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

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

He was married no less than four times, and by his third wife had a son, who is the subject of the next article. The titles of his works are sixty-four in number, among which are, “Commentaries” on the first three chapters of Genesis, the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jonah “Sacred Parallels” and “Notes” upon the book of Revelation “Hebrew Lexicon” “Grammar of the Hebrew Tongue” “Notes on Cicero’s Epistles to Atticns.” But what he is chiefly, and almost only, known for now, is his Latin version of the Hebrew text of the Bible, jointly "with Tremellius. He was a man of great learning and pious zeal, and his life by Melchior Adam affords many interesting particulars of him in both characters. In the account of his life written by himself, he relates that in his youth he was sed.uced into atheism, from which he represents himself as almost miraculously redeemed, and this appears. have made a lasting impression on him.

, son of the preceding, was born at Heidelberg in 1589, and received the first elements of his education at Leyden, apparently with a view to letters; but upon the death of his father in 1602, resolving to go into the army in the service of the prince of Orange, he applied himself particularly to such branches of the mathematics as are necessary to make a figure in the military life. He had niade a good progress in these accomplishments at twenty years of age; when the war being concluded by a truce for twelve years in 1609, occasioned a change in his purpose, and inclined him to cultivate the arts of peace by a close application to study. His first literary employment was to collect, digest, and publish some of his father’s writings. After some years spent thus in his own country, he resolved, for farther improvement, to travel abroad. With that view he went first to France, and then to England, in which he arrived in 1620, and having recommended himself by his learning and amiable manners to the literati there, he was taken into the family of Thomas earl of Arundel, in which he continued for the space of thirty years. During his abode there he made frequent excursions to Oxford, chiefly for the sake of the Bodleian and other libraries; where, meeting with several Anglo-Saxon books, he resolved to study the language, which was at that time neglected. He soon perceived that the Anglo-Saxon tongue would be of service to him for discovering many etymologies necessary to clear up the Flemish, Belgic, German, and English, languages; and therefore devoted himself wholly to that study, He afterwards learned the ancient language of the Goths, Francs, Cimbri, and Prisons; by which he discovered the etymology of several Italian, French, and Spanish words; for the Goths, Vandals, French, Burgundians, and Germans, spread their language in the provinces they conquered, of which some vestiges are still left.

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

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

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

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

, born in 1684, and a physician of the mathematical sect, was educated in Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he was fellow in 1711. He was afterwards well known in London as an eminent physician; was physician to Guy’s hospital, and was, during several years, an active member and secretary of the royal society, and at the time of his death in 1750, president of the college of physicians. He distinguished himself by a series of ingenious essays, published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1718, 1719, &c. and afterwards printed collectively, in 1732, under the title of “Physico-Mathematical Dissertations,” in which mathematical science was applied with considerable acuteness to physiological subjects. These papers involved him in several controversies; first with Keill, in consequence of his calculations in regard to the force of the contractions of the heart, against which also Senac published some objections, which he answered. To Smith’s System of Optics, published in 1738, Jurin added “An Essay upon distinct and indistinct Vision,” in which he made subtle calculations of the changes necessary to be made in the figure of the eye to accommodate it to the different distances of objects. This paper was commented on by Robins, to whom Jurin wrote a reply. He had likewise controversies with Michelotti respecting the force of running water, and with the philosophers of the school of Leibnitz on living forces. He communicated to the royal society some experiments made with a view to determine the specific gravity of the human, blood, and he contributed much to the improvement of their meteorological observations. He was a warm partisan and an active defender of the practice of inoculation; and in several publications, giving an account of its success from 1723 to 1727, established its utility upon the true foundation of a comparison between the respective mortality of the casual and the inoculated small-pox. Dr. Jurin was also editor of Varenius’s Geography, 2 vols. 8vo, 1712, published at the request of sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Bentley. In “The Works of the Learned” for 1737 S 9, he carried on a controversy with Dr. Pemberton, in defence of Newton, and signed his papers “Philalethes Cantabrigiensis.”

, an eminent botanist, was bornat Lyons in 1686. He cultivated, with so much success, a talent for natural history, which discovered itself in his earliest years, that, in 1712, he obtained a place in the academy of sciences. After traversing various parts of Europe, he settled in Paris, where he published various works on the most interesting parts of natural history. He published an. appendix to Tournefort, and methodized and abridged the work of Barrelier, on the plants of France, Spain, and Italy. He also practised physic, and was remarkable on all occasions for charity to the poor, to whom he not only gave advice, but alms. He nevertheless left behind him a very considerable fortune, of which his brother Bernard was the heir. He died of an apoplexy, at the age of seventy-two, in 1758.

, brother of the preceding, was also a native of Lyons, and born in 1699. Like his brother he was a practitioner of physic, and eminent for his botanical skill and researches, and was one of the first botanists who aimed at a natural system of arrangement. He was member of various learned academies in Europe; curator of the plants of the royal garden at Paris, and was invited by the king himself to superintend the arrangement of a botanical garden at Trianon. He was highly esteemed by his royal master, and enjoyed, what was no less honourable, the friendship and confidence of Linnæus. He had numerous pupils, by whom he was much beloved, and died in possession of universal esteem in 1777, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. His only publications were, an edition of Tournefort on the plants which grow near Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 12mo; and “L'ami de Fhumanite, ou, Conseils cTun bon citoyen a sa nation,” octavo, printed after his death. Although a first-rate botanist, he was deterred by excess of modesty from giving his ideas to the world. His nephew, the present A. L. de Jussieu, has given us a plan of the method, according to which he arranged the garden of Trianon in 1759, and which, in fact, laid the foundation of his own celebrated work, published in 1789. The Jussixa, of Linnreus, was so named by that eminent botanist in honour of these two brothers. There was a third brother, however, the youngest, who was born in 1704, and in 1735 went to Peru, in the capacity of a botanist, with the academicians sent there to measure a degree. After continuing in that country thirty-six years, he returned to EVance in very bad health, and almost in a state of childhood, and died in 1779. Some account of his travels and discoveries may be seen in Memoirs of the French Academy; and it was at one time thought that his nephew was preparing an account for publication, but we know not that it has yet appeared.

, counsellor and secretary to the French king, was born at Paris, 1580. Having excellent parts, and a strong bent to letters, he made a great progress; and, as soon as he left the college, applying himself to the study of the councils and ecclesiastical history, he published the “Code of Canons of the Church universal, and the Councils of Africa, with notes.” He held a literary correspondence with the most learned men of his time, as Usher, Salmasius, Blondel, sirHenry Spelman, and others, till his death, which happened at Paris in 1649. He had the character of knowing more of the middle ages than any of his time. Besides the code already mentioned, he published, in 1645, “The Genealogical History of the House of Auvergne;” and several collections of Greek and Latin canons, from Mss. which formed the.“Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris,” published at Paris in 1668, in 2 vols. folio, by William Voel and our author’s son, the subject of the next article.

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

He sent by Dr. Hickes the original ms. in Greek of the “Canones ecclesi* universalis,” published by his father, and other valuable Mss. to be presented to the university of Oxford: upon the receipt of which benefaction, that learned body conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of LL. D. June 23, 1675. He left Paris in 1681, upon the persecution of the protestants; and, coming to London, was, some time after, made keeper of the king’s library at St. James’s, to which is annexed a salary of 200l. per annum, He belcj this place till his death, Sept. 1693, and was then succeeded by Dr. Richard Bentley. He had a very extensive library, particularly rich in Mss. which were always at the service of his learned contemporaries, many of whom acknowledged their obligations to him. He was obliged, however, to dispose of this library before he left France. There is a portrait of him and his arms in the Gent. Mag. 1788, taken from a private print.

, an ancient Latin historian, is known by his abridgment of the large work of Trogus Pompeius, which some think has occasioned the loss of the original; but it is much more probable that the neglect of the original occasioned the abridgment, as commonly happens in the decline of letters. Who Justin was, and when he lived, is altogether uncertain; but he is generally referred to the year 150, in the reign of Antoninus Pius. The abridgment comprises a history of the world from Ninus to Augustus Caesar; and is written with great purity and elegance, excepting here and there a word which savours of encroaching barbarism. It has long been employed as a school book, and is held in great estimation by foreign critics. La Mothe le Vayer thinks “his manner of writing so excellent as to be worthy the age of Augustus rather than that of the Antonines.” Justin has been illustrated by the best annotators, particularly Graevius; and there are numerous editions, of which the preference is given to those of Grsevius; of Hearne, 1705, 8vo of Gronovius, 1719, and 1760; of Fischer, 1757, &c.

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

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

Not long afterwards, Justin made a visit into the East; and, among other parts, went to Ephesus. Here he fell into the company and acquaintance of Trypho, a Jew of great note, with whom he engaged in a dispute that held for two days: the substance of which he afterwards wrote in a piece ^entitled his “Dialogue with Trypho.” By the conclusion we learn he was then ready to set sail to Ephesus. He returned at last to Rome, where he had frequent conferences with one Crescens, a philosopher of some repute in that city; a man who had endeavoured to traduce the Christians, and represent their religion under the most infamous character. Justin now presented his second Apology to Marcus Antoninus Philosophus, the successor of Pius, and a determined enemy to the Christians. The immediate occasion of this second Apology, as he himself Infoniis the emperor, was this: A woman at Rome had, together with her husband, lived in all manner of wantonness, and, from a vicious course of life, had been converted to Christianity; and being reclaimed herself, very naturally sought also to reclaim her husband, but at length, finding him quite obstinate, she procured a bill of divorce. The man, enraged at this, accused her to the emperor of being a Christian. She, however, putting in a petition for leave to answer it, he relinquished that prosecution; and, falling upon her converter, one Ptolomeus, procured his imprisonment and condemnation. On that occasion, Lucius, a Christian, being present, presumed to represent how hard it was that an innocent and virtuous man, charged with no crime, should be adjudged to die merely for bearing the name of a Christian: a proceeding that must certainly be a reflection upon the government. These words were no sooner spoken than he, together with a third person, were sentenced to the same fate. The severity of these proceedings awakened Justin’s solicitude and care for the rest of his brethren; and he immediately drew up his second apology, in which, among other things, he made heavy complaints of the malice and envy of his antagonist Crcscens. The philosopher, irritated at this charge, procured him to be apprehended, with six of his companions, and brought before the praefect of the city. After their ex amination, this sentence was pronounced, that “TheJ who refuse to sacrifice to the gods, and to obey the imperial edicts, be first scourged, and then beheaded, according to the laws:” which was put in execution upon Justin and the rest. This happened, according to Baronius, A. C. 165, not long after Justin had presented his second Apology; which is said, therefore, in the language of those times, to have procured him the crown of martyrdom.

