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

His manners and behaviour were easy, affable, and courteous. He was accessible and communicative, much a friend to the younger clergy, recollecting how greatly he had himself been indebted to the kindness of early patrons and was always ready to assist them in their studies and, according to their merit, to promote them in the church. He was also liberal to the poor, and generous to his relations.

, 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 This, however, did not succeed so well as the “Roman Antiquities,” which is scarcely yet superseded in common use.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.

He continued at Leghorn, and persevered with great steadiness in his duty, till the bad state of his health obliged him to think of returning to his native air. He arrived at Oxford in 1714: he was also admitted D. D. the same year. But he lived to enjoy these new honours a very short time; for, his health having been much impaired in Italy, he died of a slow fever, Jan. 1714-15. A little before his death, he finished the preface to a volume, which came out under the title of “Sermons on several occasions, preached before the Society of British Merchants in foreign Parts.” Lond. 1715, 8vo.

, a very learned divine, the son of Benjamin Kennicott, parish clerk of Totnes in Devonshire, was born April 4, 1718, at that place. From his early age he manifested a strong inclination for books, which his father encouraged by every means within the compass of his ability; for he had from the scanty pittance of a parish clerk , and the profits of a small school, saved money to purchase a very good library. Dr. Kennicott was placed as a foundation boy under the care of Mr. Row, then master of the grammar-school at Totnes, where he distinguished himself by industry and regularity of conduct. At this school he continued about seven years, with a constant wish and expectation of one day being sent to the university. After he left Mr. Row, he became master of the charity-school in Totnes, and occasionally added to the small emoluments of his school by writing for the attornies. A short poem which he wrote, entitled “Bidwell,” recommended him to the attention of the neighbouring gentlemen; and before he was thirty, he published a poem on the recovery of Mrs. Courtenay of Painsford. This strongly entitled him to her favour, and subscriptions were solicited for his support, at Oxford, to the success of which scheme he now bent all his efforts but every exertion, on the first attempt, failed and a mind less firm than, his, would, perhaps, have sunk under the disappointment. Soon after, however, another subscription was set on foot, under the auspices of the benevolent Mr. Allen of Bath, in consequence of which, in 1744, he was entered of Wadham college, where he soon proved that he was deserving of the patronage conferred upon him. In 1747 he produced his first performance, entitled “Two Dissertations: the first, On the Tree of Life in Paradise, with some observations on the Creation and Fall of Man: the second, On the Oblations of Cain and Abel,” 8vo, printed at the university press. To this work he prefixed a dedication, addressed to a numerous list of benefactors, to whom h had been indebted for his education, which speaks strongly the language of an humble and grateful heart; and of this, indeed, he exhibited many proofs in the course of his life. The approbation bestowed on this performance was not without some mixture of opposition, and some answers appeared against it. It procured him, however, so much reputation at Oxford, that a vacancy for a fellowship of Exeter college occurring before he could qualify himself to be a candidate by taking his first degree, the university, as a mark of favour, conferred his bachelor’s degree on him before the statutable period, and without fees. Soon, after, he was elected fellow of Exeter college, and on the 4th of May 1750, took the degree of M. A.

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” *,

right hand (I am now drawing a real of her communion; qualified by uncharactcr), behold a man born to no common reading to judge of his ow and, as it was supposed, in a newspaper then published, entitled “The Evening Advertiser.” About this time he was appointed one of the preachers at Whitehall. In January 1757, he preached before the university of Oxford a sermon, which, being misrepresented, occasioned its publication under the title of “Christian Fortitude.” Between this period and 1760 he was presented to the vicarage of Culham, in Oxfordshire.

He had now employed himself for several years in searching out and collating Hebrew Mss. It appears, when he began the study of the Hebrew language, and for several years afterwards, he was strongly prejudiced in favour of the integrity of the Hebrew text; taking it for granted that if the printed copies of the Hebrew Bible at all differed from the originals of Moses and the prophets, the variations were very few and quite inconsiderable. In 1748 he was convinced of his mistake, and satisfied that there were such corruptions in the sacred volume as to affect the sense greatly in many instances. The particular chapter which extorted from him this conviction, was recommended to his perusal by the rev. Dr. Lowth, afterwards bishop of London. It was the 23d chapter of the 2d book of Samuel. Being thus convinced of his mistake, he thought it his duty to endeavour to convince others; and accordingly in 1753 published the work already mentioned. In 1758 the delegates of the press at Oxford were recommended by the Hebrew professor to encourage, amongst various other particulars, a collation of all those Hebrew Mss. of the Old Testament, which were preserved in the Bodleian library; and archbishop Seeker strongly pressed our author to undertake the task, as the person best qualified to carry it into execution. In 176O he was prevailed upon to give up the remainder of his life to the arduous work, and early in that year published “The State of the printed Hebrew text considered, Dissertation the Second,” 8vi, in which he further enforced

himself, will cause deep distress among p. 41. the necessity of the collation he had so strenuously recommended. In the same year he published his proposals, and was immediately encouraged by a liberal subscription from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; the archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin many of the bishops some noblemen the principal of the dissenting ministers and various clergymen, as well as other encouragers of literature. The time he proposed to be employed in the work was ten years, and he set about to fulfil his engagement with alacrity; determining to exert the utmost of his endeavours to serve the public, and not at all doubting the generosity of the public for the reward of his labours. On the 6th of December 1761, he took the degree of B. D. and on the 10th of the same month that of D. D. In that year his majesty’s name was added to the list of annual subscribers for the sum of 200l.; and about this time he was presented to his majesty at court.

The importance of the work being generally acknowledged, numberless articles of information were received from various parts of Europe, and the learned in everyquarter seemed willing to promote the success of a plan so apparently beneficial to the interests of revelation. Some, however, doubted the necessity, and some the usefulness of the undertaking; and objections soon were started by different persons, some with a friendly view, and some with a petulant one. Amongst others, the professor of divinity at Cambridge, Dr. Rutherforth, published, “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Kennicott, in which his Defence of the Samaritan Pentateuch is examined, and his Second Dissertation on the State of the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament is shewn to be in many instances injudicious and inaccurate. With a postscript, occasioned by his advertizing, before this Letter was printed, that he had an Answer to it in the press,” 1761, 8vo. To this Dr. Kennicott published an immediate reply, under the title of “An Answer to a Letter from the Rev. T. Rutherforth, D. D. F. R. S.” &c. 1762, 8vo, in the postscript to which he declared it to be his resolution not to be diverted from his principal design by engaging in any further controversy.

This resolution he was unable to persevere in. An antagonist of superior order, whose influence was too mighty to be treated with neglect, made his appearance. This was Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, then possessed of all his powers, and exercising authority in the world of letters almost without controul. This learned writer, finding an explanation of a passage in the Proverbs different from his own sentiments, attacked the Collation of the Hebrew Mss. in the Preface to his Doctrine of Grace, 1764, in a style not unusual with him, and calculated to make an unfavourable impression on the public mind. To repel the attack, Dr. Kennicott published “A Sermon preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s church, on Sunday May 19, 1765,” 8vo, in the notes to which he defended himself with great spirit, and even assailed his opponent, whose reflections, he observed, with regard to his work, were a mere fortuitous concourse of words, of heterogeneous and incompatible meanings, which were incapable of forming any regular system of opposition, and had therefore the benevolent faculty of destroying One another.

In the summer of 1766 he visited Paris for the purpose of examining the Mss. in that place, and was received with the honours due to him on account of his learning and diligence, and of the utility of his undertaking. In November 1767 he was appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury, and the other electors, to the office of Radcliffe librarian. In 1768 he published “Observations on the First Book of Samuel, chap. vi. verse 19,” 8vo. These were dedicated to Dr. Lowth, the earliest and most steady encourager of the work. They were the fruit of his visit to Paris, and were soon after translated into French.

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.

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

In January 1775, he commenced his “London Review,” and along with his own name, placed in the title those of H. Reimarus, J. U. D. R. Williams, M D. E. Warner, A. M. and the rev. S. T. Maty. Except Reimarus, we believe it will be difficult to find these names in any list of “gentlemen of the first rank in the world of letters.” Review, however, went on for some years, and contains, from the pen of its chief author, repeated attacks upon his brethren in every profession. It continued a few months after his death, and then sunk into oblivion. In the same year 1775, he began a translation of Buffon, to be published in numbers, and in 1778 a translation of Voltaire’s works. His last dramatic attempt was “The Lady of the Manor,” a comic opera, taken from Johnson’s “Country Lasses;” and his last original publications, both of some degree of merit, were “Observations on the marriage contract;” and “Observations on Jenyns’s View of the Internal Evidence, &c.” This last had formed an article in his Review, whence other articles of equal ability might be selected, were they not all contaminated by a style vituperative and malignant. In his latter days, his constitution was so much injured by inebriety, that he generally wrote with a bottle of brandy at his elbow, which at length terminated his career June 10, 1779, less lamented than perhaps any person known in the literary world, yet possessed of talents which, under a steady and virtuous direction, might have procured him an honourable place among the authors of his time.

, an ingenious artist, was born in Yorkshire, in 1685, and put apprentice to a coach-painter, but, feeling the superiority of his talents, he left his master, and came up to London, where he soon proved himself worthy of encouragement and patronage. In 1710 he was sent, by the munificence of some gentlemen of his own country, to Rome, whither he accompanied Mr. Tallman. There he studied under Cavalier Luti, and in the academy gained the second prize of the second class. He also became acquainted with lord Burlington, whose sagacity discovered the rich vein of genius that had been hid even from himself; and, on their return to England in 1719, lodged him in his own house, and shewed for him all the marks of the most disinterested friendship. By his interest he was employed in various works, both as a painter in history and portrait; and yet there appear but very faint traces of that creative talent he displayed in a sister art. His portraits did not resemble the persons that sat for them. His colouring was worse than that of the most errant journeyman to the profession; and his drawing was defective, witness the hall at Wanstead, and his picture at St. Clement’s. Fie designed some of the drawings of Gay’s Fables, the prints for Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and the vignettes to the large edition of Pope’s works. In architecture, however, of the ornamental kind, he was deservedly admired he executed the temple of Venus at Stowe the earl of Leicester’s house at Holkham in Norfolk; the great hall at Mr. Pelham’s, Arlington-street; and the stair-case at lady Isabella Finch’s in Berkeley-square. Mr. Walpole considers him likewise as the inventor of modern gardening, in which it is certain that he excelled, and every thing in that branch has been since his time more natural, graceful, and pleasing. By the patronage of the dukes of Grafton and Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and the earl of Burlington, he was made master-carpenter, architect, keeper of the pictures, and, after the death of Jervas, principal painter to the crown; the whole, including a pension of 100l. a year, which was given him for his works at Kensington, produced 600l. a year. In 1743 he was disordered in his eyes, but recovered, and in March 1748 an inflammation in his bowels put an end to his life at Burlington-house, April 12, 1748, aged sixty-three years. He was buried in lord Burlington’s vault at Chiswick.

, 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.

Kepler’s great sagacity, and continual meditations en the planetary motions, suggested to him some views of the true principles from which these motions flow. In his preface to the Commentaries concerning the planet Mars, he speaks of gravity as of a power that was mutual between bodies, and tells us, that the earth and moon tend towards each other, and would meet in a point, so many times nearer to the earth than to the moon, as the earth is greater than the moon, if their motions did nqt hinder it. He adds, that the tides arise from the gravity of the waters towards the moon. But not having notions sufficiently just of the laws of motion, it seems he was not able to make the best use of these thoughts; nor does it appear that he adhered to thorn steadily, since in his Epitome of Astronomy, published many years after, he* proposes a physical account of the planetary motions, derived, from different principles.

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.”

, a celebrated English admiral, the second son of William earl of Albemarle, was born April 2, 1725. He entered the sea-service while he was young, accompanied commodore Anson round the world, and by the zeal which he manifested in his profession, was raised to the first honours which it had to bestow. The most important occurrence in his life took place in 1778, when he had the command of the channel fleet, to which he had been appointed at the personal and urgent solicitation of the king, and which he readily accepted, though he could not help observing, that “his forty years’ services were not marked by any favour from the crown, except that of its confidence in the time of danger.” On the 12th of July he fell in with the French fleet, under count d'Orvilliers, off Ushant: an engagement ensued, which, though partial, was very warm while it lasted. It was necessary to take a short time to repair the damages: which being done, the admiral made proper signals for the van and rear division to take their respective stations. This order was obeyed with great alacrity by sir Robert Harland of the van, but admiral sir Hugh Palliser of the rear took no notice of the signal, and refused to join his commander, till night prevented a renewal of the battle. The French, taking advantage of the darkness, escaped to their own. coast. Admiral Keppel, willing to excuse sir Hugh Palliser, at least to screen him from public resentment, wrote home such a letter as seemed even to imply great impropriety of behaviour in the commander himself. The conduct, however, of the rear-admiral was attacked in the public papers: he demanded of his commander a formal disavowal of the charges brought against him, which Keppel indignantly refused. He immediately exhibited articles of accusation against the commander-in-chief, for misconduct and neglect of duty, although he had a second time sailed with him, and had never uttered a syllable to his prejudice. The lords of the admiralty instantly fixed a day for the trial of admiral Keppel, who was most honourfcbly acquitted, and received the thanks of both houses of parliament for his services. Palliser was next tried, and escaped with a censure only, but the resentment of the public was so great, that he was obliged to resign several offices which he held under government, and to vacate his seat in parliament. The acquittal of Keppel was celebrated with the most magnificent illuminations, and other marks of rejoicing which had never been known at that time in this country; and the houses of lord Sandwich, first lord of the admiralty, and sir Hugh Palliser, were with difficulty saved from destruction; the windows and much of the furniture being demolished by the fury of the populace. In 1782, admiral Keppel was raised to a peerage, with the titles of viscount Keppel baron Elden: he was afterwards, at two different periods, appointed first lord of the admiralty. He died Oct. 3, 1786, unmarried, and of course his titles became extinct He was a thorough seaman, and a man of great integrity and humanity.

, a learned professor of the university of Louvain, was born in the neighbourhood of Maestricht, about the year 1673. He pursued his academical studies at Louvain, and distinguished himself during several years for his accurate and comprehensive knowledge of history and the belles-lettres. In 1708 he was appointed historiographer to the emperor Joseph I. and died in 1738. He was author of many works in general history and theology, of which the principal are entitled, “De Monarchia Romae Paganae secundum Concordiam inter S S. Prophetas Danielem et Joannem,” &c. and “Prodromus Danielicus, sive novi Conatus historici, critici, in ceieberrimas difficultates Historiae Veteris Testamenti.” These pieces are distinguished by profound erudition and great critical acumen, and are said to throw much light on many obscure passages in the Scriptures relating to history, chronology, and geography. He also published a Latin grammar, and a number of Latin poems.

, 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 learned antiquary of Germany, and fellow of the royal society in London, was born in 1689, at Thournau, a town belonging to the counts of Giech. His father, who was of the count’s council, took an extraordinary care of his education; and, after a suitable preparation, sent him to the university of Halle, where he applied himself chiefly to the civil law; not neglecting, in the mean time, the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, history, antiquity, and the sciences. Soon after he left Halle, he was invited to be preceptor to Charles Maximilian and Christian Charles, counts of Giech-Buchau, with whom, in 1713, he returned thither, and afterwards attended them in their travels. The first place of note they visited was Utrecht, where he became acquainted with the learned Reland, who, discerning his uncommon capacity and particular turn, advised him to undertake an accurate history of the antiquities of his country. Keysler visited the chief cities of Germany, France, and the Netherlands, with his two young counts; and gained great reputation among the learned, by illustrating, as he went along, several monuments of antiquity, particularly some fragments of Celtic idols, then lately discovered in the cathedral of Paris.

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

After the two young barons Bernstorf had been ten years under his care, he went with them to Tubingen, at which university they remained a year and a half. Then they set out on a grand tour, visiting the upper part of Germany, Switzerland, and Italy; and then returned to Vienna, where they spent three months. Their next progress was in Upper Hungary, Bohemia, and other parts of Germany. In 1731 they passed through Lorrain into France, thence crossed the channel into England, and made Holland the last stage of their travels. From this tour proceeded a large and entertaining work, which has been translated into English, in 4 vols. 4to and 8vo, and published under the following title, “Travels through Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, and Lorrain; giving a true and just description of the present state of those countries; their natural, literary, and political history, manners, laws, commerce, manufactures, painting, sculpture, architecture, coins, antiquities, curiosities of art and nature, &c. illustrated with copper- plates engraven from drawings taken on the spot. By John George Keysler, F. R. S. Carefully translated from the second edition of the German, Lend. 1756,” Keysler, after his return, spent the remainder of his days under the patronage and protection of his noble pupils, who committed to his care their fine library and museum, and allowed him a very handsome income. He led a happy tranquil life, declining all public employment, keeping himself single that he might not be incumbered with family affairs, and chiefly conversing with the illustrious dead, who were the companions of his retirement. He died in his fifty-fourth year, June 20, 1743, of an asthma, after viewing with intrepidity the gradual approach of death.

, 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.

This prelate died Nov. 1703, in his palace at Wells, and was privately bur- ed in the cathedral. Through a most unhappy accident, in the night between the 26th and 27th of that month, he was killed in his bed, with his lady, by the fall of a stack of chimneys, occasioned by the great storm. It is reported that his heirs were sued for dilapidations! He was a very clear, elegant, learned writer; and one of the best divines of his time.

, an English name for many ingenious persons of both sexes, and of the same family too. The first we meet with, is Catharine, the daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, who was born at Giddy-hall, in Essex, about 1530; and married to Henry Killigrew, esq. a Cornish gentleman of good abilities, who, for the service he did his country in the quality of an ambassador, was knighted. This lady having the advantages of an excellent education, joined to an elegant natural genius, became, like many other ladies her contemporaries, very learned. She understood the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues, and was famous for her skill in poetry; a small specimen of which is preserved by sir John Harrington, in his notes to the translation of “Ariosto;” and by Fuller, in his “Worthies.”

