affair would have been attended with bad consequences had not the prince’s friends interposed. After this, the bishop employed himself wholly in the functions of his ministry, made several religious foundations, and died 1115. His corpse was interred in the church of St, John in the Vale, which he had founded. Pope Pius V. by a bull, dated Dec. l&, 1570, permitted the monks of the congregation of Lateran to celebrate the festival of St. Ives. We have, of his compiling, “A collection of Decrees;” “Exceptiones ecclesiasticarum regularum;” besides “22 Sermons,” and a “Chronicon;” all which were collected in 1647 by John Baptist Souciet, a canon of Chartres, in one vol. folio, divided into parts. The “Decrees” were printed in 1561, and there has been another edition since. A collection of canons called the “Pannomia,” or “Panormia,” and some other pieces printed in the “Bibliotheca patrum,” are also ascribed to our bishop.

His inaugural dissertation, before noticed, and published at Leyden in 1694, is entitled “Decas observationum exoticarum.” Of this an unique copy is preserved in Sir James Smith’s library. The subjects on which it treats are, 1, the agnus Scythicus, or Borometz; 2, the bitterness of the Caspian sea; 3, of the native mumia, or bitumen, of Persia 4, of the torpedo, or electrical fish of the Persian gulph 5, of the drug called dragon’s blood, produced by the fruit of a palm 6, of the dracunculus of the Persians, a sort of worm proceeding from a tumour in the skin; 7, on the andrum, or endemic hydrocele of the Malabars; 8, on the perical, or ulcer of the feet among the same people; 9, on the cure of the colic amongst the Japanese by puncture with a needle; 10, on the moxa, or actual cautery, of the same people and the Chinese. These subjects are, as Haller observes, all of them probably treated more fully, in his “Amcenitates Exoticoe,” so often quoted by Linn Sb us for its botany, as well as other authors for its authentic details, relating to the history and manners of Persia, and other parts of the east. His History of Japan is well known by the English translation in folio, and is extremely valued for its accuracy and fidelity. It was published in 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1728. Kcempfer, we have remarked, was skilled in the use of the pencil; and some botanical drawings of his, made in Japan, are preserved in the British museum. Of these sir Joseph Banks, in 1791, liberally presented the learned world with 59 folio engravings at his own expence. Many of the plants are still undetermined by systematic botanists.

, a German writer, who has lately attained extraordinary fame in his own country as the inventor of a new system of philosophical opinions, which, however, are not very likely to reach posterity, was born April 22, 1724, in the suburbs of Konigsberg, in Prussia. His father, John George Kant, was a sadler, born at Memel, but originally descended from a Scotch family, who spelt their name with a C; but the philosopher, the subject of this article, in early life converted the C into a K, as being more conformable to German orthography. Immanuel, the second of six children, was indebted to his father for an example of the strictest integrity and the greatest industry; but he had neither time nor talent to be his instructor. From his mother, a woman of sound sense and ardent piety, he imbibed sentiments of warm and animated devotion, which left to the latest 'periods of his life the strongest and most reverential impressions of her memory on his mind. He received his first instructions in reading and writing at the charity-school in his parish; but soon gave such indications of ability and inclination to learn, as induced his uncle, a wealthy shoe- maker, to defray the expence of his farther education and studies. From school he proceeded to the college of Fridericianum. This was in 1740; and his first teacher was Martin Kautzen, to whom Kant was strongly attached, and who devoted himself with no less zeal to the instruction of his pupil, and contributed very greatly to the unfolding of his talents. His favourite study at the university was that of mathematics, and the branches of natural philosophy connected with them. On the completion of his studies, he accepted a situation as tutor in a clergyman’s family. In this, and in two other similar situations, he was not able to satisfy his mind that he did his duty so well as he ought; he was, according to his own account, too much occupied with acquiring knowledge to be able to communicate the rudiments of it to others. Having, however, acted as a tutor for nine years, he returned to Konigsberg, and maintained himself by private instruction. In 1746, when twenty-two years of age, he began his literary career with a small work, entitled “Thoughts on the estimation of the animal powers, with strictures on the proofs advanced by Leibnitz and other mathematicians on this point,” &c. In 1754 he acquired great reputation by a prize essay on the revolution of the earth round its axis; and the following year was admitted.to his degree of master of arts, and entered immediately upon the task of lecturing, which he performed for many years to crowded audiences, and published several works, the titles of which are now of little importance, compared to his new metaphysical system, the first traces of which are to be found in his inaugural dissertation, written in 1770, when he was appointed to a professor’s chair in the university of Konigsberg; the subject was, “De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis.” Seated now in the chair of metaphysics, his subsequent publications were almost entirely of this nature. He pursued this study with unremitting ardour, and entered into all the depths of metaphysical subtlety, in order, as we are told, “to unfold the rational powers of man, and deduce from thence his moral duties.” It was not till 178 J, that the full principles of his system appeared in his “Review of pure reason;” and the system it contains is commonly known under the name of the “Critical Philosophy.” As this work had been variously misrepresented, he published a second part in 1783, entitled “Prolegomena for future Metaphysics, which are to be considered as a science.” In 1786 he was appointed rector of the university, and was a second time called to the same office, in 1788; and in a few months he was advanced to be senior of the philosophical faculty. About 1798, he took leave of the public as an author, and soon after gave up all his official situations. During his latter years, his faculties were visibly decayed, in which state he died Feb. 12, 1804. The character of Kant is said to have been contemplated with universal respect and admiration, and during his life he received from the learned throughout Germany, marks of esteem bordering upon adoration. How far he deserved all this, is very questionable. His language is equally obscure, and his reasonings equally subtle with those of the commentators of Aristotle in the fifteenth century. The truth of this assertion will be denied by none who have endeavoured to make themselves masters of the works of Willich and Nitsch, two of his pupils; and the source of this obscurity seems to be sufficiently obvious. Besides employing a vast number of words of his own invention, derived from the Greek language, Kant uses expressions which have long been familiar to metaphysicians, in a sense different from that in which they are generally received; and we have no doubt that the difficulty of comprehending his philosophy has contributed, far more than any thing really valuaBle in it, to bring it into vogue, and raise the fame of the author. For the following analysis of his system we are indebted to one of our authorities, and we might perhaps deserve blame for the length of the article, if it did not appear necessary that some record should remain of a set of opinions that once threatened to usurp the place of all true philosophy as well as religion. The reader who studies for the practical improvement of his mind, will perceive at once, that it is the object of all such metaphysical projectors to render the world independent of revealed religion.

In 1547, he was admitted fellow of the college of physicians in London, of which he held all the higher offices, of censor, president, &c. and upon every occasion shewed himself a zealous defender of the college’s rights and privileges, and a strict observer of her statutes, never, even in advanced life, absenting himself from the comitia, or meetings, without a dispensation. He also compiled the annals of the college from 1555 to 1572, entering every memorable transaction in its due time and order. In 1557, being in great favour with queen Mary, and,as it is said, almost an oracle in her opinion, he determined to employ this influence in behalf of literature in general, and accordingly obtained a licence to advance Gonvil-hall, in which he had been educated, into a college. As yet it was not a corporation, or body politic; but, by Caius’s interest at court, it was now incorporated by the name of Gonvil and Caius College, which he endowed with considerable estates, purchased by him on the dissolution of the monasteries, for the maintenance of an additional number of fellows and scholars. He also built, at his own expence, the new square called Caius Court. The first statutes of this new foundation were drawn up by him, and that he might have the better opportunity of consulting its interest, he accepted, and retained, the mastership, almost as long as he lived. Some short time before his decease he caused another master to be appointed in his room, but continued in college as a fellow-commoner, assisting daily at divine service in a private seat in the chapel, which he had built for himself. Here -he died July 29, 1573, amf was buned in the college-chapal, with the short epitaph of “Fui Caius. Vivit post funera virtus.”

, a Baptist divine of considerable note in his day, and some of whose writings are still popular, was born Feb. 29, 1640, at Stokehaman in Buckinghamshire: he appears to have had no regular education, owing to the poverty of his parents, and for some time worked at a trade. He read much, however, in the religious controversies of the times, and entertaining doubts of the validity of infant baptism, was himself re- baptised by immersion, when in his fifteenth year, and joined himself to a congregation of Baptists. Between this and his eighteenth year, he probably studied with a view to the ministry, as at that latter period, he became a preacher, and some time after his settlement in London, attached himself to the particular or Calvinistic Baptists. After the restoration, he frequently was involved in prosecutions, owing to the bold avowal of his sentiments, especially in a little tract called “The Child’s Instructor,” in which he asserted that infants ought not to be baptised; that laymen, having abilities, might preach the gospel, &c. For this he was tried at Aylesbury assizes, Oct. 8, 1664, and sentenced to imprisonment and pillory, the latter of which was executed at the market-place of Winslou-, where he was then a preacher. In 1668 he was chosen pastor of a congregation of Baptists in Goat-yard passage, Horsleydown, Southwark. In 1674 and some following years, he had a controversy, concerning his particular tenets, with Baxter, Burkitt, Flavel, and others, and with some of his own persuasion, concerning certain minute points of discipline. He was in all his opinions sincere, and accounted a man of great piety, and of very considerable knowledge, considering the want of early education and opportunities. He died July Ks, 1704, and was interred in the burialground belonging to the Baptists, in the Park Southwark. He published a great many tracts, some controversial and some practical. His “Travels of True Godliness,” and “Travel-* of Ungodliness,” written in the manner of Bunyan, have passed through many editions, and are still popular; but his ablest works are his “Key to open Scripture Metaphors,” first published in 1682; and his “Exposition of the Parables,” 1704, both in folio.

, a very agreeable English writer, was descended from sir George Hungerford, his great grandfather, by lady Frances Ducie, only daughter of Francis lord Seymour, baron of Trowbridge. He was born, as may be conjectured, about 1729 or 1730, and received his education at Kingston school, under the rev. Mr. Woodeson. From thence he went to Geneva, where he resided some years; and during his stay there, became acquainted with Voltaire, with whom he continued to correspond many years after he returned to England. After finishing the tour of Europe, he settled as a student in the Inner Temple, was called to the bar, and sometimes attended Westminster-hall; though he did not meet with encouragement enough to induce his perseverance in his profession, nor indeed does it seem probable that he had sufficient application for it. His first performance was “Ancient and Modern Rome,” a poem, written at Rome in 1755, and published in 1760, with merited applause. Soon after, he printed “A short Account of the Ancient History, present Government, and Laws of the Republic of Geneva.” This work he dedicated to his friend Voltaire. In 1762 he produced an “Epistle from lady Jane Gray to lord Guildford Dudley;” and in 1763 “The Alps,” a poem, which, for truth of description, elegance of versification, and vigour of imagination, greatly surpasses all his other poetical productions. In 1764 he produced “Netley Abbey;” and in 1765, the “Temple Student, an Epistle to a Friend,” in which he agreeably rallies his own want of application in the study of the law, and intimates his irresistible penchant for the belles lettres. In 1769 he married miss Hudson, of Wanlip, Leicestershire. Some months before which, he had published “Ferney,” an epistle to Mons. de Voltaire, in which he introduced a fine eulogium on Shakspeare, which procured him, soon after, the compliment, from the mayor and burgesses of Stratford, of a standish, mounted with silver, made out of the mulberry-tree planted by that illustrious bard. In 1773 he published “The Monument -in Arcadia,” a dramatic poem, founded on a well-known picture of Poussin; and in 1779, “Sketches from Nature, taken and coloured in a Journey to Margate,” 2 vols. 12 mo, an imitation of Sterne’s “Sentimental Journey” In 1781 he collected his poetical works in two volumes, with a dedication to Dr. Heberden, including a number of new pieces never before printed, and an excellent portrait of himself. Of these pieces, one was “The Helvetiad,” a fragment, written at Geneva, in 1756, He had intended to compose a poem of some length, on the subject of the emancipation of Switzerland from the oppression of the house of Austria, and had even settled the plan of his work, when he acquainted M. Voltaire with his intention, who advised him rather to employ his time on subjects more likely to interest the public attention “For,” said be, “should you devote yourself to the completion of your present design, the Swiss would be much obliged to you, without being able to read you, and the rest of the world would care little about the matter.” Whatever justice there was in this remark, Mr. K. relinquished his plan, and never resumed it afterwards. In 1781, he published an “Epistle to Angelica Kauffman.”

In Feb. 1701 he was admitted a fellow of the royal society; and, in 1708, published, in the “Philosophical Transactions,” a paper “Of the Laws of Attraction, and its Physical Principles.” At the same time, being offended at a passage in the “Acta Eruditorum” at Leipsic, in which Sir Jsaac Newton’s claim to the first invention of the method of fluxions was called in question, he communicated to the royal society another paper, in which he asserted the justice of that claim. In 1709 he was appointed treasurer to the Palatines, and in that station attended them in their passage to New England; and, soon after his return in 1710, was chosen Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. In 1711, being attacked by Leibnitz, he entered the lists against that mathematician, in the dispute about the invention of fluxions. Leibnitz wrote a letter to Dr. Hans Sloane, then secretary to the royal society, dated March 4, 1711, in which he required Keill, in effect, to give him satisfaction for the injury he had done him in his paper relating to the passage in the “Acta Eruditorum” at Leipsic. He protested, that he was far from assuming to himself Sir Isaac Newton’s method of fluxions; and desired, therefore, that Keill might be obliged to retract his false assertion. Keill desired, on the other hand, that he might be permitted to justify what he had asserted which he performed to the approbation of Sir Isaac, and other members of the society and a copy of his defence was sent to Leibnitz, who, in a second letter, remonstrated still more loudly against Keill’s want of candour and sincerity; adding, that it was not fit for one of his age and experience to enter into a dispute with an upstart, who acted without any authority from Sir Isaac Newton and desiring that the royal society would enjoin him silence. Upon this, a special committee was appointed who, after examining the facts, concluded their report with “reckoning Mr. Newton the inventor of fluxions; and that Mr. Keill, in asserting the same, had been no ways injurious to Mr. Leibnitz.” In the mean time, Keill behaved himself with great firmness and spirit; which he also shewed afterwards in a Latin epistle, written in 172O, to Bernoulli, mathematical professor at Basil, on account of the same usage shewn to Sir Isaac Newton; in the title-page of which he put the arms of Scotland, viz. a thistle, with this motto, “Nemo me impune lacessit.” The particulars of the contest are recorded in Collins’s “Commercium Epistolicum.”

, alias Talbot (Edward), a famous English alchymist, or, as some have called him, a necromancer, was born at Worcester in 1555, and educated at Gloucesterhall, Oxford. Wood says, that when his nativity was calculated, it appeared that he was to be a man of most acute wit, and great propensity to philosophical studies and mysteries of nature. He belied this prophecy, however, both in the progress and termination of his life; for, leaving Oxford abruptly, and rambling about the kingdom, he was guilty of some crime in Lancashire, for which his ears were cut off at Lancaster; but what crime this was we are not informed. He became afterwards an associate with the famous Dr. Dee, travelled into foreign countries with him, and was his reporter of what passed between him and the spirits with whom the doctor held intelligence, and who wrote down the nonsense Kelley pretended to have heard. Of their journey with Laski, a Polish nobleman, we have already given an account in the life of Dr. Dee. We farther learn from Ashmole, if such information can be called learning, that Kelley and Dee had the good fortune to find a large quantity of the elixir, or philosopher’s stone, in the ruins of Glastonbury abbey; which elixir was so surprisingly rich, that they lost a great deal in making projections, before they discovered the force of its virtue. This author adds, that, -at Trebona in Bohemia, Kelley tried a grain of this elixir upon an ounce and a quarter of common mercury, which was presently transmuted into almost an ounce of fine gold. At another time he tried his art upon a piece of metal, cut out of a warming-pan; which, without handling it, or melting the metal, was turned into very good silver, only by warming it at a fire. Cervantes has given us nothing more absurd in the phrenzy of Don Quixote. This warming-pan, however, and the piece taken out of it, were sent to queen Elizabeth by her ambassador, then residing at Prague. Kelley, afterwards behaving indiscreetly, was imprisoned by the emperor Rodolphus II. by whom he had been knighted; and, endeavouring to make his escape out of the window, fell down and bruised himself so severely that he died soon after, in 1595. His works are, “A Poem of Chemistry,” and “A Poem of the Philosopher’s Stone;” both inserted in the “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum,” 1652 “De Lapide Philosophorurn,” Hamb. 1676, 8vi; but it is questioned whether he was the author of this. He was, however, certainly the author of several discourses in “A true and faithful Relation of what passed for many Years between Dr. John Dee and some Spirits,” &c. Lond. 1659, folio, published by Dr. Meric Casaubon. There are “Fragmentæ aliquot, edita a Combacio,” Geismar, 1647, 12mo; also “Ed. Kelleii epistola ad Edvardum Dyer,” and other little things of Kelley, in ms. in Biblioth. Ashmol. Oxon.

, an English Roman catholic of considerable eminence as a controversial writer, was born in Northamptonshire, about 1560, and brought up in lord Vaux’s family, whence he was sent for education to the English colleges at Doway and Rheims, and afterwards, in 1582, to Rome, where he remained about seven years, and acquired the reputation of a very able divine. In 1589, he was invited to Rheims to lecture on divinity, and, proceeding in his academical degrees, was created D. D. and, in 1606, had the dignity of rector magnificus, or chancellor of the university, conferred upon him. After being public professor at Rheims for twelve years, he returned to Doway in 1613, and a few months after was declared president of the college, by a patent from Rome. In this office he conducted himself with great reputation, and ably promoted the interests of the college. He died Jan. 21, 1641. Among his works are, 1. “Survey of the new religion/' Doway, 1603, 8vi. 2.” A reply to Sutcliffe’s answer to the Survey of the new religion,“Rheims, 1608, 8vi. 3.” Oratio coram Henrico IV. rege Chris4. “The Gagg of the reformed gospel.” This, the catholics tell us, was the cause of the conversion of many protestants. It was answered, however, by Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester, in a tract called “The new Gagger, or Gagger gagged/ 7 1624. Montague and he happened to coincide in so many points that the former was involved with some of his brethren in a controversy, they thinking him too favourable to the popish cause. 5.” Examen reformations, prajsertim Calvinisticae,“8vo, Doway, 1616. 6.” The right and jurisdiction of the prince and prelate,“1617, 1621, 8vo. This he is said to have written in his own defence, having been represented at Rome as a favourer of the oath of allegiance. In the mean time the work was represented to king James I. as allowing of the deposing power, and of murdering excommunicated princes, and his majesty thought proper to inquire more narrowly into the matter; the result of which was, that Dr. Kellison held no such opinions, and had explained his ideas of the oath of allegiance with as much caution as could have been expected. 7.” A treatise of the hierarchy of the church: against the anarchy of Calvin,“1629, 8vo. In this treatise, he had the misfortune to differ from the opinion of his own church in some respect. His object was, to prove the necessity of episcopal government in national churches; and he particularly pointed at the state of the catholics in England, who were without such a government. Some imagined that the book would be censured at Rome, because it seemed indirectly to reflect upon the pope, who had not provided England with bishops to govern the papists there, although frequently applied to for that favour; and because it seemed to represent the regulars as no part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and consequently not over-zealous in supporting the dignity of the episcopal order. The court of Rome, however, took no cognizance of the matter; but others attacked Dr. Kellison’s work with great fury. The controversy increasing, the bishops and clergy of France espoused his cause, and condemned several of the productions of his antagonists, in, which they had attacked the hierarchy of the church. Dr. Kellison’s other works were, 8.” A brief and necessary Instruction for the Catholics of England, touching their pastor,“1631. 9.” Comment, in tertiam partem Summse Sancti Thomas,“1632, fol. 10.” A Letter to king James I." in ms. Sutcliife and Montague were his principal antagonists among the protestants.

But, whilst Kelly was employed in these theatric pursuits, he was too wise to depend solely on their precarious success for the support of his family. He had, therefore, some years before this period, resolved to study the law, had become a member of the society of the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar so early as 1774. His proficiency in that science was such as afforded the most promising hopes that, had he lived, he would in a little time have made a distinguished figure in that profession.

, a learned English clergyman, was born Nov. 1, 1750, at Douglas, in the Isle of Man. Descended from a line of forefathers who had from time immemorial possessed a small freehold near that town, called Aalcaer, which devolved on the doctor, he was placed under the tuiton of the rev. Philip Moore, master of the free grammar-school of Douglas, where he became speedily distinguished by quickness of intellect, and the rapidity of his classical progress. From the pupil he became the favourite and the companion of his instructor, whose regard he appears to have particularly conciliated by his skill in the vernacular dialect of the Celtic tongue, spoken in that island. When not seventeen, young Kelly attempted the difficult task of reducing to writing the grammatical rules, and proceeded to compile a dictionary of the tongue. The obvious difficulties of such an undertaking to a school- boy may be estimated by the reflection that this was the very first attempt to embody, to arrange, or to grammaticize, this language: that it was made without any aid whatever from books, Mss or from oral communications; but merely by dint of observation on the conversation of his unlettered countrymen. It happened at this moment that Dr. Hildesley, the then bishop of Sodor and Man, had brought to maturity his benevolent plan of bestowing on the natives of the island a translation of the Holy Scriptures, of the Common Prayer book, and of some religious tracts, in their own idiom. His lordship most gladly availed himself of the talents and attainments of this young man, and prevailed on him to dedicate several years of his life to his lordship’s favourite object. The Scriptures had been distributed in portions amongst the insular clergy, for each, to translate his part: on Mr. K. the serious charge was. imposed of revising, correcting, and giving uniformity to these several translations of the Old Testament; and also that of conducting through the press the whole of these publications. In June 1768 he entered on his duties: in April 1770 he transmitted the first portion to Whitehaven, where the work was printed; but when conveying the second, he was shipwrecked, and narrowly escaped perishing. The ms. with which he was charged was held five hours above water; and was nearly the only article on board preserved. In the course of “his labours in the vineyard,” he transcribed, with his own hand, all the books of the Old Testament three several times. The whole impression was completed, under his guidance, in December 1772, speedily after the worthy bishop died.

He was of St. John’s-college, Cambridge, where he proceeded LL. B. 1794, LL. D. 1799. In 1803 he corrected and sent to the press the grammatical notes on his native dialect, above alluded to: these were printed by Nichols and Son, with a neat Dedication to the doctor’s former pupil, under the title of “A Practical Grammar of the ancient Gaelic, or language of the Isle of Man, usually called Manks.”

When he was settled in his see, he attended closely to his episcopal function. He published “An Exposition of the Church Catechism” in 1685, and the same year, “Prayers for the Use of the Bath.” Nor was he less zealous as a guardian of the national church in general, in opposing the attempts to introduce popery. He did not indeed take part in the popish controversy, then agitated so warmly for he had very little of a controversial turn but from the pulpit, he frequently took occasion to mark and confute the errors of popery; nor did he spare, when his duty to the church of England more especially called for it, to take the opportunity of the royal pulpit, to set before the court their injurious and unmanly politics, in projecting a coalition of the sectaries. For some time he held, in appearance, the same place in the favour of king James as he had holden in the former reign; and some attempts were made to gain him over to the interest of the popish party at court, but these were in vain; for when the declaration of indulgence was strictly commanded to be read, by virtue of a dispensing power claimed by the king, this bishop was one of the seven who openly opposed the reading of it: for which he was sent, with his six brethren, to the Tower. Yet though in this he ventured to disobey his sovereign for the sake of his religion, yet he would not violate his conscience by transferring his allegiance from him. When the prince of Orange therefore came over, and the revolution took place, the bishop retired; and as soon as king William was seated on the throne, and the new oath of allegiance was required, he, by his refusal, suffered himself to be deprived. After his deprivation, he resided at Longleate, a seat of the lord viscount Weyrnouth, in Wiltshire; whence he sometimes made a visit to his nephew, Mr. Isaac Walton, at Salisbury, who was a prebendary of that church. In this retirement he composed many pious works, some of the poetical kind; for he had an inclination for poetry, and had many years before written an epic poem of 13 books, entitled “Edmund,” which was not published till after his death. There is a prosaic flatness in this work; but some of his Hymns and other compositions, have more of the spirit of poetry, and give us an idea of that devotion which animated the author. It is said that when he was afflicted with the colic, to which he was very subject, he frequently amused himself with writing verses. Hence some of his pious poems are entitled “Anodynes, or the Alleviation of Pain.”

It does not appear that he was very successful as to the objects of this journey; but on his return home he achieved what was more easy and more to his honour. This was his founding a college, or university, at St. Andrew’s, called St. Salvator’s, which he liberally endowed for the maintenance of a provost, four regents, and eight bursars, or exhibitioners. He founded also the collegiate church within the precincts of the college, in which is his tomb, of exquisite workmanship: a few years ago, six magnificent silver maces were discovered within the tomb, exact models of it. One was presented to each of the three other Scotch universities, and three are preserved in the college. He founded also the abbey of the Observantines, which was finished by his successor, bishop Graham, in 1478, but is now a ruin. During the minority of James III. he was appointed one of the lords of the regency, but in fact was allowed the whole power, and, according to Buchanan and Spotswood, conducted himself with great prudence. Hedied May 10, 1466, and was interred in his collegiate church. In his private character he was frugal, but magnificent in his expences for the promotion of religion and learning. He is, said to have written some political advices, “Monita Politica,” and a History of his own times, both probably lost.