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

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

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

After this, Justinian, resolving to take cognizance of the difference between the three chapters, published a rescript for that purpose, in form of a constitution, which created great disturbances in the empire. He also exerted his authority against the attempts of the popes Sylverius and Vigilius, both before and after the celebration of the fifth general council held in the year 553. Towards the latter end of his life, he fell into an erroneous opinion concerning Christ’s body; which he maintained had never been corruptible, nor subject to the natural infirmities of a human body. He carried it so far as to prepare an edict against those who maintained the contrary opinion, and intended to publish it; but was prevented by his death, which happened suddenly, in 565, at the age of 83, and after a reign of 39 years. It was this emperor who abolished the consulate. He built a great number of churches, and particularly the famous Sancta Sophia, at Constantinople, esteemed a master-piece of architecture. But the increasing jealousies, and the heavy burdens which Justinian imposed upon his subjects, had, some time before his death, destroyed all attachment to his person; and he who, in many respects, deserved the title of the last Roman emperor, left the stage unlamented and tinhonoured. The editions of his “Code,” “Institutions,” &c. are too many to be enumerated, but the best of them occur in almost every catalogue.

, the first patriarch of Venice, was descended of a noble family, and born there, 1381. He took the monk’s habit in the monastery of St. George, in Alga, before he was a deacon; and in 1424 became general of that congregation, to whom he gave an excellent set of rules, which were afterwards observed, and made him esteemed as one of their founders. Pope Eugenius IV. gave him the bishopric of Venice, of which he was the first patriarch, from 1451. This prelate died Jan. 8, 1455, and was canonized in 1690 by Alexander VIII. He left several works of piety, which were printed together at Brescia, 1506, 2 vols. folio; and again at Venice, 1755, folio; to which is prefixed his life, by his nephew.

, nephew of the above, was born at Venice in 1408. He pursued his first studies under Guarini of Verona, and continued them at Padua, where he took his doctor’s degree. Notwithstanding he put on the senator’s robe at the age of nineteen, yet he still prosecuted his studies under Francis Philelphi and George de Trebisonde, whom he took into his house, and retained there, till pope Calixtus III. sent for him to Rome, and employed him in several commissions. Upon his return to Venice, he was sent ambassador to Lewis XI. of France, who made him a knight in 1461. He went afterwards several times ambassador to Rome from the republic; and, in 1467, was made commandant of Padua. He afterwards became a member of the council of ten, and bore the dignity of Sage Grand no hers than twenty times. In 1474, he was elected procurator of St. Mark, a post next to that of doge. He died in 1489.

His speeches on different occasions have been printed, with his letters, and “History of Venice,” Venice, 1492, folio. This history, which has been admired as the first regular attempt of the kind, and which comes down to 809, may be frequently found without the other pieces, which have been suppressed. He also left “Vita B. Laurentii Justiniarii,” 1475, 4to. His life in Latin by Antonio Stella was printed at Venice, 1533, 8vo. Of the same famrly, which is still honourably distinguished in Italy, was the marquis Vincent Justiniani, who employed Blomuiaert, Alillan, and others, to engrave his gallery, Rome, 1642, 2 vols. fol. Of this splendid work some impressions, much inferior to the old ones, were taken since 1750. Another branch of the same family was the abb Bernardo Justiniani, who wrote the “Origin of the Military Orders,” Venice, 1692, 2 vols. fol. in Italian, from whence the “History of the Military Orders,” Amsterdam, 1721, 4 vols. 8vo, has been extracted; to which is added, “The History of the Religious Orders,” Amsterdam, 1716, 4 vols. 8vo.

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

He composed some pieces, the most considerable of which is, “Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, & Chaldaeum, cum tribus Latinis interpretationibns.& glossis.” This was the first psalter of the kind which had appeared in print, and he intended it as a prelude to a similar edition of the whole Bible, but he lived only to execute this part, which appeared at Genoa in 1516. Tiraboschi, forgetting the Complutensian polyglott, calls this the first attempt of the kind. It is not a work of very rare occurrence, there being 2000 copies printed, and 50 upon vellum, which, however, hear a high price. There came out also “Annales de Republica Genoensi,” at Genoa, in 1537; but this was posthumous, and imperfect. There is likewise ascribed to him a translation of Maimonidis “Moreh Nevochim.” He was the editor of “Porcheti Victoria adversus impios Hebraeos,” Paris, 1520, fol.

, the Roman satirist, was born about the beginning of the emperor Claudius’s reign, at Aquinum, a town in Campania, since famous for the birth-place of Thomas (thence styled) Aquinas. Juvenal’s father was probably a freed man, who, being rich, gave him a liberal education; and, agreeably to the taste of the times, bred him up to eloquence. In this he made a great progress, first under Fronto the grammarian, and then, as is generally conjectured, under Quintilian; after which he attended the bar, where he made a distinguished figure for many years, as we learn from some of Martial’s epigrams. In this profession he had improved his fortune and interest at Rome, before he turned his thoughts to poetry the very style of which, in his satires, speaks a long habit of declamation “subactum redolent declamatorem,” say the critics. He is supposed to have been above forty years of age, when he recited his first essay to a small audience of his friends; but, being encouraged by their applause, he ventured a publication, in which Paris, a player, and Domitian’s favourite, was satirized; this minion complained to the emperor, who sent the poet into banishment, under pretence of giving him the command of a cohort, in the army quartered at Pentapolis, a city upon the frontiers of Egypt and Lybia. After Domitian’s death, he returned to Rome, cured of his propensity to attack the characters of those in power under arbitrary princes, and indulge in personal reflections upon living characters. His 13th satire, addressed to Calvinus, was written U. C. 8T1, in the 3d year of Adrian, when Juvenal was above seventy years old; and as it is agreed that he attained to his eightieth year, he must have died about the 11th year of Adrian.

In his person he was of a large stature, which made some think him of Gallic extraction. We meet with nothing concerning feis morals and way of life; but, by the whole tenor of his writings, he seems to have been a man of acute observation, and a friend to liberty and virtue, but at the same time may be justly charged with a licentious boldness in his expressions. In point of classical merit, he is the last of the Roman poets, and after him Roman poetry rapidly degenerated. The most valuable edition of this poet, without Persius, is that of Ruperti, printed at Leipsic, in 1801, 2 vols. 8vo. But most generally Juvenal and Persius are printed together, of which there are many valuable editions, particularly the Variorums, the Delphin, those by Henninius, Hawkey, Sandby, &C.

, one of the first Christian poets, was born of an illustrious family in Spain, and lived, according to Jerom, in the time of Constantine, about the year 330. He wrote the “Life of Christ,” in Latin verse, in four books, following the four evangelists faithfully, and almost word by word; but his poetry is in a bad style, and his Latin not pure. This work, which is entitled “Historiae Evangelicse, lib. iv.” may be found in the library of the Fathers, the “Latin Poets” of Venice, 1502, 4to, and the “Corpus Poetarum.” The best edition of it separately is that of Rome, 1792, 4to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this state of affairs, Ignatius voluntarily presented himself to the emperor; and it is said, there passed a long conversation between them, in which the emperor expressing a surprise how he dared to transgress the laws, the bishop took the opportunity to assert his own innocence, and the power which God had given Christians over evil spirits; declaring that “the gods of the Gentiles were no better than daemons, there being but one supreme Deity, who made the world, and his only begotten son Jesus Christ, who, though crucified under Pilate, had yet destroyed him that had the power of sin, that is, tue devil, and would ruin the whole power and empire of the daemons, and tread it under the feet of those who carried God in their hearts.” For this bold avowal of his principles, combined with a defiance of heathenism, he was cast into prison, and sentence passed upon him, that he should be carried bound by soldiers to Rome, and there thrown as a prey to wild beasts. It may seem strange that they should send an old man by land, at a great expence, attended with soldiers, from Syria to Rome, instead of casting him to the lions at Antioch; but it is said, that Trajan did this on purpose to make an example of him, as of a ringleader of the sect, and to deter the Christians from preaching and spreading their religion; and for the same reason he sent him to be executed at Rome, where there were many Christians, and which, as it was the capital of the world, so was it the head-quarters of all religious sects. After all, this part of his sentence was a particular cruelty, and above what the laws required, and consequently such as might not be expected from Trajan. But, in our martyr’s case, he might not improbably be persuaded to act contrary to his natural disposition by those about him, who began to perceive that Christianity, if it prevailed, would prove the ruin of their religion. Ignatius was so far from being dismayed, that he heartily rejoiced at the fatal decree. “I thank thee, O Lord,” says he, “that thou hast condescended to honour me with thy love, and hast thought me worthy, with thy apostle St. Paul, to be bound in iron chains.” With these words he cheerfully embraced his chains; and having frequently prayed for his church, and recommended it to the divine care and providence, he delivered up himself into the hands of his keepers. These were ten soldiers, by whom he was first conducted to Seleucia, a port of Syria, at about sixteen miles distance, the place where Paul and Barnabas set sail for Cyprus. Arriving at Smyrna, in Ionia, Ignatius went to visit Polycarp, bishop of that place, and was himself visited by the clergy of the Asiatic churches round the country. In return for that kindness, he wrote letters to several churches, as the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, besides the Romans, for their instruction and establishment in the faith; one of these was addressed to the Christians at Rome, to acquaint them with his present state and passionate desire not to be hindered in that course of martyrdom which he was now hastening to accomplish.

His guard, a little impatient at their stay, set sail with him for Troas, a noted city of the lesser Phrygia, not far from the ruins of old Troy; where, at his arrival, he was much refreshed with the news he received of the persecution ceasing in the church of Antioch. Hither atlso several churches sent their messengers to pay their respects to him, and hence too he dispatched two epistles, one to the church of Philadelphia, and the other to that of Smyrna; and together with this last, as Eusebitfs relates, he wrote privately to Polycarp, recommending to him the care and inspection of the church of Antioch. All this while his keepers used him very cruelly and barbarously. He complains of it himself: “From Syria even to Rome,” says he, “both by sea and land, I fight with beasts; night and day I am chained to 1 the leopards, which is my military guard, who, the kinder I am to them, are the more cruel and fierce to me.” And yet it is evident, that they suffered him to be visited by Christians, and to give them instructions; and write epistles in several cities through which he passed. But his own account of the matter explains this apparent difficulty; the words implying, that these ruffians made money of him this way, being handsomely rewarded for this permission by the Christians who resorted to him, although their savage tempers induced them to use him the worse for it. From Trcras they sailed to Neapolis, a maritime town in Macedonia, thence to Philippi, a Roman colony, where they were entertained with all imaginable kindness and courtesy, and conducted forwards on their journey, passing on foot through Macedonia and Epirus, till they came to Epidaurum, a city of Dalmatia, where again taking shipping, they sailed through the Adriatic, and arrived at Rhegium, a port town in Italy; directing their course thence through the Tyrrhenian sea to Pu'teoli, whence Ignatius desired to proceed by land, ambitious to trace the same way by which St. Paul went to Rome; buC this wish was not complied with. In about twenty-four hours, however, a brisk wind conveyed them to Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber, about sixteen miles from Rome.

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

His epistles are very interesting remains of ecclesiastical antiquity on many accounts. He stands at the head of those Antenicene fathers, who have occasionally delivered their opinions in defence of the true divinity of Christ, whom he calls the Son of God, and his eternal word. He is also reckoned the great champion of the episcopal order, as distinct and superior to that of priest and deacon. He is constantly produced as an instance of the continuation of supernatural gifts, after the time of the apostles, particularly that of divine revelation, but the miracles imputed to him are of very doubtful authority. The most important use of his writings respects the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, to which he frequently alludes, in the very expressions which are extant.

