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

, an eminent French statesman, who flourished about 1260, was descended from one of the noblest and most ancient families at Champagne. He was seneschal, or high-steward, of Champagne, and one of the principal lords of the court of Louis IX. whom he attended in all his military expeditions; and was greatly beloved and esteemed for his valour, his wit, and the frankness of his manners. That monarch placed so much confidence in him, that all matters of justice, in the palace, were referred to his decision; and his majesty undertook nothing of importance without consulting him. He died about 1318, at not much less than ninety years of age. Joinviile is known as an author by his “History of St. Louis,” in French, which he composed in 130.5: a very curious and interesting work. The best edition is that of Du Gauge, in 1668, folio, with learned remarks. On per-, using this edition, however, it is easily seen, that the language of the Sire de Joinviile has been altered. But aa authentic ms. of the original was found in 1748, and was published without alteration, in 1761, by Melot, keeper of the royal library at Paris. This edition is also in folio.

, 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.

From 1758 to about 1768, he resided in Germany, being engaged in the service of the duke of Wurtemburg, at Stutgardt, or rather at Ludwigsburg, his new capital, where Jomelli’s works were performed. Here he produced a great number of operas and other compositions, by which he acquired great reputation, and totally changed the taste of vocal music in Germany. On his return to Italy, he left all these productions behind him, upon a supposition that he should again resume his station at Ludwigsburg, after visiting his native country. But as he never returned thither to claim these compositions, they fell into the hands of his patron, the duke of Wurtemburg, who preserved them as precious relics of this great master. Very few of his entire operas were ever performed in England. The first was “Attilio Regulo,” in 1753, and the second, in 1755, “Andromaca.” The operas of Jomelli will be always valuable to professors and curious collectors, for the excellence of the composition, though it has been thought necessary, in compliance with the general rage for novelty, to lay them aside and to have the same dramas new set for the stage, in order to display the talents, or hide the defects, of new singers.

From this period he produced many admirable compositions for the church, in which he united elegance with learning, and grace with bold design. Among other productions of this kind, the two following merit commemoration. An “OfTertorio,” or motet, for five voices without instruments, followed by an Alleluja of four parts in chorus; and a “Missa pro defunctis,” or burial service, which he composed at Stutgardt for the obsequies of a lady of high rank and favour at the court of his patron, the duke of Wurtemburg. These compositions, which are learned without pedantry, and grave without dulness, will be lasting monuments of his abilities as a contrapuntist.

But the most elaborate of all his compositions is the <c Miserere," or fifty-first psalm, translated into Italian verse, by his friend Saverio Mattei, which he set for two voices, accompanied with instruments, in 1773, the year before his decease. In this production, which breathes a pious gravity, and compunction of heart suited to the contrite sentiments of the psalmist, there is a manifest struggle at extraneous modulation and new effects, perhaps too much at the expence of facility and grace. There are, however, admirable strokes of passion as well as science in it, which, though above the comprehension of common hearers, will afford great pleasure to those that are able to read the score, or to follow the performers through the labyrinths of art. This admirable composer had, in general, such a facility in writing, that he seldom courted the muse at an instrument; and so tenacious a memory, that Sacchini said he frequently composed an air on opening a book of lyric poetry, while, like a peripatetic, he has been walking about a room, which he remembered a year after, and then committed it to paper as fast as he could write a letter.

His learned friend, Signer Saverio Mattei, the translator of the Psalms into Italian verse, from whose admirable version Jomelli had taken the “Miserere,” or fifty-first psalm, drew up a very interesting account of the works and public funeral of the great musician, and printed it in his “Saggio di Poesia Latine et Italiane,” published at Naples immediately after his decease.

, who deserves a place in the catalogue of English writers for having first introduced the numerous and popular little books for the amusement and instruction of children, which have been received with universal approbation, was born in 1721, and served his apprenticeship to Mr. Bowyer, the learned printer. His education was probably not neglected, or at least it was very much improved by his own efforts. He was many years editor of the London Chronicle and Public Ledger. He was also associated with Dr. Johnson in the “Literary Magazine,” and with Smollett and Goldsmith in “The British Magazine,” and published a great number of translations from the French, to none of which, however, was his name prefixed. One little publication, entitled “Great events from little causes,” was his composition, and met with a rapid and extensive sale. In conjunction with Mr. John Newbery, and a brother of his own, Mr. Giles Jones, he wrote many of those little books or Lilliputian histories which were the delight of the youth of many yet living. Mr. Jones, who was a very amiable man, died Sept. 12, 1786. Mr. Giles Jones, his brother (who was more than five-andforty years secretary to the Vork Buildings Water company) left a son,- Mr. Stephen Jones, who, among other literary productions, was editor of the last edition of the “Biographia Dramatica,” which was consigned to his care by the late Mr. Isaac Reed.

, 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.

Mr. Jones’s first publication was “A Vindication of the former part of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, from Mr. Whiston’s charge of Dislocations, or an attempt to prove that our present Greek copies of that Gospel are in the same order wherein they were originally written by that Evangelist; in which are contained many things relating to the harmony and history of the Four Gospels, 1719.” This work, says Dr. Harwood, is very valuable; it abounds with ingenious remarks, and displays the critical acumen of the author. He prepared for the press before his deatii another excellent performance, entitled “A New and Fall Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament,” which was published in 1726, in two volumes, 8vo. They were followed by a third volume. In drawing up these works, he took care, it seems, to consult and examine the originals, instead of satisfying himself with the quotations of other learned men. They remain, as monuments of his learning, ingenuity, and indefatigable industry; and would have done credit, it has been observed, to the assiduity and ability of a literary man of sixty. They were become very scarce, and bore a high price, 'when, with the liberality and zeal which reflects honour on them, the conductors of the Clarendon press lately republished them at Oxford. Mr. Jones, observes Dr. Maltby, has brought together, with uncommon diligence and judgment, the external evidence for the authenticity and genuineness of the canonical books; and he has, with equal ability and fairness, stated his reasons for deciding against the authority of the apocryphal. In the prosecution of this important design, he has not only quoted, but translated, the greater part of the contents of Fabricius’s two first volumes. Mr. Jones intended another and distinct volume on the apostolical fathers.

, a celebrated English architect, was born about 1572, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, London, where his father, Mr. Ignatius Jones, was a clothworker. At a proper age, it is said, he put his son apprentice to a joiner, a business that requires some skill in drawing; and in that respect suited well with our architect’s inclination, which naturally led him to the art of designing. It is not probable, however, that he attended long to the mechanical part of his business; for we are told that he distinguished himself early by the extraordinary progress he made with his pencil, and was particularly noticed for his skill in landscape-painting, of which there is a specimen at Chiswick-house. These talents recommended him to the earl of Arundel, or, as some say, to William earl of Pembroke. It is certain, however, that at the. expence of one or other of these lords he travelled over Italy, and the politer parts of Europe; saw whatever was recommended by its antiquity or value; and from these plans formed his own observations, which, upon his return home, he perfected by study. He was no sooner at Rome, says Wai ­pole, than he found himself in his sphere, and acquired so much reputation that Christian IV. king of Denmark sent for him from Venice, which was the chief place of his residence, and where he had studied the works of Palladio, and made him his architect, but on what buildings he was employed in that country we are yet to learn. He had been some time possessed of this honourable post when that prince, whose sister Anne had married James I. made a visit to England in 1606; and our architect, being desirous to return to his native country, took that opportunity of coming home in the train of his Danish majesty. The magnificence of James’s reign, in dress, buildings, &c. furnished Jones with an opportunity of exercising his talents, which ultimately proved an honour to his country. Mr. Seward says, we know not upon what authority, that the first work he executed after his return from Italy, was the decoration of the inside of the church of St. Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street. We know, however, that the queen appointed him her architect, presently after his arrival; and he was soon taken, in the same character, into the service of prince Henry, under Whom he discharged his trust with so much fidelity and judgment, that the king gave him the reversion of the place of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works.

Upon the death of king James, he was continued in his post by Charles I. whose consort entertained him likewise in the same station. He had drawn the designs for the palace of Whitehall in his former master’s time; and that part of it, the banqueting-house, in a most pure and beautiful taste, was now carried into execution. It was first designed for the reception of foreign ambassadors; and the cieling was painted, some years after, by Rubens, with the felicities of James’s reign. In June 1633 an order was issued out, requiring him to set about the reparation of St. Paul’s; and the work was begun soon after at the east end, the first stone being laid by Laud, then bishop of London, and the fourth by Jones. In this work, Mr. Walpole remarks that he made two capital faults. He first renewed the sides with very bad Gothic, and then added a Roman portico, magnificent and beautiful indeed, but which had no affinity with the ancient parts that remained, and made his own Gothic appear ten times heavier. He committed the same error at Winchester, thrusting a screen in the Roman or Grecian taste into the middle of that cathedral. Jones, indeed, was by no means successful when he attempted Gothic, the taste for which had declined before his time.

In respect to his character, we are assured, by one who knew him well, that his scientific abilities surpassed most of his age. He was a perfect master of the mathematics, and was not unacquainted with the two learned languages, Greek and Latin, especially the latter; neither was he without some turn for poetry . A copy of verses composed by him is published in the “Odcombian Banquet,” prefixed to Tom Coryate’s “Crudities,” in 1611, 4to. But his proper character was that of an architect, and the most eminent of his time on which account he is still generally styled the British Vitruvius the art of designing being little known in England till Mr. Jones, under the patronage of Charles I. and the earl of Arundel, brought it into use. This is the character given him by Mr. Webb, who was his heir; and who, being born in London, and bred in Merchant Taylors’-school, afterwards resided in Mr. Jones’s family, married his kinswoman, was instructed by him in mathematics and architecture, and designed by him for his successor in the office of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works, but was prevented by Sir John Denham. Mr. Webb published some other pieces besides his “Vindication of Stone-henge restored ;” and dying at Butleigh, his seat in Somersetshire, Oct. 24, 1672, was buried in that church. Walpole enumerates among his works which are still in part extant, the new quadrangle of St. John’s college, Oxfqrd the queen’s chapel at St. James’s the arcade of Oovent-garden and the church Gunnersbury, near Brentford Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, and one or two of the houses in Lincoln’s-inn-fields Coleshill in Berkshire, and Cobham hall in Kent; the Grange, in Hampshire; the queen’s house at Greeirwich, &c. Several other of his buildings may be seen in Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The principal of his designs were published by Mr. Kent in 1727, fol. as also some of his less designs in 1744, foL Others were published by Mr. Isaac Ware. Our artist left in ms. some curious notes upon Palladio’s “Architecture,” now in Worcester college, Oxford, some of which are inserted in an edition of Palladio, published at London, 1714, fol. by Mr. Leoni; which notes, he says, raise the value of the edition above all the preceding ones. His original drawings for Whitehall-palace are also in Worcester library.

, an old medical writer, was either born in Wales, or was of Welsh extraction; studied at both our universities, took a medical degree at Cambridge, and practised with great reputation at Bath, in Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire. He mentions curing a person at Louth in 1562, and the date of his last publication is 1759.

His principal pieces are, “The Dial of Agues,” 1556 “The Benefit of the antient Bathes of Buckstone,” 1572; “The Bathes of Bath’s ayde,” 1572 “A brief, excellent, and profitable Discourse of the natural beginning of all growing and living things, &c.” 1574 perhaps this is taken from “Galen’s Four Books of Elements,” which he translated and printed the same year, or is the same book with another title; “The Art and Science of preserving the Body and Soul in Health,” &c. 1579, 4to.

, an English divine of some note for exciting a controversy respecting the Liturgy, was born in 1700, and is supposed to have been a native of Carmarthen. He was admitted of Worcester college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. about 1721, and quitted the university in or before 1726, in which year he received priest’s orders at Buckden, from Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. He had a curacy in that diocese, but in what partis not known. In 1741 he was resident at AbbotsRipton in Huntingdonshire, and soon after was presented to the vicarage of Alconbury, which he resigned in 1751 for the rectory of Boulne-Hurst in Bedfordshire. In 1755 he was vicar of Hitchin, and in 1759 accepted the curacy of Welwyn from Dr. Young, and continued there until 1765, when that celebrated poet died, and Mr. Jones was appointed one of his executors. He afterwards returned to Boulne-Hurst, and probably obtained no other preferment. He was killed by a fall from his horse in going to Abbots-Ripton, but in what year we have not been able to discover, although such a circumstance must have been known to his friends, who, however, have neglected to record it. After his death, many, if not all his manucripts, passed into the hands of the Rev. Thomas Dawson, M. D. a dissenting minister of Hackney, whence they passed to the dissenters’ library in Redcross-street. Some biographical notices which have appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine were extracted from them. Mr. Nichols has given an extensive series of extracts from his literary correspondence with Dr. Birch, from which many particulars of his talents and character may be gleaned. His chief work was entitled “Free and Candid Disquisitions,” published in 1749. These contained many observations on the defects and improprieties in the liturgical forms of faith and worship of the established church, and proposals of amendments and alterations of such passages as were liable to reasonable objections. There was also a compilation of authorities taken from the writings of some eminent divines of the church of England, with a view to shew the necessity, or at least the expedience, of revising the liturgy, &c. Schemes like this have succeeded each other since the time of Dr. Clarke, but have never been attended with complete conviction, either of their necessity or expedience. The author’s name did not appear to this publication, and Mr. Blackburne, whom he consulted previous to publication, was dissatisfied with his timidity. He wrote, however, a pamphlet in defence of it, and other pamphlets appear pro and con; but the controversy was of no long duration. In 1765 he published “Catholic Faith and Practice,” and “A Letter to a Friend in the Country;” but with the subjects of these we are unacquainted.

, 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.

In theology and politics Mr. Jones appears to have held some sentiments, to which his biographer adverts with so much delicacy and caution, that we cannot guess at them; when he adds, however, that “his sentiments on various speculative points underwent a material alteration,” we may infer that such an alteration was for the better. “Of his practical theology,” says Dr. Marsh, “which remained always the same, the best description which can be given is the description of his latter end. He waited the approach of death with a dignified firmness, a placid resignation, and an unaffected piety, which are rarely equalled. Even after his eyes w,ere grown dim and his speech began to faulter, he uttered with great fervency what he had frequently repeated during the course of his illness, that prayer in the * Visitation of the Sick,‘ * Sanctify, we beseech thee, this thy fatherly correction, that the sense of my weakness may add strength to my faith and seriousness to my repentance.’ On these last words he dwelt with peculiar emphasis. About the same time he said to his surrounding friends, as distinctly as the weakness of his voice would permit, * I am conscious, no doubt, of many failings; but I believe I have employed the abilities with which God has blessed me to the advantage of my fellowcreatures. I resign myself, then, with confidence into the hands of my Maker.' He shortly after expired, without a groan or struggle.”

, an eminent mathematician, was born in 1680, in the island of Anglesey, North Wales. His parents were yeomen, or little farmers, in that island, and gave to their son the best education which their circumstances would allow; but he owed his future fame and fortune to the diligent cultivation of the intellectual powers by which he was eminently distinguished. Addicted from early life to the study of mathematics, he commenced his career of advancement in the humble office of a teacher of these sciences on board a man of war. In this situation he attracted the notice, and obtained the friendship of lord Anson. He appeared as an author in his 22d year; when his treatise on the art of navigation was much approved. We may judge of his predominant taste for literature and science by a trivial circumstance which occurred at the capture of Vigo, in 1702. Having joined his comrades in pillaging the town, he selected a bookseller’s shop, in hope of obtaining some valuable plunder; but, disappointed in his expectations, he took up a pair of scissars, which was his only booty, and which he afterwards exhibited' to his friends as a trophy of his military success. On his return to England, he established himself as a teacher of mathematics in London; and here, in 1706, he published his “Synopsis Palmariorum Matheseos; or, a new Introduction to the Mathematics,” a work which has ever since been held in the highest estimation as a compendious but comprehensive summary of mathematical science. Mr. Jones was no less esteemed and respected on account of his private character and pleasing manners, than for his natural talents and scientific attainments; so that he reckoned among his friends the most eminent persons of the period in which he lived. Lord Hardwicke selected him as a companion on the circuit, when he was chief justice; and when he afterwards held the great seal, conferred upon him the office of secretary for the peace, as a testimony of his friendship and regard. He was also in habits of intimate acquaintance with lord Parker, president of the royal society, sir Isaac Newton, Halley, Mead, and Samuel Johnson. So highly was his merit appreciated by sir Isaac Newton, that he prepared, with his permission, and very much to his satisfaction, a very elegant edition of small tracts in the higher mathematics. Upon the retirement of lord Mace lesfi eld to Sherborne castle, Mr. Jones resided in his family, and instructed his lordship in the sciences. Whilst he occupied this situation he had the misfortune, by the failure of a banker, to lose the greatest part of that property which he had accumulated Uy the most laudable industry and economy; but the loss was in a great measure repaired to him by the kind attention of his lordship, who procured for him a sinecure place of considerable emolument. He was afterwards offered, by the same nobleman, a more lucrative situation; which, however, he declined, that he might be more at leisure to devote himself to his favourite scientific pursuits. In this retreat he formed an acquaintance with miss Mary Nix, the daughter of a cabinet-maker, who had become eminent in his profession, and whose talents and manners had recommended him to an intimacy with lord Macclesfield. This acquaintance terminated in marriage; and the connection proved a source of personal satisfaction to Mr. Jones himself, and of permanent honour to his name and family. By this lady Mr. Jones had three children two sons and a daughter. One son died in infancy the other will be the subject of the next article and the daughter, who was married to Mr. Rainsford, an opulent merchant retired from business, perished miserably, in 1802, in consequence of her clothes accidentally taking fire. The death of Mr. Jones was occasioned by n polypus in the heart, which, notwithstanding the medical attention and assistance of Dr. Mead, proved incurable. He died in July 1749. Mr. Jones’s papers in the Philosophical Transactions are: “A compendious disposition of Equations for exhibiting, the relations of Goniometrical Lines,” vol. XLIV. “A Tract on Logarithms,” vol. LXI. “Account of the person killed by lightning in Tottenham-court-chapel, and its effects on the building,” vol. LXII. “Properties of the Conic Sections, deduced by a compendious method,” vol. LXIII. In all these works of Mr. Jones, a remarkable neatness, brevity, and accuracy, everywhere prevails. He seemed to delight in a very^ short and comprehensive mode of expression and arrangement; insomuch that sometimes what he has contrived to express in two or three pages, would occupy a little volume in the ordinary style of writing. Mr. Jones, it is said, possessed the best mathematical library in England; which by will he left to lord Macclesfield. He had collected also a great quantity of manuscript papers and letters of former mathematicians, which have often proved useful to writers of their lives, &c. After his death, these were dispersed, and fell into different persons hands many of them, as well as of Mr. Jones’s own papers, were possessed by the late Mr. John Robertson, librarian and clerk to the royal society at whose death Dr. Hutton purchased a considerable quantity of them. From such collections as these it was that Mr. Jones was enabled to give that first and elegant edition, 1711, in 4to, of several of Newton’s papers, that might otherwise have been lost, entitled “Analysis per quantitatum Series, Fluxiones, ac Differentias: cum Enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis.”

We learn from the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” that the plan of another work was formed by this eminent mathematician, intended to be of the same nature with the “Synopsis,” but far more copious and diffusive, and to serve as a general introduction to the sciences, or, which is the same thing, to the mathematical and philosophical works of Newton. A work of this kind had long been a desideratum in literature, and it required a geometrician of the first class to sustain the weight of so important an undertaking; for which, as M. d'Alembert justly observes, “the combined force of the greatest mathematicians would not have been more than sufficient.” The ingenious author was conscious how arduous a task he had begun; but his very numerous acquaintance, and particularly his friend the earl of Macclesfield, never ceased importuning and urging him to persist, till he had finished the whole work, the result of all his knowledge and experience through a life of near 7O years, and a standing monument, as he had reason to hope, of his talents and industry. He had scarcely sent the first sheet to the press, when a fatal illness obliged him to discontinue the impression; and a few days before his death, he intrusted the ms. fairly transcribed by an amanuensis, to the care of lord Macclesfield, who promised to publish it, as well for the honour of the author as for the benefit of his family, to whom the property of the book belonged. The earl survived his friend many years but the “Introduction to the Mathetics” was forgotten or neglected and, after his death, the ms. was not to be found whether it was accidentally destroyed, which is hardly credible, or whether, as hath been suggested, it had been lent to some geometrician, unworthy to bear the name either of a philosopher or a man, who has since concealed it, or possibly burned the original for fear of detection. Lord Teignmouth, however, informs us, in his life of Mr. Jones’s illustrious Son, that there is no evidence in his memoranda to confirm or disprove this account.

On his return to school, he was placed in the same class which he should have attained if the progress of his studies had not been interrupted. Whether this was from favour or caprice in the master, it might have been attended with fatal consequences to young Jones, had his temper been of that irascible and wayward kind which sometimes accompanies genius. He found himself in a situation in which he was necessarily a year behind his school-fellows, and yet his master affected to presume on his equal profictency, and goaded him by punishment and degradation ta perform tasks for which he had received no preparatory instructions. In a few months, however, he applied himself so closely during his leisure hours to recover what he bad lost, that he soon reached the head of his class, and uniformly gained every prize offered for the best exercise. In his twelfth year he moved into the upper school, when he entered upon the study of the Greek, and, as was his practice when in the lower, exercised himself in various translations and compositions which, not being required by his instructors, elevated him in the eyes of his school-fellows, while his kindness prevented the usual effects of jealousy. They felt nothing unpleasant in the superiority of a school-fellow whose talents were employed in their service, either to promote their learning or their amusements. On one occasion when they proposed to act the play of the “Tempest,” but had no copy at hand, he wrote it for them so correctly from memory, that they acted it with as much reputation as they probably could have derived from the best edition. His own part was Prospero. On another occasion, he composed a dramatic piece on the story of Meleager, which was acted by his school-fellows, as a tragedy. Such efforts of memory and invention at so early an age are truly wonderful. His tragedy, indeed, will not bear criticism; but the lines which his biographer has given as a specimen, will not suffer much by a comparison with the general strain of verses in the infant asra of English tragedy.

Dr. Bennet informs us that “great abilities, great particularity of thinking, fondness for writing verses and plays of various kinds, and a degree of integrity and manly courage, distinguished him even at this period.” And Dr. Thackeray, the master of the school, however niggardly in general of his praises before the objects of his esteem, confessed in private that “he was a boy of so active a mind, that if he were left naked and friendless on Salisbury Plain, he would nevertheless find the road to fame and riches.” When Dr. Sumrier succeeded Dr. Thackeray in 1761, he more publicly distinguished Mr. Jones, as one whose proficiency was marked by uncommon diligence and success. To a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, he began now to add some acquaintance with the Hebrew, and even learned the Arabic characters, while during the vacations, he improved his former knowledge of the French and Italian languages. His ardent thirst for knowledge, however, at this time, induced him to study with so little intermission from sleep or exercise, that he was beginning to contract a weakness of sight. On this occasion, his friends interposed their advice, and for some time he consented to relax from fatigues so unsuitable to his tender age. It is probable, however, that he had already gone too far, for weakness of sight was one of the first complaints which impeded his studies when in India.

During his residence at Oxford, his time was regularly divided into portions, each of which was filled up with the study of the ancients or moderns, and there have been few examples of such extensive accumulation of knowledge by one so young; yet, amidst this severe course of application, he regularly apportioned some time for the practice of those manly exercises which promote health. As all this necessarily became expensive, he anxiously wished for a fellowship, that he might be enabled to relieve his mother from a burthen which she could ill support. He had obtained a scholarship a few months after his matriculation, but a fellowship appeared more remote, and he was beginning to despair of achieving this object, when he received an offer to be private tutor to lord Althorpe, now earl Spencer. He had been recommended to the Spencer family by Dr. Shipley, who had seen and approved some of his performances at Harrow, and particularly a Greek oration in praise of Lyon, who founded the school at that place in the reign of Elizabeth.

“The king of Denmark, then upon a visit to this country (1768), had brought with him an eastern manuscript, containing the life of Nadir Shah, which he was desirous of having translated in England. The secretary of state, with whom the Danish minister had conversed upon the subject, sent the volume to Mr. Jones, requesting him to give a literal translation of it in the French language: but he wholly declined the task, alleging for his excuse, the dryness of the subject, the difficulty of the style, and chiefly his want both of leisure and ability, to enter upon an undertaking so fruitless and laborious. He mentioned, however, a gentleman, with whom he was not then acquainted, but who had distinguished himself by the translation of a Persian history, and some popular tales froi the Persic, as capable of gratifying the wishes of his Danish Majesty. Major Dow, the wriu-r alluded to, excuse himself on account of his numerous engagements; and tl application to Mr.lono, uus renewed. It was hinted, th his compliance would be of no small advantage to him, at his entrance into life; that it would procure him some mark of distinction, which would be pleasing to him; and above all, that it would be a reflection upon this country, if the king should be obliged to carry the manuscript to France. Incited by these motives, and principally the last, unwilling to be thought churlish or morose, and eager for reputation, he undertook the work, and sent the specimen of it to his Danish majesty, who returned his approbation of the style and method, but desired that the whole translation might be perfectly literal, and the oriental images accurately preserved. The task would have been far easier to him, if he had been directed to finish it in Latin; for the acquisition of a French style was infinitely more tedious, and it was necessary to have every chapter corrected by a native of France, before it could be offered to the discerning eye of the public, since in every language there are certain peculiarities of idiom, and nice shades of meaning, which a foreigner can never attain to perfection. The work, however arduous and unpleasant, was completed in a year, not without repeated hints from the secretary’s office, that it was expected with great impatience by the court of Denmark. The translation was not, however, published until 1770. Forty copies upon large paper were sent to Copenhagen; one of them, bound with uncommon elegance, for the king himself: and the others as presents to his courtiers.”

In 1770, he passed the winter on the Continent with the Spencer family, during which, he informs one of his correspondents, his occupations were “music, with all its sweetness and feeling difficult and abstruse problems in mathematics and the beautiful and sublime in poetry and painting.” He wrote also in English a tract on “Education in the analytic manner;” a tragedy founded on the story of Mustapha, who was put to death by his father Soliman; and made various translations from the oriental poets. He appears on this tour to have been less intent on those objects of curiosity which usually interest travellers, than on adding to his knowledge of languages, and habituating himself to composition in all its modes, from the gay and familiar letter of friendship, to the serious and philosophical disquisition. Of the “Tract on Education,” just mentioned, a fragment only remains, which his biographer has published. It appears to include the pla winr-h he pursued in his own case. The tragedy has bee totally lost, except part of a preface in which he profess to have taken Shakspeare for his model, not by adopting his sentiments, or borrowing his expressions, but by aiming at his manner, and by striving to write as he supposes he would have written himself, if he had lived in the eighteenth century. The loss of such a curiosity cannot be too much regretted, unless our regret should be lessened by reflecting on the hazard of any attempt to bring Shakspeare on the modern stage. It is surely not less difficult than that of Mason, who unsuccessfully strove to write as the Greek tragedians “would have written, had they lived in the eighteenth century.”

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.

During this year (1780), he published “An Inquiry into the legal mode of suppressing Riots, with a constitutional plan of Future Defence,” a pamphlet suggested by the dreadful riots in London, of which he had been a witness. His object is to prove that the common and statute laws of the realm then in force, give the civil state in every county a power, which, if it were perfectly understood and continually prepared, would effectually quell any riot or insurrection, without assistance from the militaiy, and even without the modern Riot-Act. In a speech which he intended to have delivered at a meeting of the freeholders of Middlesex in September following, he more explicitly declared his sentiments on public affairs, and in language rather stronger than usual with him, although suited to the state of popular opinion in that county.