, an English writer, and bishop of Peterborough, was the son of the rev. Basil Kennet, rector of Dunchurch, and vicar of Postling, near Hythe, in Kent, and was born at Dover, Aug. 10, 1660. He was called White, from his mother’s father, one Mr. Thomas White, a wealthy magistrate at Dover, who had formerly been a master shipwright there. When he was a little grown up, he was sent to Westminster-school, with a view of getting upon the foundation; but, being seized with the srnall-pox at the time of the election, it was thought advisable to take him away. In June 1678 he was entered of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford, where he was pupil to Mr. Allam, a very celebrated tutor, who took a particular pleasure in imposing exercises on him, which he would often read in the common room with great approbation. It was by Mr. Allam’s advice that he translated Erasmus on Folly, and some other pieces for the Oxford booksellers. Under this tutor he applied hard to study, and commenced an author in politics, even while he was an under-graduate; for, in 1680, he published “A Letter from a student at Oxford to a friend in the country, concerning the approaching parliament, in vindication of his majesty, the church of England, and tfye university:” with which the whig party, as it then began to be called, in the House of Commons, were so much offended, that inquiries were made after the author, in order to have him punished. In March 1681 he published, in the same spirit of party, “a Poem,” that is, “a Ballad,” addressed “to Mr. E. L. on his majesty’s dissolving the late parliament at Oxford,” which was printed on one side of a sheet of paper, and began, “An atheist now must a monster be,” &c. He took his bachelor’s degree in May 1683; and published, in 1684, a translation of Erasmus’s “Morise encomium,” which he entitled “Wit against Wisdom, or a Panegyric upon Folly,” which, as we have already noticed, his tutor had advised him to undertake. He proceeded M. A. Jan. 22, 1684; and, the same year, was presented by sir William Glynne, bart. to the vicarage of Amersden, or Ambroseden, in Oxfordshire; which favour was procured him by his patron’s eldest son, who was his contemporary in the halh To this patron he dedicated “Pliny’s Panegyric,” which he translated in 1686, and published with this title, “An address of thanks to a good prince, presented in the Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan, the best of the Roman emperors.” It was reprinted in 1717; before which time several reflections having been made on him for this performance, he gave the following account of it in a “Postscript” to the translation of his “Convocation Sermon,” in 1710. “The remarker says, the doctor dedicated Pliny’s Panegyric to the late king James: and, what if he did? Only it appears he did not. This is an idle tale among the party, who, perhaps, have told it till they believe it: when the truth is, there was no such dedication, and the translation itself of Pliny was not designed for any court address. The young translator’s tutor, Mr. Allam, directed his pupil, by way of exercise, to turn some Latin tracts into English. The first was a little book of Erasmus, entitled,” Moriae Encomiumu;“which the tutor was pleased to give to a bookseller in Oxford, who put it in the press while the translator was but an under-graduate. Another sort of task required by his tutor was this ‘ Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan,’ which he likewise gave to a bookseller in Oxford, before the translator was M. A. designing to have it published in the reign, of king Charles; and a small cut of that prince at full length was prepared, and afterwards put before several of the books, though the impression happened to be retarded till the death of king Charles; and then the same tutor, not long before his own death, advised a new preface, adapted to the then received opinion of king James’s being a just and good prince. However, there was no dedication to king James, but to a private patron, a worthy baronet, who came in heartily to the beginning of the late happy revolution. This is the whole truth of that story, that hath been so often cast at the doctor not that he thinks himself obliged to defend every thought and expression of his juvenile studies, when he had possibly been trained up to some notions, which he afterwards found reason to put away as childish things.”

At this period the university of Oxford was much tainted with disaffection to the reigning family on the throne, and Tory, if not Jacobite principles, were very prevalent there, and met with much encouragement. In the rage of party it was not likely that any active member should escape the disorders of the times. Mr. Kennicott adhered to the side of government, and in consequence much of the abuse then liberally distributed amongst the friends of what was called the new interest, or Whig party, fell to his share, He defended himself however with spirit and acuteness in his “Letter to Dr. King, occasioned by his late Apology” *,

This last threat he did not carry into eJFect for some years; but, as a specimen of his “liberal and independent” style, he published about this time (1765) “A Review of Dr. Johnson’s new edition of Shakspeare,” which being answered by a young man of Oxford, of the name of Barclay, in a pamphlet called “An Examination of Mr. Kenrick’s Review,” 1766, he immediately published “A Defence of Mr. Kenrick’s Review,” under the name of “A Friend,” which was a very proper assumption, as he seldom had another. In this last year he produced his “Falstaff’s Wedding,” a comedy, in imitation of Shakspeare, and, as far as the language of Falstaff and his companions are concerned, not an unpleasant one, although rather approaching to the extravagant. It went through two editions, but was acted only once, for a benefit. This was followed by another comedy, “The Widowed Wife.” This, by Garrick’s assistance, ran through its nine nights with some difficulty, which the author, with a degree of gratitude peculiar to himself, attributed to the very person to whom he had been most indebted. In 1768 he published “An Epistle to George Colman,” “Poems, ludicrous, satirical and moral;” and “An Epistle to James Boswell, esq. occasioned by his having transmitted the moral writings of Dr. Johnson to Pascal Paoli.” By all these he acquired little reputation, and no enemies; for Colman, Johnson, and Boswell, disdained to notice him. In 1770 and 1771 he published two pieces connected with his discovery, or pretended discovery, of the perpetual motion the one, “An account of the Automaton, or Perpetual Motion of Orffyreus, with additional remarks, &c. the other” A Lecture on the Perpetual Motion,“which he had delivered at a tavern. In all this, Dr. Kenrick was harmlessly, if not successfully employed, and certainly evinced a considerable knowledge of the science of mechanics. About the same time he published a translation of the abbe Milot’s” Elements of the History of England,“and advertised a translation of” De Lolme on the Constitution," which we presume he did not execute.

In 1772 he disgraced his character by an atrocious attack on Garrick in a poem called “Love in the Suds,” for which that gentleman commenced a prosecution in the court of king’s bench. Kenrick immediately published “A Letter to David Garrick, &c.” in which he informed the public of the cause of his quarrel with him, and the motives of his writing “Love in the Suds.” A public apology also appeared in the newspapers, Nov. 26, as mean and false as the libel itself. The issue of the prosecution we have not discovered.

In 1773 he collected the works of Lloyd, 2 vols. 8vo, with a life of that unfortunate poet, remarkable for being written without any dates. In the same year, he produced “The Duellist,” a comedy, acted only one night; and published a “Dictionary” of the English language, 4to, in the preliminary parts of which are many shrewd and useful discussions and remarks. The little credit he had with the world at this time must, we think, have impeded the success of this work, in which he shews himself a philologer of no mean talents. In 1774, we find him giving lectures at the Devil tavern, which he called “A School of Shakspeare;” and about the same time addressed the artists and manufacturers of Great Britain respecting an application to parliament for ascertaining the right of property in new discoveries and inventions. Fancying that he had discovered the perpetual motion, he was at this time alarmed by the literary property bill; but we hear no more afterwards of his discovery.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench, was born at Gredington, in Flintshire, 1733 and was the eldest surviving son of Lloyd Kenyon, esq. originally of Bryno in the same county, and one of the younger sons of the ancient family of Kenyon of Peele in Lancashire. He received the elementary part of his education at Ruthen in Denbighshire, whence he was taken, at an early age, and articled to Mr. W. J. Tomlinson, an eminent attorney at Nantwich, in Cheshire. On the expiration of his articles, Mr. Kenyon determined to enter into a line which afforded a more ample scope to his industry and talents, and, accordingly, became a member of the Society of Lincoln’s Inn, in Trinity Term 1754, and after a sedulous application to the requisite studies, was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1761. In the early part of his professional career, his advancement was but slow; he was unassisted by those means which powerful connexion and interest afford. The branch of his profession to which he chiefly applied himself, that of conveyancing, was not calculated to bring him forward into public notice; but the sterling merit of genuine abilities and persevering industry were not to be overlooked. He rose gradually into practice; few opinions at the bar, at the time, carried more weight and authority, and he was frequently recurred to as an advocate. In 1773, he formed a matrimonial connexion with his relative, Mary, the third daughter of George Kenyon, of Peele and, not long after, contracted an intimacy with Mr. afterwards lord Thurlow and chancellor. About this period too, and for some years after, his practice in the Courtof Chancery was very extensive and of the most lucrative kind, by which, as well as in the other branches of his profession, he acquired a very considerable property. In 1780, a circumstance occurred which not a little contributed to establish his reputation as an advocate and a public speaker, his being employed as leading counsel for the defence of the late lord George Gordon, on a charge of high treason; on this interesting occasion his second was Mr. now lord Erskine, who on that day distinguished himself in such a manner as in a great degree laid the foundation of his future fame. In April 1782, soon after the accession of the Rockingham party to ministerial power, Mr. Kenyon was, without serving the intermediate office of solfcitor, appointed to the important situation of attorney-general, and, at the same time, chief justice of Chester; in the former office he succeeded the late James Wallis, esq. The circumstance of his direct promotion to the office of attorney-general was regarded as a singular instance; this however is erroneous, similar promotions have before occurred, and the case of sir Edward Law (the late attorney-general, now lord Ellenborough, his successor as lord chief justice), is a recent instance. In parliament Mr. Kenyon took a decided part in politics, warmly attaching himself to the party of Mr. Pitt; and distinguishing himself not a little by his speeches on the noted affair of the coalition, Mr. Fox’s India-bill, &c. In March 1784 he was appointed master of the rolls, an office of high judicial dignity, and generally leading to still higher legal honours; yet its emoluments fell very short of those which he necessarily relinquished by discontinuing his professional pursuits as a counsel. About this time he was created a baronet. In this situation sir Lloyd Kenyon continued till the latter end of May 1788, when, on the resignation of the venerable earl of Mansfield, who, for the long interval of thirty-two years, had held the honourable and very important office of chief justice of the court of KingVbench, he was appointed to succeed him, and at the same time was elevated to the peerage, by the title of lord Kenyon, baron of Gredington in the county of Flint. He was now fixed in a situation, which, though not nominally the highest, is perhaps the most important office in the administration of the law of this country; and lord Kenyon furnished an instance nearly as striking as that of the illustrious Hardwicke, that the profession of the law is that which, of all others, affords the fairest opportunies for the exertion of genuine talents and persevering industry; whether the object be the gratification of ambition in the attainment of the highest honours in the state, or the possession of abundant wealth. His conduct in those arduous and important situations attracted and fixed the applauses and gratitude of his countrymen. He was distinguished for his laudable, firm, and persevering exertions to keep the channels of the law clear and unpolluted by low and sordid practices, which were particularly exemplified in the vigilant and salutary exercise of his authority over the attorneys of his own court, the utility of which has been experienced in a very considerable degree. Nor was he less distinguished for his zeal in the cause of morality and virtue, which most conspicuously appeared in his conduct with respect to cases of adultery and seduction. On these occasions neither rank, wealth, nor station, could shield deliquency from the well-merited censure and rebuke of offended justice and morality. Though much, unhappily, remains to be done, yet his lordship’s exertions, combined with those of some of the most virtuous and exalted characters of the upper House of Parliament, have contributed greatly, notwithstanding the acknowledged inadequacy and imperfection of the law in these respects, to restrain the fashionable and prevailing vices alluded to. What likewise redounded to the honour of his lordship’s magisterial character, was the strictness, not to say severity, with which he administered the justice of the law against the pernicious tribe of gamblers of every description, who have for some years infested the metropolis. On these occasions, as well as in those above mentioned, the conduct of this truly virtuous judge was such as incontrovertibly shewed that “the law is no respecter of persons;” and his persevering exertions to restrain the destructive vice of gaming have been attended with no inconsiderable degree of success. Nor should we omit to mention the very laudable spirit and firmness, which on all occasions he evinced in maintaining due order and decorum in his court. It was justly said of him, that though he might not equal in talents or eloquence the pre-eminent character whom he succeeded on the bench of justice; nevertheless, he possessed qualities mor*e appropriate to, and knowledge more connected with, the important office which he held. Profound in legal erudition, patient in judicial discrimination, and of the most determined integrity, he added no common lustre to his exalted station. He did not sacrifice his official to his parliamentary character; the sphere of his particular duty was the great scene of his activity, as of his honour; and though, as a lord of parliament, he never lessened his character, it was as a judge that he aggrandized it. In private life, the character of lord Kenyon was amiable and praise- worthy in the highest degree no man could excel him in the relations of husband and father in the former he may be considered as a pattern of conjugal virtue. In his mode of living he was remarkably temperate and regular; while the gratuitous assistance in his professional capacity, which it was well known he had often afforded to necessitous and injured individuals, is a proof that a fondness for money was not a prevailing trait in his character. He died at Bath, April 2, 1802, supposed to be worth 300,000l. all acquired by his own professional exertions, and a rigid spirit of economy. Lord Kenyon had issue by his lady, three sons; Lloyd, born in 1775, whom his father appointed to the office of filazer of the Court of King’s-bench; but who died in 1800. The manner in which his lordship was affected by this melancholy event, is supposed, in some degree, to have accelerated his own dissolution. Secondly, George, the present lord Kenyon, born in 1776. His lordship was appointed by his late father to the very lucrative situation of joint chief clerk of the Court of King’s-bench, on the demise of the late earl of Mansfield, better known as lord viscount Stormont, and joined in the patent with the late John Waye, esq. And, thirdly, the hon. Thomas Kenyon, born in 1780,

, the greatest astronomer perhaps that any age has produced, was born at Wiel in the dutchy of Wirtemberg, Dec. 27, 1571. His father, Henry Kepler, was descended from a family which had raised themselves under the emperors by their military services, and was himself an officer of rank in the army; but afterwards, experiencing ill fortune, was obliged to sell all he had, and support himself and his family by keeping a public-house. He died in 1590, and' left his son John without provision. His education had be^n therefore neglected, but, by the favour of his prince, he was enabled to enter upon his studies in philosophy at Tubingen, immediately upon his father’s death, and, two years after, pursued the mathematics in the same university, under the famous Michael Maestlinus, an astronomer of eminence, and of the Copernican school, but at this time Kepler informs us he had. no particular predilection for astronomy. His passion was rather for studies more fluttering to the ambition of a youthful mind; and when his prince selected him, in 1591, to fill the vacant astronomical chair, it was purely from deference to his authority, and the persuasions of Masstlinu, who had high expectations from his talents, that he reluctantly accepted of the office. He appears to have thought it unsuitable to his pretensions; and the state of astronomy was besides so low, uncertain, and in many respects visionary, that he had no hope of attaining to eminence in it. But what he undertook with reluctance, and as a temporary provision conferred on a dependant by his prince, soon engaged his ardour, and engrossed almost his whole attention. The first fruit? of his application to astronomical studies appeared in his “Mysterium Cosmographicum,” published about two years after his settlement in Gratz; and hasty and juvenile as this production was, it displayed so many marks of genius, and such indefatigable patience in the toil of calculation, that on presenting it to Tycho Brahe, it procured him the esteem of that illustrious astronomer, and even excited his anxiety for the proper direction of talents go uncommon. Accordingly, not contented with exhorting Kepler to prefer the road of observation to the more uncertain one of theory, Tycho added an invitation to live with him at Uraniburg, where his whole observations should be open to Kepler’s perusal, and those advantages provided for making others, which his situation at Gratz denied. This after some time was accepted. In 1597, Kepler entered into the married state, which at first created him great uneasiness, from a dispute which arose about his wife’s fortune; and, the year after, he was banished from Gratz on account of his religion, but afterwards recalled, and restored to his former dignity. However, the growing troubles and confusions of that place inclined him to think of a residence elsewhere; and he now determined to accept T. Brahe’s invitation, and accordingly left the university of Gratz, and removed into Bohemia with his family in 1600. In his journey he was seized with a quartan ague, which continued seven or eight months; and prevented his profiting by Tycho’s kindness, and, what was worse, some petty differences interrupted their connection. Kepler was offended at Tycho, for refusing some services to his family, which he had occasion for: he was also dissatisfied with his reserved ness; for, Tycho did not communicate to him all that he knew; and, as he died in 1601, he did not give Kepler time to be very useful to him, or to receive any considerable advantages from him. Before his death, however, he introduced him to the emperor Rodolphus at Prague (for, it was upon this condition that Kepler had consented to leave Gratz), who received him very kindly, and made him his mathematician, upon condition that he should serve Tycho as an arithmetician. From that time Kepler enjoyed the title of mathematician to the emperor all his life, and gained more and more reputation every year by his works. Rodolphus ordered him to finish the tables begun by Tycho, which were to be called the “Rodolphine Tables” and he applied himself very vigorously to this work but such difficulties arose in a short time, partly from the nature of it, and partly from the delay of the treasurers, that the tables were not finished and published till 1627. He complained, that, from 1602 and 1603, he. was looked upon by the treasurers with a very invidious eye; and when, in 1609, he had published a noble specimen o/ the work, and the emperor had given orders that, besides the expence of the edition, he should immediately be paid the arrears of his pension, which, he said, amounted to 2000 crowns, and likewise 2000 more; yet, that it was not till two years after, that the generous orders of Rodolphus, in his favour, were put in execution. He met with no less discouragement from the financiers under the emperoc Matthias, than under Rodolphus; and therefore, after struggling with poverty for ten years at Prague, began to think of quitting his quarters again. He was then fixed at Lints by the emperor Matthias, who appointed him a salary from the states of Upper Austria, which was paid for sixteen years. In 1613 he went to the assembly at Ratisbon, to assist in the reformation of the calendar; but returned to Lints, where he continued to 1626. In November of that year, he went to Ulm, in order to publish the “Rodolphine Tables;” and afterwards, in 1629, with the emperor’s leave, settled at Sagan in Silesia, where he published the second part of his “Ephemerides;” fot the first had been published at Lints in 1617. In 1630, he went to Ratisbon, to solicit the payment of the arrears of his pension; but, being seized with a fever, which, it is said, was brought upon him by too hard riding, he died there in November, in his 59th year.

The works of this celebrated author are many and valuable as, 1. his “Cosmographical Mystery,” in 1596. 2. “Optical Astronomy,” 1604. 3. “Account of a new Star in Sagittarius,” 1605. 4. “New Astronomy or, Celestial Physics,” in commentaries on the planet Mars. 5. “Dissertations;” with the Nuncius Siderius of Galileo, 1610. 6. “New gauging of wine-casks,” 1615; said to be written on occasion of an erroneous measurement of the wine at his marriage by the revenue officer. 7. “New Ephemerides,” from 1617 to 1620. 8. “Copernican System,” the three first books, 1618. 9. “Harmony of the World;” and three books of “Comets,” 1619. 10. “Cosmographical Mystery,” second edition, with notes, 1621, 11. “Copernican Astronomy;” the three last books, 1622. 12. “Logarithms,” 1624; and the “Supplement,” in 1625. 13. His “Astronomical Tables,” called the “Rudolphine Tables,” in honour of the emperor Rudolphus, his great and learned patron, in 1627. 14. “Epitome of the Copernican Astronomy,” 1635. Besides these, he wrote several pieces on various other branches, as chronology, geometry of solids, trigonometry, and an excellent treatise of Dioptrics, for that time.

Having returned safe with his pupils, and acquired great honour by his care and management of them, he was afterwards fixed upon as a proper person to undertake the education of two grandsons of baron Bernstorf, first minister of state to his Britannic majesty, as elector; and accordingly he went to Hanover in 1716, and entered upon his office. However, in 1718, he obtained leave to go over to England, where he distinguished himself so much as an antiquary, that he was complimented with being fellow of the royal society. This honour he particularly owed to a learned essay, “De Dea Nehalennia numine veterum Walachiorum topico.” He gave an explication also of the Anglo-Saxon monument of antiquity on Salisbury Plain, called Stonehenge; and likewise a “Dissertation on the consecrated Misseltue of the Druids. 11 All these detached essays, with other select discourses on the Celtic and Northern antiquities, he published soon after his return to Hanover, in Latin, under this title,” Antiquitates selectae Sepientrionales et CeUicae," &c. Hanov. 1720, 12mo.

, descended from this family, was the eldest son of sir Robert Killigrew, knt. and born at Han worth in Middlesex, 1605. He became a gentlemancommoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1622; where continuing about three years, he travelled abroad, and, after his return, was made governor of Pendennis castle, and of Falmouth haven, in Cornwall. After this he was called to attend Charles I. as one of the gentlemen-ushers of his privy-chamber; in which employment he continued till the breaking out of the civil wnrs, and then had the command given him of one of the two great troops of horse that guarded the king’s person. He was in attendance upon the king when the court resided at Oxford, and was created doctor of civil law in 1642; and, when the king’s affairs were ruined, he suffered as the other cavaliers did, and compounded with the republicans for his estate. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was made gentleman- usher of the privy chamber again and, on that king’s marriage, was created his first vice-chamberlain, in which station he continued twenty-two years. He died in 1693, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He was the author of four plays, which were printed at Oxford, 1666, in folio, and have been applauded by men very eminent in poetry; particularly by Waller, who addresses a copy of verses to him upon his altering “Pandora” from a tragedy into a comedy, because not approved on the stage. There is another play ascribed to him, called “The Imperial Tragedy,” 1690, folio. There is also a little poem of his extant, which was set to music by the noted Henry Lawes. Wood says, that after be retired from court, in his declining age, he wrote “The artless midnight Thoughts of a gentleman at court, who for many years built on sand, which every blast of cross fortune has defaced, but now has laid new foundations on the rock of his salvation,” 1684, 8vo, of which the second edition, with additions, was dedicated to Charles II.; and another work entitled “Midnight and daily Thoughts, in prose and verse,” 1694, 8vo.

, brother of the former, was born in 1612, educated in grammar learning under the celebrated Farnaby, and sent to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1628. In 1638, having taken his degrees in arts, he went into orders, and became a chaplain in the king’s army. In 1642 he was created doctor of divinity; and the same year made chaplain to James duke of York, and prebendary of Westminster. Afterwards he suffered as an adherent in the king’s cause; but, at the restoration, was made almoner to the duke of York, superintendant to the affairs of his chapel, rector of Wheathamstead, in Hertfordshire, and master of the Savoy hospital in Westminster. He wrote, when only seventeen years of age, a tragedy called 41 The Conspiracy,“which was admired by some wits of those times; particularly by Ben Jonson, then living, 4t who gave a testimony of it (says Langbaine) even to be envied,” and by lord Falkland. An imperfect copy of this appearing in 1638, he afterwards caused it to be republished in 1652, with the new title of “Pallantus and Eudora.” He published a volum of sermons, which had been preached at court in 1685, 4to; and also "two or three occasional sermons. The year of his death does not appear.

, a dissenting divine, was born at Wantage in Berkshire, Dec. 1, 1692, and was educated at a private grammar-school in Wantage, under the rev. Mr. Sloper, an excellent scholar, who was also tutor to bishop Butler. At this school, Mr. Kimber made considerable progress in Greek and Latin, after which, turning his thoughts to the ministry, he went to London to complete his knowledge of the languages under professor Ward of Gresham-college, and also to attend the dissenting academy under the rev. John Eames. For some, time after he was admitted into the ministry, he had little encouragement; and having married, he found it necessary to employ his pen for a subsistence. One of his first productions was “The Life of Oliver Cromwell/' 8vo, and soon after he was concerned with Messrs. Bailey, Hodges, and Ridpath, in compiling a” History of England,“4 vols. 8vo, the third and fourth volumes of which were entirely his. A few years afterwards he wrote” The Life of bishop Beveridge,“prefixed to the folio edition of his works, of which he was the editor. In 1724 he was called, in conjunction with Mr. Samuel Acton, to the pastoral charge of Namptwich in Cheshire, but, owing to differences of opinion with his hearers, he was obliged to leave them at the latter end of 1727. On his return to London, he officiated, as morning preacher, or assistant, to Dr. John Kinch, in Old Artillery-lane, and occasionally, at Pinner’s hall, for Dr. Hunt; and was also engaged as a corrector of the press for Mr. John Darby, and others. About the same time he compiled a periodical pamphlet called” The Morning Chronicle,“which subsisted from Jan. 1728 to May 17-32, and was then dropped. In part of this period, he was likewise concerned with Mr. Drew of the Union fire-office, as his assistant, and supported these various labours with a quiet and even temper, and a cheerful mind, though visited with a heavy affliction in his wife’s being deprived of her reason. During the remainder of his life, he was chiefly supported by his firm friend Mr. Charles Akers, an eminent printer in London; In 1740 he wrote an account of the reign of George II. which is added to HowelTs” Medulla Hist. Angl.“and soon afterwards an abridgment of the History of England, in 1 vol. 8vo, 1745. He died in 1758, about which time a volume of his ce Sermons” was printed, with an account of his life, from which the preceding particulars are taken. He had a son Edward, who was a compiler of various works for the booksellers, and died in 1769. Among his compilations, are the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland, the Baronetage of England, in conjunction with R.Johnson, 3 vols; 8vo, a History of England, 10 vols. 8vo, &c.