There are also some spurious writings attributed to Ignatius, which are accurately examined by Dupin and others. Of the genuine seven epistles, the best editions are, that of Amsterdam, 1697, fol. with remarks by archbishop Usher and Pearson; and that by M. Cotelier, in his “Patres Apostolici,” Greek and Latin. These seven epistles are addressed to the Smyrneans, St. Polycarp, the Ephesians, Magnesiaus, Philadelphians, Trallians, and Romans. They are also excellently translated, and make part of archbishop "Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers,' v 1737, 8vi, fourth edit, where there is a valuable introductory chapter on the history and writings of Ignatius.

, professor of rhetoric and politics in the university of Upsal, was born in March 1707, and on account of the early death of his father, chiefly educated under his grandfather, then archbishop of Upsal. In 1730 he set out on his travels to improve himself by the company and conversation of learned men. In 1733 he returned to Upsal, where he was elected a member of the academy of sciences. In 1737 he was made public professor of poetry, and in 1748 he was appointed by the king professor of rhetoric and politics; an office, the duties of which he discharged for forty years with great reputation, In 1756 king Adolphus Frederic raised him to the rank of a counsellor of the chancery; two years after to that of patrician; and in 1759 conferred on him the order of the polar star. He died in 1780. In 1756 he undertook a Sueco-Gothic Lexicon, and began to arrange the materials which he had been preparing for the purpose. In 1766 he published a “Lexicon Dialectorum,” in which he explained and illustrated obsolete words, still used in the provinces; and in 1769 his “Glossarium Sueco-Gothicum” was published in 2 vols. folio. He was the author also of an explanation of the old catalogue of the Sueco-Gothic kings, to which are added the old West- Gothic Laws. In his dissertations “De Runorum Antiquitate, Patria, Origine, et Occasu,” he asserts that the Runic writing was formerly used in the greater part of Europe, was introduced into Sweden about the sixth century, and became entirely extinct in the beginning of the fifteenth. He was possessed of a sound judgment and a retentive memory; and so clearly were his ideas arranged, that he had never any need to correct what he had composed.

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

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

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

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

, a very famous genealogist, born of a noble family at Nuremberg, in 1651, was a lawyer in that city, and one of its senators. He was considered as having a profound knowledge of the interests of princes, the revolutions of states, and the history of the principal families in Europe. He died in 1728. His works were, L “Genealogies excellentium in GaHia familiarum,” Norimb. 1687, folio. 2. “Genealogise familiarum Bellomaneriae,” &c. Norimb. 1638, folio. 3. “Historia Genealogica Regum Magnae Britanniae,” Norimb. 1690, folio. 4. “Notitia procerum 5. R. imperil,” Tubingen, 1693, folio. 5. “Historia Italiae et Hispaniae genealogica,” Norimb. 1701, folio. 6. “Corpus Historic genealogicae Italiae et Hispaniae,” Norimb. 1702, folio. 7. “Recherches Historiques et Genealogiques des Grands d'Espagne,” Amst. 1708, folio. 8. “Stemma regium Lusitanicum,” Amst. 1708, folio. 9. “Genealogiae 20 illustrium in Hispama famiharum,” Leipsic, 1720, folio.

, a famous cardinal, was born April 26, 1651, of an illustrious family at Genoa. He was appointed general of the mint, then treasurer of the apostolical chamber, afterwards cardinal, February 13, 1690. The popes employed him in the most important affairs, and he was within one vote of being elected pope in the conclave 1730. His probity, talents, and love of learning, made him universally esteemed. He died January 4, 1737, at Rome, aged 86. He ordered, by will, that his noble library should be made public, of which a catalogue was printed at Rome in 1711, fol. by Justus Fontanini. This library was long one of the ornaments of Rome.

, a learned German, was born in 1584 at Vienna. He entered the Jesuits’ society at Rome 1607, and taught philosophy, mathematics, and theology, at Messina, where he published a Latin treatise in 1629, fol. which made much noise, and shows no little ercdulity. It was reprinted at Viterbo, 1632, fol. In this work he says that the pretended “Letter from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the people of Messina” is genuine; and he was therefore obliged to go to Rome and clear himself from the accusation brought against him in consequence of this work; but it ended in his being only compelled to change the title of his book, and to make some small alterations in it. He spent several years at Rome, and died at Milan, September 28, 1648, leaving a “Treatise on the Motion of the Earth and Sun,” 1633, 4to; “De sacra Latinitate,” 1635, 4to; < Historia trium Magorum,“1639, 4to;” Annalium Ecclesiasticorum Regni Hungariae,“torn. 1. fol. This is a valuable work, but has not been finished. He wrote also the funeral oration of Nicholas Richard, a Dominican, master of the Sacred P ilace, 4to; and a satire against the government of the Jesuits, entitled '< Monarchia Solipsorum,” is also attributed to him, but was more probably written by Julius Clement Scotti, an ex-Jesuit. On its first appearance it was ascribed to Sciopins, but that opinion is now given up. It was, however, dedicated to Leo Allatius, and was reprinted at Venice, 1652, with Inchofer’s name. Bourgeois, in his account of the book cwi “Frequent Comm mion,” page 89, enters into a large detail respecting Inchofer, and the “Monarchia Solipsorum,” and as he was at Rome when the work first came out, and was acquainted with Inchofer, to whom he ascribes it, his testimony must be allowed to have considerable weight.

, a divine of the seventeenth century, vvas a fellow of Etnanuel college, Cambridge, and admitted fellow of Queen’s college by the parliamentary visitors, by whose interest likewise he probably became a fellow of Eton in 1650. He was re-admitted to the same in 1660. He published three Sermons in 1639 and 1677, and wrote a religious romance in folio, entitled “Bentivolio and Urania,” Lond. 1660. He died in August 1683, and his epitaph is in Eton college chapel, where he was buried. In April 1739, were published “Nineteen Letters from Henry Hammond, D. D. to Mr. Peter Stanny nought and Dr. Nathaniel Ingelo,” many of them on very curious subjects.

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

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

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

, a lady celebrated for her skill in calligraphy, in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s time, appears to have lived single until the age of forty, when she became the wife of one Bartholomew Keilo, a native of Scotland, by whom she had a son, Samuel Kello, who was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. All we know besides of her is, that she was a correspondent of bishop Hall, when he was dean of Worcester in 1617. Various specimens of her delicate and beautiful writing are in our public repositories, and some in Edinburgh-castle. In the library of Christchurch, Oxford, are the Psalrns of David, written in French by Mrs. Inglis, who presented them in person to queen Elizabeth, by whom they were given to the library. Two manuscripts, written by her, were also preserved with care in the Bodleian library: one of them is entitled “Le six vingt et six Quatrains de Guy de Tour, sieur de Pybrac, escrits par Esther Inglis, pour son dernier adieu, ce 21e jour de Juin, 1617.” The following address is, in the second leaf, written in capital letters: “To the right worshipful my very singular friende, Joseph Hall, doctor of divinity, and dean of Winchester, Esther Inglis wisheth all increase of true happiness. Junii xxi. 1617.” In the third leaf is pasted the head of the writer, painted upon a card. The other manuscript is entitled “Les Proverbes de Salomon; escrites en diverses sortes de lettres, par Esther Anglois, en Francoise. A Lislehourge en Escosse,” 1599. Every chapter of this curious performance is written in a different hand, as is also the dedication. The manuscript contains near forty different characters of writing. The beginnings and endings of the chapters are adorned with beautiful head and tail-pieces, and the margins, in imitation of the old manuscripts, curiously decorated with the pen. The book is dedicated to the earl of Essex. On one of the first pages are his arms neatly drawn, with all their quarterings. In the fifth leaf, drawn with a pen, is the picture of Esther Inglis, in the habit of the times: her right hand holds a pen, the left rests upon an open book, on one of the leaves of which is written, “DC l'Eternel Je biert, de moi le mal, ou rien.” A music-book lies open before her. Under the picture is a Latin epigram by Andrew Melvin, and on the following page a second by the same author, in praise of Mrs. Inglis. In the royal library, D. xvi. are “Esther Inglis’s fifty Emblems,” finely drawn and written: “A Lislebourg en Escosse, Panne 1624.”

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

, an eminent physician and medical writer, a native of Sicily, was born in 1510. He studied medicine at Padua, where he took the degree of doctor in medicine in the year 1537, with singular reputation; insomuch that he soon received several invitations to professorships from different schools in Italy. He accepted the chair of medicine and anatomy at Naples, which he occupied for a number of years, lecturing to the most crowded audiences drawn by his fame from all parts of the country. He possessed peculiar qualifications for the office, having united a consummate knowledge of the writings of the ancient physicians with great practical skill and a sound judgment, which led him to- estimate justly the merits and defects of those fathers of the art. A singular testimony of his talents and unremitting attention to the improvement of his pupils was given by thektter, who caused his portrait to be placed in the schools of Naples with the following inscription: “Philippo Jngrassias Siculo, qui veram medicinae artem et anatomen, publiee etiarrando, Neapoli restituit, Discipuli memorise causa P. P.” At length he quitted his situation at Naples, in order to return to his native island, where he settled at Palermo. Here also he received many marks of public distinction. The rights of citizenship were conferred upon him; and, in 1563, Philip II. king of Spain, appointed him first physician for Sicily and the adjacent isles. By virtue of the powers attached to this office he restored order in, the medical constitution of the country, by preventing all persons, unqualified by their education and abilities, from practising there. His zeal for the credit of his profession rendered him rigid and severe in his examination of candidates; and he exercised his art himself in the most honourable manner. When the plague raged at Palermo in 1575, he adopted such excellent regulations as to put a stop to the calamity, and restore the city to health, and was hailed by all the citizens, the Sicilian Hippocrates. The magistrates were so grateful for his services, that they voted him a reward of two hundred and fifty gold crowns a month; but he disinterestedly declined to accept any more than what served for the maintenance and decoration of the chapel of St. Barbe, which he had built in the cloister of the Dominican convent of Palermo. He died, greatly regretted, in 1580, at the age of 70 years.

