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

Not disheartened by his former unsuccessful voyages, he undertook again, in 1609, a third voyage to the same parts, for further discoveries; and was fitted out by the Dutch East India company. He sailed from Amsterdam with twenty men English and Dutch, March 25; and on April 25, doubled the North Cape of Finmark, in Norway. He kept along the coasts of Lapland towards Nova Zembla, but found the sea so full of ice that he could not proceed. Then turning about, he went towards America, and arrived at the coast of New France on July 18. He sailed from place to place, without any hopes of succeeding in their grand scheme; and the ship’s crew disagreeing, and being in danger of mutinying, he pursued his way homewards, and arrived Nov. 7, at Dartmouth, in Devonshire; of which he gave advice to his directors in Holland, sending them also a journal of his voyage. In 1610, he was again fitted out by some gentlemen, with a commission to try, if through any of those American inlets which captain Davis saw, but durst not enter, on the western side of Davis’s Streights, any passage might be found to the South Sea. They sailed from St. Catharine’s April 17, and on June 4, came within sight of Greenland. On the 9th they were off Forbisher’s Streights, and on the 15th came in sight of Cape Desolation. Thence they proceeded north-westward, among great quantities of ice, until they came to the mouth of the Streights that bear Hudson’s name. They advanced in those Streights westerly, as the land and ice would permit, till they got into the bay, which has ever since been called by the bold discoverer’s name, “Hudson’s Bay.” He gave names to places as he %vent along; and called the country itself “Nova Britan^­nia,” or New Britain. He sailed above 100 leagues south into this bay, being confident that he had found the desired passage; but perceiving at last that it was only a bay, he resolved to winter in the most southern point of it, with, an intention of pursuing his discoveries the following spring. Upon this he was so intent, that he did not consider how unprovided he was with necessaries to support himself during a severe winter in that desolate place. On Nov. 3, however, they drew their ship into a small creek, where they would all infallibly have, perished, if they had not been unexpectedly and providentially supplied with uncommon flights of wild fowl, which served them for provision. In the spring, when the ice began to waste, Hudson, in order to complete his discovery, made several efforts of various kinds; but notwithstanding all his endeavours, he found it necessary to abandon his enterprise, and to make the best of his way home; and therefore distributed to his men, with tears in his eyes, all the bread be had left, which was only a pound to each: though it is said other provisions were afterwards found in the ship. In his despair and uneasiness, he had let fall some threatening words, of setting some of his men on shore; upon which, a few of the sturdiest, who had before been very mutinous, entered his cabin in the night, tied his arms behind him, and exposed him in his own shallop at the west end of the streights, with his son, John Hudson, and seven of the most sick and infirm of his men. There they turned them adrift, and it is supposed that they all perished, being never heard of more. The crew proceeded with the ship for England; but going on shore near the streight’s mouth, four of them were killed by savages. The rest, after enduring the greatest hardships, and ready to die for want, arrived at Plymouth Sept. 1611.

, one of the earliest Linniean botanists in England, was born in Westmoreland, about the year 1730. He served his apprenticeship to an apothecary in Panton-street, Haymarket, to whose business he succeeded, and with whose widow and daughters he continued to reside. His acquaintance with the amiable and learned Mr. Benjamin Stillingfleet greatly advanced his taste and information in natural history. This gentleman directed his attention to the writings of Linnæus, and gave his mind that correct and scientific turn, which caused him to take the lead as a classical English botanist, and induced him to become the author of the “Flora Anglica,” published in 1762, in one volume octavo. The plan of this book was, taking Kay’s “Synopsis” as a ground-work, to dispose his plants in order, according to the Linnaean system and nomenclature, with such additions of new species, or of new places of growth, as the author or his friends were able to furnish. The particular places of growth of the rarer species were given in Ray’s manner, in English, though the rest of the book was Latin. The elegant preface was written by Mr. Stillingfleet, and probably the concise, but not less elegant, dedication to the late duke of Northumberland, “artium, turn utilium, turn elegant ioruin, judici et patrono”

Mr. Hudson’s tranquillity received a dreadful shock in the winter of 1783, when his house, and the greater part of his literary treasures, were destroyed by a sudden fire, caused, as it was believed, by the villany of a confidential servant, who knew of a considerable sum in money which his master had received a day or two before; and the insurance having been neglected, although for a short time only, the loss was considerable, in a pecuniary point of view, to a man whose resources were not extensive. He bore the whole like a philosopher and a Christian, giving up his practice, and retiring, with Mr. and Mrs. Hole, to a more economical residence in Jermyn-street, where he died May 23d, 1793, and was buried in St. James’s church.

With this bias towards scepticism Huet entered upon his travels, and Christina of Sweden having invited Bochart to her court, Huet accompanied him, in April 1652. He saw Salmasius at Leyden, and Isaac Vossius at Amsterdam. He often visited the queen, who would have engaged him. in her service; but Bochart not having been very graciously received, through the intrigues of Bourdel, another physician, who was jealous of him, and the queen’s fickle temper being well known, Huet declined^ all offers, and after a stay of three months returned to France. The chief fruit of his journey was a copy of a manuscript of Origen’s “Commentaries upon St. Matthew,” which he transcribed at Stockholm; and the acquaintance he contracted with the learned men in Sweden and Holland, through which he passed. Upon his return to his own country, Caen, he resumed his studies with more vigour than ever, in order to publish his manuscript of Origen . While he was employed in translating this work, he was led to consider the rules to be observed in translations, as well as the different manners of the most celebrated translators. This gave occasion to his first performance, which came out at Paris in 1661, under this title, “De interpretatione libri duo:” and it is written in the form of a dialogue between Casaubon, Fronto Ducaeus, and Thuanus. M. de Segrais tells us, that tf nothing can be added to this treatise, either with respect to strength of critical judgment, variety of learning, or elegance of style;“” which last,“says abbe Olivet,” is so very extraordinary, that it might have done honour to the age of Augustus.“This book was first printed in a thin 4to, but afterwards in 12mo and 8vo^ In 1688, were published at Rouen, in 2 vo!s. folio, his” Origenis Commentaria, &e. cum Latina interpretatione, notis & observationibus;“to which is prefixed, a large preliminary discourse, in which is collected all that antiquity relates of Origen. The interval of sixteen years, between his return from Sweden and the publication of this work, was spent entirely in study, excepting a month or two every year, when he went to Paris; during which time he gave the public a specimen of his skill in polite literature, in an elegant collection of poems, entitled” Carmina Latina & Grajca;“which were published at Utrecht in 1664, and afterwards enlarged in several successive editions. While he was employed upon his” Commentaries of Origen,“he had the misfortune to quarrel with his friend and master Bochart; who desiring one day a sight qf his manuscript for the sake of consulting some passages about the Encbarist, which had been greatly controverted between Papists and Protestants, discovered an hiatus or defect, which seemed to determine the sense in favour of the Papists, and reproached Huet with being the contriver of it. Huet at first thought that it was a defect in the original ms. but upon consulting another very antient ms. in the king’s libra' Paris, he found that he had omitted some words in the harry of transcribing, as he says, and that the mistake was his own. Bochart, still supposing that this was a kind of pious fraud in Huet, to support the doctrine of the church of Rome in regard to the Eucharist, warned the Protestants against Hoet’s edition of Origen’s” Commentaries," and dissolved the friendship which had so long subsisted between Huet and himself.

While he was employed in composing his “Demonstratio Evangel. ca,” the sentiments of piety, which he had cherished from his earliest youth, moved him to enter into orders, which he did at the late age of forty-six; and be tells us, that previous to this he gradually laid aside the lay habit and outward appearances. In 1678, he was presented by the king to the abbey of Aunay in Normandy, which was so agreeable to him, tiiat be retired there every summer, after he had left the court. In 1685, he was nominated to the bUho;>ric of Soissons but before the bulls for his institution were expedited, the abbe de Sillery having been nominated to the see of Avranches, they exchanged bishoprics with the consent of the king; though, owing to the differences between the court of France and that of Rome, they could not be consecrated till 1692. In 1689, he published his “Censura Philosophise Cartesians,” and addressed it to the duke de Montausier: it appears that he was greatly piqued at the Cartesians, when he wrote this book; but it may be questioned whether he thoroughly understood the system. In 1690, be published in Caen, in 4to, his “Qusestiones Ainetanse de Concordia Rationis & Fidei” which is written in the form of a dialogue, after the manner of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions. In this he endeavours to fix the respective limits of reason and faith, and maintains, that the dogmas and precepts of each have no alliance, and that there is nothing, however, contradictory to common sense, or to good morals, which has not been received, and which we may not be bound to receive, as a dictate of faith. He honestly confesses that he wrote this work to establish the authority of tradition against the empire of reason.

In 1699, he resigned his bishopric of Avranches, and was presented to the abbey of Fontenay, near the gates of Caen. His love to his native place determined him to fix there, for which purpose he improved the house and gardens belonging to the abbot. But several grievances and law-suits obliged him to remove to Paris, where he lodged among the Jesuits in the Maison Professe“, whom he had made heirs to his library, reserving to himself the use of it while he lived. Here he spent the last twenty years of his life, dividing his time between devotion and study. He did not consider the Bible as the only book to be read, but thought that all other books must be read, before it could be rightly understood. He employed himself chiefly in writing notes on the vulgate translation: for which purpose he read over the Hebrew text twenty-four times; comparing it, as he went along, with the other Oriental texts, and spent every day two or three hours in this work from 1681 to 1712. He was then seized with a very severe distemper, which confined him to his bed for near six months, and brought him so very low, that he was given up by his physicians, and received extreme unction. Recovering, however, by degrees, he applied himself to the writing of his life, which was published at Amsterdam in 1718, in 12mo, underline title of” Pet. Dan. Huetii, Episcopi Abrincensts, Commentarius de rebus ad eum pertinentibus:“where the critics have wondered, that so great a master of Latin as Huetius was, and who has written it, perhaps, as well as any of the moderns, should be guilty of a solecism in the very title of his book; in writing” eum,“when he should have manifestly written” se.“This performance, though drawn up in a very amusing and entertaining manner, and with great elegance of style, is not executed with that order and exactness which appear in his other works: his memory being then decayed, and afterwards declining more and more, so that he was no longer capable of a continued work, but only committed detached thoughts to paper. Olivet in the mean time relates a most remarkable singularity of him, namely, that,” for two or three hours before his death, he recovered all the vigour of his genius and memory." He died January 26, 1721, in his 91st year.

On the whole, though it cannot be questioned that Huet, on account of his great learning and fertile genius, may justly claim to have his name preserved with honour in the republic of letters, several circumstances must prevent us from ranking him among the first philosophers of the seventeenth century. Better qualified to accumulate testimonies than to investigate truth, and more disposed to raise difficulties than to solve them, he was an injudicious advocate for a good cause. If we are not very much mistaken, Huet did not strictly adhere to the scholastic art of reasoning which he had learned in the schools of the Jesuits; otherwise he must have seen that there can be no room for faith, or for, what he artfully conceals under that name, the authority of the church, if every criterion of truth be rejected, and human reason be pronounced a blind and fallacious guide.

, a saint of the Romish calendar, was of a very distinguished family in Burgundy, and was born in 1023. When he was only fifteen, he rejected all worldly views, and entered into the monastic life at Cluni, under the guidance of the abbot Odilon. After some years, he was created prior of the order, and abbot in 1048, at the death of Odilon. In this situation he extended the reform of Cluni to so many monasteries, that, according to an ancient author, he had under his jurisdiction above ten thousand monks. In 1058 he attended pope Stephen when dying, at Florence; and in 1074 he made a religious pilgrimage to Rome. Some epistles written by him are extant in Dacheri Spicilegium. There are also other pieces by him in the “Bibliotheque de Cluni.” He died in 1108 or 9. He is said to have united moderation with his exemplary piety; and was embroiled, at one time, with the bishop of Lyons, for saying the prayer for the emperor Henry IV. when that prince was under excommunication.

, or de St. Marie, a celebrated monk of the abbey of Fleury towards the end of the 11th century, was called Hugh de St. Marie from the name of a village which belonged to his father. He is little known but by his works, which are two books: “De la Puissance Royale, et de la Dignite” Sacerdotale,“dedicated to Henry king of England, in which he establishes with great solidity the rights and bounds of the priestly and royal powers, in opposition to the prejudices which prevailed at that time. This work may be found in torn. IV. of the” Miscellanea“of Beluze. % He wrote also” A Chronicle," or History, from the beginning of the world to 840, and a small Chronicle from 996 to 1109, Minister, 163S, 4to, valuable and scarce. It may also be found in Troher’s collection.

, an English poet, was son of a citizen of London, and born at Marlborough in Wiltshire July 29, 1677. He was educated at a dissenting academy, under the care of Mr. Thomas Rowe, where, at the same time, the afterwards celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts was a student, whose piety and friendship for Mr. Hughes induced him to regret that he employed any part of his talents in writing for the stage. Mr. Hughes had a weak or at least a delicate constitution, which perhaps restrained him from severer studies, and inclined him to pursue the softer arts of poetry, music, and drawing; in each of which he made considerable progress. Hk acquaintance with the Muses and the Graces did not render him averse to business; he had a place in the office of ordnance, and was secretary to several commissions under the great seal for purchasing lands, in order to the better securing of the royal docks and yards at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Harwich. He continued, however, to cultivate his taste for letters, and added to a competent knowledge of the ancient, an intimate acquaintance with the modern languages. The first testimony he gave the public of his poetic vein, was in a poesi “on the peace of Ryswick,” printed in 1697, and received with uncommon approbation. In 1699, “The Court of Neptune” was written by him on king William’s return from Holland; and, the same year, a song on the duke of Gloucester’s birth-day. In the year 1702, he published, on the death of king William, a Pindaric ode, entitled “Of the House of Nassau,” which he dedicated to Charles duke of Somerset and in 1703 his “Ode in Praise of Music” was performed with great applause at Stationers’-hall.

His numerous performances, for he had all along employed his leisure hours in translations and imitations from the ancients, had by this time introduced him, not only to the wits of the age, Addison , Congreve, Pope, Southerne, Rowe, and others, but also to some men of rank in the kingdom, and among these to the earl of Wharton, who offered to carry him over, and to provide for him, when appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but, having other other views at home, he declined the offer. His views, however, were not very promising, until in 1717 the lord chancellor Cowper made him secretary to the commissions of the peace; in which he afterwards, by a particular request, desired his successor, lord Parker, to continue him. He had now affluence; but such is human life, that he had it when his declining health could neither allow him long possession nor full enjoyment. His last work was his tragedy, “The Siege of Damascus;” after which a Siege became a popular title. This play was long popular, and is still occasionally produced; but is not acted or printed according to the author’s original draught, or his settled intention. He had made Phocyas apostatize from his religion; after which the abhorrence of Eudocia would have been reasonable, his misery would have been just, and the horrors of his repentance exemplary. The players, however, required that the guilt of Phocyas should terminate in desertion to the enemy; and Hughes, unwilling that his relations should lose the benefit of his work, complied with the alteration. He was now weak with a lingering consumption, and not able to attend the rehearsal; yet was so vigorous in his faculties, that only ten days before his death he wrote the dedication to his patron lord Cowper. On Feb. 17, 1720, the play was represented, and the author died. He lived ta hear that it was well received; but paid no regard to the intelligence, being then wholly employed in the meditations of a departing Christian.

A man of his amiable character was undoubtedly regretted; and Steele devoted an essay in the paper called “The Theatre,” to the memory of his virtues. In 1735 his poems were collected and published in. 2 vols. 12 mo, under the following title: “Poems on several occasions, with some select Kssays in prose.” Hughes was also the author of other works in prose. “The Advices from Parnassus,” and “The Political Touchstone of Boccalini,” translated by several hands, and printed in folio, 1706, “were revised, corrected, and had a preface prefixed to them, by him. He translated himself” Fontenelle’s Dialogues of the Dead, and Discourse concerning the Ancients and Moderns;“”the Abbé Vertot’s History of the Revolutions in Portugal;“and” Letters of Abelard and Heloisa.“He wrote the preface to the collection of the” History of England“by various hands, Called” The Complete History of England,“printed in 1706, in 3 vols. folio; in which he gives a clear, satisfactory, and impartial account of the historians there collected. Several papers in the” Tatlers,“” Spectators,“and” Guardians,“were written by him. He is supposed to have written the whole, or at least a considerable part, of the” Lay Monastery,“consisting of Essays, Discourses, &c. published singly under the title of the” Lay Monk,“being the sequel of the” Spectators.“The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 12mo. Lastly, he published, in 1715, an accurate edition of the works of Spenser, in 6 vols. 12mo; to which are prefixed the” Life of Spenser,“”An Essay on Allegorical Poetry,“” Remarks on the Fairy Queen, and other writings of Spenser,“and a glossary, explaining old words; all by Mr. Hughes. This was a work for which he was well qualified, as a judge of the beauties of writing, but he wanted an antiquary’s knowledge of the obsolete words. He did not much revive the curiosity of the public, for near thirty years elapsed before his edition was reprinted. The character of his genius is not unfairly given in the correspondence of Swift and Pope.” A month ago,“says Swift,” was sent me over, by a friend of mine, the works of John Hughes, esq. They are in prose and verse. I never heard of the man in my life, yet I find your name as a subscriber. He is too grave a poet for me; and I think among the mediocrists, in prose as well as verse.“To this Pope returns:” To answer your question as to Mr. Hughes; what he wanted in genius, he made up as an honest man; but he was of the class you think him."

, a protestant divine, of a considerable family, was born at Zurich in 1683, and was educated partly at home, and partly at Bremen, devoting his chief attention to the study of the Hebrew language and the writings of the Rabbins. From Bremen he went to Holland, where he published at Leyden a very curious book, not in 4to, as Moreri says, but in 8vo, -entitled “Sepher Toledot Jescho,” or the history of Jesus Christ, written by a Jew, full of atrocious calumnies, which Huldrich refutes in his notes. The work is in Hebrew and Latin. On his return to Zurich in 1706, he was made chaplain of the house of orphans, and four years after professor of Christian morals, in the lesser college, to which was afterwards added the professorship of the law of nature. This led him to write a commentary on Puffendorff “on the duties of men and citizens.” His other works are the “Miscellanea Tigurina,” 3 vols. 8vo, and some sermons in German. He died May 25, 1731. Zimmerman, who wrote his life, published also a Sermon of his on the last words of St. Stephen. He was a man of considerable learning, and of great piety, sincerity, and humility.

, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, and an actor, was born in the Strand, London, in 1728, where his father was in considerable practice as an apothecary. He was educated at the Charter-house, with a view to the church, but afterwards embraced his father’s profession, which, however, he was obliged to relinquish after an unsuccessful trial. What induced him to go on the stage we know not, as nature had not been very bountiful to him in essential requisites. He performed, however, for some time in the provincial theatres, and in 1759 obtained an engagement at Covent-garden theatre, which he never quitted, unless for summer engagements. In one of these he became acquainted with Shenstone the poet, who, observing his irreproachable moral conduct, so different from that of his brethren on the stage, patronized him as far as he was able, and assisted him in writing his tragedy of “Henry II.” and “Rosamund.” It was indeed Mr. Hull’s moral character which did every thing for him. No man could speak seriously of him as an actor, but all spoke affectionately of his amiable manners and undeviating integrity. He was also a man of some learning, critically skilled in the dramatic art, and the correspondent of some of the more eminent literary men of his time. His poetical talents were often employed, and always in the cause of humanity and virtue, but he seldom soared above the level of easy and correct versification. In prose, perhaps, he is entitled to higher praise, but none of his works have had more than temporary success. He died at his house at Westminster, April 22, 1808. For the stage he altered, or wrote entirely, nineteen pieces, of which a list may be seen in our authority. His other works were, I. “The History of sir William Harrington,” a novel, 1771, 4 vols. 2. “Genuine Letters from a gentleman to a young lady his pupil,” 1772, 2 vols. 3. “Richard Plantagenet,” a legendary tale, 1774, 4to. 4. “Select Letters between the late duchess of Somerset, lady Luxborough, miss Dolman, Mr. Whistler, Mr. Dodsley, Shenstone, and others,” 1778, 2 vols. This is now the most interesting of his publications, and contains many curious particulars of literary history and opinions. The letters were given to him by Shenstone. 5. “Moral Tales in verse,” 1797, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a celebrated philosopher and historian, was descended from a good family in Scotland, and born at Edinburgh April 26, 1711. His father was a descendant of the family of the earl of Hume or Home, and his mother, whose name was Falconer, was descended from that of lord Halkerton, whose title came by succession to her brother. This double alliance with nobility was a source of great self-complacency to Hume, who was a philosopher only in his writings. In his infancy he does not appear to have been impressed with those sentiments of religion, which parents so generally, we may almost add universally, at the time of his birth, thought it their duty to inculcate. He once owned that he had never read the New Testament with attention. However this may be, as he was a younger brother with a very slender patrimony, and of a studious, sober, industrious turn, he was destined by his family to the law: but, being seized with an early passion for letters, he found an insurmountable aversion to any thing else; and, as he relates, while they fancied him to be poring upon Voet and Vinnius, he was occupied with Cicero and Virgil. His fortune, however, being very small, and his health a little broken by ardent application to books, he was tempted, or rather forced, to make a feeble trial at business; and, in 1734, went to Bristol, with recommendations to some eminent merchants: but, in a few months, found that scene totally unfit for him. He seems, also, to have conceived some personal disgust against the men of business in that place: for, though he was by no means addicted to satire, yet we can scarcely interpret him otherwise than ironically, when, speaking in his History (anno 1660) of James Naylor’s entrance into Bristol upon a horse, in imitation of Christ, he presumes it to be “from the difficulty in that place of finding an ass”

Immediately on leaving Bristol, he went over to France, with a view of prosecuting his studies in privacy; and practised a very rigid frugality, for the sake of maintaining his independency unimpaired. During his retreat there, first at Rheims, but chiefly at L& Fleche, in Anjou, he composed his “Treatise of Human Nature;” and, coming over to London in 1737, he published it the year after. This work, he informs us, he meditated even while at the university; a circumstance which, it has been observed, proves the self-sufficiency of Hume in a very striking manner. For a youth, in the full tide of blood and generous sympathy, to meditate the diffusion of a system of universal scepticism, in which it is endeavoured to prove, not only that all the speculations of the philosopher or the divine, but every virtuous feeling of the heart, every endearing tie by which man is bound to man, are no better than ridiculous prejudices and empty dreams, is the most singular deviation from the natural and laudable propensities of a mind unhacknied in the ways of the world, that has yet occurred in the anomalous history of man. The scepticism and irreligion of Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau, “grew with their growth, and strengthened with their strength,” but Hume started as if from the nursery, a perfect and full-grown infidel.