His first separate publication appeared in 1767, under the title of “An Essay on the English Government;” and his second, after a long interval, in 1780, without his name, “Hymns to the Supreme Being, in imitation of the Eastern Songs.” Of this pleasing publication two editions were printed. In 1784 he circulated, also without his name, “Proposals for establishing, at sea, a Marine School, or seminary for seamen, as a means of improving the plan of the Marine Society,” &c. His object was to fit up a man of war as a marine school. In 1788 he published a large 4to volume, entitled “Morsels of Criticism, tending to illustrate some few passages in the Holy Scriptures upon philosophical principles and an enlarged view of things.” The fate of this work was somewhat singular. The author received sixty copies for presents; and the greater part of the remaining impression, being little called for, was converted into waste paper. Some time after, however, the notice taken of it in that popular poem, “The Pursuits of Literature,” brought it again into notice; a second edition appeared in 8vo, and a second volume of the 4to in 1801. This works abounds in singular opinions: among others, the author attempts to prove that John the Baptist was an angel from heaven, and the same who formerly appeared in the person of Elijah: that there will be a second appearance of Christ upon earth (something like this, however, is held by other writers): that this globe is a kind of comet, which is continually tending towards the sun, and will at length approach so near as to be ignited by the solar rays upon the elementary fluid of fire: and that the place of punishment allotted for wicked men is the centre of the earth, which is the bottomless pit, &c, &c. It is unnecessary to add, that these reveries did not procure Mr. King much reputation as a philosophical commentator on the Scriptures. His next publications indicated the variety of his meditations and pursuits. In 1793 he produced “An Imitation of the Prayer of Abel,” and “Considerations on the Utility of the National Debt.” In 1796 he amused himself and the public with “Remarks concerning Stones said to have fallen from the Clouds, both in these days and in ancient times;” the foundation of which was the surprizing shower of stones said, on the testimony of several persons, to have fallen in Tuscany, June 16, 1796, and investigated in an extraordinary and full detail by the abbate Soldani, professor of mathematics in the university of Sienna. This subject has since employed other pens, but no decisive conclusions have been agreed upon. Mr. King’s next publication, however, belonged to the province in which he was best able to put forth his powers of research “Vestiges of Oxford Castle or, a small fragment of a work intended to be published speedily, on the history of ancient castles, and on the progress of architecture,” 1796, a thin folio. This interesting memoir was accordingly followed by a large history of ancient castles, entitled “Munimenta Antiqua,” of which 3 vols. folio have appeared, and part of a fourth. These volumes, although he maintains some theories which are not much approved, undoubtedly entitle him to the reputation of a learned, able, and industrious antiquary. It was his misfortune, however, to be perpetually deviating into speculations which he was less qualified to establish, yet adhered to them with a pertinacity which involved him in angry controversies. In 1798 he published a pamphlet called “Remarks on the Signs of the Times;” about which other ingenious men were at that time inquiring, and very desirous to trace the history and progress of the French Revolution and war to the records of sacred antiquity; but Mr. King ventured here to assert the genuineness of the second book of Esdras in the Apocrypha. Mr. Gough criticised this work with much freedom and justice in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and Mr. King thought himself insulted. On his adding “A Supplement to his Remarks” in 1799, he met with a more powerful antagonist in bishop Horsley, who published “Critical Disquisitions on Isaiah xviii, in a Letter to Mr. King.” While preparing a fourth volume of his “Mummenta,” Mr. King died, April 16, 1807, and wa buried in the church -yard at Beckenham, where his country-seat was. Mr. King was a man of extensive reading, and considerable learning, and prided himself particularly on intense thinking, which, however, was not always under the regulation of judgment.

, rector of Chelsea, was born at St. Columb in Cornwall, May 1, 1652. He was educated at Exeter college, Oxford, but took the degree of D. D. at Catherine-hall, Cambridge, where his friend sir William Dawes was master. When first in orders, he had the curacy of Bray, in Berkshire. By his second wife he acquired the patronage of Pertenhall, in Bedfordshire, and was instituted to that rectory in June 1690; but in 1694, exchanged it for Chelsea, the value of which he considerably advanced by letting out the glebe on lives for building. In 1731 he was collated to the prebend of Wighton in York cathedral^ by sir William Dawes, archbishop. He died May 30, 1732, and was buried at Pertenhall. Besides two occasional sermons, he published, 1 “Animadversions on a pamphlet entitled A Letter of advice to the churches of the Nonconformists of the English nation; endeavouring their satisfaction in that point, Who are the true church of England?” 2d edit. 1702, 4to. 2. “The case of John Atherton, bishop of Waterford in Ireland, fairly represented against a partial edition of Dr. Barnard’s relation and sermon at his funeral, &c.” 1716, 8vo. In the appendix are two anonymous letters; but it appears by interlineations in Dr. King’s own hand, that the first was from Dr. Thomas Mill, bishop of Waterford, and the second was to that bishop from the rev. Mr. Alcock, chancellor of Waterford. 3. “Tolando-Pseudologo-mastix, or a currycomb for a lying coxcomb. Being an answer to a late piece of Mr. Toland’s called Hypatia,” Lond. 1721, 8vo. There is also in the British Museum, a small quarto volume in ms. by Dr. King, containing a supplement and remarks on the life of sir Thomas More; a letter on sir Thomas More’s house at Chelsea, and other miscellanies.

, a learned archbishop of Dublin, was descended of an ancient family, and born at Antrim, in Ireland, May the 1st, 1650. At twelve years of age, he was sent to the grammar-school at Dungannon, in thu county of Tyrone; and at seventeen, to Trinity-college, near Dublin, where he took the degrees in arts, when he became of proper standing. In 1674 he was admitted into priest’s orders by abp. Parker of Tuam, who, taking him for his chaplain in 1676, presented him the same year to a prebend, and afterwards to the precentorship, of Tuam. In 1679, he was promoted by his patron, then archbishop of Dublin, to the chancellorship of St. Patrick, and to the parish of St. Warburgh in Dublin. He had the reputation of uncommon abilities and learning; and a season was now approaching which gave him a fair opportunity of displaying them. Accordingly, in the reign of James II. when popery began to raise her head, he, following the example of his English brethren, boldly undertook the defence of the Protestant cause in Ireland, against Peter Manby, the dean of Londonderry, who had lately gone over to the Catholic faith. In 1687, Manby having published a pamphlet in vindication of his conduct, entitled “Considerations which obliged him to embrace the Catholic religion,” our author drew up “An Answer,” and printed it at Dublin the same year in quarto. Manby, encouraged by the court, and assisted by the most learned champions of the church of Rome, published a reply, called “A reformed Catechism, &c.” and our author soon after rejoined, in “A Vindication of the Answer to the Considerations, 1688,” 4to. Manby dropped the controversy, but dispersed a sheet of paper, artfully written, with this title, “A Letter to a Friend, shewing the vanity of this opinion, that every man’s sense and reason are to guide him in matters of faith;” but our author did not suffer this to pass without confuting it, in “A Vindication of the Christian Religion and Reformation, against the attempts of a late letter, &c. 1681,” 4to.

The deanery of St. Patrick’s becoming vacant at this time, Dr. King was elected to it; and appeared so active in supporting the Revolution, which had now taken place, that, after the landing of king James in Ireland in 1689, he was twice confined in Dublin-castle. He was attacked, not long after, in a weekly “paper called” The Abhorrence,“with an intent to render him more obnoxious; and was also assaulted in the street, where a musket with a lighted match was levelled at him. He was likewise disturbed in the performance of divine service at his church several times, particularly on Candlemas-day; when seven officers who were there swore aloud that they would cut his throat. All this did not discourage him; but he still persisted, and took his doctor’s degree this same year, 1689. Upon king James’s retreat to France, after the battle of the Boyne in 1690, he preached a thanksgiving-sermon on that occasion in November; and, January following, was promoted to the bishopric of Derry. In 169 1 he published at London in 4to,” The State of the Protestants in Ireland, under the late King James’s Government; in which their carriage towards him is justified; and the absolute necessity of their endeavouring to be freed from his government, and of submitting to their present majesties, is demonstrated.“The third edition, with additions, was printed at London the year after, in 8vo. Burnet speaks of this book in the following terms:” This copious history is so well received, and so universally acknowledged to be as truly as it is finely written, that I refer my readers to the account of those matters, which is fully and faithfully given by that learned and zealous prelate.“It was attacked, however, the same year, by Mr. Charles Lesley; who asserted, that” there is not one single fact he has inquired into, but he found it false in whole or in part, aggravated or misrepresented, so as to alter the whole face of the story, and give it perfectly another air and turn; insomuch that, though many things he says were true, yet he has hardly spoke a true word, that is, told truly and nakedly, without a warp." Though few 7 as we imagine, will form their judgment of King’s book from this account of it by Lesley yet all may allow, that there is a kind of colouring peculiar to, and characteristic of, each party and that the very same facts, when related by an historian of different political principles, shall have a very different appearance, and also make a very different impression upon a reader.

The same year also that he published his book “D Origine Mali,” viz. 1702, he was translated to the archbishoprjc of Dublin. He was appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland in 1717, and held the same office twice afterwards, in 1721 and 1723. He died at lag palace in Dublin, May 8, 1729. Besides the works above-mentioned, he published several occasional Sermons. That “Concerning Divine Prescience,” which was printed by Mr. Law, was preached and published in 1709, with this title: “Divine Predestination and Fore-knowledge consistent with the Freedom of Man’s Will” and as the bishop, in this discourse, had started a doctrine concerning the moral attributes of the Deity, as if different from the moral qualities of the same name in man, he was attacked upon this head by writers of very unlike complexions; by Dr. John Edwards, in a piece called “The Divine Perfections vindicated,” &c. and by Anthony Collins, esq. in a pamphlet entitled “A Vindication of the Divine Attributes,” &c. both in 1710. The archbishop did not enter into a controversy, yet endeavoured to remove all objections to his general scheme, with which this was intimately connected, in those papers; the substance of which, as we have observed, was printed in Mr. Law’s notes, after his death. Archbishop King, as appears by his correspondence with Swift, was a man of humour, and many of his bons mots were at one time current.

Early in life Mr. King became possessed of a small paternal estate in Middlesex. From his occasionally mentioning “his tenants in Northampton and Leicestershire,” his biographers have supposed him to have been a landholder also in those counties; but there is little authority for such a supposition. However, from his going out compounder when he took his first degree, it is plain that he had a tolerable fortune, which enabled him to indulge his genius and inclination in the choice and method of his studies. He took his first degree in arts Dec. 8, 1685; proceeded regularly to M. A. July 6, 1688; and the same year commenced author. A religious turn of mind, joined to the warmest regard for the honour of his country, promoted him to rescue the character and name of Wickliffe, our first reformer, from the calumnies of mons. Varillas. The thing had been publicly requested also, as a proper undertaking for such as were at leisure, and would take the trouble. Mr. King, therefore, deeming himself to be thus called forth to the charge, readily entered the lists; and with a proper mixture of wit and learning, handsomely exposed the blunders of that French author, in “Reflections upon Mons. Varillas’ History of Heresy, book I. tom. I. so far as relates to English matters, more especially those of Wickliffe.” About this time, having fixed on the civil law as his profession, he entered upon that study in the university.

It has been generally allowed that Dr. King, though he could not endure his business as an advocate, made an excellent judge in the court of delegates, as often as he was called to that bench. The fatigue, however, of a civilian’s duty was too great for his natural indolence; and he retired to his student’s place at Christ-church, to indulge his predominant attachment at better leisure. From this time, giving way to that fuga negotii so incident to the poetical race, he passed his days in the pursuit of the same ravishing images, which, being aptly moulded, came abroad in manuscript, in the form of pleasant tales and other pieces in verse, at various times, as they happened to be finished. Many of these he afterwards collected, and published, with other pieces, in his “Miscellanies.” In 1700 he published without a name, a severe satire on the credulity of sir Hans Sloane, entitled “The Transactioneer, with some of his philosophical fancies, in two dialogues.” The irony in this tract is admirable; and it must be acknowledged, notwithstanding the deservedly high character of sir Hans as a physician and a naturalist, that our author has in many places discovered the vulnerable heel of Achilles, and that his satirical observations are io general well-founded.

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

, son of the rev. Peregrine King, was born at Stepney, in Mfddlesex, in 1685; and, after a school-education at Salisbury, was entered of Baliol-college, Oxford, July 9, 1701. Proceeding on the law line, he took his doctor’s degree in 1715; was secretary to the duke of Ormond and the earl of Arran, when chancellors of the university; and was made principal of St. Maryhall, in 1718. When he was candidate for the university, in 1722, he resigned his office of secretary; but his other preferment he enjoyed (and it was all he did enjoy) to the time of his death. Dr. Clarke, who opposed him, carried his election; and, after this disappointment, 1727, he went over to Ireland. With what design he went thither is to us unknown; but his enemies say, it was for the purposes of intrigue, and to expose himself to sale. But he says himself, and there are no facts alleged to disprove it, “At no time of my life, either in England or Ireland, either from the present or any former government, have I asked, or endeavoured by any means to obtain, a place, pension, or employment, of any kind. 1 could assign many reasons for my conduct; but one answer I have always ready: I inherited a patrimony, which I found sufficient to supply all my wants, and to leave me at liberty to pursue those liberal studies, which afforded me the most solid pleasures in my youth, and are the delight and enjoyment of my old age. Besides, I always conceived a secret horror of a state of servility and dependence: and I never yet saw a placeman or a courtier, whether in a higher or lower class, whether a priest or a layman, who was his own master.” During his stay in Ireland, he is said to have written an epic poem, called “The Toast,” bearing the name of Scheffer, a Laplander, as its author, and of Peregrine O' Donald, esq. as its translator; which was a political satire, and was printed and given away to friends, but never sold. Dr. Warton says that the countess of Newburgh was aimed at in this satire.

On the dedication of Radcliffe’s library, 1749, he spoke a Latin oration in the theatre at Oxford, which was received with the highest acclamations by a splendid auditory. Mr. Warton, in “The Triumphs of Isis,” pays him a very great compliment on that occasion. But this oration, which was soon after printed, did not meet with such favourable reception from the public; for he was attacked in several pamphlets on account of it, in which he was charged with writing barbarous Latin, with being disaffected to the government, and that he instigated the younger members of the university to sedition and licentiousness; very heavy accusations, if we may not candidly suppose them dictated by the spirit of malevolence and party zeal. And again, in 1755, when the memorable election contest happened in Oxfordshire, his attachment to the old interest drew -on him the resentment of the new. He was libelled in newspapers and in pamphlets, and charged with the following particulars, viz. that he was an Irishman; that he had received subscriptions for books never published to the amount of 1500l. of which sum he had defrauded his subscribers; that he had offered himself to sale both in England and Ireland, and was not found worth the purchase that he was the writer of “The London Evening Post” the author of a book in queen Anne’s reign, entitled “Political Considerations,” 1710, in which there was false English; and of a book then just published, called, “The Dreamer,” 1754, 8vo. At this time he published his “Apology” in 4to, and plausibly vindicated himself from the several matters charged on him, except only the last article, of his being the author of “The Dreamer;” and warmly retaliated on his adversaries.

As an author, Dr. Kippis commenced his career in early life, as many other young men have done, by-contributing to the magazines of the time, particularly the Gentleman’s Magazine. He afterwards became a more constant writer in the Monthly Review. His articles were chiefly historical and theological, with occasional strictures on works of general erudition. He also furnished a periodical publication, called the “Library,” of which he was the editor, with several valuable papers. He laid the foundation of the “New Annual Register.” “The History of Ancient Literature,” and the “Review of modern Books,” were, at its first commencement, written by him, and continued to the year 1784 inclusive. He was also the author of the “Review of the Transactions of the present Reign,” prefixed to the Register for 170; and of the “History of Knowledge, Learning, and Taste, in Great Britain,” prefixed to the succeeding volumes, to the year 1794 inclusive. During the application of the dissenting ministers to parliament, for the enlargement of the Act of Toleration, in 1772, to which he devoted much of his time and attention, he published a pamphlet, vindicating that measure, as to the matter, manner, and time of it, entitled, “A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers, with regard to their late Application to Parliament,” 8vo.

Soon after his admission into the Royal Society, he published a pamphlet, entitled “Observations on the late Contests in the Royal Society,” 1784, 8vo, with a view of allaying the animosities that subsisted in that body, which produced a good effect. His intimate connection with sir John Pringle, bart. who was formerly president of the royal society, led Dr. Kippis, after his decease, to republish his “Six Discourses, delivered at the assignment of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal,” to which he has prefixed a valuable life of the author, 1783, 8vo. At the close of the American war he published a political pamphlet, formed from materials which were communicated to him by persons in office, and designed to justify the peace, which was entitled “Considerations on the Provisional Treaty with America, and the Preliminary Articles of Peace with France and Spain.” He also published several single discourses, which were delivered on particular occasions; some of which are reprinted in his volume of sermons, 1794. His sentiments as a divine were originally Calvinistic, but approached in his latter days to those of the modern Socinians, or Unitarians as they affect to be called. To these works we may also add his account of the “Life and Voyages of captain Cook,” 1788, 4to his new edition of “Dr. Doddridge’s Lectures,” with a great number of additional references; his life of Doddridge, prefixed to a new edition of his Exposition of the New Testament, 1792; his “Life of Dr. Lardner,” prefixed to the complete collection of his works, in 11 vols. 8vo, 1788; “An Address delivered at the Interment of Richard Price, D. D. F. R. S. &c.” 1791 and an “Ordination Charge,” 1788, 8vo. He also assisted in selecting and preparing “A Collection of Hymns and Psalms, for public and private Worship,” 1795, 8vo and 12mo, which is used in some places of worship among the dissenters. But the work to which Dr. Kippis devoted his principal attention, for many of the last years of his life, was the “Biographia Britannica.” “His indefatigable industry in collecting materials for it, his access to the best sources of information, his knowledge of men and books, his judgment in selecting and marking every circumstance that could serve to distinguish talents and character, and the habit which he had acquired', by long practice, of appreciating the value of different works, qualified him in a very high degree, for conducting this elaborate performance.” He did not, however, live to carry on this edition of the “Biographia” farther than to about a third part of the sixth volume, which was destroyed in the fire at Mr. Nichols’s premises.

Being of a very serious and studious turn of mind, he, in his early years, from his very childhood, employed every leisure hour, and even abridged his natural rest, in the Acquisition of useful knowledge; but the study which rendered his name best known to the world, was that of perspective, on which he wrote a valuable treatise. When he had made a considerable progress in this, he happened to meet with Dr. Brook Taylor’s book, which furnished him, with additional hints, and rendered his system more perfect. On the publication of this work in 1754, he was requested by the society of arts to read lectures on the subject, for which he received the unanimous thanks of its members. But though his work was for the most part original, such was his modesty and candour, that he only called it “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective made easy.”

, a philosopher and mathematician of considerable learning, was born at Fulde, in Germany, 1601. He entered into the society of Jesuits 1618; and after going through the regular course of studies, during which his talents and industry were equally conspicuous, he taught philosophy, mathematics, the Hebrew and Syriac languages, in the university of Wirtzburg, in Franconia. The war which Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden made in Germany, disturbing his repose here, he retired into France, and settled in the Jesuits college at Avignon, where he was in 1635. He was afterwards called to Rome to teach mathematics in the Roman college; which he did six years. He spent the remainder of his life in that city; and for some time professed the Hebrew language. He died in 1680, after having published no less than twenty-two volumes in folio, eleven in quarto, and three in octavo, in all which, however, he discovers too much of that species of learning which is of little use. He was always credulous, inaccurate, and careless of what he asserted. Some reckon as his principal work, his “Oedipus Ægyptiacus: hoc est, universalis hieroglyphicae veterum doctrinse temporum injuria abolitae, instauratio. Romas, 1652, &c.” in 4 vols. folio. Kircher was more than ordinarily addicted to the study of hieroglyphical characters; and could always find a plausible, if not a true meaning for thm. As his rage for hieroglyphics was justly esteemed ridiculous, some young scholars resolved to divert themselves a little at his expence. With this view they engraved some unmeaning fantastic characters, or figures, upon a shapeless piece of stone, and had it buried in a place which was shortly to be dug up. It was then carried to Kircher, as a most singular curiosity; and he, enraptured at the discovery, applied himself instantly to explain the hieroglyphic, and made it, at length, in his opinion, very intelligible. Among Kircher’s other works are, “Praelusiones Magnetic,” 1654, fol. “Primitice Gnomonicae Catopticae,” 4to “Ars magna lucis et umbrae,” Romae, 1646, fol. “Musurgia Universalis,” 1650, 2 vols. folio. Dr. Burney says this, which treats of music, is a large book but a much larger might be composed in pointing out its errors and absurdities. For what is useful in it he was obliged to father Mersenne, in his “Harmonic Universelle.” “Obeliscus Pamphilius,” 1650, fol. “Itinerarium extaticum,” 4to; “Obeliscus Ægyptianus,” fol.; “Mundus subterraneus,” 1678, 2 vols. fol. “China illustrata,” 1667, fol. translated into French by F. S. d'Alquie, 1670, fol. “Turris Babel,” fol. “Area Noe,” fol. “Latium,” 1671, fol. a valuable work; “Phonurgia nova,” 16 73, fol.; “Ars sciendi combinatorial,” 1669, fol.; “Polygraphia,” 1663, fol. &c.

For some time after his conformity, he preached every Sunday in St. Peter’s church; and the collections for the poor on every occasion rose four or five-fold above their usual amount. Before the expiration of his first year, he was wholly reserved for the task of preaching charity sermons; and on Nov. 5, 1788, the governors of the general daily schools of several parishes entered into a resolution, “That from the effects which the discourses of the rev. Walter Blake Kirwan, from the pulpit, have had, his officiating in this metropolis was considered a peculiar national advantage, and that vestries should be called to consider the most effectual method to secure to the city an instrument, under Providence, of so much public benefit.” In the same year he was preferred by the archbishop of Dublin, to the prebend of Howth, and in the next year to the parish of St. Nicholas-Without, the joint income of which amounted to about 400l. a year. He resigned the prebend, however, on being presented in 1800, by the marquis Cornwall is, then lord-lieutenant, to the deanery of Killala, worth about 400l. a year.

, an eminent German critic, was born in 1738, at Bischofswerden, near Dresden, where his father was a clergyman. As to his first years, he used to tell Harles that he could not remember how they were spent, except that he was seven years old before his parents could by any means prevail on him to learn any thing. Soon after that, however, he was suddenly seized with such an attachment to letters, that his parents spared no expence to gratify his taste, and to enable him to cultivate his talents to the best advantage. He employed his leisure hours in composing and, reciting German verses, 'and profited very much under Foerstelius, who was his private preceptor, and afterwards at Misna, under Weiss and Cleman.nus. He studied afterwards at Gorlitz, under Baumeister, who taught him the classics, and lodged him in his house. Here Klotz used to say he spent more happy days than he was persuaded he should ever see again. During his stay here, which lasted two years, he gave a specimen of his powers in versification, by a poem composed on the “Destruction of Zittau,” which was laid waste in 1757. In 1758 he proceeded to Leipsic to study jurisprudence, and while here he published several papers in the “Acta Eruditorum,” and some separate pieces. In 1761 he published his “Opuscula Poetica,” containing twenty-three odes, three satires, and as many elegies. From Leipsic he repaired to Jena, where he opened a school, which was well attended. Having accepted of an invitation to a professorship at the university of Gottingen in 1762, he set off for that place, and almost immediately after his arrival he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, he recovered, and immediately published a treatise “De Verecundia Virgilii,” to which were added three dissertations relative to the eclogues of the poet. He also published “Miscellanea Critica,” and applied himself to the study of ancient gems and paintings, with which he became well acquainted. His celebrity had now increased so much, that he received two offers in the same day, one from the prince of Hesse Darmstadt, to be professor of the Oriental languages at Giessen, and the other from his Prussian majesty, to be professor of eloquence at Halle. While he was deliberating respecting the choice he should make, he was nominated by his Britannic majesty to be professor of philosophy at Gottingen, with an increased salary, which induced him to remain in that city, till some attempts were made to ruin his reputation. He then quitted Gottingen, and accepted an offer made him by his Prussian majesty, of being professor of philosophy and eloquence at Halle, with the rank and title of aulic counsellor. While preparing for his departure, he published “Historia Nummorum Contumeliosonini et Satyricorum,” containing a history of these coins; and on his removal to Halle he gave the public another work of the same kind, and at the same time he effected, what had been often attempted before without success, the institution of a new society, called the “Literary Society of Halle.” Here also the king conferred upon him the rank of privy-counsellor, and accompanied this mark of honour with a considerable addition to his salary. He died in 1771, and just before his death, revised every thing which he had written on coins, and published “Opuscula, nummaria quibus Juris Antiqui Historiceque nonnnila capita explicantur.” His other works, not already noticed, were, 1. “Pro M. T. Cicerone adversus Dionem Cassium et Plutarchum dissertatio,” Gorlitz, 1758, 4to. 2. “Ad virum doct. I. C. Reichelium epistola, qua de quibusdam ad Homerum pertinentibus disputatur,” Leipsic, 1758, 4to. 3. “Carminum liber unus,” ibid. 1759, 8vo. 4. “Mores Eruditorum,” Altenburgh, 1760, 8vo. 5. “Genius Sxculi,” ibid. 1760. 6, “Opuscula Poetica,” ibid. 1761, 8vo. 7. “Oratio pro Lipsii latinitate,” Jena, 1761, 8vo. 8. “Libellus de minutiarum studio et rixandi libidine grammaticorum quorundam,” ibid. 1761, 8vo. y. “Animadversiones in Theophrasti characteres Ethiros,” jbid. 8vo. 10.“Dissertatio de felici audacia Horatii,” I 762, 4to. 11. “Elegiae,” ibid. 8vo. 12. “Funus Petri Burmanni secundi,” Altenburgh, 8vo. This is a very complete account of the life, &c. of Burman. 13. “Uidicula Litteraria,” ibid. 8vo, a satirical work on useless studies and pursuits. 14. “Vindiciie Horatianae,” against Hardouin, Bremen, 1764, 8vo. 15. “Stratonis epigrammata, uunc primum edita,” Altenburgh, 1764, 8vo. 16. “Epistolae Homericae,” ibid. 1764, 8vo. 17. An edition of Vida, 1766, and of Tyrtacus, 1767. To these may be added many philosophical dissertations, theses, prefaces, &c. enumerated by Harles.