In the winter of 1780-1, he found leisure to complete his translation of “Seven ancient Poems” of the highest reputation in Arabia, which, however, were not published till 1783: and he celebrated, about the same time, the nuptials of lord Althorpe with MissBingham, in an elegant ode, entitled “The Muse recalled.” In his professional line he published an “Essay on the JLaw of Bailments,” a subject handled under the distinct heads of analysis, history, and synthesis; in which mode he proposed at some future period to discuss every branch of English law, civil and criminal, private and public. His object in all his legal discussions was to advance law to the honours of a science. It may be doubted which at this time predominated in his mind, his professional plans, or his more favourite study of the eastern poets. He now/ however, undertook a work in which he might gratify both duty and inclination, by translating an Arabian poem on the Mahommedan law of succession to the property of intestates. The poem had indeed but few charms to reward his labour by delighting his fancy, but in the prospect of obtaining a judge’s seat in India, he foresaw advantages from every opportunity of displaying his knowledge of the Mahommedan laws.

His stay in England after these events was very short, as he embarked for India in the month of April. During the voyage his mind was sensibly impressed with the importance of the public station he was now about to fill, and began to anticipate the objects of inquiry which would engage his attention, and the improvements he might introduce in India from the experience of a life, much of which had passed in acquiring a knowledge of its learning and laws. Among other designs, very honourable to the extent of his benevolent intentions, which he formed at his outset, we find the publication of the gospel of St. Luke in the Arabic, the Psalms in Persian verse, and various law tracts in Persian and Arabic. He intended also to compose elements of the laws of England, a history of the American war, already noticed, and miscellaneous poems, speeches and letters, on subjects of taste, oratory, or general polity. But the pressure of his official duties during the short remainder of his life, prevented his completing most of those designs.

He arrived at Calcutta in September, and was eagerly welcomed by all who were interested in the acquisition of a magistrate of probity and independence, of a scholar who was confessedly at the head of oriental literature, and one in the prime and vigour of life, who bade fair to be long the ornament of the British dominions in India. His own satisfaction was not less lively and complete. He had left behind him the inconstancy and the turbulence of party, and felt no longer the anxieties of dependence and delay. New scenes were inviting his enthusiastic research, scenes which he had delighted to contemplate at a distance, and which promised to enlarge his knowledge as a scholar, and his usefulness as a public character. He was now brought into those regions, whose origin, manners, language, and religion, had been the subject of his profound inquiries; and while his curiosity was heightened, he drew nearer to the means of gratification. He had not been long in his new situation before he began, with his usual judgment, to divide his time into such regular portions, that no objects connected with duty or science should interfere. One of his first endeavours was to institute a society in Calcutta, the members of which might assist him in those scientific pursuits which he foresaw would be too numerous and extended for his individual labour; and he had no sooner suggested the scheme than it was adopted with avidity. The new association assembled for the first time in January 1784. The government of Bengal readily granted its patronage, and Mr.Hastings,then governor general, who had ever been a zealous encourager of Persian and Sanscrit literature, was offered the honorary title of president; but, as his numerous engagements prevented his acquiescence, sir William Jones was immediately and unanimously placed in the chair. The importance of this society has been long acknowledged, and their-“Transactions” are a sufficient testimony of their learning, acuteness, and perseverance, qualities the more remarkable that they have been found in men most of whom embarked for India with views of a very different kind, and which might have occupied their whole attention without their incurring the imputation of neglect or remissness. To detail the. whole of sir William Jones’s proceedings and labours, as president of this society, would be to abridge their Transactions, of which he lived to see three volumes published; but the following passage from lord Teignmouth’s narrative appears necessary to complete this sketch of his life.

Soon after his arrival “he determined to commence the study of the Sanscrit. His reflection had before suggested that a knowledge of this ancient tongue would be of the greatest utility, in enabling him to discharge with confidence and satisfaction to himself, the duties of a judge; and he soon discovered, what subsequent experience fully confirmed, that no reliance could be placed on the opinions or interpretations of the professors of the Hindoo law, unless he were qualified to examine their authorities and quotations, and detect their errors and misrepresentations. On the other hand, he knew that all attempts to explore the religion or literature of India through any other medium than a knowledge of the Sanscrit, must be imperfect and unsatisfactory; it was evident that the most erroneous and discordant opinions on these subjects had been circulated by the ignorance of those who had collected their information from oral communications only, and that the pictures exhibited in Europe, of the religion and literature of India, could only be compared to the maps constructed by the natives, in which every position is distorted, and all proportion violated. As a lawyer, he knew the value and importance of original documents and records, and as a scholar and man of science, he disdained the idea ofamusing the learned world with secondary information on subjects which had greatly interested their curiosity, when he had the means of access to the original sources. He was also aware, that much was expected by the literati of Europe, from his superior abilities and learning, and he felt the strongest inclination to gratify their expectations in the fullest possible extent.”

The plan to be promoted by his knowledge of the “Sanscrit was at this time very distant as to probability of execution, but he had carefully weighed it in his mind, and was gradually preparing the way for its accomplishment. It was, indeed, worthy of his great and liberal mind, to provide for the due administration of justice among the Indians, by compiling a digest of Hindu and Mahomoiedan Jaws, similar to that which Justinian gave to his Greek and Roman subjects. When he had made such progress in the language as might enable him to take a principal part in this important design, he imparted his views to lord Cornwallis, then (1788) governor general, in a long letter, which will ever remain a monument of his extensive understanding, benevolence, and public spirit. That his plan met with acceptance from lord Cornwallis will not appear surprizing to those who knew that excellent nobleman, who, while contemplating the honour which such an undertaking would confer on his own administration, conceived the highest hopes from sir William Jones’s offer to co-operate, or rather to superintend the execution of it.” At the period,“says his biographer,” when this work was undertaken by sir William Jones, he had not resided in India more than four years and a half; during which time he had not only acquired a thorough knowledge of the Sanscrit language, but had extended his reading in it so tar as to be qualified to form a judgment upon the merit and authority of the authors to be used in the compilation of his work; and although his labour was only applied to the disposition of materials already formed, he was enabled by his previous stuuies to give them an arrangement superior to any existing, and which the learned natives themselves approved and admired. In the dispensations of Providence, it may be remarked, as an occurrence of no ordinary nature, that the professors of the Braminical faith should so far renounce their reserve and distrust as to submit to the direction of a native of Europe, for compiling a digest of theii' own laws."

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

“A mere catalogue of the writings of sir William Jones,” says his biogragher, “would shew the extent and variety of his erudition; a perusal of them will prove that it was no less deep than miscellaneous. Whatever topic he discusses, his ideas flow with ease and perspicuity, his style is always clear and polished; animated and forcible, when his subject requires it. His philological, botanical, philosophical, and chronological disquisitions, his historical researches, and even his Persian grammar, whilst they fix the curiosity and attention of the reader, by the novelty, depth, or importance of the knowledge displayed in them, always delight by elegance of diction. His compositions are never dry, tedious, nor disgusting; and literature and science -come from his hands adorned with all their grace and beauty. No writer, perhaps, ever displayed so much learning, with so little affectation of it.” With regard to his law publications, it is said that his “Essay on Bailments” was sanctioned by the approbation of lord Mansfield and all his writings in this department shew that he had thoroughly studied the principles of law as a science. As to his opinion of the British constitution, it appears from repeated declarations that occur in his letters, and particularly in his 10th discourse, delivered to the Asiatic society in 1793, that he considered it as the noblest and most perfect that ever was formed. With regard to his political principles, he was an enlightened and decided friend to civil and religious liberty. Like many others of the same principles, he entertained a favourable opinion of the French revolution at its commencement, and wished success to the exertions of that nation for the establishment of a free constitution; but subsequent events must have given him new views, not so much of the principles on which the revolution was founded, as of the measures which have been adopted by some of its zealous partizans. To liberty, indeed, his attachment was enthusiastic, and he never speaks of tyranny or oppression but in the language of detestation. He dreaded, and wished to restrain, every encroachment on liberty; and though he never enlisted under the banners of any party, he always concurred in judgment and exertion with those who wished to render pure and permanent the constitution of his country.

As a judge in India, his conduct was strictly conformable to the professions which he made in his first charge to the grand jury at Calcutta. On the bench he was laborious, patient, and discriminating; his charges to the grand jury, which do not exceed six, exhibit a veneration for the laws of his country; a just and spirited encomium on the trial by jury, as the greatest and most invaluable right derived from them to the subject; a detestation of crimes, combined with mercy to the offender; occasional elucidations of the law; and the strongest feelings of humanity and benevolence. His knowledge of the Sanscrit and Arabic eminently qualified him for the administration of justice in the supreme court, by enabling him to detect misrepresentations of the Hindu or Mohammedan laws, and to correct impositions in the form of administering oaths to the followers of Brahma and Mohammed. The inflexible integrity with which he discharged the solemn duty of this station will long be remembered in Calcutta, both by Europeans and natives.

It might naturally be inquired by what arts or method he was enabled to attain that extraordinary degree of knowledge for which he was distinguished. His faculties were naturally vigorous and strengthened by exercise; his memory, as we have before observed, was, from early life, singularly retentive his emulation was ardent and unbounded and his perseverance invincible. In India his studies began with the dawn and, with the intermission of professional duties, were continued throughout the day. Another circumstance, which has been exemplified in some other instances that might be mentioned, and which gave him peculiar advantage in the exercise of his talents, was “the regular allotment of his time to particular occupations, and a scrupulous adherence to Uk* distribution which he had fixed;” so that “all his studies were pursued without interruption or confusion.” With sir William Jones it was a favourite opinion, “that all men are born with an equal capacity for improvement.”

While residing here he drew up “The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity,” which he had been revolving in his mind for some years. When this valuable work came to a third edition in 1767, he added to it “A Letter to the common people, in answer to some popular arguments against the Trinity,” which the Society for promoting Christian knowledge have since printed separately, and admitted into their list of books. Here likewise he engaged in a favourite work, for which he was eminently qualified, as the event proved, and for which some of his friends subscribed among them 300l. for three years, to enable him to supply himself with an apparatus sufficient for the purpose of making the experiments necessary to his composing a treatise on philosophy. Accordingly, in 1762, he published “An Essay on the first principles of Natural Philosophy,” 4to, the design of which was to demonstrate the use of natural means, or second causes, in the economy of the material world, from reason, experiments, and the testimony of antiquity; and in 1781 he published a larger work in 4to, under the title of “Physiological DisquisU tions, or Discourses on the Natural Philosophy of the Elements.” As it was ever his study to make philosophy the handmaid of religion, he has in this work embraced every opportunity of employing natural knowledge in the illustracion of divine truth and the advancement of virtue. "When the first volume was published, the late earl of Bute, the patron of learning ant 4 learned men, was so satisfied with it, that he desired the author not to be intimidated through fear of expence from pursuing his philosophical studies, and likewise commissioned him to direct Mr. Adams, the mathematical instrument maker, to supply him with such instruments as he might want for making experiments, and put them to his account. His lordship also handsomely offered him the use of any books he naight have occasion for.

In the autumn of 1798 he was presented by the archbishop of Canterbury to the sinecure rectory of Hollingbourn in Kent, benevolently intended as a convenient addition to his income, after the discontinuance of pupils; but in the following year he lost his wife, which was soon followed by another affliction, probably occasioned by the shock her death gave him, a paralytic attack which deprived him of the use of one side. In this infirm state of body, but with full exercise of his faculties, he lived several months. At length, he suddenly quitted his study, and retired to his chamber, from whence he came out no more, breaking off in the middle of a letter to a friend, which, after abrupt transition from the original subject, he left unfinished, with these remarkable words, the last of which are written particularly strong and steady. “I begin to feel as well as understand, that there was no possible way of taking my poor broken heart from the fatal subject of the grief that was daily preying upon it to its destruction, but that which Providence hath been pleased to take, of turning my thoughts from my mind, to most alarming symptoms of approaching death.” Like many other good and pious men before him, he had long very much dreaded the pains of death; but, to his own great comfort, this dread he completely overcame. The sacrament had been frequently administered to him during his confinement; and he received it, for the last time, about a week prior to his death. A little while previous to his dissolution, as his curate was standing by his bed-side, he requested him to read the 71st psalm, which was no sooner done than he took him by the hand, and said with great mildness and composure, “If this be dying, Mr. Sims, I had no idea what dying was before;” and then added, in a somewhat stronger tone of voice, “thank God, thank God, that it is n,o worse.” He continued sensible after this just long enough to take leave of his children (a son and daughter), who, being both settled at no great distance, had been very much with him, and had done every thing in their power to alleviate his sorrows; and, on the morning of Feb. 6, 1800, be expired without a groan or a sigh.

Besides the works already mentioned, Mr. Jones was the author of A Preservative against the publications of modern Socinians. A Letter to a Gentleman at Oxford, against Errors in Doctrine. The Grand Analogy; or, the Testimony of Nature and Heathen Antiquity to the Truth of a Trinity in Unity. A Detection of the Principles and Spirit of a book entitled The Confessional. On the Mosaic Distinction of Animals into clean and unclean. The Sacrifice of Isaac reconciled with the Divine Laws and the meaning is shewn, so far as it is opened in the Scripture. An Enquiry into the Circumstances and Moral Intention of the Temptation of Jesus Christ. A Survey of Life and Death; with some Observations on the Intermediate State. Considerations on the Life, Death, and Burial of the Patriarchs. On the metaphorical Application of Sleep, as an Image of Death in the Scriptures. An Essay on Confirmation. Lectures on the figurative Language of the Scriptures; with a supplemental Lecture on the Use and Intention of some remarkable Passages of the Scriptures, not commonly understood. Sermons, in two volumes, 8vo; besides several single Sermons preached on various occasions. The Book of Nature, or the Sense of Things; in two Parts. Letters from a Tutor to his Pupils. The Churchman’s Catechism. The Constitution of the Church of Christ demonstrated. Six Letters on Electricity. A Treatise on the Art of Music, with Plates of Examples. A Morning and Evening Service. Observations in a Journey to Paris, by way of Flanders, in the year 1776. Considerations on the Religious Worship of the Heathens, as bearing unanswerable Testimony to the Principles of Christianity. A Letter to the Church of England, by an old Friend and Servant of the Church. A Letter to three converted Jews, lately baptized and confirmed in the Church of England. A Letter to the Honourable L. K. on the Use of the Hebrew Language. Short wholelength of Dr. Priestley. Collection of smaller Pieces; among which are the Learning of the Beasts, and Two Letters to a Predestinarian, printed in the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine for January and February, 1800, &c. &c. &c. All these have been reprinted in an edition of his Works, 1801, in 12 vols. 8vo, and afford proofs of talents, zeal, piety, and learning, which are highly creditable to him. Mr. Jones was a man of strong attachments, and of strong aversions. In the pursuit of what he considered to be truth, he knew no middle paths, and would listen to no compromises. Such ardent zeal frequently brought on him the charge of bigotry, which perhaps he was the better enabled to bear, as he had to contend with men whose bigotry, in their own way, cannot easily be exceeded. It must be confessed at the same time that his judgment was by no means equal to his ardour in promulgating or vindicating his opinions; and that all the useful purposes of his writings might have been promoted with more moderation in his style and sentiments. With this exception, however, which is greatly overbalanced by the general excellence of his character as a man and an author, he deserves to be ranked among the most able defenders of the doctrines and discipline of the church of England.

, or Johnson, for so he, as well as some of his friends, wrote his name, was born in Hartshorn-lane near Charing-cross, Westminster, June 11, 1574, about a month after the death of his father. Dr. Bathurst, whose life was written by Mr. Warton, informed Aubrey that Jonson was born in Warwickshire, but all other accounts fix his birth in Westminster. Fuller says, that “with all his industry 'he could not find him in his cradle, but that he could fetch him from his long coats: when a little child, he lived in Hartshorne-lane near Charing-cross.” Mr. Malone examined the register of St. Margaret’s Westminster, and St. Martin’s in the Fields, but without being able to discover the time of his baptism. His family was originally of Annandale in Scotland, whence his grandfather removed to Carlisle in the time of Henry VIII. under whom he held some office. But his son being deprived both of his estate and liberty in the reign of queen Mary, went afterwards in holy orders, and, leaving Carlisle, settled in Westminster.

Our poet was first sent to a private school in the church of St. Martin’s in the Fields, and was afterwards removed to Westminster-school. Here he had for his preceptor the illustrious Camden, for whom he ever preserved the highest respect, and, besides dedicating one of his best plays to him, commemorates him in one of his epigrams, as the person to whom he owed all he knew. He was making very extraordinary progress at this school, when his mother, who, soon after her husband’s death, had married a bricklayer, took him home to learn his step-father’s business. How long he continued in this degrading occupation is uncertain: according to Fuller he soon left it, and went to Cambridge, but necessity obliged him to return to his father, who, among other works, employed him on the new building at Lincoln’s-inn, and here he was to be seen with a trowel in one hand and a book in the other. This, Mr. Malone thinks, must have been either in 1588 or 1593, in each of which years, Dugdale informs us, some new buildings were erected by the society. Wood varies the story, by stating that he was taken from the trowel to attend Sir Walter Raleigh’s son abroad, and afterwards went to Cambridge; but young Raleigh was not born till 1594, nor ever went abroad, except with his father in 1617 to Guiana, where he lost his life. So many of Jonson’s contemporaries, however, have mentioned his connection with the Raleigh family, that it is probable he was in some shape befriended by them, although not while he worked at his father’s business, for from that he ran away, enlisted as a common soldier, and served in the English army then engaged against the Spaniards in the Netherlands. “Here,” says the author of his life in the Biographia Britannica, “he acquired a degree of military glory which rarely falls to the lot of a common man in that profession. In an encounter with a single man of the enemy, he slew his opponent, and stripping him, carried off the spoils in the view of both armies.” As our author’s fame does not rest on his military exploits, it can be no detraction to hint, that one man killing and stripping another is a degree of military prowess of no very extraordinary kind. His biographer, however, is unwilling to quit the subject until he has informed us, that “the glory of this action receives a particular heightening from the reflection, that he thereby stands singularly distinguished above the rest of his brethren of the poetical race, very few of whom have ever acquired any reputation in arms.”

On his return he is said to have resumed his studies, and to have gone to St. John’s college, Cambridge. This fact rests chiefly upon a tradition in that college, supported by the gift of several books now in the library with his name in them. As to the question why his name does not appear in any of the lists, it is answered that he was only a sizar, who made a short stay, and his name could riot appear among the admissions, where no notice was usually taken of any young men that had not scholarships and as to matriculation, there was at that time no register. If he went to St. John’s, it seems probable enough that the shortness of his stay was occasioned by his necessities and this would be the case whether he went to Cambridge in 1588, as Mr. Malone conjectures, or after his return from the army, perhaps in 1594. In either case he was poor, and received no encouragement from his family in his education. His persevering love of literature, however, amidst so many difficulties, ought to be mentioned to his honour.

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.

His next production indicated somewhat of that rough and independent spirit which neither the smiles nor terrors of a court could repress. It was, indeed, a foolish ebullition for a man in his circumstances to ridicule the Scotch nation in the court of a Scotch king, yet this he attempted in a comedy entitled “Eastward- Hoe,” which he wrote in conjunction with Chapman and Marston, although, as Mr. Warton has remarked, he was in general “too proud to assist or be assisted.” The affront, however, was too gross to be overlooked, and the three authors were sent to prison, and not released without much interest. Camden and Selden are supposed to have supplicated the throne in favour of Jonson on this occasion. At an entertainment which he gave to these and other friends on his release, his mother, “more like an antique Roman than a Briton, drank to him, and showed him a paper of poison, which she intended to have given him in his liquor, after having taken a portion of it herself, if sentence upon him (of pillory, &c.) had been carried into execution.” The history of the times shews the probable inducement Jonson had to ridicule the Scotch. The court was filled with them, and it became the humour of the English to be jealous’ of their encroachments. Jonson, however, having obtained a pardon, endeavoured to conciliate his offended sovereign by taxing his genius to produce a double portion of that adulation in which James delighted.

Jonson’s next play, “Epicsene, or the Silent Woman,” did not appear until 1609, and amply atoned for his seeming neglect of the dramatic muse. It is perhaps the first regular comedy in the language, and did not lose much of this superiority by the appearance of his “Alchemist,”in 1610. His tragedy, however, of “Cataline,” in 1611, as well as his “Sejanus,” of both which he entertained a high opinion, serve only to confirm the maxim that few authors know where their excellence lies. The “Cataline,” says Dr. Kurd, is a specimen of all the errors of tragedy.

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.

Wood informs us that he succeeded Daniel as poet-laureat, in Oct. 1619, as Daniel did Spenser. Mr. Malone, however, has very clearly proved that neither Spenser nor Daniel enjoyed the office now known by that name. King James, by letters patent dated Februarys, 16,15-16, granted Jonson an annuity or yearly pension of one hundred marks during his life, “in consideration of the good and acceptable service heretofore done, and hereafter to be done, by the said B. J.” On the 23d of April, 1630, king Charles by letters patent, reciting* the former grant, and that it had been surrendered, was pleased “in consideration (says the patent) of the good and acceptable service done unto us and our father by the said B. J. and especially to encourage him to proceed in those services of his wit and pen, which we have enjoined unto him, and which we expect from him,” to augment his annuity of one hundred marks to one hundred pounds per annum during his life, payable from Christmas 1629. Charles at the same time granted him a tierce of Canary Spanish wine yearly during his life, out of his majesty’s cellars at Whitehall; of which there is no mention in the former grant. Soon after this pension was settled on him, he went to Scotland to visit his intimate friend and correspondent, Drummond of Hawthornden, to whom he imparted many particulars of his life and his opinions on the poets of his age. After his return from this visit, which appears to have afforded him much pleasure, he wrote a poem on the subject; but this, with several more of his productions, was destroyed by an, accidental fire, and he commemorated his loss in a poem entitled “An Execration upon Vulcan.”

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.

The “Tale of a Tub,” and the “Magnetic Lady,” were his last dramatic pieces, and bear very few marks of his original powers. He penned another masque in 1634, and we have a “New Year’s Ode” dated in 1G35, but the remainder of his life appears to have been wasted in sickness of the paralytic kind, which at length carried him off, Aug. 16, 1637, in the sixty-third year of his age. Three days afterwards he was interred in Westminster- abbey, at the north-west end near the belfrey, with a common pavement stone laid over his grave, with a short and irreverend inscription of “O rare Ben Jonson,” cut at the expence of sir John Young of Great Milton in Oxfordshire. His death was lamented as a public loss to the poetical world. About six months after this event, his contemporaries joined in a collection of elegies and encomiastic poems, which was published under the title of “Jonsonius Virbius; or the Memory of Ben Jonson revived by the friends of the Muses.” Dr. Duppa, bishop of Chichester, was the editor of this volume, which contained verses by lords Falkland and Buckhurst, sir John Beaumont, sir Francis Wortley, sir Thomas Hawkins, Messrs. Henry King, Henry Coventry, Thomas May, Dudley Diggs, George Fortescue, William Habington, Edmund Waller, J. Vernon, J. Cl. (probably Cleveland) Jasper Mayne, Will. Cartwright, John Rutter, Owen Feltham, George Donne, Shakerley Marmio'n, John Ford, R. Brideoak, Rich. West, R. Meade, H. Ramsay, T. Terrent, Rob. Wasing, Will. Bew, and Sam. Evans. A subscription also was entered hi to for a monument in the Abbey, but prevented by the rebellion. The second earl of Oxford contributed the bust in basrelievo which is now in Poet’s-corner. Jonson had several children, but survived them all. One of them was a poet, and, as Mr. Malqne has discovered, the author of a Drama written in conjunction with Brome. It should seem that he was not on good terms with his father. Fuller says that “Ben was not happy in his children.”

As many points of his character are obscure or disputed, it may not be unnecessary in this place to exhibit the evidence of his contemporaries, or of those who lived at no great distance of time. The following particulars Aubrey collected from Dr. Bathurst, sir Bennet Hoskyns, Lacy the player, and others .

“I remember when I was a scholar at Trin. Coll. Oxon. 1646, I heard Mr. Ralph Bathurst (now dean of Welles) say, that Ben: Johnson was a Warwyckshire man. ‘Tis agreed that his father was a minister; and by his epistle D. D. of Every Man to Mr. W. Camden, that he was a Westminster scholar, and that Mr. W. Camden was his schoolmaster. His mother, after his father’s death, married a bricklayer, and ’tis generally said that he wrought for some time with his father-in-lawe, and particularly on the garden wall of Lincoln’s inne next to Chancery lane; and that a knight, a bencher, walking thro‘, and hearing him repeat some Greeke verses out of Homer, discoursing with him and finding him to have a witt extraordinary, gave him some exhibition to maintain him at Trinity college in Cambridge, where he was: then he went into the Lowe Countryes, and spent some time, not very long, in the armie; not to the disgrace of [it], as you may find in his Epigrames. Then he came into England, and acted and wrote at the Greene Curtaine, but both ill; a kind of nursery or obscure playhouse somewhere in the suburbs (I think towards Shoreditch or Clerkenwell). Then he undertook again to write a play, and did hitt it admirably well, viz. Evtry Man which was his first good one. Sergeant Jo. Hoskins of Herefordshire was his Father. I remember his sonne (sir Bennet Hoskins, baronet, who was something poetical in his youth) told me, that when he desired to be adopted his sonne, No, sayd he, ’tis honour enough for me to be your brother I am your father’s sonne 'twas he that polished me I do acknowledge it. He was (or rather had been) of a clear and faire skin. His habit was very plain. I have heard Mr. Lacy the player say, that he was wont to weare a coate like a coachman’s coate, with slitts under the arm-pitts. He would many times exceede in drinke: Canarie was his beloved liquour: then he would tumble home to bed; and when he had thoroughly perspired, then to studie. I have seen his studyeing chaire, which was of strawe, such as old women used: and as Aulus Gellius is drawn in. When I was in Oxon: Bishop Skinner (Bp. of Oxford) who lay at our college was wont to say, that he understood an author as well as any man in England. He mentions in his Epigrames, a son that he had, and his epitaph. Long since in king James time, I have heard my uncle Davers (Danvers) say, who knew him, that he lived without Temple Barre at a combe- maker’s shop about the Elephant’s castle. In his later time he lived in Westminster, in the house under which you passe as you go out of the church-yard into the old palace; where he dyed. He lyes buried in the north-aisle, the path square of stones, the rest is lozenge, opposite to the scutcheon of Robert de Ros, with this inscription only on him, in a pavement square of blue marble, 14 inches square, O Rare Ben: Jonson: which was done at the charge of Jack Young, afterwards knighted, who walking there when the grave was covering, gave the fellow eighteen pence to cutt it.”

"I only knew Ben Jonson But my Lord of Winton (Dr. Morley, bishop of Winchester) knew him very well and says, he was in the 6, that is, the upermost fforme in Westminster scole, at which time his father dyed, and his mother married a brickelayer, who made him (much against his will) help him in his trade; but in a short time, his scolemaister, Mr. Camden, got him a better employment, which was to atend or acompany a son of sir Walter Rauley’s in his travills. Within a short time after their return, they parted (I think not in cole bloud) and with a loue sutable to what they had in their travilles (not to be comended). And then Ben began to set up for himselfe in the trade by which he got his subsistance and fame, of which I need not give any account. He got in time to have 100l. a yeare from the king, also a pension from the cittie, and the like from many of the nobilitie and some of the gentry, which was well pay'd, for love or fere of his railing in verse, or prose, or boeth. My lord told me, he told him he was (in his long retyrement and sickness, when he saw him, which was often) much afflickted, that hee had profained the scripture in his playes, and lamented it with horror: yet that, at that time of his long retyrement, his pension (so much as came in) was^ giuen to a woman that gouern‘d him (with whome he liu’d & dyed nere the Abie in Westminster) and that nether he nor she tooke much care for next weike and wood be sure not to want wine of which he usually took too much before he went to bed, if not oftener and soner. My lord tells me, he knowes not, but thinks he was born in Westminster. The question may be put to Mr. Wood very easily upon what grounds he is positive as to his being born their; he is a friendly man, and will resolve it. So much for brave Ben.