Having always imagined, that his want of success, in publishing the *' Treatise of Human Nature,“proceeded more from the manner than the matter, he cast the first part of that work anew, in the” Inquiry concerning Human Understanding,“which was published while he was at Turin; but with little more success. He perceived, however, some symptoms of a rising reputation: his books grew more and more the subject of conversation; and” I found,“says he,” by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that they were beginning to be esteemed in good company.“In 1752, were published at Edinburgh, where he then lived, his” Political Discourses;“and the same year, at London, his” Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals.“Of the former he says,” that it was the only work of his which was successful on the first publication, being well received abroad and at home:“and he pronounces the latter to be,” in his own opinion, of all his writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best; although it came unnoticed and unobserved into the world."

Being now about fifty, he retired to Scotland, determined never more to set his foot out of it; and carried with him “the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them.” But, while meditating to spend the rest of his life in a philosophical manner, he received, in 1763, an invitation from the earl of Hertford to attend him on his embassy to Paris; which at length he accepted, and was left there charg6 d'affaires in the summer of 1765. In Paris, where his peculiar philosophical opinions were then the mode, he met with the most flattering and unbounded attentions. He was panegyrized by the literati, courted by the ladies, and complimented by grandees, and even princes of the blood. In the beginning of 1766 he quitted Paris; and in the summer of that year went to Edinburgh, with the same view as before, of burying himself in a philosophical retreat; but, in 1767, he received from Mr. Con way a new invitation to be under-secretary of state, which, like the former, he did not think it expedient to decline. He returned to Edinburgh in 1769, “very opulent,” he says, “for he possessed a revenue of lOOOl. a year, healthy, and, though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long his ease.” In the spring of 1775, he was struck with a disorder in his bowels; which, though it gave him no alarm at first, proved incurable, and at length mortal. It appears, however, that it was not painful, nor even troublesome or fatiguing: for he declares, that “notwithstanding the great decline of his person, he had never suffered a moment’s abatement. of his spirits; that he possessed the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company: insomuch,” says he, “that, were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this latter period.” He died August 25, 1776; and his account of his own life, from which we have borrowed many of the above particulars, is dated only four mjonths previous to -hi* decease. As the author was then aware of the impossibility of a recovery, this may he considered as the testimony of a dying man respecting his own character and conduct. But it disappointed those who expected to find in it some acknowledgment of error, and some remorse on reflecting on the many whom he had led astray by his writings. Hume, however, was not the man from whom this was to be expected. He had no religious principles which he had violated, and which his conscience might now recall. He had none of the stamina of repentance. From a mere fondness for speculation, or a love of philosophical applause, the least harmful motives we can attribute to Hume, it was the business of his life, not only to extirpate from the human mind all that the good and wise among mankind have concurred in venerating, the authority and obligations of revealed religion; but he treats that authority and the believers in, and defenders of revealed religion, with a contempt bordering on abhorrence; or, as has been said of another modern infidel, “as if he had been revenging a personal injury.” Hume early imbibed the principles of a gloomy philosophy, the direct tendency of which was to distract the mind with doubts on subjects the most serious and important, and, in fact, to undermine the best interests, and dissolve the strongest ties of society. Such is the character of Hume’s philosophy, by one who knew him as intimately as Dr. Smith , who respected his talents and his manners, but would have disdained to insult wisdom and virtue by bestowing the perfection of them on the studies, the conversation, and the correspondence that were constantly employed in ridiculing religion. Another reason, perhaps, why Hume died in the same state of mind in which he had lived, gibing and jesting, as Dr. Smith informs us, with the prospect of eternity, may be this, that he was at the last surrounded by men who, being of nearly the same way of thinking, contemplated his end with a degree of satisfaction or as the triumph of philosophy over what he and they deemed superstition. Even his clerical friends, the Blairs and Robertsons, who professed to know, to feel, aud to teach what Christianity is, appear to have withheld the solemn duties of their office, and by their silence at least, acquiesced in his obduracy. His social qualities, his wit, his acuteness, and we may add, his fame, preserved to him the regard of his learned countrymen, who forgot the infidel in the historian.

It is, indeed, as an historian, or perhaps occasionally as a political writer, that Hume will probahly be best known to posterity; and it is in these capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of sound morals and religion. Yet even as an historian, he has many faults; he does not scruple to disguise facts from party motives, and he never loses an opportunity of throwing out his cool sceptical sneer at Christianity, under the names of fanaticism and superstition. “When Mr. Hume rears the standard of infidelity,” says Gilpin, “he acts openly and honestly; but when he scatters his careless insinuations, as he traverses the paths of history, we characterize him as a dark, insidious enemy.”

, a learned English writer, was born at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, about 1527, and had his school education at Cambridge; after which he became first a demy, then a fellow, of Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took the degree of M. A. in 1552, and about that time was made Greek reader of his college, and entered into orders. In June 1555 he had leave from his college to travel into foreign countries; he went to Zurich, and associated himself with the English there, who had fled from their country on account of their religion. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England, and was restored to his fellowship in Magdalen college, from which he had been expelled because he did not return within the space of a year, which was one condition on which he was permitted to travel; another was, that he should refrain from all heretical company. In 1560 he was appointed the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford; and the year after elected president of his college. In 1562 he took both the degrees in divinity; and, in 1570, was made dean of Gloucester. In 1580 he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and had probably been promoted to a bishopric if he had not been disaffected to the church of England. For Wood tells us, that from the city of Zurich, where the preaching of Zuinglius had fashioned people’s notions, and from the correspondence he had at Geneva, he brought back with him so much of the Calvinist both in doctrine and discipline, that the best which could be said of him was, that he was a moderate and conscientious nonconformist. This was at least the opinion of several divines, who used to call him and Dr. Fulke of Cambridge, standard-bearers among the nonconformists; though others thought they grew more conformable in the end. Be this as it will, “sure it is,” says Wood, that “Humphrey was a great and general scholar, an able linguist, a deep divine and for his excellency of style, exactness of method, and substance of matter in his writings, went beyond most of our theologists .” He died in Feb. 1590, N. S. leaving a wife, by whom he had twelve children. His writings are, 1 “Epistola de Graecis literis, et Homeri lectione et imitatione;” printed before a book of Hadrian Junius, entitled “Cornucopias,” at Basil, 1558. 2. “De Religionis conservatione et reformatione, deque primatu regum, Bas. 1559.” 3. “De ratione interpretandi auctores, Bas. 1559.” 4. “Optimates: sive de nobilitate, ejusque autiqua origine, &c.” Bas. 1560. 5. “Joannis Juelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis, vita et mors, ejusque verae doctrinae defensio, &c. Lond. 1573.” 6. “Two Latin orations spoken before queen Elizabeth; one in 1572, another in 1575.” 7. “Sermons;” and 8. “Some Latin pieces against the Papists, Campian in particular.” Wood quotes Tobias Matthew, an eminent archbishop, who knew him well, as declaring, that “Dr. Humphrey had read more fathers than Campian the Jesuit ever saw; devoured more than he ever tasted; and taught more in the university of Oxford, than he had either learned or heard.”

, waiwode of Transylvania, and general of the armies of Ladislas, king of Hungary, was one of the greatest commanders of his time. He fought against the Turks like a hero, and, in 1442 and 1443, gained important battles against the generals of Arnurath and obliged that prince to retire from Belgrade, after besieging it seven months. In the battle of Varnes, so fatal to the Christian cause, and in which Ladislas fell, Corvinus was not less distinguished than in his more fortunate contests; and, being appointed governor of Hungary, became proverbially formidable to the Turks. In 1448, however, he suffered a defeat from them. He was more fortunate afterwards, and in 1456, obliged Mahomet U. also to relinquish the siege of Belgrade; and died the 10th of September in the same year. Mahomet, though an enemy, had generosity enough to lament the death of so great a man; and pride enough to allege as one cause for his regret, that the world did not now contain a man against whom he could deign to turn his arms, or from whom he could regain the glory he had so lately lost before Belgrade. The pope is said to have shed tears on the news of his death; and Christians in general lamented Huniades as their best defender against the infidels.

, a learned Hebraist, and Regius professor of Hebrew, Oxford, was horn in 1696, but where or of what parents we have not been able to learn, or indeed to recover any particulars of his early life. He was educated at Hart-hall, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. in Oct. 26, 1721, and was one of the first four senior fellows or tutors, when the society was made a body corporate and politic under the name of Hertford college; and he took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1744. His first literary publication, which indicates the bent of his studies, was “A Fragment of Hippolytus, taken out of two Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian library,” printed in the fourth volume of “Parker’s Bibliotheca Bibiica,” 1728, 4to. In 1738* he was elected Laudian professor of Arabic, which he retained the whole of his life, and was succeeded by the late Dr. Joseph White. In the following year he delivered in the schools, a Latin speech “De antiquitate, elegantia, utilitate, Linguae Arabicae,” published the same year; and another “De usu Dialectorum Orientalium, ac praecipue Arabicae, in Hebraico codice interpretando,” which was published in 1748. In 1746 he issued proposals for printing “Abdollatiphi Historias Ægypti compendium,” with a full account of that work, which, however, he never published. The subscribers were recompensed by receiving in lieu of it his posthumous “Observations on the Book of Proverbs,” edited by Dr. Kennicott after his death.

Among Dr. Hunt’s intimate friends was Dr. Gregory Sharpe, who sought his acquaintance and highly prized it, and their correspondence was frequent and affectionate. Dr. Hunt not only promoted Dr. Sharpe’s election into the royal society, but was a liberal and able assistant to him in his literary undertakings. When, however, Dr. Sharpe published his edition of Dr. Hyde’s Dissertations in 1767, no notice was taken of these obligations; and the reason assigned is Dr. Hunt’s having declined a very unreasonable request made by Dr. Sharpe, to translate into Latin a long English detail of introductory matter. Such treatment Dr. Hunt is said to have mentioned “to his friends, with as much resentment as his genuine good-nature would permit.” This very learned scholar, who had long been afflicted with the gravel, died Oct. 31, 1774, aged seventyeight, and was buried in the north aile joining to the body of the cathedral of Christ-church, with an inscription expressing only his name, offices, and time of his death. His library was sold the following year by honest Daniel Prince of Oxford. In that same year Dr. Kennicott pub.­lished a valuable posthumous work of his friend, entitled “Observations on several passages in the Book of Proverbs, with two Sermons. By Thomas Hunt,” &c. 4to. A considerable part of this work was printed before his death; and the only reason given why he himself did not finish it, was, that he was remarkably timorous, and distrustful of his own judgment; and that, in his declining years, he grew more and more fearful of the severity of public criticism, for which he certainly had little cause, had this been his only publication. His character, as an Orientalist, had been fully established by his former works; and he justly retained it to the close of his life, leaving the learned world only to regret that he did not engage in some gra-id and critical work, or that he did not complete an edition of Job which he bad long intended.

, an eminent physician and antiquary of Durham, was the son of Thomas Hunter, gent, of Medomsley, in the county of Durham, where he was born in 1675: he was educated at the free-school of Houghton-le-Spring, founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, and was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he continued until he had taken his bachelor’s degree in 1698. In 1701 he received a faculty or licence from Dr. John Brookbank, spiritual chancellor at Durham, to piactice physic through the whole diocese of Durham. After some years he removed to the city of Durham; and though he published little, was always ready to assist in any literary undertaking. He is acknowledged by Mr. Horsley and Mr. Gordon to be very exact and masterly in the knowledge of antiquities. Dr. Wilkins mentions him with respect in the preface to the first volume of his “Councils,” to which he furnished some materials; and Mr. Bourne was much indebted to him in compiling his “History of Newcastle” He published a new edition of “The Ancient Rites and Monuments of the church of Durham,” 1733, without his name; and a curious, and now very scarce work, entitled “An Illustration of Mr. Daniel Neale’s History of the Puritans, in the article of Peter Smart, M. A. from original papers, with remarks.” 1736, 8vo. In April 1743, he published proposals for printing by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to. “Antiquitates Parochiales Dioc. Dunelm. hucusque ineditae,” but no further progress appears to have been made. Perhaps this might be owing to an unfortunate accident he met with, in searching the archives of the cathedral, where he spilt a bottle of ink on the celebrated copy of Magna Charta, and was never afterwards permitted to come there. In 1757 be retired from Durham, with his family, to Unthank, an estate belonging to his wife, in Shotley parish, Northumberland, where he died July 13 of that year, and was buried in Shotley church.

, a popular preacher and writer, was born at Culross, in Perthshire, in 1741. He had the best education that the circumstances of his parents would permit, and at the age of thirteen was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where, by his talents and proficiency, he attracted the notice of the professors, and when he left Edinburgh he accepted the office of tutor to lord Dundonald’s sons at Culross abbey. In 1764 he was licensed to preach, having passed the several trials with great applause: and very quickly became much followed on account of his popular talents. He was ordained in 1766, and was appointed minister of South Leith. On a visit to London in 1769, he preached in most of the Scotch meeting-houses with great acceptance, and soon after his return he received an invitation to become pastor of the Scotch church in Swallow-street, which he declined; but in 1771 he removed to London, and undertook the pastoral office in the Scotch church at London-wall. He appeared first as an author in 1783, by the commencement of his “Sacred Biography,” which was at length extended to seven volumes octavo. While this work was in the course of publication, he engaged in the translation of Lavater’s “Essays on Physiognomy,” and in order to render his work as complete as possible, he took a journey into Swisserland, for the purpose of procuring information from Lavater himself. He attained, in some measure, his object, though the author did not receive him with the cordiality which he expected, suspecting that the English version must injure the sale of the French translation. The first number of this work was published in 1789, and it was finished in a style worthy the improved state of the arts. From this period Dr. Hunter spent much of his time in translating different works from the French language. In 1790 he was elected secretary to the corresponding board of the “Society for propagating Christian Knowledge in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.” He was likewise chaplain to the “Scotch Corporation;” and both these institutions Were much benefited by his zealous exertions in their behalf. In 1795, he published two volumes of Sermons; and in 1798 he gave the world eight “Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,” being the completion of a plan begun by Mr. Fell. The whole contains a popular and useful elucidation of the proofs in favour of the Christian religion, arising from its internal evidence, its beneficial influence, and the superior value of the information which it conveys with respect to futurity. During the latter years of his life, Dr. Hunter’s constitution suffered the severest shocks from the loss of three children, which, with other causes, contributed to render him unable to withstand the attacks of disease. He died at the Hot-Wells, Bristol, on the 27th of October, 1802, in the 62d year of his age. Dr. Hunter was a man of learning: his writings are eloquent, and shew how well he had studied human nature. In the pulpit his manner was unaffected, solemn, and impressive. He indulged his liberal and friendly heart in the exercise of hospitality, charity, and the pleasures of social intercourse, but the latter frequently beyond the limits which a regard to prudence and economy should have prescribed. He was the translator of “Letters of Euler to a German Princess, on different subjects in Physics and Philosophy” “The Studies of Nature by St. Pierre” “Saurin’s Sermons;” “Sonnini’s Travels.” Miscellaneous pieces and sermons of his own have been published since his death, to which are prefixed memoirs: from these the foregoing particulars have been taken. Dr. Hunter, about 1796 or 7, began “A History of London and its Environs,” which came out in parts, but did little credit to him, as he evidently had no talents or research for a work of this description.

The profits of his two first courses were considerable, but by contributing to the wants of different friends, he found himself, at the return of the next season, obliged to defer his lectures for a fortnight, merely because he had not money to defray the necessary expeiice of advertisements. This circumstance taught him to be more reserved in this respect. In 1747 he was admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, and in the spring of the following year, soon after the close of his lectures, he set out in company with his pupil, Mr. James Douglas, on a tour through Holland to Paris. His lectures suffered no interruption by this journey, as he returned to England soon enough to prepare for his winter course, which began about the usual time. At first he practised both surgery and midwifery, but the former he always disliked; and, being elected one of the surgeon-men-midwives first to the Middlesex, and soon afterwards to the British lying-in hospital, and recommended by several of the most eminent surgeons of that time, his line was thus determined. Over his countryman, Dr. Smellie, notwithstanding his great experience, and the reputation he had justly acquired, he had a great advantage in person and address. The most lucrative part of the practice of midwifery was at that time in the hands of sir Richard Manningham and Dr. Sandys. The former of these died, and the latter retired into the country a few years after Mr. Hunter began to be known in midwifery. Although by these incidents he was established in the practice of midwifery, it is well known that in proportion as his reputation increased, his opinion was eagerly sought in all cases where any light concerning the seat or nature of any disease, could be expected from an intimate knowledge of anatomy. In 1750 he obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow, and began to practise as a physician. About this time he quitted the family of Mrs. Douglas, and went to reside in Jermyn-skreet. In the summer of 1751 he revisited his native country, for which he always retained a cordial affection. His mother was still living at Long Calderwood, which was now become his property by the death of his brother James. Dr. Cullen, for whom he always entertained asincere regard, was then established at Glasgow. During this visit, he shewed his attachment to his little paternal inheritance, by giving many instructions for repairing and improving it, and for purchasing any adjoining lands that might be offered for sale. As he and Dr. Cullen were riding one day in a low part of the country, the latter pointing out to him Long Calderwood at a considerable distance, remarked how conspicuous it appeared. “Well,” said he, with some degree of energy, “if I live, I shall make it still more conspicuous.” After his journey to Scotland, to which he devoted only a few weeks, he was never absent from London, unless his professional engagements, as sometimes happened, required his attendance at a distance from the capital.

We must now go back a little in the order of time, to describe the origin and progress of Dr. Hunter’s Museum, without some account of which these memoirs would be very incomplete. When he began to practise midwifery, he was desirous of acquiring a fortune sufficient to place him in easy and independent circumstances. Before many years had elapsed, he found himself in possession of a sum adequate to his wishes iii this respect; and this he set apart as a resource of which he might avail himself whenever age or infirmities should oblige him to retire from business. He has been heard to say, that he once took a considerable sum from this fund for the purposes of his museum, but that he did not feel himself perfectly at ease till he had restored it again. After he had obtained this competency, as his wealth continued to accumulate, he formed a laudable design of engaging in some scheme of public utility, and at first had it in contemplation to found an anatomical school in this metropolis. For this purpose, about 1765, during the administration of Mr. Grenville, he presented a memorial to that minister, in which he requested the grant of a piece of ground in the Mews for the site of an anatomical theatre. Dr. Hunter undertook to expend 7000l. on the building, and to endow a professorship of anatomy in perpetuity. This scheme did not meet with the reception it deserved. In a conversation on this subject soon afterwards with the earl of Shelburne, his lordship expressed a wish that the plan might be carried into execution by subscription, and very generously requested to have his name set down for 1000 guineas. Dr. Hunter’s delicacy would not allow him to adopt this proposal. He chose rather to execute it at his own expence, and accordingly purchased a spot of ground in Great Windmill-street, where he erected a spacious house, to which he removed from Jermyn-street in 1770. In this building, besides a handsome amphitheatre and other convenient apartments for his lectures and dissections, there was one magnificent room, fitted up with great elegance and propriety as a museum.

Of the person of Dr. Hunter it may be observed that he was regularly shaped, but of a slender make, and rather below a middle stature. There are several good portraits of him extant. One of these is an unfinished painting by Zoffany, who has represented him in the attitude of giving a lecture on the muscles at the royal academy, surrounded by a groupe of academicians. His manner of living was extremely simple and frugal, and the quantity of his food was small as well as plain. He was an early riser, and when business was over, was constantly engaged in his anatomical pursuits, or in his museum. There was something very engaging in his manner and address, and he had such an appearance of attention to his patients when he was making his inquiries, as could hardly fail to conciliate their confidence and esteem. In consultation with his medical brethren^ he delivered his opinions with diffidence and candour. In familiar conversation he was chearful and unassuming. All who knew him allowed that he possessed an excellent understanding, great readiness of perception, a good memory, and a sound judgment. To these intellectual powers he united uncommon assiduity and precision, so that he was admirably fitted for anatomical investigation. As a teacher of anatomy, he was long and deservedly celebrated. He was a good orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught, he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology. How much he contributed to the improvement of medical science in general, may be collected from the concise view we have taken of his writings. The munificence he displayed in the cause of science has likewise a claim to our applause. Dr. Hunter sacrificed no part of his time or his fortune to voluptuousness, to idle pomp, or to any of the common objects of vanity that influence the pursuits of mankind in general. He seems to have been animated with a desire of distinguishing himself in those things which are in their nature laudable; and being a bachelor, and without views of establishing a family, he was at liberty to indulge his inclination. Let us, therefore, not withhold the praise that is due to him; and undoubtedly his temperance, his prudence, his persevering and eager pursuit of knowledge, constitute an example which we may, with advantage to ourselves and to society, endeavour to imitate.