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

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

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

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

, mentioned in the preceding article, and we trust more unfortunate than accessary in the possession of the forged Mss. of Shakspeare, was originally a mechanic in Spitalfields, but taking advantage of the taste of the age for literary curiosities, commenced a speculator in scarce books, prints, and drawings. He had some skill in drawing and engraving, and endeavoured to turn it to account, by combining it with description, under the name of “Travels.” With this view he published in 1790, “A Picturesque tour through Holland, Brabant, and part of France, made in the autumn of 1789,” 2 vols. 8vo, illustrated with aqua-tinta and other prints. This succeeded well, although his descriptions were common-place, and his information seldom new. Encouraged, however, by the sale of the work, he produced in 1792, “Picturesque Views on the river Thames,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1793 “Picturesque Views on the river Medway,” in 1 vol. In 1794 he published his “Graphic Illustrations of Hogarth,” consisting of anecdotes of that eminent artist, and engraved Copies of many of his lesser and fugitive works, such as shop-cards, tickets, &c. In 1796, he was an accomplice in that fraud which eventually proved fatal to his character and comfort. This was the production of a large quantity of manuscripts, pretended to be in the hand-writing of Shakspeare and consisting of poems, letters, and one entire play. These were exhibited at his house in Norfolkstreet for the inspection of the public, and for some time divided their opinions. Connoisseurs, however, in ancient writings, and particularly in the genius and history of Shakspeare, soon detected the fraud, which, although it did for a time impose on some gentlemen in the literary world, was executed in the most slovenly and clumsy manner. A more full account of this imposition, and the controversies to which it gave rise, may be seen in our authorities: it is scarcely worth reviving in this work. After complete detection, it appeared that Mr. Ireland had been himself the dupe of a near and worthless relation; but his obstinacy in maintaining the authenticity of these papers long after he ought to have given them up, injured his character, and it is thought hastened his death, which took place in July 1800. We have to add to his works “Picturesque Views of the Severn and Warwickshire Avon,” and a “History of the Inns of Court,” the latter a posthumous work. The Mss. of Shakspeare were published under the title of “Miscellaneous papers and legal instruments, under the hand and seal of William Shakspeare, including the tragedy of King Lear, &c.” at the price of four guineas to subscribers. What was yet more absurd, a play pretended to be Shakspeare’s, entitled “Vortigern,” was actually performed on Drury-lane theatre, but hooted from the stage the first night.

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

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

Irenaeus wrote several books, which were all lost, except his five against heresies; and the far greatest part of the original Greek is wanting in these. They have been many times published, particularly by J. Ernestus Grabe, at Oxford, 1702, fol. and there is prefixed an account of Irenaeus, from which this is taken. Tertullian calls ^him “omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator,” a most curious searcher into all kinds of doctrine. His religious opinions were nearly those of Justin Martyr.

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

It is also said, that he prevailed with Lotharius, whose chancellor he was, to introduce into the universities the creation of doctors, and that he drew up the form of that ceremony; which had its commencement at Bologna, and extended soon to all other universities, and passed from the faculty of law to that of divinity. The university of Paris having adopted these degrees, they were used for the first time, in the person of Peter Lombard, master of the sentences, who was created, in this form, D. D. Irnerius died some time before 1150, and was interred at Bologna, the law school of which was afterwards rendered very famous by his disciples, and the Roman law was thenceforth taught by Italian professors, not only in Italy, but in England and France. One Vacarius, a native of Lombardy, was invited to England for that purpose about the middle of the twelfth century.

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

, a celebrated Grecian orator, of Chalcis, in Syria, the d isciple of Lysias, and master of Demosthenes, was born probably about 418 B.C. He taught rhetoric with reputation at Athens; and sixty-four orations are attributed to him, but he composed only fifty, and we have but ten of them remaining in the “Greek Orators” of Stephens, 1575, fol. of which we have an excellent translation by sir William Jones, in 1779, 4to. Isaeus took Lysias for his model, and has so well imitated his style and elegance, that he might be easily confounded with the other but for the figures of speech, which Isaeus is the first orator who makes frequent use of. He was also the first who applied eloquence to political subjects, in which his pupil Demosthenes followed him. He must be distinguished from another celebrated orator named Is^us, who lived at Rome in the time of the younger Pliny, about the year 97, by whom he is highly extolled. A sketch of his life is drawn by Philostratus, but he had nothing in common with the Athenian orator, except the volubility of his language, and his name, which last sir William Jones thinks might be assumed, as that of Isocrates also was taken by one of the later sophists, who wrote the instructions to Demonicus. The best of the recent editions of Isseus is that of Reiske, in the “Orat. Graec.” Leipsic, 1770 75, 8vo.

, in Latin Iselius, a learned antiquary, was born at Basil, in 1681. He was made professor of history and eloquence at Marpurg, in 1704; but was recalled to Basil, to teach history and antiquity, in 1707, where he was also promoted to the divinity-chair in 1711. He went to Paris in 1717, intending to visit Holland and England but, being nominated rector of the university of Basil, was obliged to return into his own country. Shortly after, the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris made him an honorary foreign member, in the room of M. Cuper. Iselin was also librarian at Basil, where he died in 1737. He published a great number of books, of which the principal are, 1. “De Gailis Rhenum transeuntibus Carmen Heroicum/ 7 2.” De Historicis Latinis melioris aevi dissertatio." 3. Dissertations and orations upon various subjects.

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

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

, was a Spanish Jesuit who on the suppression of his order, went to Italy, and settled at Bologna, where he died in 1783. He is known chiefly as the author of “The History of the famous preacher friar Gerund de Campazas; otherwise Gerund Zotes.” This work was written with a view to correct the abuses of the Spanish pulpit, by turning bad preachers into ridicule. The first volume of the original Spanish was published at Madrid, in 1758, under the assumed name of Francisco Lobon de Salazar, minister of the parish of St. Peter in Villagarcia. It was not only highly applauded by many of the learned in Spain, to whom it had been communicated in manuscript; but even the inquisitors encouraged the publication, and bore testimony in writing to its laudable design, believing that it would in a great measure produce a reformation. One of the revisers for the inquisition says, “It is one of those lucky expedients which indignation and hard necessity suggest, when the best means have proved ineffectual, and we are not to find fault if the dose of caustic and corrosive salts be somewhat too strong, as cancers are not to be cured with rose water.” Notwithstanding this approbation of the inquisition, some orders, particularly the Dominican and Mendicant, represented to the king that such a piece of merciless criticism would too much diminish the respect due to the clergy, and would render all religious orders ridiculous in the eyes of the common people, &c. These arguments, repeatedly urged by the friars, and supported by several of the bishops, obliged the council of Castile to take the book into their serious consideration, which produced a suppression of it. The author had a second volume ready; but, finding it impossible to print it in Spain, presented the copy to Mr. Baretti, by whose means both volumes were printed in English in 1771, with the omission of some tedious and irrelevant parts. In Spain this work was so highly approved, that the author was hailed as a second Cervantes, whom he certainly endeavours to copy; but it would be too liberal to allow him the merit of successful rivalship. Friar Gerund, however, is certainly a work of great humour, and must have appeared to much advantage in Spain, where the subjects of the satirQ are more common and obvious than in this country. Here it cannot be supposed to yield more than mere amusement, unless where it presents us with the customs of the common and middle ranks of Spain, and those are said to be faithfully depicted.

, an eminent Greek orator, was born at Athens, in the 86th olympiad, five years before the Peloponnesian war, and 436 B. C. At an early age he began to study philosophy and rhetoric under Gorgias, Prodicus, and Tiseas, whose doctrines and eloquence about this period astonished all Greece. It is affirmed that he also was a disciple of the celebrated orator Theramenes, whom the thirty tyrants caused to be put to death because he favoured the popular cause. He passionately loved glory; and the desire of distinguishing himself, and of bearing a part in the public administration, animated all his proceedings. In order to this end, besides possessing information and a turn for business, it was necessary to excel in eloquence; but nature having denied him both voice and self-command, he directed his efforts to composition, and confined himself to interesting questions, such as appeared to him calculated to render his country happy, and his fellow-citizens virtuous. His talents corresponded with the grandeur of his views. Youth flocked from all parts to be his pupils, and to form themselves on his lessons. Some of them afterwards became orators, some great statesmen, and others polished and profound historians. He died loaded with glory and wealth, at the age of ninety years, a few days previous to the battle of Chaeronea, B. C. 338.

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

Of his Orations, thirty-one remain; and among the various editions published, Dr. Harwood pronounces that by Battie, Cambridge, 1729 1748, 2 vols. 8vo, to be the best.

, a learned professor of divinity at Leipsic, was son of John Ittigius,“professor of physic in the same university, and born there in 1644. He received the first part of his education at Leipsic then went to Rostoc, and lastly to Strasburg, to perfect his studies after which he was admitted a professor in philosophy at Leipsic, and published a treatise upon burning mountains. He then became a minister, and exercised that function in various churches in the same place. In 1680 he was made archdeacon, and licentiate in divinity; and, in 1691, professor extraordinary in the same faculty, and ordinary professor the ensuing year. He furnished several papers published in the Leipsic Acts: besides which we have of his,” Dissertatio de haeresiarchis aevi apostolici ejus proximi;“”Appendix de ha3resiarchis“”Prolegomena ad Josephi opera“” Bibliotheca patrum apostolkorum Graeco-Latina;“” Historia synodorum nationalium in Gallia a reformatis habitarum“” Liber de bibliothecis et catenis patrum“” Exhortationes theologicæ“” Historic ecclesiasticæ primi et secundi seculi selecta capita." Some part of this last did not appear till after the death of the author, which happened April 7, 1710.

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

, was the only son of one of the most eminent merchants at Yarmouth, where he was born in 1751. He was entered of Caius college, Cambridge, where he did not long reside; but, returning to Yarmouth, became acquainted -with that celebrated antiquary Thomas Martin of Palgrave, and caught from him that taste for antiquities which he pursued during the short period of his life. He was elected F. S. A. 1771, and F. R. S. 1772; and, by favour of the earl of Suffolk, in him the honour of Suffolk herald extraordinary was revived; an office attended with no profit, but valuable to him by the access it gave to the Mss. muniments, &c. of the heralds college, of which he thereby became an honorary member. His first attempt at antiquarian publication was by proposals (without his name) in 1771, for printing an account of Lothingland hundred in Suffolk; for which he had engraved several small plates of arms and monuments in the churches of Friston, Gorleston, Loud, Lowestoffe, and Somerliton, from his own drawings. His next essay was the short preface to Mr. Swinden’s “History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, 1772,” 4to. Mr. Svvinden, who was a schoolmaster in Great Yarmouth, was a most intimate friend of Mr. Ives, who not only assisted him with his purse, and warmly patronized him while living, but superintended the book for the emolument of the author’s widow, and delivered it to the subscribers. In 1772 he caused to be cut nine wooden plates of old Norfolk seals, entitled “Sigilla antiqua Norfolciensia. Impressit Johannes Ives, S. A. S.” and a copper-plate portrait of Mr. Martin holding an urn, since prefixed to Martin’s “History of Thetford.” On Aug. 16, 1773, by a special licence from the archbishop of Canterbury, he was married at Lambeth church to Miss Kett (of an ancient family in Norfolk), and afterwards resided at Yarmouth.