Fuller, in addition to what has been already quoted, says that “he was statutably admitted into Saint John’scollege in Cambridge, where he continued but few weeks for want of further maintenance, being fain to return to the trade of his father-in-law. And let not them blush that have, but those that have not a lawful calling. He helped in the building of the new structure of Lincoln’sInn, when having a trowell in his hand, he had a book in, his pocket. Some gentlemen pitying that his parts should be buried under the rubbish of so mean a calling, did by their bounty manumise him freely to follow his own ingenuous inclinations. Indeed his parts were not so ready to run of themselves as able to answer the spur, so that it may be truly said of him, that he had an elaborate wit wrought out by his own industry. He would sit silent in learned company, and suck in (besides wine) their several humours into his observation. What was ore in others, he was able to refine to himself. He was paramount in the dramatique part of poetry, and taught the stage an exact conformity to the laws of comedians. His comedies were above the Volge (which are only tickled with downright obscenity), and took not so well at the first stroke as at the rebound, when beheld the second time; yea, they will endure reading, and that with due commendation, so long as either ingenuity or learning are fashionable in our nation. If his later be not so spriteful and vigorous as his first pieces, all that are old will, and all that desire to be old should, excuse him therein.” To his article of Shakspeare, Fuller subjoins, 4< Many were the wit-combates betwixt (Shakspeare) and Ben Johnson, which two I behold like a Spanish great gallion, and an English man of war; master Johnson (like the former) was built far higher in learning; solid, but slow in his performances. Shakspeare, with the English man of war, lesser in bulk> but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides, tack about and take advantage of all winds, by the quickness of his wit and invention."

“Ben Jonson,” says Oldys, “was charged in his” Poetaster," 1601, with having libelled or ridiculed the lawyers, soldiers, aud players so he afterwards joined an anologetical dialogue at the end of it, wherein he says he had been provoked for three years on every stage by slanderers, as to his self-conceit, arrogance, insolence, railing, and plagiarism by translations. As to law, he says he only brought in Ovid chid by his father for preferring poetry to it. As to the soldiers, he swears by his Muse they are friends; he loved the profession, and once proved or exercised it, as I take it, and did not shame it more then with his actions, than he dare now with his writings. And as to the players, he had taxed some sparingly, but they thought each man’s vice belonged to the whole tribe. That he was not moved with what they had done against him, but was sorry, for some better natures, who were drawn in by the rest to concur in the exposure or derision of him. And concludes, that since his comic muse had been so ominous to him, he will try if tragedy has a kinder aspect.

“A full show of those he has exposed in this play is not now easily discernible. Besides Decker, and some touches on some play that has a Moor in it (perhaps Titus Andronicus; I should hope he did not dare to mean Othello) some speeches of such a character being recited in Act III. Scene IV. though not reflected on, he makes Tucca call Histrio the player, * a lousy slave, proud rascal, you grow rich, do you and purchase your twopenny tear-mouth and copper-laced scoundrels,' &c. which language should not come very natural from him, if he ever had been a player himself; and such it seems he was before or after.” ­Howel in one of his letters delineates what the late Mr. Seward considered as the leading feature of Jonson’s character.

"He wrote all his verses first in prose, as his master Camden taught him; and said that verses stood by sense, without either colours or accent.

"He used to say, that many epigrams were ill because they expressed in the end what should have been understood by what was said before, as that of sir John Davies; that he had a pastoral entitled * The May-lord' his own name is Alkin Ethra, the countess of Bedford Mogbel Overberry, the old countess of Suffolk; an enchantress; other names are given to Somerset, his lady, Pembroke, the countess of Rutland, lady Worth. In his first scene Alkin comes in mending his broken pipe. He bringeth in, says our author, clowns making mirth and foolish sports, contrary to all other pastorals. He had also a design to write a fisher or pastoral play, and make the stage of it in the Lomond Lake and also to write his foot- pilgrimage thither, and to call it a discovery. In a poem he calleth Edinburgh,

Ben Jonson, continues Drummond, “was a great lover and praiser of himself, a contemner and scorner of others, given rather to lose a friend than a jest; jealous of every word and action of those about him, especially after drink, which is one of the elements in which he lived a dissembler of the parts which reign in him a bragger of some good that he wanted, thinking nothing well done, but what either be himself or some of his friends have said or done. He is passionately kind and angry, careless either to gain or keep; vindictive, but if he be well answered at himself, interprets best sayings and deeds often to the worst. He was for any religion, as being versed in both oppressed with fancy, which hath over- mastered his reason, a general disease in many poets. His inventions are smooth and easy, but above all he excelleth in a translation. When his play of the Silent Woman was first acted, there were found verses after on the stage against him, concluding, that that play was well named the Silent Woman, because there was never one man to say plaudite to it.” Drummond adds, “In short, he was in his personal character the very reverse of Shakspeare, as surly, ill-natured, proud, and disagreeable, as Shakspeare with ten times his merit was gentle, good-natured, easy, and amiable.”

Lord Clarendon’s character of our author is more favourable, and from so accurate a judge of human nature, perhaps more valuable. “His name,” lord Clarendon says, <l can never be forgotten, having by his very good learning, and the severity of his nature and manners, very much reformed the stage; and indeed the English poetry itself. His natural advantages were, judgment to order and govern fancy, rather than excess of fancy, his productions being slow and upon deliberation, yet then abounding with great wit and fancy, and will live accordingly; and surely as he did exceedingly exalt the English language in eloquence, propriety, and masculine expressions, so he was the best judge of, and fittest to prescribe rules to poetry and poets, of any man who had 'lived with, or before him, or since: if Mr. Cowley had not made a flight beyond all men, with that modesty yet, as to ascribe much of this to the example and learning of Ben Jonson. His conversation was very good, and with the men of most note; and he had for many years an extraordinary kindness for Mr. Hyde (lord Clarendon), till he found he betook himself to business, which he believed ought never to be preferred before his company. He lived to be very old, and till the palsy made a deep impression upon his body and his mind."

Yet whatever may be thought of his learning, it is greatly over-rated, when opposed or preferred to the genius of his contemporary Shakspeare. Jonson 1 s learning contributed very little to his reputation as a dramatic poet. Where he seems to have employed it most, as in his “Cataline,” it only enables him to encumber the tragedy with servile versifications of Sallust, when he should have been studying nature and the passions. Dry den, whose opinions are often inconsistent, considers Jonson as the greatest man of his age, and observes, that “if we look upon him when he was himself (for his last plays were but his dotages) he was the most learned and judicious writer any theatre ever had.” In another place (preface to the “Mock Astrologer”), he says “that almost all Jonson’s pieces were but crambt his cocta, the same humour a little” varied and written worse."

Among his poems there are few which can be specified as models of excellence. The “Hymn” from “Cynthia’s Ilevels,” the “Ode to the Memory of sir Lucius Gary,” and “Sir H. Morison,” one of the first examples of the Pindaric, or irregular ode, and some of his songs, and “Underwoods,” are brightened by occasional rays of genius, and dignified simplicity, but in general he was led into glittering and fanciful thoughts, and is so frequently captivated with these as to neglect his versification. Although he had long studied poetry, it does not appear that be could pursue a train of poetical sentiment or imagery so far as to produce any great work. His best efforts were such as he could execute almost in the moment of conception, and frequently with an epigrammatic turn which is very striking. He once meditated an epic poem, but his habitual irregularities and love of company denied the necessary perseverance.

, a painter of history and portraits, possessed of very superior abilities in his art, was born at Antwerp in 1594. He first studied with Adam Van Oort, whose daughter he married at an early period of his life but it was to Rubens he stood indebted for the principal part of his knowledge; though it is dubious whether he ever was admitted into the school of that master. Certain it is, however, that he more forcibly carried into effect his principles than any of his disciples, except Vandyke. It is said by Sandrart, that Rubens was jealous of him, but this assertion is generally thought to be unfounded; yet if so great a man were capable of that mean passion, certainly the talents of Jordaens might well excite it. He painted with almost incredible force and brilliancy. Neither Rubens nor Tintoretto, in that respect, excel him; his compositions are full of bustle, and designed with great truth, even grandeur of form. His defect (and it must be allowed that it is a great one, in an art whose principal end is to adorn, to improve, to please mankind) is grossness of subject and of form; not indecent, but vulgar, low common life. His power to give rotundity and relief to his figures, is amazing; and his execution is of the most masterly kind. The French have possessed themselves of many of his principal works; two are particularly noticeable in the gallery of the Louvre, the Flemish celebration. of Twelfth night, known by the appellation of “L'e Roi boit,” and Christ driving the money-changers from the temple. He was remarkable for the rapidity of his execution, and appears to have studied his figures and effects by candle-light, or in bright sun-shine. Having obtained great renown and success, he died in 1678.

, a person distinguished more by his connections than by his works, was born at Berlin in 1702, and discovered early a taste for letters. He was brought up to the church, but becoming acquainted with Frederic, then prince, and afterwards king of Prussia, a friendship commenced between them of no common sincerity; and when Frederic came to the throne, he prevailed on Jordan to abandon the church and come to court. Here he became the confidential friend of Frederic, and had the courage to give him on all occasions the best advice, and to oppose to his face such measures as he thought hurtful. Notwithstanding this freedom he was advanced to several posts of profit and honour, and became at length vice-president of the academy of sciences at Berlin where he died in 1745. The king of Prussia erected a mausoleum over him, and also honoured him with the following eloge “Jordan,” says he, “was born with parts, lively, penetrating, yet capable of application his memory vast and retentive his judgment sure, his imagination brilliant always governed by reason, yet without stiffness in his morals; open in conversation, full of politeness and benevolence; cherishing truth, and disguising it; humane, generous, ready to serve; a good citizen; faithful to his friends, his master, and his country.” His merits as an author do not give us so high an idea of him as the above eloge, or as the more interesting account given by Thibault. His only writings were, “L‘Histoire d’un voyage literaire,” in France, England, and Holland. “Un Recueil de Littrature, de Philosophic, & de Histoire.” A Life of M. de la Croze, in French, &c.

In 1731, he published “Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, ancient and modern,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a collection of critical remarks, of which, however, he was not the sole, though the principal, author: Pearce, Masson, Dr. Taylor, Wasse, Theobald, Dr. Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, and others, were contributors to it. This work was highly approved by the learned here, and was translated into Latin at Amsterdam, and continued on the same plan by D'Orville and Burman. In 1751, archbishop Herring, unsolicited, gave him the living of St. Dunstan in the East, London. This prelate had long entertained a high and affectionate regard for him had endeavoured to serve him in many instances with others and afterwards, in 1755, conferred upon him the degree of D. D. This same year, 1751, came out his first volume of “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History,” 8vi. This work was inscribed to die earl of Burlington by whom, as trustee for the Boylean Lecture, he had, through the application of bishop Herring and bishop Sherlock, been appointed, in 1749, to preach that lecture. There is a preface to this volume of more than forty pages, which, with much learning and ingenuity, displays a spirit of liberty and candour. These “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical fiistory” were continued, in tour succeeding volumes, down to the year 1517, when Luther began the work of reformation; two, published by himself, in 1752 and 1754; and two, after his death, in 1773. In 1755, he published “Six Dissertations upon different Subjects,” 8vo. The sixth dissertation is, “On the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil;” and the remarks in this, tending to establish the great antiquity of the doctrine of a future state, interfered with Warburton in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” and drew upon him from that quarter a very severe attack. He made no reply; but in his “Adversaria” was the following memorandum, which shews that he did not oppose the notions of other men, from any spirit of envy or contradiction, but from a full persuasion that the real matter of fact was as he had represented it. “I have examined,” says he, “the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil; and upon that dissertation I am willing to stake all the little credit that I have as a critic and philosopher. I have there observed, that Homer was not the inventor of the fabulous history of the gods: he had those stories, and also the doctrine of a future state, from old traditions. Many notions of the Pagans, which came from tradition, are considered by Barrow, Serm. viii. vol. II. in which sermon the existence of God is proved from universal consent.”

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.

For the motto of his “Life of Erasmus,” he chose the following words of Erasmus himself: “illud certe praesagio, de meis lucubrationibus, qualescunque sunt, candidius judicaturam Posteritatem: tametsi nee de meo seculo queri possum.' 1 Yet it is certain that he had very slight notions of posthumous fame or glory, and of any real good which could arise from it; as appears from what he has collected and written about it, in a note upon Milton, at the end of his” Remarks upon Spenser.“He would sometimes complain, and doubtless with good reason, of the low estimation into which learning was fallen; and thought it discountenanced and discouraged, indirectly at least, when ignorant and worthless persons were advanced to high stations and great preferments, while men of merit and abilities were overlooked and neglected. Yet he laid no undue stress upon such stations and preferments, but entertained just notions concerning what must ever constitute the chief good and happiness of man, and is himself believed to have made the most of them. Dr. Parr has drawn his character with his usual elegance and discrimination.” Jortin,“says he,” whether I look back to his verse, to his prose, to his critical, or to his theological works, there are few authors to whom I am so much indebted for rational entertainment, or for solid instruction. Learned he was, without pedantry. He was ingenious without the affectation of singularity. He was a lover of truth, without hovering over the gloomy abyss of scepticism, and a friend to free inquiry, without roving into the dreary and pathless wilds of latitudinarianism. He had a heart which never disgraced the powers of his understanding. With a lively imagination, an elegant taste, and a judgment most masculine, and most correct, he united the artless and amiable negligence of a school-boy. Wit without ill-nature, and sense without effort, be could at will scatter upon every subject; and in every book the writer presents us with a near and distinct view of the real man."

, i. e. the son of Gorion, a Jewish historian, is sometimes confounded by the rabbins with the more celebrated historian Josephus. He lived about the end of the ninth, or beginning of the tenth century, and left a History of the Jews, in Hebrew, which Gagnier translated into Latin, Oxford, 1706, 4to. There is also an edition in Hebrew and Latin, Gotha, 1707, 4to. It is obvious from internal Evidence, that this work could not have been written earlier than the ninth century; and that the author was, according to all appearance, a Jew of Languedoc.

, or Josephus Iscanus, a writer of considerable taste and elegance, in an age generally reputed barbarous, was a native of Devonshire, and flourished in the close of the twelfth, and the commencement of the thirteenth centuries. He was an ecclesiastic, and patronized by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury. Some say that he was a priest of the cathedral of Exeter, from which he took his name. According to Camden, he accompanied Richard I. of England into the Holy Land, and was a great favourite with that prince. By archbishop Baldwin’s interest he was made archbishop of Bourdeaux, where he is supposed to have died in the reign of Henry III. and to have been buried in the cathedral of that city. He was author of two epic poems in Latin heroics. The first, in six books, is on the Trojan war the other is entitled “Antiochesis,” the war of Antioch, or the Crusade; of this last only a fragment remains, in which the heroes of Britain are celebrated. His style is not only for the most part pure, but rich and ornamented, and his versification approaches the best models of antiquity. His diction is compounded chiefly of Ovid, Statius, and Claudian, the favourite poets of the age, and wants only Virgilian chastity. “Italy,” says Warton in his History of English Poetry, “had at that time produced no poet comparable to him.” He was also author of love verses, epigrams, and miscellaneous poems. His “De Bello Trojano, lib. V.” was published at Basil, 1541, 8vo; Lond. 1675, 8vo Francfcnt, 1620, 4to, and ibid. 1623; Amst. 1702, 4to. All that remains of his “Antiochesis” is printed in Warton’s “Ftistory of English Poetry.” His love-verses, &c. are lost.

, a supposed heretic of the fourth century, was an Italian monk, and observed all the austerities of a monastic life for a time, and taught some points of doctrine directly opposite to the growing superstitions; for this he was expelled Rome, and fled to Milan, with an intent to engage Ambrose, bishop of that place, and the emperor Theodosius, who was then in that city, in his favour; but Syricius, then bishop of Rome, dispatched three presbyters to Milan, Crescentius, Leopardus, and Alexander, with letters to that church, which are still extant in Ambrose’s works, acquainting them with the proceedings of himself and his followers, in consequence of which he was rejected by Ambrose, and driven out of the town by the emperor. From Milan, Jovinian returned to the neighbourhood of Home, where his followers continued to assemble under his direction, till the year 398, when the emperor Honorius commanded him and his accomplices to be whipped and banished into different islands. Jovinian himself was confined to Boas, a small island on the coast of Dal matin, where he died about the year 406. Jovinian wrote several books, which were answered by Jerome in the year 392, but in such a manner as to render it difficult to know what were Jovinian’s errors, or what his general character, except that he was no friend to celibacy or fasting.

, or Paullo Giovio, an Italian historian, was a native of Como, and was born in 1483. Being early deprived of his father, he was educated under the care of his elder brother Benedict, who was also a historical writer. After having studied at Padua, Milan, and Pavia, he took the degree of M. D. and practised for some time; but an early propensity led him to the study and composition of history. Having completed a volume, he presented it to Leo X. at Rome, in 1516, who expressed a very high opinion of him, and gave him a pension and the rank of knighthood. Jovius now became intimate with the literati of Rome, and wrote several Latin poems, which appeared in the “Coryciana,” and other collections. After the death of Leo, Adrian VI. presented him to a canonry in the cathedral of Como, and Clement VII. appointed him one of his attendant courtiers, provided him with a handsome establishment in the Vatican, gave him the precentorship of Como, and lastly the bishopric of Nocera. During the sacking of the city of Rome, in 1527, Jovius was robbed of a considerable sum of money and of his manuscripts, but recovered the latter. Under the pontificate of Paul III. he wished to exchange his bishopric of Nocera for that of Como, and even carried his ambition to the place of cardinal, but was disappointed in both. His favourite residence was at a beautiful villa on the banks of the lake of Como, where he pursued his studies, and in his museum made a collection of portraits of eminent characters, to each of which he affixed an inscription, or brief memoir, some highly favourable, others sarcastically severe. These memoirs have been frequently printed under the title “Elogia doctorum Virorum,” and the portraits, engraved in wood, have been published under the title of “Musaei Jovian i Imagines,” Basil, 1577. About two years before his death, he quitted his retirement, and took up his residence in Florence, where he died in 1552, and was buried in the church of St. Laurence, in that city.

His historical works, which are all in the Latin tongue, written with great facility, were first printed at Florence, 1550 52, in 2 vols. fol. and again at Strasburgh, in 1556. They are to be read with great caution, as he was not unjustly accused of flattery and malignity, and of having sacrificed his talents to servile and interested purposes. He indeed openly acknowledges the venality of his writings, and is said to have asserted that he had two pens, the one of iron, and the other of gold, which he made use of alternately, as occasion required. But his greatest blemish is the defective or perverted morality with which his works abound; yet with all this, says his late biographer, the writings of Jovius cannot be wholly rejected without the loss of much important information, copiously narrated and elegantly expressed.

, or rather Jouvancey (Joseph de), a celebrated Jesuit, was born September 14, 1643, at Paris. He taught rhetoric with uncommon reputation at Caen, la Fleche, and Paris. At length he was invited to Rome, in 1669, that he might continue “The History of the Jesuits,” with more freedom than he could have done in France, and died in that city May 29, 1719. His principal works are, two volumes of Latin Speeches, 12mo; a small tract entitled “De ratione discendi et docendi,” much esteemed; Notes, in Latin, on P-ersius, Juvenal, Terence, Horace, Martial, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, &c. The fifth part of the “History of the Jesuits,” in Latin, from 1591 to 1616, fol.; as a supplement to Fathers Orlandino, Sacchini, and Poussines. All Jouvenci’s works are written in pure Latin, and in this consists their principal excellence. His History of the Jesuits, in which he undertakes to justify his brother, Pere Guignard, who was hanged by sentence of parliament on account of Chatel’s infamous attempt, and to represent him as a martyr, being printed at Rome, 1710, fol. made much noise, and was condemned by two decrees of the parliament of Paris one Feb. 22, 1713 the other, March 24th the same year. This last sentence suppresses the work, and contains the declaration which had been demanded from the Jesuits. Several pieces appeared on this occasion against P. Jouvenci’s history, 1713, 12mo.

* In the Oen?. Mag. for 1781, p 38, daleo, Oxford, on Edward Joyner, is a curious- Latin epitaph, taken from alias Lyde, who was probably the elthe parish church of St. Mary Mag- der brother of William. piety, and great fidelity. At his return he lived very retired in London; till, on the breaking out of the popish plot in 1678, he retired to Horspath, where some time after he was seized for a Jesuit, or priest, and hound to appear at the quarter-sessions at Oxford. Being found to be a mere lay-papist, and discharged, he went to Ickford, an obscure village in Buckinghamshire, near Thame, and there spent many years in devout retirement. In 1687 he was restored to his fellowship by James II. but expelled from it after a year’s enjoyment, and retired to his former recess, where, says Wood, his apparel, which was formerly gay, was then very rustical, little better than that of a day-labourer, and his diet and lodging suitable. In one of his letters to Wood, April 12, 1692, he told him that “the present place of his residence is a poor thatcht-house, where the roof is of the same stuff in the chamber where he lodged, which he assured me was never guilty of paying chimney-tax. However, he hoped that all this would not make a person neglected and despicable who had formerly slept in the royal palaces of France, under a roof fretted and embossed with gold; whereas, this is doubly and trebly interweaved only with venerable cobwebs, which can plead nothing of rarity besides the antiquity.” This personage has written, 1. “The Roman Empress,” a comedy, Lond. 1670, 4to. 2. “Some Observations on the Life of Cardinal Pole,” 1686, 8vo. 3. Various Latin and English poems, scattered in several books, especially a large English copy in “Horti Carolini Rosa altera,” 1640. He died at Ickford, Sept. 14, 1706. He was great uncle to Thomas Philips, canon of Tongres, who wrote the “Life of Cardinal Pole,” published in 1766.

, 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.

, one of the reformers, son of John Judah, a German priest, was born in 1482, in Alsace. Some authors have reported that he was a converted Jew, but father Simon has proved that he neither was a Jew, nor of Jewish extraction, but the son of the above John Judah, or de Juda, who, according to the custom of those times, kept a concubine, by whom he had this Leo. He was educated at Slestadt, and thence in 1502, was sent to Basil to pursue his academical studies. Here he had for a fellowstudent, the afterwards much celebrated Zuinglius; and from him, who had at a very early age been shocked at the superstitious practices of the church of Rome, he received such impressions, as disposed him to embrace the reformed religion. Having obtained his degree of M. A. in 1512, he was appointed minister of a Swiss church, to the duties of which he applied himself with indefatigable zeal, preaching boldly in defence of the protestant religion. At length he was appointed by the magistrates and ecclesiastical assembly of Zurich, pastor of the church of St. Peter in that city, and became very celebrated as an advocate, as well from the press as the pulpit, of the reformed religion, for about eighteen years. At the desire of his brethren, he undertook a translation, from the Hebrew into Latin, of the whole Old Testament; but the magnitude of the work, and the closeness with which he applied to it, impaired his health; and before he had completed it, he fell a sacrifice to his labours, June 9, 1542, when he was about sixty years of age. The translation was finished by other hands, and was printed at Zurich in 1543, and two years afterwards it was reprinted at Paris by Robert Stephens, accompanying the Vulgate version, in adjoining columns, but without the name of the author of the new version. Judah was likewise the author of “Annotations upon Genesis and Exodus,” in which he was assisted by Xuinglius, and upon the four gospels, and the greater part of the epistles. He also composed a larger and smaller catechism, and translated some of Zuinglius’s works into Latin. The Spanish divines, notwithstanding the severity of the Inquisition, did not hesitate to reprint the Latin Bible of Leo Judah, with the notes ascribed to Vatabius, though some of them were from the pen of Calvin. Some particulars of Judah and of this translation, not generally known, may be found in a book written by a divine of Zurich, and printed in that city in 1616, entitled “Vindicise pro Bibliorum translatione Tigurina.”

Julian no sooner saw himself master of the world, than he threw off all the disguise of his religion, for it merely was a disguise. There appears very little reason to think that Julian had ever cordially embraced, or ever studied with attention, the principles of Christianity. Had this been the case, he might have seen that those principles led to a conduct very opposite to that which he beheld in the conduct of Constantius, whose cruelty to his relations perhaps first excited his hatred against Christianity. From his youth he had practised dissimulation with consummate artifice, and it was rather hypocrisy than Christianity which he had now to shake off. Accordingly he now expressly professed himself a pagan, ordered their temples to be set open, and re-established their worship: he also assumed the character and station of the sovereign pontiff, and was invested with the whole pagan ceremonial, resolving to efface the mark of his baptism by the blood of the heathen sacrifices. In short, he resolved to effect the utter ruin of Christianity, and in this attempt united solid judgment witli indefatigable assiduity. Neither address nor dexterity was wanting, nor all that the wit or prudence of man could do. We find, indeed, in this emperor all the great qualities which a projector could conceive, or an adversary would require, to secure success. He was eloquent and liberal, artful, insinuating, and indefatigable; which, joined to a severe temperance, a love of justice, and a courage superior to all trials, first gained him the affections, and soon after the peaceable possession, of the whole empire. He had been, as we have just remarked, compelled to profess the Christian religion to the time when he assumed the purple; but his aversion to his uncle Constantine and his cousin Constantius, on account of the cruelties exercised on his family, had prejudiced him against the Christian religion; and his attachment to some Platonic sophist, who had been employed in his education, gave him as violent a bias towards paganism. He was ambitious; and paganism, in some of its theurgic rites, had flattered and encouraged his views of the diadem. He was vain, which made him aspire to the glory of re-establishing the ancient rites. He was very learned, and fond of Grecian literature, the very soul of which, in his opinion, was the old theology: but, above all, notwithstanding a considerable mixture of enthusiasm, his superstition was excessive, and what nothing but the blood of hecatombs could appease.

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.