The management of anatomical preparations was at this time a new art, and very little known; every preparation, therefore, that was skilfully made, became an object of admiration; many were wanting for the use of the lectures, and Dr. Hunter having himself an enthusiasm for the art, his brother had every advantage in the prosecution of that pursuit towards which his own disposition pointed so strongly; and of which he left so noble a monument in his Museum of Comparative Anatomy. Mr. Hunter pursued the stud^bf anatomy with an ardour and perseverance of which few examples can be found. By this clo^e application for ten years, he made himself master of all that was already known, and struck out some additions to that knowledge. He traced the ramifications of the olfactory nerves upon the membranes of the nose, and discovered the course of some of the branches of the fifth pair of nerves. In the gravid uterus, he traced the arteries of the uterus to their termination in the placenta. He also discovered the existence of the lymphatic vessels in birds. In comparative anatomy, which he cultivated with indefatigable industry, his grand object was, by examining various organizations formed for similar functions, under different circumstances, to trace out the general principles of animal life. With this object in view, the commonest animals were often of considerable importance to him; but he also took every opportunity of purchasing those that were rare, or encouraged their owners to sell the bodies to him when they happened to die.

By excessive attention to these pursuits, his health was so much impaired, that he was threatened with consumptive symptoms, and being advised to go abroad, obtained the appointment of a surgeon on the staff, and went with the army to Belleisle, leaving Mr. Hewson to assist his brother. He continued in this service till the close of the war in 1763, and thus acquired his knowledge of the nature and treatment of gun-shot wounds. On his return to London, to his emoluments from private practice, and his half-pay, he added those which arose from teaching practical anatomy and operative surgery; and that he might be more enabled to carry on his inquiries in comparative anatomy, he purchased some land at Earl’s-court, near Brompton, where he built a house. Here also he kept such animals alive as he purchased, or were presented to him; studied their habits and instincts, and cultivated an intimacy with them, which with the fiercer kinds was not always supported without personal risk. It is recorded by his biographer, that, on finding two leopards loose, and likely to escape or be killed, he went out, and seizing them with his own hands, carried them back to their den. The horror he felt afterwards at the danger he had run, would not, probably, have prevented him from making a similar effort, had a like occasion arisen.

The contributions of Mr. Hunter to the Transactions of the Royal Society cannot easily be enumerated: his other works appeared in the following order. 1. A treatise on “the Natural History of the Human Teeth,” 1771, 4to; a second part to which was added in 1778. 2. “A treatise on the Venereal Disease,” 1786, 4io. 3. “Observations on certain Parts of the Animal QEconomy,” 1786, 4to, 4. “A treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gunshot Wounds,” 4to. This was a posthumous work, not appearing till the year 1794; but it had been sent to tho press in the preceding year, before his death. There are also some papers by Mr. Hunter in the “Transactions of the Society for the Improvement of Medical and Chirurgical Knowledge,” which were published in 1793. The collection of comparative anatomy which Mr. Hunter left behind him, must be considered as a proof of talents, assiduity, and labour, which cannot be contemplated without surprize and admiration. His attempt in this collection has been to exhibit the gradations of nature, from the most simple state in which life is found to exist, up to the most perfect and complex of the animal creation, to mau himself. By his art and care, he has been able so to expose and preserve in a dried state, or in spirits, the corresponding parts of animal bodies, that the various links in the chain of peifectness may be readily followed and clearly understood. They are classed in the following order: first, the parts constructed for motion; secondly, the parts essential to animals as respecting their own internal economy; thirdly, parts superadded for purposes concerned with external objects; fourthly, parts designed for the propagation of the species, and the maintenance and preservation of the young. To go further into these particulars, would lead us to a detail inconsistent with the nature of this work; but they are of the most curious kind, and may be found described in a manner at once clear and instructive, in the “Life of John Hunter,” from which we have taken this account. By his will, Mr. Hunter directed that this museum should be offered to the purchase of government; and, after some negociation, it was bought for the public use for the sum of 15,000l. and given to the College of Surgeons, on condition of exposing it to public view on certain days in the week, and giving a set of annual lectures explanatory of its contents. A large building for its reception has been completed in Portugalstreet, connected with the College of Surgeons, in Lincoln’s-inn fields; and in the spring of the year 1810 the first course of lectures was delivered by Mr. Home and sir William Blizard.

, an ancient English historian, was the son of one Nicholas, a married priest, and was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, or end of the eleventh, for he informs us that he was made an archdeacon by Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1123. He was educated by Albinus of Anjou, a learned canon of the chqrch of Lincoln, and in his youth discovered a great taste for poetry, by writing eight books of epigrams, as many of love verses, with three long didactic poems, one of herbs, another of spices, and a third of precious stones. In his more advanced years he applied to the study of history; and at the request of Alexander bishop of Lincoln, who was his great friend and patron, he composed a general History of England, from the earliest accounts to the death of king Stephen, 1154, in eight books, published by sir Henry Savile. In the dedication of this work to bishop Alexander, he tells us, that in the ancient part of his history he had followed the venerable Bede, adding a few things from some other writers: that he had compiled the sequel from several chronicles he had found in different libraries, and from what he had heard and seen. Towards the conclusion be very honestly acknowledges that it was only an abridgment, and that to compose a complete history of England, many more books were necessary than he could procure. Mr. Wharton has published a long letter of this author to his friend Walter, abbot of Ramsay, on-the contempt of the world, which contains many curious anecdotes of the kings, nobles, prelates, and other great men who were his contemporaries. In the Bodleian library is a ms Latin poem by Henry, on the death of king Stephen, and the arrival of Henry II. in England, which is by no means contemptible, and in Trinity college library, Oxford, is a fine ms. of his book “De imagine mundi.” When he died is uncertain.

, an eminent and accomplished prelate, was born at Congreve, in the parish of Penkrich, in Staffordshire, Jan. 13, 1720. He was the second of three children, all sons, of John and Hannah Hurd, whom he describes as “plain, honest, and good people, farmers, but of a turn of mind that might have honoured any rank and any education;” and they appear to have been solicitous to give this son the best and most liberal education. They rented a considerable farm at Congreve, but soon after removed to a larger at Penford, about half-way between Brewood and Wolverhampton in the same county. There being a good grammar-school at Brewood, Mr. Hurd was educated there under the rev. Mr. Hitman, and upon his death under his successor the rev. Mr. Budvvorth, whose memory our author affectionately honoured in a dedication, in 1757, to sir Edward Littleton, who had also been educated at Brewood school. He continued under this master’s care until 1733, when he was admitted of Emanuel college, Cambridge, but did not go to reside there till a year or twa afterwards.

In May 1750, by Warburton’s recommendation to Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, Mr. Kurd was appointed one of the Whitehall preachers. At this period the university of Cambridge was disturbed by internal divisions, occasioned by an exercise of discipline against some of its members, who had been wanting in respect to those who were entrusted with its authority. A punishment having been inflicted on some delinquents, they refused to submit to it, and appealed from the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. The right of the university, and those to whom their power was delegated, becoming by this means the subject of debate, several pamphlets appeared, and among others who signalised themselves upon this occasion, Mr. Kurd was generally supposed to have written “The Academic, or, a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge, and the propriety of the regulations made in it on the 1 Ith day of May and the 26th day of June 1750, 8vo” but this was, as we have already remarked, the production of Dr. Green: Mr. Hurd, however, wrote “The opinion of an eminent lawyer (the earl of Hardwicke) concerning the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge to the senate; supported by a short historical account of the jurisdiction of the university; in answer to a late pamphlet, intituled * An Inquiry into the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor, &c.' By a fellow of a college,” 1751, 8vo. This passed through three editions; and being answered, was defended in “A Letter to the Author of a Further Inquiry,” 1752, 8vo. It is also preserved in the bishop’s works.

Although Mr. Kurd’s reputation as a polite scholar and critic had been now fully established, his merit had not attracted the notice of the great. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, in learned and unostentatious retirement, till, in Dec. 1756, he became, on the death of Dr. Arnald, entitled to the rectory of Thurcaston, as senior fellow of Emanuel college, and was instituted Feb. 16, 1757. At this place he accordingly entered into residence, and, perfectly satisfied with his situation, continued his studies, which were still principally employed on subjects of polite literature. It was in this year that he published “A Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation,” one of his most agreeable pieces of this class, which was afterwards added to the third edition of the “Epistles of Horace.” This obtained for him the return of an elegy inscribed to him by the poet, in 1759, in which Mason terms him “the friend of his youth,” and speaks of him as seated in “low Thurcaston’s sequester' d bower, distant from promotion’s view.” The same year appeared Mr. Kurd’s “Remarks on Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion.” Warburton appears to have been so much concerned in this tract, that we find it republished by Hurd in the quarto edition of that prelate’s works, and enumerated by him in his list of his own works. It appears to have given Hume some uneasiness, and he notices it in his account of his life with much acrimony. In 1759, he published a volume of “Dialogues on sincerity, retirement, the golden age of Elizabeth, and the constitution of the English government,” in 8vo, without his name. In this work he was thought to rank among those writers who, in party language, are called constitutional; but it is said that he made considerable alterations in the subsequent editions. This was followed by his very entertaining “Letters on Chivalry and Romance,” which with his yet more useful “Dialogues on foreign Travel” were republished in 1765, with the author’s name, and an excellent preface on the manner of writing dialogue, under the general title of“Dialogues moral and political.” In the year preceding, he wrote another of those zealous tracts in vindication of Warburton, which, with the highest respect for Mr. Kurd’s talents, we may be permitted to say, have added least to his fame, as a liberal and courteous polemic. This was entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Leland, in which his late ‘ Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence’ is criticized, and the bishop of Gloucester’s idea of the nature and character of an inspired language, as delivered in his lordship’s Doctrine of Grace, is vindicated from all the objections of the learned author of the dissertation.” This, with Mr. Kurd’s other controversial tracts, is republished in vol. VIII. of the late authorized edition of his works, with the following lines, by way of advertisement, written not long before his death "The controversial tracts, which make up this volume, were written and published by the author at different times, as opportunity invited, or occasion required. Some sharpness of style may be objected to them; in regard to which he apologizes for himself in the words of the poet:

In 1795 the life of bishop Warburton appeared under the title of “A Discourse, by way of general preface to the quarto edition of bishop Warburton’s works; containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” Of this work, which excited no common portion of curiosity/ the style is peculiarly elegant and pure, but the whole is too uniform in panegyric not to render the author liable to the suspicion of long-confirmed prejudices. Even the admirers both of Warburton and Hurd would have been content with less effort to magnify the former at the expence of all his contemporaries; and conscious that imperfection is the lot of all, expected that age and reflection would have abated, if not wholly extinguished, the unscholarlike animosities of former times. But in this all were disappointed; and it was with regret they saw the worst characteristics of Warburton, his inveterate dislikes, his strong contempt, and sneering rancour, still employed to perpetuate his personal antipathies; and employed, too, against such men as Lowth and Seeker. If these were the feelings of the friends who venerated Warburton, and who loved Hurd, others who never had much attachment to Warburton, or his school, found little difficulty in accumulating charges of gross partiality, and illiberal language, against his biographer. This much may be sufficient in noticing this life as the production of Dr. Hurd. It will come hereafter to be more particularly noticed as regarding Warburton. The remainder of bishop Kurd’s life appears to have been spent in the discharge of his episcopal duties, as far as his increasing infirmities would permit; in studious retirement; and often in lamenting the loss of old and tried friends. So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his parish church, and to receive the sacrament. Free from any painful or acute disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued perfect. After a few days’ confinement to his bed, he expired in his sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808, having completed four months beyond his eighty-eighth year. He was buried in Hartlebury church-yard, according to his own directions. As a writer, Dr. Hurd’s taste, learning, and genius, have been universally acknowledged, and although a full acquiescence has not been given in all his opinions, he must be allowed to be every where shrewd, ingenious, and original. Even in his sermons and charges, while he is sound in the doctrines of the church, his arguments and elucidations have many features of novelty, and are conveyed in that simple, yet elegant style, which renders them easily intelligible to common capacities. Dr. Hurd’s private character was in all respects amiable. With his friends and connexions he obtained the best eulogium, their constant and warm attachment; and with the world in general, a kind of veneration, which could neither be acquired nor preserved, but by the exercise of great virtues. One of his last employments was to draw up a series of the dates of his progress through life. It is to be lamented he did not fill up this sketch. Few men were more deeply acquainted with the literary history of his time, or could have furnished a more interesting narrative. Much of him, however, may be seen in his Life of Warburton, and perhaps more in the collection of Warburton’s “Letters” to himself, which he ordered to be published after his death, for the benefit of the Worcester Infirmary. Of this only 250 copies were printed, to correspond with the 4to edition of Warburton’s works, but it has since been reprinted in 8vo.

In 1780 he was entered a commoner of St. Mary-hall, Oxford; and at the election in 1782, was chosen a demy of St. Mary Magdalen college. Here his studies, which were close and uninterrupted, were encouraged, and his amiable character highly respected, by Dr. Home, president of Magdalen, and his successor Dr. Routh, by Dr. Sheppard, Dr. Rathbone, and others. About 1784 he went to Stanmer in Sussex, where he resided for some considerable time as tutor to the late earl of Chichester’s youngest son, the hon. George Pelham, now bishop of Exeter. In May 1785, having taken his bachelor’s degree, he retired to the curacy of Burwash in Sussex, which he held for six years, but in the interim, in 1786, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen, and the following year took his master’s degree. Finding himself now sufficiently enabled to assist his mother in the support of her family, he hired a small house, and took three of his sisters to reside with him. In 1788, he first appeared before the public as a poet, in “The Village Curate,” the reception of which far exceeded his expectations, a second edition being called for the following year. This poem, although perhaps not highly finished, contained so many passages of genuine poetry, and evinced so much elegance, taste, and sense, as to pass through the ordeal of criticism with great applause, and to be considered as the earnest of future and superior excellence. Such encouragement induced the author to publish in 1790, his “Adriano, or the first of June,” which was followed in a short time by his “Panthea,” “Elmer and Ophelia,” and the “Orphan Twins,” all which were allowed to confirm the expectations of the public, and place the author in an enviable rank among living poets. These were followed by two publications, connected with his profession; “A short critical Disquisition ou the true Meaning of the word tO*OiJin, found in Gen. i. 21, 1790,” and “Select critical Remarks upon the English version of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” In 1791, through the interest of the earl of Chichester, he was appointed to the living of Bishopstone; and about the same time wrote his tragedy of “Sir Thomas More,” a poem of considerable merit, but not intended for the stage. In 1792, he was deprived by death of his favourite sister Catherine, whose elegant mind he frequently pourtrayed in his works, under the different appellations of Margaret and Isabel. On this affliction he quitted his curacy, and returned with his two sisters to Bishopstone. Here the trouble of his mind was considerably alleviated by an affectionate invitation from his much- esteemed friend Mr. Hayley to visit Eartham, where he had the pleasing satisfaction of becoming personally known to Cowper, the celebrated poet, with whom he had maintained a confidential correspondence for some years.

, a celebrated divine and martyr, was born at a town in Bohemia, called Hussenitz, about 1376, and liberally educated in the university of Prague. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1393, and that of master in 1395; and we find him, in 1400, in orders, and a minister of a church in that city. About this time the writings of our countryman Wickliffe had spread themselves among the Bohemians, which was owing to the following circumstance: Queen Anne, the wife of Richard II. of England, was daughter to the emperor Charles IV. and sister to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, and Sigismund emperor of Germany. She was a princess of great piety, virtue, and knowledge, nor could she endure the implicit service and devotion of the Romish church. Her death happened in 1394, and her funeral was attended by all the nobility of England. She had patronized Wickliffe, and after her death, several of Wickliffe’s books were carried by her attendants into Bohemia, and were the means of promoting the reformation there. They had also been carried into the same country by Peter Payne, an Englishman, one of his disciples, and principal of Edmund-hall. Fox mentions another person, a young nobleman of Bohemia, who had studied some time at Oxford, and carried home with him several of Wickliffe’s tracts. They were particularly read by the students at Prague, among the chief of whom was Huss; who, being much taken with Wickliffe’s notions, began to preach and write with great zeal against the superstitions and errors of the church of Rome. He succeeded so far, that the sale of indulgences gradually decreased among the Bohemians; and the pope’s party declared, that there would soon be an end of religion, if measures were not taken to oppose the restless endeavours of the Hussites. With a view, therefore, of preventing this danger, Subinco, the archbishop of Prague, issued forth two mandates in 1408; one, addressed to the members of the university, by which they were ordered to bring together all Wickliffe’s writings, that such as were found no contain any thing erroneous or heretical might be burnt; the other, to all curates and ministers, commanding them to teach the people, that, after the consecration of the elements in the holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the real body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hjiss, whose credit and authority in the university were very great, as well for his piety and learning, as on account of considerable services he had done, found no difficulty in persuading many of its members of the unreasonableness and absurdity of these mandates: the first being, as he said, a plain encroachment upon the liberties and privileges of the university, whose members had an indisputable right to possess, and to read all sorts of books; the second, inculcating a most abominable error. Upon this foundation they appealed to Gregory XII. and the archbishop Subinco was summoned to Rome. But, on acquainting the pope that the heretical notions of WicklifTe were gaining ground apace in Bohemia, through the zeal of some preachers who had read his books, a bull was granted him for the suppression of all such notions in his province. By virtue of this bull, Subinco condemned the writings of Wickliffe, and proceeded against four doctors, who bad not complied with his mandate in bringing in their copies. Huss and others, who were involved in this sentence, protested against this projcedure of the archbishop, and appealed from him a second time, in June 1410. The matter was then brought before John XXIII. who ordered Huss, accused of many errors and heresies, to appear in person at the court of Rome, and gave a special commission to cardinal Colonna to cite him. Huss, however, under the protection and countenance of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, did riot appear, but sent three deputies to excuse his absence, and to answe'r all which should be alledged against him. Colonna paid no regard to the deputies, nor to any defence they could make; but. declared Huss guilty of contumacy to the court of Rome, and excommunicated him for it. Upon this the deputies appealed from the cardinal to the pope, who commissioned four other cardinals to examine into the affair. These commissaries not only confirmed all that Colonna had done, but extended the excommunication, which was limited to Huss, to his friends and followers: they also declared him an Heresiarch, and pronounced an interdict against him.

Mr. Hussey prosecuted his studies at Bologna for three years and a half, and then removed to Rome, where he was received with the most obliging courtesy by a celebrated artist, Hercule Lelli, who, refusing any compensation, imparted to him in the most friendly manner all that he knew of the art. This did not entirely satisfy Mr. Hussey, who seems to have aimed at establishing some fixed and unerring principles: hence he was led into a search after theory, which ended, although he knew nothing of music, in his adopting the ancient hypothesis of musical or harmonic proportions, as being the governing principle of beauty, in all forms produced by art, and evea by nature. Delighted with this discovery, as he thought it, he continued his studies at Rome with increasing pleasure and reputation. At length, in 1737, he returned to his friends in England, with whom he resided till 1742, when he went to London, where he submitted to the drudgery (as he used to call it) of painting portraits for his subsistence.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Fuseli have spoken less respectfully of Hussey. The latter says, that “disdaining portraiture, discountenanced in history, Hussey was reduced to the solitary patronage of the then duke of Northumberland, who, says Edwards, * offered to receive him into his family, and to give him a handsome pension, with the attendance of a servant, upon condition that he should employ his talents chiefly,‘ though not exclusively, ’ for the duke. This offer he rejected, because the duke did not comply with the further request of keeping a priest for him in the house.' Hussey, a bigot in religion, was attached to the creed of Rome; but had he not been so, commis. sions and patronage, almost confined to drawing copies, ven from the antique, was certainly sufficiently provoking for a man of an original turn, to be rejected.” It is not strictly true, however, that the duke of Northumberland was his only patron. Mr. Duane was another, who possessed many of his works. Mr. West bought some penciled heads at Mr. Duane’s sale, and said of one of them, that “he would venture to show it against any head, ancient or modern; that it was never exceeded, if ever equalled; and that no man had ever imbibed the true Grecian character Vid art deeper than Giles Hussey.”

He then returned to Ireland; and, entering into the ministry, was just about to be settled in a small congregation of dissenters in the north of Ireland, when some gentlemen about Dublin, who knew his great abilities and virtues, invited him to set up a private academy in that city, with which he complied, and met with much success. He had been fixed but a short time in Dublin, when his singular merits and accomplishments made him generally known; and his acquaintance was sought by men of all ranks, who had any taste for literature, or any regard for learned men. Lord Molesworth is said to have taken great pleasure in his conversation, and to have assisted him with his criticisms and observations upon his “Enquiry intp the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue,” before it came abroad. He received the same favour from Dr. Synge, bishop of Elphin, with whom he also lived in great friendship. The first edition of this performance came abroad without the author’s name, but the merit of it would npt suffer him to be Long concealed. Such was the reputation of the work, and the ideas it had raised of the author, that lord Granville, who was then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent his private secretary to inquire at the bookseller’s for the author; and when he could not learn his name, he left a letter to be cpnveyed to him: in consequence of which Mr. Hutcheson soon became acquainted with his excellency, and was treated by him, all the time he continued in his government, with distinguished marks of familiarity and esteem.