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

, brother of the former, was born in 1611, and distinguished also by uncommon natural parts. He was page of honour to Charles I, and groom of the bed-chamber to Charles II, with whom he had suffered many years exile. During his abode beyond sea, he took a view of France, Italy, and Spain; and was honoured by his majesty with the employment of resident at the state of Venice, whither he was sent in Aug. 1651. In this absence from his country he applied his leisure hours to poetry, and the composition of several plays; of which sir John Denham, in a jocular way, takes notice in his poem on our author’s return from his embassy to Venice. Though Deuham mentions but six, our author wrote nine plays in his travels, and two at London; all which were printed, with his picture before them, in one volume folio, at London, 1664. There is, besides these plays of his, “A Letter concerning the possessing and dispossessing of several Nuns in the Nunnery at Tours, in France;” dated Orleans, Dec. the 7th, 1635, and printed in three sheets folio. He died in 1682, and was buried in Westminsterabbey. He had been twice married. He was a man of an uncommon vein of humour, with which he used to divert Charles II.; who, on that account, was fonder of him than of his best ministers, and would give him access to his presence when he denied it to them. It was usually said of him, that, when he attempted to write, he was nothing compared to what he was in conversation; which was just the reverse of Cowley, who shone but little in company, though he excelled so much with his pen. Hence Denbam, who knew them both, has taken occasion thus to characterize their respective excellencies and defects:

, 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 Grace for beauty, and a Muse for wit,” as Wood says, was the daughter of Henry Killigrew, just recorded; and born in London, a little before the restoration. She gave the earliest discoveries of genius; which being improved by a polite education, she became eminent in the arts of poetry and painting. Dry. den seems quite lavish in her commendation; but Wood assures us that he has not said any thing of her which she was not equal, if not superior to. She was a great proficient in the art of painting, and painted a portrait of the duke of York, afterwards James 11. and also of the duchess, to whom she was a maid of honour; which pieces are highly applauded by Dryden. She drew several historypieces, also some portraits for her diversion, and likewise some pieces of still-life. Mr. Becket did her picture in mezzotinto, after her own painting, which is prefixed to her poems. To these accomplishments she joined an exemplary piety, and unblemished virtue. This amiable woman died of the small-pox, June 1685, when only in her 25th year; on which occasion Dryden wrote an ode to her memory. The year after were printed and published her “Poems,” in a large thin quarto, which, besides the publisher’s preface, and Dryden’s ode, contains an hundred pages. She was buried in the Savoy chapel, where is a very neat monument fixed in the wall, with a Latin inscription on it, commemorating her beauty, accomplishments, virtue, and piety.

, 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.

, an excellent youth, whom we here mention rather with a view to gain than to give information, was a fellow of Christ’s-college, Cambridge, in 1632 and 1633. He was unfortunately drowned August 10, 1637, in his passage from Chester to the Irish seas; a circumstance which gave birth to the admirable “Lycidas” of Milton. How well

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.

, a learned and philosophical antiquary, was a native of Norfolk, where he was born in 1735, and having inherited from an uncle, Mr. Brown of Exeter, an ample fortune, was early enabled to pursue his inclinations, which led him chiefly to the study of antiquities. He was partly educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, but afterwards entered of Lincoln’s-inn, and, we presume, studied the law, as he was afterwards chosen recorder of Lynn in Norfolk. He was elected F.R.S. in 1767, and F.S.A. in 1770; and to the Archecologia made various communications, which gave him such reputation with the society, that in 1784, on the demise of Dr. Milles, he was elected president, on which occasion he introduced a number of new regulations, and the appointment of two regular secretaries, and a draughtsman, to attend constantly. On St. George’s day following, however, he was obliged to resign the chair, in favour of George lord de Ferrars, afterwards earl of Leicester and marquis Townsend, a majority of nearly two to one having appeared against him. He afterwards printed a letter in vindication of himself, and reflecting upon the noble earl, and from that period ceased to make any communications to the society.

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.

From this time his merit was so well known, and so entirely acknowledged, that he bore a deserved sway in the college, such as perhaps no other herald of his standing ever did; for being skilled in the languages, especially the Latin and French, and being intimately conversant in whatever related to the order of the Garter, he was fixed upon to be deputy to sir Thomas St. George, Garter, totake the insignia to invest the elector of Brandenburgh: and was afterwards frequently employed in similar commissions and foreign installations.

Among his other literary labours were his composing a pack of cards containing the arms of the English nobility, in imitation of “Claud Oronce Fine Brianille;” and “the order of the installation of prince George of Denmark, Charles duke of Somerset, and George duke of Northumberland, at Windsor, April 8, 1684,” printed in London, in 1684, in folio. As also the “Installation of Henry duke of Norfolk, Henry earl of Peterborough, and Laurence earl of Rochester, Windsor, July 22, 1685,” printed in London in the same year, 1686, in folio. Besides these various occupations he afterwards became secretary to the commissioners for settling the public accounts, and secretary to the comptrollers of the army. In both he acquired the highest commendation. Mr. King was a man of great varied powers, and as an herald and genealogist, he equalled his great master Dugdale. He also wrote a valuable work, lately published from his ms. in the British Museum, by Mr. George Chalmers, entitled, “Natural and political observations and conclusions upon the State and Condition of England.” Dying August 29, 1712, aged 63, he was buried in the chancel of St. Bennet’s church, Paul’s Wharf, where is a handsome mural monument of marble. He was twice married, but left no issue.

, 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.”

, bishop of Chichester in the seventeenth century, was eldest son of the preceding, by Jane, daughter of Mr. Henry Freeman of Staffordshire, and was born at Wornall in Buckinghamshire in January 1591, and educated in grammar learning partly in the free-school at Thame in Oxfordshire, and partly at Westminster-school, from which he was elected a student of Christ church in 1608. On June the 19th, 1611, he took the degree of bachelor of arts and July the 7th, 1614, that of master. He then entered into holy orders, and became an eminent preacher, and chaplain to king James I. He was afterwards made archdeacon of Colchester; residentiary of St. Paul’s, and canon of Christ church. On May the 19th, 1625, he took the degree of doctor of divinity. He was afterwards chaplain to king Charles I. and February the 6th, 1638, was installed in the deanery of Rochester. In 1641 he was advanced to the see of Chichester, to which he was consecrated December 19th of that year. But though he was always esteemed a puritan, and had been promoted to that see in order to please that party; yet upon the breaking out of the civil wars, and the dissolution of episcopacy, he was treated by them with great severity; “nor was he suffered to live quietly at his friend’s house (for some time, at least), when they could discover him.” He lived for the most part with sir Richard Hobart, who had married his sister, at Langley in Buckinghamshire, by whom he was supported. At the restoration he recovered his bishopric. Wood tells us, that “he was esteemed by many persons of his neighbourhood and diocese, the epitome of all honours, virtues, and generous nobleness, and a person never to be forgotten by his tenants and by the poor.” He died October the 1st, 1669, and was interred on the south side of the choir belonging to his cathedral of Chichester, where a monument was erected to him, with an inscription, in which it is said, that he was “antiqua, eaque regia Saxon urn apud Dan monies in Agro Devoniensi prosapia oriundus,” and that he was “natalium splendore illustris, pietate, doctrina & virtutibus illustrior,” &c. He married Anne, daughter of sir William Russel of Strensham in Worcestershire, bart. who after the bishop’s decease married sir Thomas Millington the physician.

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.

Dr. King’s eldest son, John, was born Aug. 5, 1696, and from Eton school was sent to King’s college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow, and took the degree of M. A. He afterwards settled at Stamford in Lincolnshire, and practised physic there with great reputation, but was cutoff by a fever, Oct. 12, 1728. He published “Epistola ad virum ornatis. Joannem Freind, &c. in qua D. W. Trilleri, Phil, et M. D. epistolam medico-criticam super primo et tertio epidemiorum, a viro ornatissimo editis, ad examen revocavit J. King,” Cambridge, 1722, 8vo; and an excellent, and now rare, edition of “Euripidis Hecuba, Orestes, & Phcenissæ,” ibid. 1726, 8vi.

, a learned English writer and antiquary, was born in the county of Norfolk in 1731. He was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of B. A. and M. A. in 1752 and 1763, and at subsequent periods he was admitted to the degree of D. D. and received a member of the royal society, and of the society of antiquaries. lu 1764, he obtained the appointment of chaplain to the English factory at Petersburgh. In this situation he was led to inquire into the ceremonies of the Russian church, which he continually saw practised, and determined to give a faithful description of the same in his own language. He accordingly published, in 1772, in a handsome quarto, illustrated with engravings, a work, entitled “The Kites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia; containing an account of its doctrine, worship, and discipline.” In 1778, he wrote and published a letter to the bishop of Durham, containing some observations on the climate of Russia, and the northern countries, with a view of the flying-mountains at Zarsko Sello, near St. Petersburgh. Soon after his return to his native country, he was presented to the rectory of Wormley, in Hertfordshire, in 1783 and in 1786 he purchased Dr. John Warner’s chapel in Broad-court, Drury-lane, in which he officiated as preacher. While he resided at Petersburgh, the empress of Russia had appointed him her medallist, and he was engaged in a medallic work at the time of his death, which happened Nov. 2, 1787, in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was buried at Wormley. Besides the works already mentioned, Dr. King was author of “Observations on the Barberini Vase,” which are printed in the eighth volume of the Transactions of the Antiquarian Society.

, chancellor of England, and famous for his ecclesiastical learning, as well as his knowledge in the law, was born in 1669 at Exeter, Devonshire, where his father, an eminent grocer and salter in that city, though a man of considerable substance, and descended from a good family, determined to bring up his son to his own trade. With this view, he took him into his business and kept him at his shop for some years however, the son’s inclination being strongly bent to learning, he took all opportunities of gratifying his passion, laying out all the money he could spare in books, and devoting every moment of his leisure hours to study; so that he became a scholar of very great accomplishments, which were hid under the appearance of an attention to the business of the shop. This, however, was discovered by the celebrated Locke, who was his uncle by his mother’s side, and who, after some discourse, being greatly surprised and pleased with the prodigious advances his nephew had made in literature, advised him to commence a regular course of study at Leyden: and it is said to have been by his advice, that Mr. King afterwards entered himself a student at the Inner-Temple, and applied himself to the law; in which profession his talents and industry soon rendered him celebrated.

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.”

From this time, however, our author found himself under a necessity of relinquishing pursuits of this kind, on account of the increasing and urgent business which his abilities as a lawyer brought into his hands; and in a fevr years his merit in the law was distinguished by the highest honours. July 1708, he was chosen recorder of London; and knighted by queen Anne September following. In 1709, he was appointed one of the managers of the House of Commons, at the trial of Sacheverell. Upon the accession of George I. he was appointed lord chief-justice of the court of common-pleas, and soon after sworn of the privy-council. He was created a peer May the 25th, 1725, by the title of lord King, baron of Ockharn, in Surrey; and the great seal being taken from lord Macclesfield, was delivered to him the 1st of June following. He did not, however, make that figure as chancellor, which was expected from the character that raised him to it; and it is said that more of his decrees were repealed by the House of Lords than of any other chancellor in the same space of time. Yet it is allowed that he took extraordinary pains in the discharge of his office, which, impairing his constitution by degrees, brought on atan a paralytic disorder and his distemper increasing, he resigned the seals the 26th Nov. 1733, and died July the 22d following, at his seat at Ockham, leaving behind him two sons and two daughters, and a widow, the daughter of Richard Seys, of Boverton, in Glamorganshire, esq. Lord King was a man of great integrity, knowledge, and diligence, although not of transcendant abilities. He was interred in Ockham church, Surrey, where a monument was erected to his memory.

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

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

The public tranquillity being now perfectly restored, the bishop applied himself more particularly to the duties of his pastoral care; and, reviewing the state of his diocese, pre*­sently discovered, that, by the great number of colonies lately transported from Scotland, many of his people were dissenters from the established church, which they opposed with as much zeal as the Papists. As he had therefore employed his pen against the Papists when danger was apprehended from them, so now he took it up against the Presbyterians, whom he endeavoured to persuade to conformity, in a piece entitled “A Discourse concerning the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God,” Dublin, 1694, 4to. But this attempt only served to engage him in a second controversy with these dissenting adversaries, one of whose ministers, Mr. Joseph Boyce, presently published “Remarks,” &c. in which, however, he allows, that the bishop’s discourse was written with an air of seriousness and gravity, becoming the weight of the subject, as well as the dignity of his character. Upon this, the bishop returned an answer, under the title of “An Admonition to the Dissenting Inhabitants of the Diocese of Derry, concerning a book lately published by Mr. J. B. entitled Remarks, &c.” 1695, 4to to which Mr. Boyce replying, the bishop rejoined in “A Second Admonition to the Dissenting Inhabitants, &c.” published the same year at Dublin, in 4to; and thus the controversy ended.

In 1702 he published at Dublin, in 4to, his celebrated treatise “De Origine Mali,” which was republishecl the same year at London in 8vo; in which he endeavours to shew how all the several kinds of evil with which the world abounds, are consistent with the goodness of God, and may be accounted for without the supposition of an evil principle. We do not find that any exceptions were made at first to this work at home; but it fell under the cognizance of some very eminent foreigners. Mr. Bernard having given an abridgment of it in his “Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres” for May and June 1703, that abridgment fell into the hands of Mr. Bayle, who, observing his Manichean system to be in danger from it, did not tay till he could see and consult the book itself, but examined the hypothesis of our author as it was represented in Bernard’s extracts, and in a passage cited by the writers of the “Acta Eruditorum Lipsiae,” which had been omitted by Bernard. Bayle was blamed for this by Bernard, and not without reason, as he had manifestly mistaken the prelate’s meaning in many particulars, and attacked him upon principles which he would have denied but the dispute did not end so Bayle afterwards replied to Bernard and, having procured the bishop’s book, made several new observations upon it, which were published in the fifth tome of his “Reponse,” &c. Leibnitz also wrote “Remarks” on this work, which, however, he styles “a work full of elegance and learning.” These remarks, which are in French, were published by DeMaizeaux, in the third volume of the “Recueil de diverses Pieces sur la Philosophic, &c. par Mess. Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, &c.” at Amsterdam, 1720, in three vols. 12mo. In the mean time, the bishop, though he did not publicly and formally reply to these writers, left a great number of manuscript papers, in which he considered their several objections to his system, and laboured to vindicate it. These papers were afterwards communicated to Mr. Edmund Law, M. A. fellow of Christ’s college in Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Carlisle, who had translated the bishop’s book, and written notes upon it; and who then printed a second edition of his translation, in the notes to which he inserted the substance of those papers. The whole came out with this title, “An Essay on the Origin of Evil, by Dr. William King, late lord archbishop of Dublin: translated from the Latin, with Notes, and a Dissertation concerning the Principle and Criterion of Virtue, and the Origin of the Passions. The second edition. Corrected and enlarged from the author’s manuscripts. To which are added, two Sermons by the same author the former concerning Divine Prescience the latter on the Fall of Man.” Lond. 1732, 2 vols. 8vo. A third edition was published in 1739, and it was for some years a book in great vogue at Cambridge, but its reputation has been declining for a much longer period.

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

, an ingenious and humourous English writer, was born in London, 1663, the son of Ezekiel King, a gentleman. He was allied to the noble families of Clarendon and Rochester. From Westminster school, where he was a scholar on the foundation under the care of Dr. Busby, he was at eighteen elected to Christ-church, Oxford, and admitted a student there in Michaelmas term, 1631.

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 1697 he took a share with his fellow-collegians at Christ-church, in the memorable dispute concerning the authenticity of Phalaris’s Epistles. His first appearance in that controversy was owing to his being accidentally present at a conversation between Dr. Bentley and Mr. Bennet the bookseller, concerning the ms. of Phalaris in the King’s library. Mr. Boyle, when answering Bentley’s Dissertation, applied to our author for the particulars of what passed on that occasion; which he received in the short but expressive letter which Boyle has printed in his book, in 1698, with the testimonies of Mr. Bennet and Mr. Gibson (who had been employed as the collator). Stung by these stubborn facts, Dr. Bentley, in the enlarged edition of his Dissertation, 1699, endeavoured to invalidate their force, by an attempt to weaken the credibility of the witnesses. On Dr. King, in particular, he has condescended to bestow near eight pages of his preface, a short specimen of which is annexed to the Letter we have last referred to. In a second letter to Mr. Boyle, our author with great modesty refutes the groundless calumny, and proves that Dr. Bentley himself has confirmed his testimony in every particular, except having omitted the great critic’s beautiful similitude of “a squeezed orange.”

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.”

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

Early in 1701, Dr. King was recalled to the busy scenes of life. His friend James the third earl of Anglesea (who had succeeded to that title April 1, 1690), married Oct. 28, 1699, the lady Catharine Darnley, natural daughter to king James II. by Catharine countess of Dorchester, and had by her one daughter. After living together little more than a year, a dispute arose between them, which ended in a separation. Lord Anglesea solicited the assistance of Dr. King; and the force of friendship prevailed over his natural aversion to the wrangling of the bar. He complied with the request took abundant pains for his old friend, more than he was ever known to do and distinguished himself so in the earl’s defence, as shewed him to have had abilities in his profession equal to any occasion that might call for them, and effectually established his reputation in the character of a civilian, as he had already done in that of a polite writer.