But as the indifference and corruptions of Paganism, joined to the inflexibility and perseverance of the Christians, prevented his project from advancing with the speed he desired, he grew chagrined, and even threatened, after his return from the Persian expedition, effectually to ruin the Christian religion. He had before, in pursuance of his general scheme of opposing revelation to itself, by setting one sect against another, written to the body or community of the Jews; assuring them of his protection, his concern for their former ill usage, and his fixed purpose to screen them from future oppression, that they might be at liberty, and in a disposition to redouble their vows for the prosperity of his reign; and concluded with a promise, that, if he came back victorious from the Persian war, he would rebuild Jerusalem, restore them to their possessions, live with them in the holy city, and join with them in their worship of the great God of the universe. The rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem was thought a sure means of destroying Christianity, since the final destruction of that temple had been foretold both by Christ and his apostles; if therefore the lye could be given to their predictions, their religion would be no more. This scheme, therefore, he set about immediately. The completing of such an edifice would be a work of time, and he pleased himself with the glory of atchieving so bold an enterprize. Accordingly, the attempt was made, and what was the consequence will be seen by the following account of it from Ammianus Marcellinus. “Julian, having been already thrice consul, taking Sallust prsefect of the several Gauls for his colleague, entered a fourth time on this high magistracy. It appeared strange to see a private man associated with Augustus; a thing of which, since the consulate of Dioclesian and Aristobulus, history afforded no example. And although his sensibility of the many and great events, which this year was likely to produce, made him very anxious for the future, yet he pushed on the various and complicated preparations for this expedition with the utmost application: and, having an eye in every quarter, and being desirous to eternize his reign by the greatness of his achievements, he projected to rebuild, at an immense expence, the proud and magnificent temple of Jerusalem, which, after many combats, attended with much bloodshed on both sides, during the siege by Vespasian, was, with great difficulty, taken and destroyed by Titus. He committed the conduct of this affair to Alypius of Antioch, who formerly had been lieutenant in Britain, When, therefore, this Alypius had set himself to the vigorous execution of his charge, in which he had all the assistance that the governor of the province could afford him, horrible bails of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place from time to time inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner, obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, Alypius thought best to give over the enterprize. In the mean time, though Julian was still at Antioch when this happened, yet he was so wholly taken up by the Persian expedition, that he had not leisure to attend to it. He set out soon after upon that expedition, in which he succeeded very well at first; and, taking several places from the Persians, he advanced as far as Ctesipho without meeting with an) body to oppose him. However, there passed several engagements in this place, in which it is said the Romans had almost always the advantage; but the distressed condition of their army, for want of necessaries, obliged them to come to a decisive battle. This was begun June 26, in the year 363, and victory appeared to declare itself on their side; when Julian, who was engaged personally irr the fight without |iis helmet, received a mortal wound upon his head, which put a period to his life the following night.” This fact of the interruption given to the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem has been denied by some modern infidels, but nothing of the kind seems better attested; and although it may be supposed that the eruption was not without natural causes,' and that the seeds of it lay in the bowels of the earth, yet, as Dr. Jortin observes, the fire’s breaking out at the very instant when the Jews and Pagans were attempting to rebuild the temple, its being renewed upon their renewed attempt to go on, and ceasing when they gave over, are circumstances which plainly shew a providential interposition.

We have, in the course of his memoir, had occasion to exhibit some qualities to the disadvantage of Julian; yet we must in justice add, that he was sober and vigilant, free from the debaucheries of women; and, to sum up all, remarkably mild, merciful, good-natured, and, in general, most amiable; except in his passions which arose from his aversion to Christianity. He not only encouraged letters by his patronage, but was himself a learned writer. As a philosopher, he strictly adhered to the Alexandrian or Eclectic school. He professes himself a warm admirer of Pythagoras and Plato, and recommends an union of their tenets with those of Aristotle. The later Platonists, of his own period, he loads with encomiums, particularly Jamblichus, whom he calls “The Light of the World,” and “The Physician of the Mind.” Amidst the numerous traces of an enthusiastic and bigoted attachment to Pagan theology and philosophy, and of an inveterate enmity to Christianity, which are to be found in his writings, the candid reader will discern many marks of genius and erudition. Concerning the manners of Julian, Libanius writes, that no philosopher, in the lowest state of poverty, was ever more temperate, or more ready to practise rigorous abstinence from food, as the means of preparing his mind for conversing with the gods. Like Plotinus, Porphyry, Jambiichus, and others of this fanatical sect, he dealt in visions and extasies, and pretended to a supernatural intercourse with divinities. Suidas relates, probably from some writings of the credulous Eunapius now lost, an oracular prediction concerning his death. Besides his answer to St. Cyril, and “Misopogon,” he wrote some other discourses, epistles, &c. in which are many proofs of genius and erudition, conveyed in an elegant style. And his rescripts in the Theodosian code shew, that he made more good laws, in the short time of his reign, than any emperor either before or after him. His works were published in Greek and Latin by Spanheim in 1696, 2 vols. fol.; and a selection from them in England by Mr. Buncombe, 1784, 2 vols. 8vo, translated principally from La Bleterie, who wrote an excellent Life of Julian.

, in Italian Giuntino, a celebrated mathematician and astrologer of the sixteenth century, was born 1523, at Florence. He published Commentaries, in Latin, on the Sphaera of Holywood or Sacro Bosco, 1577 and 1578, 2 vols. 8vi; “Speculum Astrologiae,” Lngd. 1581, 2 vols. fol. and other works relating to astronomy. There is also a treatise written by him in French on the comet which appeared in 1577, 8vi; and another on the reformation of the calendar by Gregory XIII. 8vi, in Latin. He had quitted the Carmelite order, and became a protestant, but returned afterwards to the Catholic church, and spent the chief of his life at Lyons, where his conduct was very irregular. He died 1590. a

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.

, a learned Hollander, was born, in 1511 or 1512, at Hoorn, of which place his father had been secretary, and five times burgomaster. Having passed through his first studies at Haeriem and Louvain, he fixed Upon physic for his profession, and, for his improvement, resolved to travel abroad. Accordingly, going first to France, he put himself under the care of James Houlier, a celebrated physician at Paris. Thence he went to Bologna in Italy, where he was admitted M. D. and afterwards, passing through several parts of Germany, arrived in England, and became physician to the duke of Norfolk in 1543, and was afterwards retained in that quality by a certain great lady. He continued in England several years, and wrote many books there; among others, a Greek and Latin lexicon, to which he added above 6500 words. He dedicated this work, in 1548, to Edward VI. with the title of king. Edward not being acknowledged such by the pope> our author, who was of that religion, fell under the displeasure of the court of Rome for his dedication, and was prosecuted for it a long time after. His works were put into the “Index Expurgatorius,” where he was branded as a Calvinist, and an author “damnatae memories,” of condemned memory; a disgrace which gave him great uneasiness and concern; and, in order to be freed from it, having laid his case before cardinal Granville, he applied, by the advice of Arias Montanus, directly to the pope, and prepared an apology, shewing the indispensable necessity he was under of giving Edward the title of king, and at the same time protesting he had always been a good catholic.

Before the death of Edward, he returned to his own country, and led a sedentary life, closely pursuing his studies; but, upon the accession of queen Mary, he returned thither; and, being a very good poet, he published, in 1554, an epithalamium on the marriage of Philip II. with that queen, entitled “Philippis.” This address could not fail of introducing him in a favourable light to that court, whence he would probably have made a considerable fortune, had not the turbulent state of those times driven him home again. He confined himself some time in Hoorn, but, after a while, settled at Haeriem; and repaired the disappointment he sustained respecting his finances in England, by marrying a young woman of fortune, which he knew how to improve by making the most of his dedications to his books, of which he published three at Haarlem in 1556. Some years after, he accepted an offer from the king of Denmark, to be his physician, with a considerable salary, and removed to Copenhagen; but neither liking the climate nor genius of the inhabitants, he left the country about 1564, very abruptly, without taking leave of the king. Returning to Haerlem, he practised physic, and was made principal of the college, or great school, in that town. He continued there till the place was besieged by the Spaniards in 1573, when he found means to escape, by obtaining leave to attend the prince of Orange, who desired his assistance as a physician; but lost his library, in which he had left a great many works which had cost him much pains and labour; and the loss was aggravated by this circumstance, that they were almost fit for the press. In this exigency he went to Middleburgh, where the prince had procured him a public salary to practise physic; but the air of the country did not agree with his constitution, and he fell into some disorders, which, with the grief he felt for the loss of his library, put an end to his life in 1575. There was a design to have given him a professorship at Leyden, which university was but just rising when he died. He had a prodigious memory, which enabled him to treasure up a vast stock of learning. Besides his skill in physic, which was his profession, he was an historian, poet, philosopher, and understood perfectly eight languages. His works make up 24 articles, among which are, “Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” 1548; “Adagiorum ab Erasmo omissorum centuriae octo & dimidia,” 1558 which last was published after his death, as others of his pieces were.

, or Du Jon (Francis), professor of divinity at Leyden, was descended of a noble family, and born at Bourges in 1545. At the age of thirteen he began to study the law, and afterwards went to Geneva, to study the languages; but being restrained in his pursuits for want of a proper support from his family, he resolved to get his bread by teaching school, which he pursued till 1565, when he was made minister of the Walloon church at Antwerp. But as this was both a troublesome and dangerous post, on account of the tumultuous conflicts between the papists and protestants at that time, he was soon obliged to withdraw into Germany. He went first to Heidelberg, where the elector, Frederic III. received him very graciously. He then made a visit to his mother, who was still living at Bourges; after which, returning to the Palatinate, he was made minister of the church of Schoon there. This was hut a small congregation; and, while he held it, he was sent by the elector to the prince of Orange’s army, during the unsuccessful expedition of 1568. He continued chaplain to that prince till the troops returned into Germany; when he resumed his church in the Palatine, and resided upon it till 1579. This year his patron, the elector, appointed him to translate the Old Testament jointly with Tremellius, which employment brought him to Heidelberg. He afterwards read public lectures at Neustadt, till prince Casimir, administrator of the electorate, gave him the divinity-professor’s chair at Heidelberg. He returned into France with the duke de Bouillon; and paying his respects to Henry IV. that prince sent him upon some mission into Germany. Returning to give an account of his success, and passing through Holland, he was invited to be divinity-professor at Leyden; and, obtaining the permission of the French ambassador, he accepted the offer in 1592. He had passed through many scenes of life, and he wrote an account of them himself this year: after which, he filled the chair at Leyden with great reputation for the space of ten years, when he died of the plague in 1602.

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.

In Aug. 1677, upon the invitation of his nephew, Dr. Isaac Vossius, canon of Windsor, he went to his house, and there died of a fever, Nov. 19 following. His corpse was interred in St. George’s chapel, within the castle, and the following year a table of white marble was fixed to the wall, near his grave, with an inscription in Latin. He was not only very learned, but a man of irreproachable character. As a laborious student, perhaps few have excelled him. He used to rise at four in the morning, both winter and summer, and study till dinner-time, which was at one; after dinner he used some bodily exercise, walking or running, but returned to his studies at three, and did not leave them till eight, when he went to supper, and then to bed. He very seldom stirred abroad, and never but when some business obliged him. Notwithstanding this, he enjoyed a perfect state of health, and was never once sick. Though he spent so long a series of years in this solitary manner, he was a man of a pleasant and social temper, even in his extreme old age. He was free from peevishness, and affable to those who visited him, though he did not like to be interrupted. Besides the “Glossarium Gothicum,” the chief of his printed works are, 1. that intituled “De pictura veterum,” 1637, 4to. and printed again, with large additions, 1694, at Rotterdam, in folio. He printed likewise an English translation, entitled, “The Painting of the Ancients;” in three books, with additions and alterations, Lond. 1638. To the folio edition was prefixed his life, written by Groevius. 2. “Observationes in Willerami Francicam paraphrasin Cantici canticorum,” Amst. 1655, 8vo. 3. Several letters in “Ger. Job. Vossii & clarorum virorum ad eum epistolae,” Lond. 1690, fol. where Vossius styles our author “vir omnifaria doctrina & generis splendore ornatissimus.”

, 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.”

At Rotterdam, having nothing to fear, he gave full scope to his imagination, which was naturally too warm and sanguine. Jn this temper he applied himself to study the book of “the Revelations,” and thought he had certainly discovered the true meaning of it by a kind of inspiration, which shewed him, that France was the place of the great city, where the witnesses mentioned in the apocalypse lay dead, but not buried; and that they were to rise to life again in three yeafs and a half, namely, in 1689. He was unalterably fixed and confirmed in this persuasion by the revolution which happened in England in 16SS; and even addressed a letter upon the subject to king William, whom he considered as the instrument intended by God to carry his designs into execution. At home, however, all this was charged upon him as an artifice, only to prepare the people for a much greater revolution; and he was suspected to harbour no other design than that of exciting people to take up arms, and setting all Europe in a flame. The foundation of this belief was his not shewing any signs of confusion after the event had given the lye to his prophecies: they built likewise on this, that, after the example of Comenius, he had attempted to re-unite the Lutherans and Calvinists, in hopes of increasing the number of troops to attack Antichrist. But these accusations were brought only by the Romanists, his constant enemies, while his more indulgent friends attributed his prophecies to enthusiasm, and it is certain, that, under this period of mental delusion, he affected to believe a great number of prodigies, which he maintained were so many presages or forerunners of the accomplishment of the prophecies. Nor is it true that he was indifferent to the ill success of what he had predicted in his “L'accomplissement des Propheties,” Rotterdam, 1686 on the contrary, his chagrin was great; and it was not a little heightened when he thought himself insulted by some of his best friends, who opposed his sen-, timents. This drew him into violent disputes, and particularly with Bayle , who wrote against him. The opposition of Bayle was the more resented by him, as he had been a friend to him, and was instrumental in procuring him the philosophical chair at Sedan in 1675. They seem to have been very intimately connected; for, after the suppression of that university, they were preferred together to different professorships at Rotterdam in 1681; and they both wrote against Maimbourg’s “History of Calvinism” in 1682. But here, it is said, the first seeds of the quarrel between them were sown. Both the pieces excelled in different ways. Jurieu’s was more complete and full than Bayle' s, and he answered Maimbourg with a great deal of strength; but then the reader did not meet there with that easy and natural style, those lively and agreeable reflections which distinguished the latter. The preference given to Bayle was observed by Jurieu with disdain: he began to look upon Bayle as his competitor, conceived a jealousy and hatred for him; and to what length it was carried afterwards may be seen in our article of Bayle. In short, it must not be dissembled, that our author’s conduct was far from being commendable in regard to Bavle, or any of his antagonists. Even those synods, where his authority was the greatest, engaged in the contest, and justified Mr. Saurin, pastor of Utrecht, and other persons of merit, whom Jurieu had not spared to accuse of heterodoxy: nay, the matter was carried so far, that, in some of these church parliaments there passed decrees, in which, though his name was not mentioned, yet the opinions he had advanced upon baptism, justification, and the new system of the church, were absolutely condemned. These troubles continued while he lived, and at length threw him into a lowness of spirits, under which he languished for several years before his death; yet he continued to employ his pen, and revised and printed his history of opinions, and forms of religious worship, “Histoire des dogmes et des cultes,” which he had composed in his youth, a work of very considerable merit. In the two or three last years of his life he wrote only some devotional pieces. At length he sunk under a load of infirmities, at Rotterdam, Jan, 11, 1713. He was unquestionably a man of considerable learning, but peculiar in some of his own notions, and intolerant to those of others. Among his works, not mentioned above, are “Histoire du Calvinisme et du Papisrne mise en parallele,” &c. 1683, 3 vols. “Lettres Pastorales.” These letters are upon the subject of the accomplishment of the prophecies. In one of them, for Jan. 1695, having quoted, as proof of the favourable intentions of the allies, a proposal for peace, drawn up by the diet of Ratisbon, which had been forged by a speculative politician in Amsterdam, he was so ashamed of his having been imposed upon by this fictitious piece, that he instantly printed another edition of his letter, in which he omitted that article, 3. “Parallele de trois Lettres pastorales de Mr. Jurieu, c.” 1696, quoted in a “Dissertation concerning defamatory Libels,” at the end of Bayle’s Diet. 4. “Traite de TumlS del'eglise,” &c. 1688. 5> “Le vray systeme.de l'église et la veritable analyse de la foi,” &c. 1686. 6. “L'Esprit de Mr. Arnauld,” 1684. 7. “Abrege de i'Histoire du Concile de Trente,” &c. 1683. 8. “Les prejugez legitimos centre le papisme,” 1685. 9. “Le Janseniste convaincu de vaine sophistiquerie.” 10. “Le Philosophe de Rotterdam accuse, atteint, et convaincu.” 11. “Traite historique, contenant le jugement d'un Protestant sur la Theologie Mystique,” &c. 1700. 12. “Jugement sur les me*­thodes rigides et relache'es,” &c. 1686. 13. “Traite* de la Nature et la Grace.” 14. “Apologie pour Paccomplissement de Propbe'ties,” 1687. 15. “Quelque Sermons,” &C.

, was horn at Paris in 1620, and succeeded his father as secretary and counsellor to the king. He was a man of distinguished learning himself, and an encourager of it in others, employing his interest at court in their favour. His house was the usual resort of men of letters, among whom we find Mr. Locke and Dr. Hickes; which shews that it was open to men of all complexions and principles. Mr. Justel had always professed a particular respect for the English nation, and cultivated are acquaintance with many great men there. He foresaw the revocation of the edict of Nantz, several years before it happened, as we are informed by Dr. Hickes. This divine, who, upon his travels abroad, made a considerable stay at Paris, set apart one day in the week for visiting Mr. Justel. In one of these visits, after some discourse about the protestant churches, observed by Dr. Hickes to be in many places demolished, notwithstanding the edict of Nantz, “Alas, sir,” says Mr. Justel, “as I am wont to talk in confidence with you, so I will tell you a secret, that almost none of us knows besides myself our extirpation is decreed we must all be banished our country, or turn papists. I tell it you because I intend to come into England, where I have many friends; and that, when I come to see you among the rest, you may remember that I told it you.” “Upon this,” says Dr. Hickes, “I asked him how long it would be before this sad persecution would be put into execution He answered, within four or five years at most; and remember, says he again, that I foretold the time. After he had been some time in London he made a visit to the doctor at his house on Tower-hill; where, presentlyafter the common forms of congratulating one another (it was about the time that the bill of exclusion was thrown out of the House of Lords), he said, Sir, don't you remember what I told you of the persecution we have since suffered, and of the time when it would begin and you now see all has accordingly come to pass.”

Several of his old friends among the heathens were not a little troubled at the loss of so eminent a person: for their satisfaction, therefore, he drew up an account of his conduct, with the reasons of it, in order to bring them into the same sentiments. Still, however, from an affection to the studies of his youth, he retained the ancient dress; preaching and defending the Christian religion under his old philosophic garb, the pallium, or cloak of the Grecian philosophers. About the beginning of Antoninus Pius’s reign he went to Rome, and there strenuously endeavoured to defend and promote the Christian cause: in which spirit finding the heretic Marcion very busy in propagating his pernicious principles, he resolved particularly to oppose him. This heretic was the son of a bishop born in Pontus, and, for deflowering a virgin, had been excommunicated. Upon this he fled to Rome, where he broached his errors; the chief of which was, “That there are two Gods, one the creator of the world, whom he supposed to be the God of the Old Testament, and the author of evil; the other a more sovereign and supreme being, creator of more excellent things, the father of Christ, whom he sent into the world to dissolve the law and the prophets, and to destroy the works of the other deity, whom he styled- the God of the Jews.” Justin encountered this heretic both in word and writing, and composed a book against his principles, which he also published. In the same spirit, when the Christians came to be more severely dealt with, traduced, defamed, and persecuted, by virtue of the standing laws of the empire, Justin drew up his first Apology about the year 140, and presented it to the emperor Antoninus Pius, with a copy of his predecessor Adrian’s rescript, commanding that the Christians should not be needlessly and unjustly vexed. This address was not without its success: the emperor, being in his own nature of a generous disposition, was moved to give orders that the Christians should be treated more gently, and more regularly proceeded against.

He was the first Christian, after the days of the apostles, who added to an unquestionable zeal and love of the gospel, the character of a man of learning and philosophy, both which were employed in propagating and defending his principles. He stands at the head of the Christian Platonists, or those who endeavoured to reconcile the Platonic principles with the dictates of Christianity; and the consequence of this attempt was his holding some opinions not altogether agreeable to the genius of the gospel. There are several valuable editions of his works, the first of which was that of Rob. Stephens, Paris, 1551, fol. and the best are those of Maran, printed at Paris, 1742, fol. and of Oberthur, at Wurtzburg, 1777, 3 vols. 8vo. There is an edition of his second Apology by Hutchinson, Oxon. 1703, 8vo; of his Dialogue with Trypho, by Jebb, London, 1719, 8vo; of his Apologies, by Ashton, Cambridge, 1768, 8vo; of his ftrst Apology, by Grabe, Oxon, 1700; and of both Apologies, and his Dialogue, by Thirl by, London, 1722, fol.

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.

, bishop of Nebo or Nebbio, one of the most learned men of his time, was descended from a branch of the same noble family with the former; and born at Genoa, in 1470. After having resided some time at Valencia, in Spain, he entered into the order of St. Dominic, at Paris, in 1488; when he took the name of Augustin in the room of Pantaleon, which he received at his baptism. Soon after he distinguished himself by his learning, and knowledge in the languages, which he acquired in a very short time; so that Leo X. named him to the bishopric of Nebo, in the island of Corsica, in which capacity he assisted in the fifth council of Lateran, where he opposed some articles of the concordat between France and the court of Rome. The revenue of his diocese being small, he petitioned the pope for a better; but Francis I. who was a patron of learned men, drew him to France, by making him his almoner, with a good pension; and he was also regius professor of Hebrew for five years at Paris. Returning to Genoa in 1522, he found every thing in confusion, by the sedition of the Adornes; on which he went to visit his diocese, and discharged all the duties of a good prelate, till 1531. In a voyage from Genoa to Nebc, he perished, together with the vessel in which he was embarked, 1536. By his last will, he left his library to the republic of Genoa.

, a loyal and worthy English prelate, the son of Richard Juxon of Chichester in Sussex, was born in 1582, and educated, upon the foundation, at Merchant Taylors’ school, whence he was elected a fellow of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1598. Here, as his intentions were for the bar, he studied civil law, and took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, July 5, 1603, having before entered himself a student in Gray’s-inn. But for some reasons not assigned by his biographer, he entirely changed his mind, and after having gone through a course of divinity studies, took orders, and in the latter end of 1609 was presented by his college, which stands in that parish, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Oxford. Here he was much admired for his plain, practical style of preaching. In 1614, we are told, he left this living, probably on being presented to the rectory of Somerton in Oxfordshire, in the east window of the chancel of which church are his arms; but it is equally probable that he might hold both. It is certain that his connexion with Oxford continued; and when, in 1621, Dr. Laud resigned the office of president of St. John’s college, Mr. Juxon was chosen in his room, chiefly by his influence. In December of the same year, he proceeded doctor of laws, and in 1626 and 1627 served the office of vice-chancellor of the university. About this time his majesty Charles I. appointed him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and collated him to the deanery of Worcester, along with which he held a prebend of Chichester. In all these promotions, he was chiefly indebted to Dr. Laud, then bishop of London, who had a high regard for him, and, as dean of the king’s chapel, recommended him to be clerk of the closet, into which office Dr. Juxon was sworn July 10, 1632. Laud’s object in this last promotion is said to have been, that “he might have one that he might trust near his majesty, if he himself grew weak or infirm.” By the same interest Dr. Juxon was elected bishop of Hereford in 1633, and was made dean of the king’s chapel, but before consecration was removed to the bishopric of London, in room of Laud, now archbishop of Canterbury, and was also sworn of the privy council. He entered on his bishopric Nov. 5 of the above year, and although his diocese was much displeased with the conduct of his predecessor, bishop Juxon, by his mild temper and urbanity, obtained the respect of all parties.

On his resignation, he retired to his palace at Fulham, where he continued for some time, not only undisturbed, but. sometimes visited by the greatest persons of the opposite party, although he remained firm in his loyalty to the king, who consulted him upon many occasions. Sir Philip Warwick, being employed on one of those occasions, desired he might bring the bishop himself to his majesty, for fear of a mistake in the message, or lest the bishop should not speak freely to him. To which the king replied, “Go as I bid you if he will speak freely to any body, he will speak freely to you. This I will say of him I never got his opinion freely in my life, but, when I had it, I was ever the better for it.” Bishop Juxon also attended upon his majesty at the treaty in the Isle of Wight in 1643, by the consent of the parliament; and by the king’s particular desire, waited upon him at Cotton-house in Westminster on Jan. 21 following, the day after the commencement of his trial. During the whole of this trial, he attended the king, who declared that he was the greatest support and comfort to him on that occasion. He followed his royal master also to the scaffold, and when he was preparing himself for the block, Juxon said to him, “There is, sir, but one stage more, which, though turbulent and troublesome, is yet a very short one. Consider, it will soon carry you a great way; it will carry you from earth to heaven; and there you shall find, to your great joy, the prize to which you hasten, a crown of glory.” “I go,” said the king, “from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown, where no disturbance can be.” “, You are exchanged,” replied the bishop, “from a temporal to an eternal crown; a good exchange.” It was remarked by the regicides, that the king, the moment before he stretched out his neck to the executioner, said to J uxon, with a very earnest accent, the single word Remember. Great mysteries were consequently supposed to be concealed under that expression; and the generals vehemently insisted with the prelate, that he should inform them of the king’s meaning. Juxon told them, that the king having frequently charged him to inculcate on his son the forgiveness of his murderers, had taken this opportunity, in the last moment of his life, when his commands, he supposed, would be regarded, as sacred and inviolable, to reiterate that desire; and that his mild spirit thus terminated its present course, by an act of benevolence towards his greatest enemies. Dr. Uuxon was also one of those who accompanied the king’s body to "Windsor, but was not permitted to read the funeral service.

Some months after this, when the commonwealth was established, he was deprived of his bishopric, and retired to his private estate, the manor of Little Compton, in Gloucestershire, where he passed his time free from molestation, and in the occasional enjoyment of field sports, to which he was rather more addicted than became his rank in the church. At the restoration he was nominated archbishop of Canterbury, in Sept. 1660, and at the coronation placed the crown on the head of Charles II. He was a man of a liberal and princely spirit. During the short period that he enjoyed the archbishopric, he expended in building and repairing Lambeth and Croydon palaces, nearly 15,000l.; and augmented the vicarages, the great tithes of which were appropriated to his see, to the amount of 1103l. In the decline of life he was much afflicted with the stone, of which he at length died June 4, 1663, in his eighty-first year, and was interred with the greatest solemnity in the chapel of St. John’s college, Oxford, near the remains of archbishop Laud. To this college he had ever been a friend, and was at last a munificent benefactor, bequeathing 7000l. to be laid out in the increase of fellowships. His other charitable bequests amounted to 5000l. His contemporaries unite in praising his piety, learning, charity, moderation of temper, and steady loyalty. As a divine he has left little by which we can appreciate his merits. There is but one sermon of his extant entitled “The Subjects’ sorrow or Lamentations upon the death of Britain’s Josiah, king Charles,” 1649, 4to, and “Some considerations upon the Act of Uniformity; with an expedient for the satisfaction of the clergy within the province of Canterbury. By a Servant of the God of peace,” Lond. 1662, 4to. It is also said that he was the author of " A Catalogue of the most vendible books in England,' 1 a well-known 4to, printed in 1658, and signed W. London, in the dedication; but whoever peruses that dedication will perceive it cannot be from the pen of our prelate.