From this time he began to be still more courted by men of distinction, either for rank or literature, in, Ireland. Abp. King held him in great esteem; and the friendship of that prelate was of great use to him in screening him from two attempts made to prosecute him, for taking upon him the education of youth, without having qualified himself by subscribing the ecclesiastical canons, and obtaining a license from the bishop. He had also a large share in the esteem of the primate Boulter, who, through his influence, made a donation to the university of Glasgow of a yearly fund for an exhibitioner, to be bred to any of the learned professions. A few years after his Inquiry into the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, his “Treatise on the Passions” was published: these works have been often reprinted, and always admired both for the sentiment and language, even by those who have not assented to the philosophy of them, nor allowed it to have any foundation in nature. About this time he wrote some philosophical papers, accounting for laughter in a different way from Hobbes, and more honourable to human nature, which were published in the collection called “Hibernicus’s Letters.” Some letters in the “London Journal,” 1728, subscribed Philaretus, containing objections to some parts of the doctrine in “The Enquiry,” &c. occasioned his giving answers to them in those public papers. Both the letters and answers were afterwards published in a separate pamphlet.

After he had taught in a private academy at Dublin for seven or eight years with great reputation and success, he was called in 1729 to Scotland, to be professor of philosophy at Glasgow. Several young gentlemen came along with him from the academy, and his high reputation drew many more thither both from England and Ireland. After his settlement in the college, the profession of moral philosophy was the province assigned to him; so that now -he had full leisure to turn all his attention to his favourite study, human nature. Here he spent the remainder of his life in a manner highly honourable to himself, and ornamental to the university of which he was a member. His whole time was divided between his studies and the duties of his office; except what he allotted to friendship and society. A firm constitution, and a pretty uniform state of good health, except some few slight attacks of the gout, seemed to promise a longer life; yet he did not exceed his 53d year, dying in 1747. He was married soon after his settlement in Dublin, to Mrs. Mary Wilson, a gentleman’s daughter in the county of Longford; by whom he left behind him one son, Francis Hutcheson, M. D. By this gentleman was published, from the original ms. of his father, “A System of Moral Philosophy,” in three books, Glasgow, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. To which is prefixed, “Some account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Author,” by Dr. Leechman, professor of divinity in the same university. Dr. Hutcheson’s system of morals is, in its foundation, very nearly the same with that of lord Shaftesbury. He agrees with the noble author in asserting a distinct class of the human affections, which, while they have no relation to our own interest, propose for their end the welfare of others; but he makes out his position rather more clearly than Shaftesbury, who cannot exclude somewhat of the selfish as the spring of our benevolent emotions. Hutcheson maintains, that the pleasure arising from the performance of a benevolent action, is not the ruling principle in prompting to such actions; but that, independently of the selfish enjoyment, which is allowed in part to exist, there is in the human mind a calm desire of the happiness of all rational beings, which is not only consistent with, but of superior influence in regulating our conduct, to the desire of our own happiness; insomuch that, whenever these principles come into opposition, the moral sense decides in favour of the former against the latter. Dr. Hutcheson deduced all moral ideas from what he calls a moral sense t implanted in our natures, or an instinct like that of self-preservation, which, independently of any arguments taken from the reasonableness and advantages of any action, leads us to perform it ourselves, or to approve it when performed by others; and this moral sense he maintained to be the very foundation of virtue. His hypothesis was new, but whether much better than other theories of the same kind, may be questioned. His fame, in the opinion of an eminfent author, rests now chiefly on the traditionary history of his academical lectures, which appear to have contributed very powerfully to diffuse, in Scotland, that taste for analytical discussion, and that spirit of liberal inquiry, to which the world is indebted for some of the most valuable productions of the eighteenth century."

, an English autnor, whose writings have been much discussed, and who is considered as the founder of a party, if not of a sect, was born at Spenny thorn in Yorkshire in 1674. His father was possessed of about 40l. per ann. and determined to qualify his son for a stewardship to some gentleman or nobleman. He had given him such school- learning as the place afforded-, and the remaining part of his education was finished by a gentleman that boarded with his father. This friend is said to have instructed him, not only in such parts of the mathematics as were more immediately connected with his destined employment, but in every branch of that science, and at the same time to have furnished him with a competent knowledge of the writings of antiquity. At the age of nineteen, he went to be steward to Mr. Rathurst of Skutterskelf in Yorkshire, and from thence to the earl of Scarborough, who would gladly have engaged him in his service; but his ambition to serve the duke of Somerset would not suffer him to continue there, and accordingly he removed soon after into this nobleman’s service. About 1700 he was called to London, to manage a law-suit of consequence between the duke and another nobleman; and during his attendance in town, contracted an acquaintance with Dr. Woodward, who was physician to the duke his master. Between 1702 and 1706, his business carried him into several parts of England and Wales, where he made many observations, which he published in a little pamphlet, entitled, “Observations made by J. H. mostly in the year 1706.”

While he travelled from place to place, he employed himself in collecting fossils; and we are told, that the large and noble collection, which Woodward bequeathed to the university of Cambridge, was actually formed by him. Whether Woodward had no notion of Hntchinson’s abilities in any other way than that of steward and minera­)ogist, or whether he did not suspect him at that time as likely to commence author, is not certain: Hutchinson, however, complains in one of his books, that “he was bereft, in a manner not to be mentioned, of those observations and those collections; nay, even of the credit of being the collector.” He is said to have put his collections into Woodward’s hands, with observations on them, which Woodward was to digest and publish, with further observations of his own: but his putting him off with excuses, when from time to time he solicited him about this work, first suggested to Hutchinson unfavourable notions of his intention. On this Hutehinson resolved to wait no longer, but to trust to his own pen; and that be might be more at leisure to prosecme his studies, he begged leave of the duke of Somerset to quit his service. The request at first piqued 'the pride of that nobleman; but when he was made to understand by Hutchinson, that he did not intend to serve any other master, and was told what were the real motives of his request, the duke not only granted" his suit, but made him his riding purveyor, being at that time master of the horse to George I. As there is a good house in the Mews belonging to the office of purveyor, a fixed salary of 200l. per ann. and the phice a kind of sinecure,. Hutchinson’s situation and circumstances were quite agreeable to his mind; and he gave himself up to a studious and sedentary life. The duke also gave him the next presentation of the living of Sutton in Sussex, which Hutchinson bestowed on the rev. Julius Bate, a great favourite with htm, and a zealous promoter of his doctrines.

In 1724 he published the first part of his “Moses’s Principia;” in which he ridiculed Woodward’s “Natural History of the Earth,” and his account of the settlement of the several strata, shells, and noduies, by the laws of gravity; which, he tells him, every dirty impertinent collier could contradict and disprove by ocular demonstration. This work, in which gravitation is exploded, is evidently opposed to Newton’s“Principia,” where that doctrine is established. H utchinson also threw out some hints concerning what had passed between Woodward and himself, and the doctor’s design of robbing him of his collection of fossils. From this time to his death, he continued to publish a volume every year, or every other year; which, with the Mss. he left behind him, were collected in 1743, amounting to 12 vols. 8vo. An abstract of them was also published in 1723, in 12mo. Hutchinson' s followers look upon the breach between Woodward and him, as a very happy event; because, say they, had the doctor fulfilled his engagements, Hutchinson might have stopped there, and not have extended his researches so far as he has done; in which case the world would have been deprived of writings deemed by them invaluable. Others are as violent opposers and censurers of his writings and opinions; and the dispute has been carried on at various times with no small degree of warmth.

In 1727, Hutchinson published the second part of “Moses’s Principia” which contains the sum and substance, or the principles of the Scripture- philosophy. As sir Isaac Newton made a vacuum and gravity the principles of his philosophy, this author on the contrary asserts, that a plenum and the air are the principles of the Scripture-philosophy. In the introduction to this second part, he hinted, that the idea of the Trinity was to be taken from the three grand agents in the system of nature, fire, light, and spirit; these three conditions of one and the same substance, namely, air, answering wonderfully in a typical or symbolical manner to the three Persons of one and the same essence. This, we are told, so forcibly struck the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke,- that he sent a gentleman to Mr. Hutchinson with compliments upon the performance, and desired a conference with him on that proposition in particular: which, however, it is added, after repeated solicitations, Hutchinson thought fit to refuse. This doctrine a certain admirer of Hutchinson, particularly in his opinions on natural philosophy, has lately attempted to revive and illustrate, in a pamphlet entitled, “A short Way to Truth, or the Christian doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, illustrated and confirmed from an Analogy in the Natural Creation.” It was published in 1793.

Hutchinson had been accustomed to make an excursion for a month or so into the country for his health: but to neglecting this in pursuit of his studies, he is supposed have brought himself into a bad habit of body, which prepared the way for his death. The immediate cause is said to have been an overflowing of the gall, occssioned by the irregular sallies of an high-kept unruly horse, and the sudden jerks given to his body by them. On the Monday before his death, Dr. Mead was with him, and urged him to be bled; saying at the same time in a pleasant way, “I will soon send you to Moses.” Dr. Mead meant to his studies, two of his books being entitled “Moses’s Principia:” but Hutchinson, taking it in the other sense, answered in a muttering tone, “I believe, doctor, you will;” and was so displeased with Mead, that he afterwards dismissed him for another physician. He died August 28, 1737, aged 63. He seems to have been in many respects a singular man. He certainly jjad eminent abilities, with much knowledge and learning; but many people have thought it very questionable, whether he did not want judgment to apply them properly, and many more have inveighed against his principles without previously making themselves acquainted with them. They were, however, in some measure, adopted by many pious and learned divines of the last century, by Home, Parkhurst, Homaine, and the late Rev. William Jones, who, of all others, has exhibited the ablest analysis and defence of Mr. Hutchinson’s sentiments, or what is called Hutchinsonianism, in the “Preface to the second edition” of his life of bishop Home.

, a gentleman of Franconia, of uncommon parts and learning, was born in 1488 at Steckenburg, the seat of his family; was sent to the abbey of Fulde at eleven years of age; and took the degree of M. A. in 1506 at Francfort on the Oder, being the first promotion made in that newly-opened university. In 1509, he was at the siege of Padua, in the emperor Maximilian’s army; and he owned that it was want of money, which forced him to make that campaign. His father, not having the least taste or esteem for polite literature, thought it unworthy to be pursued by persons of exalted birth; and therefore would not afford his son the necessary supplies for a life of study. He wished him to apply himself to the civil law, which might raise him in the world; but Hutten had no inclination for that kind of study. Finding, however, that there was no other way of being upon good terms with his father, he went to Pavia in 1511, where he stayed but a little time; that city being besieged and plundered by the Swiss, and himself taken prisoner. He returned afterwards to Germany, and there, contrary to his father’s inclinations, began to apply himself again to literature. Having a genius for poetry, he began his career as an author in that line, and published several compositions, which were much admired, and gained him credit. He travelled to various places, among the rest to Bohemia and Moravia; and waiting on the bishop of Olmutz in a very poor condition, that prelate, who was a great Maecenas, received him graciously, presented him with a horse, and gave him money to pursue his journey. The correspondence also he held with Erasmus was of great advantage to him, and procured him respect from all the literati in Italy, and especially at Venice.

, a Silesian of the sixteenth century, was the founder of the sect called the Bohemian or Moravian brethren, a sect of Anabaptists. Hutten purchased a territory of some extent in Moravia, and there established his society. They are considered as descended from the better sort of Hussites, and were distinguished by several religious institutions of a singular nature, but well adapted to guard their community against the reigning vices of the times. When they heard of Luther’s attempts to reform the church, they sent a deputation to him, and he, examining their tenets, though he could not in every particular approve, looked upon them as worthy of toleration and indulgence. Hutten brought persecution upon himself and his brethren by violent declamations against the magistrates, and the attempt to introduce a perfect equality among men. It has been said that he was burnt as a heretic at Inspruck, but this is by no means certain. By degrees these sectaries, banished from their own country, entered into communion with the Swiss church; though, for some time, with separate institutions. But in the synods held at Astrog in 162O and 1627, all dissensions were removed, and the two congregations were formed into one, under the title of the Church of the United Brethren. The sect of Herrenhutters or Moravians, formed by count JZinzendorff in the beginning of the present century, pretend to be descended from these brethren, ad take the same title of unitas Jratrum but Mosheina observes that “they may with more propriety be said to imitate the example of that famous community, than to descend from, those who composed it, since it is well known that there are very few Bohemians and Moravians in the fraternity of the Herrenhutters; and it is extremely doubtful whether vcn this smaJl number are to be considered as the posterity of the ancient Bohemian brethren, who distinguished themselves so early by their zeal for the reformation,”

, a Protestant divine, was born at Ulm, in 1553, and died at Nuremberg after 1602. He was deeply versed in languages, oriental and occidental; particularly Hebrew, which he seems to have taught at Leipsic. He published, 1. “A Hebrew Bible,” remarkable for being printed with the radical letters in black, the servile in hollow types, and the quiescent or deficient letters in smaller characters above the line. At the end is the 117th Psalm in thirty different languages. 2. “Two Polyglotts,” one in four languages, printed at Hamburg in 1596; the other in six languages, at Nuremberg, in 1599; both in folio.

, an ingenious philosopher of the sceptical class, was the son of Mr. William Hutton, merchant in Edinburgh, and born in that city on the 3d of June, 1726. He entered the university as a student of humanity, in Nov. 1740. He studied afterwards under the celebrated Maclaurin, but did not prosecute the mathematical sciences to any great extent. The origin of his attachment to the study of chemistry is traced to the accidental mention of a chemical fact by professor Stevenson, in his prelections on logic. The fact was, that aqua regia is the only solvent of gold which requires the united action of two acids, each of which singly is capable of dissolving any of the baser metals. This important phenomenon drew him, as if by a kind of electric attraction, to the study of chemistry, with a force that could never afterwards be overcome. His philosophical career was however interrupted by his engaging, at the request of his friends, as an apprentice to a writer to the signet. But instead of copying writs and deeds, or studying th,e forms of legal proceedings, it was found that his favourite object of pursuit was the experiments of the crucible and retort. He was accordingly released from his engagement as an apprentice, and permitted to direct his attention to studies more congenial to his inclinations. He applied himself to the study of medicine as being the most closely connected with chemistry, and after attending the lectures in the university for some years, repaired, as was then customary, to the continent, to finish his course of study. He took the degree of M. D. at Leyden, in 1749.

After his return from the continent, he began to think seriously of settling in the world. His views were first directed to the medical profession, but were soon abandoned for others that afforded better hopes of success. He resolved to apply himself to the study and practice of agriculture. With this view he fixed his residence for some time with a farmer in Norfolk, from whom he received practical lessons in husbandry. During his stay in England he made many journeys on foot into different parts of the pountry, for the purpose of studying mineralogy or geology. He afterwards visited Flanders with the view of (promoting both his mineralogical and agricultural studies. Jn 1754 he returned- to Scotland, and fixed his residence on his own farm in Berwickshire, where he introduced the new husbandry which has since made such rapid advances in that quarter. About 1768 he left Berwickshire, and went to reside in Edinburgh, giving his undivided attention to scientific pursuits. This gave him the advantage of enjoying with less interruption, the society of his literary friends, among whom were Dr. Black, Mr. Russel, and professor Adam Ferguson.

Dr. Hutton’s first publication was given to the world in 1777, entitled “Considerations on the nature, quality, and distinctions of Coal and Culm.” It proves that culm is the small or refuse of the infusible or stone-coal, but very different in its properties from the small of the fusible coal. A sketch of his great work, his “Theory of the Earth,” the formation of which had been the object of many years of previous study, was communicated to the royal society of Edinburgh soon after its original institution. Another paper, a “Theory of Kain,” appeared also in the first volume of the Edinburgh Transactions. This theory, as is well known, met with a most vigorous and determined opposition from M. de Luc, and became a subject of controversy, which was conducted with perhaps too much warmth. After the period of these two publications, Dr. Hutton made severalexcursions into different parts of Scotland, wkh a view of comparing certain results of his theory with actual observation; and in these he seems to have been very successful. In 1792 he published “Dissertations on different subjects in Natural Philosophy,” in which his theory for explaining the phenomena of the material world, seems to coincide very closely with that of Boscovich, though there is no reason to suppose that the former was suggested by the latter. But Dr. Hutton did not confine himself merely to physical speculations; he directed his attention also to the study of metaphysics, the result of which was the publication of a work entitled “An Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, and of the Progress of Reason from Sense to Science and Philosophy,” 3 vols. 4to. The metaphysical opinions advanced in this work coincide for the most part with those of Dr. Berkeley, and abound in sceptical boldness and philosophical infidelity. In 1794 appeared his “Dissertation upon the Philosophy of Light, Heat, and Fire,” 8vo, which may be considered as a kind of supplement to the two preceding works. In 1796 his “Theory of the Earth” was republished in 2 vols. 8vo, from the Edinburgh Philosophical Transactions, with large additions, and a new mineralogical system. Many of his opinions here have been ably combated by Kirwan and others.

, a very celebrated mathematician and astronomer, was born at the Hague April 14, 1629, and was son of Constantino Huygens, lord of Zuylichem, who had served three successive princes of Orange in the quality of secretary, and had spent his whole life in cultivating the mathematics not in the speculative way only, but in making them subservient to the uses of life., From his infancy our author applied himself to this study, and made a considerable progress in it, even at nine years of age, as well as in music, arithmetic, and geography; in all which he was instructed by his father, who in the mean time did not suffer him to neglect the belles lettres. At thirteen he was initiated in the study of mechanics; having discovered a wonderful curiosity in examining machines and other pieces of mechanism; and two years after had the assistance of a master in mathematics, under whom he made surprising progress. In 1645 he went to study law at Leyden, under Vinnius; yet did not attach himself so closely to that science, but that he found time to continue his mathematics under the professor Schooten. He left this university at the end of one year, and went to Breda, where an university had just been founded, and placed under the direction of his father; and here, for two or three years, he made the law his chief study. In 1649 he went to Holstein and Denmark, in the retinue of Henry count of Nassau; and was extremely desirous of going to Sweden to visit Des Cartes, who was then in that country with the queen Christina, but the count’s short stay in Denmark would not permit him. In 1651, he gave the world a specimen of his genius for mathematics, in a treatise entitled “Theoremata de quadratura Hyperboles, Ellipsis, & Circuli, ex dato portionum gravitatis centro” in which he shewed very evidently what might be expected from him afterwards.

In 1703 were printed at Leyden, in 1 vol. 4to, Hnygens’s “Opuscula Posthuma, quse continent Dioptricam, Commentaries de vitris figurandis, Dissertationem de Corona & Parheliis, Tractatum de motu & de vi centrifuga, descriptionem Automati Planetarii.” Huygens had left by will to the university of Leyden his mathematical writings, and requested de Voider and Fullenius, the former professor of natural philosophy and mathematics at Leyden, and the other at Franeker, to examine these works, and publish what they should think proper. This was performed in the volume here mentioned. Huygens had written in Low Dutch the second of the tracts it contains, relating to the art of forming and polishing telescope -glasses, to which he had greatly applied himself; and Boerhaave translated it into Latin for this work. In 1700, were published in 4to, his “Opera Varia.” This collection is generally bound in 4 volumes. It contains the greatest part of the pieces which he had published separately, and is divided into four parts. The first part contains the pieces relating to mechanics; the second, those relating to geometry; the third, those relating to astronomy; and the fourth, those which could not be arranged under any of the former titles. Gravesancle had the care of this edition, in which he has inserted several additions to the pieces contained in it, extracted from Huygens’s manuscripts. In 1728 were printed at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. 4to, his “Opera lleliqua;” which new collection was published also by Gravesande. The first volume contains his “Treatises on Light and Gravity;” the second his “Opuscula Posthuma,” which had been printed in 1703. His whole time had been employed in curious and useful researches. He loved a quiet and studious life; and perhaps through fear of interruption, never married. He was an amiable, chearful, worthy man; and in all respects as good as he was great. As an inventor, the first and not the least considerable of his discoveries was that he made of the real nature, or rather figure of the luminous appearance which accompanies the planet Saturn; but the most important was his pendulum clock and his micrometer. His history, however, includes many controversies respecting priority in these inventions, which may be seen at large in our authorities.

, a celebrated doctor of Louvain, was born in 1631, at Lier, or Lyre, a town in Brabant, He professed philosophy at Louvain with reputation, and was made president of the college of pope Adrian VI. where he died, October 27, 1702, leaving several works in Latin: the principal are, “The Method of remitting and retaining Sins,” 1686, 12mo; it has been translated into French “Theses on Grace,” 4to; “Theological Conferences,” 3 vols. 12mo, &c.; a “Course of Divinity,” 15 vols. 12mo, &c. He refused to write against the four articles of the French clergy, which displeased the court of Rome. Huyghens was P. Quesnel’s intimate friend, and zealously defended his cause and his opinions. M. Arnauld speaks highly in his praise.