Notwithstanding the reputation acquired by Dr. King in this cause, he never afterwards attained any striking eminence in a profession where constant assiduity and a long course of years are requisites for the acquisition of fame. Captivated by the rnuses, he neglected business, and by degrees, as is natural to such tempers, began to dread and abhor it. Heedless of those necessary supplies which a due attention would actually have brought to his finances, they were so much impaired by his neglect, and by the gay course of life which he led, that he gladly accepted the offer of preferment in Ireland; a sure sign that his practice was then not very considerable, as he is perhaps the only civilian that ever went to reside in Ireland after once having experienced the emoluments of a settlement in Doctors Commons. The exact period of his quitting this kingdom cannot now be ascertained. It has been generally supposed that he went with the earl of Pembroke, who was appointed lord lieutenant in April 1707. But he was certainly in Ireland much earlier, as we have a correct copy of “Mully of Mountown,” in 1704, from the author himself, with a complaint that, before that time, some spurious copies had crept into the world. It is probable, therefore, that his preferment was owing to the united interests of the earl of Rochester, his relation (lord-lieutenant of Ireland from Dec. 12, 1700, to Feb. 4, 1702-3), and his noble patron the earl of Pembroke (lord high admiral of England and Ireland from Jan. 1601-2 to May 1702). If this conjecture be allowed, the date is fixed clearly to the beginning of 1702, and the thread of the history is properly connected. Dr. King was now in a new scene of action. He was judge of the high court of admiralty in Ireland, sole commissioner of the prizes, and keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower. The latter, indeed, was rather a matter of honour than profit; the salary being at that time but ten pounds a year, though afterwards advanced to 400. He was likewise appointed vicar-general to the lord primate, Dr. Narcissus Marsh. With these honours he was well received and countenanced by persons of the highest rank, and might have made his fortune, if the change of climate could have wrought a change in his disposition. But so far was he from treasuring up the money in a manner thrown into his lap, that he returned to England with no other treasure than a few merry poems and humourous essays. Such indeed was his profusion, that he might have said with Virgil’s shepherd, non unquam grams arc domum mihi dextra redibat.

On Nov. 25, 1708, the earl of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant. His secretary, Mr. Addison, immediately on his arrival in Ireland, was made keeper of the records; and Dr. King returned to London, where he almost immediately gave the world those admirable instances of the humour so peculiarly his own, by publishing “Useful transactions in philosophy and other sorts of Learning.” The last of these, containing “A Voyage to the Island of Cajamai in America,” is one of the severest and most humourous satires that ever was written in prose.

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.

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

He was the author of 1. “Miltoni epistola ad Pollionem” (lord Polwarth). 2. << Sermo Pedestris.“3.” Scamnum, ecloga.“4.” Templum libertatis,“in three books. 5.” Tres Oratiunculae.“6.” Epistola objurgatoria.“7.” Antoriietti ducis Corscorum epistola ad Corscos de rege eligendo.“8.” Eulogium Jacci Eionensis.“9.” Aviti epistola ad Perillam, virginem Scotam,“&c. 10.” Oratiuncula habita in domo convocationis Oxon. cum epistola dedicatoria,“1757, and” Epitaphium Richardi Nash." Besides these, he published the first five volumes of Dr. South’s sermons. He was known and esteemed by the first men of his time for wit and learning; and must be allowed to have been a polite scholar, an excellent orator, and an elegant and easy writer, both in Latin and English. He died Dec. 30, 1763, having sketched his own character in an elegant epitaph, in which, while he acknowledges his failings, he claims the praise of benevolence, temperance, and fortitude. This epitaph was to be engraved on a silver case, in which he directed his heart should be pn^erved in some convenient part of St. Mary Hall. He was buried in Ealing church, but the inscription is on a marble tablet in the chapel of St. Mary-hall. There is a striking likeness of Dr. King in Worlidge’s view of the installation of lord Westmorland as chancellor of Oxford in 1761.

, 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.

, an eminent dissenting divine and biographer, was born at Nottingham, March 28, 1725. His father, Mr. Robert Kippis, a silk- hosier at that town, was maternally descended from clergymen who were ejected for nonconformity, the principles of which were naturally conveyed to their posterity. His father dying when he was about five years of age, he was removed to his grandfather at Sleaford in Lincolnshire, where his talents and application during his grammatical education attracted the peculiar notice of Mr. Merrivaie, pastor of a congregation of dissenters in that town; and his views being, in consequence of his advice, directed to the profession of a dissenting minister, he was placed, at the age of sixteen, in the academy at Northampton, under the care of Dr. Doddridge. Here he prosecuted his studies with such diligence and improvement, and conducted himself with such exemplary propriety, as to conciliate the affectionate esteem and attachment of his tutor; and having completed his course, he was settled as minister of a dissenting congregation at Boston, in Lincolnshire, in September! 746. From Boston he removed to Dorking in Surrey, in 1750; and in 1753, he succeeded Dr. Hughes as pastor to the congregation in Prince’s-street, Westminster, which was his last charge. In the same year he married miss Elizabeth Bott, the daughter of a merchant at Boston, in whom he found a sensible, prudent, sprightly, and cheerful companion, and by whose attentions his mind was relieved from all family concerns; so that he was left at full leisure to prosecute the various duties which his numerous engagements devolved upon him. His settlement with the society in Westminster laid the foundation of that celebrity which he afterwards acquired, and of that extensive usefulness which distinguished his future life. Among his other public services among the dissenters, he was soon introduced into a connection with the presbyterian-fund, to the prosperity of which he was afterwards very ardently devoted and in June 1762, he became a member of Dr. Williams’s s trust, an appointment which afforded him an additional opportunity of being eminently and extensively useful in a variety of respects. His connection with the general body of Protestant dissenting ministers, belonging to the cities of London and Westminster, and with many charitable institutions belonging to the dissenters, gave him frequent occasion to exercise his talents to their advantage.

His literary abilities and attainments were acknowledged by all who knew him. It was, therefore, natural to imagine, that when a favourable opportunity offered, he would be employed in the department of public education. Accordingly, on the death of Dr. Jennings in 1763, one of the tutors of the academy supported in London by the funds of William Coward, esq. he was appointed classical and philological tutor to that institution. In 1767, he received the degree of doctor in divinity from the university of Edinburgh; an honour, in the unsolicited grant of which the principal and professors very cordially concurred. In March 1778, he was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries; and in June 1779, a fellow of the royal society. He was a member of the council of the former society from 1782 to 1784, and of that of the latter from 1786 to 1787. In both these societies he was a regular attendant and useful member.

Having, in 1784, quitted his connection with Mr. Coward’s academy, which, upon the resignation of the two other tutors, was discontinued, he cordially concurred with a body of dissenters, in 1786, in establishing a newinstitution in the neighbourhood of London, with a view of educating ministers and young gentlemen intended for civil life. Dr. Kippis was very assiduous and active in his endeavours to accomplish this design, from which great effects were expected; and though his other engagements rendered it very inconvenient for him to accept any official connection with it, he at length, though not without reluctance, acquiesced in the appointment to be one of the tutors of this new institution; but the distance of his residence from Hackney, where the college was fixed, and some other circumstances, induced him in a few years to withdraw from it, and, not long after, it was dissolved.

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.

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

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

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.”

He had been accustomed from his youth to early rising; and he thus secured to himself a certain portion of time, during which he was not liable to be interrupted by any foreign avocations. This habit was no less conducive to his health than to the discharge of his various literary and professional obligations. The natural powers of his mind were cultivated with an assiduity and perseverance of application, in which he had few superiors, and not many equals. They had been habituated through life to regular and constant exercise, and had acquired strength and vigour from, use. He was never hurried and distracted by the variety of his literary pursuits; and though he had many engagements which required his attention, and which diverted his mind from the objects of study to which he was devoted, he never seemed to want time. Every kind of business was referred to its proper season. By a judicious arrangement of his studies as well as of his other occupations, the number and variety of which he never ostentatiously displayed, and by the punctuality of his attention to every kind of business in which he was employed, he avoided confusion; he retained on all occasions the possession of himself; and he found leisure for reading and writing, and for all his literary avocations, without encroaching on that time which he appropriated to his professional duties and social connexions.

Perhaps few persons ever read so much, and with such advantage to themselves and others, as Dr. Kippis. He informed the present writer, that he once read, for three years, at the rate of sixteen hours a day; and one of the works which he read entirely through was the “General Dictionary,” in ten volumes folio. This, he added, laid the foundation of his taste and skill in biographical composition.

The studies in which Dr. Kippis principally excelled, were those of the classics, the belles-lettres, and history; beside those which were immediately connected with his profession. He had diligently studied the history of his own country, and the principles of the British constitution. To these he was zealously attached, and these he ably defended. Yet, as a protestant dissenter, he did not entirely escape the suspicion, in which almost the whole body of protestant dissenters was involved, of being disaffected to the constitution, although in his case it was unjust. He was, indeed, a warm advocate of civil and religious liberty; and he lamented, in common with some of the best and wisest of men, the existence of certain acknowledged abuses; but he was no friend to that wild theory and indiscriminate innovation, which then threatened the desolation of Europe; and while he wished for a reformation of abuses in a peaceable, legal, and constitutional way, it was still his opinion, that the British constitution, with all its defects (and what contrivance of human wisdom can be perfect?), was admirably calculated to preserve rational liberty, and to continue productive of national 'prosperity. With these sentiments, when he apprehended that certain political societies, with which he had long associated, were going too far, he withdrew his name; but he never abandoned the principles upon which his first connection with them was founded.

, eminent for his talents in perspective, was the eldest son of Mr. John Kirby, who was originally a schoolmaster at Orforcl, and who is known to topographers by a map of Suffolk which he published, and by “The Suffolk Traveller,” 12mo, a new edition of which was published in 1764. He was born at Parham, near Wickham-market, in 1716, and settled as a house-painter at Ipswich about 1738. Me had a turn for drawing, and published, early in life, twelve prints of castles, ancient churches, and monuments, in Suffolk, with a small descriptive pamphlet. He afterwards became intimate with the celebrated artist Gainsborough, the contemplation of whose works increased his taste for painting, but he had very little leisure to cultivate it, and has left only a few landscapes in the possession of his family; one of which, a view of the old kitchen at Glastonbury-abbey, was exhibited at Spring-gardens in 1770.

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

On being admitted to the friendship and intimacy of sir Joshua Reynolds, Hogarth (who furnished the curious frontispiece to his perspective), and most of the other artists of the kingdom, he removed from Ipswich to London, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute. This nobleman introduced him to his present majesty when prince of Wales, by whom he was ever after highly and deservedly honoured. He was made clerk of the works at Kew, and under his majesty’s patronage, who defrayed the expence of the plates, he published in 1761 his very splendid work, “The Perspective of Architecture,” 2 vols. folio. Tn this work Mr. Kirby wholly confined himself to architectural representations; and gave a variety of designs, elegantly drawn and engraved, which he submitted as “new principles for a complete system of the perspective of architecture, both as it relates to the true delineation of objects, and the doctrine of light and shadow.” Mr. Edwards, however, remarks, as a curious circumstance, that the plates of this work contain no example of architectural features disposed obliquely to the picture; a circumstance from which he would infer that Mr. Kirby was no great adept in architecture, and that his practice in perspective was not very comprehensive, especially as his first work is equally deficient with the last in what relates to mouldings, when inclined to the picture, which position, if not the most abstruse in theory, is yet among the most troublesome in operation, and therefore ought to have been demonstrated.

Before the appearance of this work he wrote a pamphlet in vindication of the fame of Dr. Brook Taylor, which was indirectly struck at in the translation of a treatise on perspective by a foreigner. This pamphlet (which has no date) was entitled “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective, compared with the examples lately published on the subject, as Sirigatti'i,” 4to. In 1766, in conjunction with his brother William, then of Witnesham, in the county of Suffolk, attorney at law (who died Sept. 25, 1791, aged seventy-two) he published an improved edition of their father’s map of Suffolk, on a larger scale, with engravings of the arms of the principal families in the county. In 1768 he published a third edition of his treatise on perspective, with a dedication to the earl of Bute. He was a member both of the royal aud antiquary societies; and when the chartered society of artists was disturbed by the illiberal conduct of some of the members, Mr. Kirby was elected president in the place of Hay man, but he soon resigned the chair. He died June 20, 1774, and his widow the following year, and were both buried in Kew churchyard. By his wife he had only two children, William, a promising artist, who died in 1771, and Sarah, afterwards the wife of Mr. James Trimmer, of Brentford, a lady justly celebrated for her numerous works for the religious instruction of the young.

, the first of a family of astronomers, of considerable note, was born at Guben, in Lower Lusatia, in 1640, and educated at Leipsic, where he acquired reputation by the almanacs which he published. In 1692 he married Mary Margaret Winckehnan, who rendered him much useful assistance by making astronomical observations for the construction of his Ephemerides. In 1701, on the establishment of the academy of sciences at Berlin by Frederic I. king of Prussia, that prince appointed him a member of the society, and astronomer in ordinary, with an honourable pension for his support. He died at Berlin in 1710, at the age of seventy-one years. He had been in the habit of corresponding with all the learned societies of Europe, and published a variety of astronomical treatises, which are in considerable estimation. His wife, Mary Margaret, the daughter of a Lutheran clergyman at Panitzsh, a village near Leipsic, where she was born in 1670, was early noticed for her astronomical talents, and in 1702, some years after her marriage, she first saw a comet, upon, which M. Kirch published his observations. In 1707 she discovered a peculiar aurora borealis, mentioned in the Memoirs of the academy of sciences at Paris for 1716. These exertions of her genius procured her the esteem of the learned at Berlin, notwithstanding which she was in very low circumstances when her husband died. She contrived to maintain herself and educate her children, by constructing almanacs; and, in 1711, she published a dissertation entitled “Preparations for observing the grand Conjunctions of Saturn, Jupiter, &c.” Soon after this she found a patron in the baron de Throsick, and on his death two years afterwards, removed to Dantzic, when Peter the Great wished to engage her to settle in his empire. She preferred her native country, and, in 1716, accompanied her son to Berlin, where she was appointed astronomer to the academy of sciences in that city, and died there in 1720. Their son Christian Fkederic, born at Guben in 1694, who also discovered an early and very strong bias for scientific pursuits, commenced his studies at Berlin, and afterwards continued them at Halle, whence he made excursions for improvement to Nuremberg, Leipsic, and Prussia. He was employed a considerable time in the observatory at Dantzic, and during his residence here, the czar, Peter the Great, offered him an establishment at Moscow; but his attachment to his mother, who was averse from leaving Germany, led him to decline it. In 1717 he was made member of the academy of sciences at Berlin, and in 1723 he was chosen a corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, and he shewed himself worthy of that distinction by the frequent valuable contributions which he transmitted to them during the remainder of his life. He died in 1740, in the forty-sixth year of his age. He published several works connected with astronomy, which were in considerable reputation at the period in which he flourished.

, 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 German Protestant divine, was settled at Augsburg, and wrote a very learned and laborious work, of considerable use in illustrating the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, entitled “Concordantia veteris Testamenti Graecae, Ebrseis vocibus respondentes srote/xfnrfw. Simul enim et Lexicon Efyraico-latinum,” &c. Francfort, 1607, 2 vols. 4to. This work, which is a Hebrew Dictionary and Concordance, is strongly recommended by father Simon, when treating of the best methods to be adopted in undertaking any new translation of the Scriptures. It contains all the Hebrew words in the Old Testament, introduced in an alphabetical order, and underneath is the Greek version of them from the Septuagint, followed by a collection of the passages of Scripture in which those words are differently interpreted. Its principal fault is, that he follows the edition of Alcala de Henarez, instead of that of Rome, which is the best. The Concordance published by Trommius has eclipsed Kircher’s, and is justly preferred to it. Of Kircher’s private history we find no account.

, 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.

The two works already mentioned, are his principal performances, yet he was the author of other things; of treatises upon logic and rhetoric, and funeral orations. He published also in Latin, “The horoscope of the first-born son of the most illustrious prince, Adolphus Frederic, duke of Mecklenburg,” 1624, 4to, in which he shows a good deal of superstition.

, professor of physic at Upsal, and physician extraordinary to Christina queen of Sweden, was born Dec. 25, 1577, at Breslaw, in Silesia, where his father was a merchant. He lost his parents when he was very young; but his guardians, as they intended him for his father’s profession, had him well instructed in such knowledge as might prepare him for it. Kirsteuius, however, had a turn for general literature, in which they thought it proper to indulge him. He accordingly learned the Greek and Latin tongues, and even Hebrew and Syriac; and with a view to his intended object, cultivated natural philosophy, botany, and anatomy, with the greatest care, in his native place. Afterwards he spent four years at the universities of Leipsic, Wittemberg, and Jena; and having made a great progress under the ablest professors, he took a journey into the Low-Countries, and into France. He had been told that a man could not distinguish himself in the practice of physic, unless he understood Avicenna; and, knowing the translation of that physician’s works to be very bad, he had a strong inclination to learn Arabic. To this he was urged by Joseph Scaliger and Isaac Casaubon, who thought he might do great service to the public of letters in that pursuit; and he resolved to read not only Avicenna, but also Mesue, Rhasis, Abenzoar, Abukasis, and Averroes. This course, however, did not hinder him from gratifying the inclination he had to travel, in which he spent seven years. He took a doctor of physic’s degree at Basil, in 1601; and then visited Italy, Spain, England, and even Greece and Asia. Soon after his return into Silesia, he went to Jena, and married a wife, by whom he had eight children. In 1610 he was appointed by the magistrates of Breslaw, to the direction of their college and schools; but a fit of sickness inclined him to resign that difficult employment, and he now applied himself entirely to the study of Arahic, and to the practice of physic. He succeeded greatly in his application to the Arabic, and was so zealous to promote the knowledge of it, that he employed all the money he could spare in printing Arabic books. For some reasons not stated by his biographers, he removed into Prussia, where he had an opportunity of entering into the family of chancellor Oxenstiern, whom he accompanied into Sweden; and in 1636 he was appointed professor of physic in the university of Upsal, and physician to the queen. His constitution, however, being much broken, he did not enjoy these advantages above four years, dying April 8, 1640. He was one of those few who joined piety to the practice of physic. It is observed in his epitaph, inscribed by Schroer to his memory, that he understood twenty-six languages.