, an ingenious and learned writer, and a judicious and useful preacher, son of the rev. Mr. Thomas Ibbot, vicar of Swaffham, and rector of Beachamwell, co. Norfolk, was born at Beachamwell in 1680. He was admitted of Clare-hall, Cambridge, July 25, 1695, under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Laughton, a gentleman justly celebrated for his eminent attainments in philosophy and mathematics, to whom the very learned Dr. Samuel Clarke generously acknowledged himself to be much indebted for many of the notes and illustrations inserted in his Latin version of “Rohault’s Philosophy.” Mr. Ibbot having taken the degree of B. A. 1699, removed to Corpus-Christi in 1700 and was made a scholar of that house. He commenced M.A. in 1703, and was elected into a Norfolk fellowship in 1706, but resigned it next year, having then happily obtained the patronage of archbishop Tenison. That excellent primate first took him into his family in the capacity of his librarian, and soon after appointed him his chaplain. In 1708 the archbishop collated Ibbot to the treasurership of the cathedral church of Wells. He also presented him to the rectory of the united parishes of St. Vedast, alias Foster’s, and St. Michael le Querne. George I. appointed him one of his chaplains in ordinary in 1716; and when his majesty visited Cambridge, in Oct. 4 1717, Mr. Ibbot was by royal mandate created D. D. In 1713 and 1714, by the appointment of the archbishop, then the sole surviving trustee of the hon. Robert Boyle, our author preached the course of sermons for the lecture founded by him, and desired in his last will, that they should be printed. They bear evident marks of the solidity of his judgment, and are well adapted to his professed design of obviating by just reasoning, the insidious suggestions and abusive censures of Collins, in his “Discourse of Freethinking.” In these sermons the true notion of the exercise of private judgment, or free-thinking in matters of religion, is fairly and fully stated, the principal objections against it are answered, and the modern art of free-thinking, as treated by Collins, is judiciously refuted. Some time after, he was appointed assistant-preacher to Dr. Samuel Clarke, and rector of St. Paul’s, Shadwell. Upon his being installed a prebendary in the collegiate church of St. Peter, Westminster, in 1724, he retired to Camberwell, for the recovery of his health, which had been impaired by the fatigue of constant preaching to very numerous congregations, at a considerable distance from each other. Here he died April 5, 1725, in the forty-fifth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster- abbey. His sermons at Boyle’s lecture, were published in 1727, 8vo, and “Thirty Discourses on Practical Subjects” were selected from his manuscripts by his friend Dr. Clarke, and published for the benefit of his widow, 2 vols. 8vo, for which she was favoured with a large subscription. In 1719, Dr. Ibbot published a translation of Puffendorff’s treatise “De habitu religionis Christianas ad vitain civilem,” or of the relation between church and state, and how far Christian and civil life affect each other; with a preface giving some account of the book, and its use with regard to the controversies in agitation at that time, particularly the Bangorian. In 1775 were published, “Thirty-six discourses on Practical Subjects,” 2 vols. 8vo. This is a re-publication of the thirty discourses selected by Dr. Clarke, with the addition of six occasional discourses, and a life of the author, by Dr. Flexman. There are some verses of Dr. Ibbot’s, in Dodsley’s Collection, vol. V. entitled “A fit of the Spleen,” in imitation of Shakspeare.

, 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.

The Christians at Rome, d'aiiy expecting his arrival, had come out to meet and entertain him, and accordingly received him with an equal mixture of joy and sorrow: but when some of them intimated, that possibly the populace might be dissuaded from desiring his death, he expressed a pious indignation, in treating them to Cast no obstacles in his way, nor do any thing that might hinder him, now he was hastening to his crown. The interval before his martyrdom was spent in prayers for the peace and prosperity of the church. That his punishment might be the more pompous and public, one of their solemn festivals, the Saturnalia, was chosen for his execution; when it was their custom to entertain the people with the conflicts of gladiators, and the hunting and fighting with wild beasts. Accordingly, Dec. 20, in the year 107, or as some think in 116, he was brought out into the amphitheatre; and the lions, being let loose upon lum, quickly dispatched their meal, leaving nothing but a few of the hardest of his bones. These remains were gathered up by two deacons who had been the companions of his journey, transported to Antioch, and interred in the cemetery, without the gate, but afterwards, by command of the emperor Theodosius, were removed to the Tycheon, a temple within the city, now consecrated to the memory of Ignatius. Thus far all historians concur; but the pretended translation of these relics to Rome, and other places, must be classed among the fables of the early Romanists.

, 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,

, but who Latinized his name into Flaccus Illyricus, because a native of Albona or Albana in Illyria, was born March 3, 1520. He was instructed in grammar and the classics b.y Egnatius at Venice, and gave the preference to divinity as a profession. Not being able, however, to maintain the cxpences of university education, he intended to throw himself into a monastery, but happening to consult with a relation of his mother’s, who was provincial of the Cordeiiers, and who had begun to see through the errors of popery, this person prevailed with Flacius to lay aside all thoughts of the monastic life, and go into Germany, where his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew would procure him a maintenance until he had completed his theological studies. Flacius accordingly took this advice, went to Basil in 1539, and, after a few months stay, went to Tubingen, where he remained until 1541, and theft removed to Wittenberg, to complete his studies under Luther and Melancthon, the latter of whom found him some employment in the university, and was the means of relieving his mind from anxious doubts respecting some of the fundamental principles of the reformed religion, respecting the nature of sin, the wrath of God, and predestination.

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.

, an eminent physician and chemist, was born at Breda in 1730. In 1767 he came to England with a view of obtaining information on the Suttonian method of inoculation for the small-pox, and in the following year he went, on the recommendation of the late sir John Pringle, to Vienna, to inoculate the archduchess Theresa- Elizabeth, only daughter of Joseph II. and the archdukes Ferdinand and Maximilian, brothers of the emperor. For these services he obtained rewards and honours: he was made body-physician aJid counsellor of state to their imperial majesties, with a pension of 600l. per annum. In the following spring he went to Italy, and inoculated the grand duke of Tuscany. After this he returned to England, to which he was much attached, where he spent his time in scientific pursuits. He published a very valuable work, entitled “Experiments on Vegetables, discovering their great power of purifying the common air in sunshine, but injuring it in the shade or night.” This work was first published in 1779, and was translated into the French and German languages, and highly esteemed by all the experimental philosophers of that period. He ascertained, that not only from the green matter found on stagnant waters, but likewise from the leaves of vegetables, from the green branches and shoots, even from the entire vegetable, when placed under water and exposed to the solar light, oxygen gas, in a state generally of great purity, is evolved; and as the result of his numerous experiments he adopted the conclusion, that oxygen is elaborated in the leaves and other organs of vegetables, by a vital action excited and sustained by the solar light. The doctor, through the whole of life, was fond of exhibiting among his friends, particularly young persons, experiments of this kind, which required scarcely any apparatus, excepting a bell glass and a phial or two; and with the oxygen gas which he obtained from cabbage-leaves or other vegetables, he would exhibit the combustion of iron-wire, which is a striking and very brilliant experiment. Dr. Ingenhouz was author of many papers inserted in the Transactions of the Royal Society, of which body he was an active and useful member. Of these papers we may notice the following: Experiments on the Torpedo. Methods of measuring the diminution of bulk taking place on the mixture of nitrous with common air. Experiments on the Electrophorus. New Methods of suspending Magnetic Needles. Considerations on the influence of the Vegetable Kingdom on the Animal Creation. He died in 1799, highly esteemed for the simplicity of his manners, and for the discoveries which he had made in the several departments of experimental philosophy.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born in 1470. He descended from a noble family of Volterra, where, in the commotions which took place in 147,2, his father lost his life, and the surviving members of the family, among whom was Tomaso, then only two years of age, sought a shelter in Florence. Being there received under the immediate protection of Lorenzo de Medici, and having closely attended to his studies, he was induced, by Lorenzo’s advice, to pay a visit to Rome in his thirteenth year, where he made such rapid progress in his acquirements, as to obtain an early celebrity. He obtained the name of Fedra, or Piledra, by a singular instance of talents and promptitude. Having undertaken, with some of his learned friends, to perform Seneca’s “Hyppolytus,” in which he acted the part of Phaedra, and a part of the machinery having by accident been broken, which interrupted the performance, he alone entertained the audience whilst the injury was repaired, by the recital of extemporary Latin verse; on which account he was saluted, amidst the applauses of his hearers, by the name of Phaedra, which he afterwards retained and used as his signature.

Soon after the accession of Alexander VI. he was nominated by that pontiff a canon of St. Peter’s, and dignified with the rank of a prelate. In 1495 he was sent as papal nuncio into the Milanese, to treat with the emperor-elect, Maximilian, on which embassy he obtained not only the approbation of the pope, but also the favour of the emperor, who soon after the return of Inghirami to Rome, transmitted to him from Inspruck an imperial diploma, by which, after enumerating his various accomplishments, and particularly his excellence in poetry and Latin literature, he created him count palatine and poet-laureat, and conceded to him the privilege of adding the Austrian eagle to his family arms. Nor was he less favoured by Julius II. who, besides appointing him librarian of the Vatican, conferred on him the important office of pontifical secretary, which he afterwards quitted for that of secretary to the college of cardinals. Leo X. also enriched him with many ecclesiastical preferments, and continued him in his office of librarian until his death, which was occasioned by an accident in the streets of Rome, Sept. 6, 1516, when he had not yet completed the forty- sixth year of his age. To this unfortunate event it is probably owing, that so few of his writings have reached the present times. From the testimony of his contemporaries, it is well known that he was the author of many books. Among these are enumerated a defence of Cicero a compendium of the history of Rome a commentary on the poetics of Horace and remarks on the comedies of Plautus; but these works were left at his death in an unfinished state, and have since been dispersed or lost. It has been supposed that he was the author of the additions to the “Aulularia” of Plautus, printed at Paris, 1513.

, a worthy English divine, was born March 9, 1726-7, at Beverley in Yorkshire, and educated at Beverley school, from whence he was sent to Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, of which he became felloe, and took there his degrees in arts, B. A. in 1749, and M. A. in 1753. His first preferment was the perpetual curacy of Bridhurst, in Kent, to which he was presented in 17.59, by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, after which he obtained successively the small vicarage of Orston in Nottinghamshire, and the vicarages of Wormington and Boxted, in Essex. He died Aug. 3, 1804, leaving behind him a high character for simplicity of manners, great integrity, and genuine benevolence He had a high sense of the dignity and importance of the clerical functions, and for fifty years of his life was indefatigable in his attention to professional duties. He was author of “A View of the great events of the seventh plague, or period, when the mystery of God shall be finished.” “Accounts of the ten tribes of Israel being in America, originally published by Manasseh Ben Israel,” &c. 1792. “A complete and uniform explanation of the prophecy of the seven vials of wrath, or seven last plagues contained in the Revelation of St. John,” &c. 1804.

, an exemplary and learned bishop of Carpentras, at which place he was born in 1683, was first a Dominican, and in that order he successfully pursued his theological studies; but, thinking the rule of the Cistertians more strict and perfect, he afterwards took the habit of that order. His merit quickly raised him to the most distinguished offices among his brethren, and being dispatched on some business to Rome, he completely gained the confidence and esteem of Clement XII. By that prelate he was named archbishop of Theodosia in partibus, and bishop of Carpentras in 1733. In this situation he was distinguished by all the virtues that can characterize a Christian bishop; excellent discernment, and knowledge, united with the completest charity and humility. His life was that of a simple monk, and his wealth was all employed to relieve the poor, or serve the public. He built a vast and magnificent hospital, and established the most extensive library those provinces had ever seen, which he gave for public use. He died in 1757, of an apoplectic attack, in his seventy-fifth year. This excellent man was not unknown in the literary world, having published some original works, and some editions of other authors. The principal of these productions are, 1. “Genuinus character reverendi admodiim in Christo Patris D. Armandi Johannis Butillierii Rancsei,” Rome, 1718, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of a book entitled “Theologie Religieuse,” being a treatise on the duties of a monastic life, Rome, 1731, 3 vols. folio. 3. An Italian translation of a French treatise, by father Didier, on the infallibility of the pope, Rome, 1732, folio. 4. An edition of the works of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, with his Life, 2 vols. folio. 5. “La Vie separee,” another treatise on monastic life, in 2 vols. 1727, 4to.

, abbot of Croyland, and author of the history of that abbey, was born in London about 1030. He received the first part of his education at Westminster, and when he visited his father, who belonged to the court of Edward the Confessor, he was so fortunate as to engage the attention of queen Edgitha, who took a pleasure in the progress of his education, and in disputing with him in logic, and seldom dismissed him without some present as a mark of her approbation. From Westminster he went to Oxford, where he applied to the study of the Aristotelian philosophy, in which he made greater proficiency than many of his contemporaries, and, as be says, “clothed himself down to the heel in the first and second rhetoric of Tully.” When he was about twenty-one years of age, ho was iotroduced to> William duke of Normandy (who visited the court of England in 105 l) y and made himself so agreeable to that prince, that be appointed him his secretary, and carried him with him into his. Owt dominions. In a little time he became the prime favourite of his prince, and the dispenser of all preferments; but he himself confesses that he did not behave in this station with sufficient modesty and prudence, and that he incurred the envy and hatred of the courtiers, to avoid which he obtained leave from the duke to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In the course of this journey, his attendant pilgrims at one time amounted to seven thousand, but either from being attacked and killed by the Arabs, or other disasters, twenty only of this goodly company were able to return home, and those half-starved, and almost naked. Ingulph now resolved to forsake the world, and became a monk in the abbey of Fontanelle in Normandy, of which he was in a few years made prior. When his old master William of Normandy was preparing for his memorable expedition into England, in 1066 r lagulphus was sent by hiw abbot with one hundred: marks in money, and twelve young men, nobly mounted and completely armed, as a present their abbey. In consequence of this, William raised him afterwards to the government of the rich abbey of Croyland in Lincolnshire, in 107S. Here Ingulphus spent the last thirty-four years of his life, governing that society with great prudence, and protecting their possessions from the rapacity of the neighbouring barons by the favour of his royal master; and here he died Dec. 1, 1109. He wrote, but in a homely Latin style, a very curious and valuable history of Croyland abbey from its foundation, in the year 664 to 1091. It was printed by sir H. Saville,' London, 1596, and is among Gale’s “Scriptores.” There is also an edition of Francfort in 1601, and one of Oxford, 1684, which last is thought the most complete.

, author of the “Illustrations of Hogarth,” was born at the Trench farm, near Wem, in Shropshire, in a house which had been rendered somewhat remarkable, by having been the birth-place and country residence of Wycherley the poet, and whose widow is said to have adopted Mr. Ireland, when a child; but this lady dying without a will, left him unprovided for. He was descended by the mother’s side from two eminent dissenting clergymen; his mother being the daughter of the rev. Thomas Holland, and great-grand-daughter of the rev. Philip Henry. In his youth he discovered a strong predilection to the arts, and such literature as is immediately connected with them, but as his parents were unable to give him a regular education, and as he had a turn for mechanics, h was brought up to the business of a watchmaker. Although he carried on this for some time with good connexions, it was not upon the whole successful, and during a considerable part of his life, he subsisted by trafficking in pictures, prints, &c. for which he had a correct taste, and in which he was probably assisted by the artists and print-sellers. He amassed a good collection of ^iortimer’s and Hogarth’s works, and lived on intimate terms with many men of eminence in the literary world, and particularly with the artists Mortimer and Gainsborough, and Henderson the actor, whose “Memoirs” he published in 1786. This actor had lived in Mr. Ireland’s house for some time after coming to London, but their intimacy had for some reason abated, and at the period of Henderson’s death was, if we are rightly informed, quite dissolved. His Life of Henderson is said to have been his first publication, and certainly was not very successful, nor very interesting. He was more fortunate afterwards in being employed by the Messrs. Boydell in the “Illustrations of Hogarth,” 3 vols. 8vo, a work in which he displays a correct knowledge of the arts, and a vein of humourous remark and anecdote not ill suited to the subjects he had to illustrate. As Mr. Ireland was a man of integrity, he often felt himself very much hurt as being mistaken for Samuel Ireland, the proprietor of the Shakspeare forged manuscripts, who had also published a volume of scraps and anecdotes relating to Hogarth. Our author, therefore, thought proper to disclaim, in the preface to his third volume, all connexion and relationship with his namesake. For several years Mr. Ireland had been afflicted with a complication of disorders, which had rendered society irksome to him, and occasioned him to remove to the neighbourhood of Birmingham, where he died in November 1808. He was a man of pleasant and inoffensive manners, and full of literary anecdote, which he liberally dispensed around, whether in a coffee-house among strangers, or at the social table among his friends.

, 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.

The church had, for some years, enjoyed those calm and quiet days from without, which had been abused by animosities and contentions from within, when the emperor Severus, hitherto favourable, began a bitter and bloody persecution against the Christians, and prosecuted them with great severity in all parts of the empire. He had once governed the province of Lyons himself; 'and, probably, then taking peculiar notice of Irenaeus, and the flourishing state of the church in that city, might therefore give more particular orders for proceeding against them in this place. The persecution, which in other parts picked out some few to make examples of, was here more indiscriminate; and Irenaeus, having been prepared by several torments, was beheaded. It is not easy to assign the certain date of his martyrdom, whether it was when the emperor published this edict, about A. C. 202; or in. his expedition to Britain A. C. 208, when he took Lyons in his way.

, 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.

, a rabbi, was one of those Jews who left Spain on an edict of Ferdinand and Isabella, in 1492, which obliged the Jews to quit their dominions within four months, or else embrace Christianity. Karo went first to Portugal; and, travelling thence to Jerusalem, he lost his children and his books on the road. He lived in great solitude and, to console himself, composed a book, entitled “Toledot Jiskach, the Generations of Isaac.” It is a commentary upon the Pentateuch, partly literal and partly cabbalistical, in which he examines the sentiments of other commentators. It has gone through several editions: the first was printed at Constantinople in 1518; afterwards at Mantua, and Amsterdam in 1708. Buxtorf ascribes to our rabbi a ritual entitled “Eben Haheser, the Rock of Support.”

, sumamed Pelusiota or Damietta, from his retiring into a solitude near the town which bears both these names, was the most celebrated of the disciples of John Chrysostom, and flourished in the fifth century. He professed the monastic life from his youth, and retired from the world; but appears to have been more useful to the church and to society, than might have been expected from a monk. This appears by his letters, of which, Suidas says, he wrote no less than 3000; and Nicephorus assures us that he composed several works, and mentions particularly ten chiliads of his epistles. Sixtus Senensis also adds, that he saw in the library of St. Mark at Venice, a ms. containing 1184 of such epistles, which are not now extant. He agrees with the orthodox in the leading doctrines of the gospel, but his great excellence is his practical rules. He died about the year 440. We have remaining 2012 of his letters, in five books: they are short; but there are important things in them about many passages of Scripture, as well as theological questions, and points concerning ecclesiastical discipline; they are written in good Greek, and in an agreeable florid style. The best edition of St. Isidore’s works is that of Paris, 1638, folio, in Greek and Latin. In 1737, Christ. Aug. Heumann attacked the authenticity of some of his epistles in a tract entitled “Epistolas Isidoras Pelusiotae maximam partem esse confictas.”

of Seville, was born at Carthagena, in Spain, the son of Severian, governor of that city, and was educated by his brother Leander, bishop of Seville, whom he succeeded in the year 601. St. Isidore was the oracle of Spain during thirty-five years, and died April 4, 636, leaving the following works: Twenty books of “Origines,” or Etymologies, Paris, 1601, fol., or Cologn, 1617, fol.; a “Chronicle” ending at the year 626, useful for the history of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi “Commentaries” on the historical books of the Old Testament a treatise “on Ecclesiastical Writers” “a Rule for the Monastery of Honori;” a “Treatise on Ecclesiastical Offices,” containing many very important passages relating to Ecclesiastical Discipline, and in which he mentions seven prayers of the sacrifice. These prayers may still be found in the Mosarabic.mass, which is the ancient Spanish liturgy, and of which this saint is known to have been the principal author. The edition of the Missal, 1500, fol. and of the Breviary, 1502, fol. printed by cardinal Ximenes’ order, are very scarce; a Treatise on this Liturgy was printed at Rome, 1740, fol. The “Collection of Canons” attributed to St. Isidore, was not made by him. In the Rule above mentioned, he speaks of the monks as follows: “The monks shall every year at Pentecost make a declaration that they keep nothing as their own. A monk ought to work with his hands, according to the precept of St. Paul, and the example of the patriarchs. Every one ought to work, not only for his own maintenance, but for that of the poor. Those who are in health, and do not work, sin doubly, by idleness, and setting a bad example. Those who chuse to read without working, show that they receive no benefit from what they read, which commands them to work.” This Rule of St. Isidore prescribes about six hours work every day, and three hours reading. This Isidore is frequently ranked among musical writers. In his treatise on the divine offices, much curious information occurs concerning canto fermo, and music in general; but particularly its introduction into the church, the institution of the four tones by St. Ambrose, and the extension of that number to eight by St. Gregory. In treating of secular music, he has a short chapter on each of the following subjects of music, and its name of its invention its definition of its three constituent parts, harmonics, rhythm, and metre; of musical numbers; of the three-fold divisions of music; 1st, Of the harmonical division of music; 2dly, Of the organic or instrumental division; 3dly, Of the rhythmical division. These chapters are very short, and contain little more than compressed definitions of musical terms. In enumerating the seven liberal arts, cap. II. he ranks them in the following manner: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy.

In the orations of Isocrates, says the abbe Arnaud, his diction is pure; and no obscure or obsolete phrase disfigures his style; but it is seldom lively, rapid, and vehement; it is various and splendid, but hardly ever simple and natural. Whatever obstructs a smooth pronunciation, Isocrates’ rejects; he studies above all to measure and round his periods, and to give them a cadence like that of verse. All his discourses are delightful to peruse, and well adapted for panegyric, but are unfit for the turbulent proceedings of the bar, and the tumult attending popular harangues. Yet there is sometimes too much affectation in his arrangement his figures are either too far-fetched, or discordant, or extravagant, so that he becomes cold and mannered besides, in order the better to tune his style, and frame his periods with nicety, he makes use of inefficient words, and unnecessarily lengthens out his discourses.

, 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.

, an eminent traveller, was born Sept. 16, 1651, at Lemgow in Westphalia, where his father was a minister. After studying in several towns, and making a quick progress, not only in the learned languages, but also in history, geography, and music, vocal and instrumental, he went to Dantzick, where he made some stay, and gave the first public specimen of his proficiency by a dissertation “De Divisione Majestatis,” in 1673. He then went to Thorn, and thence to the university of Cracow; where, for three years, studying philosophy and foreign languages, he took the degree of doctor in philosophy; and then went to Koningsberg, in Prussia, where he stayed four years. All this while he applied himself very intensely to physic and natural history. He next travelled to Sweden, where he soon recommended himself to the university of Upsal, and to the court of Charles XI. a great encourager of learning; insomuch that great offers were made him, upon condition that he would settle there. But he chose to accept the employment of secretary of the embassy, which the court of Sweden was then sending to the sophi of Persia; and in this capacity he set out from Stockholm, March 20, 1683. He went through Aaland, Finland, and Ingermanland, to Narva, where he met Fabricius the ambassador, with whom he arrived at Moscow the 7th of July. The negociations at the Russian court being ended, they proceeded on to Persia; but had like to have been lost in their passage over the Caspian sea, by an unexpected storm and the unskilfulness of their pilots. During their stay in Georgia, Kaempfer went in search of simples, and of all the curiosities that could be met with in those parts. He visited all the neighbourhood or Siamachi; and to these laborious and learned excursions we owe the many curious and accurate accounts he has given us in his “Amrenitates Exoticae,” published at Lemgow, in 1712. Fabricius arrived at Ispahan in Jan. 1684, and stayed there near two years; during all which time of his abode in the capital of the Persian empire, Ksempfer made every possible advantage. The ambassador, having ended his negociations towards the close of 1685, prepared to return into Europe; but Kaempfer did not judge it expedient to return with him, resolving to go farther into the east, and make still greater acquisitions by travelling. With this view he entered into the service of the Dutch East-India company, in the quality of chief surgeon to the fleet, which was then cruising in the Persian Gulph, but set out for Gamron Nov. 1685, He stayed some time in Sijras, where he visited the remains of the ancient Persepolis, and the royal palace of Darius, whose scattered ruins are still an undeniable monument of its former splendor and greatness. As soon as he arrived at Gamron he was seized with a violent fit of sickness, which was near carrying him off; but, happily recovering, he spent a summer in the neighbourhood of it, and made a great number of curious observations. He did not leave that city till June 1688, and then embarked for Batavia; whither, after touching at many Dutch settlements, in Arabia Felix, on the coasts of Malabar, in the island of Ceylon, and in the gulph of Bengal, he arrived in September. This city having been so particularly described by other writers, he turned his thoughts chiefly to the natural history of the country about it. He possessed many qualifications necessary for making a good botanist; he had a competent knowledge of it already, a body inured to hardships, a great stock of industry, and an excellent hand at designing. In May 1690, he set out from Batavia on his voyage to Japan, in quality of physician to the embassy, which the Dutch East-India company used to send once a year to the Japanese emperor’s court; and he spent two years in this country, making all the while. most diligent researches into every thing relating to it. He quitted Japan in order to return to Europe, Nov. 1692, and Batavia, Feb. 1693. He stayed near a month at the Cape of Good- Hope, and arrived at Amsterdam in October.

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 very celebrated naturalist, was a native of Finland, and was born in 1715. Having imbibed a taste for the study of natural history, it appears that he pursued his inclination with much zeal and industry. His first researches were rewarded by the discovery of many new plants in Sweden, of which he gave some account to the botanical world between the years 1742 and 1746. He was particularly anxious to explore the virtues of plants, both with respect to their uses in medicine, and in the useful arts, so that planting and agriculture occupied some portion of his attention. His reputation as a naturalist caused him to be appointed professor at Abo; and in October 1747, he set out upon his travels, sailing from Gottenburg for America; but, on account of a violent hurricane, was obliged to take shelter in a port of Norway, whence he could not depart till the ensuing February, when he proceeded immediately for London. From hence he went to North America; and having spent two or three years in exploring whatever was worthy of observation in that country, he returned to his professorship at Abo in 1751. The expences of this undertaking appear to have exceeded what was allowed him by the Academy of Sciences, so that our author was obliged to live rather penuriously upon his return; yet he found means to cultivate, in a small garden of his own, several hundred plants, for the use of the university, as there was no public botanical garden at Abo His discoveries in botany very materially enriched the “Species Plantarum” of his great master, and the LinntEan Herbarium abounds with specimens brought home by him, distinguished by the letter K. Haller enumerates a long list of tracts published by Kalm; and his inaugural dissertation appeared in the “Amcenitates Academicae” of Linnæus. He was originally intended for the ecclesiastical profession, but was drawn aside from this pursuit by attending the lectures of Linnæus on natural history, given in the university of Upsal. Indeed, it was through the recommendation of Linnæus that professor Kalm was fixed upon to undertake the voyage to North America, and the account of his voyage was published in English by Forster in 1771. He afterwards made, at his own expence, a very extensive tour into Russia, the history of which never appeared in print, but which is supposed to have furnished considerable matter for the work of a Swedish writer, who published a book of travels in that kingdom. Kalm was a member of the royal Swedish academy of sciences, and died in 1779. His collection of dried plants, made in his various journeys, and doubtless valuable for the purposes of botanical information, is said to remain in the hands of his family in a state of neglect.

Kant divides all our knowledge into that which is “a priori,” and that which is “a posteriori.” Knowledge “a priori” is conferred upon us by our nature; and knowledge “a posteriori” is derived from our sensations, or from experience; and it is in this system denominated “empyric.” Kant does not, as this division would seem to imply, intend to revive the doctrine of innate ideas. He considers all knowledge as acquired; he maintains that experience is the productrice of all knowledge, and that without it we could not have had a single idea. Our ideas “a priori,” he says, are produced with experience, but not by it, or do not proceed from it. They exist in, and are forms of the mind. They are distinguished from other ideas by two marks, which are easily discerned; they are universal and necessary; they admit of no exception, and their converse is impossible. Ideas which we derive from experience have no such characters. We can imagine that what we have seen, or felt, or heard once, we may see, or feel, or hear again; but we do not perceive any impossibility in its being otherwise. Thus, if I see a building on fire, I am certain of this individual fact; but it affords no general knowledge. But if I take twice two small balls, and learn to call twice two four, I shall immediately be convinced that any two bodies whatever, when added to any other two bodies, will constantly make the sum of bodies four. Experience affords the opportunity of acquiring this knowledge, but it has not given it; for how could experience prove that this truth should never vary Experience must be limited, and cannot teach what is universal and necessary. It is not experience which discovers to us that we shall always have the surface of a whole pyramid, by multiplying its base by the third part of its height; or, that two parallel lines extended “in infinitum” shall never meet.