He was equally encouraged by Charles, James, and William; and had the honour of painting the portraits of ten/ sovereigns (viz. Charles II. James II. and his queen, William and Mary, Anne, George I. Louis XIV. the czar Peter the Great, and the emperor Charles VI.), which is more than can be said of any other painter. His best friend was William, for whom he painted the beauties of Hampton Court; and by whom he was knighted in 1692, and presented with a gold medal and chain worth 300l. In his reign he also painted several of the admirals for Hampton, Court, and the Kit-Cat club. He lived to paint George I, and was -made a baronet by him. In 1722, sir Godfrey was seized with a violent fever, from tjie immediate danger of which he was rescued by Dr. Mead. He languished, however, some time, and died in October 1723. His body lay in state, and was buried at his country seat called Wilton; but a monument was erected to him in Westminster abbey, for which he left 300l. and gave particular instructions for the execution of it to Rysbrach.

, author of an excellent History of the Turks, was born in Northamptonshire, and educated at Oxford, where he was admitted about 1560; but we are not told of what college, though it is said he was, after taking his degrees, chosen fellow of Lincoln college. When he had continued there some time, Sir Peter Manwood, of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury, “minding to be a favourer of his studies,” says Wood, “called him from the university, and preferred him to be master of the free-school at Sandwich in Kent,” where he applied himself with diligence, and produced many good scholars for the universities. For their use he composed “Grammaticae Latinae, Graccae, & Hebraicse, compendium, cum radicibus,” Lond. 1600: but his fame rests chiefly on his “History of the Turks,” which was first printed in 1610, folio, and which was the labour of twelve years. In the latter editions of this book, for there have been several, it has this title “The general History of the Turks, from the first beginning of that Nation, to the rising of the Ottoman Family,” &c. Some have suggested, that Knolles was not the sole author of this history, because there appear in it several translations from Arabic histories, which language they affirmed him not to have known: but such conjectures are not sufficient to deprive him of the credit which justly attends the work. It has been continued, since Knolles’s death, by several hands. One continuation was made, from the year 1628 to the end of 1637, collected out of the dispatches of sir Peter Wyche, knight, ambassador at Constantinople. But the best continuation of the Turkish history is made by Paul Ricaut, esq. consul of Smyrna, from 1623 to 1677, printed at London, 1680, in folio. Hicaut began his “History of the Turkish Empire,” from a period earlier than Knolles had left off; for he tells us, in his preface to the reader, that “the reign of sultan Amurat, being imperfectly written in Knolles’s history, consisting, for the most part, of abrupt collections, he had thought fit, for the better completing the reign of the sultan, and the whole body of our Turkish history, to deliver all the particular transactions thereof with his own pen.”

This Jesuit was the author of several works, in all which he has shewn great acuteness and learning. In 1630, 'he published a small volume, called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that Protestancy, unrepented, destroys salvation.” This involved him in a controversy, first with Dr. Potter, provost of Queeu’s-college, Oxford, who, in 1633, wrote “Want of Charity justly charged Oh all such Romanists, as dare, without truth or modesty, affirm, that Protestancy destroyeth salvation;” and afterwards with Chillingworth, who, in answer to this Jesuit, wrote his “Religion of Protestants;” of which, as well as of his controversy with Knott, we have already given an account in his life (vol. IX.) It only remains to be added here, that Chillingworth’s latitude of principles afforded Knott many advantages, which, at that time, would be more apparent than now. Knott’s larger answer to Chillingworth did not appear until 1652, when it was printed at Ghent, under the title of “Infidelity unmasked; or, the confutation of a book published by W. Chillingworth, &c.” Knott was also the author of “Monita utilissima pro patribus missionariis Anglicanis,” or useful advice for the fathers of the English mission; but this work was never printed.

, the chief instrument and promoter of the reformation in Scotland, was descended of an ancient and honourable family, and born 1505, at Gifford, in the county of East Lothian, Scotland. His parents gave him a liberal education, which in that age was far from being common. He was first placed at the grammar-school of Haddington, and after acquiring the principles of the Latin tongue, was sent to the university of St. Andrew’s under professor John Major, the same who was Buchanan’s tutor, a very acute schoolman, and deep in theology. Knox, however, examining the works of Jerom and Austin, began to dis-relish this subtilizing method, altered his taste, and applied himself to plain and solid divinity. At his entrance upon this new course of study, he attended the preaching of Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, a friar of eminence, whose sermons were of extraordinary service to him; and he acquired still more knowledge of the truth from the martyr, George Wishart, so much celebrated in, the history of this time, who came from England in 1554, with commissioners from king Henry VIII. Knox, being of an inquisitive nature, learned from him the principles of the reformation; with which he was so well pleased, that he renounced the Romish religion, and having now relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church, which had invested him with clerical orders, he entered as tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Long Niddrie, a gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. Another gentleman, in the neighbourhood, also put his son under his tuition, and these two youths were instructed by him in the principles of religion, as well as of the learned languages, and he taught the former in such a way as to allow the rest of the family, and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Long Niddrie, in which be also read to them at stated times, a chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this has been preserved by tradition; and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent, is popularly called “John Knox’s kirk.” It was not, however, to be expected, that he would long be suffered to continue in this employment, under a government entirely at the devotion of cardinal Beaton (see Beaton); and although he was, in the midst of his tyranny, cut off by a conspiracy in 1546, Hamilton, successor to the vacant bishopric, sought Knox’s life with as much eagerness as his predecessor. Hence Knox resolved to retire to Germany, where the reformation was gaining ground; knowing that, in England, though the pope’s authority was suppressed, yet the greater part of his doctrine remained in full vigour. He was, however, diverted from his purpose, and prevailed on to return to St. Andrew’s, January 1547; where he soon after accepted a preacher’s place, though sorely against his will.

He continued, however, his place of itinerary preacher till 1553-4, when queen Mary came to the throne, when leaving England, he crossed over to Dieppe in France, and went thence to Geneva. He had not been long there, when he was called by the congregation of English refugees, then established at Francfort, to be preacher to them; which vocation he obeyed, though unwillingly, at the command of John Calvin; and he continued his services among them till some internal disputes about ceremonies broke up their society. Some of the English, particularly Dr. Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely, wished for a liturgy according to king Edward’s form, but Knox and others preferred the Geneva service; at length the party of Cox, to get rid of the Scotch reformer, taking advantage of certain unguarded expressions in one of his former publications, threatened to accuse him of treason unless he quitted the place, which he did, and went again to Geneva. After a few months stay at Geneva, he resolved to visit his native country, and went to Scotland. Upon his arrival there, he found the professors of the reformed religion much increased in number, and formed into a society under the inspection of some teachers; and he associated with them, and preached to them. He conversed familiarly with several noble personages, and confirmed them in the truth of the protestant doctrine. In the winter of 1555, he taught for the most' part in Edinburgh. About Christmas he went to the west of Scotland, at the desire of some protestant gentlemen; but returned to the east soon after. The popish clergy, being greatly alarmed at the success of Knox in promoting the protestant cause, summoned him to appear before them at Edinburgh, May 15, 1556; but, several noblemen and gentlemen of distinction supporting him, the prosecution was dropped. This very month he was advised to write to the queen-regent an earnest letter, to persuade her, if possible, to bear the protestant doctrine; which, when the queen had read, she gave to James Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, with this sarcasm: “Please you, my lord, to read a pasquil.”

While our reformer was thus occupied in Scotland, he received letters from the English congregation at Geneva, earnestly intreating him to come thither; accordingly, July 1556, he left Scotland, went first to Dieppe in France, and thence to Geneva. He had no sooner turned' his back than the bishops summoned him to appear before them; and, upon his non-appearance, passed a sentence of death upon him for heresy, and burnt him in effigy at the Cross at Edinburgh. Against this sentence, he drew up, and afterwards printed at Geneva, in 1558, “An Appellation from the cruel and unjust Sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland,” &c. He had a call to Scotland in 1557; and having consulted Calvin and other persons as to the prudence and necessity of the step, he set out, and had proceeded as far as Dieppe, when he was advised that some of his best friends seemed, through timidity, to be abandoning their principles, and that therefore it would not be safe for him to proceed. He immediately wrote letters to those who had invited him, complaining of their irresolution, and even denouncing the severe judgments of God on all those who should betray the cause of truth and of their country, by weakness or apostacy. These letters made such an impression on those to whom they were immediately addressed, that they all came to a written resolution, “that they would followforth their purpose, and commit themselves, and whatever God had given them, into his hands, rather than suffer idolatry to reign, and the subjects to be defrauded of th^ only food of their souls.” To secure each other’s fidelity to the protestant cause, a common bond, or covenant, was entered into by them, dated at Edinburgh, December 3, 1557; and from this period they were distinguished by the name of “The Congregation.” In the mean time Mr. Knox returned to Geneva, where, in 1558, he published his treatise, entitled “The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous Regiment of Women.” His chief motives to write this, were the cruel and bloody government of queen Mary of England, and the endeavours of Mary of Lorrain, queen-regent of Scotland, to break through the laws, and introduce tyrannical government. He designed to have written a subsequent piece, which was to have been called “The Second Blast:” but queen Mary dying, and he having a great opinion of queen Elizabeth, and great expectations to the protestant cause from her, went no farther.

, who was born in the country of Holstein, acquired some celebrity in his day for an attempt to propagate atheistical tenets, and for undertaking long journeys on purpose to make proselytes. He first broached his impious notions at Koniugsberg, in Prussia, about 1673. He boasted that he had a great many followers in the chief cities of Europe; at Paris, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, in England, at Hamburgh, at Copenhagen, at Stockholm, at Rome; and that he had even seven hundred at Jena. His followers were called conscienciaries, because they asserted, that there is no other God, no other religion, no other lawful magistracy, but conscience. He gave the substance of his system in a short letter dated from Rome the contents of which may be reduced to the following heads “First, there is neither a God nor a devil; secondly, magistrates are not to be valued, churches are to be despised, and priests rejected; thirdly, instead of magistrates and priests, we have learning and reason, which, joined with conscience, teach us to live honestly, to hurt no man, and to give every one his due; fourthly, matrimony does not differ from fornication; fifthly, there is but one life, which is this, after which there are neither rewards nor punishments; sixthly, the holy scripture is inconsistent with itself.” The letter may be found in the edition of “Micraclii Syntagma Historitc Ecclesiastic, 1699.” Knutzen dispersed also some writings in the German tongue, but his opinions were amply refuted, in the same language, by a Lutheran professor, named John Musacus, who undertook that task in order to remove the suspicions that might be entertained to the prejudice of the university of Jena. When he died is not mentioned, nor does his history appear now of much importance.

, a botanist and disciple of Linnæus, was born in Couriand in 1728, and in 1765 travelled to Iceland, and after having investigated the vegetable productions of that dreary country, and of its circumjacent seas, visited the richer climes of India, and died at Jagrenatpour, in Bengal, in 1785. His communications have greatly enriched the collections of Europe, especially those of Linnteus, lletzius, and sir Joseph Banks. The fine Banksian library contains his botanical manuscripts. His letters to Linnæus are very numerous and instructive. The Koenigia-y a plant which he discovered in Iceland, was so called by Linnæus in honour of him.

, a learned critic, was born in the month of Feb. 1670 at Blomberg, a little town in Westphalia, where his father was a magistrate. He learned polite literature under his elder brother, who taught it in the college of Joachim at Berlin. He distinguished himself so early in life, that on the recommendation of baron Spanheim, he was appointed tutor to the two sons of the count de Schewerin, prime-minister of the king of Prussia. He had also the promise of a professorship in the college of Joachim at Berlin but, till that should be vacant, Kuster, who was then but about five-and-twenty, resolved to travel into Germany, France, England, and Holland. He went first to Francfort upon the Oder, where he studied the civil law for some time; and thence to Antwerp, Ley den, and Utrecnt, where he remained a considerable time, and wrote several works. In 1699, he passed over into England, and the year following into France, where his chief employment was to collate Suidas with three manuscripts in the king’s library. About the end of this year he returned to England, and in four years finished his edition of Suidas, on which he may be said to have meditated day and night. He relates himself, that, being one night awaked by thunder and lightning, he became so alarmed for this work, that he rose immediately, and carried it to bed with him, as his most valuable treasure. It was published at Cambridge in 1705, and is by far the best edition of that valuable Lexicon; and Le Clerc tells us, that the university furnished part of the expence of it. The Bodleian library has lately become possessed of a copy, covered from one end to the other with manuscript notes by D'Orville and others. Kuster was honoured with the degree of doctor by the university of Cambridge, and had several advantageous offers made him to continue there; but was obliged to wave them, being recalled to Berlin, to take possession of the professorship, which had been promised him. He afterwards resigned this place, and went to Amsterdam; where, in 1710, he published an edition of “Aristophanes,” in folio, whicb the public had been prepared some time to expect by an account as well as a specimen of that work, given by LeClerc in his “Bibliotheque choisie,” for 1708. This excellent edition, emphatically called editio optima, coi.'t.tins for the first time some new Scholia on the “Lysistrata,” some notes of Isaac Casaubon on the “Equites,” and of Spanheim and Bentley, on a few of the earlier plays. It is, upon the whole, a noble production, and has been long esteemed by the first literary characters abroad and at home. Kuster gave an edition also of “Mill’s Greek Testament” the same year; in which he had compared the text with twelve manuscripts which Mill never saw. Of these twelve there were nine in the king of France’s library; but, excepting one, which has all the books of the New Testament, the rest contain no more than the four Gospels. The tenth manuscript belonged to Carpzovius, a minister of Leipsic, and contains the four Gospels. The eleventh was brought from Greece by Seidel, of Berlin; but it has not the four Gospels. The last, which Kuster most highly valued, was communicated to him by Bornier, who bought it at the public sale of the library of Francius, professor of rhetoric at Amsterdam. After Kuster’s preface, follows a letter of Le Clerc concerning Mill’s work. From Amsterdam he removed to Rotterdam, and went some time after to Antwerp, to confer with the Jesuits about some doubts he had in religious matters; the consequence of this was his being brought over to the Roman catholic religion, and his abjuring that of the Protestants July 25, 1713, in the church of the noviciates belonging to the Jesuits. The king of France rewarded him with a pension of 2000 livres; and as a mark of "distinction, ordered him to be admitted supernumerary associate of the academy of inscriptions. But he did not enjoy this new settlement long; for he died October 12, 1716, of an abscess in the pancreas, aged only forty-six.

“Dr. Raster, a tall, thin, pale man, seemingly unable to bear fatigue, was nevertheless indefatigable, and of an uncommon application to letters. He formed himself under Graevius. I was acquainted with him from 1700 to 1714-. Upon my collecting the remains of Anacreon for Mr. Barnes, about 1702, he introduced me to Dr. Bentley. You must be known, says he, to that gentleman, whom I look upon, not only as the first scholar in Europe, but as the best of friends. I only hinted to him the difficulty I lay under in relation to the officers of the customs; and, presently after, he accommodated that troublesome affair to my entire satisfaction, without so much as once letting me know he had any hand in it till near a year after: unde satis compertum mihi Bentleium esse re officiosum non verbis. Many an excellent emendation upon Suidas have I received from him. I the rather mention this, says Mr. Wasse, because when that Lexicon was in the press, Kuster with indignation shewed me an anonymous letter in Latin, addressed to him, wherein he was advised not to treat the doctor with that distinction, if he intended his book should make its way in the learned world. But to proceed; when he came to write upon Suidas, he found himself under a necessity of making indices of all the authors mentioned by the ancients; Eustathius particularly, and nineteen volumes of Commentaries upon Aristotle, &c. of the history, geography, and chronological characters occasionally mentioned. Dr. Bentley prevailed upon me to give him some assistance. Those that fell to my lot were chiefly Eustathius on the Odyssey, seven or eight Scholiasts, Plutarch, Galen. You may judge of Kuster’s dispatch and application, when I tell you I could by no means keep pace with him, though I began the last author Jan. 9, 1703, and finished him March the 8th of the same year, and in proportion too, the remainder. Though I corrected all the sheets of the first volume, yet I never perceived he had omitted some less material words, nor ever knew the true reason. I have heard him blamed too for mentioning the names of one or two persons who sent him a few notes; but this was occasioned, I am confident, by the hurry he was always in, and the great number of letters, memorandums, and other papers he had about him. As I remember, he translated cle novo in a manner five or six sheets a week, and remarked upon them; so that the work was hastily executed, and would have been infinitely more perfect, had he allowed himself time. Some people thought they assisted him when they did not. A person of figure took him into his closet after dinner, and told him he would communicate something of mighty importance, a xfi/xiiMov, which in all difficulties had been his oracle. In an ill hour I met Kuster transported with delight. We found it was Bndaeus’s Lexicon, large paper, with only the names of the authors he quotes written in the margin, without one single remark or addition. Kuster, the best-natured man alive, was terribly put to it how to treat one that meant well, and continually inquired what service it did him, and triumphed that he was able to contribute so largely to the worthy edition of Suidas. Towards the close of the work, Kuster grew very uneasy, emaciated to the last degree, cold as a statue, and just as much alive as a man three parts dead. Sure I was to hear, every time I called upon him, * O utinam illuce.scat ille dies, quo huic operi manum ultimam imponam' It may now be proper to acquaint you in what manner this gentleman used to relax, and forget his labours over a bottle, for even Scipio and Luelius were not such fools as to be wise always; and that was generally in the poetical way, or in conversations that turned upon antiquities, coins, inscriptions, and obscure passages of the ancients. Sometimes he performed on the spinnet at our music-club, and was by the connoisseurs accounted a master. His chief companions were, Dr. Sike, famous in oriental learning; Davies and Needham; Mr. Oddy, who wrote Greek pretty well, and has left notes upon Dio, and a version of Apollonius Rhodius, which are reposited in lord Oxford’s library; he is the person whose conjectures upon Avienus were printed by Dr. Hudson at the end of his Geographers; and Mr. IJarnes, the Greek professor. Upon the publication of his Suidas, Kuster in a little time grew very fat; and, returning into Prussia, found his patrons retired from court, and his salary precarious. What is more, his principles, which inclined to what is now called Arianism, rendered him not very acceptable to some persons. In a little time measures were taken to make him uneasy, and he retired to Amsterdam. Here he reprinted Dr. Mill’s New Testament, and published Aristophanes, and some additional remarks upon Suidas, under Mr. Le Clerc’s cover. But his banker failing, he was reduced to extreme poverty; and, happening at that very juncture to be invited to Paris by his old friend l'abbe Bignon, was unfortunately prevailed upon to join himself to the Gallican church. He desired me to write to him, as usual, but never on the article of religion; declaring, at the same time, how he had not been obliged to make a formal recantation, or condemn the reformed by an express act of his, but merely to conform. How far this is true I know not; what is certain is, only that he was promised all the favour and distinction any convert could expect. He was presently admitted a member of the royal academy of inscriptions; and in 1714, in return for a paper of verses I sent him, made me a present of his book c De vero usu verborum mediorum; xpvesa %ataW The last 1 had from Kuster contained only queries upon Hesychius; on whom, before he left England, he had made about 5000 emendations. His queries were not over difficult and thence I guessed his health much impaired. And it proved so indeed for we heard soon after, that he had been blooded five or six times for a fever, and that, upon opening his body, there was found a cake of sand along the lower region of his belly. This, I take it, was occasioned by his sitting in a manner double, and writing on a very low table, surrounded with three or four circles of books placed on the ground, which was the situation we usually found him in. He had a clear head, cool and proper for debate: he behaved in a very inoffensive manner; and I am persuaded, the last error of his life was almost the only one, and by charitable persons will be placed in a good measure to the account of his deplorable circumstances; for if oppression, which only affects a part, will, why shall not the loss of all one’s fortunes, purchased with so much labour, ‘make a wise man mad.’”

, an ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born in Worcestershire towards the latter end of the fifteenth century. When he was about fifteen years of age, he was received into the monastery of Benedictine monks at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire; whence, being professed one of that order, he was sent to Gloucester-hall, Oxford, which was then a school for young Benedictines. After studying there four years, he was recalled to his monastery, and made principal chapjain; and his good conduct procured him to be chosen abbot in 1487. He had considerable reputation as a scholar and a promoter of learning; and was an exact observer and reformer of the discipline of his house. In one of his visits to Oxford, which were frequent, he took the degree of D. D. in 1500. He also visited Rome on some affairs belonging to his order, and on his return acquired much reputation as a preacher in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. In 1515, when there was a great debate between the clergy and the laity concerning exceptions; some asserting that what is called the “benefit of clergy,” should not be extended but to the higher orders, our abbot contended that the minor or inferior orders should also be included. He died in 1531, leaving “Tractatus contra doctrinam Lutheri,” 1521, one of the first attacks on that reformer’s doctrines from this country. But he was more known for his history of the foundation of Winchcombe monastery a list of its abbots and its charters and privileges manuscripts which have been partly lost.

, an English poet, son of sir Edward Kynaston, knt. was of an ancient family, whose seat was at Otely in Shropshire, where, probably, he was born in 1587. In 1601 he entered as a gentleman- commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, being then, as Wood says, “more addicted to the superficial parts of learning, poetry and oratory (wherein he excelled), than logic and philosophy.” He afterwards, however, went to Cambridge, and after taking his master’s degree, returned in 1611 to Oxford, and was admitted ad eundem. He then became a courtier, admired for his talents, and had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and was afterwards made esquire of the body to Charles I. He was the first regent of a literary institution called the Musaum Minerv& 9 of which he drew up and published “The Constitutions,” Lond. 4to, 1636. It was an academy instituted in the eleventh year of the reign of Charles I. and established at a house in Coventgarden, purchased by Sir Francis, and furnished by him with books, Mss. paintings, statues, musical and mathematical instruments, &c. and every requisite for polite and liberal education: but the nobility and gentry only were admissible. Sir Francis was chosen regent, and professors were appointed to teach the various arts and sciences. It probably, owing to the rebellion, did not survive its founder, who died about 1642. He translated Chaucer’s 46 Troilus and Cresseide“into Latin, published at Oxford, 1635, 4to; but is better known to the lovers of our early poetry by his” Leoline and Sydanis,“with” Cinthiades,“1641, of which Mr. Ellis has given some beautiful specimens, and the story is analized by Mr. Gilchrist, with additional extracts, in the” Censtira."

It is evident that some of these opinions are not peculiar to Labadie, and that others of them are rather wildly expressed than erroneous in themselves; but ^it is equally evident that they are inconsistent one with another, and that in order to be a Labadist, a man must be as great an enthusiast as the founder himself. It was, however, owing to this practice of spirituality, accompanied with an apparent severity of manners, that Labadie acquired a very great authority in a little time. Those who charged him with hypocrisy were looked on as worldlings, sold to the present life; while his followers were esteemed as so many saints. Even mademoiselle Schurman, so famous in the republic of letters, was persuaded, that she chose the better part, in, putting herself under his directions; she became one of the most ardent chiefs of his sect, and had the power to bring over to her way of thinking Elizabeth, princess Palatine, who opened an asylum to all the wandering and fugitive disciples of that preacher, esteemed it an honour to collect what she called the true church, and declared her happiness in being delivered from a masked Christianity, with which she had till then been deceived. She extolled Labadie to the skies. He was the man, she said, who talked to the heart, and it is this kind of talking, wh ch means no more than an influence on weak minds, through the medium of the passions, which has promoted religious impo ture in all ages.