He published several works, valuable to divines as well as to those of his own faculty: 1. “Grammatica Arabica,” 1608. 2. “Tria specimina characternm Arabicorum,” &c. fol. 3. “Decas sacra Canticorum & Carminum Arabicorum ex aliquot Mss. cum Latina ad verbum interpretatione,” 1609, 8vo. 4. “Vitae quatuor evangelistarum ex antiquissimo codice ms. Arabico erutae,” 1609, folio. 5. “Liber secundus canonis Avicennae, typis Arabiois ex Mss. editus, & ad verbum in Latinum translatus, notisque textum concernentibus illustratus,” 1610, fol. 6. “Liber de vero usu & abusu medicinae,” 1610, 8vo. 7. a Notoa in evangelium S. Matthcei ex collatione textuuni Arabicorum, Syriacorum, jEgyptiacorum, Gnecorum, et Latino^ rum,“1611, fol. 8.” Epistola S. Judge ex ms. Heidelr bergensi Arabico ad verbum translata,“&c. 1611, fol. and a” Latin Oration," delivered when he was installed rector of the college at Breslaw, in 1610.

, 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.

, a German poet, was born at Zoeblin, in Pornerania, in 1715, and educated partly at the Jesuits’ college in Upper Poland, and partly at the academy of Dantzic, and the university of Konigsberg. At the age of twenty-one he entered the Danish military service, and then into that of Prussia, where he had a commission in the regiment of prince Henry, which gave him an opportunity of forming an intimacy with all the great characters at Potsdam. He was particularly noticed by the king, and advanced in the army. Having obtained leave to take an active part in the campaign of 1759, he was killed at the battle of Kunnersdorff, in the fortyfourth year of his age. His principal work, as a poet, was entitled “Spring,” which was first published in 1749, and has been translated into several languages, and compared with our Thomson. He wrote idylls in the manner of Gesncr, in which he has not confined himself to the language of shepherds, but has introduced gardeners and fishermen. He was the author also of some moral treatises, which have not been published, and of a military romance entitled “Cissides,” printed in 1759, in which there are many animated descriptions of scenes of war. Kleist was a general scholar, and spoke with facility, the German, Latin, French, Polish, and Danish languages.

, a German poet of the greatest renown, was born at Quedlinburg, July 2, 1724. He was the eldest of eleven children, and distinguished himself in his youth among his companions in bodily and mental exercises. At the age of sixteen he went to college, and being placed under Freitag, a very able tutor, he made himself familiar with the languages, and acquiring a taste for the beauties of the best classical authors, made attempts in composition both in prose and verse. In the latter he wrote some pastorals, but not contented with these humbler efforts, he formed at this early period the resolution of composing an epic poem, and fixed upon the “Messiah” as his subject. Such an effort was not known in the German language and the high opinion he had of Virgil, his favourite poet amongst the ancients the honour of being the first who should offer the Cerman public a work like the fiLneid; the warmth of patriotism that early animated him to raise the fame of German literature in this particular to a level with that of other European countries; the indignation he felt in reading the book of a Frenchman, who had denied the Germans every talent for poetry; all combined with the consciousness of his own superior powers, to spur him on to the execution of his exalted purpose. In 1745 he went to the university of Jena, where he commenced the study of theology; but in the midst of his academical pursuits he was planning his projected work, and sketched out his three first cantos, first in prose, but afterwards in hexameters, and was so pleased with having introduced a metre into German poetry, as ever afterwards to defend this mode of versification. In 1746, he removed from Jena to Leipsic, and became a member of a society of young men who had formed themselves into a literary club for mutual improvement. About this time he exercised his genius in lyric compositions. Several of his odes, together with the three first cantos of his Messiah, appeared in a periodical paper entitled “Bremen Contributions.” At length the publication of ten books of his Messiah made his name known throughout Germany, and raised his reputation very high. It found friends and enemies, admirers and critics, every where but its approbation was owing as much to the sacredness of the matter as the beauty of the poetry Christian readers loved it as a book that afforded them at length, amidst the themes of orthodoxy, some scope for devout feeling; young preachers quoted it in the pulpit, and coupled the name of Klopstock with that of the prophets. The stauncher class of divines, indeed, gave the poem the appellation of presumptuous fiction, contaminating the scripture-history with fables, and undermining the faith. The partisans of the German grammarian Gottsched raised the greatest clamour against the work, on the ground of the language, and sought by poor arguments and sorry wit to depreciate its merits. The Swiss critics, as opponents to the Saxons, on the other hand, extolled and defended it with all their might. Bodmer, in particular, the admirer and translator of Milton, embraced the cause of the German epic bard with enthusiastic ardour, and contributed very greatly, by his warm euloaium, to accelerate the universal celebrity of his poem. Klopstock heard and profited by the public disquisitions, but never engaged in any of the disputes.

Klopstock travelled into Switzerland in 1750, to pay a visit to Bodmer of Zurich, in consequence of an invitation, where he was received with every token of respect. The sublime scenery of that country, the simplicity of the inhabitants, and the freedom they enjoyed, were much suited to his taste. Here he intended to have spent the remainder of his life, but baron Bernstorff caused an invitation to be sent to him to reside at Copenhagen, with assurances of such a pension as would make him independent. Klopstock acceded to the proposal, and set out in 1751, by the way of Brunswick and Hamburgh, at which latter place he became acquainted with Miss Muller, a lady perfectly adapted to his own mind, whom he soon after married. They seemed destined to be one of the happiest couples, but he was soon deprived of her, for she died in childbed: her memory, however, was sacred to Kiopstock to the last moment of his existence. He lived chiefly at Copenhagen, till 1771, after which he resided at Hamburgh as Danish legate, and counsellor of the margrave of Baden, who gave him a pension. The latter part of his life was little varied by incidents, and after he had brought the Messiah to a conclusion, he continued to employ himself in composition, and in the correction and revision of his works. He died at Hamburgh, March 14, 1803, being seventy-nine years of age, and was interred with the greatest solemnity, not unmixed with superstitious and fanciful circumstances. By those who were intimate with him he is represented as a truly amiable man, happiest in a small circle of private friends, and particularly fond of the society of young persons. The character of Kiopstock, as a poet, is that of exuberance of imagination and sentiment. His sublimity is great, but he is apt to lose himself in mystical abstraction, and his excess of feeling sometimes betrays him into rant and extravagance. His odes and lyric poems have likewise been much admired by his countrymen, and his dramas display great force and dignity, but they are better adapted to the closet than the stage. The great merit of his works is in the diction; he enchants by his noble and energetic style, but their beauties cannot be preserved in a translation, and it is in Germany alone that they can be sufficiently appreciated. As an excellent specimen of his talents as a prose writer, we may notice his “Grammatical Dialogues,” which abound with judicious remarks.

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

, an eminent portrait painter, was born at Lubec about 1648. His father was surveyor-general of the mines, and inspector of count Mansfeldt’s revenues. At first Godfrey was destined for a military life, and was sent to Leyden, where he applied to mathematics and fortification; but the predominance of nature determining him to painting, his father acquiesced, and placed him under Bol, at Amsterdam, and he had also some instructions from Rembrandt. He visited Italy in 1672, and remained some time at Venice, where he painted some of the first families, and amongst them the cardinal Bassadonna. It is probable that he here learned that free, loose style of execution in which he delighted, but by no means excelled; with him it fell to negligence and clumsiness, particularly in his draperies, whilst sometimes his heads exhibit a perfect master of the pencil.

Kneller did not stay long in Italy, as in 1674 became to England with his brother, John Zachary, who assisted him in painting, without intending to reside here; but being recommended to Mr. Banks, a Hamburgh merchant, he painted him and his family. Mr. Vernon, secretary to the duke of Monmouth, saw them, and sat to Kneller; and persuaded the duke also to sit. His grace was delighted, and engaged the king his father to have his picture by the new artist, at a time when the duke of York had been promised the king’s picture by Lely. Charles, unwilling to have double trouble, proposed that both artists should paint him at the same time. Lely, as the established artist, chose his light and station: Kneller took the next best he could, and performed his task with so much expedition and skill, that he had nearly finished his piece when Lely’s was only dead-coloured. The circumstance gained Kneller great credit; and Lely obtained no less honour, for he had the candour to acknowledge and admire the abilities of his rival. This success fixed Kneller here; and the immense number of portraits he executed, prove the continuance of his reputation.

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

During the latter part of his time, that is, after the death of Lely, in 1680, Kneller stood at the head of the professors of his art in this country, and that most conspicuously. It is not therefore surprising that he experienced the encouragement he did. He has left some few good pictures behind him as proofs of the natural powers he possessed; but his most sincere admirers, who are judges, must acknowledge that the far greater portion of those he allowed to pass into the world under his name, are a disgrace to him and his patrons. His picture of the converted Chinese, at Windsor, he is said to be most proud of, as justly he might be. It exhibits that he really knew what was good, and could produce it if he chose. According to his own doctrine, he did as much and no more than was accessary to pass current among his employers. “History painters,” he said, “make the dead live, and don't begin to live till they are dead. I paint the living, and they make me live.”

A rapid pencil, and a ready talent of taking likenesses, were the foundation of his reputation; and a most fortunate ignorance of the art among the best informed even of the public, by whom he was employed, aided his progress. Not but that he was equal to the production of good works if he had been more carefully trained, and had lived amongst those who knew how to value works of art upon just principles; but he was amongst the most vain of mankind, and had no regard whatsoever for that posthumous fame which leads men to sacrifice present enjoyments to future glory. His motto was, “to live whilst he lived,” and, consequently, to make money was a matter of greater moment with him than to make good pictures; and he succeeded fully; for although he lost 20,000l. by the South Sea speculation, he left, at his death, an estate of 2000l. a year. His prices, whilst he painted here, were 15 guineas for a head; 20 if with one hand; 30 for a half, and 60 for a whole length.

Sir Godfrey was a man of wit, riot unmixed with profaneness, of which lord Orford has given some instances that might as well have been suppressed. The following is of another stamp. In Great Queen-street, Lincoln’sinn-fields, he lived next door to Dr. Ratcliffe. Kneller was fond of flowers, and had a fine collection. As there was great intimacy between him and the physician, he permitted the latter to have a door into his garden; but, Ratcliffe’s servants gathering and destroying the flowers, Kneller sent him word he must shut up the door. RatclifFe replied, peevishly, “Tell him he may do any thing with it but paint it.” “And I,” answered sir Godfrey, “can take any thing from him but physic.”

, an English antiquary and biographer, was a native of London (where his father was freje of the Mercers’ company), and received the early part of his education at St. Paul’s school. He was thence admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where, having: taken his degree of B. A. in 1702, and of M. A. in 1706 he became chaplain to Edward earl of Orford, who presented him to the vicarage of Chippenham, and also to the rectory of Borough- green in Cambridgeshire, to which last he was instituted Nov. 3, 1707. He afterwards was collated by bishop Moore to a prebendal stall in the church of Ely, June 8, 1714 and presented by him to the rectory of Bluntesham in Huntingdonshire, June 22, 1717. He was made chaplain to George II. in Feb. 1730-1, and promoted by bishop Sherlock to the archdeaconry of Berks, 1735. He died December 10, 1746, in the 72d year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Bluntesham church, where a neat monument of white marble is erected to his memory, with an inscription written by his friend Mr. Castle, dean of Hereford. His only son, Samuel, was fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and rector of Fulham, in Middlesex. With the ample fortune which his father left him, he purchased the manor of Milton near Cambridge, and died Jan. 1790.

Dr. Knight, whose attention appears to have been much directed to literary and ecclesiastical history, was an useful assistant to many authors of his time, and his assistance was acknowledged by Peck, Grey, Ward, and others. He had made collections for the lives of bishops Grosseteste, Overal, and Patrick. Whiston had the latter, which is probably in the hands of his grandson, Samuel Knight, esq. His own publications were the “Life of Erasmus,” 1724, 8vo, and of “Dean Colet,” 1726, 8vo. Neither of these are written with much animation or elegance, but they contain many curious and useful materials, and are now sold at very high prices, especially the Erasmus, on account of the numerous and well-engraven portraits and plates.

, who flourished at the close of the 14th century, under Richard II. is celebrated as an ancient chronicler. He was a canon-regular of Leicesterabbey, and wrote a history of English affairs in five books, from the Conquest to the year 1395. He wrote likewise an account of the deposition of Richard II. His works are printed with the ten English historians published by Selden.

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

Knolles wrote also “The Lives and Conquests of the Ottoman Kings and Emperors, to the year 1610,” which was not printed till after his death, in 1621, to which time it was continued by another hand; and “A brief Discourse of the Greatness of the Turkish Empire, and wherein the greatest Strength thereof consisteth,” &c. He also translated Bodin’s “Six Bookes of a Common-wealthe,” 1606, folio. He died at Sandwich in 1610, and left behind him the character of a learned and worthy man.

Knorr à Rosenroth (Christian), a learned German orientalist, was born in 1636. He pursued his studies at various colleges, and then travelled for improvement into France, England, and Holland, but bestowed too much attention on chemistry and the cabalistic art, which vitiated the greater part of his works, althongh it obtained him the esteem and friendship of Lightfoot, More, and Van Helmont. By the count palatine of Sulzbach, he was, in 1688, nominated one of his privy council, and afterwards chancellor. His reputation is chiefly founded on his “Kabbala Denudata, seu Doctrina Hebræorum transcendentalis, et metaphysica, atque theologica,” &c. 3 vols. 4to; a farrago of wild reveries, fanciful chimeras, and mystical absurdities, with occasionally some learned notices of the philosophy of the Hebrews.

, a learned Jesuit and controversial writer, whose true name was Matthias Wilson, and who, in some of his works, takes the name of Nicholas Smith, was born at Pegsworth near Morpeth in Northumberland, 1580. He was entered among the Jesuits in 1606, being already in priest’s orders; and is represented in the “Bibliotheca Patrurn societatis Jesu,” as a man of low stature, but of great abilities: “vir magnis animi dotibus bumili in corpore praeditus.” He taught divinity a long time in the English college at Rome, and was a rigid observer of that discipline himself which he has as rigidly exacted from others. He was then appointed sub-provincial of the province of England; and, after he had exercised that employment out of the kingdom, he was sent thither to perform the functions of provincial. He was twice honoured with that employment. He was present, as provincial, at the general assembly of the orders of the Jesuits, held at Rome in 1646, and was elected one of the definitors. He died at London, January 4, 1655-6, and was buried in the church of St. Pancras, near that city.

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

, was a native of Ely, where he was born in 1723, and received his education at the grammar-school of that place, from whence he was removed to Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he commenced B. A. in 1743, M. A. in 174-7, and was also chosen fellow of that society. He was afterwards lecturer of St. Mary’s, in Bury St. Edmund’s, upwards of thirty years, prebendary of Ely, rector of Ickworth and Chedburgh, and vicar of Winston, all in the county of Suffolk. He died October 6, 1802.

His works, which discover great learning in a style plain and perspicuous, were, 1. “The scripture doctrine of the Existence and Attributes of God, in twelve Sermons, with a preface, in answer to a pamphlet concerning the argument d priori.” 2. “An Answer to bishop Clayton’s Essay on Spirit;” for which archbishop Seeker conferred on him the degree of D. D. 3. “Lord Hervey’s and Dr. Middleton’s Letters on the Roman Senate.” 4. “Observations on the Tithe Bill.” 5. “Dialogue on the Test Act.” 6. “Primitive Christianity in favour of tha Trinity;” attempted to be answered by Mr. Capel Lofft. 7. “Observations on the divine mission of Moses.” 8. “Advice to a young clergyman, in six letters.” 9. “The Passion, a sermon.” 10. “On Charity Schools, on Sunday Schools, and a preparatory discourse on Confirmation.” Though he occasionally meddled with controversial points, yet he always conducted himself with the urbanity of a scholar, the politeness of a gentleman, and the meekness of a Christian. He had particularly directed his studies to the acquirement of biblical learning; and, by temporary seclusion from the world, had stored his mind with the treasures of divine wisdom. As a preacher, he was justly admired. His delivery in the pulpit was earnest and impressive his language nervous and affecting; his manner plain and artless. His discourses were evidently written to benefit those to whom they were addressed, not to acquire for himself the title of a popular preacher. It was his grand object to strike at the root of moral depravity, to rouse up the languishing spirit of devotion, to improve the age, and to lead men to the observance of those moral duties, which his Divine Master taught them to regard as the essentials of his religion. To the doctrines of the Church of England he was a zealous friend; but, at the same time, he was also the friend of toleration. As a parish priest, he stood unrivalled among his order; exemplary in his conduct, unremitted in his attention to the duties of his station, blending in his ordinary conversation affability and openness, with that gravity of demeanour which well becomes a minister of the gospel persuasive in his addresses to his hearers, and adorning his doctrine by his life he will be long and unaffectedly lamented by his numerous parishioners. His only daughter was married, in 1780, to the rev. Benjamin Underwood, rector of East Barnet, and of St. Mary Abchurch, London.

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

He now set openly, and with a boldness peculiar to his character, to preach the doctrines of the reformation, although he had received no ordination, unless such as the small band of reformers could give; a circumstance which, although objected to by some ecclesiastical historians, was not accounted any impediment to 1m afterwards receiving promotion at the hands of the English prelates. His first sermon was upon Dan. vii. 23 28; from which text he proved, to the satisfaction of his auditors, that the pope was Antichrist, and that the doctrine of the Romish church was contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles; and he likewise gave the notes both of the true church, and of the antichristian church. Hence he was convened by his superiors; he was also engaged in disputes; but things went prosperously on, and Knox continued diligent in the discharge of his ministerial function tillJuly 1547, when the castle of St. Andrew’s, in which he was, was surrendered to the French; and then he was carried with the garrison into France. He remained a prisoner on. board the galleys, till the latter end of 1549, when being set at liberty, he passed into England; and, going to London, was there licensed, either by Cranmer, or Somerset the protector, and appointed preacher, first at Berwick, and next at Newcastle. During this employ, he received a summons, in 1551, to appear before Cuthbert Tonstall, bishop of Durham, for preaching against the mass. In 1552, he was appointed chaplain to Edward VI.; it being thought fit, as Strype relates, that the king should retain six chaplains in ordinary, who should not only wait on him, but be itineraries, and preach the gospel over all the nation. The sanje year he came into some trouble, on account of a bold sermon preached upon Christmas-day, at Newcastle, against the obstinacy of the papists. In 1552-3, he returned to London, and was appointed to preach before the king and council at Westminster; who recommended Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury to give him the living of Allhallows in London, which was accordingly offered him but he refused it, not caring to conform to the English liturgy, as it then stood. Some say, that king Edward would have promoted him to a bishopric; but that he even fell into a passion when it was offered him, and rejected it as favouring too much of Antichristianism.