All mathematical truths, according to Kant, are “a priori” thus, that a straight line is the shortest of all possible lines between two given points that the three angles in any plane triangle are always equal to two right angles, are propositions which are true “a priori.” Pure knowledge “a priori,” is that which is without any mixture of experience. Two and two make four, is a truth of which the knowledge is “a priori;” but it is not pure knowledge, because the truth is particular. The ideas of substance, and of cause and effect, are “a priori;” and when they are separated from the objects to which they refer, they form, according to this system, “void ideas.” It is our knowledge “a priori,” that is, the knowledge which precedes experience, as to its origin, which renders experience possible. Our faculty of knowledge has an effect on our ideas of sensation, analogous to that of a vessel which gives its own form to the liquor with which it is fi lied. Thus, in all knowledge “a posteriori,” there is something “a priori,” derived from our faculty of knowledge. All the operations of our minds, all the impressions which our senses receive and retain, are brought into effect by the conditions, the forms, which exist in us by the pure ideas “a priori,” which alone render all our other knowledge certain. Time and space are the two essential forms of the, mind: the first, for impressions received by the internal sense; the second, for those received by our external senses. It is by means of the form space, that we are enabled, “a priori,” to attribute to external objects impenetrability, divisibility, &c. and it is by means of the form time, that we attribute to any thing duration, succession, &c. Arithmetic is derived from the internal sense, and geometry from that of our external. Our understanding collects the ideas received by the impressions made on our organs of sense, confers on those ideas unity by a particular energy “a priori,” and thereby forms the representation of each object. Thus a person is successively struck with the impressions of all the parts which form a particular garden. His understanding unites these impressions, or the ideas resulting from them; and in the unity produced by the act, it acquires the idea of the whole garden. If the objects which produce the impressions afford also the matter of the ideas, then the ideas are “empyric;” but if the objects only unfold the forms of the thought, the ideas are “a priori.”

Judgments are divided into two species; analytic and synthetic. An analytic judgment is that in which the attribute is the mere developement of the subject, and is found by the simple analysis of the perception; as, a triangle has three sides. A synthetical judgment is that in which the attribute is connected with the subject by a cause or basis taken from the faculty of knowledge, which renders this connection necessary as, iron is heavy wood is combustible the three angles of a plane triangle are equal to two right angles.

The forms of the understanding are, in this system, quantity, quality, relation, modality. Quantity is distinguished into general, particular, and individual quality, into affirmation, negation, infinite relation, into categoric, hypothetic, and disjunctive; and modality, into problematic, certain, and necessary. M. Kant adds likewise to the properties of the four principal forms of the understanding a table of categories, or fundamental ideas, “a priori.”

Pure reason is the faculty of tracing our knowledge “a priori,” to subject it to principles, to trace it from its necessary conditions, till it be entirely without condition, and in complete unity. The great work of Kant is divided into several parts, under the titles, “Of Esthetic transcendental” “Of transcendental Logic” “Of the pure Ideas of the Understanding” “Of the transcendental Judgment” “Of the Paralogism of pure Reason,” &c. We cannot, from the nature of our work, discuss all the parts of the system; but may observe, that the author contends that we know objects only by the manner in which they affect us; and as the impressions which they make upon us are only certain apparitions or phenomena, it is impossible for us to know what an object is in itself. Hence the system of Kant has been compared with that of Berkeley, which maintains that sensations are only appearances, and that there is no truth, only in our reason. But Kant does not go to this length. According to his theory, the understanding, when it considers the apparitions or phenomena, acknowledges the existence of the objects themselves, inasmuch as they serve for the bases of those apparitions; though we know nothing of their reality, and though we can have no certainty but in experience. Truth, according to our author, consists in the agreement of our notions with the objects, in such a manner as that all men are obliged to form the same judgment: belief consists in holding a thing to be true, in consequence of a persuasion which is entirely personal, and has not its basis in an object submitted to experience. There is a belief of doctrine, as, that “there are inhabitants in the planets,” which is not the same as moral belief; because in moral belief there is something necessary. The ordinary mode of teaching the existence of God belongs to the belief of doctrine and it is the same with regard to the immortality of the soul nevertheless, the author was a firm believer in the existence of God, and a future state because, said he, “this persuasion renders immovable my moral principles principles which I cannot reject, without rendering myself contemptible in my own eyes. I wish for happiness, but I do not wish for it without morality; and as it depends on nature, I cannot wish it with this condition, except by believing that nature depends on a Being who causes this connection between morality and happiness. This supposition is founded on the want or necessity of my reason, and not on my duty. We have, however,” says Kant, “no certainty in our knowledge of God; because certainty cannot exist, except when it is founded on an object of experience. The philosopher acknowledges that pure reason is too weak to prove the existence of a being beyond the reach of our senses. The necessity of believing in God is, therefore, only subjective, although necessary and general for all those beings who conform to their duty. The proofs of natural theology, taken from the order and beauty of the universe, are proofs only in appearance. They resolve themselves into a bias of our reason to suppose an infinite Intelligence, the author of all that is possible; but from this bias it does not follow that there really is such an author. To say, that whatever exists must have a cause, is a maxim” a priori;“but it is a maxim applicable only to experience: for we know not how to subject to the laws of our perceptions that which is absolutely independent of them. It is impossible to know that God exists; but we can comprehend how it is possible to act morally on the supposition of the existence of an intelligent Creator, an existence which practical reason forces theoretical reason to adopt. This proof not only persuades, but even acts on the conviction, in proportion as the motives of our actions are conformable to the law of morality. Religion ought to be the means of virtue, and not its object. Man has not in himself the idea of religion, as he has that of virtue. The latter has its principle in the mind it exists in itself, and not as the means of happiness and it may be taught without the idea of God, for the pure law of morality is” a priori.“He who does good by inclination, does not act morally. There are compassionate minds, which feel an internal pleasure in communicating joy around them, and who thus enjoy the satisfaction of others; but their actions, however just, however good, have no moral merit, and may be compared to other inclinations; to that of honour, for example, which, while it meets with that which is just and useful, is worthy of praise and encouragement, but not of any high degree of esteem. According to Kant, we ought not even to do good, either for the pleasure which we feel in doing it, or in order to be happy, or to render others happy; for any one of these motives would be empiric, and injure the purity of our morals. We ought to act after the maxims derived” a priori;" from the faculty of knowledge, which carry with them the idea of necessity, and are independent of all experience; after the maxims which, it is to be wished, could be erected into general laws for all beings endowed with reason.

If this, says a judicious writer, be a correct view of the object and the results of the Critical Philosophy, we confess ourselves unable to discover any motive which should induce our countrymen, in their researches after truth, to prefer the dark lantern of Kant to the luminous torch of Bacon. The metaphysical reader will perceive, that, in this abstract, there is little which is new except the phraseology, that what is new is either unintelligible or untenable, and that his opinions on the existence of the Supreme Being have a manifest tendency to atheism. With these sentiments of Kant’s philosophy, we hear without surprize or regret that it is already much neglected in Germany, and will probably soon fall into utter oblivion.

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.”

Caius’s religious principles have been disputed. The most probable conjecture is, that he had a secret inclination to the principles of his early years, but conformed, at least in outwarcl observances, to the reformation in his latter days. Of his learning there is no difference of opinion. It was various and extensive; and his knowledge of the Greek language, particularly, gave him a superiority over most of hrs contemporaries, the study of that language in this country being then in its infancy. His zeal ibr the interests of learning appears from his munificence to his alma mater, and the same motive led him in 1557 to erect a monument in St. Paul’s cathedral to the celebrated Linacre. As an author, he wrote much; but some of his works have not been published. He revised, corrected, and translated several of Galen’s works, printed at different times abroad. He published also, 1. “Hippocrates de Medicamentis,” first discovered in ms. by him; also “de ratione V ictus,” 8vo. 2. “De medendi methodo,” Basil, 1544, Lond. 1556, 8vo. 3. “De Ephemera Britannica,” or an account of the sweating sickness in England, Lond. 1556, and reprinted so lately as 1721. 4. “De Thermis Britannicis.” 5. “Of some rare Plants and Animals,” Lond. 1570. 6. “De Canibus Britannicis,” Lond. 1570, and inserted entire in Pennant’s “British Zoology.” 7. “De pronunciatione Graecae et Latinae linguae,” Lond. 1574, with several other works, a history of his college, &c. still in manuscript. One only of his works we reserve for a more particular notice. This was his History of the university of Cambridge, occasioned by the appearance of a work written by the subject of our next article, in which it was asserted that Oxford was the most ancient university, founded by some Greek philosophers, the companions of Brutus, and restored by king Alfred in 870, consequently older than Cambridge. Dr. Caius, however, completely defeated his antagonist by going farther back in ancient history, and asserting, that Cambridge was founded by Cantaber, 394 years before Christ, and consequently was 1267 years older than Oxford Strype says that Caius published this work (in 1568, 8vo.) at the motion of archbishop Parker. It is to be regretted that either should have embarked in so ridiculous a controversy.

, 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.”

Mr. Keate’s life passed without any vicissitudes of fortune; he inherited an ample estate, which he did not attempt to increase otherwise than by those attentions which prudence dictated in the management of it. He was hospitable and beneficent, and possessed the good will of mank.nd in a very eminent degree. For the last year or two, his health visibly declined; but on the day he died, he appeared to be somewhat mended. His death was sudden, on June 27, 1797. He left one daughter, married in 17 y6 to John Henderson, esq. of the Adelphi. His widow died in 1800. At the time of his death, Mr. Keate was a bencher of the Temple, and a very old member of the royal and antiquary societies, of both which he had been frequently elected one of the council.

, an Irish historian, was born in the province of Munster, of English ancestry, and flourished in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, He was educated with a view to the Roman catholic church, and having received at a foreign university the degree of D. D. he returned to his native country, and became a celebrated preacher. Being well versed in the ancient Irish language, he collected the remains of the early history and antiquities of the island, and formed them into a regular narrative This work, which he finished about the time of the accession of Charles I. commences from the first planting of Ireland, after the deluge, and goes on to the seventeenth year of king Henry II. giving an account of the lives and reigns of one hundred and seventy-four kings of the Milesian race, replete with fictitious personages and fabulous narratives, which, however, it has been said, he gives as such, and does not impose them on his readers as true history. The work remained in ms. in the original language, till it was translated into English by Dermot O'Connor, and published in London in 1723; but a better edition appeared in 1738, with plates of the arms of the principal Irish families, and an appendix, not in the former, respecting the ancient names of places. Keating died about the middle of the seventeenth century, or, as some think, much earlier, about 1625. He wrote some pieces of the religious cast, and two poems, one, an “Elegy on the Death of the Lord Decies,” the other a burlesque on his servant Simon, whom he compares with the ancient heroes.

, an English lawyer, was the son of a lawyer of eminence, during Cromwell’s usurpation, and born in London, 1632. After a proper preparation, he was sent to Jesus -college, Oxford; whence he shortly removed to All-souls, of which he was made fellow by the parliament visitors in 1648. He took the degree of LL. B. in 1644; and, not long after, was admitted student at Gray’s inn, London, and became a barrister about 1658. The following year he went to Paris. After the restoration, he attended the King’s bench bar with extraordinary assiduity, continuing there as long as the court sat, in all the terms from 1661 to 1710, but was hardly ever known to be retained in any cause, or even to make a motion. He died suddenly, under the gate-way of Gray’s-inn, Aug. 1710, just as he was going to take the air in a coach. He was a man of incredible industry, for besides having published several books in his life-time, he left above 100 large folios, and more than 50 thick 4tos in ms. twenty of which are in the library of Gray’s-inn. Writing must have been his delight as well as employment, and became so habitual, that he not only reported the law cases at the King’s-bench, Westminster, but all the sermons at Gray’sinn chapel, both forenoon and afternoon, which amounted at last to above 4000. This was the mode of the times when he was young; and there is a mechanism in some natures, which makes them fond of proceeding as they have set out. He appears to have been a man of a singular turn in other respects, yet regular in his conduct, and very benevolent. The first work he undertook for the public was a new table, with many new references, to the statute-book, in 1674. 2. “An Explanation of the Laws against Recusants, &c. abridged,” 1631, 8vo. 3. “An Assistance to Justices of the Peace, for the easier Performance of their Duty,” 1683, folio; licensed by all the judges. 4. “Reports taken at the King’s-bench at Westminster, from the 12th to the 30th year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Lord King Charles II.” 1685, 3 vols. folio. This work was also licensed by the judges; but not being digested in th'e ordinary method of such collections, and having no table of references, it was not so well received as was expected; and the credit of it being once sunk, could not be retrieved, though the table was added in 1696. Indeed, as a reporter he does not stand high in the opinion of the profession. 5. Two essays, one “On Human Nature, or the Creation of Mankind;” the other, “On Human Actions.” These were pamphlets.

, an English prelate, born in 1713, was the younger son of Charles Keene, of Lynn, in Norfolk, esq. sometime mayor of that town, whose eldest son was sir Benjamin Keene, many years ambassador at Madrid, and K. B. who died Dec. 15, 1757, leaving his fortune to the subject of this article. Mr. Edmund Keene was first educated at the Charter-house, and afterwards at Caius college, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1730. In 1738 he was appointed one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall chapel, and made fellow of Peterhouse in 1739. In 1740 he was made chaplain to a regiment of marines; and, in the same year, by the interest of his brother with $ir Robert Walpole, he succeeded bishop Butler in the valuable rectory of Stanhope, in the bishopric of Durham. In 1748, he preached and published a sermon at Newcastle, at the anniversary meeting of the society for the relief of the widows and orphans of clergymen; and, in December following, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was chosen master of Peterhouse. In 1750, being vice-chancellor, under the auspices of the late duke of Newcastle, he verified the concluding paragraph in his speech on being elected, “Nee tardum nee timidum habebitis procancellarium,” by promoting, with great zeal and success, the regulations for improving the discipline of the university. This exposed him to much obloquy from the younger part of it, particularly in the famous “Fragment,” and “The Key to the Fragment,” by Dr. King, in which Dr. Keene was ridiculed (in prose) under the name of Mun, and in that of the “Capitade” (in verse), under that of Acutus, but at the same time his care and attention to the interests and character of the university justly endeared him to his great patron, so that in Jan. 1752, soon after the expirW tion of his office, which he held for two years, he was nominated to the see of Chester, vacant by the death of bishop Peploe, and was consecrated in Ely-house chapel on Palm Sunday, March 22. With this he held in commendam his rectory, and, for- two years, his headship, when he was succeeded, much to his satisfaction, by Dr. Law. In May following his lordship married the only daughter of Lancelot Andrews, esq. of Edmonton, formerly an eminent linen-draper in Cheapside, a lady of considerable fortune, and a descendant of the family of bishop Andrews. She died March 24, 1776. In 1770, on the death of bishop Mawson, he was translated to the valuable see of Ely. Receiving large dilapidations, his lordship procured an act of parliament for alienating the old palace in Holborn, and building a new one, by which the see has been freed from a great incumbrance, and obtained some increase also of annual revenue. “The bishopric,” it has been humorously observed, “though stripped of the strawberries which Shakspeare commemorates to have been so noted in Holborn, has, in lieu of -them, what may very well console a man not over-scrupulous in his appetites, viz. a new mansion of Portland stone in Dover-street, and a revenue of 5000l. a year, to keep it warm and in good repute.” Bishop Keene soon followed his friend Dr. Caryl, “whom,” he said, “he had long known and regarded, and who, though he had a few more years over him, he did not think would have gone before him.” He died July 6, 1781, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried at his own desire in bishop West’s chapel, Ely cathedral, where is a short epitaph drawn up by himself. “Bishop Keene,” it is observed by bishop Newton, “succeeded to Ely, to his heart’s desire, and happy it was that he did so; for, few could have borne the expence, or have displayed the taste and magnificence, which he has done, having a liberal fortune as well as a liberal mind, and really meriting the appellation of a builder of palaces. For, he built a new palace at Chester; he built a new Fly-house in London and, in a great measure, a new palace at Ely leaving onjy the outer walls standing, he formed a new inside, and thereby converted it into one of the best episcopal houses, if not the very best, in the kingdom. He had indeed received the money which arose from the sale of old Elyhouse, and also what was paid by the executors of his predecessor for dilapidations, which, all together, amounted to about 11,000l. but yet he expended some thousands more of his own upon the buildings, and new houses require new furniture.” It is chiefly on account of this taste and munificence that he deserves notice, as he is not known in the literary world, unless by five occasional sermons of no distinguished merit.

About 1711, several objections were urged against Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, in support of Des Cartes’s notions of a plenum; which occasioned Keill to draw up a paper, which was published in the “Philosophical Transactions,” “On the Rarity of Matter, and the Tenuity of its Compo sition,” in which he points out various phenomena, which cannot be explained upon the supposition of a plenum. But, while he was engaged in this controversy, queen Anne was pleased to appoint him her decipherer; a post for which he was, it seems, very fit. His sagacity was such, that, though a decipherer is always supposed to be moderately skilled in the language in which the paper given him to decipher is written; yet he is said once to have deciphered a paper written in Swedish, without knowing a word of the language. In 1713, the university conferred on him the degree of M. D. at the public act; and, two years after, he published an edition of Commandinus’s “Euclid,” with additions of his own, of two tracts on Trigonometry and the nature of Logarithms. In 1717 he was married to some lady, who recommended herself to him, it is said, purely by her personal accomplishments. The facetious Mr. Alsop wrote some lines on this occasion (Gent. Mag. vol. XXXVIII. 238), which intimate that Keill had been a man of gallantry in his youth; and this appears, indeed, to be confirmed by the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica. In 1718 he published his “Introductio ad veram Astronomiam:” which treatise was afterwards, at the request of the duchess of Chandos, translated by himself into English; and, with several emendations, published in 1721, under the title of “An Introduction to the true Astronomy, or, Astronomical Lectures read in the Astronomical Schools of the University of Oxford.” This was his last gift to the public; for he was seized this summer with a violent fever, which put an end to his life Sept. 1, 1721, when he was not quite fifty years old.

The king of Prussia received him with all possible marks of honour, made him governor of Berlin, and field marshal of the Prussian armies; to which places he annexed additional salaries. He likewise distinguished him so far by his confidence, as to travel with him in disguise over a great part of Germany, Poland, and Hungary. In business, he made him his chief counsellor; in his diversions, his constant companion. The king was much pleased with an amusement, which the marshal invented, in imitation of the game of chess. The marshal ordered several thousand small statues of men in armour to be cast by a founder: these he would set opposite to each other, and range them in battalia, in the same manner as if he had been drawing up an army: he would bring out a party from the wings or centre, and shew the advantage or disadvantage resulting from the several draughts which he made. In this manner the king and the marshal often amused themselves, and at the same time improved their military knowledge.

, or in Latin Cellarius, was born in 1568, at Seckingen. He entered the Jesuits’ order in 1588, was appointed rector of the college at Ratisbon, afterwards of that at Munich, and was for a long time confessor to prince Albert of Bavaria, and the princess his wife. The elector Maximilian had a particular esteem for him, and frequently employed him in affairs of the utmost importance. Keller disputed publicly with James Kailbrunner, the duke of Neuburg’s most celebrated minister, on the accusation brought against the Lutheran ministers, of having corrupted several passages quoted from the Fathers, in a German work entitled “Papatus Acatholicus;” their dispute was held at Neuburg, 1615. Father Keller died at Munich, February 23, 1631, aged sixty-three, leaving some controversial works, and several political ones, concerning the affairs of Germany, in which he frequently conceals himself under the names of Fabius Hercynianus, Aurirnontius, Didacus Tamias, &c. His book against France, entitled “Mysteria Politica,” 1625, 4to, was burnt. by a sentence of the Chatelet, censured in the Sorbonne, and condemned by the French clergy. It is a collection of eight letters respecting the alliance of France with England, Venice, Holland, and Transylvania. The “Canea Turturis,” in answer to the learned Gravina’s Song of the Turtle, is attributed to Keller.

, 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.

, 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.”

In 1805 he issued proposals for printing “A Triglot Dictionary of the Celtic tongue, as spoken in the Highlands of Scotland, Ireland, and the Isle of Man;” and bestowed considerable pains in bringing to completion this useful and curious work. It has been the misfortune of Celtic literature, that those learned persons whose maternal tongue happens to have been one of these dialects, faave usually treated it with neglect: but it has been its still greater misfortune to be overlaid and made ridiculous by the reveries of many of those whose “zeal” is utterly u without knowledge" of the subject on which they descant. Dr. Kelly furnished the rare and probably solitary example of a competent skill in these three last surviving dialects of the Celtic. With every aid which could be afforded by a well-grounded knowledge of the learned languages, and of the principal tongues now spoken in Europe, and with every attention to such prior memorials of the tongue as are really useful, Dr. Kelly proceeded, con amore, with his task. As it advanced, it was transmitted to the press: in 1808, 63 sheets were printed; and the first part of the Dictionary, English turned into the three dialects, was nearly or quite completed, when the fire at Messrs. Nichols’s, which we have had such frequent occasion to lament, reduced to ashes the whole i npression. The doctor’s Mss. and some of the corrected proofs, it is understood, remain with the family; but whether the printing may ever be resumed, is doubtful. The doctor gave to the press an Assize Sermon, preached at Chelmsford; and a sermon for the benefit of a certain charitable institution preached likewise at the same place. The former was printed at the instance of chief baron Macdonald; the latter, at the earnest request of the right hon. lord Woodhouse. In 1785 Dr. Kelly married Louisa, eldest daughter of Mr. Peter Dollond, of St. Paul’s church-yard. A short memoir was printed in 1808 of Mrs. Kelly’s grandfather, Mr. John Dollond, which we have already noticed in our account of that ingenious man. Whilst in possession of good health and spirits, with the prospect of many happy and ustful years yet to come, Dr. Kelly was seized by a typhus: after a short struggle, he expired Nov. 12, 1809, very sincerely regretted. To acuteness of intellect, sound and various learning, were added a disposition gentle, generous, and affectionate. His last remains, accompanied to the grave by his parishioners in a body, were interred on the 17th of November in his own parish-church, when an occasional discourse was delivered from the pulpit by the rev. J. G. Taylor, of Dedham near Colchester. Dr. Kelly left an only son, a fellow of St. John’s-college, Cambridge.

, a pious and learned regular canon, and one of the most eminent men in the fifteenth century, was born 1380, at Kemp, a village in the diocese oi Cologn, from whence he took his name. He studied at Deventer, in the community of poor scholars established by Gerard Groot, made great progress both in learning and piety, and in 1399 entered the monastery of regular canons of Mount St. Agnes, near Zwol, where his brother was prior. Thomas a Kempis distinguished himself in this situation by his eminent piety, his respect for his superiors, and his charity towards his brethren; and died in great reputation for sanctity, July 25, 1471, aged ninetyone. He left a great number of religious works, which breathe a spirit of tender, solid, and enlightened piety, of which a collection was printed at Antwerp, 1615, 3 torn. 8vo. The abbe de Bellegarde translated part of his works into French, under the title of “Suite du Livre de I'lmitation,” 24mo, and Pere Valette, under that of “Elevation a J. C. sur sa vie et ses mysteries,” 12mo. The learned Joducus Badius Ascensius was the first who attributed the celebrated book on the Imitation of Jesus Christ to Thomas a Kempis, in which he has been followed by Francis de Tob, a regular canon, who in favour of this opinion quotes the Mss. which may still be seen in Thomas a Kempis’s own hand. On the other hand, Pere Possevin, a Jesuit, was the first who attributed this work to the abbot John Gersen or Gessen, in his “Apparatus sacer,” which opinion has been adopted by the Benedictines of the congregations de St. Maur. M. Vallart, in his edition of the “Imitation,” supposes it to be more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and that it was written by Gersen. Those who wish to be acquainted with the disputes which arose on this subject between the Benedictines, who are for Gersen, and the regular canons of the congregation of St. Genevieve, who are for Thomas a Kempis, may consult the curious account of them which Dom. Vincent Thuilier nas prefixed to torn. 1. of Mabillon’s and Ruinart’s Posthumous Works, or Dupin’s History, who has also entered deeply into the controversy. The first Latin edition is 1492, 12mo, Gothic. There was at that time an old French translation under the title of ‘L’lnternelle Consolation,“the language of which appears as old as Thomas a Kempis, which has raised a doubt whether the book was originally written in Latin or French. The abbe” Langlet has taken a chapter from this ancient translation, which is not in the Latin versions. Dr. Stanhope translated it into English, and there are numerous editions of it in every known language.

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.”

Bishop Ken did not mix in any of the disputes or attempts of his party, though it is very probable he was earnestly solicited to it; since we find the deprived bishop of Ely, Dr. Turner, his particular friend, with whom fee had begun an intimacy at Winchester school, so deeply engaged in it. He never concurred in opinion with those nonjurors who were for continuing a separation from the established church by private consecrations among themselves, yet he looked on the spiritual relation to his diocese to be still in full force, during the life of his first successor, Dr. Kidder; but, after his decease in 1703, upon the nomination of Dr. Hooper to the diocese, he requested that gentleman to accept it, and afterwards subscribed himself “late bishop of Bath and Wells.” The queen, who highly respected him, settled upon him a pension of 200l. per annum, which was punctually paid out of the treasury as long as he lived. He had been afflicted from 1696 with severe cholicky pains, and at length symptoms being apparent of an ulcer in his kidneys, he went to Bristol in 1710 for the benefit of the hot wells, and there continued till November, when he removed to Leweston, near Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, a seat belonging to the hon. Mrs. Thynne. There a paralytic attack, which deprived him of the use of one side, confined him to his chamber till about the middle of March; when being, as he thought, able to go to Bath, he set out, but died at Longleate, in his way thither, March 19, 1710-11. It is said that he had travelled for many years with his shroud in his portmanteau; and that he put it on as soon as he came to Longleate, giving notice of it the day before his death, to prevent his body from being stripped.

, bishop of St. Andrew’s, Scotland, and founder of the college of St. Salvator there, was the younger son of James Kennedy, of Dunmure, by the lady Mary, countess of Angus, his wife, daughter of Robert III. king of Scotland. He was born in 1405, or 1406, and after some preparatory education at home, was sent abroad for his philosophical and theological studies. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by James I. to the bishopric of Dunkeld in 1437. In order to be better qualified to reform the abuses which had crept into his diocese, he undertook a journey to pope Eugenius IV. then at Florence, but the schism which then prevailed in the church of Rome prevented his procuring the necessary powers. The pope, however, to show his esteem for him, gave him the abbey of Scoon in commendam. In 1440, while he was at Florence, the see of St. Andrew’s becoming vacant, was conferred upon him: and on his return, after being admitted in due form, he restored order and discipline throughout his diocese. In 1444 he was made lord chancellor, but not finding his power equal to his inclination to do good in this office, he resigned it within a few weeks. The nation being much distracted by party feuds during the minority of James II. and bishop Kennedy finding himself unable to compose these differences, determined to go again abroad, and try what he could do in healing that schism in the papacy which had so long disturbed the quiet of the church. With this view he undertook a journey to Rome, with a retinue of thirty persons; and it being necessary to pass through England, he obtained a safe conduct from Henry VI. dated May 28, 1446.