In imitation of Mr. Walpole (to whom the first number was inscribed), Mr. Ives began in 1773 to publish “Select Papers” from his own collection; of which the second number was printed in 1774, and a third in 1775. Among these are “Remarks upon our English Coins, from the Norman invasion down to the end of the reign of queen Elizabeth,” by archbishop Sharp; sir W. Dugdale’s “Directions for the Search of Records, and making use of them, in order to an historical Discourse of the Antiquities of Staffordshire” with “Annals of Gonvile and Caius college, Cambridge” the “Coronation of Henry VII. and of queen Elizabeth,” &c. &c. In 1774 he published, in 12 mo, “Remarks upon the Garianonum of the Romans the scite and remains fixed and described;” with the ichnography of Garianonum, two plates, by B. T. Pouncey; south view of it, Roman antiquities found there, map of the river Yare, from the original in the corporation chest at Yarmouth, and an inscription on the mantletree of a farm-house. He died of a deep consumption, when he had just entered his twenty-fifth year, June 9, 1776. Considered as an antiquary, much merit is due to Mr. Ives, whose valuable collection was formed in less than five years. His library was sold by auction, March 3 6, 1777, including some curious Mss. (chiefly relating to Suffolk and Norfolk) belonging to Peter Le Neve, T. Martin, and Francis Blomefield. His coins, medals, ancient paintings, and antiquities, were sold Feb. 13 and 14, 1777. Two portraits of him have been engraven. 1

, a French poet, was born of a respectable family at la Fresnaye, a castle near Falaise. He discovered early a taste for poetry and the belles lettres, and, after having distinguished himself as a student at Caen, succeeded his father as lieutenant-general of the city; but the marechal d‘Estrees persuaded him to resign his post and go to court, where he placed him with M. de Vendome, son of the celebrated Gabrielle d’Estrées. It was for this young prince that des Ivetaux wrote his poem of “L'Institution du Prince,” in which he gives his pupil very sensible, judicious, and even religious advice. After this he was preceptor to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII; but his licentious way of life displeased the queen, and occasioned him to be excluded from the court a year after Henry IV. died. A pension and several benefices were, however, given him; but he afterwards resigned his benefices, on being reproached by cardinal Richelieu for his libertinism. Thus free from all restraint, des Ivetaux retired to an elegant house in the fauxbourg St. Germain, where he spent the rest of his days in pleasure and voluptuousness, iiving in the Epicurean style. Fancying that the pastoral life was the happiest, he dressed himself like a shepherd, and led imaginary flocks about the walks of his garden, repeating to them his lays, accompanied by a girl in the dress of a shepherdess, whom he had picked up with her Jiarp in the streets, and taken for his mistress. Their whole employment was to seek refinements in pleasures, and every day they studied how to render them more exquisite. Thus des Ivetaux passed his latter years; and it has been said that he ordered a saraband to be played when he was dying, to sooth his departing soul; but M. Huet, on the contrary, affirms, that he repented of his errors at the point of death. However that may be, he died in his ninetieth year, at Brian val, near Germigni, in 1649. Besides the poem above mentioned, des Ivetaux left stanzas, sonnets, and other poetical pieces, in the “Deiices de la Poésie Françoise,” Paris, 1620, 8vo.

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

April 1694, he took a doctor of physic’s degree at Leyden, on which occasion he communicated, in his thesis, some very singular observations, which we shall presently notice. At his return to his native country he intended immediately to digest his papers and memoirs into proper order; but, being appointed physician to his prince, he fell into too much practice to pursue that design with the vigour he desired. He married the daughter of an eminent merchant at Stolzenau in 1700. The long course of travels, the fatigue of his profession, and some family-uneasinesses, arising (as it is said) from the debts he had contracted, had very much impaired his constitution; so that, after a variety of ailments, he died Nov. 2, 1716.

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

, a learned and indefatigable German writer, and Lutheran divine, was born January 20, 1649, at Wolmar, in the landgraviate of HesseCassel. He was professor of poetry, mathematics, and divinity at Rinteln, and member of the society of Gottingen. He died May 17, 1729, leaving two sons and four daughters. A great number of his “Dissertations” are collected in two volumes, printed at Rinteln, 1700, and 1711, under the title of “Dissertationes Juveniles;” the principal are, “De oceano ejusque proprietatibus et vario motu; De libertate Dei; De terra De reflexione luminis ejusque effectu De imputatione peccati alieni, et speciatim Adamici; De Poligamia,” &c.

, a learned Jesuit, was born in Tirnaw in Hungary, about 1572, was received into the Jesuits’ order at Rome, and returning to his own country, was oanished into Transylvania, with the other members of the society, during the commotions which, at that time, agitated the kingdom. After this he discharged the duty of theological professor in the university of Olmutz, and filled some other important posts in different places. His last retreat was to a college which he built at Presburg, where he died in 1634. He was regarded as one of the most eloquent preachers in Hungary, and published some sermons, but he is chiefly celebrated for having completed a translation of the Bible from the Vulgate into the Hungarian tongue, which was printed at Vienna, in 1626.

, a painter of still life, was born at Amsterdam in 1630, and was a disciple of Hendrick Pot, a portrait and historical painter; of whom he learned the practice of the art, but from whom he varied in the application of it; and applied his talents, which were very considerable, in a close imitation of objects in still life; which he composed with great beauty and effect. In the gallery of the Louvre at Paris, are two exquisite works of his, in which he is said to unite the merits of Rembrandt and Teniers. He possessed an eye informed with the power of Rembrandt’s arrangements and contrast of light and shade, and a hand, that managed the pencil with the neatness and correctness of Teniers. He died in 1693.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent mathematician, and professor of mathematics at Gottingen, was born at Leipsic, Sept. 27, 1719. He had part of his education at home, under his father and uncle, both of whom were lecturers on jurisprudence, and men of general literature. In 1731 he attended the philosophical lectures of the celebrated Winkler, and next year studied mathematics under G. F. Richter, and afterwards under Hausen; but practical astronomy being at that period very little encouraged at Leipsic, he laboured for some years under great difficulties for want of instruments, and does not appear to have made any great progress until, in 1742, he formed an acquaintance with J. C. Baumann, and by degrees acquired such helps as enabled him to make several observations. Heinsius was his first preceptor in algebra; and, in 1756, he was invited to Gottingen, to be professor of mathematics and moral philosophy, and afterwards became secretary of the royal society, and had the care of the observatory on the resignation of Lowitz in 1763; but, notwithstanding his talents in astronomy and geography, the services he rendered to the mathematical sciences in general are more likely to convey his name to posterity. He exerted himself with the most celebrated geometers of Germany, Segner, and Karsten, to restore to geometry its ancient rights, and to introduce more precision and accuracy of demonstration into the whole of mathematical analysis. The doctrine of binomials that of the higher equations the laws of the equilibrium of two forces on the lever, and their composition are some of the most important points in the doctrine of mathematical analysis and mathematics, which Kastner illustrated and explained in such a manner as to excel all his predecessors. Germany is in particular indebted to him for his classical works on every part of the pure and practical mathematics. They unite that solidity peculiar to the old Grecian geometry with great brevity and clearness, and a fund of erudition, by which Kastner has greatly contributed to promote the study and knowledge of the mathematics. Kiistner’s talents, however, were not confined to mathematics: his poetical and humorous works, as well as his epigrams, are a proof of the extent of his genius; especially as these talents seldom fall to the lot of a mathematician. How Kastner acquired a taste for these pursuits, we are told by himself in one of his letters. In the early part of his life he resided at Leipsic, among friends who were neither mathematicians nor acquainted with the sciences; he then, as he tells us, contracted “the bad habit of laughing at others;”' but he used always to say, Hanc veniam damns petimusque vicissim.

Kastner died at Gottingen, June 20, 1800. Besides works on the pure and practical mathematics, we are indebted to Kastner for a history of the mathematics, from the revival of literature to the end of the eighteenth century. Vol. I. contains arithmetic, algebra, the elements of geometry, trigonometry, and practical geometry, and was published at Gottingen, 1796, and an appendix in 1797. Vol. II. which appeared at the same time, embraces perspective geometrical analysis, and the higher geometry, mechanics, optics, and astronomy.

, a female artist, well known in this country, was born in 1740, at Coire, the capital of the Grisons, and received the elements of art from her father, who, on some surprising proofs of her early capacity, at the age of fourteen, conducted her to Milan, and, after some years’ practice there and elsewhere, to Rome, where her talents, charms, accomplishments, and graces, soon rendered her an object of general admiration: in 1764 she removed to Venice, and in the following year accompanied lady Wentworth, the wife of the British resident, to England. Here, enjoying royal favour, the arbitress of public taste, loved, esteemed, perhaps envied by artists, decorated with academic honours, opulent and happy, she sunk her own name in that of sir A. Zucchi, a Venetian artist, whom she married, and, after a residence of seventeen years, returned, through her native place, to Italy, and settled at Rome; where, after a new career of success, courted, employed, and rewarded, by rnonarchs, princes, and the most distinguished travellers, she died in 1807, of gradual decay, resigned, regretted, and honoured by splendid obsequies.

Mr. Fuseli, who was honoured by the friendship of Angelica, and cherishes her memory, says, that he “has no wish to contradict those who make success the standard of genius, and as their heroine equalled the greatest names in the first, suppose that she was on a level with them in powers. Angelica pleased, and deserved to please, the age in which she lived, and the race for which she wrought. The Germans, with as much patriotism at least as judgment, have styled her the Paintress of Minds (Seelen Mahlerin): nor can this be wondered at from a nation, who, in A. R. Mengs, flatter themselves to possess an artist equal to Raffaello. The male and female characters of Angelica never vary in form, features, and expression, from the favourite ideal she had composed in her mind. Her heroes are all, the man to whom she thought she could have submitted, though him perhaps she never found; and to his fancied manner of acting and feeling, she, of course, submitted the passions of the subject. Her heroines are herself; and whilst suavity of countenance and alluring graces shall be able to divert the general eye from the sterner demands of character and expression, can never fail to please.”

Angelica painted the lighter scenes of poetry with a grace and taste entirely her own; and happily formed to meet that of an engraver whose labours highly contributed to the growth and perpetuity of her fame. Bartolozzi was the man, who, enjoying at the same time, youth, health, and ingenuity, almost entirely devoted his talents between Angelica and Cipriani. The three were endowed with congenial feelings in arts; which, if not of the highest class, were certainly entitled to rank among the most agreeable.

, a learned English physician and co-founder of Gonvil and Caius college, Cambridge, the son of Robert Kaye, of a Norfolk family, was born at Norwich, Oct. 6, 1510. After having received his school education at Norwich, he was admitted very young of Gonvil-hall, of which he became fellow. While here, among other proofs of literary application, he informs us that at the age of twenty-one, he translated out of Greek into Latin, Nicephorus Callistus’s treatise of “Confession in prayer,” another of Chrysostom, on the “manner of prayer;” and out of Latin into English, Erasmus’s paraphrase on Jude. He also epitomized his book “De Vera Theologia.” The study of divinity might probably have engaged his attention at this time, but we find that when he went afterwards, according to the custom of the age, to Italy, he studied physic under the learned Montanus, and soon became himself so eminent in that faculty, as to read lectures in the university of Padua for some years. We also find him reading lectures on Aristotle at that university about 1542, but he took his doctor’s degree at Bononia. In 1543 he travelled through the greatest part of Italy, Germany, and France, and on his return to England, commenced M. D. at Cambridge, and practised both at Shrewsbury and Norwich with such success, as to be considered one of the ablest physicians in England. It was doubtless this high reputation which procured him the honour of being successively physician to Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth.