, an illustrious painter who surpassed all who have ever painted in his style, and whose works excite as much surprise by their finishing, as admiration by their truth, was born at Amsterdam in 1682, and was a disciple of Justus Van Huysum, his father. He set out in his profession with a most commendable principle, not so much to paint for the acquisition of money, as of fame; and therefore he did not aim at expedition, but at delicacy, and if possible, to arrive at perfection in his art. Having attentively studied the pictures of Mignon, and all other artists of distinction who had painted in his own style, he tried which manner would soonest lead htm to imitate the lightness and singular beauties of each flower, fruit, or plant; and then fixed on a manner peculiar to himself, which seems almost inimitable. He soon received the most deserved applause from the ablest judges of painting; even those who furnished him with the loveliest flowers, confessing that there was somewhat in his colouring and pencilling that rendered every object more beautiful, if possible, than even nature itself. His pictures are finished with inconceivable truth; for he painted every tiling after nature, and was so singularly exact, as to watch even the hour of the day in which his model appeared in its greatest perfection.

By the judicious he was accounted to paint with greater freedom than Mignon or Brueghel; with more tendernessand nature than Mario da Fiori, Michael Angelo dr Campidoglio, or Segers; with more mellowness than De Heem, and greater force of colouring than Baptist. His reputation rose to such a height at last, that he fixed immoderate prices on his works; so that none but the very opulent could pretend to become purchasers. Six of his paintings were sold, at a public sale in Holland, for prices that were almost incredible. One of them, a flower-piece, for fourteen hundred and fifty guilders; a fruit-piece, for a thousand and five guilders; and the smaller pictures for nine hupdred. These vast sums caused him to redouble his endeavours to excel; no person was admitted into his room while he was painting, not even his brothers; and his method of mixing the tints, and preserving the lustre of his colours, was an impenetrable secret which he never would disclose. From the same principle he would never take any disciples, except one lady, named Haverman, and he grew envious and jealous even of her merit. By several domestic disquiets, his temper became changed; he grew morose, fretful, and apt to withdraw himself from society. He had many enviers of his fame, which has ever been the severe lot of the most deserving in all professions; but he continued to work, and his reputation never diminished. It is universally agreed, that hd lias excelled all who have painted fruit and flowers before him, by the confessed superiority of his touch, by the delicacy of his pencil, an-d by an amazing manner of finishing; nor does it ap'pear probable that any future artist will ever become his competitor. The care which he took to. purify his oils, and prepare his colours, and the various experiments he made to discover the most lustrous and durable, is another instance of his extraordinary care and capacity.

From having observed some of his works that were perfectly, finished, some only half finished, and others only begun, the principles by which he conducted himself may perhaps be discoverable. His cloths were prepared with the greatest eare, and primed with white, with all possible purity, to prevent his colours from being obscured, as he laid them on very lightly. He glazed all other colours, except the clear and transparent, not omitting even the white ones, till he found the exact tone of the colour; and over that he finished the forms, the lights, the shadows, and the reflections which are all executed with precision and warmth, withoutdryness or negligence. The greatest truth, united with the greatest brilliancy, and a velvet softness on the surface of his objects, are visible in every part of his compositions; and as to his touch, it looks like the pencil of nature. Whenever be represented flowers placed in vases, he always painted those vases after some elegant model, and the bas-relief is as exquisitely finished as any of the other parts. Through the whole he shews a delicate composition, a fine harmony, and a most happy effect of light and shadow. Those pictures which he painted on a clear ground, are preferred to others of his- hand, as having greater lustre and as they demanded more care and exactness in the finishing yet there are some on a darkish ground, in which appears rather more force and harmony.

It is observed of him, that in the grouping of his flowers, he generally designed those which were brightest in the centre, and gradually decreased the force of his colour from the centre to the extremities. The birds.' nests and their eggs, the feathers, insects, and drops of dew, are' expressed with the utmost truth, so as even to deceive the spectator. And yet, after all this merited and just praise, it cannot but be confessed, that sometimes his fruits appear like wax or ivory, without that peculiar softness and warmth w 1 ich is constantly observable in nature. Beside his merit as a flower-painter, he also painted landscapes with great applause. They are well composed and although he had never seen Rome, he adorned his scenes with the noble remains of ancient magnificence which are in that city. His pictures in that style are well coloured, and every tree is distinguished by a touch that is proper for the leafing. The grounds are well broken, and disposed with taste and judgment; the figures are designed in the manner of JLairesse, highly finished, and touched with a great deal of spirit; and through the whole composition, the scene represents Italy, in the trees, the clouds, and the skies. He died in 1749, aged sixty-seven.

, earl of Clarendon, and chancellor of England, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, and born at Dinton in Wiltshire, Feb. 16, 1608. In 1622, he was entered of Magdalen-hall in Oxford, and ir 1625, took the degree of bachelor in arts but failing of a fellowship in Exeter college, for which he stood, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the law for several years with diligence and success. When tha lawyers resolved to give a public testimony of their dissent from the new doctrine advanced in Prynne’s “Histriomastix,” in which was shewn an utter disregard of all manner of decency and respect to the crown, Hyde and Whitelocke were appointed the managers of the masque presented on that occasion to their majesties at Whitehall on Candlemas-day, 1633-4. At the same time he testified, upon all occasions, his utter dislike to that excess of power, which was then exercised by the court, and supported by the judges in Westminster-hall. He condemned the oppressive proceedings of the high-commission court, the star-chamber, the council-board, the earl-marshal’s court, or court of honour, and the court of York. This just way of thinking is said to have been formed in him by a domestic accident, which Burnet relates in the following manner: “When he first began,” says that historian, “to grow eminent in his profession of the law, he went down to visit his father in Wiltshire; who one day, as they were walking in the fields together, observed to him, that ‘ men of his profession were apt to stretch the prerogative too far, and injure liberty: but charged him, if ever he came to any eminence in his profession, never to sacrifice the laws and liberty of his country to his own interest, or the will of his prince.’ He repeated this twice, and immediately fell into a fit of apoplexy, of which he died in afew hours; and this advice had so lasting an influence upou the son, that he ever after observed and pursued it”

In the parliament which began at Westminster April 10, 1640, he served as burgess for Wotton-Basset in Wiltshire; and distinguished himself upon the following occasion. His majesty having acquainted the house of commons, that he would release the ship-money, if they would grant him twelve subsidies, to be paid in three years, great debates arose in the house that day and the next; when Hampden, seeing the matter ripe for the question, desired it might be put, “whether the house should comply with the proposition made by the king, as it was contained in the message?” Serjeant Glanvile, the speaker, for the house was then in a committee, endeavoured in a pathetic speech to persuade them to comply with the king, and so reconcile him to parliaments for ever. No speech ever united the inclination of a popular council more to th speaker than this did and if the question had been immediately put, it was believed that few would have opposed it. But, after a short silence, the other side recovering new courage, called again with some earnestness, thai Hampden’s question should be put; which being like to meet with a concurrence, Hyde, who was desirous to preserve a due medium, after expressing his dislike of Hampden’s question, proposed, that “to the end every man might freely give his yea or no, the question might be put only upon giving the king a supply; and if this was carried, another might be put upon the manner and proportion: if not, it would have the same effect with the other proposed by Mr. Hampden.” This, after it had been some time opposed and diverted by other propositions, which were answered by Hyde, would, as it is generally believed, have been carried in the affirmative, though positively opposed by Herbert the solicitor-general, if sir Henry Vane the secretary had not assured them as from his majesty, that if they should pass a vote for a supply, and not in the proportion proposed in his -majesty’s message, it would not be accepted by him, and therefore desired that the question might be laid aside. This being again urged by the solicitor-general, and it being near five in the afternoon, a very late hour in those days, it was readily consented to, that the house should adjourn till the reXt morning, at which time they were suddenly dissolvea. And within an hour after Hyde met St. John, who was seldom known to smile, but then had a most cheerful aspect; and observing Hyde melancholy, asked him, “what troubled him r” who answered, “The same he believed that troubled most good men, that, in a time of so much confusion, so wise a parliament should be so imprudently dissolved.” St. John replied somewhat warmly, “that all was well: that things must grow worse, before they would grow better; and that that parliament would never have done what was requisite.”

This parliament being dissolved, Hyde was chosen for Saltash in Cornwall in the Long-parliament, which commenced Nov. 3 the same year, where his abilities began to be noticed; and when the commons prepared a charge against lord chief baron Davenport, baron Weston, and baron Trevor, he was sent up with the impeachment to the lords, to whom he made a most excellent speech. It begins thus: “My lords, there cannot be a greater instance of a sick and languishing commonwealth, than the business of this day. Good God! how have the guilty these late years been punished, when the judges themselves have been such delinquents? It is no marvel, that an irregular, extravagant, arbitrary power, like a torrent, hath broken in upon us, when our banks and ofir bulwarks, the laws, were in the custody of such persons. Men, who had left their innocence, could not preserve their courage; nor could we look that they, who had so visibly undone us, themselves should have the virtue or credit to rescue us from the oppression of other men. It was said by one, who always spoke excellently, that `the twelve judges were like the twelve lions under the throne of Solomon;' under the throne of obedience, but yet lions. Your lordships shall this day hear of six, who, be they what they will else, were no lions: who upon vulgar fear delivered up their precious forts they were trusted with, almost without assault; and in a tame easy trance of flattery and servitude, lost and forfeited, shamefully forfeited, that reputation, awe, and reverence, which the wisdom, courage, and gravity of their venerable predecessors had contracted and fastened to the places they now hold. They even rendered that study and profession, which in all ages hath been, and I hope, now shall be, of honourable estimation, so contemptible and vile, that had not this blessed day come, all men would have had that quarrel to the law itself which JMarius had to the Greek tongue, who thought it a. mockery to learn that language, the masters whereof lived in bondage under others. And I appeal to these unhappy gentlemen themselves, with what a strange negligence, scorn, and indignation, the faces of all men, even of the meanest, have been directed towards them, since, to call it no worse, that fatal declension of their understanding in those judgments, of which they stand here charged before your lordships.” The conclusion runs thus: " If the excellent, envied constitution of this kingdom hath been of late distempered, your lordships see the causes. If the sweet harmony between the king’s protection and the subject’s obedience hath unluckily suffered interruption; if the royal justice and honour of the best of kings have been mistaken by his people; if the duty and affection of the most faithful and loyal nation hath been suspected by their gracious sovereign; if, by these misrepresentations, and these misunderstandings, the king and people have been robbed of the delight and comfort of each other, and the blessed peace of this island been shaken and frightened into tumults and commotions, into the poverty, though not into the rage, of war, as a people prepared for destruction and desolation; these are the men, actively or passively, by doing or not doing, who have brought this upon us: ' Misera servitus falso pax vocatur; ubi judicia deficiunt, incipit bellumV

But though Hyde was very zealous for redressing the grievances of the nation, he was no less so for the security of the established church, and the honour of the crown. When a bill was brought in to take away the bishops’ vote in parliament, and to leave them out of all commissions of the peace, or any thing that had relation to temporal affairs, he was very earnest for throwing it out, and said, that, “from the time tbat parliaments begun, bishops had always been a part of it that if they were taken out, there was nobody left to represent the clergy which would introduce another piece of injustice, that no other part of the kingdom could complain of, who, being all represented in parliament, were bound to submit to whatever was enacted there, because it was, upon the matter, with their own consent: whereas, if the bill was carried, there was nobody left to represent the clergy, and yet they must be bound by their determination.” He was one of the committee employed to prepare the charge against the earl of Strafford: but, as soon as he saw the unjustifiable violence with which the prosecution was precipitated, he left them, and opposed the bill of attainder warmly. He was afterwards appointed a -manager at the conference with the house of lords, for abolishing the court of York, of which that earl had been for several years president; and was chairman also of several other committees, appointed upon the most important occasions, as long as he continued to sit among them. But, when they began to put in execution their ordinance for raising the militia against his majesty, Hyde, being persuaded that this was an act of open rebellion, left them; and they felt the blow given to their authority by his absence so sensibly, that in their instructions shortly after to the earl of Essex their general, he was excepted with a few others from any grace or favour.

During his retirement in Jersey, he began to write his “History of the Rebellion,” which had been particularly recommended to him, and in which he was assisted also by the king, who supplied him with several of the materials for it. We learn from the history itself, that upon lord CapePs waiting on the king at Hampton-court in 1647, his majesty wrote to the chancellor a letter, in which he “thanked him for undertaking the work he was upon; and told him, he should expect speedily to receive some contribution from him towards it;” and within a very short time afterwards, he sent to him memorials of all that had passed from the time he had left his majesty at Oxford, when he waited upon the prince into the west, to the very day that the king left Oxford to go to the Scots; out of which memorials the most important passages, in the years 1644 and 1645, are faithfully collected. Agreeably to this, the ninth book opens with declaring, that “the work was first undertaken with the king’s approbation, and by his encouragement; and particularly, that many important points were transmitted to the author by the king’s immediate direction and order, even after he was in the hands and power of the enemy, out of his own memorials and journals.” Thus we may trace the exact time when this history was begun; and the time when it was finished may be ascertained with the same degree of exactness, from the dedication of the author’s “Survey of the Leviathan,” in which he addresses himself to Charles II. in these terms “As soon as I had finished a work, at least recommended, if not enjoined to me by your blessed father, and approved, and in some degree perused by your majesty, I could not,” &c. This dedication is dated Moulins, May 10, 1673; whence it appears, that the history was not completed till the beginning of that, or the latter end of the preceding year; and this may account for certain facts being related which happened long after the Restoration as for instance, that “sir John Digby lived many years after the king’s return” and that the “earl of Sandwich’s expedition was never forgiven him by some men:” which might very consistently be introduced in this history, though that nobleman did not lose his life till 1672.

The first open attack upon lord Clarendon was made by the earl of Bristol; who, in 1663, exhibited against him a charge of high treason to the house of lords. There had been a long course of friendship, both in prosperity and adversity, between the chancellor and this earl: but they had gradually fallen into different measures in religion and politics. In this state of things, the chancellor refusing what lord Bristol considered as a small favour (which was said to be the passing a patent in favour of a court lady), the latter took so much offence, that he resolved upon revenge. The substance of the whole accusation was as follows: “That the chancellor, being in place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arrogated a supreme direction in all thingjs, had, with a traiteroas intent to draw contempt upon his majesty’s person, and to alienate the affections of his subjects, abused the said trust in manner following. 1. He had endeavoured to alienate the hearts of his majesty’s subjects, by artfully insinuating to his creatures and dependent);, that his majesty was inclined to popery, and designed to alter the established religion. 2. He had said to several persons of his majesty’s privy council, that his majesty was dangerously corrupted in his religion, and inclined to popery: that persons of that religion had such access and such credit with him, that, unless there were a careful eye had upon it, the protestant religion would be overthrown in this kingdom. 3. Upon his majesty’s admitting sir Henry Bennet to be secretary of state in the place of sir Edward Nicholas, he said, that his majesty had given 10,000^. to remove a most zealous Protestant, that he might bring into that place a concealed Papist. 4. In pursuance of the same traiterous design, several friends and dependents of his have said aloud, that ‘ were it not for my lord chancellor’s standing in the gap, Popery would be introduced into this kingdom.’ 5. That he kad persuaded the king, contrary to his opinion, to allow his name to be used to the pope and several cardinals, in the solicitation of a cardinal” cap for the lord Aubigny, great almoner to the queen: in order to effect which, he had employed Mr. Richard Bealing, a known Papist, and had likewise applied himself to several popish priests and Jesuits to the same purpose, promising great favour to the Papists here, in case it should be effected. 6. That he had likewise promised to several Papists, that he would do his endeavour, and said, * he hoped to compass taking away all penal laws against them; to the end they might presume and grow vain upon his patronage; and, by their publishing their hopes of toleration, increase the scandal designed by him to be raised against his majesty throughout the kingdom. 7. That, being intrusted with the treaty between his majesty and his royal consort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and dangerous to the Protestant religion. Moreover, he brought the king and queen together without any settled agreement about the performance of the marriage rites; whereby, the queen refusing to be married by a Protestant priest, in case of her being with child, either the succession should be made uncertain for want of the due rites of matrimony, or else his majesty be exposed to a suspicion of having been married in his own dominions by a Romish priest. 8. That, having endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects upon the score of religion, he endeavoured to make use of all his scandals and jealousies, to raise to himself a popular applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant religion, &c. 9. That he further endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects, by venting in his own discourse, and those of his emissaries, opprobrious scandals against his majesty’s person and course of life; such as are not fit to be mentioned, unless necessity shall require it. 10. That he endeavoured to alienate the affections of the duke of York from his majesty, by suggesting to him, that ‘ his majesty intended to legitimate the duke of Monmouth.’ 11. That he had persuaded the king, against thie advice of the lord general, to withdraw the English garrisons out of Scotland, and demolish all the forts built there, at so vast a charge to this kingdom; and all without expecting the advice of the parliament of England. 12. That he endeavoured to alienate his majesty’s affections and esteem from the present parliament, by telling him, ‘ that there never was so weak and inconsiderable a house of lords, nor never so weak and heady a house of commons’ and particularly that ’ it was better to sell Dunkirk than be at their mercy for want of money.' 13. That, contrary to a known law made last session, by which money was given and applied for maintaining Dunkirk, he advised and effected the sale of the same to the French king. 14. That he had, contrary to law, enriched himself and his treasures by the sale of offices. 15. That he had converted to his own use vast sums of public money, raised in Ireland by way of subsidy, private and public benevolences, and otherwise given and intended to defray the charge of the government in that kingdom. 16. That, having arrogated to himself a supreme direction of all his majesty’s affairs, he had prevailed to have his majesty’s customs farmed at a lower rate than others offered; and that by persons with some of whom he went a share, and other parts of money resulting from his majesty’s revenue."

In August 1667, he was removed from his post of chancellor, and in November following was impeached by the house of commons of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors; upon which, in the beginning of December, he retired to France, and on the 19th, an act of banishment was passed against him. Echard observes, how often “it has been admired, that the king should not only consent to discard, but soon after banish a friend, who had been as honest and faithful to him a* the best, and perhaps more useful and serviceable than any he had ever employed; which surely could never have been brought to bear without innumerable enviers and enemies.” But to conceive how these were raised, we need only remember, that during the height of his grandeur, which continued two years after the Restoration without any rivalship, as well as the rest of his ministry, he manifested an inflexible steadiness to the constitution of the church of England, in equal opposition to the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other; so that none of these could ever be reconciled to him or his proceedings. Yet at first he seemed so forward to effect a coalition of all parties, that the cavaliers and strict churchmen thought themselves much neglected; and many of them upon that account, though unjustly, entertained insuperable prejudices against him, and joined with the greatest of his enemies. But the circumstances which were supposed to weaken his interest with, and at length make him disagreeable to the king, were rather of a personal nature, and such as concerned the king and him only. It is allowed on all hands, that the chancellor was not without the pride of conscious virtue; so that his personal behaviour was accompanied with a sort of gravity and haughtiness, which struck a very unpleasing awe into a court filled with licentious persons of both sexes. He often took the liberty to give reproofs to these persons of mirth and gallantry; and sometimes thought it his duty to advise the king himself in such a manner that they took advantage of him, and as he passed in court, would often say to his majesty, “There goes your schoolmaster.” The chief of these was the duke of Buckingham, who had a surprising talent of ridicule and buffoonery; and that he might make way for lord Clarendon’s ruin, by bringing him first into contempt, he often acted and mimicked him in the presence of the king, walking in a stately manner with a pair of bellows before him for the purse, and colonel Titus carrying a fire-shovel on his shoulder for the mace; with which sort of farce and banter, the king, says Echard, was too much delighted and captivated. These, with some more serious of the Popish party, assisted by the solicitations of the ladies of pleasure, made such impressions upon the king, that he at last gave way, and became willing, and even pleased, to part both from his person and services. It was also believed, that the king had some private resentments against him, for checking of those who were too forward in loading the crown with prerogative and revenue; and particularly we are told, that he had counteracted the king in a grand design which he had, to be divorced from the queen, under pretence “that she had been pre-engaged to another person, or that she was incapable of bearing children.” The person designed to supply her place was Mrs. Stuart, a beautiful young lady, who was related to the king, and had some office under the queen. The chancellor, to prevent this, sent for the duke of Richmond, who was of the same name; and seeming to be sorry that a person of his worth and relation to his majesty should receive no marks of his favour, advised him to marry this lady, as the most likely means to advance himself. The young nobleman, liking the person, followed his advice, made immediate application to the lady, who was ignorant of the king’s intentions, and in a few days married her. The king, thus disappointed, and soon after informed how the match was brought about, banished the duke and his new duchess from court, reserving his resentment against the chancellor to a more convenient opportunity. Be this as it will, the private reasons that induced the king to abandon the chancellor were expressed in a letter to the duke of Ormond, then in Ireland; which the king wrote to that nobleman for his satisfaction, knowing him to be the chancellor’s friend. Echard observes, that this letter was never published, nor would a copy of it be granted; but that he had been told the substance of it more than once by those who had read it; and the principal reason there given by the king was, “The chancellor’s intolerable temper.”