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.

“Oriuna, on the medals of Carausius,” says Mr. Waipole, in his preface to Historic Doubts, “used to pass for the Moon; of late years it is become a doubt whether she was not his consort. It is of little importance whether she was moon or empress; but how little must we know of those times, when those land-marks to certainty, royal names, do not serve evn that purpose In the cabinet of the king of France are several coins of sovereigns whose country cannot be guessed at.”

, 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.”

Whatever offence this sermon might give to others, it did not offend the succeeding duke of Devonshire, to whom it was dedicated, who, on the contrary, recommended the doctor to the queen for the deanery of Peterborough, which he obtained in 1707. In 1709, he published “A Vindication of the Church and Clergy of England from some ]ate Reproaches rudely and unjustly cast upon them” and, “A true Answer to Dr. SacheverelPs Sermon before the Lord-Mayor, November 5 of that year.” In 1710, he was greatly reproached, for not joining in the London clergy’s address to the queen. When the great point in SacheverelPs trial, the change of the ministry, was gained, and addresses succeeded, an address was prepared from the bishop and clergy of London, so worded that they, who would not subscribe it, might be represented as enemies to the queen and her ministry. Dr. Kennet, however, refused to sign it, which was announced in one of the newspapers, Dyer’s Letter of Aug. 4, 1710. This zealous conduct in Kennet, in favour of his own party, raised so great an odium against him, and made him so very obnoxious to the other, that very uncommon methods were taken to expose him; and one, in particular, by Dr. Weiton, rector of WhitechapeL In an altar-piece of that church, which was intended to represent Christ and his twelve apostles eating the passover and the last supper, Judas, the traitor, was drawn sitting in an elbow-chair, dressed in a black garment, between a gown and a cloak, with a black scarf and a white band, a short wig, and a mark in his forehead between a lock and a patch, and with so much of the countenance of Dr. Kennet, that under it, in effect, was written “the dean the traitor.” It was generally said, that the original sketch was designed for a bishop under Dr. Welton’s displeasure, which occasioned the elbow-chair, and that this bishop was Burnet: but the painter being apprehensive of an action of Scandalum Magnatum, leave was given him to drop the bishop, and make the dean. Multitudes of people came daily to the church to admire the sight; but it was esteemed so insolent a contempt of all that is sacred, that, upon the complaint of others, (for the dean never saw or seemed to regard it, the bishop of London obliged those who set the picture up to take it down again. But these arts and contrivances to expose him, instead of discouraging, served only to animate him; and he continued to write and act as usual in the defence of that cause which he had espoused and pushed so vigorously hitherto. In the mean time, he employed his leisure-hours in things of a different nature; but which, he thought, would be no less serviceable to the public good. In 1713, he made a large collection of books, charts, maps, and papers, at his own expence, with a design of writing “A full History of the Propagation of Christianity in the English American Colonies;” and published a catalogue of all the distinct treatises and papers, in the order of time as they were first printed or written, under this title, “Bibliothecae Americanae primordia.” About the same time he founded “an antiquarian and historical library” at Peterborough; for which purpose he had long been gathering up pieces, from the very beginning of printing in England to the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. In the rebellion of 1715, he published a sermon upon “the witchcraft of the present Rebellion;” and, the two following years, was very zealous for repealing the acts against occasional conformity and the growth of schism. He also warmly opposed the proceedings in the convocation against Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor which was thought to hurt him so as to prove an effectual bar to his farther advancement in the church nevertheless, he was afterwards promoted to the see of Peterborough, November 1718. He continued to print several things after his last promotion, which he lived to enjoy something above ten years; and then died in his house in James’s-street, December 19, 1728. His numerous and valuable ms collections, which were once in the collection of Mr. West, were purchased by the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and sold with the rest of his lordship’s Mss. to the British Museum, where they are now deposited. Among these are two volumes in a large Atlas folio, which were intended for publication under the following comprehensive title “Diptycha Ecclesise Anglicanae sive Tabulae Sacrse in quibus facili ordine recensentur Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, eorumque Suffraganei, Vicarii Generales, et Cancellarii; Ecclesiarum insuper Cathedralium Priores, Decani, Thesaurarii, Praecentores, Cancellarii, Archidiaconi, & melioris notae Canonici, continua serie deducti a Gulielmi I. Conquestu, ad auspicata Gul. III. tempora.”

He was a man of great diligence and application, not only in his youth, but even to the close of his life; and like many other men of eminence, he began early that pursuit, which he more or less followed during the whole of his life. He assisted Anthony Wood in collecting materials for the “Athenae,” and would have probably given a valuable work of that kind to the world, had he found leisure to methodize and complete his collections, by which, however, men of research may yet be benefited. He had a very extensive and valuable library, collected at a great expence, and many of his happiest hours were spent there. He had one practice, into which most men of literary curiosity have fallen; that of writing notes, corrections, additions, &c. to all his books, many of which, thus illustrated, are now in various public and private libraries.

Among his works, besides those already noticed, are his 1. “Parochial Antiquities, attempted in the History of Ambroseden, Burcester, and other adjacent parts, in the counties of Oxford and Bucks,” Oxford, 1695, 4to. 2. “Preface to sir Henry Spelman’s History of Sacrilege,” 1698. 3. “Ecclesiastical Synods, and Parliamentary Convocations in the Church of England, historically stated, and justly vindicated from the misrepresentations of Mr. Atterbury,” Lond. 1701, 8vo. 4. “An occasional Letter, on the subject of English Convocations,” ibid. 1701. 5. “The History of the Convocation summoned to meet Feb. 6, 1700, &c.” ibid. 1702, 4to. 6. “The case of Impropriations, and of the Augmentation of Vicarages^ &c.” ibid. 1704, 8vo. 7. “Preface to sir Henry Spelman’s and Dr. Ryve’s two tracts,” ibid. 1704. 8. “Account of the Society for propagating the Gospel in foreign parts,” ibid. 1706, 4to. 9. “The Christian Scholar, in rules and directions for children and youth sent to English schools,” ibid. 1708. 10. “The French favourite, or the seven discourses of Balzac’s Politics,” ibid. 1709. 11. “A Letter, about a motion in convocation, to the rev Thos. Brett, LL.D.” ibid. 1712. 12. “A Memorial for Protestants on the 5th of November, &c. in a letter to a peer of Great Britain,” ibid. 1713. 13. “A Letter to the lord bishop of Carlisle, concerning one of his predecessors, bishop Merks, on occasion of a new volume for the Pretender, entitled, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted/' ibid. 1713. 14.” The wisdom of looking backwards to judge the better on one side and the other, by the speeches, writings, actions, and other matters of fact on both sides, for the four last years,“ibid. 1715, 8vo. This is a very curious volume, and fills up a gap in our literary history; but he rendered a more important service afterwards by his” Register and Chronicle," 1728, folio. Dr. Kennet published also a great many sermons on occasional subjects.

, younger brother of the preceding, was born Oct. 21, 1674, at Postling in Kent, the vicarage of his father, who bred this son also to the church. He was sent to Corpus Christ! college, Oxford, in 1690, where he soon distinguished himself by his uncommon abilities, and extraordinary advances in classical literature. He took the degree of M. A. in 1696, and commenced author the same year, by the publication of his “Romas Antiquae Notitia, or, The Antiquities of Rome; in two parts; 1. A short History of the Rise, Progress, and Decay of the Commonwealth. 2. A Description of the City an Account of the Religion, Civil Government, and Art of War with the remarkable Customs and Ceremonies, public and private with Copper Cuts of the principal Buildings, &c. To which are prefixed, Two Essays, concerning the Roman Learning, and the Roman Education,” in 8vo. The dedication is addressed to his royal highness William duke of Gloucester; and the work must have been written for his use particularly, if any credit may be given to a report, then at Oxford, that Mr. Ken net was to be appointed subpreceptor to that darling of the nation. This book being very well received by the public, he was encouraged to go on with his design of facilitating the study of classical learning; and with this view published, in 1697, “The Lives and Characters of the ancient Grecian Poets,” in 8vo, which he also dedicated to the duke of Gloucester. This, however, did not succeed so well as the “Roman Antiquities,” which is scarcely yet superseded in common use. The same year he was admitted fellow of his college, and became a tutor. About this time he entered into orders; and, some years after, gave proofs of the progress he had made in the study of divinity. In 1705 he published “An Exposition of the Apostles Creed, according to bishop Pearson, in a new Method, by way of Paraphrase and Annotations,” in 8vo, which was followed by “An Essay towards a Paraphrase on the Psalms, in Verse; with a Paraphrase on the third Chapter of the Revelations,” 1706, 8vo.

The same year he was, by the interest of his brother, appointed chaplain to the English factory at Leghorn; where he no sooner arrived than he met with great opposition from the papists, and was in great danger of the inquisition. This establishment of a church-of-England chaplain was a new thing; and the Italians were so jealous of the Northern heresy, that, to give as little offence as possible, he performed the duties of his office with the utmost privacy and caution. But, notwithstanding this, great offence was taken at it; and complaints were immediately sent to Florence and Rome. Upon this, the pope, and the court of inquisition at Home, declared their resolution to expel heresy, and the public teacher of it, from the confines of the holy see; and therefore secret orders were given to apprehend Mr. Kennet at Leghorn, and to hurry him away to Pisa, and thence to some other religious prison, to bury him alive, or otherwise dispose of him in the severest manner. Upon notice of this design, Dr. Newton, the English envoy at Florence, interposed his offices at that court; where he could obtain no other answer, but that “he might send for the English preacher, and keep him in his own family as his domestic chaplain; otherwise, if he presumed to continue at Leghorn, he must take the consequences of it; for, in those matters of religion, the court of inquisition was superior to all civil powers.” The envoy communicated this answer of the great duke to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state, who sent a menacing letter by her majesty’s order; and then the chaplain continued to officiate in safety, though he was with much difficulty preserved from their intended fury till that letter arrived.

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” *,

* Dr. King, in his " Apology, or fortune, yet above want; in youth,

At length, in 1769, the important work was concluded within the period of ten years, originally promised. On this occasion he published the ten annual accounts of the progress of this laborious undertaking, by which it appeared that the whole money received from the subscribers amounted to the sum of 9117l. 7s. 6cl. on the recital of which Dr. Kennicott exclaims, “Reader! What a sum is here! Let foreign nations rea,d with astonishment this story of Britons and their king, joined by one foreign prince and one foreign academy, voluntarily contributing for ten years their several bounties, with a degree of public spirit beyond all example, for the accomplishment of a work purely subservient to the honour of revelation; a work sacred to the glory of God, and the good of mankind! And, under the powerful influence of this view of my work, it js impossible for me to be sufficiently thankful, either to those xvho have honoured with their patronage me, as the humble instrument in beginning and completing it, or to Divine Providence for granting me life to finish it, as well as resolution to undertake it.” He then states, that after deducting his income to live on during these ten years, the money spent in collations abroad, and assistants at home, there remained only 500l. all which was likely to be swallowed up in further expences, which he had engaged to pay. His industry had been unremitted; his general rule being to devote to it ten or twelve hours in a day, and frequently fourteen; at least, he says, “This was my practice, till such severe application became no longer possible, through the injuries done to my constitution.” In this final statement, he also, with proper indignation, notices some insinuations which had been thrown on him during the progress of the work. He had declared at the outset of his undertaking, that he had no doubt of receiving from the public the reward of his labours. Accordingly, on the death of Dr. Ballard, in June 1770, he was appointed a prebendary of Westminster, which in October he exchanged for a canonry of Christ-church Oxford. His circumstances being thus rendered easy, he entered into the marriage state Jan. 3, 1771, with Miss Ann Chamberlayne, sister to Mr. Chamberlayne, one of the solicitors of the treasury, a lady of learned accomplishments, who still survives him.

In 1776 he gave the public the first fruits of his long and laborious task, by the publication of the first volume of the Hebrew Bible, with the various readings; and this was followed in 1780 by the second volume, with a general dissertation, which completed the work. He had enjoyed an extraordinary share of good health until near the conclusion of his labours, when the infirmities of age impaired his exertions, and terminated his life Aug. Is, 1783. He was buried in Christ-church cathedral. His last employment was to prepare for the press, “Remarks on select passages in the Old Testament; to which are added, eight sermons;” part was printed in his life-time, and the whole published in 1787. In the introduction he professes himself a zealous advocate for an authorized revisal of the English version of the Old Testament, and the great object of his work seems to be, to demonstrate the necessity and facilitate the execution of this project; but the propriety or necessity of such an interposition of authority has not yet appeared sufficiently obvious, and indeed the objections to it have been generally thought insuperable, Dr. Geddes’s attempt on the Old Testament, and a more recent Socinian translation of the New, are unfortunate examples of what may be done without authority. Referring to the works quoted in the note for further information on the controversies in which Dr. Kennicott’s labours involved him, we shall add, in the words of a judicious biographer, that if in brilliancy of genius, or elegance of taste, he had many superiors; if in the study of Oriental languages in general he was comparatively deficient; and if in critical acumen, and felicity of conjecture, he stood not in the very first rank; yet in a profound knowledge of Hebrew, and in the persevering industry with which he applied it to the illustration of the sacred page, he had few equals. His collation of the Hebrew Mss. was a work which added splendour to a great nation and an enlightened age. To the Hebrew scholar it unlocked the richest stores of sacred philology; while, by establishing the general purity of the Hebrew text, so far as the essentials of religion are concerned, it has confirmed the faith and hopes f every pious Christian.

We have yet to add an anecdote very honourable to his memory. He was for many years possessed of Mynhenyote, a very valuable living in Cornwall, in the gift of the dean and chapter of Exeter, and obtained for him by his steady friend bishop Lowth. It had been his avowed intention, as soon as his great work should be finished, to reside there, at least occasionally; but when that period arrived, he was in such a state of health, that the measure was altogether unadvisable. He, therefore, with the consent of the friends of his wife, and of herself, freely and voluntarily resigned the living about a year or more before his death. Dr. Kennicott never seems to have forgotten the humble station from which the liberality of his friends first raised him; and all his future preferments seem to have exceeded his wishes. Contentment, gratitude, and sincerity, were the leading features of his character.

, the son of a stay-maker at or near Watford in Hertfordshire, is said to have been brought up to some mechanical employment in London, most probably that of mathematical instrument maker, or, as others have reported, that of scale-maker. Whatever it was, he seems to have early abandoned it, and devoted his talents to the cultivation of literature, by which he supported himself during the remainder of a life which, from his unhappy temper, and irritable vanity, may be said to have passed in a state of warfare, as he was seldom without an enemy to attack or defend himself from. One account informs us that he was for some time a student at Leyden, and there received a degree of LL. D.: it was, however, more generally current that he had been indebted for this honour to some of the Scotch universities. In either case, it was not unworthily bestowed, for Dr. Kenrick was really a man of talents, and deficient only in the knowledge of making a proper use of them; it was his misfortune likewise to settle upon no regular plan of study, and to fancy himself equal to any task which his necessities imposed upon him.

The first appearance he made as an author, as far as we can trace him, was in a pamphlet, entitled “The grand question debated, or an Essay to prove that the soul of man is not, neither can it be, immortal,” 1751, which was immediately followed by a “Reply to the grand question debated, fully proving that the soul of man is, and must be, immortal.” Both are superficial enough, and seem intended as a trial of that author-craft which he afterwards so often practised, in attacking or defending himself, under anonymous signatures, when he found no one else disposed to do either. About the same time he published a poem entitled“” Kapelion, or the poetical ordinary;“which was followed in 1753, by the first of those attacks on his brethren which kept him in perpetual warfare. It was. entitled” The Pasquinade, with notes variorum, book the first,“4to, and intended as an imitation of the Dunciad. Dr. (afterwards sir John) Hill and Christopher Smart were the chief heroes. This was immediately followed by another imitation, equally unsuccessful, of Dodsley’s” (Economy of Human Life“(which then passed for lord Chesterfield’s), entitled” The whole Duty of a Woman," 12mo.

His “Epistles, Philosophical and Moral,” or “Epistle to Lorenzo,” appeared in 1758, and may be reckoned among the best specimens of his poetry, which is not without ease and elegance. As it was rather severely handled in the Critical Review, he defended himself, in a pamphlet without his name, entitled “A Scrutiny, or the Critics criticised.” It was not easy for him, however, in any shape, to vindicate what was too plainly a defence of infidelity, nor was it much excuse that it was written while under confinement for debt. About this time he probably obtained an engagement as a writer in the Monthly Review, which ceased in 1766, silently on the part of the proprietors of that work; but Dr. Kenrick thought the rupture of too much consequence to be concealed, and therefore announced, in the newspapers, in 1766, “that he declined to write any more in the Monthly Review; that he had been author of the Appendix to that work, consisting of a review of foreign publications, for the volumes 28 to 33 inclusive; and that he had formed connexions with several gentlemen of the first rank in the world of letters, for establishing a literary review on a new, liberal, and independent plan,”

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.

, 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.

Kepler had a particular passion for finding analogies and harmonies in nature, after the manner of the Pythagoreans and Platonists; and to this disposition we owe such valuable discoveries, as are more than sufficient to excuse his conceits. Three things, he tells us, he anxiously sought to find out the reason of, from his early youth viz. Why the planets were six in number? Why the dimensions of their orbits were such as Copernicus had described from observations? And what was the analogy or law of their revolutions? He sought for the reasons of the two first of these, in the properties of numbers and plane figures, without success. But at length reflecting, that while the plane regular figures may be infinite in number, the regular solids are only five, as Euclid had long ago demonstrated: he imagined, that certain mysteries in nature might correspond with this remarkable limitation inherent in the essences of things; and the rather, as he found that the Pythagoreans had made great use of those five regular solids in their philosophy. He therefore endeavoured to find some relation between the dimensions of these solids and the intervals of the planetary spheres > thus, imagining that a cube, inscribed in the sphere of Saturn, would touch by its six planes the sphere of Jupiter; and that the other four regular solids in like manner fitted the intervals that are between the spheres of the other planets: he became persuaded that this was the true reason why the primary planets were precisely six in number, and that the author of the world had determined their distances from the sun, the centre of the system, from a regard to this analogy. Being thus possessed, as ha thought, of the grand secret of the Pythagoreans, and greatly pleased with his discovery, he published it, as we have already observed, under the title of “Mysterium Cosmographicum;” and was for some time so charmed with it, that he said he would not give up the honour of having invented what was contained in that book, for the electorate of Saxony. Tycho Brahe, however, gave him advice on the subject, which altered his opinion, and to which we are indebted for the more solid discoveries of Kepler. This great man, soon after the death of Tycho, found that astronomers had erred from the first rise of the science, in ascribing always circular orbits and uniform motions to the planets and he discovered that each of them moves in an ellipsis, which has one of its foci in the centre of the sun that the motion of each is really unequable, and varies in such a manner, that “a ray supposed to be always drawn from the planet to the sun describes equal areas in equal times.” It was some years later before he discovered the analogy that there is between the distances of the several planets from the sun, and the periods in which they complete their revolutions. He has, however, left it upon record, that on the 15th of May, 1618, he found that “the squares of the periodic times are always in the same proportion as the cubes of the mean distances from the sun.” When Kepler saw, according to better observations, that his disposition of the five regular solids among the planetary spheres was not agreeable to the intervals between their orbits, he endeavoured to discover other schemes of harmony. For this purpose, he compared the motions of the same planet at its greatest and least distances, and of the different planets in their different orbits, as they would appear viewed from the sun; and here he fancied that he had found a similitude to the divisions of the octave in music. Of these notions, which are wholly unfounded in nature, he was so fond, that hearing of the discovery of the four satellites of Jupiter by Galileo, he owns that his first reflections were from a concern how he could save his favourite scheme, which was threatened by this addition to the number of the planets. The same attachment led him into a wrong judgment concerning the sphere of the fixed stars: for being obliged, by his doctrine, to allow a vast superiority to the sun in the universe, he restrains the fixed stars within very narrow limits; nor did he consider them as suns placed in the centres of their several systems, having planets revolving round them.

He supposes, in that treatise, that the motion of the sun on his axis, is preserved by some inherent vital principle; that a certain virtue, or immaterial image of the sun, ifc diffused with his rays into the ambient spaces, and, revolving with the body of the sun on his axis, takes hold of the planets, and carries them along with it in the same direction; like as a loadstone turned round near a magnetic needle, makes it turn round at the same time. The planet, according to him, by its inertia, endeavours to continue in its place, and the action of the sun’s image and this inertia are in a perpetual struggle. He adds, that this actionof the sun, like his light, decreases as the distance increases and therefore moves the same planet with greater celerity when nearer the sun, than at a greater dis tance. To account for the planet’s approaching toward the sun as it descends from the aphelion to the perihelion, and receding from the sun while it ascends to the aphelion again, he supposes that the sun attracts one part of each planet, and repels the opposite part; and that the part attracted is turned towards the sun in the descent, and the other towards the sun in the ascent. By suppositions of this kind, he endeavoured to account for all the other varieties of the celestial motions.

But, now that the laws of motion are better known than in Kepler’s time, it is easy to shew the fallacy of every part of this account of the planetary motions. The planet does not endeavour to stop in consequence of its inertia, but to persevere in its motion in a right line. An attractive force makes it descend from the aphelion to the perihelion in a curve concave towards the sun: but the repelling force, which he supposed to begin at the perihelion, would cause it to ascend in a figure convex towards the sun. It was shown afterwards, from sir Isaac Newton, how an attraction or gravitation towards the sun, alone produces the effects, which, according to Kepler, required both an attractive and repelling force; and that the virtue which he ascribed to the sun’s image, propagated into the planetary regions, is unnecessary, as it could be of no use for this effect, though it were admitted. For now his own prophecy, with which he concludes his book, is verified; where he tells us, that “the discovery of such things was reserved for the succeeding ages, when the author of nature would be pleased to reveal these mysteries.”

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.

, deserves mention as having been the author of a book on “The Elements of Algebra,” one of the clearest and most comprehensive of the kind in any language but nothing is known of his personal history. He also published an improved edition of “Wingate’s Arithmetic” and a “Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum, or General English Dictionary.” He lived in the reign of Charles the Second; and a head of him, by Faithorne, finely engraved, is prefixed to his algebra.

, an English divine, remarkable for piety and learning, was born at North-Allerton in Yorkshire, March 10, 1653. He was grounded in classical learning in the free-school of that town, and sent to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, in 1670. Five years after, he was chosen fellow of Lincoln college, through the interest of Mr. George Hickes, who was fellow of the same, where he became eminent as a tutor. He entered into orders as soon as he was of sufficient age, and distinguished himself early by an uncommon knowledge in divinity. He was very young when he wrote his celebrated book, entitled “Measures of Christian Obedience:” he composed it in 1678, though it was not published till 1681. Dr. Hickes, to whom he submitted it for correction, advised him to dedicate it to bishop Compton, intending, by that means, to have him settled in London and, accordingly, it came out at first with a dedication to his lordship but when that prelate appeared in arms against James II. Kettlewell gave orders to have the dedication razed out of the copies unsold, and also to have it omitted in the subsequent editions. In the mean time, this book occasioned him to be so much taken notice of, that the old countess of Bedford, mother of the unfortunate William lord Russel, appointed him, on that account, to be one of her domestic chaplains; and a greater favour he received, upon the same consideration, from Simon lord Digby, who presented him, July 1682, to the vicarage of Coleshill in Warwickshire. After he had continued above seven years at this place, a great alteration happened in his condition and circumstances; for, at the Revolution, being one of those conscientious men who refused to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king William and queen Mary, he was deprived of his living in 1690, However, he did not spend the remainder of his days in indolence; but, retiring to London with his wife, whom he had married in 1685, he continued to write and publish books, as he had done during his residence in the country. There, amongst other learned men, he was particularly happy in the friendship of Mr. Nelson, with whom he concerted the “Model of a fund of charity for the needy suffering, that is, the nonjuring, clergy:” but being naturally of a tender and delicate frame of body, and inclined to a consumption, he fell into that distemper in his 42d year, and died April 12, 1695, at his lodgings in Gray’s-inn Jane. He was buried, three days after, in the same grave where archbishop Laud was before interred, in the parish church of Allhallows- Barking, where a neat marble monument is erected to his memory. Mr. Nelson, who must needs have known him very well, has given this great and noble character of him, in a preface to his “Five Discourses/' &c. a piece printed after his decease” He was learned without pride wise and judicious without cunning; he served at the altar without either covetousness or ambition he was devout without affectation sincerely religious without moroseness courteous and affable without flattery or mean compliances just without rigour charitable without vanity and heartily zealous for the interest of religion without faction.“His works were collected and printed in 1718, in two volumes, folio they are all upon religious subjects, unless his” Measures of Christian Obedience,“and some tracts upon” New Oaths,“and the” Duty of Allegiance," &c. should be rather considered as of a political nature.

, a very learned English bishop, was born, as Wood says, at Brighthelmstone in Sussex, but as others say, in Suffolk. In June 1649, he was admitted sizar in Emanuel -college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. 1652, was elected fellow in 1655, and took his degree of A. M. in 1656. He was presented by his college to the vicarage of Stanground, in Huntingdonshire; from which he was ejected for nonconformity, in 1662, by virtue of the Bartholomew act; but conforming soon after, he was presented by Arthur earl of Essex to the rectory 01 Raine, in Essex, 1664. Here he continued till 1674, when he was presented to the rectory of St. Martin’s Outwicb, London, by the Merchant-tailors company. In September 1681, he was installed into a prebend of Norwich; and in 1689 made dean of Peterborough, in the room of Simon Patrick, promoted to the see of Chichester. On this occasion he took the degree of D. D. Upon the deprivation of Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, for not taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary, and Beveridge’s refusal of that see, Kidder was nominated in June 1691, and consecrated the August following. In 1693 he preached the lecture founded by the honourable Robert Boyle, being the second that preached it. His sermons on that occasion are inserted in his “Demonstration of the Messias,” in three parts; the first of which was published in 1694, the second in 1699, and the third in 1700, 8vo. It is levelled against the Jews, whom the author was the better enabled to combat from his great knowledge of the Hebrew and oriental languages, for which he had long been celebrated. He wrote also, “A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses; with a Disser tation concerning the author or writer of the said books, and a general argument to each of them.” This commentary was published in 1694, in two volumes, 8vo; and the reader in the preface is thus acquainted with the occasion of it: “Many years are now passed since a considerable number of the London clergy met together, and agreed to publish some short notes upon the whole Bible, for the use of families, and of all those well-disposed persons that desired to read the Holy Scriptures to their greatest advantage. At that meeting they agreed upon this worthy design, and took their several shares, and assigued some part to them who were absent. I was not present at that meeting; but I was soon informed that they had assigned to me the Pentateuch. The work was begun with common consent; we did frequently meet; and what was done was communicated from time to time to those that met together and were concerned. The methods of proceeding had been adjusted and agreed to; a specimen was printed, and an agreement was made when it should be put to the press. I finished my part in order thereto; but so it fell out, that soon after all this, the clouds began to gather apace, and there was great ground to fear that the popish party were attempting to ruin the church of England. Hence it came to pass that the thoughts of pursuing this design were laid aside; and those that were concerned in it were now obliged to turn their studies and pens against that dangerous enemy. During this time, also, some of the persons concerned in this work were taken away by death; and thus the work was hindered, that might else have been finished long since. I, having drawn up my notes upon this occasion, do now think myself obliged to make them public,” &c. To the first volume is prefixed a dissertation, in which he sets down, and answers all the objections made against Moses being the author of the Pentateuch; and having considered, among the rest, one objection drawn by Le Clerc, from Gen. xxxvi. 31, and spoken in pretty severe terms of him, some letters passed between them, which were printed by Le Clerc in his “Bibliotheque Choisie.” Dr. Kidder had likewise borne a part in the popish controversy, during which he published the following tracts: 1 “A Second Dialogue between a new Catholic Convert and a Protestant; shewing why he cannot believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though he do firmly believe the doctrine of the Trinity.” 2. “An Examination of Bellarmine’s Thirtieth note of the Church, of the Confession of Adversaries.” 3. “The Texts which Papists cite out of the Bible for the proof of their Doctrine, `of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' examined.” 4. “Reflections on a French Testament, printed at Bourdeaux, 1686, pretended to be translated out of the Latin by the divines of Louvain.” He published also several sermons and tracts of the devotional kind.