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

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

, the antagonist of Dr. Caius in the antiquity of the universities, was born, as Wood conjectures, in Lincolnshire, but, according to Blomefield, was of a Yorkshire family. He was, however, educated at University college, Oxford, where he entered about the year 1522. In 1525, he was elected fellow of All Souls, where he took his degrees in arts, and at that time was esteemed an excellent Latin scholar, Grecian, and poet, in 1534, he was unanimously chosen registrar of the university; but. in 1552, was deprived of this office for negligence. Soon after the accession of queen Elizabeth, he was made prebendary of Salisbury. In 1561, he was elected master of University college, to which he was afterwards a considerable benefactor; and, in 1563, he was instituted to the rectory of Tredington in Worcestershire. He died in his college, in 1572, and was buried in the church of St. Peter’s in the East. He was well versed in sacred and profane learning, but, according to Smith, negligent and careless in some parts of his conduct. He translated Erasmus’s “Paraphrase on St. Mark,” by command of queen Catherine Parr, Lond. 1548; and likewise made translations from the Greek of Aristotle, Euripides, &e. but which do not appear to have been printed. What preserves his memory is his vindication of the antiquity of Oxford, metitioned in the preceding article, entitled, “Assertio antiquitatis Oxoniensis academic,” printed with Dr. John Caius’s answer, 1568, 1574, and again by Hearne 2 vols. 8vo, 1730. Mr. Smith, in his history of University College, has nearly answered Caius’s arguments respecting Alfred.

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

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

A few years after he became engaged in a long and vexatious lawsuit, in consequence of the neglect (to say the least of it) of an architect who professed himself to be his friend; the particulars of which it is of no importance to detail. At the conclusion of the business he shewed that his good humour had not forsaken him: and in 1787 he gave to the public the principal circumstances of his case in a performance entitled “The Distressed Poet, a seriocomic Poem, in three cantos,” 4to, with some pleasantry, and without any acrimony.

In the next year, 1788, the last of his productions appeared; and the composition was very honourable to his talents and his liberality. In 1782, the Antelope packet was shipwrecked on the Pelew Islands, where the commander, captain Wilson, and his crew lived some time before they could get off. The circumstances attending this extraordinary deliverance having been communicated 10 Mr. Keate, he offered to draw up the narrative of them for the advantage of his friend captain Wilson. This he executed in “An Account of the Pelew Islands, situated in the western part of the Pacific ocean; composed from the journals and communications of captain Henry Wilson and some of his officers, who in August 1783 were there shipwrecked, in the Antelope, a packet belonging to the honourable East India Company,” 4to, a work written with great elegance, compiled with much care, and which, if embellished (as it certainly appears to be) with facts better calculated to have found a place in a novel than a genuine narrative, must be ascribed to the mis-information of those who were actors in the scene, and must first have deceived before they obtained credit. Mr. Keate (whoundertook the task on the most disinterested principle, and derived no advantage whatever from the work) was too sturdy a moralist to have had any hand in the imposition.

Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Keate was the author of many prologues and epilogues, spoken at Mr. Newcomb’s school at Hackney; and of other occasional verses in the literary journals, not, however, of sufficient importance to be enumerated. He had also adapted his friend Voltaire’s “Semiramis” to the stage; but this was superseded, in 1777, at Drury-lane, by captain Ayscough’s translation.

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

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

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

, a very learned man, was born at Dantzic, in Prussia, 1571. He received the first rudiments of learning under James Fabricius, so distinguished by his zeal against Papists, Anabaptists, and other heretics; and in 1589, was sent to the university of Wirtemberg, where he studied philosophy and divinity. Two years after, he removed to the university of Leipsic; whence, after half a year’s stay, he went in 1592, to that of Heidelberg. Here he took a master’s degree, and was so highly esteemed by the governors of the university, that he was first made a tutor and afterwards Hebrew professor there. In 1597, the senate of Dantzic, pleased with the reputation and merit of their countryman, sent him a formal and honourable invitation, by letter, to come and take upon him part of the management of their academy, which he at first refused, but on a second invitation, in 1601, consented, after having first received the degree of D. D. at Heidelberg. As soon as he was settled at Dantzic, he proposed to lead the youth through the very penetralia of philosophy, by a newer and more compendious method than had hitherto been found out, according to which they might, within the compass of three years, finish a complete course. For this purpose he pursued the scheme he had begun at Heidelberg, and drew up a great number of books and systems upon all sorts of subjects; logic, rhetoric, ceconomics, ethics, politics, physics, metaphysics, geography, astronomy, &c. and in this industrious manner he went on till 1609, when, fairly worn out with constant attention to the business of teaching, he died at the early age of thirty-eight. His works were published at Geneva in 1614, 2 vols. fol. The most valuable are his systematic treatises on rhetonc; but they were all for some time used in teaching, and afterwards pillaged by other compilers, without acknowledgment.

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

, an eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born Dec. 1, 1671, at Edinburgh, where he received the first rudiments of learning; and, being educated in that university, continued there till he took the degree of M. A. His genius leading him to the mathematics, he studied that science very successfully under David Gregory the professor there, who was one of the first that had embraced the Newtonian philosophy; and, in 1694, he followed his tutor to Oxford, where, being admitted of Baliol, he obtained one of the Scotch exhibitions in that college. He is said to have been the first who taught Newton’s principles by the experiments on which they are grounded, -which he was enabled to do by an apparatus of instruments of his own providing; and the lectures he delivered in his chambers upon natural and experimental philosophy, procured him very great reputation. The first public specimen he gave of his skill in mathematical and philosophical knowledge, was his “Examination of Burnet’s Theory of the Earth,” which appeared in 1698, and was universally applauded by the men of science, and allowed to be decisive against the doctor’s “Theory.” To this piece he subjoined “Remarks upon Whiston’s New Theory of the Earth;” and these theories, being defended by their respective inventors, drew from Keill, in 1699, another performance entitled “An Examination of the Reflections of the Theory of the Earth, together with ‘ a Defence of the Remarks on Mr. Whiston’s New Theory’.” Dr. Burnet was a man of grea.t humanity, moderation, and candour; and it was therefore supposed that Keill had treated him too roughly, considering the great disparity of years between them. Keill, however, left the doctor in possession of that which has since been thought the great characteristic and excellence of his work: and, though he disclaimed him as a philosopher, yet allowed him to be a man of a fine imagination. “Perhaps,” says he, “many of his readers will be sorry to be undeceived about his Theory; for, as I believe never any book was fuller of mistakes and errors in philosophy, so none ever abounded *vith more beautiful scenes and surprizing images of nature. But I write only to those who might expect to find a true philosophy in it: the*y who read it as an ingenious romance will still be pleased with their entertainment.”

The following year Dr. Millington, Sedleian professor of natural philosophy in Oxford, who had been appointed physician in ordinary to king William, substituted Keill as his deputy, to read lectures in the public schools. This office he discharged with great reputation; and the term of enjoying the Scotch exhibition at Baliol-college, without taking orders, now expiring, he accepted an invitation from Dr. Aldrich, dean of Christ-church, to reside there. In 1701 he published his celebrated treatise, the substance of several lectures on the new philosophy, entitled “Introductio ad veram physicam,” which is supposed to be the best and most useful of all his performances. In the preface he insinuates the little progress that Sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia” had made in the world and says, that “though the mechanical philosophy was then in repute, yet, in most of the writings upon this subject, scarce any thing was to be found but the name.” The first edition of this book contained only fourteen lectures; but to the second, in 1705, he added two more. About 50 years ago, when the Newtonian philosophy began to be established in France, this piece was in great esteem there, being considered as the best introduction to the “Principia;” and a new edition in English was printed at London in 1736, at the instance of M. Maupertuis, who was then in England, and subjoined to it a new hypothesis of his own, concerning the ring of the planet Saturn.

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

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

, an eminent physician of the mathematical sect, and brother to the preceding, was born in Scotland March 27, 1673. Having received the early part of his education in his native country, he went abroad with the view of completing it in the schools of celebrity on the continent; and obtained such a degree of knowledge as distinguished him soon after his return to England. He had early applied to dissections, and pursued th study of anatomy, under Duverney, at Paris; whence he was enabled to give anatomical lectures, with great reputation, in both the English universities. He was honoured with the degree of M. D. by the university of Cambridge. In 1703 he settled at Northampton, and began the practice of his profession, in which he attained considerable fame and success. In 1706 he published a paper in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 306, containing “an account of the death and dissection of John Bayles, of that town, reputed to have been 130 years old.” The circumstances which he detailed very much resembled those that were observed by the celebrated Harvey in the dissection of old Parr. Dr. Keill, like his brother John, was well skilled in mathematical learning, which he applied to the explanation of die laws of the animal economy. His first publication was a compendium of anatomy, for the use of the pupils who attended his lectures, and was entitled “The Anatomy of the Human Body abridged,” Lond. 1698, 12mo, and was taken chiefly from Cowper it went through many editions. In the year 1708, he gave the world a proof of his mathematical skill, in “An Account of Animal Secretion, the quantity of blood in the human body, and muscular motion,” London, 8vi. This work was reprinted in 1717, with the addition of an essay, “concerning the force of the heart in driving the blood through the whole body,” and under the title of “Essays on several parts of the Animal Œconomy.” He likewise published the same treatise in Latin, with the addition of a “Medicina Statica Britannica.” The essay concerning the force of the heart drew him into a controversy with Dr. Jurin, which was carried on in several papers, printed in the Philosophical Transactions of the royal society, of which Dr. Keill had been elected a member; and was continued to the time of the death of the latter, which took place at Northampton, July 16, 1619, in the vigour of his age. He had for some time laboured under a very painful disorder, viz. a cancer in the roof of his mouth, to which he had applied the cautery with his own hands, in order, if possible, to procure some relief, but in vain. He was buried at St. Giles’s church at Northampton. An handsome monument and inscription were placed over him by his brother, John Keill, to whom he left his estate, being never married; but who survived him, as we have seen, little more than two years.

, field-marshal in the king of Prussia’s service, was born in 1696, and was the younger son of William Keith, earl marshal of Scotland. He had his grammar-learning under Thomas Ruddiman, author of the “Rudiments;” his academical, under bishop Keith and William IMeston, in the college of Aberdeen. He was designed by his friends for the profession of the law; but the bent of his genius inclined him to arms, with which they wisely complied. His first military services were employed while a youth of eighteen, in the rebellion of 1715. In this unhappy contest, through the instigation of the counless his mother, who was a Roman catholic, he joined the Pretender’s party, and was at the battle of Sheriffmuir, in which he was wounded, yet able to make his escape to France. Here he applied to those branches of education, which are necessary to accomplish a soldier. He studied mathematics under M. de Maupertuis; and made such proficiency, that he was, by his recommendation, admitted a fellow of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. He afterwards travelled through Italy, Switzerland, and Portugal; with uncommon curiosity examined the several productions in architecture, painting, and sculpture; and surveyed the different fields where famous battles had been fought. In 1717, he had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with Peter, czar of Muscovy, at Paris, who invited him to enter into the Russian service. This offer he declined, because the emperor was at that time at war with the king of Sweden, whose character Keith held in great veneration. He then left Paris, and went to Madrid; where, by the interest of the duke of Lyria, he obtained a commission in the Irish brigades, then commanded by the duke of Ormond. He afterwards accompanied the duke of Lyria, when he was sent ambassador extraordinary to Russia, and was recommended by him to the service of the czarina, who promoted him to the rank of lieutenant-general, and invested him with the order of the black eagle.