Being now about to quit the kingdom in exile, before he departed he drew up an apology, in a petition to the house of lords, in which he vindicated himself from any way contributing to the late miscarriages, in such a manner as laid the blame at the same time upon others. The lords received it Dec. 3, and sent two of the judges to acquaint the commons with it, desiring a conference. The duke of Buckingham, who was plainly aimed at in the petition, delivered it to the commons; and said, “The lords have commanded me to deliver to you this scandalous and seditious paper sent from the earl of Clarendon. They bid me present it to you, and desire you in a convenient time to send it to them again; for it has a style which they are in love with, and therefore desire to keep it.” Upon the reading of it in that house, it was voted to be “scandalous, malicious, and a reproach to the justice of the nation;” and they moved the lords, that it might be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, which was ordered and executed accordingly. The chancellor retired to Rouen in Normandy; and, the year following, his life was attempted at Evreux near that city by a body of seamen, in such an outrageous manner, that he with great difficulty escaped. In the Bodleian library at Oxford, there is an original letter from Mr. Oliver Long, dated from Evreux, April 26, 1668, to sir William Cromwell, secretary of state, in which the following account is given of this assault. “As I was travelling from Rouen towards Orleans, it was my fortune, April 23, to overtake the earl of Clarendon, then in his unhappy and unmerited exile, who was going towards Bourbon, but took up his lodgings at a private hotel in a small walled town called Evreux, some leagues from Rouen. I, as most English gentlemen did to so valuable a patriot, went to pay him a visit near supper-time; when he was, as usual, very civil to me. Before supper was done, twenty or thirty English seamen and more came and demanded entrance at the great gate; which, being strongly barred, kept them out for some time. But in a short space they broke it, and presently drove all they found, by their advantage of numbers, into the earl’s chamber; whence, by the assistance of only three swords and pistols, we kept them out for half an hour, in which dispute many of us were wounded by their swords and pistols, whereof they had many. To conclude, they broke the windows and the doors, and under the conduct of one Howard, an Irishman, who has three brothers, as I am told, in the king of England’s service, and an ensign in the company of cannoneers, they quickly found the earl in his bed, not able to stand by the violence of the gout; whence, after they had given him many blows with the;r swords and staves, mixed with horrible curses and oaths, they dragged him on the ground in the middle of the yard, where they encompassed him around with their swords, and after they had told him in their own language, how he had sold the kingdom, and robbed them of their pay, Howard commanded them all, as one man, to run their swords through his body. But what difference arose among themselves before they could agree, God above, who alone sent this spirit of dissention, only knows. In this interval their lieutenant, one Svvaine, came and disarmed them. Sixteen of the ringleaders were put into prison; and many of those things they had rifled from him, found again, which were restored, and of great value. Mons. la Fonde, a great man belonging to the king of France’s bed-chamber, sent to conduct the earl on his way thither, was so desperately wounded in the head, that there were little hopes of his life. Many of these assassins were grievously wounded; and this action is so much resented by all here, that many of these criminals will meet with an usage equal to their merit. Had we been sufficiently provided with fire-arms, we had infallibly done ourselves justice on them; however, we fear not but the law will supply our defect.”

Being greatly afflicted with the gout, and not finding himself secure in that part of France, he went in the summer to Montpelier, where, recovering his health in a considerable measure, he continued three or four years. In 1672 he resided at Moulins, and removing thence to Rouen, died Dec. 9, 1673, in that city; from whence his body was brought to England, and interred on the north side of Henry Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey. He was twice married: first to Anne, daughter of sir Gregory Ayloffe, of Robson, in Wiltshire, knt. and this lady dying without issue, to Frances, daughter, and at length heiress, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, bart. in 1634; by whom he had four sons and two daughters. Anne his eldest daughter was married, as we have already observed, to the duke of York, by which match she became mother to two daughters, Mary and Anne, who were successively queens of England. Besides these, she brought the duke four sons and three daughters, who all died in their infancy. The last was born Feb. 9, 1670-1, and her mother died on March 31 following; having a little before her death changed her religion, to the great grief of her father, who on that occasion wrote a most pathetic letter to her, and another to the duke her consort.

It is as a historian that lord Clarendon will be longest remembered, and if compared with those who preceded, or were contemporaries with him, his superiority must in every respect be acknowledged. He knew more and has told more of the histories of his times than any other man, and that with an impartiality which gives us an equally favourable opinion of his head as of his heart. It may be every where seen that he cannot disguise the truth even when it makes against the cause he supports; and where there is any appearance of partiality, it may easily be traced to a warmth of loyalty and friendship, for which every honourable man will find an apology in his own breast. The republicans of his time had much to allege against him, and those of more modern times will never forgive a loyalty which they cannot comprehend, a steadiness of principle which ill accords with their versatile schemes of innovation, and a species of patriotism which would preserve the balance between liberty and licentiousness. “Like justice itself,” says lord Orford, in a character of our author, by no means very favourable, “he held the balance between the necessary power of the supreme magistrate and the interests of the people. This never-dying obligation his contemporaries were taught to overlook and to clamour against, till they removed the only man, who, if he could, would have corrected his master’s evil government.” Such was Clarendon’s n^-erit in the corrupt court of Charles II. when, “if he had sought nothing but power, his power |iad never ceased.” The fact was, that Clarendon, in his History, not then published, but certainly written, had traced the misfortunes of the preceding reign to their true source, and was the only man at court who wished to profit by his experience. As to his style, as a historian, it has chiefly been objected that his periods are long; but it seems scarcely worth while to enlarge on the style of a writer who lived at a time when style was so little cultivated, so imperfectly known. His excellencies are his comprehensive knowledge of mankind, which enabled htm to draw those exact portraits of the leading characters of:his time, which have scarcely been equalled, and probably can never be excelled. No man brings us nearer to the personages with whom we wish to be familiar. He is, says Granger, in this particular as unrivalled among the moderns as Tacitus among the ancients. He paints himself in drawing the portraits of others; and we every where see the clear and exact comprehension, the uncommon learning, the dignity and equity of the lord chancellor, in his character as a writer.

, earl of Clarendon, eldest son of the chancellor, was born in 1638. Having received the rudiments of education, he early entered into business; for his father, apprehending of what fatal consequence it would be to the king’s affairs, if his correspondence should be discovered by unfaithful secretaries, engaged him, when very young, to write all his letters in cypher; so that he generally passed half the day in writing in cypher, or decyphering, and was so discreet, as well as faithful, that nothing was ever discovered by him. After the restoration, he was created master of arts, at Oxford, in 1660; and, upon settling the queen’s household, appointed chamberlain to her majesty. He was much in the queen’s favour; and, his father being so violently prosecuted on account of her marriage, she thought herself bound t. protect him in a particular manner. He so highly resented the usage his father met with, that he united himself eagerly to the party which opposed the court, and made no inconsiderable iigure in the list of speakers. Mr. "Grey has preserved a great number of his speeches. On his father’s death in 1674, he took his seat in the House of Lords; still continued his opposition, and even signed a protest against an address voted to the king on his speech. He still, however, held his post of chamberlain to the queen; and afterwards, shewing himself no less zealous against the bill of exclusion, was taken into favour, and made a privycounsellor, 1680. But he soon fell under the displeasure of the prevailing party in the House of Commons; who, unable to carry the exclusion bill, shewed their resentment against the principal opposers of it, by voting an address to the king, to remove from his presence and councils, the marquis of Worcester, and the earls of Halifax, Feversham, and Clarendon.

His State Letters, during his government of Ireland, and his Diary for the years 1687, 1688, 1689, and 169O, were published in 2 vols. 4to, 1763, from the Clarendon press in Oxford. “This diary,” says the editor, “presents us with a picture of the manners of the age in which the writer lived. We may learn from it, that at the close of the seventeenth century, a man of the first quality made it his constant practice to go to church, and could spend the day in society with his family and friends, without shaking his arm at a gaming-table, associating with jockies at Newmarket, or murdering time by a constant round of giddy dissipation, if not of criminal indulgence.” Besides the above, lord Clarendon drew up “Some account of the tombs and monuments in the cathedral church of Winchester, Feb. 1683,” which was continued and printed with Gale’s history of that church; and there are three tracts attributed to him, printed in Gutch’s “Collectanea.”

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

In 1658 he went to Oxford, and was admitted of Queen’s college, where he was soon after made Hebrew rea ler. The year after, Richard Cromwell, then chancellor of that university, directed his letters to the delegates, signifying, that “Mr. Hyde was of full standing, since his admission, into the university of Cambridge, for the degree of master of arts, and that he had given public testimony of his more than ordinary abilities and learning in the Oriental languages;” on which they made an order that he should accumulate that degree by reading only a lecture in one of the Oriental languages in the schools; and having ac-. cordingly read upon the Persian tongue, he was created M. A. in April 1659. Soon after he was made underkeeper of the Bodleian library, upon the ejection of Mr,. Henry Stubbe; and behaved himself so well in this employment, that, when the office of head -keeper became vacant, he was elected into it with the unanimous approbation of the university. In 1665 he published a Latin translation from the Persian of Uiugh Beig’s “Observations concerning the Longitude and Latitude of the fixed Stars,” with notes. This Ulugh Beig was a great Tartajr monarch, the son of Shahrokn, and the grandson of Timur Beig, or, as he is usually called, Tamerlane. In the pre/ace he informs us, “that the great occupations of government hindered him from performing in person, so much as he would have done towards the completing this useful work: but that he relied chiefly on his minister Salaheddin, and t.iat he dying before the work was finished, his colleague Gaiatheddin Giamshed and his son Ali al Cousin were afterwards employed, who put the last hand to it.” It was written originally in the Arabic tongue, but afterwards translated twice into the Persian.

Hyginus wrote many books, which are mentioned by ancient writers. Gellius quotes a work “of the Lives and Actions of illustrious Men.” Servius, in his “Commentary upon the Æneid,” tells us, that he wrote upon “the Origin and Situation of the Italian Cities” which same work is also mentioned by Macrobius. Gellius again mentions his “Commentaries upon Virgil;” as does Macrobius a book “Concerning the Gods.” He wrote also “about Bees and Agriculture;” and lastly, a book of “Genealogies,” of which he himself has made mention in the only undoubted work of his remaining, that is, in his “Poeticon Astronomicon, de mundi & sphaerae ac utriusque partium declaratione, libris quatuor, ad M. Fabium couscrip-f, turn.” The first book treats of the world and of the doctrine of the sphere; the second of the signs in the zodiac; the third gives a description and history of the constellations; and the fourth treats of several things relating to the planets. Here, while Hyginus describes the constellations in the heavens, and notes the stars which belong to each, he takes occasion to explain the fables of the poets from which the constellations were supposed originally to have taken their rise and name; and hence his work seems to have been called “Poeticun Astronomicon.” It has come down to us, however, very imperfect; and all that part of it, -which, as he tells us, treated of the month, the year, and the reasons of intercalating the months, is entirely lost. To this is joined a book of fables, in which the heathen mythology is reduced into a compendium: but this is imperfect, and suspected to be spurious. There are many editions of these books, but the best is that which Munker published, together with some other pieces of antiquity upon the same or a similar subject, under the title of “Mythographi Latini,” Amst. 16*1, 2 vols. 8vo. The third book of the Astronomies, is illustrated with several copper-plates of the constellations elegantly engraved, which Grotius had published from the Susian ms. but which, Schetter tells us, he had omitted in his edition of 1674, because he knew those ancient delineations to be very erroneous, and very ill done.

While Hypatia thus reigned the brightest ornament of Alexandria, Orestes was governor of the same place for the emperor Theodosius, and Cyril bishop or patriarch. Orestes, having had a liberal education, admired Hypatia, and frequently consulted her. This created an intimacy between them that was highly displeasing to Cyril, who had a great aversion to Orestes: which intimacy, as it is supposed, had like to have proved fatal to Orestes, as we may collect from the following account of Socrates. “Certain of the Monks,” says he, “living in the Nitrian mountains, leaving their monasteries to the number of about five hundred, flocked to the city, and spied the governor going abroad in his chariot: whereupon approaching, they called him by the names of Sacrificer and Heathen, using many other scandalous expressions. The governor, suspecting that this was a trick played him by Cyril, cried out that he was a Christian; and that he had been baptized at Constantinople by bishop Atticus. But the monks giving no heed to what he said, one of them, called Ammonius, threw a stone at Orestes, which struck him on the head; and being all covered with blood from his wounds, his guards, a few excepted, fled, some one way and some another, hiding themselves in the crowd, lest they should be stoned to death. In the mean while, the people of Alexandria ran to defend their governor against the monks, and putting the rest to flight, brought Ammonius, whom they apprehended, to Orestes; who, as the laws prescribed, put him publicly to the torture, and racked him till he expired.”

But though Orestes escaped with his life, Hypatia afterwards fell a sacrifice. This lady, as we have observed, was profoundly respected by Orestes, who much frequented and consulted her “for which reason,” says Socrates, “she was not a little traduced among the Christian multitude, as if she obstructed a reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes. This occasioned certain enthusiasts, headed by one Peter a lecturer, to enter into a conspiracy against her; who watching an opportunity, when she was returning home from some place, first dragged her out of her chair; then hurried her to the church called Cæsars; and, stripping her naked, killed her with tiles. After this, they tore her to pieces; and, carrying her limbs to a place called Cinaron, there burnt them to ashes.” Cave endeavours to remove the imputation of this horrid murder from Cyril, thinking him too honest a man to have had any hand in it; and lays it upon the Alexandrian mob in general, whom he calls “levissimum hominum genus,” “a very trifling inconstant people.” But though Cyril should be allowed to have been neither the perpetrator, nor even the contriver of it, others have thought that he did not discountenance it in the manner he ought to have done: and was so farfrom blaming theoutrage committed by the Nitrian monks upon the governor Orestes, that “he afterwards received the dead body of Ammonius, whom Orestes had punished with the rack; made a panegyric upon him, in the church where he was laid, in which he extolled his courage and constancy, as one that had contended for the truth; and, changing his name to Thaumasius, or the Admirable, ordered him to be considered as a martyr. However, continues Socrates, the wiser sort of Christians did not approve the zeal which Cyril shewed on this man’s behalf; being convinced, that Ammonius had justly suffered for his desperate attempt.” We learn from the same historian, that the death of Hypatia happened in March, in the 10th year of Honorius’s, and the 6th of Theodosius’s, consulship that is, about A. D. 415.

, of Alexandria, a disciple of Isidorus, flourished under M. Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, in the second century. He has been supposed to be the author of a certain work called “Anaphoricus,” or a book of ascensions, which was written in opposition to the doctrines of some astronomer. It was published in Greek, with the Latin version of Mentelius, and in conjunction with the Optics of Heliodorus, at Paris, in 1680, 4to. Vossius, in his book “de Scientiis Mathematicis,” has erroneously supposed him to have lived at a much earlier period.

, an Arabian philosopher, was contemporary with Averroes, who died about the year 1198. He composed a philosophical romance, entitled “The Life or History of Hai Ebn Yokdhan” in which he endeavours to demonstrate, how a man may, by the mere light of nature, attain the knowledge of things natural and supernatural; particularly the knowledge of God, and the affairs of another life. He lived at Seville in Spain, as appears from one or two passages in this work, and was famous for his medical skill, and for his knowledge of the Peripatetic philosophy, of which this work exhibits a favourable specimen, as it was taught among the Saracens. He wrote some other pieces, which are not come to our hands; but, that this was well received in the East, appears from its having been translated by R. Moses Narbonensis, into Hebrew, and illustrated with a large commentary. It was published in 1671, with an accurate Latin version, by Mr. Edward Pococke, son of Dr. Pococke, professor of the Oriental languages at Oxford; and, in 1708, an English translation of it from the Arabic was given by Simon Ockley, soon after Arabic professor at Cambridge. It is written with great elegance of language, and vigour of imagination.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Little Waldingfield in Suffolk in 1593; his father, who was a Spanish merchant in London, died when he was young. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he appears to have taken his degrees in arts, and in 1617 was incorporated M. A. at Oxford. While at college he commenced the habit of rising every morning at three or four o'clock, both summer and winter, and studied from fourteen to sixteen hours every day. He continued at Cambridge until his marriage in 1519, soon after which.he was chosen by the inhabitants of St. Michael, Wood-street, London, to be their lecturer, and on the death of Mr. Brogden, their pastor. During the plague in 1624, he was one of those who remained at his post, and administered such aid to the sick and dying as he could, and was in other respects scrupulously diligent in preaching, catechizing, &c. When the reading of the “Book of Sports” was enjoined, he refused that foolish and imprudent mandate; yet such was his character, that when complained of to archbishop Laud for this omission, that prelate said, “Mr. Jackson is a quiet and peaceable man, and therefore I will not have him meddled with.” He was not less respected by archbishop Sheldon, notwithstanding his very different opinion on church-government and ceremonies. He afterwards accepted the living of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s, whence he was ejected in 1662. He was no friend to the tyranny of Cromwell, and was imprisoned above four months for refusing to give evidence against Mr. Love, before what was called the high court of justice, and was also fined 500l. On the restoration, when Charles II. made his entry into London, Mr. Jackson was appointed by the London clergy to present to him a Bible, as his majesty passed through St. Paul’s churchyard. After his ejection, he employed his leisure in pursuing his annotations on the Bible, during the short remainder of his life. He died Aug. 5, 1666. His “Annotations on the Bible,” as far as the book of Isaiah, were published in 4 vols. 4to, the last by his son, who prefixed ta it some memoirs of the author.

In 1742, he had an epistolary debate with his friend William Whiston, concerning the order and times of the high priests. In 1744, he published “An Address to the Deists, &c.” in answer to Morgan’s “Resurrection of Jesus considered by a Moral Philosopher;” and, in 1745, entered the lists against Warburtori, in “The Belief of a Future State proved to be a fundamental article of the religion of the Hebrews, and held by the philosophers, &c.” and two or three polemic pieces with Warburton were the consequence of this. His next work was, “Remarks upon Middleton’s Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.” and, after this, he does not appear to have published any thing till 1752, except that, in 1751, he communicated to Mr. John Gilbert Cooper, for the use of his “Life of Socrates,” some learned notes; in which he contrived to avenge himself upon his old antagonist Warburton. At the same time he exposed the young and incautious writer to the resentment of that veteran, who did not fail to shew it in one of his notes upon Pope. In 1752, came out his last and best work, “Chronological Antiquities,” in 3 vols. 4to. He afterwards made many collections and preparations for an edition of the New Testament in Greek, with Scholia in the same language; and would have inserted all the various readings, had not the growing infirmities of age prevented him. An account of the materials of this intended edition, with notes containing alterations, corrections, additions to his “Chronology,” are inserted in an appendix to “Memoirs” of him printed in 1764, by Dr. Sutton of Leicester.

He died May 12, 1763. By his wife, who died before him, he had twelve children; but only four survived him. He was a man of great application and learning, but not of parts or genius, and totally devoid of taste. His knowledge too was confined to the precincts of Greek and Latin: for he knew nothing of oriental languages, except a little Hebrew; and of the modern languages, even the French, was altogether ignorant. Though of a spirit somewhat litigious, and not a little bigoted to his opinions, he was good-natured, hospitable, and cheerful; and easy, complacent, and agreeable to all who were connected with or dependent upon him,

Jackson’s fame, in a great measure, may be said to be founded in his judgment of selection with regard to poetry; though he sometimes took unwarrantable liberties with his author, in order to accommodate the lines to his music. Perhaps no composer copied less from others than Jackson, jet at the same time it must be admitted that he was a palpable mannerist. His most interesting and novel melodies are too frequently associated with common passages that have existed almost from the origin of music; the descent of four notes in the diatonic order is sufficient to illustrate our meaning. Jackson’s peculiar fort existed in giving an elegant and plaintive melody to elegiac poetry. In constituting harmony, without rendering the middle part or parts of a composition destitute of melody, Jackson stands unrivalled. This is no trivial praise, when it is known that, before his time, composers were, and are at present, very defective in this part of their art. It was a defect in Jackson’s music, that his melody would suit any species of plaintive lines: few of his compositions displayed the art of mingling expression with melody, and preserving the latter in its purity. His “Fairy Fantasies,” not yet published, evince more congruity than any others of his works.

He long taught music at Exeter, and in 1777 was appointed organist of that cathedral. In 1782 he rose at once to literary fame by the publication of “Thirty Letters on various subjects,” 2 vols. 12mo. These principally consisted of essays on the belles lettres, and evinced taste, learning, vivacity, and even genius. In 1798 he published “The Four Ages, together with Essays on various subjects,” 8vo, which consisted of so much instructive, original, and entertaining matter, that it added considerably to the author’s well-earned fame. It contained, however, some opinions on religion, not sufficiently considered, which gavel offence to serious readers. He also published “A Treatise on the present state of Music,” 1791, and eighteen musical works, consisting of hymns, songs, canzonets, elegies, and “An Ode to Fancy.” Mr. Jackson also paid his court to the graphic muse, but never looked at nature, believing, that by copying other masters he might at last arrive at excellence. His great model was his friend Gainsborough, whose colouring and composition he constantly endeavoured to imitate, sometimes with a degree of success which induced him to lay a false claim to the merit of originality. But, had he succeeded in even equalling that great artist, his pictures would not have spoken the language of nature; the man who merely copies another, either in music or painting, can never be considered a great artist; he can only be a faint echo, and ranked among the servum pecus imitatorum.