In this exigence, he resumed the attempt he had vainly made before, of associating with madam Bourignon in Noordstrand; but not thinking him refined enough in the mystic theology to become her colleague, nor supple enough to be put in the number of her disciples, she rejected his overtures; and now he formed a little settlement betwixt Utrecht and Amsterdam, where he set up a printingpress, and published many of his works. Here the number of his followers increased, and would have grown very large, had he not been betrayed by some deserters, who, publishing the history of his private life, and manner of teac hing, took care to inform the public of the familiarities he took with his female pupils, under pretence of uniting them more closely to God. From this retreat he sent his apostles through the great towns in Holland, in order to make proselytes, especially in the richest houses; but, not being able to secure any residence where he might be set above the fear of want, he went to Erfurt; and, being driven thence by the wars, was obliged to retire to Altena in Holstein, where a violent colic carried him off, 1674, in his 64th year. He died in the arms of mademoiselle Schurman, who, as a faithful companion, constantly attended him wherever he went. This is the most generally received account of his death; yet others tell us, that he went to Wievaert, a lordship of Frizeland, belonging to the house of Sommersdyck; where four ladies, sisters of that family, provided him a retreat, and formed a small church, called “The Church of Jesus Christ retired from the World.” His works are numerous, amounting to upwards of thirty articles, but surely not worthy to be recorded.

, surnamed the Beautiful Ropemaker, was born about 1526, at Lyons. Her father’s name was Charly, called Labbe. She married Ennemond Perrin, a rope-maker, who lived at Lyons, in the street which still retains the name of Belle Cordiere; and dying 1565, without children, left her all he had, only entailing it on his nephews, James and Peter Perrin, which put a stop to the disadvantageous reports which had been circulated respecting her chastity. She died in 1566. She was the wonder of all the learned of her time, a mechanic’s wife, who understood Latin, Italian, and Spanish, and wrote verses in those three languages, being considered as an extraordinary phenomenon. Her poems were printed at Lyons, 1556, and at Rouen, 1610; but these have been eclipsed in every thing but price, by the edition of Lyons, 1762, 8vi.

Having taken orders in the church, he was made almoner to the king, and collated to the priory of Juvigne. In 1664, his majesty, out of his special favour, made him commander of the order of St. Michael. He had many years before begun a translation of the History of Charles VI. written by a monk of St. Denys, and continued by John le Fevre, called of St. Remy; but though this translation was finished in 1656, it was not published till 1663, and then too came out with a very small part of those commentaries, which, according to his promise, were to have filled two volumes. He had also published in 1656, the history of the marshal of Guebriant, with the genealogy of Budos, and some other houses in Britanny; and gave the public the memoirs of Michael de Castelnau, with several genealogical histories, 1659, in 2 vols. folio, a scarce and highly-valued edition. He continued to employ himself in writing other pieces in the same way, some of which were published after his death, which happened in 1675. Le Long and others are of opinion that Laboureur had some hand in the two last volumes of Sally’s Memoirs. He had a brother named Louis Le Laboureur, who was bailiff of Montmorency, and author of several pieces of poetry. He died in 1679. These also had an uncle, Claude Le Laboureur, provost of the abbey of L'isle Barbe, upon the Seine, near Lyons, who, in 1643, published “Notes and Corrections upon the Breviary of Lyons;” and in 1665, 1681, and 1682, “Les Mesures de L'Isle Barbe,” i. e. an historical account of every thing relating to that abbey; but the little caution which he observed in speaking of the chapter of St. John at Lyons obliged him to resign his provostship, and raised him an enemy in the person of Besian d'Arroy, a prebendary of the church, who, in 1644, refuted his “Notes and Corrections,” and his “Measures” in 1668, in two publications, the first entitled “L'Apologie de PEglise de Lyon” and the other, “Histoire de PAbbaie de l'lsle Barbe.” Dom. Claude published “A Treatise of the Origin of Arms, against Menetrier,” and “A genealogical History of the House of St. Colombe,” which was printed in 1673.

Some works have unquestionably been erroneously attributed to Lactantius; as the poem called “The Phoenix,” which is the production of a pagan, and not of a Christian. The poem “Upon Easter,” indeed, appears to have been written by a Christian, but one who lived after the time of Lactantius; that “Of the Passion of Christ” is not in his style. The “Arguments upon the Metamorphoses of Ovid,” and the “Notes upon the Thebaid of Statius,” have for their true author Lactantius Placidius the grammarian.

, an useful and agreeable French writer, was born Jan. 3, 1709, at Vauxcouleurs, in Champagne, where his father was a magistrate. He studied in his native place, but particularly at Pont-a-mousson, where he was called “the prince of philosophers,” an academical title given to those who distinguished themselves by their talents and application. Being intended for the church, he was sent to the seminary of St. Louis in Paris, where he remained five years. He afterwards took the degree of bachelor of divinity, was admitted of the house of the Sorbonne in 1734, and of the society in 1736, being then in his licentiateship; but after finishing that career with equal ardour and reputation, he was placed in the second rank, among more than 140 competitors. He took a doctor’s degree June 1738, and afterwards served the curacy of Greux, and Dom-Remi, to which he had been nominated by his bishop. This prelate proposed to have M. Ladvocat near him, fix him in his chapter, and place his whole confidence in him; but the Sorbonne did not give the bishop time to execute his plan for one of their royal professorships becoming vacant by the resignanation of M. Thierri, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, they hastened to appoint M. Ladvocat to it, January 11, 1740. Our new professor was unable to continue his lectures more than two years and a half, from a disorder of his lungs, thought by the physicians to be incurable, but of which he at length cured himself by consulting the best authors. In the mean time he wrote two tracts, one “on the Proofs of religion,” the other, “on the Councils,” both which are valued by catholics. In October 1742, he resigned his chair to be librarian to the Sorbonne, an office then vacant by the premature death of the abbe Guedier de St. Aubin, and made use of the leisure this situation afforded, to improve himself in the learned languages, which he had never neglected in the midst of his other studies. He was often consulted by Louis, duke of Orleans, first prince of the blood, who, among other things, wished to become acquainted with the original language of the holy scriptures. M. Ladvocat took advantage of his situation with this prince to represent to him what great and important benefits religion would derive from the establishment of a professor who should explain the holy scriptures according to the Hebrew text. M. the duke immediately comprehending all the good which would result from this professorship, realized it in 1751, and chose M. Ladvocat to fulfil its duties; desiring that for that time only, without any precedent being drawn from it in future, the offices of librarian and professor, which till then had been incompatible, might center in one person. M. Ladvocat was no sooner appointed to this professorship, than he considered by what means he might procure scholars to it; in which he was again seconded by the pious liberality of its august founder. The seminary of the Holy Family, endowed by Anne of Austria, offered choice subjects; the duke assembled them, and revived that seminary by paying the debts which had been necessarily contracted in repairing its buildings. The extinct, or suspended fellowships, rose to new existence, and were no longer given but to deserving competitors; an emulation for understanding scripture inspired the most indifferent, and. all the students in divinity hastened to receive lectures from the Orleans professor. The example was followed by some other communities, and this school, which seemed at first likely to be deserted, had the credit of training up many men of great talents. M. Ladvocat died at Paris, December 29, 1765, by which event the house and society of the Sorhonne lost one of its most learned members, the faculty of theology one of its most ingenious doctors, and religion one of its ablest defenders. There is scarce any kind of knowledge which he had not pursued; philosophy, mathematics, the learned languages, history, theology, the holy scripture, all fixed his attention. Assiduous and deliberate study had made the Greek and Latin fathers familiar to him: no monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had escaped his researches; but his peculiar study was to find the true sense of the sacred books; and the theses which he caused to be maintained on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, at which the most distinguished among the learned were present, prove the utility of his labours. A genius lively and penetrating, uncommon and extensive, accurate and indefatigable; a ready and retentive memory, a delicate and enlightened feeling, a decided taste formed from the best models of antiquity, a clear and impartial judgment, a fertile, singular, and natural imagination, and a conversation, which, without seeking for ornaments of style, never failed to prove agreeable and interesting, characterized the scholar in M. Ladvocat, and gained him the regard and esteem of all with whom he had any intercourse or connections. He was frequently consulted on the most intricate and important points, by persons of the greatest distinction in different departments, while his uniform conduct, full of candour and simplicity, tender and compassionate, honest and virtuous, rendered him, though always far from affluence, the resource of indigent men of letters, and made him a kind relation, an excellent friend, beloved by all who had any intercourse with him, and a most valuable member of society in general. His works are, “A Hebrew Grammar,” 1758, 8vo; “The Historical Dictionary,” 4 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times during his lite; “Tractatus de Consiliis” a “Dissertation on Psalm, 67, Exurgat Deus;” “Lettres sur FAutorite des Textes originaux de FEcriture Sainte;” “Jugemens sur qoelques nouvelles Traductions de ‘lEcriture Sainte, d’apres le Texte Hebreu.” The four last were published after his death. M. Ladvocat assisted in the “Dict. Geographique,” which has appeared under the name of M. the abbé de Vosgiens, the best edition of which is that of 1772, 8vo. He had planned several other works which ke had not time to finish, but which were impatiently expected even in foreign countries.

, an author of the seventeenth century, distinguished by his knowledge in history and geography, was born at Antwerp, and died there in 1640, leaving some very useful works behind him 1. “Novus Orbis,” Leyden, 1633, folio. He translated it himself into French and it was printed again at Leyden in 1640, in folio. 2. “Historia Naturalis Brasilia,” in folio, with cuts. 5. “De Regis Hispanise Regnis et Opibus,” in 8vi. 4. “Respublica Belgarum.” 5. “Gallia.” 6. “Turcici Imperii Status.” 7. “Persici Imperil Status.” The four last works are part of the little books called “Respublicse,” amounting to about forty volumes, printed by Elzevir in 24to, and treat in a general way of the climate, produce, religion, manners, civil and political government, of these several states; and have served at least as a good model for future improvements. A more considerable work employed the last years of Laet’s life; an edition of “Vitruvius,” which was printed also by Elzevir, 1649, in folio; accompanied with the notes of learned men, and pieces of other writers upon the same subject. Laet was engaged at one time in a controversy with Grotius, which gave the latter, according to Burigny, a good deal of uneasiness. The dispute was respecting the origin of the Americans, on which subject Grotius wrote with less knowledge of it than might have been expected. Laet printed his work with notes in 1643, and showed that his conjectures were illfounded, and that he had even advanced some facts which were not strictly true. Grotius answered, in a piece written without temper, entitled “Adversus obtrectatorem, opaca quern bonum facit barba,” but Laet’s positions were not to be refuted.

, a painter of histories on ceilings, staircases, halls, &c. and an assistant and imitator of Verrio, was born in France; and his father being master of the menagerie at Versailles, he had Louis XIV. for his godfather, and after him he was named. At first he was intended for the church, and was placed in the Jesuits’ college for education; but, having a hesitation in his speech, and having exhibited some taste in drawing, the king recommended to his parents to bring him up to the profession of painting. He then studied in the school of Le Brun, and in the royal academy of Paris; and made so much progress, that, in 1683, at the age of twenty, he came to England, and was immediately employed by Verrio upon the large work at St. Bartholomew’s hospital; in which he succeeded so well, that he soon obtained considerable employment on his own account, and executed a great number of ceilings, halls, and staircases, in the houses of the principal nobility of the country, particularly at lord Exeter’s at Burleigh, at Devonshire house, Piccadilly, Petworth, and Blenheim. King William gave him lodgings at Hampton Court, where he painted the “Labours of Hercules,” and repaired the large pictures called “The Triumphs of Caesar,” by Andrea Mantegna. His talents were not of a cast to demand very high respect, but they were fully equal to the mode in which they were employed, which requiring a certain portion of ingenuity, is a certain waste of talents of a superior class. In a few years, it is probable, his name will repose for perpetuity on the records of history, and the unlucky satire of Pope, “where sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.' He died in 1721, and in a place very seldom disturbed by such an event, viz. in the theatre of Drury-lane. He had gone there to see the” Island Princess" acted for the benefit of his son, who was newly entered upon the stage as a singer; but, before the play began, he was seized by an apoplexy, and carried away senseless.

, an able counsellor, and professor of law at Orleans, was born in that city Dec. 2, 1622. He discharged various important offices at Orleans with the greatest credit, as to abilities, and with so much integrity, as to be called the father of the people. His learning also procured him the honour of being appointed professor and dean of the university. He died at an advanced age, Feb. 5, 1703, leaving several works, the principal of which are, I. “Commentaire sur la Coutume d'Orleans,” 1677, fol. an edition which is more valued than the subsequent one of 1704, in 2 vols. fol. 2. “Traite” de Ban et de l'Arriere Ban," 1674, 4to.

Associated to almost all the distinguished scientific societies in the world, he was their common bond of union by the correspondences which he maintained; and he promoted a circulation of intelligence from one to another, He employed the credit arising from the universal reputation which he enjoyed, for the general benefit of the sciences and their cultivators. To the extraordinary ardour and activity of his character, he joined a love for the truth, which he carried to the borders of fanaticism. Every degree of concealment appeared to him unworthy of an honest man; and he therefore, without reserve, uttered his sentiments on ^all occasions, and 1 by the bluntness of his manners, he sometimes made himself enemies, who not ! only called in question his real merits, but who excited against him a crowd of detractors, and because they could not rival his high reputation, they attempted to blast his well earned fame. He was not without his singularities sand failings, but they were trifling in comparison of his commendable qualities, yet his long and important services were frequently forgotten in the recollection of trivial lifailings.

In 1570 he appears to have resided at Westcombe, near Greenwich, of the manor of which he was possessed, and devoted a great share of his labours to the service of the county of Kent, but without giving up his profession of the law, or his connection with Lincoln’s-inn, of which society he was admitted a bencher in 1578. He had finished his “Perambulation of Kent” in 1570, which after being inspected by archbishop Parker, and the lord treasurer Burleigh, was published in 1576. From a letter of his to his friend Thomas Wotton, esq. it appears that his design and researches extended much farther, and that he had already collected materials for a general account of Great Britain, of which this was but the specimen, and that he was prevented from proceeding in his plan by discovering that Camden was engaged in one similar. His materials, however, were published from the original ms. in 1730, 4to, under the title of “Dictionarium Angliae Topographicum et Historicum.” Camden, in praising his “Perambulation,” and acknowledging his obligations to it, calls the author “eminent for learning and piety;” by the latter quality alluding probably to his founding an hospital for the poor at East-Greenwich, in Kent, said to have been the first founded by a protestant. The queen (Elizabeth) granted her letters patent for the foundation of this hospital in 1574; and it was finished, and the poor admitted into it in October, 1576. It was to be called “The college of the poor of queen Elizabeth.” An account of its endowment and present state may be seen in our principal authority, and in Lysons’s “Environs.”

In 1579 Lambarde was appointed a justice of peace for the county of Kent, an office which he not only performed with great diligence and integrity, but endeavoured to explain and illustrate for the benefit of other magistrates, in his “Eirenarcha, or the Office of the Justices of Peace, in four books,” 1581, reprinted eleven times, the last in 1619. Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, recommends this work to the perusal of students. He published also, “The Duties of Constables,” &c. 1582, 8vo, and reprinted six times. His character and writings had now recommended him to the notice of some of the greatest and most powerful people of the realm. In 1589 he had a deputation from the lord treasurer for the composition for alienations for fines, an office erected in the 18th year of queen Elizabeth. In 1592 he was appointed a master in chancery by sir John Puckering, lord keeper; and in 1597 was appointed keeper of the rolls and house of the rolls, in Chancery-lane, by sir Thomas Egerton, lord keeper. At length, in 1600, he was personally noticed by the queen, who received him very graciously, and appointed him keeper of the records in the Tower. In consequence of this appointment, he had another interview with her majesty, Aug. 4, 1601, and presented her with an account of those records, which he called his “Pandecta Rotulorum.” In the mean time he had written, though not published, another work, entitled “Archeion, or a Discourse upon the high courts of justice in England.” It was not published until 1635, some years after his death, by his grandson, Thomas Lambarde. Of this work there are two editions of the same date, but Mr. Bridgman gives the preference to that with a preface signed T. L. which he thinks the most correct. Mr. Lambarde died Aug. 19, 1601, at his house of Westcombe, and was buried in the parish church of Greenwich. A monument was placed over him, which, upon the rebuilding of that church, was removed to the parish church of Sevenoak, in Kent, where is now the seat and hurying-place of the family. He was thrice married, but left issue only by his second wife. He left many Mss. of which Mr. Nichols has given an account; and appears to have been an accurate antiquary, and in all respects a man of learning and distinction.

, a pious and learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born in 1636 of & noble family at a village called Montyreau, in the diocese of Chartres. He went first into the army, but entered the Benedictine order, 1659, and applied so closely to his studies, that he became an able philosopher, a judicious divine, and one of the best writers of his time. He died April 4, 1711, at St. Denis. His works are numerous, and much esteemed in France. They are, 1. “Traite” de la connoissance de soi-mme,“1700, 6 vols. 12mo; 2.” De la Vérité évidente de la Religion Chretienne;“3.” Nouvel Athéisme renversé“,” against Spinoza, 12mo, and in the refutations of Spinoza, collected by the abbé Lenglet, Brussels, 1731, 12mo; 4. “L'Incréclule amené à la Religion par la Raison;” 5. “Letters, theological and moral;” 6. “Lettres Philosophiques sur divers sujets;” 7. “Conjectures Physiques sur divers effets du Tonnerre,” 1689, with an addition published the same year; this little tract is very curious; 8. “De la connoissance et de l'amour de Dieu;” 9. “La Rhetorique de College, trahie par son Apologiste,” against the famous Gibert, professor of rhetoric in the Mazarine college; 10. “Les Gemissemens de l'Amo sous la Tyrannic du Corps;” 11. “Les premiers Klemens, ou entree aux connoissances solides,” to which is added an essay on logic in form of dialogues each of these works is in one vol. 12mo; 12. “A Letter to Mallebranche on disinterested love,” with some other Letters on philosophical subjects, 1699, 8vo; 13. “A Refutation of M. Nicole’s system of universal grace,” &c. &c. His style in all these is generally polished and correct.

was many years rector of Stamford Rivers, near Ongar, in Essex; and author of the celebrated “Essay on Delicacy,” 1748. In speaking of Or. Lancaster, Mr. Hull the comedian, who was lus nepuew, (in a note on “Select Letters between the late Dutchess of Somerset, Lady Luxborough,” &c. &c. 1768, 2 vols. 8vo), says, “He w;is a man of strong natural parts, gieat erudition, refined taste, and master of a nervous, and at the same time elegant style, as is obvious to every one who has had the happiness to read the Essay here spoken of. His writings were fewer in number than their author’s genius seemed to promise to his friends, and his publications less known than their intrinsic excellence deserved. Had he been as solicitous as he was capable to instruct and please the world, few prose writers would have surpassed h m; but in his latter years he lived a recluse, and whatever he composed in the hours of retired leisure, he (unhappily for the public) ordered to be burned, which was religiously (I had almost said irreligiously) performed. He was a native of Cheshire; and in his early years, under the patronage and friendship of the late earl of Cholmondely, mixed in all the more exalted scenes of polished life, where his lively spirit and brilliant conversation rendered him universally distinguished and esteemed; and even till within a few months of his decease (near seventy-five years of age) these faculties could scarce be said to be impaired. The Essay on Delicacy (of which we are now speaking) the only material work of his which the editor knows to have survived him, was first printed in 1748, and has been very judiciously and meritoriously preserved by the late Mr. Dodsley in his Fugitive Pieces.” Notwithstanding Mr. Hull’s assertion, that his uncle wrote nothing but the “Essay,” a sermon of his, under the title of“Public Virtue, or the Love of our Country,” was printed in 1746, 4to. He was also author of a long anonymous rhapsodical poem, called “The Old Serpent, or Methodism Triumphant,” 4to. The doctor’s imprudence involved him so deeply in debt, that he was some time confined for it, and left his parsonage-house in so ruinous a condition, that his successor Dr. Beadon was forced entirely to take it down. He died June 20, 1775, leaving two daughters, one of whom married to the rev. Thomas Wetenhall, of Chester, chaplain of a man of war, and vicar of Walthamstow, Essex, from 1759 till his death, 1776.

, knt. lord chief baron of the exchequer, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was the son of Richard Lane of Courtenhall in Northamptonshire, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Clement Vincent of Harpole, in the same county. He studied law in the Middle Temple, with great success, and being called to the bar, became eminent in his profession. In the 5th Charles I. he was elected Lent reader of his inn, but the plague which broke out about that time, prevented his reading. In 1640 he was counsel for the unhappy earl of Strafford; and soon after was made attorney to prince Charles. As the Long-parliament grew more capricious and tyrannical in its proceedings, he began to be alarmed for his property, and entrusted his intimate friend Buistrode Whitlocke, with his chamber in the Middle Temple, his goods and library; and leaving London, joined the king at Oxford, where, in 1643, he was made serjeant at law, lord chief baron of the exchequer, a knight, and one of his majesty’s privy council. The university also conferred on him the degree of LL. D. “with more,” says Wood, “than ordinary ceremony.” In the latter end of the following year, he was nominated one of his majesty’s commissioners to treat of peace with the parliament at Uxbridge, and on Aug. 30, 1645, he had the great seal delivered to him at Oxford, on the death of Edward lord Littleton. In May and June 1646, he was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the parliament for the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, apd soon alter went abroad to avoid the general persecution of the royalists which the parliament meditated. He died in the island of Jersey in 1650, or 1651, Wood tells a strange story of the fate of the goods he entrusted to Whitlocke. He says, that during sir Richard’s residence abroad, lm son applied to Whitlocke, who would not own that he knew such a man as sir Richard, and kept the goods. That this story is not without foundation, appears from Whitlocke’s receipt for his pension, &c. printed by Peck, to which he adds, “And I have likewise obtained some bookes and manuscripts, which were the lord Littleton’s; and some few bookes and manuscripts, which were sir Richard Lane’s; in all worth about So/.” Sir Richard Lane’s “Reports in the court of Exchequer in the reign of king James,” were published in 1657, folio.