The Turks at this time invaded the Ukrain on the side of Russia, and the empress sent two numerous armies to repel the invaders; one of which marched for Oczakow, under the command of count Munich, which place was invested and taken by the valour and conduct of Keith, to whom the success was chiefly attributed. In the war with the Swedes, he had a command under marshal Lacey, at the battle of Willmanstrand; which he gained by fetching a compass about a hill, and attacking the Swedes in flunk, at a time when victory seemed to declare in their favour. He likewise, by a stratagem, retook from them the isles of Aland in the Baltic, which they had seized by treachery. Afterwards he had no inconsiderable share in the bringing about that extraordinary revolution, which raised the empress Elizabeth, the daughter of Peter, to the throne. He served the Russians in peace also by several embassies: but, finding the honours of that country no better than a splendid servitude, and not meeting with those rewards which his long and faithful services deserved, he left that court for that of Prussia, where merit was better known, and better rewarded.

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

This brave and experienced general, after having greatly distinguished himself in the later memorable wars of that illustrious monarch, was killed in the unfortunate affair of Hohkerchen, Oct. 14, 1758, and was buried in the church of that place, the enemy joining in paying respect to his virtues. His character may be given in the few but comprehensive words of his brother, the late lord marshal of Scotland, who on being applied to by M. Formey, who wished to write his eloge, answered, “Probus vixit, fortis obiit.”

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

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

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

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a native of Ireland, was born on the banks of the lake of Killarney, in 1739. His father was a gentleman of good family in that country, whose fortune being reduced by a series of misfortunes, he was obliged to repair to Dublin, in order to endeavour to support himself by his personal industry. He gave our author, however, some school education; but the narrowness of his finances would not permit him to indulge his son’s natural propensity to study, by placing him in the higher schools of Dublin. He was therefore bound apprentice to 3j stay-maker, an employment but ill suited to his inclination; yet continued with his master till the expiration of his apprenticeship, and then set out for London, in 1760, in order to procure a livelihood by his business. This, however, he found very difficult, and was soon reduced to the utmost distress for the means of subsistence. In this forlorn situation, a stranger, and friendless, he used sometimes to endeavour to forget his misfortunes, and passed some of his heavy hours at a public-house in Russel-street, Covent-garden, much resorted to by the younger players. Having an uncommon share of good-humour, and being lively, cheerful, and engaging in his behaviour, he soon attracted the notice, not only of these minor wits, but of a set of honest tradesmen who frequented that house every evening, and who were much entertained with his conversation. In a little time Mr. Kelly became so well acquainted with the characters of the club, that he was enabled to give a humorous description of them in one of the daily papers; and the likenesses were so well executed as to draw their attention, and excite their curiosity to discover the author. Their suspicions soon fixed on Mr. Kelly, and from that time he became distinguished among them as a man of parts and consideration.

One of the members of the society, in particular, an attorney of some reputation in his profession, being much pleased with Mr. Kelly’s company, made particular inquiry into his history, and thinking him worthy of a better situation, invited him to his house, and employed him in copying and transcribing, an occupation which Mr. Kelly prosecuted with so much assiduity, that he earned about three guineas a week; an income which, compared to what he had been hitherto able to procure, might be deemed affluent. But this employment, though profitable, could not long be agreeable to a man of his lively turn of mind. From his accidental acquaintance with some booksellers, he, in 1762, became the editor of the “Lady’s Museum,” the “Court Magazine,” and other periodical publications, in which he wrote so many original essays, and pieces of poetry, that his fame was quickly spread, and he now found himself fully employed in various branches of periodical literature; in the prosecution of which he exerted himself with the most unwearied industry, being then lately married, and having an increasing family, whose sole dependence was upon his personal labour.

About this time he began to write many political pamphlets, and among the rest “A Vindication of Mr. Pitt’s Administration,” which lord Chesterfield makes honourable mention of in the second volume of his letters, Letter 178. Jn 1767, the “Babbler” appeared in two pocket volumes, which had at first been inserted in “Owen’s Weekly Chronicle” in single papers: as did the “Memoirs of a Magdalene,” under the title of “Louisa Mildmay.” About this time also, perceiving that Churchill’s reputation had been much raised by his criticism of the stage in the “Rosciad,” Mr. Kelly produced his “Thespis,” by much the most spirited of his poetic compositions, in which he dealt about his satire and panegyric with great freedom and acuteness. It is somewhat singular, that while Mr. Kelly was making this severe attack upon the merits of the leading performers at our theatres, which had so great an effect upon the feelings of Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Clive, that they both for some time refused to perform in any of his pieces, he was actually writing for the stage; for, in 1768, his comedy of “False Delicacy” made its appearance, and was received with such universal applause, as at once established his reputation as a dramatic writer, and procured him a distinguished rank among the wits of the age. The sale of this comedy was exceedingly rapid and great, and it was repeatedly performed throughout Britain and Ireland, to crowded audiences. Nor was its reputation confined to the British dominions; it was translated into most of the modern languages, viz. into Portuguese, by command of the marquis de Pombal, and acted with great applause at the public theatre at Lisbon into French by the celebrated madame Ricoboni into the same language by another hand, at the Hague into Italian at Paris, where it was acted at the Theatre de la Comedie Italienne and into German.

The success of this play induced Mr. Kelly to continue to write for the stage; and he soon produced another comedy, entitled “A Word to the Wise,” which, on a report then current, that he was employed to write in defence of the measures of administration, met with a very illiberal reception; for, by a party who had previously determined on its fate, after an uncommon uproar, it was most undeservedly driven from the theatre. Of this treatment he severely complains in an “Address to the Public,” prefixed to an edition of that play, soon after published by subscription, before which above a thousand names appear as his encouragers; and though the pride of the poet was hurt, his fortune was improved, and his friends were considerably increased.

The ill fate of the “Word to the Wise” cast no damp on the ardour of our poet in the prosecution of theatric fame; and as his friends were strongly of opinion, that his genius excelled in the sentimental and pathetic, he was persuaded to make a trial of it in tragedy, and soon after presented the public with “Clementina.” In 1774, uqder the patronage of justice Addington, who kindly helped to conceal the name of the real author, by lending his own to that performance, he produced his “School for Wives.” By this manoeuvre he completely deceived the critics, who had not yet forgot their resentment; for the play was prepared for the stage, and represented, without the least discovery of his relation to it; though they pretended to be perfectly well acquainted with Mr. Kelly’s style and manner of writing. However, after the character of the play was fully established, and any farther concealment became unnecessary, Mr. Addington very genteelly, in a public advertisement, resigned his borrowed plumes, and the real author was invested with that share of reputation to which he was entitled.

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

His next production was the farce of a “Romance of an Hour,” which made its appearance about this time. This performance, though borrowed from Marmontel, he so perfectly naturalised, that it bears every mark of an original. The comedy of “The Man of Reason” followed this piece of genuine humour, but was attended with less success than any of his former productions. This was his last attempt, for the sedentary life, to which his constant labour subjected him, injured his health; and early in 1777 an abscess, formed in his side, after a few days illness, put a period to his life February 3d, at his house in Goughsquare, in the 38th year of his age. He left behind him a widow and five children, of the last of which she was delivered about a month after his death. Very soon after his death, his comedy of “A Word to the Wise” was revived for the benefit of his wife and family, and introduced by an elegant and pathetic prologue written by Dr. Johnson, which was heard with the most respectful attention. About the same time an edition of his works was published in 4to, with a life of the author.

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

In 1776, Mr. Kelly received an invitation from the Episcopal congregation at Air, in North Britain, to become their pastor. On this title he was ordained by the bishop of Carlisle, before whom he preached the ordination sermon. From that time lip continued to reside at Air till 1779, when he was engaged by his grace the duke of Gordon as tutor to his son the marquis of Huntley. The studies of this gallant young nobleman Mr. K. continued to direct at Eton and Cambridge; and afterwards accompanied him on a tour to the Continent. After his return, in 1791, by the interest of his noble patron, Mr. K. obtained from the chancellor the presentation to the vicarage of Ardl< igh near Colchester, which preferment he continued to hold till 1807. Being presented by the chancellor to the more valuable rectory of Copford in the same neighbourhood, Dr. Kelly had the satisfaction of being enabled to resign his vicarage of Ardleigh in favour of his friend and brother-in-law the rev. Henry Bishop.

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

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

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

, the deprived bishop of Bath and Wells, was descended from an ancient family seated at Kenplace, in Somersetshire, and born at Berkhamstead, in Hertfordshire, July 1637. At the age of thirteen he was sent to Winchester-school; and thence removed to Newcollege, in Oxford, of which he became a probationerfellow in 1657. He took his degrees regularly, and pursued his studies closely for many years; and in 1666 he removed to Winchester-college, being chosen fellow of that society. Not long after this, he was appointed domestic chaplain to Morley, bishop of that see, who presented him first to the rectory of Brixton, in the Isle of Wight, and afterwards to a prebend in the church of Westminster, 1669. In 1674 he made a tour to Rome, with his nephew Mr. Isaac Walton, then B. A. in Christchurch, in Oxford; and after his return, took his degrees in divinity, 1679. Not long after, being appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange, he went to Holland. Here his prudence and piety gained him the esteem and confidence of his mistress; but in the course of his office, he happened to incur the displeasure of her consort, by obliging one of his favourites to perform a promise of marriage with a young lady of the princess’s train, whom he had seduced by that contract. This zeal in Ken so offended the prince, afterwards king William, that he very warmly threatened to turn him away from the service; which Ken as warmly resenting, requested leave of the princess to return home, and would* not consent to stay till intreated by the prince in person. About a year after, however, he returned to England, and was appointed in quality of chaplain, to attend lord Dartmouth with the royal commission to demolish the fortifications of Tangier. The doctor returned with this nobleman April 1684; and was immediately advanced to be chaplain to the king, by an order from his majesty himself. Not only the nature of the post, but the gracious manner of conferring it, evidently shewed that it was intended as a step to future favours; and this was so well understood, that, upon the removal of the court to pass the summer at Winchester, the doctor’s prebendal house was pitched upon for the use of Mrs. Eleanor Gwyn. But Ken was too pious even to countenance vice in his royal benefactor; and therefore positively refused admittance to the royal mistress, which the king, however, did not take amiss, as he knew the sincerity of the man; and, previous to any application, nominated him soon after to the bishopric of Bath and Wells. A few days after this, the king was seized with the illness of which he died; during which, the doctor thought it his duty to attend him very constantly, and did his utmost to awaken his conscience. Bishop Burnet tells us that he spoke on that occasion “with great elevation of thought and expression, and like a man inspired.” This pious duty was the cause of delaying his admission to the temporalities of the see of Wells; so that when king James came to the crown, new instruments were prepared for that purpose.