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

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

In April 1559, he determined to return to his native country, and would have visited England in his way, but queen Elizabeth’s ministers would not suffer him, because he had rendered himself obnoxious to their royal mistress by inveighing against the government of women. He accordingly arrived in Scotland in May. At this time a public prosecution was carried on against the protestants, and their trial was just ready to commence at Stirling: Knox instantly hurried to share with his brethren in the threatened danger, or to assist them in their common cause.

Dr. Robertson, in describing this business, says, “While their minds were in that ferment which the queen’s perfidiousness and their own danger occasioned, Knox mounted the pulpit, and, by a vehement harangue against idolatry, inflamed the multitude with the utmost rage. The indiscretion of a priest, who, immediately after Knox’s discourse, was seen preparing to celebrate mass, and began to decorate the altar for that purpose, precipitated them into immediate action. With tumultuous, but irresistible violence, they fell upon the churches in that city, overturned the altars, defaced the pictures, broke in pieces the images, and proceeding next to the monasteries, laid those sumptuous fabrics almost level with the ground. This riotous insurrection was not the effect of any concert, or previous deliberation. Censured by the reformed preachers, and publicly condemned by the persons of most power and credit with the party, it must be regarded merely as an accidental eruption of popular rage.” From this time Mr. Knox continued to promote the reformation by every means in his power, sparingno pains, nor fearing any danger. Mr. Knox, by his correspondence with secretary Cecil, was chiefly instrumental in establishing those negotiations between “The Congregation” and the English, which terminated in the march of an English army into Scotland to assist the protestants, and to protect them against the persecutions of the queen-regent. This army, being joined by almost all the great men of Scotland, proceeded with such vigour and success, that they obliged the French forces, who had been the principal supports of the tyranny of the regent, to quit the kingdom, and restored the parliament to its former independency. Of that body, a great majority had embraced the protestant opinions, and encouraged by the zeal and number of their friends, they improved every opportunity in overthrowing the whole fabric of popery. They sanctioned the confession of faith presented to them by Knox, and the other reformed teachers: they abolished the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and transferred the causes to the cognizance of the civil courts; and they prohibited the exercise of religious worship, according to the rites of the Romish church. In August 1561, the queen arrived from France, and immediately set up a private mass in her own chapel; which afterwards, by her protection and countenance, was much frequented. This excited the zeal of Knox, who expressed great warmth against allowing it: and, an act of the privy-council being proclaimed at Edinburgh the 25th of that month, forbidding any disturbance to be given to this practice, under pain of death, Knox openly, in his sermon the Sunday following, declared, that “one mass was more frightful to him than ten thousand armed enemies, landed in any part of the realm.' 1 This freedom gave great offence to the court, and the queen herself had a long conference with him upon that and other subjects. In 1563, he preached a sermon, in which he expressed his abhorrence of the queen’s marrying a papist; and her majesty, sending for him, expressed much passion, and thought to have punished him; but was prevailed on to desist at that time. The ensuing year, lord Darnley, being married to the queen, was advised by the protestants about the court, to hear Mr. Knox preach, as thinking it would contribute much to procure the good-will of the people he accordingly did so but was so much offended at his sermon, that he complained to the council, who silenced Knox for some time. His text was Isaiah xxiv. 13 and 17,” O Lord, our God, other lords than Thou have reigned over us.“From these words he took occasion to speak of the government of wicked princes, who, for the sins of the people, are sent as tyrants and scourges to plague them; and, among other things, he said, that” God sets over them, for their offences and ingratitude, boys and women."

In 1567, Knox preached a sermon at the coronation of James VI. of Scotland, and afterwards the First of Great Britain and also another at the opening of the parliament. He went vigorously on with the work of reformation but, in 1572, was greatly offended with a convention of ministers at Leith, where it was agreed that a certain kind of episcopacy should be introduced into the church. At this time his constitution was quite broken; and what seems to have given him the finishing stroke was the dreadful news of the massacre of the Protestants at Paris about this time. He had strength enough to preach against it, which he desired the French ambassador might be acquainted with; but he fell sick soon after, and died November 24, 1572, after having spent several days in the utmost devotion. He was interred at Edinburgh, several lords attending, and particularly the earl of Morton, that day chosen regent, who, as soon as he was laid in his grave, said, u There lies he who never feared the face of man, who hath been often threatened with dag and dagger, but yet hath ended his days in peace and honour. For he had God’s providence watching over him in a special manner, when his very life was sought."

Knox was twice married, and had children by both his wives; two sons by the first, who were educated at St. John’s college, in Cambridge, and chosen fellows of the same. He requested the general assembly which met at Edinburgh in 1566, for leave to visit these sons in England; but they were only at school then, being sent to the university after his death. As to his writings, they were neither numerous nor large: 1. “A faithful admonition to the Professors of the Gospel of Christ within the Kingdom of England,” 1554. 2. “A Letter to Queen Mary, Regent of Scotland,” 1556. 3. “The Appellation of John Knox,” &c. mentioned above, 1558. 4. “The First Blast,” &c. mentioned above, 1558. 5. “A brief Exhortation to England, for the speedy Embracing of Christ’s Gospel, heretofore by the Tyranny of Mary suppressed and banished,” 1559. After his death, came out, 6, His “History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland,” &c. at the end of the fourth edition of which, at Edinburgh, 1732, in folio, are subjoined all the forementioned works. He published also a few pieces in the controversial way, against the anabaptists, as well as papists; and also his sermon before lord Darnley.

The character of this eminent man has been variously represented, according to the sentiments of ecclesiastical writers. The friends of popery, and of the episcopal establishment in Scotland, and the more recent admirers and advocates of queen Mary, have spared no pains to give an unfavourable turn to all his actions, while the adherents to the church of Scotland have always continued to reverence his character and actions. Dr. Robertson, by no means a partial admirer of Knox, and certainly no bigot to the doctrines or discipline of his church, says that “he was the prime instrument of spreading and establishing the reformed religion in Scotland. Zeal, intrepidity, disinterestedness, were virtues which he possessed in an eminent degree. He was acquainted, too, with the learning cultivated among divines in that age, and excelled in that species of eloquence which is calculated to rouse and inflame. His maxims, however, were often too severe, and the impetuosity of his temper excessive. Rigid and uncomplying himself, he shewed no indulgence to the infirmities of others. Regardless of the distinctions of rank and character, he uttered his admonitions with acrimony and vehemence, more apt to irritate than to reclaim. This often betrayed him into indecent and undutiful expressions with respect to the queen’s person and conduct. Those very qualities, however, which now render his character less amiable, fitted him to be the instrument of Providence for advancing the reformation among a fierce people, and enabled him to face dangers, and to surmount opposition, from which a person of a more gentle spirit would have been apt to shrink back.” Knox has lately found more zealous biographers in Cook, and especially M‘Crie, whose life of him is an important addition to the ecclesiastical history of his country, and does honour to Mr. M’Crie’s talents, judgment, and extensive research. It is not perhaps necessary to add many authorities to this notice of that work.

, the son of capt, Robert Knox, commander of the Anne frigate, in the East India service, was born about 1641, and probably brought up to the sea service. He went with his father to Fort George in 1657, and returning thence to England in 1659, put into Ceylon on account of a storm, where he, his father, and fourteen others were made prisoners, and his father died in this captivity, Feb. 9, 1660. After a servitude of nineteen years and a half, the subject of this memoir escaped from the inland parts of the island, where he was prisoner at large, to Areppa, a Dutch settlement on the north-west coast. Here he was hospitably received, and carried in one of their ships to Batavia, and thence, in an English ship, to England. Many of his companions whom he left at Ceylon, had become reconciled to their fate, married, and had families; but captain Knox, although often solicited, preserved his repugnance to such connexions, and his love of liberty. After his return he wrote “An historical relation of the Island of Ceylon, in the East Indies,” with an account of his captivity and escape; illustrated with plates and a map of the island, London, 1681, fol. The preface is by Dr, Robert Hooke, who probably had some share in the compilation. It was long esteemed a book of authority, It is uncertain when captain Knox died. He was cousin to Strype the historian.

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

, professor of philosophy in Prussia, was born at Konigsberg, in 1713, where he was for some years professor of philosophy, and librarian. He died in 1751, leaving several learned works, of which the principal are, “Systema Causarum Efficientium;” “Elementa Philosophic Rationalis, Methodo Mathematico demonstrata;” “Theoremata de Parabolis infinitis” and “A Defence of the Christian Religion,” which is said to be his ablest performance.

, a learned German, was born at Altorf, in Franconia, in 1616; and afterwards became professor of poetry and of the Greek tongue, and library-keeper, in the university there, in which last office he succeeded his father. He was well versed in the belles lettres, in divinity, and in the oriental languages; but, being afflicted with deafness some years before he died, he was much impeded in the discharge of his academical functions. He died Dec. 2 9, 1699, having survived a wife, whom he married in 1648, and four children. He gave several public specimens of his learning, but is principally known for a work entitled “Bibliotheca vetus et nova,” printed at Altorf, 1678, 4to. This is a biographical dictionary, which, though not free from defects, is a very useful collateral help in the investigation of literary history.

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

, a learned philosopher and mathematician, was a Swiss by birth, and came early into eminence by his mathematical abilities. He was professor of philosophy and natural law at Franeker, and afterwards at the Hague, where he became also librarian to the stadtholder, and to the princess of Orange; and where he died in 1757. The academy of Berlin enrolled him among her members; but afterwards expelled him on the following occasion. Maupertuis, the president, had inserted in the volume of the Memoirs for 1746, a discourse upon the laws of motion; which Koenig not only attacked, but also attributed the memoir to Leibnitz. Maupertuis, stung with the imputation of plagiarism, engaged the academy of Berlin to call upon him for his proof; which Koenig failing to produce, he was struck out of the academy. All Europe was interested in the quarrel which this occasioned between Koenig and Maupertuis. The former appealed to the public; and his appeal, written with the animation of resentment, procured him many friends. He was author of some other works, and had the character of being one of the best mathematicians of the age. He had a brother, Daniel, who was murdered at the age of twenty-two, at Franekei 4 The populace, overhearing him talk in French, imagined that he was a French spy, and would have killed him on the spot, if the academicians had not rescued him from their fury: but the wounds which he received hurried him to the grave in a few months. He translated into Latin Dr. Arbuthnot’s “Tables of Ancient Coins,” which remained in ms. till 1756, when it was published at Utrecht, with a curious and useful preface, by professor Reitz.

, a celebrated traveller, was born in 1674, at Dorflas, in the principality of Baireuth, of which place his father was a judge, and afterwards a receiver of taxes. His early years were passed in poverty, until, in 1696, he was received into the* house of Eimart, an astronomer, under whose directions he made considerable progress in the sciences. He entered the university of Halle in 1700, and afterwards gave a course of lectures in mathematics and philosophy. He was introduced to baron von Krosie, privy counsellor to his Prussian majesty, to whom he became secretary, and whom he accompanied in his travels; and a proposal being made to him to go to the Cape of Good Hope, he gladly embraced the opportunity. Here he remained ten years, making observations on the country and the people, till he was afflicted with blindness, from which, however, on his return to Europe, he so far recovered as to be able to read with the assistance of glasses. In 1716 he inserted in the Acta Eruditorum a treatise “De aquis Capitis Bonse Spei.” This work introduced him into farther notice, and he was appointed rector of the school of Neustadt, where he died in 1726. His chief publication was “A Description of the Cape of Good Hope,” in folio, with twenty-four plates. This work was translated into Dutch in 1727; and at London, into English, in 1731, by Mr. Medley, who lopped o.'Fsome of its redundancies. It was afterwards abridged, and published in French in three vols. 12mo. The first attack on the veracity of tliis work was made by the abbe“de la Caille, who, in his Journal of the voyage to the Cape, said that he took Kolben’s description with him, but found it full of inaccuracies and falsehoods, and more resembling a series of fables than an authentic narrative. It has been also said that Kolben having passed the whole of his time with his bottle and his pipe, was perplexed to find that he had nothing to show in Europe, as the first fruits of his supposed labours, and therefore engaged some inhabitants of the Cape to draw up for him that description of the colony which he imposed upon the public as his own. Forstcr, on the other hand, in his” Voyage round the World," ascribes to La Caille certain interested motives in thus decrying Kolben' s work, and says it would be easy to refute almost every criticism which the abbe* has passed on that intelligent and entertaining voyager. These different opinions might perplex us, if more recent travellers had not rendered us independent both of Kolben and La Cailie.

, a learned professor of divinity at Kiel, was born Jan. 15, 1633, at Burg, in the isle of Femeren, near the Baltic sea, in the country of Holstein. He was sent first to school at Burg, whence in his sixteenth year he removed to Sleswick, where he applied to his books two years more; and afterwards studied in the college of Stetin, and gave public proofs of his progress by some theses. Going to Rostoch in 1652, he assiduously frequented the lectures of the professors, and took the degree of doctor in philosophy, in 1656. He then pursued his studies in the university of Jena, and gained great reputation by the academical acts, and by private lectures read on philosophy, the Eastern tongues, and divinity. He left Jena in 1660, and after visiting the universities of Leipsic and Wittemberg, returned to Rostoch, where he was made Greek professor in 1662; and took a doctor of divinity’s degree the same year. He married in 1664, and next year was invited to be second professor of divinity in the university just founded at Kiel. He was so zealous for the prosperity of that new university, and so grateful for the kindness of the duke of Holstein, his master, that he refused all the employments, though very beneficial and honourable, which were offered him in several places. This prince bestowed upon him, in 1680, the professorship of ecclesiastical antiquities; and declared him vice-chancellor of 'the university for life, 1689; and he discharged the duty of those offices with great ability, application, and prudence. His death, which happened March 31, 1694, was a great loss to the university of Kiel, and to the republic of letters. His works in Latin and German are numerous, and esteemed by the learned; the principal are, 1. “Tractatus de persecutionibus Ecclesise primitive, veterumque Martyrum cruciatibus,” the best edition of which is, Keil, 1689, 4to. 2. “Tractatus de Calumniis Pagariorum in veteres Christianos,” Keil, 1698, 4to. 3. “Tractatus de Religione Ethnica, Mahummedana et Judaica,” 1665, 4to. 4. “De Origine et Natura Christianismi ex mente Gentilium,” 1672, *4to. 5. “De tribus Impostoribus magnis Liber, Edwardo Herbert, Thomse Hobbes, et Benedicto Spinosa oppositis,” Hamburg, 1701, 4to. 6. “De rationis cum revelatione in Theologia concursu,” 1692, 4to “Oratio de Scholarum et Academiarum ortu et progressu, presertim in Germania,” 1666, folio, &c.

, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1709, at Keil, where his father, Sebastian Kortholt, was professor. He discovered an early disposition towards the sciences, and made so rapid a progress in them, that he was admitted at twenty to assist in the “Journal of Leipsic,” in which may be found some good pieces of his till 1736, and some well chosen extracts from works on ecclesiastical history. Kortholt visited Holland and England, and was esteemed by the learned there. While in England he drew up a short account of the society of Antiquaries of London, “Epistola ad Kappium de Soc. Ant. Lond.” Leipsic, 1730, 4to. He went afterwards to Vienna, as chaplain to the Danish ambassador, and was appointed professor of divinity, 1742, at Gottingen, where he died in the flower of his age, 1751, leaving several valuable works. The principal among the Latin ones are, “De Ecclesiis suburbicariis” “De Enthusiasmo Muhammedis” and several excellent “Dissertations.” The most esteemed of those in German are, a “Treatise on the truth of Christianity” “Sermons,” &c. He published four volumes of Latin letters by Leibnitz, a volume of his French letters, and a collection of various pieces on philosophy, mathematics, history, &c. by the same author.

, born in 1585, was one of the three fanatics whose visions were published at Amsterdam in 1657 (by Comenius, as noticed in his life), with the following title: “Lux in Tenebris.” He lived at Sprottow in Silesia; and his visions began in June 1616. He fancied he saw an angel, under the form of a man, who commanded him to go and declare to the magistrates, that, unless the people repented, the wrath of God would fall dreadfully upon them. His pastor and friends restrained him for some time, nor did he execute his commission, even though the angel had appeared six times; but in 1619, being threatened by the same spirit, he divulged his commission. This brought upon him some ridicule, but his visions continued, and were followed by extasies and prophetic dreams. He waited on the elector Palatine, whom the protestants had declared king of Bohemia, at Breslaw, in 1620, and informed him of his commission, and published it in other places, and, in 1625, at Brandenburg, He became acquainted, the same year, with Comenius, who greatly favoured his prophecies but, as they chiefly presaged happiness to the elector-palatine, and the reverse to the emperor, he became at length obnoxious, and, in 1627, was closely imprisoned, as a seditious impostor, afterwards set on the pillory, and banished the emperor’s dominions. Upon this he went to Lusatia, which was then subject to his electoral highness of Saxony; and lived there unmolested till his death, in 1647. Whether fool, or knave, he was not discouraged from prophesying, though his predictions were continually convicted of falsehood by the event.