Our author was much esteemed by several learned men of his time, and held a literary correspondence with Usher and Selden. He was screened from the persecutions of the then prevailing powers, to whom he so far submitted as to continue quiet without opposing them, employing himself in promoting learning, and preserving the discipline of the university, as well as that of his own college. With what spirit he did this, is best seen in the following passages of two letters, one to Usher, and the other to Selden. In the first, dated from Queen’s-college, Feb. 9, 1646-7, he gives the following account of himself: “For myself, I cannot tell what account to make of my present employment. J have many irons in the fire, but of no great consequence. I do not know how soon I shall be called to give up, and am therefore putting my house in order, digesting the confused notes and papers left me by several predecessors, both in the university and college, which I purpose to leave in a better method than I found them. At Mr. Patrick Young’s request, I have undertaken the collation of Constantino’s Geoponics with two Mss. in our public library, upon which I am forced to bestow some vacant hours. In our college I am ex officio to moderate divinity-disputations once a week. My honoured friend Dr. Duck has given me occasion to make some inquiry after the law; and the opportunity of an ingenious young man, come lately from Paris, who has put up a private course of anatomy, has prevailed with me to engage myself for his auditor and spectator three days a week, four hours each time. But this I do ut explorator, non ut transfuga. For, though 1 am not solicitous to engage myself in that great and weighty calling of the ministry after this new way, yet I would lothe to be teiTrorautriit as to divinity. Though I am very insufficient to make a master-builder, yet I could help to bring in materials from that public store in our library, to which I could willingly consecrate the remainder of my days, and count it no loss to be deprived of all other accommodations, so I might be permitted to enjoy the liberty of my conscience, and study in that place. But if there be such a price set upon the latter as I cannot reach without pawning the former, I am resolved. The Lord’s will be done.” The other letter to Selden, is dated Nov. 8, 1653; “I was not so much troubled to hear of that fellow, who lately, in London, maintained in public that learning is a sin, as to see some men, v.onld he accounted none of the meanest among ourselves here at home, under pretence of piety, go about to banish it th university. I cannot make any better construction of a late order made by those whom we call visitors, upon occasion of an election last week at All-Souls college to this effect, that for the future, no scholar be chosen into any place in any college, unless he bring a testimony, under the hands of four persons at least (not electors) known to these visitors to be truly godly men, that he who stands for such a place is himself truly godly; and by arrogating to themselves this power, they sit judges of all men’s consciences, and have rejected some, against whom they had no other exceptions, (being certified by such to whom their conversations were best known, to be unblameable, and statutably elected, after due examination and approbation of their sufficiency by that society), merely upon this account, that the persons who testified in their behalf are not known to these visitors to be regenerate. I intend (God willing) ere long to have an election in our college, and have not professed that I'will not submit to this order. Howl shall speed in it, I do not pretend to foresee; but if I be baffled, I shall hardly be silent.” Dr. Langbaine’s works were, 1. his Longinus, Oxon. 1636 and 1638, 8vo. 2. “Brief Discourse relating to the times of Edward VI.; or, the state of the times as they stood in the reign of King Edward VI. By way of Preface to a book intituled The true subject to the rebel: or, the hurt of sedition, &c. written by sir John Cheek.” Oxford, 1641, in 4to. To this Dr. Langbaine prefixed the life of sir John Cheek. 3. “Episcopal Inheritance; or, a Reply to the humble examination of a printed abstract; or the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons against the votes of bishops in Parliament,” Oxford, 1641, 4to. To which is added, “A determination of the late learned Bishop of Salisbury (Davenant) Englished.” These two pieces were reprinted at London in 1680. 4. “A Review of the Covenant: wherein the original, grounds, means, matter, and ends of it are examined; and out of the principles of the remonstunce*, declarations, votes, orders and ordinances of trie prime covenanters, or the firmer grounds of scripture, law, and reason, disproved,” 1644. It was reprinted at London, 1661, in 4to. 5. “Answer of the Chancellor, master and scholars of the university of Oxford, to the petition, articles of grievance, and reasons of the city of Oxford; presented to the committee for regulating the University of Oxford, 24 July 1649,” Oxford, 1649, 4to; reprinted in 1678, with a book entitled “A defence of the rights and privileges of the University of Oxford,” &c. published by James Harrington, then bachelor (soon after master) of arts, and student of Christ-church, at Oxford, 1690, 4to. 6. “Quacstiones pro more solenni in Vesperiis propositac ann. 1651,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. Published by Mr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln, among several little works of learned men. 7. “Platonicorum aliquot, qui etiamnum supersunt, Authorum, Graecorum, imprimis, mox Latinorum, syllabus alphabeticus,” Oxford, 1607, 8vo, drawn up by our author at the desire of archbishop Usher, but left imperfect; which being found among his papers, was, with some few alterations, placed at the end of “Alcini, in Plutonicam Philosophiam Introductio,” published by Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church. 8. There is also ascribed to our author, “A View of the New Directory, and a Vindication of the ancient Liturgy of the Church of England: in answer to the reasons pretended in the ordinance and preface for the abolishing the one, and establishing the other,” Oxford, 1645, 4to, pages 112, Dr. Langbaine also published, 1. “The Foundation of the university of Oxford, with a Catalogue of the principal founders and special benefactors of all the colleges, and total number of students,” &c. London, 165I,4to f mostly taken from the Tables of John Scot of Cambridge, printed in '622. 2. “The Foundation of the University of Cambridge, with a Catalogue,” &c. printed with the forme? Catalogue, and taken from Mr. Scot’s Tables. He likewise laboured very much in finishing archbishop Usher’s book, entitled “Chronologia Sacra,” but died when he had almost completed it, which was done by Barlow. He translated into Latin “Reasons of the present judgment of the university concerning the solemn League and Covenant,” and assisted Dr. Robert Sanderson, and Dr. Richard Zouch, in the drawing up of those Reasons. He translated into English “A Review of the Council of Trent, written in French by a learned Roman catholic,” Oxford, 1638, fol. in which is represented the dissent of the Gallican church from several conclusions of the Council. He left behind him thirteen 4tos, and eight 8vos, in manuscript, with innumerable collections in loose papers, collected chiefly from ancient manuscripts in the Bodleian library, &c, He had also made several catalogues of manuscripts in various libraries, and of printed books likewise, with a view, as was supposed, to an universal Catalogue. Dr. Fuller tells us that he took a great deal of pains in the continuation of Brian Twyne’s “Antiq. Academ. Oxon.” and that he was intent upon it when he died. But Mr. Wood observes, that Dr. Thomas Barlow and Dr. Lamplugh, who looked over his library after his death, assured him that they saw nothing done towards such a design. Dr. Langbaine assisted Dr. Arthur Duck in composing his book “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Homanorum in Dominiis Principum Christianorum,” London, 1653, 8vo. In Parr’s collection of Usher’s letters, are several letters of our author to that prelate.

, son of the preceding, wa; born in Oxford July 15, 1656; and after being educatea in grammar-learning, was bound apprentice to a bookseller in St. Paul’s church-yard, London. But he was soon called thence on the death of an elder brother, and entered a gentleman-commoner of University-college in 1672; where, as Wood informs us, he became idle, a great jockey, married, and spent a considerable part of his property; but afterwards restrained his folly, and lived some years a retired life, near Oxford, employing his time in researches into thejiistory of dramatic poetry. His literature, Mr. Warton says, chiefly consisted in a knowledge of the novels and plays of various languages, and he was a constant and critical attendant of the play-houses for many years. Such a pursuit was at that time neither creditable nor profitable; and accordingly, in 1690 we find him glad to accept the place of yeoman beadle of arts, and soon after he was chosen esquire beadle of law, probably out of respect to his father’s memory.

His conduct hitherto had been becoming his station, but we have now to record one action of his which, as Anthony Wood says, it is impossible to defend. This was the removal of the celebrated John Wickliff from his situation as head of a hall at Oxford, called Canterbury-hall, founded by his predecessor Simon Islip. Whether his holding tenets which might then be deemed heretical was the archbishop’s true reason for ejecting him, does not appear. That which he avowed was, that having a desire that the hall should be a college for the education of monks, he thought a secular priest (between whom and the monastic order it is well known a considerable jealousy subsisted) would be an improper person for their governor. But although this might have been the opinion of the prelate, it does not appear to have been that of the society; the fellows of which convened a meeting, in whichfthey drew up a spirited remonstrance against the tyranny of their superior. This was so ill receded by him, and their subsequent conduct considered as so contumacious, that he sequestered a large portion of their revenue. War was now declared on both sides. The society appealed to the pope, the archbishop sent an agent to Rome to answer for him; and he had interest enough to induce his holiness to confirm the decree by which Wickliff and some other refractory members of the fraternity were removed, and their places filled with those who were more steady adherents to nonachism, and consequently more devoted to the will of the archbishop.

His “Letters on Religious Retirement” were dedicated, with rather more success, to bishop Warburton, who returned a complimentary letter, in which he encouraged our author to make some attempt in the cause of religion. This is supposed to have produced, in 1763, “The Letters that passed between Theodosius and Constantia,” a fiction founded on a well-known story in the Spectator. The style of these letters is in general elegant, but in some parts too florid. The*“Letter on Prayer” is very equivocal in its tendency. This year also gave birth to a poem, meant to be philosophical, entitled “The Enlargement of the Mind,” part first, in which we find some noble sentiments expressed in glowing and elevated language. His next publication, about the same time, called “Effusions of Friendship and Fancy,” 2 vols. 12rno, was a work of considerable popularity. It is indeed a very pleasing miseellany of humour, fancy, and criticism, but the style is often flippant and irregular, and made him be classed among the imitators of Sterne, whom it was too much the fashion at that time to read and to admire.

, an English chronicler, so called from Langtoft in Yorkshire, flourished in the thirteenth, and beginning of the fourteenth century, and was a canon regular of the order of St. Austin at Bridiington in Yorkshire. He translated out of the Latin into French verse, Bosenham or Boscam’s Life of Thomas a Becket, and compiled likewise in French verse, a Chronicle of England, copies of which are in several libraries. He begun his chronicle as early as the old fable of the Trojans, and brings it down to the end of the reign of Edward I. He is supposed to have died about the beginning of Edward II. or soon after. Robert de Brunne, as we have already mentioned in his article (see Brunne), gave an English metrical version of Langtoft, which was edited by Hearne in 1725, 2 vols. 8vo.

In 1565, Augustus elector of Saxony invited him to his court, and appointed him envoy to that of France the same year, after which he sent him as his deputy to the diet of the empire, which was called by the emperor Maximilian in 1568, at Augsburg. Thence the same master dispatched him to Heidelberg, to negotiate some business with the elector palatine; and from Heidelberg he went to Cologne, where he acquired the esteem and confidence of Charlotte de Bourbon, princess of Orange. The elector of Saxony sent him also to the diet of Spires; and in 1570 to Stetin, in quality of plenipotentiary, for mediating a peace between the Swedes and the Muscovites, who had chosen this elector for their mediator. This prince the same year sent Languet a second time into France, to Charles IX. and the queen-mother Catharine of Medicis, in the execution of which commission he made a remarkably bold speech to the French monarch, in the name of the protestant princes in Germany. He was at Paris upon the memorable bloody feast of St. Bartholomew, in 1572, when he saved the life of Andrew Wechelius, the famous printer, in whose house he lodged; and he was also very instrumental in procuring the escape of Philip de Mornay count de Plessis; but, trusting too much to the respect due to his character of envoy, was obliged for his own safety to the good offices of John de Morvillier, who had been keeper of the seals. Upon his recal from Paris, he received orders to go to Vienna, where he was in 1574; and in 1575 he was appointed one the principal arbitrators for determining of the disputes, which had lasted for thirty years, between the houses of Longueville and Baden, concerning the succession of Rothelin.

, an artist of various talents in the seventeenth century, was born in Italy, and appears to have come over to England in the time of James I. He had a great share in the purchases of pictures made for the royal collection. He drew for Charles I. a picture of Mary, Christ, and Joseph; his own portrait done by himself with a pallet and pencils in his hand, and musical notes on a scrip of paper, is in the music-school at Oxford. He also employed himself in etching, but his fame was most considerable as a musician. It is mentioned in the folio edition of Ben Jonson’s works, printed 1640, that in 1617, his whole masque, which was performed at the house of lord Hay, for the entertainment of the French ambassador, was set to music after the Italian manner, stilo recitativo, by Nic. Laniere, who was not only ordered to set the music, but to paint the scenes. This short piece being wholly in rhyme, though without variation in the measure, to distinguish airs from recitation, as it was all in musical declamation, may be safely pronounced the first attempt at an opera in the Italian manner, after the invention of recitative. In the same year, the masque called “The Vision of Delight,” was presented at court during Christmas by the same author; and in it, says Dr. Burney, we have all the characteristics of a genuine opera, or musical drama of modern times complete: splendid scenes and machinery; poetry; musical recitation; air; chorus; and dancing. Though the music of this masque is not to be found, yet of Laniere’s “Musica narrativa” we have several examples, printed by Playford in the collections of the time; particularly the “Ayres and Dialogues,” 1653, and the second part of the “Musical Companion,” which appeared in 1667; and in which his music to the dialogues is infinitely superior to the rest; there is melody, measure, and meaning in it. His recitative is more like that of his countrymen at present, than any contemporary Englishman’s. However, these dialogues were composed before the laws and phraseology of recitative were settled, even in Italy. His cantata of “Hero and Leander” was much celebrated during these times, and the recitative regarded as a model of true Italian musical declamation. Laniere died at the age of seventyeight, and was buried in St. Martin’s in the Fields, Nov. 4, 1646.

, an able Italian antiquary, was born June 13, 1732, at Monte-del-Ceirao, near Macerata, and was educated in the schools of the Jesuits, where he was distinguished for the rapid progress he made in theology, philosophy, rhetoric, and poetry. After being admitted into the order of the Jesuits, he taught rhetoric in various academies in Italy with great success. When the order of the Jesuits was suppressed, he was appointed sub-director of the gallery of Florence, by Peter Leopold, grand duke of Tuscany; and that noble collection was considerably improved and enriched by his care. His first work was a “Guide” to this gallery, which he printed in 1782, and which both in matter and style is far superior to performances of that kind. In 1789 he published his “Essay on the Tuscan Language,” 3 vols. 8vo, which gave him a reputation over all Europe, and was followed by his elaborate “History of Painting m Italy,” the best edition of which is that printed at Bassano, in 1809, 6 vols. 8vo. His next publication, much admired by foreign antiquaries, was his “Dissertations on the Vases commonly called Etruscan.” In 1808 appeared his translation of “Hesiod,” 4to, of which a very high character has been given. He died March 31, 1810, at Florence, a period so recent as to prevent our discovering any more particular memoirs of him than the above.

It does not appear that Larcher published any thing before his translation of the “Electra” of Euripides, which appeared in 1750; for the “Calendrier perpetuel” of 1747, although attributed to him, was certainly not his. The “Electra,” as well as many other of his publications, appeared without his name, which, indeed, he appended onJy to his “Memoire sur Venus,” his “Xenophon,” “Herodotus,” and “Dissertations acaderaiques.” The “Electra” had not much success, and was never reprinted, unless by a bookseller, who blunderingly inserted it among a collection of acting plays. In 1751 Larcher is supposed to have contributed to a literary journal called “Lettres d'une Societe;” and afterwards, in the “Melange litteraire,” he published a translation of Pope’s essay on Pastoral Poetry. He was also a contributor to other literary journals, but his biographer has not been able to specify his articles with certainty, unless those in the “Collection Academique” for 1755, where his articles are marked with an A. and in which he translated the Philosophical Transactions of London. He translated also the “Martinus Scribleru.s” from Pope’s works, and Swift’s ironical piece on the abolition of Christianity. Having while in England become acquainted with sir John Pringle, he published a translation of hi* work “On the Diseases of the Army,” of which an enlarged edition appeared in 1771.

In 1757 he revised the text of Hudibras, which accompanies the French translation, and wrote some notes to it. But these performances did not divert him from his Greek studies, and his translation of “Chereas and Calliroe,” which appeared in 1758, was considered in France as the production of one who would prove an honour to the class of Greek scholars in France. This was reprinted in the *‘ Bibliotheque des Romans Greo/’ for which also Larcher wrote “Critical Remarks on the Æthiopics of Heiiodorus,” but for some reason these never appeared in that work. In 1767 the quarrel took place between him and Voltaire. Larcher, although intimate with some of those writers who called themselves philosophers, and even favourable to some of their theories, was shocked at the impiety of Voltaire’s extremes; and when the “Philosophy of History” appeared, was induced by some ecclesiastics to undertake a refutation, which was published under the title of “Sup. plement a la Philosophic de I'Histoire,” a work which Voltaire himself allowed to be full of erudition. He could not, however, conceal his chagrin, and endeavoured to answer Larcher in his “Defense de mon oncle,” in which he treats his antagonist with unpardonable contempt and abuse. Larcher rejoined in “Reponse a la Defense de mon oncle.” Both these pamphlets added much to his reputation; and although Voltaire, whose resentments were implacable, continued to treat Larcher with abuse in his writings, the latter made no reply, content with the applause of the really learned, particularly Brunck and La Harpe, which last, although at that time the warmest of Voltaire’s" admirers, disapproved of his treatment of such a man as Lurcher; and in this opinion he was joined even by D'Alembert.

During the revolutionary storm Larcher lived in privacy, employed on his studies, and especially on the second edition of his “Herodotus,” and was but little disturbed. He was indeed carried before the revolutionary committee, and his papers very much perplexed those gentlemen, who knew little of Greek or Latin. For one night a sentinel was placed at his door, who was set asleep by a bottle of wine, and next morning Larcher gave him a small assignat, and he came back no more. When the republican government became a little more quiet, and affected to encourage men of letters, Larcher received, by a decree, the sum of 3000 livres. He was afterwards, notwithstanding his opinions were not the fashion of the day, elected into the Institute; and when it was divided into four classes, and by that change he became again, in some degree, a member of the Academy of inscriptions, he published four dissertations of the critical kind in their memoirs. The last honour paid to him was by appointing him professor of Greek in the imperial university, as it was then called; but he was now too tar advanced for active services, and died after a short illness, in his eighty-sixth year, Dec. 22, 1812, regretted as one of the most eminent scholars and amiable men of his time. His fine library was sold by auction in Nov. 1814.

, called Rhyndacenus, as Constantine was called Byzantinus, was a learned Greek of the same family with the preceding, who came either from Greece or Sicily to Italy, on the ruin of his country. He was indebted to cardinal Bessarion for his education at Padua, where he obtained a high reputation for his knowledge in the learned languages, and received the patronage of Lorenzo de Medici, who sent him into Greece with recommendatory letters to the sultan Bajazet, in order to collect ancient manuscripts: for this purpose he took two journeys, in the latter of which he appears to have been very successful. After the expulsion of the Medic, family from Florence, in 1494, he was carried to France by Charles VIII. alter which he was patronized by Louis XII. who sent him, in 1503, as his ambassador to Venice, in which oroce he remained till 1508. He ioined the pursuit of literature with his public employment, and held a correspondence with many learned men. After the termination of hi. embassy, he“remained some yeaa' Venice, as an mstructor in the Greek language. On the election of pope Leo X. to the popedom in 1513, he set out for Rome, where, at his instigation, Leo founded a college for noble Grecian youths at Rome, at the head of which he placed the author of the plan, and likewise made him superintendant of the Greek press; his abilities as a corrector and editor, had been already sufficiently evinced by his magnificent edition of the Greek” Anthologia,“printed in capital letters at Florence in 1494, and by that of” Callimachus,“printed in the same form. Maittaire thinks he was also editor of four of the tragedies of” Euripides,“of the” Gnorase Monastichoi,“and the” Argonautics“of Apollonius Rhodius. He now printed the Greek” Scholia“on Homer, in 1517; and in 1518 the” Scholia“on Sophocles. Having in this last-mentioned year quitted Rome for France, whither he was invited by Francis I. he was employed by that monarch in forming the royal library. He was also sent as his ambassador to Venice, with a view of procuring Greek youths for the purpose of founding a college at Paris similar to that of Rome. After the accomplishment of other important missions, he died at Rome in 1535, at an advanced age. He translated into the Latin language, a work extracted from Polybius, on the military constitutions of the Romans; and composed epigrams in Greek and Latin; this rare volume is entitled” Lascaris Rhydaceni epigrammata, Gr. Lat. edente Jac. Tossano,“printed at Paris, 1527, 8vo. There is another Paris edition of 1544, 4to. Mr. Dibdin has given an ample and interesting account of his” Anthologia" from lord Spencer’s splendid vellum copy.

, or, as he is called by the Italians, Orlando di Lasso, an eminent musician, was a native of Mons, in Hainault, born in 1520, and not only spent many years of his life in Italy, but had his musical education there, having been carried thither surreptitiously, when a child, on account of his fine voice. The historian Thuanus, who has given Orlando a place among the illustrious men of his time, tells us that it was a common practice for young singers to be forced away from their parents, and detained in the service of princes; and that Orlando was carried to Milan, Naples, and Sicily, by Ferdinand Gonzago. Afterwards, when he was grown up, and had probably lost his voice, he went to Rome, where he taught music during two years; at the expiration of which, he travelled through different parts of Italy and France with Julius Caesar Brancatius, and at length, returning to Flanders, resided many years at Antwerp, till being invited, by the duke of Bavaria, to Munich, he settled at that court, and married. He had afterwards an invitation, accompanied with the promise of great emoluments, from Charles IX. king of France, to take upon him the office of master and director of his band; an honour which he accepted, but was stopped on the road to Paris by the news of that monarach’s death. After this event he returned to Munich, whither he was recalled by William, the son and successor of his patron Albert, to the same office which he had held under his father. Orlando continued at this court till his death, in 1593, at upwards of seventy years of age. His reputation was so great, that it was said of him: “Hic ille Orlandus Lassus, qui recreat orbem.” As he lived to a considerable age, and never seems to have checked the fertility of his genius by indolence, his compositions exceed, in number, even those of Palestrina. There is a complete catalogue of them in Draudius, amounting to upwards of fifty different works, consisting of masses, magnificats, passiones, motets, and psalms: with Latin, Italian, German, and French songs, printed in Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. He excelled in modulation, of which he gave many new specimens, and was a great master of harmony.

, bishop of Worcester, one of the first reformers of the church of England, was descended of honest parents at Thurcaston in Leicestershire; where his father, though he had no land of his own, rented a small farm, and by frugality and industry, brought up a family of six daughters besides this son. In one of his court sermons, in Edward’s time, Latimer, inveighing against the nobility and gentry, and speaking of the moderation of landlords a few years before, and the plenty in which their tenants lived, tells his audience, in his familiar way, that, “upon a farm of four pounds a year, at the utmost, his father tilled as much ground as kept half a dozen men; that he had it stocked with a hundred sheep and thirty cows; that he found the king a man and horse, himself remembering to have buckled on his father’s harness when he went to Blackheath; that he gave his daughters five pounds a-piece at marriage; that he lived hospitably among his neighbours, and was not backward in his alms to the poor.” He was born in the farm-house about 1470; and, being put to a grammar-school, he took learning so well, that it was determined to breed him to the church. With this view, he was sent to Cambridge. Fuller and others say to Christ’s college, which must be a tradition, as the records of that college do not reach his time. At the usual time, he took the degrees in arts; and, entering into priest’s orders, behaved with remarkaable zeal and warmth in defence of popery, the established religion. He read the schoolmen and the Scriptures with equal reverence, and held Thomas a Becket and the apostles in equal honour. He was consequently, a zealous opponent of the opinions which had lately discovered themselves in England; heard the teachers of them with Uipb indignation, and inveighed publicly and privately against the reformers. If any read lectures in the schools, Latimer was sure to be there to drive out the scholars, and could nut endure Stafford, the divinity-lecturer, who, however, is said to have been partly an instrument of his conversion. When Latimer commenced bachelor of divinity, he gave an open testimony of ins dislike to their proceedings in an oration against Melancthon, whom he treated most severely i for his impious, as he called them, innovations in religion. His zeal was so much taken notice of in the univeriiity, that he was elected cross-bearer in all public processions; an employment which he accepted with reverence, and discharged with solemnity.

The principal persons at this time concerned in ecclesiastical affairs were cardinal Wolsey, Warham archbishop of Canterbury, and Tunstal bishop of London; and as Henry VIII. was now in the expectation of having the business of his divorce ended in a regular way at Rome, he was careful to observe all forms of civility with the pope. The cardinal therefore erected a court, consisting of bishops, divines, and canonists, to put the laws in execution against heresy: of this court Tunstal was made president; and Bilney, Latimer, and one or two more, were called before him. Bilney was considered as the heresiarch, and against him chiefly the rigour of the court was levelled; and they succeeded so far that he was prevailed upon to recant: accordingly he bore his faggot, and was dismissed. As for Latimer, and the rest, they had easier terms: Tunstal omitted no opportunities of shewing mercy; and the heretics, upon their dismission, returned to Cambridge, where they were received with open arms by tlicir friends. Amidst this mutual joy, Bilney alone seemed unaffected: he shunned the sight of hi* acquaintance, and received their congratulations with confusion and blushes. In short, he was struck with remorse for what he bad done, grew melancholy, and, after leading an ascetic life for three years, resolved to expiate his abjuration by death. In this resolution he went to Norfolk, the place of his nativity; and, preaching publicly against popery, he was apprehended by order of the bishop of Norwich, and, after lying a while in the county gaol, was executed in that city.

Though the influence of the popish party then prevailed so far that this letter produced no effect, yet the king, no way displeased, received it, not only with temper, but with condescension, graciously thanking him for his wellintended advice. The king, capricious and tyrannical as he was, shewed, in many instances, that he loved sincerity and openness; and Larimer’s plain and simple manner had before made a favourable impression upon him, which this letter contributed not a little to strengthen; and the part he acted in promoting the establishment of the king’s supremacy, in 1535, riveted him in the royal favour. Dr. Butts, the king’s physician, being sent to Cambridge on that occasion, began immediately to pay his court to the protestant party, from whom the king expected most unanimity in his favour. Among the first, he made his application to Latimer, as a person most likely to serve him; begging that he would^collect the opinions of his friends in the case, and do his utmost to bring over those of most eminence, who were still inclined to the papacy. Latimer, being a thorough friend to the cause he was to solicit, undertook it with his usual zeal, and discharged himself so much to the satisfaction of the doctor, that, when that gentleman returned to court, he took Latimer along with him, with a design, no doubt, to procure him some favour suitable to his merit. About this time a person was rising into power, who became his chief friend and patron: The lord Cromwell, who, being a friend to the Reformation, encouraged of course such churchmen as inclined towards it. Among these was Latimer, for whom his patron soon obtained West Kington, a benefice in Wiltshire, whither he resolved, as soon as possible, to repair, and keep a constant residence. His friend Dr. Butts, surprized at this resolution, did what he could to dissuade him from it: “You are deserting,” said he, “the fairest opportunities of making your fortune: the prime minister intends this only as an earnest of his future favours, and will certainly in time do great things for you: but it is the manner of courts to consider them as provided for, who seem to be satisfied; and, take my word for it, an absent claimant stands but a poor chance among rivals who have the advantage of being present.” Thus the old courtier advised. But these arguments had no weight. He wag heartily tired of the court, where he saw much debauchery and irreligion, without being able to oppose them; and, leaving the palace therefore, entered immediately upon the duties of his parish. Nor was he satisfied within those limits; he extended his labours throughout the county, where he observed the pastoral care most neglected, having for that purpose obtained a general licence from the university of Cambridge. As his manner of preaching was very popular in those times, the pulpits every where were gladly opened for him; and at Bristol, where he often preached, he was countenanced by the magistrates. But this reputation was too much for the popish clergy to sulVcr, and their opposition first broke out at Bristol. The mayor had appointed him to preach there on Easter-day. Public notice had been given, and all people were pleased; when, suddenly, came an order from the bishop, prohibiting any one to preach there without his licence. The clergy of the place waited upon Latimer, informed him of the bishop’s order; and, knowing he had no such licence, were extremely sorry that they were thus deprived of the pleasure of hearing him. Latimer received their compliment with a smile; for he had been apprized of the affair, and knew that these very persons had written to the bishop against him. Their opposition became afterwards more public and avowed; the pulpits were used to spread invectives against him; and such liberties were taken with his character, that he thought it necessary to justify himself. Accordingly, he called upon his maligners to accuse him publicly before the mayor of Bristol; and, with all men of candour, he was justified; for, when the parties were convened, and the accusers produced, nothing appeared against him; but the whole accusation was left to rest upon the uncertain evidence of hearsay information.