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

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

His works were published in 1721, in four volumes; and consist of devotional pieces in verse and prose. Various reports having been industriously spread that he was tainted with popish errors, and not steadfast to the doctrine of the church of England, it was thought proper to publish the following paragraph, transcribed from his will “As for my religion, I die in the holy catholic and apostolic faith, professed by the whole church, before the disunion of East and West; more particularly, I die in the communion of the church of England, as it stands distinguished from all papal and puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the cross.”

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

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

, a native of Scotland, who resided some time in Smyrna, and died at an advanced age, Jan. 26, 1760, is recorded as an antiquary of some abilities, although we know very little of his history. He had a collection of about 200 pictures, amongst which were two heads of himself by Keysing; he had also a very valuable collection of Greek and Latin coins, which, with the pictures, were sold by auction in 1760. Amongst the Roman coins were 256 of Carausius, 9 of them silver, and 89 of Alectus; these coins of Carausius and Alectus were purchased by P. C. Webb, esq. the 256 for 70l. and thp 8$ for 16l. 10s. They were afterwards bought by Dr. Hunter, who added to the number very considerably. Dr. Kennedy, in his “Dissertation on the Coins of Carausius,” as-, serted, that Oriuna was that emperor’s guardian goddess. Dr. Stukeley, in his “Palæographia Britannica, No. III, 1752,” 4to, affirmed she was his wife; to which Dr. Kennedy replied in “Farther Observations,” &c. 1756, 4to and, upon his antagonist’s supporting his opinion in his “History of Carausius,” 1757 59, he abused him in a sixpenny 4to letter.

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

In 1689, as he was exercising himself in shooting, he had the misfortune to be dangerously wounded in the forehead by the bursting of the gun. Both the tables of his skull were broken, which occasioned him constantly to wear a black velvet patch on that part. He lay a considerable time under this accident; and it is said, that while he was in great disorder both of body and brain, just after he had undergone the severe operation of trepanning, he made a copy of Latin verses, and dictated them to a friend at his bed-side. The copy was transmitted to his patron, sir William Glynne, in whose study it was found, after the author had forgot every thing but the sad occasion: and the writer of his life tells us, that “it was then in his possession, and thought, by good judges, to be no reproach to the author.” He was too young a divine to engage in the famous popish controversy; but he distinguished himself by preaching against popery. He likewise refused to read the declaration for liberty of conscience in 1688, and went with the body of the clergy in the diocese of Oxford, when they rejected an address to king James, recommended by bishop Parker in the same year. While he continued at Amersden, he contracted an acquaintance with Dr. George Hickes, whom he entertained in his house, and was instructed by him in the Saxon and Northern tongues; though their different principles in church and state afterwards dissolved the friendship between them. In September 1691, he was chosen lecturer of St. Martin’s in Oxford, having some time before been invited back to Edmund-hall, to be tutor and vice-principal there; where he lived in friendship with the learned Dr. Mill, the editor of the New Testament, who was then principal of that house. In February 1692, he addressed a letter from Edmund-hall to Brome, the editor of Somner’s “Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent,” containing an account of the life of that famous antiquary; which gave him an opportunity of displaying his knowledge in the history of the Saxon language in England. In February 1693, he was presented to the rectory of Shottesbrook, in Berkshire, by William Cherry, esq. the father of one of his fellow-students at college, but he still resided at Oxford, where he diligently pursued and encouraged the study of antiquities. We have a strong attestation to this part of his character from Gibson, afterwards bishop of London, who publishing, in 1694, a translation of Somner’s treatise, written in answer to Chifflet, concerning the situation of the Portus Iccius on the coast of France, opposite to Kent, where Caesar embarked for the invasion of this island, introduced it to the world with a dedication to Mr. Kennet.

On May 5, 1694, he took the degree of B. D. that of D. D. July 19, 1699 and in 1700, was appointed minister of St. Botolph Aldgate in London, without any solicitation of his own. In 1701, he engaged against Dr. Atterbury, in the disputes about the rights of convocation, of which he became a member about this time, as archdeacon of Huntingdon; to which dignity he was advanced the same year by Dr. Gardiner, bishop of Lincoln. He now grew into great esteem by those who were deemed the lowchurch party, and particularly with Tenison the archbishop of Canterbury. He preached a sermon at Aldgate, January 30, 1703, which exposed him to great clamour, and occasioned many pamphlets to be written against it; and in 1705, when Dr. Wake was advanced to the see of Lincoln, was appointed to preach his consecration sermon; which was so much admired by lord chief-justice Holt, that he declared, “it had more in it to the purpose of the legal and Christian constitution of this church than any volume of discourses.” About the same time, some booksellers, having undertaken to print a collection of the best writers of the English history, as far as to the reign of Charles I. in two folio volumes, prevailed with Dr. Kennet to prepare a third volume, which should carry the history down to the then present reign of queen Anne. This, being finished with a particular preface, was published with the other two, tinder the title of “A complete History of England, &c.” in 1706. The two volumes were collected by Mr. Hughes, who wrote also the general preface, without any participation of Dr. Kennet: and, in 1719, appeared the second edition with notes, said to be inserted by Mr. Strype, and several alterations and additions. Not long after this, he was appointed chaplain to her majesty; and by the management of bishop Burnet, preached the funeral sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, Sept. 5, 1707. This sermon gave great offence, and made some say, that “the preacher had built a bridge to heaven for men of wit and parts, but excluded the duller part of mankind from any chance of passing it.” This charge was grounded on the following passage; where, speaking of a late repentance, he says, that “this rarely happens but in men of distinguished sense and judgment. Ordinary abilities may Jt>e altogether sunk by a long vicious course of life: the duller flame is easily extinguished. The meaner sinful wretches are commonly given up to a reprobate mind, and die as stupidly as they lived; while the nobler and brighter parts have an advantage of understanding the worth of their souls before they resign them. If they are allowed the benefit of sickness, they commonly awake out of their dream of sin, and reflect, and look upward. They acknowledge an infinite being they feel their own immortal part they recollect and relish the holy Scriptures they call for the elders of the church they think what to answer at a judgment-seat. Not that God is a respecter of persons, but the difference is in men; and, the more intelligent nature is, the more susceptible of the divine grace.” Of this sermon a new edition, with “Memoirs of the Family of Cavendish,” and notes and illustrations, was published in 1797, which is now as scarce as the original edition, the greater part of the impression having been burnt at Mr. Nichols’s (the editor’s) fire in 1808.

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

"Dr. Swift came into the coffee-house, and had a bow from every body but me, who, I confess, could not but despise him. When I came to the an ti- chamber to wait before prayers, Dr. Swift was the principal man of talk and business, and acted as a master of requests. He was soliciting the earl of Arran to speak to his brother the duke of Ormond, to get a chaplain’s place established in the garrison of Hull for Mr. Fiddes, a clergyman in that neighbourhood, who had lately been in gaol, and published sermons to pay fees. He was promising Mr. Thorold to undertake with my lord treasurer, that, according to his petition, he should obtain a salary of 200l. per annum, as minister of the English church at Rotterdam. Then he stopt F. Gwynne, esq. going in with his red bag to the queen, and told him aloud he had somewhat to say to him from my lord treasurer. He talked with the son of Dr. Davenant to be sent abroad, and took out his pocket-book and wrote down several things, as memoranda, to do for him. He turned to the fire, and took out his gold watch, and, telling the time of the day, complained it was very late. A gentleman said, ‘ he was too fast.’ * How can I help it,‘ says the doctor, ’ if the courtiers give me a watch that won‘t go right’ Then he instructed a young nobleman, that the best poet in England was Mr. Pope (a papist), who had begun a translation of Homer into English verse for which ‘ he must have ’em all subscribe' for, says he, the author shall not begin to print till I have a thousand guineas for him. Lord Treasurer, after leaving the queen, came through the room beckoning Dr. Swift to follow him: both went off just before prayers. 11 Nov. 3. I see and hear a great deal to confirm a doubt, that the pretender’s interest is much at the bottom of some

hand in the late book for hereditary right; and that one of them was presented to majesty itself, whom God preserve from the effect of such principles and such intrigues!"

Bishop Kennet took such an active part in the ecclesiastical and political controversies of his time, that whoever examines into the state of these must expect to find his character very differently represented. Upon a fair examination of his conduct, however, as well as his writings, it will probably be found that he did not fall much short of his contemporaries as an able divine and an honest politician. But it is as a historian and antiquary, that we feel most indebted to his labours, and could wish he had been enabled to devote more of his time to the illustration of literary history, to which he was early attached, and had every requisite to become a useful collector and biographer. As to his character in other respects, if we can rely on the rev. William Newton, the writer of his life, there was much that was exemplary. He was always indefatigable in the duties of his sacred function, had a great sense of the worth of souls, and was very solicitous to serve in the most effectual manner those committed to his care.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Besides this collection, and the pieces already mentioned, of his own composing, he published English translations of eminent authors, the chief of which are as follow: 1. “Puffendorf of the Law of Nature and Nations.” 2. “Placette’s Christian Casuist.” 3. “Godeau’s Pastoral Instructions.” 4. “Pascal’s Thoughts on Religion.” To which he prefixed an account of the manner in which those thoughts were delivered by the author. 5. “Balsac’s Aristippus; with an Account of his Life and Writings.” 6. “The Marriage of Thames and Isis;” from a Latin poem of Mr. Camden. Dr. Basil Kennet is said to have been a very amiable man; of exemplary integrity, generosity, and modesty.

, 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.

Pursuing his studies with great diligence, he in 1753 published “The State of the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament considered. A Dissertation in Two Parts. Part the First compares I Chron. xi. with 2 Sam. v. and xxiii.; and Part the Second contains Observations on seventy Hebrew Mss. with an Extract of Mistakes and various Readings;” Oxford, 8vo. In this work he first exhibited the utility and necessity of a collation of the Hebrew Text with the various ancient Mss. existing.

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” *,

cott, after drawing a portrait of Dr. more active life for a more contemplaKing with equal spirit and acrimony, live; ever warm for the glory of the

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

happiness as a protestant and an Eng- his numerous surviving friends Happy

lishman and most effectually recom- would it be for you, sir, (addressing mending toothers (with zeal regulated himself to Dr. King), were your latter

and now, in old age, I shall only say, and in particular by such parts of it as

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

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

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.

To this sagacious philosopher we owe the first discovery of the great laws of the planetary motions, viz. that the planets describe areas that are always proportional to the times; that they move in elliptical orbits, having the sun. in one focus and that the squares of their periodic times, are proportional to the cubes of their mean distances which are now generally known by the name of Kepler’s Laws.

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.

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

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

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

, 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.

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

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

, a 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.