, a poetical and dramatic writer, was the son of a considerable maltster of Romsey, in the county of Southampton, at which place he was born in 1686. He was bred to the Jaw under an eminent attorney, and was afterwards steward and secretary to the Hon. William Blathwayt, esq. a celebrated courtier in the reign of king William, and who enjoyed great preferments in that and the subsequent reign. These are the only particulars of his life which have been handed down, and are what he inserted in his “Poetical Register,” where he also informs us that he was a great admirer of poets. He died May 8, 1744. His admiration of poetry, although it could not make him a poet, led him to inquire into poetical history, and gradually produced his “Poetical Register, or Lives and Characters of the English dramatic poets,” 1723, 2 vols. which, says Baker, notwithstanding some few errors in it, is by much the best book of the kind hitherto extant; and yet so little merit had his own two dramatic pieces, Love in a Wood“and” The Soldier’s Last Stake,“that, according to Whincop, Dr. Sewel, who was by no means remarkable for ill-nature, on reading his” Love in a Wood," wrote the following very severe lines in the title-page:

He also published several poems: “A Journey to Bath and Bristol,” “The Lover’s Miscellany,” “Essays relating to the conduct of Life,” and “An Essay on Criticism, &c.” But as a law-writer, few men have left more ample testimonies of industry, and one at least of his productions still preserves his name. He published, 1. “The Accomplished Conveyancer,” 1714, reprinted in 1736 and 1750, 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Clerk’s Remembrancer.” 1714, reprinted 1730. 3. “The Grand Precedent,” 1716, 8vo. 4. “A Catalogue of all Writs and Processes of the Courts at Westminster,” 1717, 8vo. 5. “Lex Mercatoria, or the merchants’ companion,” 1718, 8vo, reprinted 1729. 6. “The Laws of Appeals and Murder,” from the Mss. of Mr. Gale, an eminent practiser, 1719, 8vo. 7. “Lex Constitutions, or the gentleman’s law,” 1719, 8vo, reprinted 1737. 8. “The Modern- Justice, containing the business of a justice of peace, with precedents,” 1720, reprinted in 1726 and 1729. 9. “Review of the Statutes,” 3720, and again the same year. 10. “A Treatise of the Laws, or a general introduction to the common, civil, and canon law,” 1721, 8vo. 11. “The complete Court Keeper, or lord steward’s assistant,” 1724, 8vo, reprinted 1740, 1752, 1764, and 1781, which last edition, much improved, is called the seventh. 12. “The Student’s Companion, or reason of the law,” 1725, again in 1734 and 1743. 13. “The Common Law common-placed/' 1726, 8vo, reprinted in fol. 1733. 14.” The new Law Dictionary,“1729, reprinted in 1733, and often since, with the valuable improvements of Ruffhead, Morgan, and lastly of Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlyns, in 1797: an abridgment of it was published in 1743. 15.” The complete Chancery Practitioner,“1730, 2 vols. 8vo. 16.” Tables to the Law,“1736, fol. 17.” The complete. Attorney’s Practice,“1737, 2 vols. 8vo. 18.” City Libertie,“1732, and with a new title only, 1737. 19.” General Law of Estates,“1740, 8vo. 20.” Game Law,“1740, 12mo. the seventh edition. 21.” New complete Conveyancer,“1744, 8vo. 22.” The Statute Law common-placed,“1748, 8vo, fifth edition, 23. Law Grammar,” 1749 and 1754, 12mo. and again in folio, to bind up with the author’s Law Dictionary.

, the founder of the first independent or congregational church in England, was a native of Kent, and received his academical education at St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. Having entered into holy orders, he was made precentor of Corpus Christi college, and afterwards obtained the benefice of Cheriton in Kent. In the year 1604 he published “Reasons taken out of God’s word, and the best of human testimonies, proving the necessity of reforming our churches of England.” The publication of this, and of another work against what was falsely called “learned preaching,” would have brought him under ecclesiastical censure if he had not fled to Holland. At Leyden he became a convert to the Brownist principles, since known by the name of Independency. In Holland he published several treatises, and upon his return he avowed a design of setting up a separate congregation upon the model of those in Holland. This, in a short time, he carried into effect, and thus laid the foundation of the first independent congregational chinch in England. He was elected pastor of the church, and continued with his people till the year 1624, when he went to Virginia, where he soon afterwards died. He was author of many publications which were highly esteemed in his day, particularly, 1. “A treatise of the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption, &c. written against certain errors in those points publicly preached in London, 1597,” Lond. 1598, 8vo. The points which he endeavours to confute were, 1. That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God, which we may well term the pains of hell. 2. That Christ, after his death on the cross, went not into hell in his soul. 2. “Of the Church and Ministry of England, written in two treatises against the reasons and objections of Mr. Francis Johnson,” Middleburg, 1599, 4to. Our author and Mr. Johnson, who was a Brownist, and lived in Holland, had several disputes at Amsterdam about the church of England’s being a true church. 3. “Defence of a treatise touching the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption,” 1600, 4to. 4. “Reasons taken out of God’s word,” &c. already merrtioned, 16CH, 4to. 5. “A Position against vain-glorious> and that which is falsely called learned preactiing,” 1604, 8vo. 6. “The divine beginning and institution of Christ’s true, visible, and material Church,” Leyden, 1610, 8vo. 7. “Plain and clear Exposition of the Second Commandment,” 1610, 8vo. 8. “Declaration and opening of certain points, with a sound confirmation of some others, in a treatise entitled * The divine beginning,' &c.” Middleburg, 1611. He wrote and published likewise several pieces, as the “Counter- Poison,” &c. which being printed privately, or on the continent, are rarely to be met with.

, son of the preceding, was born either in 1606 or 1607. As his father was warmly attached to puritanical principles, he was sent abroad for education; in the course of which he was put under the tuition of the celebrated Erpenius, professor of Arabic in the university of Leyden, and by the help of strong natural parts, united with a vigorous application, he in a short time made a surprising progress in philological and oriental literature. When he was about twenty-two years of age he returned to England, and was recommended by Mr. William Bedwell, a noted orientalist of that time, to William earl of Pembroke, chancellor of Oxford, as an extraordinary young man, who deserved particular encouragement. Accordingly, that generous nobleman immediately wrote to the university letters in his behalf, requesting that he might be created bachelor of arts to which degree he was admitted in Jan. 1628-9. In the earl’s recommendation, Jacob was described as having profited in oriental learning above the ordinary measures of his age. Soon after he obtained the patronage of John Selden, Henry Briggs, and Peter Turner, and, by their endeavours, was elected probationer fellow of Mertonr college in 1630. Not, however, being sufficiently skilled in logic and philosophy to carry him through the severe exercises of that society, the warden and fellows tacitly assigned him the situation of philological lecturer. He was then, for a while, diverted from his studies by attending to some law-suits concerning his patrimony, at the conclusion of which he fell into a Dangerous sickness, and, by the sudden loss of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, his life was in danger. Bishop Laud, that great encourager of literature, having succeeded the earl in the chancellorship of Oxford, a way was found out, from Merton college statutes, to make Mr. Jacob Socius Grammaticus, that is, Reader of Philology to the Juniors, a place which had been disused for about a hundred years. Being now completely settled in his fellowship, he occasionally resided with Mr. Selden, and assisted him as an amanuensis in one of the works which he was publishing, and which, we apprehend, must have been the “Mare clausum.” Selden, in acknowledging his obligations, styles him, “doctissimus Henricus Jacobus.” It is even understood, that Jacob added several things to the book, which Mr. Seldeir, finding them to be very excellent, permitted to stand. Nay, it is said, that Jacob improved Selden in the Hebrew language. In 1636, Mr. Jacob was created master of arts, and in June 1641, he was elected superior beadle of divinity. At the beginning of the November of the following year, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of ptiysic: “but his head,” says Anthony Wood, “being always over-busy about critical notions (whicbr made him sometimes a little better than crazed), he neglected his duty so much, that he was suspended once, if not twice, from his place, and had his beadle’s staff taken from him.” In consequence of the rebellion, and his attachment to archbishop Laud, he soon became exposed to other calamities. Sir Nathaniel Brent, the republican warden of Merton college, silenced Mr Jacob as philological lecturer; and at length he was totally deprived of his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors. Being now destitute of a sufficient maintenance, he retired to London, where Mr. Selden assisted him, gave him his clothes, and, among the rest, an old scarlet cloak, the wearing of which rendered poor Jacob an object of mirth to some of his acquaintance, who, when they saw it upon his back, used to call him “Young Selden.” “But being,” says Wood, “a shiftless person, as most mere scholars are, and the benefactions of friends not sufficing him,” he sold a small patrimony which he had at Godmersham in Kent, to supply his necessities, and died before the money was spent. He had brought on a bad habit of body by his close application to his studies. In September 1652, he retired to the city of Canterbury, where he was kindly entertained by Dr. William Jacob, a noted physician of that place; but who, though of the same name, was not related to our author. By this gentleman he was cured of a gangrene in his foot; but this being followed by a tumour and abscess in one of his legs, the discharge proved too violent for his constitution, and he died Nov. 5, 1652. The next day Dr. Jacob buried him in a manner answerable to his quality, in the parish-church of All Saints in Canterbury. Anthony Wood says, that Mr. Jacob died about the year of his age forty-Spur. But if the circumstances of his history be carefully compared together, it will be found that he was probably not less than forty-six years old at the time of his decease. As to his character, it appears that he was an innocent, harmless, careless man, who was entirely devoted to the pursuits of literature, and totally ignorant of the world.

, was a rabbi of the sixteenth century, who rendered himself famous by the collection of the Masora, which was printed at Venice in 1525 with the text of the Bible, the Chaldee paraphrase, and the commentaries of some rabbies upon Scripture. This edition of the Hebrew Bible, and those which follow it with the great and small Masora compiled by this rabbi, are much esteemed by the Jews; there being nothing before exact or accurate upon the Masora, which is properly a critique upon the books of the Bible, in order to settle the true reading. In the preface to his great Masora he shews the usefulness of his work, and explains the keri and ketib, or the different readings of the Hebrew text: he puts the various readings in the margin, because there are just doubts concerning the true reading; he observes also, that the Talmudish Jews do not always agree with the authors of the Masora. Besides the various readings collected by the Masorets, and put by this rabbi in the margin of his Bible, he collected others himself from the ms copies, which must be carefully distinguished from the Masora.

, an industrious French author and bibliographer, was born at Chalons sur Saone, Aug. 20, 1608. He was educated among the Carmelites, and entered into that order in 1625, and, during his studies, the distinguished progress he made in theology and 'he belles lettres, procured him easy access to the libraries and the collections of literary men of eminence, who contributed very readily to promote his taste for bibliography and literary history. In 1639 he went to Italy, and resided some time at Rome, consulting the libraries, and collecting materials for his future works, particularly his “Bibliotheca Pontificia,” which he undertook at the solicitation of Gabriel Naude“, and published at Lyons in 1642; but this is by far the worst specimen of his talents, and has many ridiculous errors, which we can only ascribe to his having hastily copied erroneous catalogues, without consulting the books themselves. On his return to Paris he became librarian to de Gondi, afterwards cardinal de Retz, and was likewise appointed counsellor and almoner to the king. We find him then librarian to de Harlay, first president of the parliament of Paris, in whose house he lodged, and where he died May 10, 1670. He was a man of great industry and application, and continually employed in inquiries into the history of literature and literary men; but he was deficient in critical taste, undertook too many things at once, and hence committed errors which have thrown a suspicion on the general accuracy of all his works. Niceron has enumerated thirty-seven of his publications, of which the principal are, 1.” Bibliotheca Pontificia,“already mentioned, Lyons, 1643, 4to. 2.” Traite“des plus belles Bibliotheques du monde,” Paris, 1644, 8vo. 3. “Bibliotheca Parisina, hoc est Catalogus omnium librorum Parisiis annis 1643 & 1644 inclusive excusorum,” Paris, 1645, 4to. This catalogue, for such it simply is, without any thing but the titles of the books, he continued to the year 1650; and by way of supplement compiled his “Bibliotheca Gallica universalis,” for the same or a greater number of years, including books published in other parts of France. 4. “De Claris Scriptoribus Cabilonensibus, libri tres,” 1652, 4to. Among the many plans which he meditated, one was an universal library of French authors, which he is said to have compiled, but what became of it is not known. If completed, as Mr. Dibdin says, in 1638, it could not have been a work of much accuracy, for he had then scarcely attained his thirtieth year, and published long afterwards works which sufficiently shew that he never attained much experience and correctness in his researches.

, commonly called Lucas Van Leyden, and by the Italians, Luca d'Ollanda, was born at Leyden, 1494. He was the disciple of his father Hugh Jacobs, and after him of Cornelius Engelbrecht, and distinguished himself in very early life as a painter and engraver. With fewer faults than his contemporaries, he possessed qualities to them unknown, more freshness and mellowness of colour, more aerial perspective, and equal dexterity in oil, distemper, and on glass. He delighted in subjects of extensive composition, though he was ignorant of light and shade in masses. His forms, like those of Albert Durer, are implicit copies of the model, but with less variety and less intelligence, lank, meagre, ignoble. Of expression he had little more than the vulgar grimace. Though he was without attention or knowledge of the costume in the general attire of his figures, his drapery is often ample and broad, but rather snapt than folded. Many pictures of this master in oil and distemper still exist in public places and private collections, at Leyden, Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere. His name, however, chiefly survives in the numerous prints which he engraved with equal diligence and facility of touch. He died in 1533.

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Stutgard, 1647, of a father who was counsellor of the dispatches to the duke of Wirtemberg. After he had finished his studies, he was entrusted with the education of duke Eberhard III. with whom he travelled into Italy in 1676, as preceptor. This charge being completed, he taught philosophy and divinity; and in 1698 was nominated a counsellor to the duke of Wirtemberg. The following year he became consistorial counsellor and preacher. to the cathedral of Stutgard, and superintendant-general and abbot of the monastery of Adelberg. At last he was promoted in 1702 to the places of first professor of divinity, chancellor of the university, and provost of the church of Tubingen. He died in 1720. His principal works are, 1. “Ecclesiastical History compared with Profane History,” 2. “A System or Compendium of Divinity.” 3. “Several Pieces upon Mystic Divinity, in which he refutes Poiret, Fenelon,” &c. “4.” Observations upon Puffendorf and Grotius, de jure belli & pacis.“5.” A Treatise of Laws.“6.” An Examination of the life and doctrine of Spinosa.“7.” A Moral Theology," &c. All his works are in Latin.

, an English poet, descended of a Cornish family, was the third son of the rev. Richard Jago, rector of Beaudesert, or Beldesert, in Warwickshire, by Margaret, daughter of William Parker, gent, of Henley in Arden, and was born Oct. 1, 1715. He received his classical education under the rev. Mr. Crumpton, an excellent schoolmaster at Solihull in the same county, but one whose severity our poet has thought proper to record in his “Edge-hill.” At this school he formed an intimacy, which death only dissolved, with the poet Shenstone, whose letters to him have since been published. In their early days they probably exchanged their juvenile verses, and afterwards communicated to each other their more serious studies and pursuits. Somerville also appears to have encouraged our author’s first attempts, which were made at a yet earlier period, when under his father’s humble roof. From school he was entered as a servitor of University college, Oxford, where Shenstone, then a commoner of Pembroke, the late rev. Richard Greaves, Mr. Whistler, and others who appear among Shenstone’s correspondents, showed him every respect, notwithstanding the inferiority of his rank. A young man of whatever merit, who was servitor, was usually visited, if visited at all, with secrecy, but this prejudice is now so much abolished that the same circumspection is not thought necessary. He took his master’s degree July 9, 1738, having entered into the church the year before, and served the curacy of Snitterfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon. His father died in 1740. In 1744, or according to Shenstone’s letters, in 1743, he. married Dorothea Susanna Fancourt, daughter of the rev. Fancourt of Kimcote in Leicestershire, a young lady whom he had known from her childhood.

His other pieces require no distinct notice. Shenstone, in a letter dated 1759, mentions an “Essay on Electricity,” written by Jago, but whether published we have not been able to discover. In 1755 he printed a very sensible and seasonable discourse, entitled “The Causes of Impenitence considered, preached at Harbury, May 4, 1755, on occasion of a conversation said to have passed between one of the inhabitants and an apparition, in the church-yard belonging to that place.” From this incident, which he does not consider it as his business either to confirm or disprove, he takes an opportunity to enforce the necessity of repentance. Another Sermon, 1763, is attributed to him in. Cooke’s Historical Register, of which we can find no mention any where else.

king of Scotland, of the house of Stuart, was born in 1394. In 1405 his father Robert III. sent him to France, in order that he might escape the dangers to which he was exposed from his uncle the duke of Albany, but being taken by an English squadron, he and his whole suite were carried prisoners to the Tower of London. Here the young prince received an excellent education, to which Henry IV. of England was remarkably attentive, thereby making some atonement for his injustice in detaining him. Sir John Pelham, a man of worth and learning was appointed his governor, under whose tuition he made so rapid a progress, that he soon became a prodigy of talents and accomplishments. Robert died in the following year, and James was proclaimed king, but during the remainder of the reign of Henry IV. and the whole of that of Henry V. he was kept in confinement, with a view of preventing the strength of Scotland from being united to that of France against the English arms. At length, under the regency of the duke of Bedford, James was restored to his kingdom, having been full eighteen years a prisoner in this country. James was now thirty years of age, well furnished with learning, and a proficient in the elegant accomplishments of life, and dextrous in the manly exercises, which at that period were in high estimation. He married Joanna Beaufort, daughter of the duchess of Clarence, a lady of distinguished beauty, descended from the royal family of England; and on his return to Scotland, finding that the dujte of Albany and his son had alienated many of the most valuable possessions of the crown, instantly caused the whole of that family and their adherents to be arrested. The latter were chiefly discharged; but the late regent, his two sons, and his father-in-law, he caused to be convicted, executed, and their estates to be confiscated to the crown. Whatever other objections were made to James’s conduct, he procured the enactment of many good laws in his parliaments, which had a tendency to improve the state of society; but at the same time his desire of improving the revenues of the crown led him to many acts of tyranny, which rendered him odious to his nobility. In 1436 he gave his daughter Margaret in marriage to the dauphin of France, and sent with her a splendid train and a vast body of troops. The English, who had in vain attempted to prevent this union by negociation, now endeavoured to intercept the Scotch fleet in its passage, but they missed their object, and the princess arrived in safety at Rochelle. James, exasperated at this act of hostility, declared war against England, and summoned the whole array of his kingdom to assist in the siege of Roxburgh; which, however, he abandoned upon an intimation of a conspiracy being formed against himself by his own people. He now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Perth, which he had himself founded, where he lived in privacy, but this, instead of preventing, facilitated the suecess of the plot formed against his life. The chief actors in this tragedy were Robert Graham, and Walter earl of Athol, the king’s uncle. The former was actuated by revenge for the sufferings of some of his family, the latter by the hope of obtaining the crown for himself. The assassins obtained by bribery admission into the king’s apartments; the alarm was raised, and the ladies attempted to secure the chamber-door; one of them, Catharine Douglas, thrust her arm through a staple, making therewith a sort of bar, in which state she remained till it was dreadfully broken by the force of the assailants. The instant they got admission, they dragged the king from his concealment, and put him to death with a thousand wounds on Feb. 20, 1437, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He is introduced in this work chiefly on account of his literary reputation, for he was a poet as well as a sovereign, and his works, descriptive of the manners and pastimes of the age, were once extremely popular, and are still read with delight by those who can relish the northern dialect. He is said by all the British historians to have been a skilful musician; and it is asserted, that he not only performed admirably on the lute and harp, but was the inventor of many of the most ancient and favourite Scottish melodies, but this Dr. Burney is inclined to doubt. Where this prince acquired his knowledge in music is not ascertained; but it is probable that it was in France, in his passage home from which country he was taken prisoner by the English. Before the reformation we hear of no music being cultivated in Scotland but plain-song, or chanting in the church; nor afterwards, for a long time, except psalmody.