While his endeavours to reform were thus confined to his diocese, he was called upon to exert them in a more public 'manner, by a summons to parliament and convocation in 1536. This session was thought a crisis by the Protestant party, at the head of which stood the lord Cromwell, whose favour with the king was now in its meridian. Next to him in power was Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, after whom the bishop of Worcester was the most considerable man of the party; to whom were added the bishops of Ely, Rochester, Hereford, Salisbury, and St. David’s. On the other hand, the popish party was headed by Lee archbishop of York, Gardiner, Stokesley, and Tunstal, bishops of Winchester, London, and Durham. The convocation was opened as usual by a sermon, or rather an oration, spoken, at the appointment of Cranmer, by the bishop of Worcester, whose eloquence was at this time everywhere famous. Many warm debates passed in this assembly; the result of which was, that four sacraments out of the seven were concluded to be insignificant: but, as the bishop of Worcester made no figure in them, for debating was not his talent, it is beside our purpose to enter into a detail of what was done in it. Many alterations were made in favour of the reformation; and, a few months after, the Bible was translated into English, and recommended to general perusal in October 1537. In the mean time the bishop of Worcester, highly satisfied with the prospect of the times, repaired to his diocese, having made a longer stay in London than was absolutely necessary. He had no talents for state affairs, and therefore meddled not with them. It is upon that account that bishop Burnet speaks very slightingly of his public character at this time, but it is certain that Latimer never desired to appear in any public character at all. His whole ambition was to discharge the pastoral functions of a bishop, neither aiming to display the abilities of a statesman, nor those of a courtier. How very unqualified he was to support the latter of these characters, will sufficiently appear from the following story. It was the custom in those days for the bishops to make presents to the king on New-year’sday, and many of them would present very liberally, proportioning their gifts to their expectations. Among the rest, the bishop of Worcester, being at this time in town, waited upon the king with his offering; but instead of a purse of gold, which was the common oblation, he presented a New Testament, with a leaf doubled down, in a very conspicuous manner, to this passage, “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Henry VIII. made so little use of his judgment, that his whole reign was one continued rotation of violent passions, which rendered him a mere machine in the hands of his ministers; and he among them who could make the most artful address to the passion of the day, carried his point. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was just returned from Germany, having successfully negotiated some commissions which the king had greatly at heart; and, in 1539, a parliament was called, to confirm the seizure and surrendry of the monasteries, when that subtle minister took his opportunity, and succeeded in prevailing upon his majesty to do something, towards restoring the old religion, as being most advantageous for his views in the present situation of Europe. In this state of affairs, Latimer received his summons to parliament, and, soon after his arrival in town, he was accused of preaching a seditious sermon. The sermon was preached at court, and the preacher, according to his custom, had been unquestionably severe enough against whatever he observed amiss. The king had called together several bishops, with a view to consult them upon some points of religion. When they had all given their opinions, and were about to be dismissed, the bishop of Winchester (for it was most probably be) kneeled down and accused the bishop of Worcester as above-mentioned. The bishop being called upon by the king with some sternness, to vindicate himself, was so far from denying or even palliating what he said, that he boldly justified it; and turning to the king, with that noble unconcern which a good conscience inspires, made this answer: “I never thought myself worthy, nor I never sued to be a preacher before your grace; but I was called to it, and would be willing, if you mislike it, to give place to my betters; for I grant there may be a great many more worthy of the room than I am. And if it be your grace’s pleasure to allow them for preachers, I could be content to bear their books after them. But if your grace allow me for a preacher, I would desire you to give me leave to discharge my conscience, and to frame my doctrine according to my audience. I bad been a very dolt indeed, to have preached so at the borders of your realm, as I preach before your grace.” This answer baffled his accuser’s malice, the severity of the king’s conscience changed into a gracious smile, and the bishop was dismissed with that obliging freedom which this monarch never used but to those whom he esteemed. In this parliament passed the famous act, as it was called, of the six articles, which was no sooner published than it gave an universal alarm to all the favourers of the reformation; and, as the bishop of Worcester could not give his vote for the act, he thought it wrong to hold any office. He therefore resigned his bishopric , and retired into the country; where he resided during the heat of that persecution which followed upon this act, and thought of nothing for the remainder of his days but a sequestered life. He knew the storm which was up could not soon be appeased, and he had no inclination to trust himself in it. But, in the midst of his security, an unhappy accident carried him again into the tempestuous weather that was abroad he received a bruise by the fall of a tree, and the contusion was so dangerous, that he was obliged to seek out for better assistance than the country afforded. With this view he repaired to London, where he had the misfortune to see the fall of his patron, the lord Cromwell; a loss of which he was soon made sensible. Gardiner’s emissaries quickly found him out; and something, that somebody had somewhere heard him say against the six articles, being alleged against him, he was sent tp the Tower, where, without any judicial examination, he suffered, through one pretence or another, a cruel imprisonment for the remaining six years of king Henry’s reign.

Upon the revolution which happened at court after the death of the duke of Somerset, Latimer seems to have retired into the country, and made use of the king’s licence as a general preacher in those parts where he thought his labours might be most serviceable. He was thus employed during the remainder of that reign, and continued in the same course, for a short time, in the beginning of the next; but, as soon as the introduction of popery was resolved on, the first step towards it was the prohibition of all preaching throughout the kingdom, and a licensing only of such as were known to be popishly inclined: accordingly, a strict inquiry was made after the more forward and popular preachers; and many of them were taken into custody. The bishop of Winchester, who was now prime minister, having proscribed Latimer from the first, sent a message to cite him before the council. He had notice of this design some hours before the messenger’s arrival, but made no use of the intelligence. The messenger found him equipped for his journey; at which expressing surprize, Latimer told him that he was as ready to attend him to London, thus called upon to answer for his faith, as he ever was to take any journey in his life and that he doubted not but God, who had en- ­abled him to stand before two princes, would enable him to stand before a third. The messenger, then acquainting him that he had no orders to seize his person, delivered a letter, and departed. Latimer, however, opening the letter, and finding it contain a citation from the council, resolved to obey it. He set out therefore immediately; and, as he passed through Smithfield, where heretics were usually burnt, he said cheerfully, “This place hath long groaned for me.” The next morning he waited upon the council, who, having loaded him with many severe reproaches, sent him to the Tower. This was his second visit to this prison, but now he met with harsher treatment, and had more frequent occasion to exercise his resignation, which virtue no man possessed in a larger measure; nor did the usual cheerfulness of his disposition forsake him. A servant leaving his apartment one day, Latimer called after him, and bid him tell his master, that unless he took better care of him, he would certainly escape him. Upon this message the lieutenant, with some discomposure of countenance, came to Latimer, and desired an explanation. “Why, you expect, I suppose, sir,” replied Latimerj “that I should be burnt; but if you do not allow me a little fire this frosty weather, I can tell you, I shall first be starved.” Cranmer and Ridley were also prisoners in the same cause with Latimer; and when it was resolved to have a public disputation at Oxford, between the most eminent of the popish and protestant divines, these three were appointed to manage the dispute on the part of the protestants. Accordingly they were taken out of the Tower, and sent to Oxford, where they were closely confined in the common prison, and might easily imagine how free the disputation was likely to be, when they found themselves denied the use even of books, and pen and ink.

Fox has preserved a conference, afterwards put into writing, which was held at this time between Ridley and Latimer, and which sets our author’s temper in a strong light. The two bishops are represented sitting in their prison, ruminating upon the solemn preparations then making for their trial, of which, probably, they were now first informed. “The time,” said Ridley, “is now come; we are now called npon, either to deny our faith, or to suffer death in its defence. You, Mr. Latimer, are an old soldier of Christ, and have frequently withstood the fear of death; whereas I am raw in the service, and unexperienced.” With this preface he introduces a request that Latimer, whom he calls “his father,” would hear him propose such arguments as he thinks it most likely his adversaries would urge against him, and assist him in providing proper answers to them. To this Latimer, in his usual strain of good humour, replied that “he fancied the good bishop was treating him as he remembered Mr. Bilney used formerly to do; who, when he wanted to teach him, would always do it under colour of being taught himself. But in the present case,” said he, “my lord, I am determined to give them very little trouble: I shall just offer them a plain account of my faith, and shall say very little more; for I know any thing more will be to no purpose: they talk of a free disputation, but I am well assured their grand argument will be, as it once was their forefathers, * We have a law, and by our law ye ought to die.' Bishop Ridley having afterwards desired his prayers, that he might trust wholly upon God” Of my prayers,“replied the old bishop,” you may be well assured nor do J doubt but I shall have yours in return, and indeed prayer and patience should he our great resources. For myself, had I the learning of St. Paul, I should think it ill laid out upon an elaborate defence; yet our case, my lord, admits of comfort. Our enemies can do no more than God permits; and God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above our strength. Be at a point with them; stand to that, and let them say and do what they please. To use many words would be vain; yet it is requisite to give a reasonable account of your faith, if they will quietly hear you. For other things, in a wicked judgment-hall, a man may keep silence after the example of Christ,“&c. Agreeably to this fortitude, Latimer conducted himself throughout the dispute, answering their questions as far as civility required; and in these answers it is observable he managed the argument much better than either Ridley or Cranmer; who, when they were pressed in defence of transubstantiation, with some passages from the fathers, instead of disavowing an insufficient authority, weakly defended a good cause by evasions and distinctions, after the manner of schoolmen. Whereas, when the same proofs were multiplied upon Latimer, he told them plainly that” such proofs had no weight with him; that the fathers, no doubt, were often deceived; and that he never depended upon them but when they depended upon Scripture.“” Then you are not of St. Chrysostom’s faith,“replied they,” nor of St. Austin’s?“” I have told you,“says Latimer,” I am not, except they bring Scripture for what they say.“The dispute being ended, sentence was passed upon him; and he and Ridley were burnt at Oxford, on Oct. 16, 1555. When they were brought to the fire, on a spot of ground on the north side of Baliolcollege, and, after a suitable sermon, were told by an officer that they might now make ready for the stake, they supported each other’s constancy by mutual exhortations. Latimer, when tied to the stake, called to his companion,” Be of good cheer, brother; we shall this day kindle such a torch in England, as I trust in God shall never be extinguished." The executioners had been so merciful (for that clemency may more naturally be ascribed to them than to the religious zealots) as to tie bags of gunpowder about these prelates, in order to put a speedy period to their tortures. The explosion killed Latimer immediately; but Ridley continued alive during some time, in the midst of the flames. Such was the life of Hugh Latimer, one of the leaders of that glorious army of martyrs, who introduced the reformation in England. He was not esteemed a very learned man, for he cultivated only useful learning; and that, he thought, lay in a very narrow compass. He never engaged in worldly affairs, thinking that a clergyman ought to employ himself in his profession only; and his talents, temper, and disposition, were admirably adapted to render the most important services to the reformation.

, an eminent grammarian of Florence, in the thirteenth century, was of a noble family in that city, and during the party contests between the Guelphs and Ghibelins, took part with the former. When the Ghibelins had obtained assistance from Mainfroy, king of-Sicily, the Guelphs sent Bninetto to obtain similar aid from Alphonso king of Castillo; but on his return, hearing that the Ghibelins had defeated his party and got possession of Florence, he fled to France, where he resided several years. At length he was enabled to return to his own country, in which he was appointed to some honourable offices. He died in 1294. The historian Villani attributes to him the merit of having first introduced a degree of refinement among his countrymen, and of having reformed their language, and the general conduct of public affairs. The work which has contributed most to his celebrity, was one which he entitled “Tresor,” and wrote when in France, and in the French language, which he says he chose because it was the most agreeable language and the most common in Europe. This work is a kind of abridgment of the Bible, of Pliny the naturalist, Solinus, and other writers who have treated on different sciences, and may be called an Encyclopaedia of the knowledge of his time. It was translated into Italian about the same period, and this translation only was printed; but there are about a dozen transcripts of the original in the royal library at Paris, and there is a fine ms. of it in the Vatican, bound in crimson velvet, with manuscript notes, by Petrarch. After his return to Florence, Latini wrote his u Tesoretto,“or little treasure, which, however, is not as some have reported, an abridgment of the” Tresor,“but a collection of moral precepts in verse. He also translated into the Italian language part of Cicero” de Inventione.“His greatest honour seems to have been that he was the tutor of Dante, not however in poetry, for his” Tesoretto" affords no ground to consider him as a master of that art.

About Oct. 1623, the lord-keeper Williams’s jealousy of Laud, as a rival in the duke of Buckingham’s favour, and other misunderstandings or misrepresentations on both sides, occasioned such animosity between these two prelates as was attended with the worst consequences. Archbishop Abbot also, resolving to depress Laud as long as he could, left him out of the high commission, of which he complained to the duke of Buckingham, Nov. 1624, and then was put into the commission. Yet he was not so attached to Buckingham, as not to oppose the design, formed by that nobleman, of appropriating the endowment of the Charter-house to the maintenance of an army, under pretence of its being for the king’s advantage and the ease of the subject. In December this year, he presented to the duke a tract, drawn up at his request, under ten heads, concerning doctrinal puritanism. He corresponded also with him, during his absence in France, respecting Charles the First’s marriage with the princess Henrietta-Maria; and that prince, soon after his accession to the throne, wanting to regulate the number of his chaplains, and to know the principles and qualifications of the most eminent divines in his kingdom, our bishop was ordered to draw a list of them, which he distinguished by the letter O for orthodox, and P for puritans. At Charles’s coronation, Feb. 2, 1625-6, he officiated as dean of Westminster, in the room of Williams, then in disgrace; and has been charged, although unjustly, with altering the coronationoath. In 1626 he was translated from St. David’s to Bath and Wells and in 1628 to London. The king having appointed him dean of his chapel-royal, in 1626, and taken him into the privy-council in 1627, he was likewise in the commission for exercising archiepiscopal jurisdiction during Abbot’s sequestration. In the third parliament of king Charles, which met March 17, 1627, he was voted a favourer of the Arminians, and one justly suspected to be unsound in his opinions that >vay accordingly, his name was inserted as such in the Commons’ remonstrance and, because he was thought to be the writer of the king’s speeches, and of the duke of Buckingham’s answer to his impeachment, &c. these suspicions so exposed him to popular rage, that his life was threatened . About the same time, he was put into an ungracious office; namely, in a commission for raising money by impositions, which the Commons called excises; but it seems never to have been executed.

In 1634 our archbishop did the poor Irish clergy a very important service, by obtaining for them, from the king, a grant of all the impropriations then remaining in the crown. He also improved and settled the revenues of the London clergy in a better manner than before. On Feb. 5, 1634-5, he was put into the great committee of trade, and the king’s revenue, and appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, March the 4th, upon the death of Weston earl of Portland. Besides this, he was, tvVo days after, called into the foreign committee, and had likewise the sole disposal of whatsoever concerned the church; but he fell into warm disputes with the lord^Cottington, chancellor of the exchequer, who took all opportunities of imposing upon him . After having continued for a year commissioner of the treasury, and acquainted himself with the mysteries of it, he procured the lord-treasurer’s staff" for Dr. William Juxon, who had through his interest been successively advanced to the presidentship of St. John’s college, deanery of Worcester, clerkship of his majesty’s closet, and bishopric of London, as already noticed in our life of Juxon. For some years Laud had set his heart upon getting the English liturgy introduced into Scotland; and some of the Scottish bishops hud, under his direction, prepared both that book and a collection of canons for public service; the canons were published in 1635, but the liturgy came not in use till 1637. On the day it was first read at St. Giles’s church, in Edinburgh, it occasioned a most violent tumult among the people, encouraged by the nobility, who were losers by the restitution of episcopacy, and by the ministers, who lost their clerical government. Laud, having been the great promoter of that affair, was reviled for it in the most abusive manner, and both he and the book were charged with downright popery. The extremely severe prosecution carried on about the same time in the star-chamber, chiefly through his instigation, against Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton, did him also infinite prejudice, and exposed him to numberless libels and reflections; though he endeavoured to vindicate his conduct in a speech delivered at their censure, June 14, 1637, which was published by the king’s command. Another rigorous prosecution, carried on with his concurrence, in the star-chamber, was against bishop Williams, an account of which may be seen in his article, as also of Lambert Osbaldiston, master of Westminster school.

In order to prevent the printing and publishing of what he thought improper books, a decree was passed in the star-chamber, July 11, 1637, to regulate the trade of printing, by which it was enjoined that the master-printers should be reduced to a certain number, and that none of them should print any books till they were licensed either by the archbishop, or, the bishop of London, or some of their chaplains, or by the chancellors or vice-chancellors of the two universities. Accused as he frequently was, of popery, he fell under the queen’s displeasure this year, by speaking, with his usual warmth, to the king at the council- table against the increase of papists, their frequent resort to Somerset house, and their insufferable misdemeanors in perverting his majesty’s subjects to popery. On Jan. 3i, 1638-9, he wrote a circular letter to his suffragan bishops, exhorting them and their clergy to contribute liberally towards raising the army against the Scots, For this he was called an incendiary: but he declares, on the contrary, that he laboured for peace so long, till he received a great check; and that, at court his counsels alone prevailed for peace and forbearance. lu 1639 he employed one Mr. Petley to translate the liturgy into Greek; and, at his recommendation, Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Exeter, composed his learned treatise of “Episcopacy by Divine Right asserted.” On Dec. 11, the same year, he was one of the three privy-counsellors who advised the king to call a parliament in case of the Scottish rebellion; at which time a resolution was adopted to assist the king in extraordinary ways, if the parliament should prove peevish and refuse supplies. A new parliament being summoned, met April 13, 1649, and the convocation the day following; but the Commons beginning with complaints against the archbishop, and insisting upon a redress of grievances before they granted any supply, the parliament was unhappily dissolved, May 5. The convocation, however, continued sitting; and certain canons were made in it, which gave great offence. On Laud many laid the blame and odium of the parliament’s dissolution; and that noted enthusiast, John Lilburne, caused a paper to be posted, May 3, upon the Old Exchange, animating the apprentices to sack his house at Lambeth the Monday following. On that day above 5000 of them assembled in a riotous and tumultuous manner; but the archbishop, receiving previous notice, secured the palace as well as he could, and retired to his chamber at Whitehall, where he remained some days; and one of the ringleaders was hanged, drawn, and quartered, on the 21st. In August following, a libel was found in Covent-garden, exciting the apprentices and soldiers to fall upon him in the king’s absence, upon his second expedition into Scotland. The parliament that met Nov. 3, 1640, not being better disposed towards him, but, for the most part, bent upon his ruin, several angry speeches were made against him in the House of commons.

On Tuesday, March 12, 1643-4, the trial was opened in form; the original and additional articles of impeachment were read, and, after that, the archbishop’s answer, plea, and demurrer to them. He requested that the charge and evidence to all the articles might be given together; and the articles of misdemeanour separated from those of treason; to which the celebrated lawyer, Maynard, answered, that, in the earl of Strafford’s trial, he was put to answer every day the particular evidence given that day; that they were now only to try matters of fact, not of law, and that all the articles collectively, not any one separately, made up the charge of treason. Serjeant Wilde then made a long speech, upon the charge of high treason, insisting chiefly upon the archbishop’s attachment to popery, and his intention to introduce it into England; concluding with these words, that “Naaman was a great man, but he was a leper,” and that the archbishop’s leprosy had so infected all, “as there remained no other cure but the sword of justice.” The archbishop replied to the several charges, and mentioned various persons whom he had brought back from the Romish religion, particularly sir William Webbe, his kinsman, and two of his daughters; his son lui took from him; and, his father being utterly decayed, bred him at his own charge, and educated him in the protestant religion. The trial lasted above twenty days, and on Sept. 2, 1644, the archbishop made a recapitulation of the whole cause; but, as soon as he came into the House, he saw every lord present with a new thin book in folio, in a blue cover; which was his “Diary,” which Prynne, as already mentioned, had robbed him of, and printed with notes of his own, to disgrace the archbishop. On Sept. 11, Mr. Brown delivered, in the House of Lords, a summary of the whole charge, with a few observations on the archbishop’s answer. The queries of his counsel on the law of treason was referred to a committee which ordered his counsel to be heard on Oct. 11, when Mr. Herne delivered his argument with great firmness and resolution. The lord chancellor Finch told archbishop Sancroft that the argument was sir Matthew Hale’s, afterwards lord chief justice; and that being then a young lawyer, he, Mr. Finch, stood behind Mr. Herne, at the bar of the house, and took notes of it, which he intended to publish in his reports. With this argument, the substance of which may be seen in our authorities, the trial ended for that day; but, after this, a petition was sent about London, “for bringing delinquents to justice;” and many of the preachers exhorted the people to sign it; so that with a multitude of hands, it was delivered to the House of Commons, on Oct. 8. The archbishop was summoned on Nov. 2, to the House of Commons, to hear the whole charges, and to make his defence, which he did at large, Nov. 11. On the following Wednesday Mr. Brown replied and after the archbishop was dismissed, the House called for the ordinance, and without hearing his counsel, voted him guilty of high treason. After various delays, the Lords had a conference with the Commons, on Dec. 24, in which they declared, “that they had diligently weighed all things charged against the archbishop, but could not, by any one of them, or all, find him guilty of treason.” The judges had unanimously made the same declaration. At the second conference, on Jan. 2, 1644-5, the reasons of the Commons for the attainder of the archbishop were communicated to the Lords, who in a very thin house, passed the ordinance that he should suffer death by hanging, which was fixed for Friday the 10th. He pleaded the king’s pardon, under the great seal, which was over-ruled, and rejected, without being read, and the only favour granted, and that after delay and with reluctance, was, that his sentence should be changed to beheading.

Thus, by a few simple, accurate, and well-chosen experiments, Lavoisier had apparently arrived at the legitimate inference, that during the process of the formation of acids, whether with carbonaceous matter, sulphur, or phosphorus, and also during that of the calcination of metals, an absorption and fixation of air take place; and thus he gained a glimpse of principles, in the view of which hit singular sagacity in devising experiments, and his accuracy in executing them, would in all probability have alone conducted him to those brilliant results to which Dr. Priestley so materially contributed. The synthetic proofs only of this union of air with the base bad been as yet ascertained; but Dr. Priestley first furnished the analytic proof, by dissevering the combination; a discovery which at once advanced the nascent theory of Lavoisier, and, in his hands, became the source of more than one important conclusion. In August 1774, Dr. Priestley discovered that by heating certain metallic calces, especially the calcined mercury (the precipitate per sc, as it was then called) a quantity of air was separated, while the mercury resumed its metallic form; and this air, which he found was much purer than that of the atmosphere, he called, from the theory of the time, dephlogisticated air. Having communicated this discovery to Lavoisier, the latter published a memoir in 1775, in which he shewed, in conformity with the experiments of Dr. Priestley, that the mercurial precipitate per se t by being heated in a retort, gives out a highly respirable air (called since oxygeri]^ and is itself reduced to the metallic state; that combustible bodies burn in this air with increased brilliancy; and that the same mercurial calx, if heated with charcoal, gives out not the pure air, but fixed air; whence he concluded that fixed air is composed of charcoal and the pure air. It has, therefore, since been called carbonic acid. A second very important consequence of Dr. Priestley’s discovery of the pure or vital air, was the analysis of the air of the. atmosphere, which was accomplished by Lavoisier in the following manner. He included some mercury in a close vessel, together with a known quantity of atmospheric air, and kept it for some days in a boiling state; by degrees a small quantity of the red calx was formed upon the surface of the metal; and when this ceased to be produced the contents of the vessel were examined. The air was found to be diminished both in bulk and weight, and to have been rendered altogether incapable of supporting combustion or animal life; part of the mercury was found converted into the red calx, or precipitate per se; and, which was extremely satisfactory, the united weight of the mercury and the precipitate exceeded the weight of the original mercury, by precisely the same amount as the air had lost. To complete the demonstration, the precipitate was then heated, according to Dr. Priestley’s first experiment, and decomposed into fluid mercury and an air which had all the properties of vital air; and this air, when mixed with the unrespirable residue of the original air of the receiver, composed an elastic fluid possessing the same properties a atmospherical air. The vital air was afterwards made the subject of various experiments in respect to the calcination of metals, to the combustion and conversion of sulphur and phosphorus into acids, &c. in which processes it was found to be the chief agent. Hence it was named by Lavoisier oxygen (or generator of acids), and the unrespirable residue of the atmosphere was called azot (i. e. incapable of supporting life).