, 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.

, a celebrated Spanish rabbi in the twelfth century, son of Joseph, and brother of Moses Kimchi. He lived at Narbonne 1190, was appointed, 1232, arbiter of the dispute between the Spanish and French synagogues respecting the books of Maimonides; acquired great fame by his learning and writings, and died, in a very advanced age, about 1240. His Hebrew works are numerous, and so much valued by the Jews, that they consider no one as learned who has not studied them. The principal are, an excellent Hebrew grammar, entitled “Michlol, i.e. Perfection,” Venice, 1545, 8vo; Leyden, 1631, 12mo. This work has served as a model to all Hebrew grammarians. A book of “Hebrew Roots,” 1555, 8vo. or fol. without date. “Dictionarium Thalmudicum,” Venice, 1506, fol. “Commentaries” on the Psalms, Prophets, and most of the other books in the Old Testament. Kiuichi keeps chiefly to the literal and grammatical sense, and not unfrequently cites Jewish traditions. He discovers much less aversion to the Christians than the other rabbins, and his Commentaries are generally considered as the best which have been written by the Jews. His style is pure, clear, and energetic. Father Janvier translated his Comment on the Psalms into Latin, 1669, 4to, and his arguments against the Christians have been translated by Genebrard, 1566, 8vo.

may be see by the admirable specimens exhibited in the “Collection” which furnishes this brief memorial. It is not easy to determine whether his hexameters, his Alcaic odes, or his iambics, have the greatest share of merit. Even his epigrams, allowing the method of them to be truly epigrammatic, shew the hand of a master; and the whole of his performances prove him to be possessed of a genius which was by no means over-rated by the attention and the friendship of Milton.

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.

, a heraldic and commercial writer, the son of a father of both his names, was born at Lichfield, Dec. 15, 1648, and was educated at the grammarschool of that city, and at the age of fourteen had been taught Greek, Latin* and somewhat of Hebrew. At that age he was recommended by Dr. Hunter, of Lichfield, to sir William Dugdale, then Norroy, who took him into his service, which was very acceptable to his father, who had five other children to provide for; and Dr. Hacket, bishop of Lichfield, had intended to have sent him to the university, had not this opening taken place. He was at this time so small of his age, that when he became clerk to Dugdale, and for two years after, he was unable to mount a horse from the ground. Yet he accompanied that king of arms in his visitations, and tricked the arms of Staffordshire, which though not equal to what he afterwards did$ still remain in the college. He at that time applied himself to the French language, and painting of pedigrees > and within a year or two, painted several for Mr. Dugdale, particularly a large one of Claverin, of Northumberland, and some time after painting and engrossing the grants of arms filled up the greatest part of his time; but Dugdale gave him leave to take with him into the northern counties blank escocheons on vellum, upon which he depicted the arms of those who desired an attestation of them under Dugdale’s hand; and this he was enabled to do* instead of an arms painter, who had usually attended that officer of the college. He shewed uncommon attention to improvement during the time Dugdale visited his whole province, in 1662, and 1666, for he took prospects of the towns, castles, and other remarkable places in the counties through which he passed. In 1667 he passed into the service of lord Hatton, who was a great lover of antiquities, and the particular patron of Dugdale during the civil war; and now employed Mr. King until 1669, when he was dismissed with great promises of future kindness. He then went to Lichfield, where he found his father re-married; and here he supported himself for some time in the humble occupations of teaching writing and arithmetic, painting coaches, signs, and other kinds of work in oil colours, as hatchments, &c. and in instructing the registrar of the dean and chapter, and some other inquisitive persons, to read ancient records. At this time Mr. Chetwynd of Ingestry, invited him to peruse and transcribe his family muniments, which he did in a fair vellum book, tricking the most considerable seals.

At the end of this year, 1669, he became the steward, auditor, and secretary of the lady dowager Gerard, of Gerard’s Bromley, relict of Charles, and mother of Digby, lord Gerard. He resided with her ladyship’s father George Digby of Sandon, in Staffordshire, esq. until August, 1672. This task was somewhat arduous, for his predecessor, Mr. Chaunce, kept all his accounts, and other matters of moment, in characters which he had to decipher; and besides he drew and painted many things for lady Gerard, whilst inher service. From Staffordshire he went to London, where he renewed his acquaintance at the Heralds’ -college, paying a suitable attention to his old master, Dugdale. Here he became known to Hollar, the celebrated engraver. He recommended him to Mr. Ogilvy, to manage his undertakings, who having his majesty’s license to print whatever he composed or translated, kept a press in his house, and at that time was printing sir Peter Leicester’s “Antiquities of Chester.” Mr. King made his first attempt in etching some ancient seals in that work. Giving satisfaction he was employed in etching lome sculpts in Mr. Dugdale’s Esop (not the antiquary), fvhich was reduced from the folio to 8vo size, and several of Ogilvy’s “History of Asia,” vol. I. translated from De Meurs’ impression at Amsterdam. He also assisted in his new “Britannia,” travelling into Essex with the surveyor, Mr. Falgate, a native of that county. They in the middle of the winter, 1672, a very inclement one, took the ichnography of Ipswich, in Suffolk, and Maiden, in Essex, which were afterwards very curiously finished, and sent to those two places. He assisted and superintended the map of London, which Hollar engraved. He contrived and managed a lottery of books, to repay Mr. Ogilvy’s great expences in these concerns, and a lesser one of books for Bristol fair, which turned to good advantage, Mr. King attending there. He then engaged in Ogilvy’s “Book of” Roads," superintending the whole, digesting the notes, directing the engravings, three or four of which he executed with his own hand, which was the first time he attempted handling the graver. Mr. Ogilvy was so sensible of his merit and fidelity, that he treated him with peculiar; attention on all occasions, and allowed him a music-master to teach him to play upon the violin, and offered to renew his place of cosmographer to the king, and put his name in jointly, or in reversion; this he declined, but accepted the offer to undertake, on his own account, the map of Westminster, which he completed in 1675, on the scale of 100 feet to an inch. He employed himself also in engraving the letter-work of various maps. He laid out some of the principal streets of the metropolis, particularly those of Soho; and most of the first building articles, or leases, were drawn up by him. At length his connexions with the heralds procured him to be created Rouge-dragon in 1677, but the fees of this office being small, he found it expedient to continue his employment of engraving and herald-painting. He designed a map of Staffordshire; yet through sir Henry St. George, Norroy, and his old master, Dugdale, Garter, the duties of the office took a good part of his time. Being very useful to these kings at arms, they pressed him to remove to the college, which he did at Lady-day, 1680, Diigdale accommodating him with a chamber, and some other conveniences, and St. George with a kitchen. He assisted St. George in his visitations, as one of his deputies, in 1681 and 1682 and, upon the death of the duke of Norfolk, his successor nominated him registrar in the room of Mr. Devenish, York; although opposed by the college as without a precedent. He was also trusted and consulted about the burial of Charles II. the proclaiming and the coronation of his successor, and took a part in the magnificent publication of the latter ceremony with Mr. Sandford, Lancaster herald. The Revolution soon following, he became extremely useful in the ceremonial of William and Mary’s coronation. Mr. Sandford resigning his tajbard to him^ he became, for three or four months, Lancaster and Rouge-dragon, the patent not passing until-the following July.

, a learned English bishop, was great nephew of Robert King, the first bishop of Oxford, and son of Philip King of Wormenhale or Wornall, near Brill in Buckinghamshire, by Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Conquest of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire. He was born at Wornall about 1559, educated in Westminster-­school, and sent to Christ church, Oxford, in 1576; where he took, in due time, his degrees in arts. He was afterwards chaplain to queen Elizabeth; archdeacon of Nottingham in 1590; doctor of divinity in 1601; dean of Christ church in 1605; and bishop of London in 1611. Besides his “Lectures upon Jonah,” printed in 1594, h published several sermons. James I. used to style him “the king of preachers;” and lord chief justice Coke often declared, that “he was the best speaker in the star-chamber in his time,” He was so constant in preaching, after he was a bishop, that he never missed a Sunday, when his health permitted. He died March 30, 1621, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral. Soon after, the papists reported, that he died a member of their church, in a pamphlet entitled “The Bishop of London his Legacy;” but the falsity of this story was sufficiently exposed by his son Henry, in a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, Nov. 25, 1621, and by bishop Godwin, in the appendix to his “Commentarius de Prsesulibus Angliae.”

He published several works, viz. 1. “Sermons,” printed at different times. 2. “Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” 1628, and 1634, 4to. 3. “The Psalms of David, from the new translation of the Bible, turned into Metre, &c.” 165 1, 12mo. 4. “A deep Groan fetched at the Funeral of the incomparable and glorious monarch king Charles J.” 1649, in one sheet. 5. “Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, Sonnets,” 1657, 8vo. 6. Various Latin and Greek poems, published in several books. 7. There is a letter of his to Mr. Isaac Walton, concerning the three imperfect books of Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity; dated Nov. 17, 1664, and prefixed to Walton’s “Life of Hooker.” The merit of his poems, with extracts, has been ably discussed by Headley, Ellis, and Park, as appears by our authorities. He had a brother, John, who became a student of Christ church in 160$, and was afterwards public orator of the university, canon of Christ church in 1624, and the year following doctor of divinity and canon of Windsor, and about that time prebendary of St. Paul’s, and rector of Remenham in Berkshire. He died January 2, 1638-9, and was interred at Christ church in Oxford. He published a single sermon, and one or two Latin orations.

, 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.

In the mean time, he attracted the notice of the learned world, by a publication on a subject somewhat foreign from those which were connected with his professional studies, but which occupied no small portion of the time which he could spare from them. When he was in his twenty-second year, he published the first part of a work entitled, “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship, of the Primitive Church, that flourished within the fi*st three hundred years after Christ, faithfully collected out of the extant writings of those ages,” 1691, 8vo. This was written with a view to promote what was then thought very promising, the scheme of a comprehension with the dissenters: and the author had at least the merit of showing that spirit of peace, unity, and moderation, which would have done honour to all parties concerned; but his attempt to prove bishops and presbyters of the same order was not successful. He afterwards published the second part of the “Inquiry into the Constitution, &c.” and having solicited, in a modest and unaffected way to be shewn, either publicly or privately, any mistakes he might have made, that request was first complied with by Mr. Edmund Elys; between whom and our author several letters were exchanged upon the subject in 1692, which were published by Mr. Elys in 1694, 8vo. under the title of “Letters on several subjects.” But the most formal and elaborate answer to the “Inquiry”' appeared afterwards in a work entitled “Original draught of the Primitive Church,” by a Mr. Sclater, which is said to have made a convert of Mr. King himself.

Mr. King had not been many years at the Temple, when he had acquired as high a reputation for his knowledge in law, as he had before for his knowledge in divinity; and, in 1699, obtained a seat in the House of Commons, as representative for the borough of Beer- Alston, in. Devonshire; and the same honour was continued to him, not only in the ensuing and last parliament of king William, but in the five succeeding parliaments of queen Anne. In the mean time he published his inquiries into church history, and the history of early opinions, and having completed some collections he had already made, and digested them into proper order, he published, in 1702, “The History of the Apostles’ Creed, with critical Observations on its several articles,” 8vo; a treatise written with judgment and learning. Peter de Coste, who sent an abstract of it in French to Bernard, to be published in his “Nouvelles de la Republique de Lettres” for November and December, 1702, has related a very remarkable particular concerning it. He tells us that an English prelate, distinguished for his erudition, fancying it could only be a compilation from several discourses already printed, or perhaps an abridgment of Pearson’s “Exposition of the Creed,” who seemed to have exhausted the subject, began to read it with this disadvantageous prepossession; but was quickly convinced of his mistake, and surprized to find so many curious things, not to be met with in Pearson, and to observe so little borrowed from that writer’s “Exposition.”

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.

In 1690 he translated from the French of Monsieur and Madame Dacier, “The Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Roman Emperor; together with some select remarks on the said Antoninus’s Meditations concerning himself, treating of a natural man’s happiness, &c. as also upon the Life of Antoninus.” About the same time he wrote “A Dialogue shewing the way to Modern Preferment,” a humourous satire, which contains some solid truths, under the disguise of a conversation between three illustrious personages; the tooth-drawer to cardinal PortoCarero; the corn-cutter to pope Innocent XI.; and the receiver-general to an Ottoman mufti. On July 7, 1692, he took his degree of B. and D. LL. and Nov. 12, that year, by favour of abp. Tillotson, obtained a fat, which, admitting him an advocate at Doctor’s commons, enabled him to plead in the courts of the civil and ecclesiastical law. In 1693 he published a translation of “New Manners and Characters of the two great Brothers, the Duke of Bouillon and MareschalTurenne, written in French by James de Langdale, Baron of Saumieres.” Either in this, or early in the following year, appeared a very extraordinary morçeau, under the title of “An Answer to a Book which will be published next week entitled A Letter to the Rev. Dr. South, upon occasion of a late Book entitled Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s Book, entiiled A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity. Being a Letter to the Author.” In August 1694, Mr. Molesworth publishing his “Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692,” in which he treata the Danes and their monarch with great contempt, and takes the opportunity of insinuating those wild principles, by which he supposes liberty to be established, and by which his adversaries suspect that all subordination and government is endangered. Dr. King therefore took up his pen once more in his country’s cause, the honour of which was thought to be blemished by that account, Mr. Scheel, the Danish minister, having presented a memorial against it. Animated with this spirit, Dr. King drew up a censure of it, which he printed in 1694, under the title of “Animadversions on the pretended Account of Denmark.” This was so much approved by prince George, consort to the princess Anne, that the doctor was soon after appointed secretary to her royal highness.

In the progress of the controversy, Dr. King published his “Dialogues of the Dead,” written (as he says) “in self-defence,” and replete with that species of banter which was his peculiar talent, and which must have greatly mortified his adversary. How much Dr. King had this controversy at heart, may be seen by the various memoranda concerning it which are scattered up and down in his works. At the end of 1698, or early in 1699, came out “A Journey to London in the year 1698, after the ingenious method of that made by Dr. Martin Lister the same year;” which he designed as a vindication of his country. This was an excellent specimen of that particular humour in which he excelled. Dr. King thought it better than any of his former works, as he frequently wrote afterwards under the name of “The Author of the Journey to London.”

He next employed himself in finishing his “Art of Love,” with a preface containing the “Life of Ovid.” The doctor’s virtuous disposition is nowhere more remarkably distinguished than in this piece; in- which both the subject and the example so naturally lead into some less chaste images, some looser love which stands in need of a remedy. It is divided into fourteen books, most of them ending with some remarkable fable and interesting novel. In 1709 he also published, “The Art of Cookery, in imitation of Horace’s Art of Poetry; with some letters to Dr. Lister and others, occasioned principally by the title of a book published by the doctor, being the Works of Apicius Calms, concerning the soups and sauces of the ancients. With an extract of the greatest curiosities contained in that book.” Neither the poem nor any of the letters has a date; nor has “The Art of Love.” Whether we should impute this to our author’s indolence, or to affectation (for he has treated such exactness in his “Dialogues of the Dead” with some contempt), is uncertain; but he carried it to great excess. Even the volume of “Miscellanies,” which he collected himself, is without a date, either in the general title-page, or in that of any particular tract.

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.

We have two publications of Dr. King, in the course of this year, besides his “Rufinus” already mentioned. One was “Britain’s Palladium; or lord Bolingbroke’s Welcome from France.” This was published Sept. 13, 1712. The other piece was, “Useful Miscellanies,” Part I. 1712. He seems to have intended a continuation, if his life had been prolonged. As autumn advanced, the doctor drooped insensibly, and then neither cared to see, or to be seen by, any one: and, winter drawing on, he shut himself up entirely from his nearest friends; and would not even see his noble relation, till his lordship, hearing of his weak condition, sent his sister to fetch him in a chair to a lodging he had provided for him opposite Somerset- house in the Strand, where, next day, about noon, being Chrisrmasday, 1712, he yielded up his breath, with the patience and resignation of a philosopher, and with the true devotion of a Christian hero; but would not be persuaded to go to rest the night before, or even to lie down, till he had made such a will as he thought was agreeable to the inclinations of lord Clarendon. After his death, this noble lord took care of his funeral; and had him decently interred in the North cloisters of Westminster-abbey, where he lies next to his master Dr. Knipe, to whom he had a little before dedicated his “Historical Account of the Heathen Gods.” In 1732, his “Remains,” with an account of his life and writings, were published. They were republished in 1734, under the new title of “Posthumous Works,” and with the addition of the editor’s name, “Joseph Brown, M. D.” who purchased the original manuscripts from Dr. King’s sister; and again, with a title to the same purport, in 1739. They are incorporated by Mr. Nichols in a complete edition of Dr. King’s “Original Works in verse and prose,” 1776, 3 vols. 8vo, in such places as were most suitable to the connexion of the respective pieces. The most striking parts of our author’s character are these: In his morals, he was religious and strictly virtuous. He was a man of eminent learning and singular piety, strictly conscientious in all his dealings, and zealous for the cause rather than the appearance of religion. His chief pleasure consisted in trifles and he was never happier than when he thought he was hid from the world yet he loved company, provided they were such as tallied with his humour (for few people pleased him in conversation). His discourse was chearful, and his wit pleasant and entertaining. His philosophy and good sense prevailed over his natural temper, which was sullen, morose, and peevish; but he was of a timorous disposition, and the least slight or neglect would throw him into a state of despondency. He would say a great many ill-natured things, but never do one. He was made up of tenderness and pity, and tears would fall from him on the smallest occasion. Of his poetry, Dr. Johnson says, that “it will naturally be supposed his poems were rather the amusements of idleness, than efforts of study that he endeavoured rather to divert than astonish that his thoughts seldom aspire to sublimity, and that, if his verse was easy and his images familiar, he attained what he desired.” His talent for humour, however, was his great excellence, and in that we know not where to find his equal.

, 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.

, one of the earliest puritan divines, was born at Sidmanton, in Hampshire, in 1538, educated at Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and elected fellow of All-souls in 1558. He first studied civil law, and had made very considerable proficiency in it, when a careful perusal of the Holy Scriptures led him to the profession of divinity. So much was he intent on the sacred volume, and such his strength of memory, that he could readily repeat by heart in Greek, the whole of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, the first Epistle of John, and other parts of the New Testament. Having taken orders, he became very early an admired preacher at Oxford, at a time when preachers were so scarce, the Roman catholic clergy having left the place, that Wood informs us Dr. Humphrey, Dr. Sampson, and Mr. Kingsmill, were all the university could boast. It appears, however, that Mr. Kingsmill was dissatisfied with the habits or ceremonies, and went therefore to Geneva, where he found a church more suited to his opinions on these points, and where he was much admired for his learning and piety. He removed afterwards to Lausanne, and died there in September 1569, in his thirty-first year. Wood says he was too good for this world, and left behind him a most excellent pattern of piety, devotion, and every other virtue. He published, 1. “A View of Man’s Estate, wherein the great mercy of God in man’s free justification is shewed,” Lond. 1574, 1580, &c. 3vo. 2. “A Godly Advice touching Marriage,” ibid. 1580, 8vo. 3. “Excellent and comfortable Treatise for such as are either troubled in mind, or afflicted in body,” ibid. 1577, 1578, 1585. 4. “Godly and learned Exhortation to bear patiently all afflictions for the Gospel of Christ,” 1577. There is some doubt whether this was his production. 5. “Conference between a learned godly Christian, and an afflicted Conscience,” ibid. 1585, 8vo. All these were posthumous, and edited by his friend Francis Mylls, of AllSouls college. He was the author also of a sermon, and of some pieces in the collection at the end of Burnet’s “Hist, of the Reformation.” Thomas Kingsmill, Hebrew professor at Oxford in 1569, was probably a near relation of this author, as he was born at the same place. In 1579 he became disordered in his senses, and the celebrated Hooker was his substitute as Hebrew professor for some years.

Dr. Kippis continued to prosecute his other useful labours without intermission; and till within a fortnight of his death, his friends had no reason to imagine that they were so near their close. In the course of the summer, a few weeks before his death, he took a long journey on public business, and returned, as his fellow-travellers apprehended, with recruited spirits and established health; and they were equally surprised and grieved when they heard that he was confined to his bed with a fever, which baffled the skill of the most eminent physicians, and was hastily advancing to the fatal crisis. His disorder was of such a nature, that he found himself both disinclined and unable to make any exertion, or to converse much even with his most constant attendants. There is reason, however, to believe, that in a very early stage of his disorder he was not without apprehensions of its terminating in his dissolution. The last public service he performed was on the 20th of September, 1795 and on Thursday evening, the 8th of October, he expired, in the seventy- first year of his age.

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.

Notwithstanding those qualifications for this great undertaking just mentioned by his biographer, and for which we are as much disposed to give him credit as the most zealous of his admirers, we have often taken occasion, as our readers may perceive, to differ from him in his estimate of many eminent characters. Whether from timidity, or a false notion of liberality of sentiment, Dr. Kippis was accustomed to yield too much to the influence of connexion and of private friendship; to give the pen out of his own hand, and to suffer the relatives or interested admirers of certain persons to write lives according to their own views, in which opinions were advanced that we are certain could not have his sincere concurrence. Nor do we discern that judgment in the coriduct of this work for which he has been so highly praised, and for want of which, had he lived to so distant a period, it must necessarily have been protracted to an immense extent, if written upon the same plan. Instead of re-writing, or methodizing those lives which were injudiciously or incorrectly given in the first edition of the “Biographia,” his practice was to give the article verbatim as it stood in that edition, and then to make his additions and corrections; thus giving the whole the air of a tedious controversy between himself and the preceding editors. Many of his additions, likewise, were of that redundant nature, that no reasonable prospect could be entertained of the termination of the work. Indexes to volumes of sermons, with the texts, extracts of opinions from magazines and reviews (many of which he had himself written in these journals), and from every author that had incidentally mentioned the object of his narrative, threatened, what in fact took place, that this work, with all the assistance he had, was little more than begun after the lapse of twenty years from his advancing age became more irksome as he proceeded and at last was left in a state which forbids all hope of completion upon his plan. Had it, however, been entrusted to him at an earlier period of life and vigour, we are persuaded that his many qualifications for the undertaking would have been exerted in such a manner as to obviate some, at least, of these objections, which we notice with reluctance in the case of a man whom we knew personally and highly respected. We can cordially, therefore, as far as respects his personal character, acquiesce with his affectionate biographer, who states that “his mild and gentle temper, his polished manners, his easy and graceful address, and a variety of external accomplishments, prepossessed those who first saw him in his favour, and could not fail to conciliate esteem and attachment on a more intimate acquaintance. These qualities contributed very much to recommend him to persons in the higher ranks of life, to several of whom he had occasional access; and qualified him, in a very eminent degree, for the situation in which he exercised his ministerial office. But he was no less condescending, courteous, and affable to his inferiors, than to those who occupied superior stations. Dr. Kippis had nothing of that austerity and reserve, of that haughtiness and superciliousness, of that parade and self-importance, and ostentatious affectation of dignity, which forbid access, and which mar the freedom and the pleasure of all the social intercourses of life.”

, 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.

, a learned German, was born in 1575, at Lubeck, where his father was a merchant. He studied in his native place till he was eighteen years of age, and then went to Francfort on the Oder, where he continued four years, in a constant attendance upon lectures, and close application to his books. He afterwards studied in the university of Jena, and then in that of Strasburg; and some time after, a burgo-master of Luneburg, who had received a great character of him, chose him to accompany his son as trasrelling tutor, into France and Italy. He returned to Germany in 1602; and, stopping at Rostock, acquired so much reputation, that the next year he was appointed professor of poetry. The work which he published in 1604, “De funeribus Romanorum,” added not a little to his fame. He afterwards published another work, “De annulis,” which was also much esteemed, as a correct illustration of those antiquities. He was much employed in education, and a great many scholars were sent to him from the other cities of Germany. At length the magistrates of Lubeck, wanting a new principal or rector for their college, desired him to take that office upon him; and he was accordingly installed into it in 1613. He performed the functions of it the remainder of his days with the greatest care, and it is unjustly that some have attributed the decline of the college, which happened in his time, to his negligence. He died, March 20, 1643; and the 4th of May, his funeral oration was pronounced at Lubeck, by James Stolterfhot, who had married his eldest daughter.

, a celebrated Irish preacher, descended from an ancient Roman catholic family, was born in Galway, about 1754. He was sent in early youth to the college of the English'Jesuits at St. Omer’s; and at the age of seventeen embarked for the Danish island of St. Croix, in the West Indies, under the protection of his father’s cousin-german, who had large possessions there; but after enduring for six years a climate pernicious to his delicate constitution, and spectacles of oppression and cruelty shocking to his feelings, he returned to Europe in disgust. He then went to the university of Louvain, where he received priest’s orders, and was soon after honoured with the chair of natural and moral philosophy. In 177$ he was appointed chaplain to tfye Neapolitan ambassador at the British court, and at this time attained some fame as a preacher, and published some sermons, of which, however, we find no notice in any literary journal, and as his family could not discover any copies, we suspect his biographer has been mistaken in this point. In 1787 he resolved to conform to the established religion, for what reason we are not told, unless “a conviction that he should thus obtain more extensive opportunities of doing good.” He was accordingly introduced by the rev. Dr. Hastings, archdeacon of Dublin, to his first protestant congregation, in St. Peter’s church, where he preached on June 24th of that year. His audience was impatient to hear the causes of his conversion, but neither at this time, nor any other, either in the pulpit, or in his most confidential communications, did he “breathe a syllable of contempt or reproach against any religious persuasion whatever.”

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.

Wonders are told of his popularity. Whenever he preached, such multitudes assembled that it was necessary to defend the entrance of the church by guards and palisadoes. He was presented with addresses and pieces of plate from every parish, and the freedom of various corporations; his portrait was painted and engraved by the most eminent artists, and the collections at his sermons far exceeded any that ever were known. F.ven in times of public calamity and distress, his irresistible powers of persuasion repeatedly produced contributions exceeding a thousand or twelve hundred pounds at a sermon; and his hearers, not content with emptying their purses into the plate, sometimes threw in jewels or watches, as earnest of further benefactions. He died, exhausted as we are told, by the fatigues of his mission, Oct. 27, 1805, leaving a widow with two sons and two daughters, to whom his majesty granted a pension of 30l. a year for the life of the widow, with reversion to the daughters. In 1814, a volume of his “Sermons” was printed for the benefit of his sons, who are not included in the above provision. From these it would be difficult to discover the causes of his extreme popularity. There are in them many animated and brilliant passages addressed to the feelings and passions, and these, we presume, were assisted by a manner suited to his audience, of which we can form no opinion. His talents, however, as directed to one point, that of recommending charity, were unquestionably successful beyond all precedent, and his private character well corresponded to his public sentiments. He was a man of acute reeling, amiable, humane, and beneficent.