, a famous historian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Hamburg, and had no sooner finished his classical studies, than he set out upon his travels, visiting several parts of Europe, during which he studiously cultivated the sciences, and became a man of general knowledge. His talents procured him the title and offices of doctor of divinity and of the canon law, and professor of philosophy and divinity in the university of Rostoch, of which also he was rector in 1482. He went from Rostoch to Hamburg, and was elected dean of the chapter in the cathedral there in 1498. He executed many important affairs for the church and city of Hamburg; and was so famed for his abilities and prudence, that, in 1500, John king of Denmark, and Frederick duke of Holstein, did not scruple to make him umpire, in a contest they had with the province of Dietmarsen. He died Dec. 7, 1517, after having written some very good works, which were afterwards published: as, 1. V Ghronica Regnorum Aquilorum, Danise, Sueciae, Norvegiae,“Argentorat. 1546, folio. 2.” Saxonia, sive de Saxonicse Gentis vetusta Origine, longinquis Expeditionibus susceptis, et Bellis Domi pro Libertate diu fortiterque gestis Historia, Libris 13 comprehensa, et ad Annum 1501 deducta,“Colon. 1520, folio. 3.” Vandalia, sive Historia de Vandalorum ver& Origine, variis Gentibus, crebris e Patria Migrationibus, Regnis item, quorum vel Autores fuerunt vel Eversores, Libris 14 a prim& eorum Origine ad A. C. 1500 deducta,“Colon. 1519, folio. 4.” Metropolis, sive Historia Ecciesiastica Saxoniae,“Basil, 1548, fol. 5.” Jnstitutiones Logicoe," Leipsic, 1517, 4to, &c.

, a learned divine, was born in 1576, at Cobelen in Misnia, of a noble and ancient family. He was appointed minister at Eisleben, then preacher to the duchess dowager of Saxony, and afterwards superintendant of Weimar, where he died in 1643, leaving, “Harmonia Evangelistarum” “Examen Libri Christianas Concordiae” “Historiae Ecclesise compendium” and a valuable paraphrase on the book of Jeremiah and the Lamentations, which is in the Bible of Weimar.

, nephew of the preceding, was born in 1610, at Zeitz, and became celebrated for his learning and writings, professor of history, rhetoric, and divinity at Leipsic, in which city he died, in 1670, leaving numerous works, of which the following are the principal “Theologia Positivo-Polemic-a” “Historia Erclesiast.” “Loci anti-Syneretistici” “Polymathia Theologica” “Comment, in Epist. ad Galatas et Apocai” “Scrutinium Religionum,” &c.

, a celebrated fanatic, was born at Breslaw in Silesia in 1651, and gave great hopes by the uncommon progress he made in literature; but this was interrupted by a sickness he laboured under at eighteen years of age. He was thought to be dead on the third day of his illness, but had then, it seems, a most terrible vision. He fancied himself surrounded with all the devils in hell, and this at mid-day, when he was awake. This vision was followed by another of God himself, surrounded by his saints, and Jesus Christ in the midst; when he saw and felt things inexpressible. Two days after, he had more visions of the same kind; and when he was cured of his distemper, though he perceived a vast alteration with regard to these sights, yet he found himself perpetually encompassed with a circle of light on his left hand. He had no longer any taste for human learning, nor any value for university-disputes or lectures; he would have no other master but the Holy Ghost. He left his country at nineteen years of age. His desire to see Holland made him hasten thither, even in the midst of a desolating war; and he landed at Amsterdam, Sept. 3, 1673, which was but three days before the retaking the city of Naerden. He went to Leyden a few days after, and meeting with Jacob Behmen’s works, his disorder increased, for he now said he found that Behmen had prophesied of things, of which he thought nobody but himself had the least knowledge. There was at that time in Holland one John Hothe, a prophet likewise of the same stamp; for whom Kuhlman conceived a high veneration, and dedicated to him his “Prodromus quinquennii mirabilis,” printed at Leyden in 1674. This work was to be followed by two other volumes, in the first of which he intended to introduce the studies and discoveries he had made from the time of his first vision to 1674. He communicated his design to father Kircher; and, commending some books which that Jesuit had published, he let him know, that he had only sketched out what himself intended to carry much farther Kircher wrote him civil answers, in which he did not trouble himself to defend his works, but declared, that, having written only as a man, he did not pretend to equal those who wrote by inspiration. “I frankly own myself,” says he, “incapable of your sublime and celestial knowledge: what I have written, I have written after a human manner, that is, by knowledge gained by study and labour, not divinely inspired or infused. I do not doubt but that you, by means of the incomparable and vast extent of your genius, will produce discoveries much greater and more admirable than my trifles. You promise great and. incredible things, which, as they far transcend all human capacity, so I affirm boldly, that they have never been attempted, nor even thought of, by any person hitherto; and therefore I cannot but suspect, that you have obtained by the gift of God such a knowledge as the scriptures ascribe to Adam and Solomon: I mean, an Adamic and Solomonic knowledge, known to no mortal but yourself, and inexplicable by any other.” Our fanatic, not perceiving that his correspondent was jesting with him, carefully published Kircher’s answers, using capital letters in those passages where he thought himself praised. Kircher, however, gave him serious advice, when Kuhlman consulted him about writing to the pope: he told him with what circumspection and caution things were conducted at Rome; and assured him, that in his great work, which he proposed to dedicate to the pope, he must admit nothing which might offend the censors of books, and especially take care not to ascribe to himself an inspired knowledge.

When Kuhlman left Holland does not appear; but it is related, that he wandered a long time in England, France, and the East, and at last was burnt in Muscovy, Oct. 3, 1689, on account of some predictions of the seditious kind. In the character of this fanatic, there is little to excite respect or compassion. He kept two women in succession, without the sanction of marriage, and made use of the worst arts to get money. He used to write letters to people, in which he denounced terrible judgments, if certain sums were not advanced for the promotion of the new kingdom of God. The celebrated Van Helmont received one of these letters, but paid no attention to it. Another proof that there was nothing very sincere in his enthusiasm, is, that, while he was reaay to write respectfully to the pope for the good of Christianity, he was comforting himself with Drabicius’s prophecies relating to the destruction of the papacy; and, at that very time, wrote to his friends letters full of hopes that it was then approaching.

, a learned German, and accurate classical editor, was born in 1647 at Gripswalde, a town of Pomerania, where his father was a merchant. Great care was taken of his education; and, after he had finished his juvenile studies in his own country, he was sent to Stade in Lower Saxony. In 1668, he went to the university of Jena, where he applied himself to divinity and the belles lettres. Travelling making one part of the education of a German, he visited the most celebrated towns of Franconia. His high reputation engaged Boccius, a minister of Oetingen in Swabia, to employ him as a preceptor to his children; which office he discharged with so much credit, that he was in 1669 made principal of the college in this town. He held this post three years, and then went to Strasburg; where, in 1676, he was elected Greek professor in the principal college. Ten years he acquitted himself honourably in this professorship, and then was appointed Greek and Hebrew professor in the university of the same town. His uncommon skill in the Greek language drew a vast nnmber of scholars about him, and from places and countries very distant. He died Dec. 11, 1697, aged 50.

He published himself, 1. “Animadversiones in Pollucem,” 1680, 12mo. This was a specimen bf an intended edition of Pollux’s “Onomasticon,” which he was prevented by death from executing. His labours, however, were not lost, but inserted in the folio edition of that author at Amsterdam, 1706. 2. ^Æliani variae histories libri jdv.“Argent. 1685, 8vo. His notes on this author are very exact and learned, and not only critical, but explanatory. 3.” Diogenes Laertius de vitis philosophorum, &c. n Amst. 1692, in 2 vols. 4to, Meibomius’s fine edition, in which the short notes of Kuhnius, and other learned men, are inserted. After his death were published, 4. “Quaestiones philosophies ex sacris Veteris et Novi Testament! aliisque scriptoribus,” Argent. 1698, 4to. 5. “Pausanice Groecise descriptio,” &c. Lipsiae, 1716, folio. Kuhnius took great pains with this author, whose text was much corrupted; and his edition is justly reckoned the best.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Husurn, in the duchy of Sleswick, in 1630. He was originally intended for the practice of pharmacy; but having applied himself with equal diligence to the study of chemistry and metallurgy, he obtained great reputation in. these sciences, and was appointed chemist to the elector of Saxony. He afterwards went to the court of Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with a similar appointment; and subsequently to that of Charles XI. king of Sweden, who, in 1693, granted him letters of nobility, under the name of Kunckel de Loewenstern. He was elected a member of the imperial Academia Naturae Curiosorum, under the name of Hermes III. He died in Sweden, in March 1703. Notwithstanding his advantages and fame, his theoretical knowledge was very imperfect; he was altogether destitute of the least tincture of philosophy, and was even said to have been one of the searchers for the philosopher’s stone. He is now principally known as the discoverer of phosphorus, which he prepared from urine, and which bears his name in the shops. He was the author of several works, written in German, in a very bad style, and with as little method as the rest of the alchemists. His treatise “On Phosphorus,” was printed at Leipsic in 1678, and his “Art of Glass-making” in 1689. Two or three of his essays have been translated into Latin.

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

Kuster’s other works, not hitherto mentioned, were: 1. “Historia Critica Homeri,” Francfort, 1696, 8vo, a work which he did not value much afterwards, when he had made a greater progress in learning. He thought that he had begun too early the character of an author. In this tract he took upon him the name of Neocorus, which in Greek signifies a sexton, as Kuster does in High Dutch. 2. “Bibliotheca Librorum collecta a L. Neocoro, 77 Utrecht, 5 tomes in 8vo. This work was continued from the month of April 1697, to the end of 1699. Mr. Kuster was at.first employed alone in this journal; but took into his assistance Mr. Henry Sike, who was afterwards professor of Hebrew in the university of Cambridge. They wrote in conjunction till June 1699, when Mr. Kuster left this work to Mr. Sike, who continued it no longer than the last six months of that year. 3.” Jamblichi de Vita Pythagoras Liber, Grsece & Latine, cum nova Versione, Emendationibus, & Notis L. Kusteri. Accedit Porphyrius de Vit& Pythagoras cum notis L. Holstenii &-C. Hittershusii; itemque Anonymus apud Photium de Vita Pythagorse,“Amsterdam, 1707, in 4to. Dr. Kuster’s notes are merely criticd, in which he restores a prodigious number of passages in his authors. 4.” Diatriba L. K. in qu& Editio Suidae Cantabrigiensis contra Cavillationes J. G. Aristarchi Leydensis defenditur,“inserted in M. Le Clerc’s Bibliotheque Choisie, torn. XXIV. p. 49, & seqq. and published separately, in 12mo. A new edition of it, with additions, was published under the title of” Diatriba Anti-Gronoviana,“at Amsterdam, 1712, in 8vo. 5.” De Musseo Alexaudrino Diatriba,“inserted in the 8th tome of Gronovius’s collection of Greek Antiquities. 6.” Ludovici Savoti Dissertationes de Nummis antiquis lingua Gallica in Latinam translate a. L. Neocoro,“inserted in the llth tome of Graevius’s Roman Antiquities. 7.” Picturae antiquse sepulchri Nasoniorum in Via Flaminia delineate & incisee a Petro Sancto Bartaeriolo, explicates a Joanne Petro Hellene; ex Italics. Lingua in Latinam transtulit L. Neocorus,“inserted in the 12th volume of GraDvius. 8” Epistola, in qua Praefatio quarn v. c. J. P. [Jacobus Perizonius] novissimae Dissertationi suae de aere gravi praeposuit, refellitur,“Leyden, 1713, 8vi. 9.” De vero usu Verborum Mediorum apud Graecos, eorumque differentia u Verbis Activis & Passivis. Annexa est Epistola de Verbo Cerno ad virum clar. J. P. Auctore Ludolpho Kustero, Regias Inscriptionum Academiae socio,“Paris, 1714, in 12mo. 10.” Explication d'une Inscription Greque envoy^e de Smyrne,“inserted in the Memoirs de Trevoux for September, 1715. 11.” Examen Criticum Editionis novissimae Herodoti Gronovianae,“inserted in Le Clerc’s Bibliotheque ancienne &, moderne, torn. V. p. 383 & seqq. There has been published in Holland under the name of Graevius, and with the title of” Nova Conors Musarum," a little tract of Kuster, written in 1699, for the instruction of some young noblemen. Our author published a specimen of a new edition of Robert Stephens’s Thesaurus, with great improvements in La Roche’s Memoirs of Literature, vol. V. p. 298 & seqq

Kuster’s chief excellence was his skill in the Greek language, to which he devoted himself with an enthusiasm which undervalued every other pursuit. He thought the history and chronology of Greek words the most solid entertainment of a man of letters, and despised all other branches of learning. It is reported of him, that one day taking up Bayle’s “Commentaire Philosophique,” in a bookseller’s shop, he threw it down, and said, “This is nothing but a book of reasoning; non sic itur ad astra.” But many of his characteristic peculiarities will be best understood from the following letter from Joseph Wasse, the learned editor of Sallust.

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

, a very original artist, was born at Dort in 1606, and was the son of Jacob Gerritz Kuyp, a landscape painter of much merit, whom, however, he far surpassed in his progress. He was one of the most agreeable painters that ever lived; imitating with the greatest perfection the purity and brilliancy of light. No artist ever represented the atmosphere which surrounds all objects more completely than Cuyp; not even Claude: and in the effect of sun-shine, none ever approached him. The simplest scenes and combinations of objects were sufficient for him to exert his talents upon; and he never failed to give an interest to them by the sweetness of his colour, and the beauty of his light and shade.

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

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

, son of Humphry Kynaston, citizen of Chester (descended from a younger branch of the Kynastons of Bronguin, in the county of Montgomery), was born at Chester, Dec. 5, 1728; admitted a commoner in Brazen-nose college, Oxford, March 20, 1746; elected scholar, on the foundation of Sarah dutchess dowager of Somerset, in the said college, Aug. I of the same year took the degree of B. A. Oct. 16, 1749 was elected fellow June 14, 1751 and took the decree of M. A. June 4, 1752. He obtained no small reputation by an Oratiuncula, entitled, “De Impietate C. CornelioTacito falso objectata; Oratio ex Instituto Viri cl. Francisci Bridgman , militis, habita in Sacello Collegii JEnei Nasi Oxon. Festo Sancti Thomre, Decembris 2':, A. D. 1761, a J. K. A. M. Coll. ejusdem Socio;” in which he endeavoured to disprove the false allegations (for such he really thought them) of Famianus Strada (the excellent critic, and most elegant writer) against Tacitus, on his impiety and sovereign contempt of the Supreme. On the apprehension of the notorious miss Blandy, Mr. Kynaston took an active part, from the time of her conviction till her body was secured from indecent treatment. In this business he barely steered free from censure. His method was, to be with her as much as postible when the ordinary (the learned, well-known, but credulous Mr. Swinton, whom she gained to countenance her hypocrisy) was absent; and was suspected to have given hopes of pardon, in concert with another person, also of Brazen-nose College, to the morning of her execution, when she appeared in that studied genteel dress and attitude which she could not possibly have put on had she been watchfully attended by a firmer-minded instructor. In 1764, he published “A collection of papers relative to the prosecution now carrying on in the Chancellor’s Court in Oxford, against Mr. Kynaston, by Matthew Maddock, clerk, rector of Cotworth and Holywell, in the county of Huntingdon, and chaplain to his grace of Manchester, for the charge of adultery alleged against the said Matthew Maddock,” 8vo. From the date of this publication (the cause of which operated too severely on his high sense of honour) he resided, in not the best state of health, at Wigan principally, loved and respected by a few select friends. On the 27th of March, 1783, Mr. Kynaston had the misfortune to break his left arm, near the shoulder; but, the bones having been properly replaced, he was thought out of danger. It brought on his death, however, in the June following.

, a French enthusiast, was born at Bourg, in Guienne, Feb. 13, 1610; and, being sent to the Jesuits college at Bourdeaux at seven years of age, he made so quick a progress in his studies, that his masters resolved to take into their society a youth, who gave such promising hopes of being an honour to it. The spirit of piety, with which he was animated, brought him easily into their views; but, being opposed in this by his father, who was gentleman of the bedchamber to Lewis XIII. he could not then carry his design into execution. On his father’s death, however, he entered into the order; and, having finished his course of rhetoric and philosophy in three years, he took upon himself the office of a preacher before he was ordained priest. He continued among the Jesuits till 1639; when his frequent infirmities, and the desire he had of attaining to greater perfection, engaged him to quit that society, as he asserts, while others aver, that he was expelled for some singular notions, and for his hypocrisy. Whatever was the cause, he went immediately to Paris, where he preached with great zeal, and procured the friendship of father Gondren, general of the oratory; and Coumartin, bishop of Amiens, being present at one of his sermons, was so much pleased, that he engaged him to settle in his diocese, and gave him acanonry in his cathedral-church.

He was no sooner fixed at Amiens, than he endeavoured to become a director of consciences, and presently saw himself at the head of a vast number of devotees; but it is said that his enthusiasm led him to practices more of a carnal than a spiritual nature; and that the discovery of some love-intrigues, in a nunnery, obliged him to seek a retreat elsewhere. For that purpose he chose first PortRoyal; but, as his doctrines or practices were not acceptable, his stay there was short. He therefore removed to Bazas, and afterwards to Toulouse, where M. de Montchal, archbishop of the city, gave him the direction of a convent of nuns; but here, likewise, the indecency of his familiarities with his pupils, under pretence of restoring the notions of primitive purity, and unsuspicious innocence, obliged the bishop, apprehending the consequences of such a converse, to disperse those who had been seduced into different convents, to be better instructed. Labadie endeavoured to inculcate the same practices elsewhere, but, despairing at length to make disciples any longer among the catholics, by whom he was by this time suspected and watched, he betook himself to the reformed, and resolved to try if he could not introduce among them the doctrine and practice of spirituality and mental prayer; with which view, he published three manuals, composed chiefly to set forth the excellence and necessity of that method. But an attempt which he is said to have made upon the chastity of mademoiselle Calonges lost him the esteem and protection of those very persons for whose use his books were particularly written.