The new theory thus acquired farther support and conistency; oxygen appeared to be one of the most active and important agents of chemistry and of nature; combustion, acidification, and calcination (or, as it was now called, oxydatioriy the calces being also termed oxyds^ i. e. something approaching to, or resembling acids), were proved to be processes strikingly analogous to each other; all according in these points, that they produced a decomposition of the atmospheric air, and a fixation of the oxygenous portion in the substance acidified or calcined.

Time alone seemed now requisite to establish these doctrines, by exemplifying them in other departments of chemical research. In 1777 six memoirs were communicated feo the Academy of sciences by Lavoisier, in which his former experiments were confirmed, and new advances were made to a considerable extent. Our countrymen, Black and Crawford, in their researches respecting latent heat, and the different capacities of bodies under different circumstances, had laid a solid foundation, on which the doctrines of combustion, resulting from the foregoing experiments, might be perfected, and the cause of the light and heat connected with it might be explained. The first mentioned philosopher, Dr. Black, had shewn, that a solid, when it is made to assume a liquid form, and a liquid, when it assumes the form of vapour, absorbs or combines with, and renders latent, a large portion of heat, which is again parted with, becomes free and cognizable by the sense of feeling, and by the thermometer, when the vapour is again condensed into a liquid, and the liquid becomes solid. In like manner, it was now said by Lavoisier, during the process of combustion, the oxygen, which was previously in a gaseous state, is suddenly combined with the substance burnt into a liquid or solid. Hence all the latent heat, which was essential to its gaseous state, being instantaneously liberated in large quantity, produces flame, which is nothing more than very condensed free heat. About the same time, the analogy of the operation and necessity of oxygen in the function of respiration, with the preceding hypothesis of combustion, was pointed out by Lavoisier. In the process of respiration, it was found that, although atmospheric air is inhaled, carbonic acid and azot are expired. This animal operation, said Lavoisier, is a species of slow combustion: the oxygen of the air unites with the superfluous carbon of the venous blood, and produces carbonic acid, while the latent or combined caloric (the matter of heat) is set free, and thus supplies the animal heat. Ingenious and beautiful, however, as this extension of the analogy appeared, the subject of animal temperature is still under many obscurities and difficulties. The phenomena of chemistry, however, were now explicable upon principles more simple, consistent, and satisfactory than by the aid of any former theory; and the Lavoisierian doctrines were everywhere gaining ground. But there yet remained a formidable objection o them, which was derived from a circumstance attending the solution of metals in acids; to wit, the production of a considerable quantity of inflammable air. If sulphuric acid (formerly called vitriolic acid, or oil of vitriol) consists only of sulphur and oxygen, it was said, how does it happen, that wheti these two substances, with a little water, come in contact, they should produce a large quantity of inflammable air during their re-action? This objection was unanswerable, and appeared to be fatal to the whole theory: but it was most opportunely converted into an argument in its favour, by the great discovery of the decomposition of water, made by Mr. Cavendish; who resolved that element, as it was formerly esteemed, into oxygen and inflammable air. The latter has since, therefore, been called hydrogen, or generator of water. This experiment was repeated with full success by Lavoisier and his associates in 1783; and the discovery was farther established by a successful experiment of the same chemists, carried on upon a grand scale, in which, by combining the oxygen with hydrogen, they produced water, and thus adding synthesis to analysis, brought the fact to demonstration.

Dr. Keene held at this time with the bishopric of Chester, the mastership of Peter-house, in Cambridge. Desiring to leave the university, he procured Dr. Law to be elected to succeed him in that station. This took place in 1756, in which year Dr. Law resigned his archdeaconry in favour of Mr. Eyre, a brother-in-law of Dr. Keene. Two years before this (the list of graduates says 1749) he had proceeded to his degree of D. D., in his public exercise for which, he defended the doctrine of what is usually called the “sleep of the soul,” a tenet to which we shall have occasion to revert hereafter. About 1760 he was appointed head librarian of the university; a situation which, as it procured an easy and quick access to books, was peculiarly agreeable to his taste and habits. Some time after this he was appointed casuistical professor. In 1762 he suffered an irreparable loss by the death of his wife; a loss in itself every way afflicting, and rendered more so by the situation of his family, which then consisted of eleven children, many of them very young. Some years afterwards he received several preferments, which were rather honourable expressions of regard from his friends, than of much advantage to his fortune. By Dr. Cornwallis, then bishop of Lichfield, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, xvho had been his pupil at Christcollege, he was appointed to the archdeaconry of Staffordshire, and to a prebend in the church of Lichfield. By his old acquaintance Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, he was made a prebendary of that church. But in 1767, by the intervention of the duke of Newcastle, to whose interest, in the memorable contest for the high stewardship of the university, he had adhered in opposition to some temptations, he obtained a stall in the church of Durham. The year after this, the duke of Grafton, who had a short time before been elected chancellor of the university, recommended the master of Peterhouse to his majesty for the bishopric of Carlisle. This recommendation was made, not only without solicitation on his part, or that of his friends, but without his knowledge, until the duke’s intention in his favour was signified to him by the archbishop.

, usually known by the name of the projector, was born at Edinburgh, in April 1671; and on the death of his father, who was a goldsmith or banker, inherited a considerable estate, called Lauriston. He is said to have made some progress in polite literature, but his more favourite study was that of financial matters, banks, taxes, &c. and he was at the same time a man of pleasure, and distinguished by the appellation of Beau Law. Having visited London in 1694, his wit and accomplishments procured him admission into the first circles, and he became noted for his gallant attentions to the ladies. One of his intrigues having involved him in a quarrel with a Mr. Wilson, a duel took place, and Mr. Law killed his antagonist. He was then apprehended, and committed to the king’s-bench prison, from which he made his escape, and is supposed to have retired to the continent. In 1700, however, he returned to Edinburgh, as he appears in that year to have written his “Proposals and reasons for constituting a Council of Trade,” which, although it met with no encouragement from the supremo judicature of the kingdom, procured him the patronage of some noblemen, under which he was induced in 1705, to publish another plan for removing the difficulties the kingdom was then, exposed to by the great scarcity of money, and the insolvency of the bank. The object of his plan was to issue notes, which were to be lent on landed property, upon the principle, that being so secured, they would be equal in value to gold and silver money of the same denomination, and even preferred to those metals, as not being liable to fall in value like them. This plausible scheme being also rejected as an improper expedient, Mr. Law now abandoned his native country, and went to Holland, on purpose to improve himself in that great school of banking and finance. He aftewards resided at Brussels, where his profound skill in calculation is said to have contributed to his extraordinary success at play.

, the author of many pious works of great popularity, was born at KingVcliffe, in Northamptonshire, in 1686, and was the second son of Thomas Law, a grocer. It is supposed that he received his early education at Oakham or Uppingham, in Rutlandshire, whence on June 7, 1705, he entered of Emmanuel college, Cambridge. In 1708 he commenced B. A.; in 1711, was elected fellow of his college; and in 1712 took his degree of M. A. Soon after the accession of his majesty George I. being called upon to take the oaths prescribed by act of parliament, and to sign the declaration, he refused, and in consequence vacated his fellowship in 1716. He was after this considered as a nonjuror. It appears that he had for some time officiated as a curate in London, but had no ecclesiastical preferment. Soon after his resignation of his fellowship he went to reside at Putney, as tutor to Edward Gibbon, father to the eminent historian. When at home, notwithstanding his refusing the oaths, he continued to frequent his parish-church, and join in communion with his fellow parishioners. In 1727 he founded an alms-house at Cliffe, for the reception and maintenance of two old women, either unmarried and helpless, or widows; and a school for the instruction and clothing of fourteen girls. It is thought that the money thus applied was the gift of an unknown benefactor, and given to him in the following manner. While he was standing at the door of a shop in London, a person unknown to him asked whether his name was William Law, and whether he was of King’s-cliffe; and after having received a satisfactory answer, delivered a sealed paper, directed to the Rev. William Law, which contained a bank note for 1000l. But as tlifre is no proof that this was given to him in trust tor the purpose, he is fully entitled to the merit of having employed it in the service of the poor; and such beneficence was perfectly consistent with his general character.

At what time Mr. Law quitted Mr. Gibbon’s house at Putney, his biographer has not discovered, but it appears that some time before 1740, he was instrumental in bringing about an intimacy between Mrs. Hester Gibbon, his pupil’s sister, and Mrs. Elizabeth Hntcheson, widow of Archibald Hutcheson, esq. of the Middle Temple. Mr. Hutcheson, when near his decease, recommended to his wife a. retired life, and told her he knew no person whose society would be so likely to prove profitable and agreeable to her as that of Mr. Law, of whose writings he highly approved. Mrs. Hutcheson, whose maiden name was Lawrence, had been the wife of colonel Robert Steward; and when she went to reside in Northamptonshire, was in possession of a large income, from the produce of an estate which was in her own power, and of a life interest in property settled on her in marriage, or devised to her by Mr. Hutcheson. These two ladies, Mrs. Hutcheson and Mrs. H. Gibbon, appear lo have been of congenial sentiments, and now formed a plan of living together in the country, far from that circle of society generally called the world; and of taking Mr. Law as their chaplain, instructor, and almoner. With this view they took a house at Thrapston, in Northamptonshire; but that situation not proving agreeable to them, the two ladies enabled Mr. Law, about 1740, to prepare a roomy house near the church at King’s-cliffe, and in that part of the town called “The Hall-yard.” This house was then possessed by Mr. Law, and was the only property devised to him by his father. Here the whole income of these two ladies,' after deducting the frugal expences of their household, was expended in acts of charity to the poor and the sick, and in donations of greater amount to distressed persons of a somewhat higher class. And after twenty years residence, Mr. Law died in this house April 9, 1761.

Mr. Law’s works amount to nine vols. 8vo, and consist of, 1 “A Serious Call to a devout and holy life.” 2. “A practical Treatise on Christian Perfection.” 3. “Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor.” 4. “Remarks upon a late Book, entitled, The Fable of the Bees; or private vices public benefits.” 5. “The absolute Unlawfulness of Stage Entertainments fully demonstrated.” 6. “The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, fairly and fully stated.” 7. “An earnest and serious answer to Dr. Trapp’s Discourse of the folly, sin, and danger, of being righteous over much.” 8. “The Grounds and Reasons of Christian Regeneration.” 9. “A Demonstration of the gross and fundamental errors of a late book, called, A plain account of the nature and end of the Sacramentof the Lord’s Supper.” 10. “An Appeal to all that doubt or disbelieve the Jruths of the Gospel.” 11.“The Spirit of Prayer; or, the Soul rising out of the vanity of Time into riches of Eternity. In two Parts.” 12. “The Spirit of Love, in two Parts.” 13. “The Way to Divine Knowledge; being several Dialogues between Humanus, Academicus, Rusticus, and Theophilus.” 14. “A short but sufficient Confutation of the rev. Dr. Warburton’s projected Defence (as he calls it) of Christianity, in his Divine Legation of Moses. In a Letter to the right rev. the Lord Bishop of London.” 15. “Of Justification by Faith and Works; a Dialogue between a Methodist and a Churchman,” 8vo. 16. “A Collection of Letters on the most interesting and important subjects, and on several occasions.” 17. “An humble, earnest, and affectionate Address to the Clergy.”

, brother to the preceding, w placed early in life under Coperario, for his musical education, at the expence of the earl of Hertford. His first preferment was in the choir of Chichester, but he was soon called to London, where, in 1602, he was sworn a gentleman of the chapel royal; which place, however, he resigned in 1611, and became one of the private, or chamber-musicians, to Charles, then prince and afterwards king. Fuller says, “he was respected and beloved of all such persons as cast any looks towards virtue and honour:” and he seems well entitled to this praise. He manifested his gratitude and loyalty to his royal master by taking up arms in his cause against the parliament. And though, to exempt him from danger, lord Gerrard, the king’s general, made him a commissary in the royal army, yet the activity of his spirit disdaining this intended security, at the siege of Chester, 1645, he lost his life by an accidental shot. The king is said, by Fuller, to have been so affected at his loss, that though he was already in mourning for his kinsman lord Bernard Stuart, killed at the same siege, his majesty put “on particular mourning for his dear servant William Lawes, whom he commonly called the father of music.”

His chief compositions were fantasias for viols, and songs and symphonies for masques; but his brother Henry, in the preface to the “Choice Psalmes” for three voices, which they published jointly, boasts that “he composed more than thirty several sorts of music for voices and instruments, and that there was not any instrument in use in his time but he composed for it as aptly as if he had only studied that.” In Dr. Aldrich’s collection, Christ church,. Oxon, there is a work of his called Mr. William Lawes’s Great Consort, “wherein aresix setts of musicke, six books.” His “Royal Consort” for two treble viols, two viol da gambas, and a thorough-base, which was always mentioned with reverence by his admirers in the seventeenth century, is, says Dr. Burney, one of the most dry, aukward, and unmeaning compositions we ever remember to have had the trouble of scoring. It must, however, have been produced early in his life, as there are no bars, and the passages are chiefly such as were used in queen Elizabeth’s time. In the music-school at Oxford are two large manuscript volumes of his works in score, for various instruments; one of which includes his original compositions for masques, performed before the king, and at the inns of court.

His anthem for four voices, in Dr. Boyce’s second volume, is the best and most solid composition of this author; though it is thin and confused in many places, with little melody. He must have been considerably older than his brother Henry, though they frequently composed in conjunction; but we are unable to clear up this point of primogeniture. Several of the songs of William Lawes occur in the collections of the time, particularly in John Playford’s Musical Companion, part the second, consisting of dialogues, glees, ballads, and airs, the words of which are in general coarse and licentious. The dialogue part, which he furnished to this book, is a species of recitative, wholly without accompaniment: and the duet at last, which is called a chorus, is insipid in melody, and ordinary in counterpoint. His boasted canons, published by his brother Henry at the end of their psalms, as proofs of his great abilities in harmony, when scored, appear so far from finished compositions, that there is not one of them totally free from objections, or that -bears the stamp of a great master.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, surnamed The Great, a doctor of the church, and one of the most eminent popes who have filled the Roman see, was born in Tuscany, or rather at Rome. He made himself very useful to the church under pope St. Celestine, and Sixtus III. and was concerned in all important affairs while but a deacon. The Roman clergy recalled him from Gaul, whither he was gone to reconcile Albums and Ætius, generals of the army, and raised him to the papal chair Sept. 1, 440. He condemned the Manicheans, in a council held at Rome in the year 444, and completely extirpated the remains of the Pelagian heresy in Italy: “Let those Pelagians,” said he, “who return to the church, declare by a clear and public profession, that they condemn the authors of their heresy, that they detest that part of their doctrine which the universal church has beheld with horror, and that they receive all such decrees of the councils as have been passed for exterminating the Pelagian heresy, and are confirmed by the authority of the apostolical see, acknowledging by a clear and full declaration, signed by their hand, that they admit these decrees, and approve them in every thing,” Leo also condemned the Priscillianists, and annulled all the proceedings in the council of Ephesus, which was called “the band of Ephesian robbers,” in the year 449. He presided by his legates at the general council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, but opposed the canon made there in favour of the church of Constantinople, which gave it the second rank, to the prejudice of that at Alexandria. The letter which Leo had written to Flavian us on the mystery of the Incarnation, was received with acclamations in this council, and the errors of Eutyches and Dioscorus condemned. The following year he went to meet Attila, king of the Huns, who was advancing to Rome, and addressed him with so much eloquence that he was prevailed upon to return home. Genseric having taken Rome, in the year 455, Leo obtained from that barbarous prince, that his soldiers should not set fire to the city, and saved the three grand churches (which Constantine had enriched with magnificent gifts) from being plundered. He was a strict observer of ecclesiastical discipline. He died November 3, in the year 461, at Rome. Never has the Romish church appeared with more true grandeur, or less pomp, than in this pontiff’s time; no pope was ever more honoured, esteemed, and respected; no pope ever displayed more humility, wisdom, mildness, and charity. Leo left ninety-six: “Sermons,” on the principal festivals throughout the year, and one hundred and forty-one Letters, which may be found in the library of the fathers. The best edition of his works is that by Pere Quesnel, Lyons, 1700, fol. They have been printed at Rome, by father Cacciaci, 3 vols. fol. and at Venice, by Messrs. Ballarimi, 3 vols. fol. but these editions have not sunk the credit of Quesnel’s. P. Maimbourg has written a history of his pontificate, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo.

was a pontiff whose history is so connected with that of literature and the reformation, that more notice of him becomes necessary than we usually allot to his brethren, although scarce any abridgment of his life will be thought satisfactory, after the very luminous and interesting work of Mr. Roscoe. Leo was born at Florence in December 1475, the second son of Lorenzo de Medici, the Magnificent, and was christened John. Being originally destined by his father for the church, he was prorooted before he knew what it meant, received the tonsure at the age of seven years, two rich abbacies, and before he ceased to he a boy, received other preferments to the number of twenty-nine, and thus early imbibed a taste for aggrandizement which never left him. Upon the accession of Innocent VIII. to the pontificate, John, then thirteen years of age only, was nominated to the dignity of cardinal. Having now secured his promotion, his father began to think of his education, and when he was nominated to the cardinalate, it was made a condition that he should spend three years at the university of Pisa, in professional studies, before he was invested formally with the purple. In 145>2 this solemn act took place, and he immediately went to reside at Rome as one of the sacred college. His father soon after died, and was succeeded in his honours in the Florentine republic by his eldest son Peter. The young cardinal’s opposition to the election of pope Alexander VI. rendered it expedient for him to withdraw to Florence, and at the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. he and the whole family were obliged to take refuge in Bologna. About 1500 he again fixed his residence at Rome, where he resided during the remainder of Alexander’s pontificate, and likewise in the early part of that of Julius II. cultivating polite literature, and the pleasures of elegant society, and indulging his taste for the fine arts, for music, and the chase, to which latter amusement he was much addicted. In 1505 he began to take an active part in public affairs, and was appointed by Julius to the government of Perugia. By his firm adherence to the interest of the pope, the cardinal acquired the most unlimited confidence of his holiness, and was entrusted with the supreme direction of the papal army in the Holj League against the French in 1511, with the title of legate of Bologna. At the bloody battle of Ravenna, in 1512, he was made prisoner, and wos conveyed to Milan, but afterwards effected his escape. About this time he contributed to the restoration of his family at Florence, by overthrowing the popular “constitution of that republic, and there he remained until the death of Julius II. in 1513, when he was elected pope in his stead, in the thirty-eighth year of his age. He assumed the name of Leo X. and ascended the throne with greater manifestations of goodwill, both from Italians and foreigners, than most of his predecessors had enjoyed. One of his first acts was to interpose in favour of some conspirators against the house of Medici, at Florence, and he treated with great kindness the family of Sodorini, which had long been at the head of the opposite party in that republic. He exhibited his taste for literature by the appointment of two of the most elegant scholars of the age, Bembo and Sadoleti, to the ffice of papal secretaries. With regard to foreign politics, he pursued the system of his predecessor, in attempting to free Italy from the dominion of foreign powers: and in order to counteract the antipapal council of Pisa, which was assembled at Lyons, he renewed the meetings of the council of Lateran, which Julius II. had begun, and he had the good fortune to terminate a division which threatened a schism in the church. Lewis XII. who had incurred ecclesiastical censure, made a formal submission, and received absolution. Having secured external tranquillity, Leo did not delay to consult the interests of literature by an ample patronage of learned studies. He restored to its former splendour the Roman gymnasium or university, which he effected by new grants of its revenues and privileges, and by filling its professorships with eminent men invited from all quarters. The study of the Greek language was a very particular object of his encouragement. Under the direction of Lascaris a college of noble Grecian youths was founded at Rome for the purpose of editing Greek authors; and a Greek press was established in that city. Public notice was circulated throughout Europe, that all persons who possessed Mss. of ancient authors would be liberally rewarded on bringing or sending them to the pope. Leo founded the first professorship in Italy of the Syriac and Chaldaic languages in the university of Bologna. With regard to the politics of the times, the pope had two leading objects in view, viz. the maintenance of that balance of power which might protect Italy from the over-bearing influence of any foreign potentate; and the aggrandizement of the house of Medici. When Francis I. succeeded to the throne of France, it was soon apparent that there would necessarily be a new war in the north of Italy.' Leo attempted to remain neuter, winch. being found to be impracticable, he joined the emperor, the Swiss, and other sovereigns against the French king and the state of Venice. The rapid successes of the French arms soon brought him to hesitate, and after the Swiss army had been defeated, the pope thought it expedient to abandon his allies, and form an union with the king of France. These two sovereigns, in the close of 1515, had an interview at Bologna, when the famous Pragmatic Sanction was abolished, and a concordat established in it stead. The death of Leo’s brother left his nephew Lorenzo the principal object of that passion for aggrandizing his family, which this pontiff felt full as strongly as any one of his predecessors, and to gratify which he scrupled no acts of injustice and tyranny. In 1516 he issued a monitory against the duke of Urbino, and upon his non-appearance, an excommunication, and then seized his whole territory, with which, together with the ducal title, he invested his nephew. In the same year a general pacification took place, though all the efforts of the pope were made to prevent it. In 1517 the expelled duke of Urbino collected an army, and, by rapid movements, completely regained his capital and dominions. Leo, excessively chagrined at this event, would gladly have engaged a crusade of all Christian princes against him. By an application, which nothing could justify, of the treasures of the church, he raised a considerable army, under the command of his nephew, and compelled the duke to resign his dominion, upon what were called honourable terms. The violation of the safe conduct, granted by Lorenzo to the duke’s secretary, who was seized at Rome, and put to torture, in order to oblige him to reveal his master’s secrets, imprints on the memory of Leo X. an indelible stain. In the same year his life was endangered by a conspiracy formed against him, in which the chief actor was cardinal Petrucci. The plan failed, and the cardinal, being decoyed to Rome, from whence he had escaped, was put to dt-ath; and his agents, as many as were discovered, were executed with horrid tortures. The conduct of Leo on this occasion was little honourable to his fortitude or clemency, and it was believed that several persons suffered as guilty who were wholly innocent of the crimes laid to their charge. To secure himself for the future, the pope, by a great stretch of his high authority, created in one day thirty-one nevr cardinals, many of them his relations and friends, who had not even risen in the.church to the dignity of. the episcopal office; but many persons also, who, from their talents and virtues, were well worthy of his choice. He bestowed upon them rich benefices and preferments, as well in the remote parts of Christendom, as in Italy, and thus formed a numerous and splendid court attached to his person, and adding to the pomp and grandeur of the capital. During the pontificate of Leo X. the reformation under Luther took its rise, humanly speaking, from the following circumstances. The unbounded profusion of this pope had rendered it necessary to devise means for replenishing his exhausted treasury; and one of those which occurred was the sale of indulgences, which were sold in Germany with such ridiculous parade of their efficacy, as to rouse the spirit of Luther, who warmly protested against this abuse in his discourses, and in a letter addressed to the elector of Mentz. He likewise published a set of propositions, in which he called in question the authority of the pope to remit sins, and made some very severe strictures on this method of raising money. His remonstrances produced considerable effect, and several of his cloth undertook to refute him. Leo probably regarded theological quarrels with contempt, and from his pontifical throne looked down upon the efforts of a German doctor with scorn; even when his interference was deemed necessary, he was inclined to lenient measures. At length, at the express desire of the emperor Maximilian, he summoned Luther to appear before the court of Rome. Permission was, however, granted for the cardinal of Gaeta to hear his defence at Augsburg. Nothing satisfactory was determined, and the pope, in 1518, published a bull, asserting his authority to grant indulgences, which would avail both the living, and the dead in purgatory. Upon this, the reformer appealed to a general council, and thus open war was declared, in which the abettors of Luther appeared with a strength little calculated upon by the court of Rome. The sentiments of the Christian world were not at all favourable to that court.” The scandal,“says the biographer,” incurred by the infamy of Alexander VI., and the violence of Julius II., was not much alleviated in the reign of a pontiff who was characterized by an inordinate love of pomp and pleasure, and whose classical taste even caused him to be regarded by many as more of a heathen than a Christian."

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

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

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

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

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

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