Some time afterwards, an accusation was preferred at court against him, for raising a sedition respecting the corpse of a woman which the curate of Montauban thought proper to inter in the church-yard of the catholics, because she had changed her religion. Labadie denied the priest’s right to the corpse, and his party appeared in arms to dispute it. But the cause being brought before the court, it was there decided in favour of the catholics, and Labadie condemned to quit the church of Montauban as a seditious person. His banishment however caused a dangerous division. D'Arbussy, his colleague, was charged with promoting his condemnation, out of a spirit of jealousy. Two parties were formed in the town, almost wholly consisting of the reformed. They proceeded to the last extremities, though the chieftains of each party bore so bad a character as to be equally detested by all who had followed them. Labadie, thus driven out of Montauban, went to seek an asylum at Orange; but, not finding himself so safe there as he imagined, he withdrew privately to Geneva, in June 1659. In the mean time, his departure was much regretted at Orange, where he had imposed upon the people by his devout manner, and by his preaching; and he was not long at Geneva before he excited great commotions. Those that joined him built a large mansion, in which proper cells were provided for his most zealous followers; while the rest of the citizens, consulting how to get rid of him, contrived to procure him an invitation toMiddleburg, which was accepted; and accordingly he repaired thither in 166-6, and presently began to declare his opinions more explicitly than he had ever done before.

His peculiar tenets were these: 1. He believed that God could and would deceive, and that he had sometimes actually done it. 2. He held the holy scriptures not to be absolutely necessary to salvation, since the Holy Spirit acted immediately upon the soul, and gave it new degrees of revelation; and, when once struck with that divine light, it was able to draw such consequences as would lead to a perfect knowledge of the truth. 3. Though he did not deny the lawfulness of infant-baptism, yet he maintained that it ought to be deferred to riper years. 4. He put this difference between the old and new covenant: The first he said was carnal, loaded with ceremonies, attended with temporal blessings, and open to the wicked as well as the good, provided they were descendants of Abraham; whereas the new covenant admitted only spiritual persons, who were freed thereby from the law, from its curse, and from its ceremonies, and put into a state of perfect liberty. 5. He held the observation of the sabbath to be an indifferent thing; maintaining, that in God’s account all days were alike. 6. He distinguished the church into the degenerate and regenerate; and held, that Christ would come and reign a thousand years upon earth, and actually convert both Jews, Gentiles, and Christians, to the truth. 7. He maintained the eucharist to be nothing more than a bare commemoration of Christ’s death; and that, though the signs were nothing in themselves, yet Christ was received therein spiritually by the worthy communicant. 8. He taught, that the contemplative life was a state of grace and of divine union in this world, the fullness of perfection, and the summit of the Christian mountain, elevated to that height, that it touched the clouds, and reached up very near to heaven. 9. That a person whose heart was perfectly content and calm, was almost in possession of God, discoursed familiarly with him, and saw every thing in him: that he took all things here below with indifference, beholding the world beneath him, and whatever passed therein; its mutability not touching him; all the storms, to which the world is subject, forming themselves under his feet, just as rain and hail form themselves under the tops of mountains, leaving upon the summit a constant calm and quietude. 10. That this state was to be obtained by an entire self-denial, mortification of the senses, and their objects, and by the exercise of mental prayer.

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

The followers of Labadie, who were now distinguished by the title of Labadists, became so numerous, and so many persons of each sex abandoned the reformed to close with them, that the French church in the United Provinces set themselves in earnest to stop the desertion, which was daily increasing. But Labadie, perceiving their designs against him, aimed to ward off the blow, by turning it upon them. Mr. de Wolzogue, professor and minister of the Walloon church at Utrecht, had lately published a piece, several passages of which had given great offence to the protestants . Labadie therefore took this opportunity to accuse him of heterodoxy, in the name of the Walloon church at Middleburgh, to a synod which was held at Naerden. But, upon hearing the matter, Wolzogue was unanimously declared orthodox, the church of Middleburg censured, and Labadie condemned to make a public confession before the synod, and in the presence of Wolzogue, that he had been to blame in bringing the accusation, by which he had done him an injury. This judgment reaching the ears of Labadie, he resolved not to hear it pronounced and, lest it should be signified to him, he withdrew privately from Naerden and, returning to Middleburgh, raised such a spirit against the synod in his church as even threatened no less than a formal schism. Several synods endeavoured, by their decrees, to cut up the mischief by the root but in some of these Labadie refused to appear he disputed the authority of others, and appealed from the definitive sentences which they pronounced against him. At length commissaries were nominated by the synod, to determine the affair at Middleburgh, but they had no sooner arrived than the people rose against them, possessed themselves of the assemblyhouse, and locked the church-doors to keep them out. The magistrates supported Labadie, and the estates of the province contented themselves with proposing an accommodation; which being haughtily rejected by Labadie, the states were so provoked, that they confirmed the sentence passed by the commissaries, by which he was forbidden to preach, &c. And because Labadie exclaimed loudly against being condemned without a hearing, the decision of the synod to be held at Dort was sent to him, summoning him to appear there. Labadie was deposed by this synod, and cut off from all hopes of mercy on any other condition, except that of thorough repentance, of which he never gave any proofs. On the contrary, he procured a crowd of devotees to attend him to Middleburgh, where they broke open the church-doors; which done, he preached, and distributed the eucharist to such as followed him. The burgo- masters, apprehensive of consequences, sent him an order to quit the town and the boundaries of their jurisdiction. He obeyed the order, and withdrew to Ter-Veer, a neighbouring town, where he had some zealous partisans, among the rich merchants and traders, who had settled, and drawn a large share of commerce thither. They received him joyfully, and procured him a protection from the magistrates. However, the states of Zealand, being resolved to drive him from this fort, made an order to expel him the province. The magistrates of Ter-Veer took his part against the states, alledging three reasons in his favour: first, that he lived peaceably in their town, and had done nothing worthy of banishment secondly, that it was enough to interdict him from preaching in public and lastly, that they had reason to apprehend danger from the populace, who would not quietly be deprived of so edifying a person. The province was obliged to have recourse to the prince of Orange, who was marquis of Ter-Veer; and who ordered Labadie to submit, forbidding at the same time any of the inhabitants to harbour him.

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

, a celebrated traveller of the order of St. Dominic, was born in 1663 at Paris, and taught philosophy at Nancy. In 1693, he went to America in quality of missionary; and, at his return to France, in 1705, was sent to Bologna, to give an account of his mission to a chapter of the Dominicans. He continued several years’ in Italy; but, at length returning home, died at Paris Jan. 6, 1738. His principal works are, 1. “Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l'Amerique,” 6 vols. 8vo, a very pleasant and instructive work in many respects, but not always accurate as to facts. 2. “Voyages en Espagne & en Italie,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Nouvelle Relation de I'Afrique Occidentale,” 5 vols. 12mo. As Labat was never in Africa, this work is compiled from the relation of others. He also published, 4. “Voyage du Chevalier des Merchais en Guinee,” 4 vols. 12mo. 5. “La Relation historique de i'Ethiopie Occidentale,” translated from the Latin of father Cavazzi, a capuchin, 4 vols, in 12mo; and 6. “Les Memoires du Chev. d'Arvieux,” containing his travels to Constantinople, Asia, &c. 6 vols. 12mo, in which he is entitled to 'the credit of a very judicious editor.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

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

, an ancient Roman knight, who excelled in writing Mimes, or little satirical productions for the stage, died in 46 A. C. Though in his time men of birth made no scruple to furnish entertainments of the theatrical kind, yet it was highly disgraceful to represent them in their own persons. Julius Caesar, however, ordered Laberius to act one of his own Mimes; and though he made all the opposition he could, yet Caesar compelled him. The prologue to the piece is still extant, and Rollin thinks it one of the most beautiful morsels of antiquity. Laberius bemoans himself for the necessity he was under in a very affecting manner, but in the course of the piece glances several strokes of satire at Caesar, which were so well understood as to direct the eyes of the spectators upon him. Coesar, by way of revenge, gave the preference to Publius Syrius, who was his rival upon the same theatre; yet, when the Mimes were over, presented him with a ring, as if to re-establish him in his rank. The very small fragments which remain of Laberius, have been often collected and printed with those of Ennius, Lucilius, Publius Syrus, &c. The prologue above-mentioned is preserved in Aulus Gellius, and there is a good version of it in Beloe’s translation of that author.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born in 1623, at Montmorency, near Paris, of which city his father was bailiff. He had scarcely attained his 13th year, when he became known to the literary world by his “Recueil de Tombeaux,” or a collection of monuments of illustrious persons buried in the church of the Celestines at Paris, together with their eloges, genealogies, arms, and mottoes. This work appeared in 1642, 4to; and although disclaimed by the authoron account of its imperfection, yet was so well received by the public, that a second edition came out the following year. In 1644 he was at court in quality of a gentleman in waiting, when he was chosen to attend the marshal de Guebriant, charged with conducting the princess Mary de Gonzaga into Poland, in order to her marriage with Ladislaus IV. Our author returned with the ambassadress the following year, and printed in 1647, at his own expence, a relation of the journey, which was very entertaining.

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

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1605, and became successively professor of polite literature, philosophy, and theology; performed missions; and went through several departments of business in his society. Among all his avocations, he found time to be the author of several useful works relating to the history of his country; the most considerable of which are, 1. “Historia Galliarum sub Praefectis Prsetorii Galliarum,” 1672, in 4to. 2. “Historia Coloniarum a Gallis in exteras Nationes missarum,” 1677, in 4to. 3. “De Regibus Franciae et Lege Salica.” 4. “Historia Romana,” 1671, 4to. This includes the period from Julius Caesar to Constantine, and is supported and illustrated by medals and other monuments of antiquity. 5. “Notitia Provinciarum Imperil utriusque cum Notis,” 1675, 4to. He gave also good editions of “Velleius Paterculus” and “Tacitus <le Germairia,” with learned notes, of which Dithrnan availed himself in his edition of 1726.

, a diligent French miscellaneous historian, was born at Paris in 1724. Of his numerous works, which have been all well received, the following are the best: “Abrege chronologique de l'Histoire Ancienne,” 1757, 8vo. “De l'Histoire du Nord.” “De l‘Histoire D’Espagne et de Portugal.” “Dictionnaire portatif des Beaux Arts,” 1759, 8vi. “Le Salon,” 1753, 12mo. “Le Spectacle des Beaux Arts,” 1757, 12mo. <l Revolutions de PEmpire de la Russie,“1760, 12mo.” Histoire de Christine Reine de Suede," 1762, 12mo. This is his best work, and has merit; but the English translation of it, published at London, 1766, is said to be preferable to the original. The time of La Combe’s death is not mentioned.

, brother of the former, born at Paris, 1725, was the author likewise of many dictionaries, in the taste of the times, which seems t he the age among the French for subjecting all subjects to alphabetical order. The period of his death is likewise omitted in our authority. His most useful publications are, “Dictionnaire du Citoycn,” 1761, 2 vols. 8vo. “Dictionnaire de Jurisprudence,” 1763, 3 vols. 8vo. “Les Tense’s de Pope, avec sa vie,” 1766, 12mo. “Dictionnaire de Portraits et d'Anecdotes des Hommes ceMebres,” 2 vols. 8vo, &c. He is not to be confounded with another author of the same time, name, and nation, who has left a very useful dictionary of old French, 1765, 1 vol. 8vo.

, or Lucius Cælius, or Cæcilius (Firmianus), an eminent father of the church, was, as some say, an African, or, according to others, a native of Fermo, a town in the marche of Ancdna, whence Le is supposed to have taken his surname. Arnobius was his preceptor. He studied rhetoric in Africa, and with so great reputation, that Constantine the Roman emperor appointed him preceptor to his son Crispus. This brought him to court; but he was so far from giving into the pleasures or corruptions incident to that station, that, amidst very great opportunities of amassing riches, he lived so poor as even frequently to want necessaries. He is account^d the most eloquent of all the ecclesiastical Latin authors. He formed himself upon Cicero, and wrote in such a pure, smooth, and natural, style, and so much in the taste and manner of the lloman orator, that he is generally distinguished by the title of “The Christian Cicero.” We have several pieces of his, the principal of which is his “Institutiones Divinae,” in seven books, composed about the year 320, in defence of Christianity, against all its opposers. Of this treatise he made an abridgment, of which we have only a part, and added it to another tract, “De Ira Divina.” In 1777 the late sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, published with notes a correct edition of the fifth book “De Justitia,” Edin. 12mo. Lactantius had before written a book “De Operibus Dei,” in which he proves the creation of man, and the divine providence. St. Jerome mentions other works of our author, as “Two Books to Æsclepiades;” “Eight Books of Letters;” a book entitled “The Festin,” composed before he went to Nicomedia; a poem in hexameter verse, containing a description of his journey thither; a treatise entitled “The Grammarian;” and another, “De Persecutione.” Concerning this last tract, there are various opinions. Dr. Lardner, after stating the evidence on both sides, seems inclined to deny that it was written by LaCtantius. He allows, however, that it is a very valuable work, containing; a short account of the sufferings of Christians under several of the Roman emperors, from the death and resurrection of Christ to Dioclesian; and then a particular history of the persecution excited by that emperor, with the causes and springs of it; as well as the miserable deaths of its chief instruments. The learned judge above mentioned, who published a translation of this work in 1782, Edin. 12mo, has also examined the opinions of those who have treated of its authenticity, with far more acuteness than Lardner, and concludes with Baluze, Mosheim, and other eminent critics, that the treatise “De Mortibus Persecutorum” was written by Lactantius. Lord Hailes’s preface is a master-piece of critical inquiry, nor are his notes and illustrations, which occupy one half of the volume, of less merit or utility.

The character of Lactantius as a Christian writer is, that he refutes paganism with great strength of reasoning, but treats divinity too much as a philosopher. He did not understand thoroughly the nature of the Christian mysteries, and has fallen into several errors. His works have gone through a great number of editions, the first of which was published at Rome, in 1468, folio and the last, which is the most ample, at Paris, 1748, in 2 vols. 4-to.

, a dramatic writer, who flourished in the reign of king Charles II. was born near Doncaster in Yorkshire, and was at first bred a dancing-master, but afterwards went into the army, having a lieutenant’s commission and warrant as quarter-master under colonel Charles lord Gerrard. The charms of a military life, however, he quitted to go upon the stage, in which profession, from the advantages of a fine person, being well shaped, of a good stature, and well proportioned, added to a sound critical judgment, and a large share of comic humour, he arrived at so great a height of excellence, as to be universally admired; and in particular was so high in the esteem of king Charles II. that his majesty had his picture painted in three several characters, viz. Teague in the “Committee,” Scruple in the “Cheats,” and Galliard in the “Variety” which picture is still preserved at Windsorcastle. His cast of acting was chiefly in comedy and his writings are all of that kind, he being the author of the four following comedies: 1. “Dumb Lady, 11 1672, 4to. 2.” Sir Hercules Buffoon,“1684, 4to. 3.” Old Troop,“1698, 4to. 4.” Sawney the Scot," 1698, 4to. The second of these was not brought on the stage till three years after the author’s death, which happened on the 15th of September, 1681.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Cyrene, the disciple of Arcesilaus, and his successor in the academy, devoted himself early to study, and, in spite of poTerty, became a very skilful philosopher, and very pleasing in his discourses, teaching in a garden which was given him by Attalus, king of Pergamus. This prince also invited him to court, but Lacydes replied, that the portraits of kings should be viewed at a distance. In some things, however, like the rest of his brethren, he descended from philosophy to the littlenesses of common men. He had a goose who attended him every where, and when she died he buried her as magnificently as if she had been his son or brother and his death, which happened in the year 212 B. C. is attributed to excess in drinking. Lacydes followed the doctrines of Arcesilaus, and affirmed that we ought not to decide on any thing, but always suspend our judgment. His servants frequently took advantage of this maxim to rob him, and, when he complained of it, maintained that he was mistaken; nor could he, on his own principles, make any reply but, growing weary at last of being plundered, and they still urging that he ought to suspend his judgment, he said to them, “Children, we have one method of disputing in the schools, and another of living in our families.”

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

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

, a French writer, was born at Bourdeaux, and having early entered the schools of the Jesuits, became soon distinguished by a taste for history and polite literature, and although he never arrived at the wealth of his brother, the subject of the next article, he was thought his superior in knowledge and judgment. He made himself known in the literary world by a work entitled “Les Mosurs des Sauvages, compare'es aux mceurs des premiers siecles,” Paris, 1723, 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 12mo and by his “Histoire des De*couvertes des Portugais dans le Nouveau Monde,” 1733, 2 vols. 4to, and 1734, 4 vols. 12mo. He wrote also “Remarquessur le Gin-Seng,” Paris, 1728, 12mo. The author had been sent as a missionary to the Iroquois, and the account he gives of them is the most accurate that we have; his comparison between the ancients and the Americans is also very ingenious, and shews great knowledge of antiquity. One other publication of his remains to be mentioned, “Histoire de Jean de Brienne, ernpereur de Constantinople,” Paris, 1727, 12mo. He died in 1755.

, brother to the preceding, was born in 1685, at Bourdeaux. He entered among the Jesuits early in life, and distinguished himself by his talents for the pulpit; but being sent to Rome on account of the disputes concerning the bull Unigenitus, Clement XI. was so pleased with his lively sallies, that he could not part with him; and Lafitau, taking advantage of the pope’s partiality, quitted his order, and was appointed bishop of Sisteron. His diocese was not much edified by him at first,­but in the latter part of his life, he is said to have been an example to his clergy, and devoted himself wholly to episcopal duties. Duclos, however, gives him a shocking characterfor immorality. He died April 5, 1764. His attachment to the bull Unigenitus, induced him to publish some works written with more ease of style, than truth as to facts, such as “Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 12mo; the “History of Clement XI.;” and some volumes of Sermons," and devotional tracts.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Lyons in 1660. Being intended for the bar, he was sent to study the law first at the college of Lyons, and next at the university of Thoulouse but having accidentally met with Fournier’s Euclid, and a treatise on algebra, mathematics became his favourite science. In 1686 he came to Paris, was soon after appointed tutor to the duke de Noailles, elected a member of the academy of sciences, and was appointed by Louis XIV, royal hydrographer at Rochefort; but sixteen years afterwards, he was recalled to Paris, and made librarian to the king with a considerable pension. He died April 11, 1734, and in his last moments, when he no longer knew the persons who surrounded his bed, one of them, through a foolish curiosity, asked him “What is the square of 12” to which he replied, as it were mechanically, 144. His works are, 1. “New Methods for the Extraction and Approximation of Roots,” 1692, 4to, 2. “Elements of Arithmetic and Algebra,” 1697, 12mo. 3. “On the Cubature of the, Sphere,” 1702, 12mo. 4. “A general Analysis, or Method of resolving Problems,” published by Richer in 1733, 4to. 5. Several Papers in the Memoirs of the Academy. Lagny excelled in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry, in which he made many important discoveries.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Turin, Nov. 25, 1736, where his father, who had been treasurer of war, was in reduced circumstances. In his early days his taste was more inclined to classical than mathematical studies, and his attention to the latter is said to have been first incited by a memoir that the celebrated Halley had composed for the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of analysis. From this time Lagrange devoted himself to his new study with such acknowledged success, that at the age of sixteen he became professor of mathematics in the royal school of artillery at Turin. When he had discovered the talents of his pupils, all of whom were older than himself, he selected some as his more intimate friends, and -from this early association arose an important institution, the academy of Turin, which published in 1759 a first volume under the title of “Actes de la Socie*te* Prive*e.” It is there seen that young 'Lagrange superintended the philosophical researches of Cigna, the physician, and the labours of the chevalier de Saluces. He furnished Foncenex with the analytical part of his memoirs, leaving to him the task of developing the reasoning upon which the formulae depended. In these memoirs, which do not bear his name, may be observed that pure analytical style which characterizes his greatest productions. He discovered a new theory of the lever, which makes the third part of a memoir that had much celebrity. The first two parts are in the same style, and are known to be also by Lagrange, although he did not positively acknowledge them, and they were generally ascribed to Foncenex.

Lagrange, while giving up to his friend these anonymous solutions, published at the same time under his own name, theories which he promised to unfold and explain. After having given new formulae of maxima and minima, and after having shown the insufficiency of the methods already known, he announced that he would treat of this subject, which in other respects appeared interesting to him, in a work that he was preparing, and in which from the same principles would be deduced all the mechanical properties of bodies, whether solid or fluid. Thus at the early age of twenty. three, he laid the foundation of those great works which have attracted the admiration of the learned. In the same volume he applied the theory of recurring consequences and the doctrine of chances to the differential calculus, which till his attempt was worked by indirect methods, but which he established on more general principles.

Newton had undertaken to reduce the motion of fluids to calculation, and had made researches on the propagation of sound. His principles Lagrange found insufficient, and some of his suppositions inaccurate. This he demonstrated he founded his new researches on the known laws of Dynamics by considering only the particles in air that are in a right line, he reduced the problem to that of vibrating chords, upon which the greatest geometricians had differed. He showed that their calculations were insufficient to decide the question. He therefore undertook a general solution of it by an analysis as new as ingenious, by which he reduced at the same time an indefinite number of equations, and which included continued functions. He established more firmly Bernoulli’s theory of the mingling of simple and regular vibrations, showed within what limits this theory is accurate, and where it becomes erroneous. He then arrived at the construction given by Euler, a true construction, though discovered without any rigorous calculations. He also answered D‘Alembert’s objections. Euler perceived the merit of the new method, which he made an object of his profoundest meditations; but D’Alembert proposed numerous objections, which Lagrange afterwards answered. Euler' s first notice of this memoir was by making Lagrange a member of the Academy of Berlin, which he announced to him, Oct. 20, 1759, in a letter handsomely acknowledging the merit of his discoveries.

Euler’s admiration of our young mathematician involves the origin of Lagrange' s discoveries, as he himself afterwards related. The first attempts to determine the maxima and minima in all indefinite integral formulae were made by means of a curve of the quickest descent, and by the Isoperimeters of Bernouilli. Euler reduced them to a general method, which, however, had not that simplicity which is desirable in a work of pure analysis. Euler himself thought so, but thought at the same time that it was conformable to truth, and that by means of sound metaphysics it might be made extremely evident; but this task, he said, he left to those who made metaphysics their study. While the metaphysicians took no notice of this appeal, Lagrange’s emulation was excited, and he soon discovered the solution that Euler had despaired of, by analysis; and in giving an account of his process, he said that he considered it not as a metaphysical principle, but as a necessary result of the laws of mechanism, as a mere corollary of a more general law, which he afterwards made the basis of his celebrated work, entitled “Mecanique analytique.” We see also the germ of this work in the paper he wrote when the Academy of sciences proposed as a prize question, the theory of the moon’s libration, on which subject he had an opportunity to apply the principles of his analytical discoveries. He wrote also an equally able memoir on another prize subject by the same academy, the theory of Jupiter’s satellites; and as the subject was not exhausted in this memoir, it was his intention to return to it and enlarge his researches, but his other more pressing engagements prevented him.

In the mean time, as the society of Turin was not quite to his taste, he had a strong desire to become personally acquainted with those scientific men at Paris, with whom he had correspondence; and an opportunity offering, he visited that city, and was kindly received by D'Alembert, Clairaut, Condorcet, Fontaine, Nollet, &c. Soon after, either from his well-known and well-earned fame, or in consequence of the recommendation of his friends, he was, in 1766, appointed director of the Berlin academy, forphysico-mathematical sciences. Here, as he was a foreigner, he had some prejudices to overcome; but by a diligent application to the duties of his office, and by steering clear of all contests and parties, political or religious, he soon gained universal esteem, and enriched the memoirs of the Academy of Berlin by a vast number of highly interesting papers, which, however, are but a part of what twenty years enabled him to produce. He had among other things published his “Mecauique analytique” at Paris, to which city he again removed on the death of Frederic, which occasioned great changes in Prussia, some of which it was supposed would affect the literary world. The successor of Frederic indeed was reluctant to part with such an ornament to the academy, and granted leave of absence on condition that Lagrange should continue to contribute to the Berlin memoirs; and the volumes for 1792, 1793, and 1803, show that he was faithful to his engagement.

In 1787 Lag-range came to Paris to take his seat in the Academy of sciences, of which he had been a foreign member fifteen years; and in order to give him the right of voting in all their deliberations, this title was changed into that of veteran pensioner. When the revolution took place, he lost his pension, which he did not so much regard as he did the dangers which threatened literature and civilization. When the new institutions were formed, such a man could not be overlooked. He was first appointed professor of the Normal school, but this was of short duration. In the Po lytechnic school, however, he found an opportunity to return to the cultivation of the science of analysis, and now developed those ideas, the origin of which was contained in two memoirs that he published in 1772, in order to show the true metaphysics of the differential and integral calculus. At that time he published his “Fonctions analytiques,” and “Lemons sur le Calcule,” which passed through several editions. He also published about the same time his “Traite de resolution numerique des Equations,” with notes on several points of the theory of Algebraic equations. He also undertook a new edition of his “Mecanique analytique,” and laboured at it with. all the ardour of his best days; but so much application brought on weakness and faintings, and about the end of March 1813, a decay of nature was visible, which terminated in his death on April 10.

Lagrange had naturally a good constitution, and by temperance and a tranquil placid mind, his life was prolonged to seventy-six years, almost the whole of which were devoted to scientific pursuits; and so much were his thoughts engaged on these, that in his intercourse with society, he was more frequently meditating on some favourite mathematical subject, than taking any share in conversation. When he did, his manner was timid and respectful, and he seemed to be soliciting rather than imparting that information with which his mind was so amply stored. As he had an aversion to have his portrait taken, a sketch of him was taken by stealth, from which the bust was formed now in the library of the Institute. If his fame might be supposed to rest on any selection from his numerous works, we might instance his “Mecanique analytique,” and “Fonctions analytiques,” as unquestionably the most profound and important. “By means of his successful labours,” says his eulogist, “mathematical science is at present like a great and beautiful palace, the foundations of which he renewed, fixed the summit, and in which it is impossible to take a step without discovering, with admiration, monuments of his genius.”

Lagrange was, as before noticed, one of the founders of the academy of Turin; director, during twenty years, of the Berlin academy, foreign associate of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, member of the Imperial Institute and of the Board of Longitude; senator and count of the empire, grand officer of the legion of honour, and grand-cross of the imperial order of re-union.

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

, a physician, born at Segovia in 1499, was high in the confidence of the emperor Charles V. at whose court he passed a considerable part of his life. He published “Annotations upon Dioscorides” and an “Epitome of the Works of Galen,” with a life of this author and “A Treatise of Weights and Measures.” He was a respectable critic, and died in 1560.

, a French poet, was born in 1650, at Chimay, in Hairiault, and was of the same family with father Lainez, second general of the Jesuits, the subject of our next article. He was educated at Rheims, where his wit procured him an acquaintance with the chief persons of the town, and an admittance amongst the best companies. At length he came to Paris, and attended the chevalier Colbert, colonel of the regiment of Champagne, to whom he read lectures upon Livy and Tacitus. Several other officers of the army attended these lectures, making their remarks, and proposing their difficulties, which produced very agreeable and useful conversations. Having, however, a rambling disposition, he quitted this society, travelled into Greece, and visited the isles of the Archipelago, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt, Malta, and Sicily. Thence he made a tour through the principal towns of Italy, and, returning through Switzerland into France, arrived at Chimay, wiiere he resided in obscurity for two years, until the abbe Faultrier, intervdant of Hainault, having received orders from the king to seize some scandalous libels that were handed about upon the frontier of Flanders, forced himself by violence into his chamber, on suspicion of being one of the authors of these. There he found Lainez wrapped up in an old morninggown, surrounded with a heap of papers, all in the greatest confusion. He accosted him as a guilty person, and seiz-" ed his papers. Lainez answered with modesty, proved the injustice of the suspicion; and the examination of his papers, which consisted of verses, and minutes of his travelsj added conviction to his arguments. The abbé Faultrier was much pleased to find him innocent y and, having had this occasion of knowing his merit, took him home with him, furnished him with apparel, of which at this time he stood very much in need, gave him lodging and diet, and treated him as a friend. Four months after, Lainez followed his benefactor to Paris, and lived with him at the arsenal; but, in half a year’s time, finding the little restraint this laid him under not at all agreeable to his spirit, he obtained leave to retire. This being granted, he made an excursion to Holland, to visit Bayle; and then crossed the water to England, whence, at last, he returned to settle at Paris, where he passed his days betwixt stjdy and pleasure, especially that of the table. He was, according to Moreri, a great poet, a great classic, and a great geographer, and, if possible, a still greater drinker. Nobody exactly knew where he lodged. When he was carried homeward in any friend’s chariot, he always ordered himself to be set down on the Pont-neuf, whence he went on foot to his lodgings. His friends, who were very numerous, and among them several persons of distinguished birth as well as merit, did not care where he lodged, if they could often have the happiness of his company. His conversation at once charmed and instructed them. He talked upon all kinds of subjects, and talked well upon all. He was a perfect master of Latin, Italian, Spanish, and of all the best authors in each of those languages. The greatest part of the day he usually devoted to his studies, and the rest was passed in pleasure. As, one of his friends expressed his surprize to see him in the king’s library at eight in the morning, after a repast of twelve hours the preceding evening, Lainez answered him in this distich extempore:

He died at Paris, April 18, 1710. Although he composed a great deal of poetry, we have little of it left, as he satisfied himself with reciting his verses in company, without communicating them upon paper. The greatest jpart of his pieces were made in company, over a bottle, and extempore; so that they are short, but sprightly, easy, full of wit, and very ingenious. A collection of them was published at the Hague in 1753, 8vo. Almost all his papers came into the hands of Dr. Chambou, his physician.

, a Spaniard, and celebrated general of the Jesuits, in which office he succeeded St. Ignatius 1558, after having been one of his first disciples, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent and colloquy of Poissy was much esteemed for his prudence, learning, and piety refused the cardinal’s hat, and died at Rome, January 19, 1565, aged fifty-three, leaving some works in Latin, on “Providence,” “On the use of the Cup,” and “On Women’s painting and dress,” &c. Father Theophil us Raynaud attributes to him also “The Declarations on the Constitutions of the Jesuits;” while others believe that Lainez drew up the constitutions themselves, alledging, in support of this opinion, that they discover too much penetration, strength of genius, and refined policy, to have been the work of St. Ignatius. In the first congregation after that saint’s death, Lainez caused an absolute authority ty be granted him, with a perpetuity of the generalship, and a right of having prisons; thus changing the uprightness and simplicity of the founder’s maxims for a system of human policy, which guided all the undertakings of the society, and led at length to its destruction.

, librarian to the cardinal Lomenie, a member of various learned academies in France and Italy, professor of bibliography, and member of the Lyceum, was born in 1739, at Dole in Franche-comte“, of reputable but poor parents, who, however, procured him admission into the religious house of the Minims of his native place. Here his easy access to the fine library of the order, inspired and gratified an early predilection for bibliographical researches, and laid the foundation of that general knowledge of literary history and antiquities, for which he was afterwards so much distinguished, and which he improved in the course of his travels in France, Italy, and Greece. He died at Paris in 1801. His works are, 1.” Memoires pour servir a i‘Histoire Litteraire de quelques grands hommes du 15 siecle, avec un Supplement aux Annales Typographiques de ’Mattaire.“This, of which we have only the French title, was published in Latin, at Naples in 1776, 4to. 2.” Specimen Historicum Typographic Romanic XV saeculi,“Rome, 1778, 3vo. This is the least valued of his works. 3.” Epistola ad abbatem Ugolini, c.“printed at Pavia, but in the title, Strasburgh. 4.” De l'origine et des progres de rimprimerie en FrancheComte,“with a catalogue of the works printed there Dole, 1784, 12mo. 5.” $erie dell' edizioni Aldine,“written in conjunction with the cardinal Lomenie, whose librarian he was, as noticed above: of this there have been three editions, at Pisa, 1790, at Padua, in the same year, and at Venice in 1792, 12mo. 6.” Index librorum ab inventa Typographia, ad annum 1500,“Sens, 1791, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a catalogue of the books of the fifteenth century, belonging to the library of the cardinal Lomenie, and is our author’s most useful work. Laire also published some pajiers on subjects of French antiquities, in the” Magazin Encyclopedique."

, an eminent Flemish painter, was born at Liege, in 1640. His father, who was a tolerable painter, put his son first to study the belles lettres, poetry, and music, to the last of which Gerard dedicated a day in every week: but at length taught him design, and made him copy the best pictures, particularly those of Bertholet Flaraael, a canon of that city. At the age of fifteen, Gerard began to paint portraits, and some historical pieces, for the electors of Cologne and Brandenburgh, which contributed-to make him known, and gave him great reputation. The ease, however, with which he got his money tempted him to part with it as easily, and run into expence. He was fond of dress, and making a figure in the world; he had also an ambition to please the ladies, and fancied that the liveliness of his wit would compensate in some degree for the deformity of his person. But one of his mistresses, whom he had turned off, having out of revenge wounded him dangerously with a knife, he abandoned such promiscuous gallantry, and married. While settled at Utrecht, and poor, he was seized with a contagious distemper; and, his wife lying-in at the same time, he was reduced to offer a picture to sale for present support, which, in three days’ time, was bought by Vytenburgh, a picture-merchant at Amsterdam, who engaged him to go to that city. Accordingly Lairesse settled there; and his reputation rose to so high a pitch, that the Hollanders esteem him the best history-painter of their country, and commonly call him their second Raphael; Hemskirk is their first. Yet his style of painting was but a compound of those of Poussin and the old French school. While he aimed at imitating the best Italian masters, he never avoided those false airs of the head and limbs, which seem rather taken from the stage than from nature; so that his works do not rise to the level of true merit. At length, borne down with infirmities, aggravated by the loss of his eye-sight, he finished his days at Amsterdam, in 1711, at the age of seventy-one.

He had three sons, of whom two were painters and his disciples. He had also three brothers, Ernest, James, and John: Ernest and John painted animals, and James was a flower-painter. He engraved a great deal in aqua-fortis. His work consists of 256 plates, great and small, more than the half of which are by his own hand; the others are engraved by Poole, Berge, Glauber, &c. Lairesse has the credit of an excellent book upon the art, which has been translated into English, and printed both in 4to and 8vo, at London, but it is thought that it consists only of observations made by him, and published with the authority of his name.

, a pious English prelate, brother to sir Thomas Lake, knt. principal secretary of state to James I. and son of Almeric Lake or Du Lake, of Southampton, was born in St. Michael’s parish, and educated for some time at the free-school in that town. He was afterwards removed to Winchester school, and thence was elected probationer fellow of New college, Oxford, of which he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1589. in 1594 he took his degrees in arts, and being ordained, was made fellow of Winchester college about 1600, and in 1603 master of the hospital of St. Cross. In 1605 he took his degrees in divinity, and the same year was installed archdeacon of Surrey. In 1608 he was made dean of Worcester, and in December 1616, consecrated bishop of Bath and He Was a man of great learning and extensive rej f particularly in the fathers and schoolmen, then a cf study; and as a preacher was greatly admired, says he obtained his preferments “not so much by the power of his brother (the secretary) as by his own desert, as one whose piety may be justly exemplary to all of his order. In all the places of honour and employment which he enjoyed, he carried himself the same in mind and person, showing by his constancy, that his virtues were virtues indeed; in all kinds of which, whether natural, moral, theological, personal, or paternal, he was eminent, and indeed one of the examples of his time. He always lived as a single man, exemplary in his life and conversation, and very hospitable.” Walton confirms this character; he says Dr. Lake was “a man whom I take myself bound in justice to say, that he made the great trust committed to him the chief rare and whole business of his life. And one testimony of this truth may be, that he sat usually with his chancellor in his consistory, and at least advised, if not assisted, in most sentences for the punishing of such offenders as deserved church censures. And it may be noted, that after a sentence of penance was pronounced, he did very rarely or never allow of any commutation for the offence, but did usually see the sentence for penance executed; and then, as usually, preached a sermon of mortification and repentance, and so apply them to the offenders that then stood before him, as begot in them a devout contrition, and at least resolutions to amend their lives; and having done that, he would take them, though never so poor, to dinner with him, and use them friendly, and dismiss them with his blessing and persuasions to a virtuous life, and beg them for their own sakes to believe him. And his humility and charity, and all other Christian excellencies, were all like this.”