The genuine and ancient Scots melodies are so truly national, that they resemble no music of any other part of Europe. They seem to have been wholly preserved by tradition till the beginning of the last century, when a collection of Scots songs was published by a Mr. Thomson of Edinburgh, for which there was a very large subscription; and in February 1722, a benefit concert was advertised for the editor, to be terminated at the desire of several persons of quality, with a Scottish song. To this publication and concert may be ascribed the subsequent favour of their national, singular, and often touching melodies, south of the Tweed. Tassoni, indeed, (lib. x. cap. 22.) tells us, that “Jarnes I. king of Scotland, had not only composed sacred music, but invented a new species of plaintive melody different from all others in which he has beenimitated by the prince of Venosa; who,” he adds, “in our times has embellished music with many admirable inventions.” This assertion, says Dr. Burney, greatly increased our desire to examine works in which so many excellencies were concentred; particularly as we had long been extremely desirous of tracing the peculiarities of the national melodies of Scotland, from a higher source than David Rizzio. But in a very attentive perusal of all the several parts of the whole six books of the prince of Venosa’s madrigals, we were utterly unable to discover the least similitude or imitation of Caledonian airs in any one of them; which, so far from Scots melodies, seem to contain no melodies at all; nor, when scored, can we discover the least regularity of design, phraseology, rhythm, or, indeed, any thing remarkable in these madrigals, except unprincipled modulation, and the perpetual embarrassments and inexperience of an amateur, in the arrangement and filling up of the parts. As a poet, however, there is less room to doubt James’s talents. He has found abundance of editors, but no complete and accurate impression of his works has hitherto made its appearance. Mr. Park, in his excellent edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” has given a list of them, and more particulars may be found in our principal authorities.

king of England, and VI. of Scotland, was the son of the unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland, by her cousin Henry, lord Darnley, and was born at Edinburgh-castle in June 1566, at the time when his mother had fixed her affections on the earl of Bothwell; the young prince, however, was committed to the charge of the earl of Mar, and in the following year, his mother being forced to resign the crown, he was solemnly crowned at Stirling, and all public acts from that time ran in his name. He was educated by the celebrated Buchanan while he was at Stirling castle; his progress in school-learning was rapid, and he manifested talents which presaged the future great man: but he became the prey of flatterers, who urged him to unpopular measures, which in 1582 produced a conspiracy of the nobles against him, who took possession of his person at Ruthven castle. From thence he was conveyed to the palace of Holyrood-house, and treated with much external respect, while in reality he was held in the utmost restraint. A new confederacy of other nobles produced his liberation, and he put himself under the sway of his favourite the earl of Arran, who was violent and unprincipled, and who carried on measures of severity againsf the nobles of the former conspiracy, and against the clergy who favoured them. He contrived to engage the mind of the young king with a constant round of amusement, and he himself exercised with unlimited sway all the regal authority, and by his insolence and rapacity rendered himself universally odious. Queen Elizabeth of England had long employed her arts to maintain a party in the country, which policy was become more necessary on account of her conduct to its queen. Though James had hitherto been induced to treat his mother very irreverently, yet when her life appeared to be in imminent danger, from the sentence pronounced against her by an English court of judicature, he felt himself bound to interfere, and wrote a menacing letter to Elizabeth on the occasion. He also applied to other courts for their assistance, and assembled his own nobles, who promised to stand by him in preventing or avenging such an injustice. When he learned the fatal catastrophe, he rejected with a proper spirit of indignation the hypocritical excuses of Elizabeth, and set about preparations for hostilities; but reflecting on his own resources, which were inadequate to the purposes of carrying on a serious war, he resolved to resume a friendly correspondence with the English court. It is to the honour of James that one of the' first acts of his full iriajority, in 1587, was an attempt to put an end to all family feuds among the nobility, and personally to reconcile them with each other at a solemn festival in Holyrood-house. When the invasion of England was resolved upon by Philip, king of Spain, he put his kingdom into a state of defence, resolving to support the queen against her enemies. His people also were zealous for the preservation of Protestantism, and entered into a national bond for the maintenance of true religion, which was the origin and pattern of all future engagements of the kind, under the name of solemn leagues and covenants. In 1589 he married Anne, daughter of Frederic king of Denmark, and as contrary winds prevented her coming to Scotland, he went to fetch her, and passed the winter in a series of feasting and amusements at Copenhagen. On his return he was frequently in danger from conspiracies against his life, particularly from those excited by the earl of Bothwell. In 1600, while the country was in a state of unusual tranquillity, a very extraordinary event took place, the nature and causes of which were never discovered. While the king was upon a hunting excursion, he was accosted by the brother of Ruthven earl of Gowrie, who, by a feigned tale, induced him and a small train to ride to the earl’s house at Perth. Here he was led to a remote chamber on pretence of having a secret communicated td him, where he found a man in complete armour, and a dagger was put to his breast by lluthven, with threats of immediate death. His attendants were alarmed, and came to his relief; in the end Gowrie and his brother were slain, and the king escaped unhurt. In 1603, on the death of queen Elizabeth, James was proclaimed her successor, and proceeded, amidst the acclamations of his new subjects, to London. One of his first acts was to bestow a profusion of honours and titles upon the great men, as well of his own country as those of England. A conference held at Hampton-court in 1604, between the divines of the established church and the Puritans, afforded James a good opportunity of exhibiting his skill in theological controversy, and the ill-will he bore to popular schemes of church-government. Although the king had distinguished himself in his own country by lenity to the Roman Catholics, yet those of that religion in England were so much disappointed in their expectations of his favour, that a most atrocious plot was formed by the zealots of that party to bloxv up the House of Lords at the first meeting of parliament, and with it the king, queen, and prince of Wales, and all the principal nobility and gentry of the kingdom, and then to set upon the throne the young princess Elizabeth, and establish the Catholic religion. This plot was fortunately discovered on the eve of the designed execution, and the principal persons in it suffered the punishment dae to their crimes. His next object was to reduce Ireland to a settled form of law and government. fc

No circumstance, however, in James’s reign was more unpopular than his treatment of the celebrated sir Walter Raleigh, after the detection of a conspiracy with lord Grey, and lord Cobham, to set aside the succession in favour of Arabella Stuart: he was tried and capitally convicted, but being reprieved, he was kept thirteen years in prison. In 1615 he obtained by bribery his release from prison, but the king would not grant him a pardon. He went out on an expedition with the sentence of death hanging over his head; he was unsuccessful in his object, and on his return the king ordered him to be executed on his former sentence. James is supposed to have been more influenced to this deed by the court of Spain than by any regard to justice. The influence of that court on James appeared soon after in his negociations for marrying his son prince Charles to the infanta. The object was, however, not attained, and he afterwards married him to the French princess Henrietta, with the disgraceful stipulation, that the children of that marriage should be educated by their mother, a bigoted papist, till they were thirteen years of age. As he aavanced in years he was disquieted by a concurrence of untoward circumstances. The dissentions of his parliament were very violent, and the affairs of his son-in-law, the elector palatine, now king of Hungary, also were in a very disastrous state. He had undertaken the cause of the protestants of Germany, but instead of being the arbiter in the cause of others, he was stripped of his own dominions. In his defence, James declared war against the king of Spain and the emperor, and sent troops over to Holland to act in conjunction with prince Maurice for the recovery of the palatinate; but from mismanagement, the greater part of them perished by sickness, and the whole enterprise was defeated. Oppressed with grief for the failure of his plans, the king was seized with an intermitting fever, of which he died in March 1625. It would be difficult, says Hume, to find a reign less illustrious, yet more unspotted and unblemished, than that of James in both kingdoms. James possessed many virtues, but scarcely any of them pure or free from the contagion of neighbouring vices. His learning degenerated into pedantry and prejudice, his generosity into profusion, his good nature into pliability and unmanly fondness, his love of peace into pusillanimity, and his wisdom into cunning. His intentions were just, but more adapted to the conduct of private life than to the government of kingdoms. He was an encourager of learning, and was himself an author of no mean genius, considering the times in which he lived. His chief works were, “Basilicon Doron” and “The true Law of free Monarchies” but he is more known for his adherence to witchcraft and demoniacal possessions in his “Demonology,” and for his “Counterblast to Tobacco.” He was also a poet, and specimens of his talent, such as it was, are to be found in many of our miscellanies. He also wrote some rules and cautels t for the use of professors of the art, which, says Mr. Ellis, have been long, and perhaps deservedly disregarded. The best specimen of his poetical powers is his “Basilicon Doron,” which bishop Percy has reprinted in his “Reliques,” and declares that it would not dishonour any writer of that time. Both as a man of learning, and as a patron of learned men, sufficient justice, in our opinion, has never been done to the character of James I.; and although a discussion on the subject would extend this article too far, it would not be difficult to prove that in both respects he was entitled to a considerable degree of veneration.

, a learned English critic and divine, was born about 1571, at Newport in the Isle of Wight; and, being put to Winchester-school, became a scholar upon the foundation, and thence a fellow of New college in Oxford, 1593. He commenced M. A. in 1599; and the same year, having collated several Mss. of the Philobiblion of Richard of Durham, he published it in 4to at Oxford, with an appendix of the Oxford Mss. and dedicated it:o sir Thomas Bodley, apparently to recommend himself to the place of librarian to him, when he should have completed his design. Meanwhile James proceeded with the same spirit to publish a catalogue of all the Mss. in each college- library of both universities and in the compiling of it, having free access to the Mss. at Oxford, he perused them carefully, and, when he found any society careless of them, he borrowed and took away what he pleased, and put them into the public library. These instances of his taste and turn to books effectually procured him the designation of the founder to be the first keeper of the public library; in which office he was confirmed by the university in 1602. He filled this post with great applause and commencing D. D. in 1614, was promoted to the subdeanery of Wells by the bishop of that see. About the same time, the archbishop of Canterbury also presented him to the rectory of Mongeham in Kent, together with other spiritual preferments. These favours were undeniably strong evidences of his distinguished merit, being conferred upon him without any application on his part. In 1620, he was made a justice of the peace; and the same year resigned the place of librarian, and applied himself more intensely to his studies. Of what kind these were, we learn thus from himself: “I have of late,” says he in a letter, May 23, 1624, to a friend, “given myself to the reading only of manuscripts, and in them I find so many and so pregnant testimonies, either fully for our religion, or against the papists, that it is to be wondered at.” In another letter to archbishop Usher, the same year, he assures the primate he had restored 300 citations and rescued them from corruptions, in thirty quires of paper. He had before written to Usher upon the same subject, Jan. 28, 1623, when having observed that in Sixtus Sinensis, Alphonsus de Castro, and Antoninus’s Summae, there were about 500 bastard brevities and about 1000 places in the true authors which are corrupted, that he had diligently noted, and would shortly vindicate them out of the Mss. being yet only conjectures of the learned, be proceeds to acquaint him, that he had gotten together the flower of the English divines, who would voluntarily join with him in the search. “Some fruits of their labours,” continues he, “if your lordship desires, I will send up. And might I be but so happy as to have other 12 thus bestowed, four in transcribing orthodox writers, whereof we have plenty that for the substantial points have maintained our religion (40l. or 50l. would serve); four to compare old prints with the new; four other to compare the Greek translations by the papists, as Vedelius hath done with Ignatius, wherein he hath been somewhat helped by my pains; I would not doubt but to drive the papists out of all starting-holes. But alas! my lord, I have not encouragement from our bishops. Preferment I seek none at their hands; only 40l. or 60l. per ann. for others is that I seek, which being gained, the cause is gained, notwithstanding their brags in their late books.” In the convocation held with the parliament at Oxford in 1625, of which he was a member, he moved to have proper commissioners appointed to collate the Mss. of the fathers in all the libraries in England, with the popish editions, in order to detect the forgeries in the latter. This project not meeting with the desired encouragement, he was so thoroughly persuaded of the great advantage it would be both to the protestant religion and to learning, that, arduous as the task was, he set about executing it himself. We may form a probable conjecture of his plan, from a passage in the just cited letter to Usher, where he expresses himself thus: “Mr. Briggs will satisfy you in this and sundry other projects of mine, if they miscarry not for want of maintenance: it would deserve a prince’s purse. If I was in Germany, the state would defray all charges. Cannot our estates supply what is wanting? If every churchman that hath 100 per annum and upwards, will lay down but Is. for every hundred towards these public works, I will undertake the reprinting of the fathers, and setting forth of five or six orthodox writers, comparing of books printed with printed or written; collating of popish translations in Greek; and generally whatsoever shall concern books or the purity of them. I will take upon me to be a magister of S. Patalii in England, if I be thereunto lawfully required.”

His works are, 1. “Philobiblion R. Dunelmensis,” 1599, 4to. 2. “Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis,” Lond. 1600, 4to. 3. “Cyprianus Redivivus, &c.” printed with the “Ecloga.” 4. “Spicilegium divi Augustini hoc est, libri de fide ad Pet. Diacon. collatio & castigatio,” printed also with the “Ecloga.” 5. “Bellum papale seu concordia discors Sext. V. & dementis VIII. circa Hieronym. Edition.” Lond. 1600, 4to, and 1678, 8vo. 6. “Catalogus Librorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana,” Oxford, 1605, 4to, reprinted with many additions in 1620, 4to, to which was added an appendix in 1636: in this catalogue is inserted that of all the Mss. then in the Bodleian library. 7. “Concordantiae Ss. patrum, i.e. vera & pialibri Canticorum per patres universes, &c.” Oxford, 1607, 4to. 8. “Apology for John Wickliffe, &c.” Oxford, 1608, 4to to this is added the “Life of John Wickliffe.” 9. “A Treatise of the Corruption of Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, &c.” Lond. 1611, 4to, and 1688, 8vo; this is reckoned his principal work. It is amply analyzed by Oldys in his “Librarian.” 10. “The Jesuits’ Downfall threatened for their wicked lives, accursed manners, heretical doctrine, and more than Machiavelian policy,” Oxford, 1612, 4to; to this is added “The Life of father Parsons, an English Jesuit.” 11. “Filius Papae papalis,” ch. 1. Lond. 1621; translated from Latin into English by William Crashaw: the author’s name is not put to it 12. “Index generalis sanct, Patrum ad singulos versus cap. v. secundum Matthseum, &c.” Lond. 1624, 8vo. 13. “Notae ad Georg. Wicelium de methodo concordiae ecclesiasticae,” &c. 1695, 8vo. 14. “Vindiciae Gregorianae, seu restitutus Gregorius Magnus ex Mss. &c. de Genevas,” 1625. 15. “Manuduction, or Introduction unto Divinity, &c.” Oxford, 1625, 4to. 16. “Humble and earnest Request to the Church of England, for and in the behalf of books touching Religion,” in one sheet, 1625, 8vo. 17. “Explanation or enlarging of the Ten Articles in his Supplication lately exhibited to the clergy of the church of England,” Oxford, 1625, 4to. 18. “Specimen Corruptelarum poutificiorum in Cypriano, Ambrosio, Greg. Magno, &c.” Lond. 1626. 19. “Index librorum prohibitorum a pontificiis, Oxford,” 1627, 8vo. 20. “Admonitio ad theologos protestantes de libris pontificiorum caute legendis,” ms. 21. “Enchiridion theologicum,” ms. 22. “Liber de suspicionibus & conjecturis,” ms. These three Wood says he saw in the Lambeth library, under D. 42, 3; but whether printed, says he, I know not, perhaps the “Enchiridion” is. Dr. James likewise translated, from French into English, “The Moral Philosophy of the Stoics,” Lond. 1598, 8vo; and published two short treatises against the order of begging friars, written by Wickliffe; with a book entitled “Fiscus papalis, sive catalogus indulgentiarum,” &c. Lond. 1617, 4to: but some were of opinion this book was published by William Crashaw, already mentioned. Several letters of our author are in the appendix to Parr’s “Life of Usher.”

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in 1592, and admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, Sept. 23, 1608. In October 1611, he took the degree of B A. and in Jan. 1615, that of M. A. in which year also he became probationer fellow of his college. Having entered into holy orders, he preached frequently, and arrived to the degree of bachelor in divinity. Upon what occasion we know not, he travelled abroad; and was in Russia, in 1619, a tour to which country was very uncommon in those days. He was esteemed to be well versed in most parts of learning, and was noted, among his acquaintance, as a good Grecian and poet, an excellent critic, antiquary, and divine; and was admirably skilled i'n the Saxon and Gothic languages. As for his preaching, it was not approved of by any of the university, excepting by some of the graver sort. Of three sermons, delivered by him before the academics, one of them, concerning the observation of Lent, was without a text, according to the most ancient manner; another was against it, and a third beside it; “shewing himself thereby,” says Anthony Wood, “a humourous person.” Selden was much indebted to him for assistance in the composition of his “Marmora Arundeliana,” and acknowledges him, in the preface to that book, to be “Vir multijugae studiique indefatigabilis.” Mr. James also exerted the utmost labour and diligence in arranging and classifying sir Robert Cotton’s library; and it is somewhat singular that bishop Nicolson imputes the same kind of blame to him, of which Osborn, the bookseller, more coarsely accused Dr. Johnson, when compiling the Harieian Catalogue, viz. “that being greedy of making extracts out of the books of our history for his own private use, he passed carelessly over a great many very valuable volumes.” Nothing was wantnig to him, and to the encouragement of his studies, but a sinecure or a prebend; if he had obtained either of which, Wood says, the labours of Hercules would have seen/ted to be a trifle. Sir Symonds D'Ewes has described him as an atheistical profane scholar, but otherwise witty and moderately learned. “He had so screwed himself,” adds sir Symonds, “into the good opinion of sir Robert Cotton, that whereas at first he only permitted him the use of some of his books; at last, some two or three years before his death, he bestowed the custody of his whole library on him. And he being a needy sharking companion, and very expensive, like old sir Ralph Starkie when he lived, let out, or lent out, sir Robert Cotton’s most precious manuscripts for money, to any that would be his customers; which,” says sir Symonds, “1 once made known to sir Robert Cotton, before the said James’s face.” The whole of these assertions may be justly suspected. His being an atheistical profane scholar does not agree with Wood’s account of him, who expressly asserts that he was a severe Calvinist; and as to the other part of the accusation, it is undoubtedly a strong circumstance in Mr. James’s favour, that he continued to be trusted, protected, and supported, by the Cotton family to the end of his clays. (See our account of Sir Robert Cotton, vol. X. p. 326 et seqq.) This learned and laborious man fell a victim to intense study, and too abstemious and mortified a course of living. His uncle, Dr. Thomas James, in a letter to Usher, gives the following character of him: “A kinsman of mine is at this present, by my direction, writing Becket’s life, wherein it shall be plainly shewed, both out of his own writings, and those of his time, that he was not, as he is esteemed, an arch-saint, but an archrebel; and that the papists have been not a little deceived by him. This kinsman of mine, as well as myself, should be right glad to do any service to your lordship in this kind. He is of strength, and well both able and learned to effectuate somewhat in this kind, critically seen both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, knowing well the languages both French, Spanish, and Italian, immense and beyond all other men in reading of the Mss. of an extraordinary style in penning; such a one as I dare balance with any priest or Jesuit in the world of his age, and such a one as I could wish your lordship had about you; but paupertas inimica bonis est monbus, and both fatherless and motherless, and almost (but for myself) I may say (the: more is pity) friendless.”

Mr. James published several Latin sermons, as, 1. “Anti-Possevinus, sive Concio habita ad Clerum in Acad. Oxon. an. 1625, in 2 Tim. iv. 13.” Oxford, 1625, in 4to. 2. “Concio habita ad Clerum Oxon. de Ecclesia, in Matth. xvi. 18,” Oxford, 1633, in 4to. And several English sermons, as, l “Sermon concerning the Eucharist, delivered on Easter- Day, in Oxford, on Matth. xxvi. ver. 26, 27, 28,” London, 1629, in 4to. 2. “History of Preaching, or concerning the Apostles’ preaching and ours, on 1 Cor. ix. 16,” London, 163O, 4to. 3. “Sermon concerning the observation of Lent-fast,” London, 1630, 4to. There is no text prefixed to this sermon, but it is grounded on Luke iv. 2. 4. “Sermon concerning the times of receiving the Sacrament, and of mutual Forgiveness, delivered in Corpus Christi college at the election of a president, on 1 Cor. xi. 25.” London, 1632, 4to. 5. “Apologetical Essay for the Righteousness of a miserable unhappy People, preached at St. Mary’s in Oxford on Psalm xxxvii. 25,” London, 1632, 4to. He published also “Poemata qutedam in mortem clarissimi Viri Roberti Cottoni & Thomae Allen,” Oxford, 1633, in 4to. With these poems he published sir Thomas More’s Epistle written from Abingdon in Berkshire in 1519 to the university of Oxford, for the cultivation of the Greek tongue, which had been for many years neglected among the members of it. He likewise translated into English Minutius Felix’s “Octavius,” Oxford, 1636, 12mo. All the above-mentioned pieces, except the translation of the “Octavius,” he gave bound up in one volume to the Bodleian library, with a copy of verses of his composition written in a spare leaf before the first of them, beginning thus:

He wrote these verses, when he was closely confined by order of the House of Lords. He left behind him about 45 manuscripts either of his own composition, or collected by him from various authors, all written by his own hand, which came first into the hands of his friend Dr. Thomas Greaves, and afterwards into the Bodleian library. Those of his own composition are, 1. “Decanonizatio Thomae Cautuariensis & suorum,” folio. This book, containing 760 pages, begins thus “Viam regiam rnihi patefacit ad decanonizationem ficti & fucati Martyris,” &c. and the beginning of the epistle to the reader is this, “Amice Lector, rogatus sum ssepius,” &c. 2. “Comment, in Evangelia S. Johannis,” in two parts, 4to. The beginning- is, “Postmodo ad textum sacrse histories deveniam, ubi prius,” &c. Both parts contain about twelve sheets. 3. “Notae in aliquot loca Bibliae,” in three sheets, 4to. The beginning is, “Videte sub ficu, Paraphrastes sub umbrosa ficu,” &c. 4. “Antiquitates Insulae Victae,” in seventeen pages, 4to. The beginning is “Angli Saxones Marciarum,” &c. and of the epistle to the reader, “Utrum moriar priusquam hoc opus perfieiam, Deus novit,” &c. It is only a specimen or a foundation for a greater work to be built upon. 5. “Epistoiae ad ainicos suos doctos.” The beginning of the first epistle, which was written to Dr. Sebast. Benefield of Corpus Christi college, is, “Sancte Deus,” &c. This manuscript is a thick 4to, and contains epistles chiefly written to those of his own college, epitaphs, and some English copies of verses. 6. “Epigrams in Latin and English,” with other “Poems.” 7. “Reasons concerning the attempts on the Lives of great Personages,” &c. These reasons, which are six or more, have this beginning, “Sir, if you please to learn my mind concerning the attempts on the lives of great personages,” &c. written in two sheets folio. 8. “Two Sermons: the first on James v. 14, the second on John xii. 32,” both written in folio. 9. “Iter Lancastrense.” It is in English verse, and was written in 1636, and hath this beginning, “High Holt of Wood,” &c. It contains two sheets and a half. 10. “Glossarium Saxonicum-Anglicum. It is a long pocket-book. 11.” Glossarium Sax. Angl.“another part in 8vo. 12.” A Russian Dictionary, with the English to it. 13. “Observations made in his Travels through some parts of Wales, Scotland, on Shetland, Greenland,” &c. in four sheets, 4to. 14. “Observations made on the Countrey, with the Manners and Customs of Russia or Rusland,” ann. 1619, 8vo. It was intended to be transcribed, and to have other things added to it. Besides these fourteen books, Mr. Wood had another of “Epigrams,” chiefly in Latin, and some in Greek, in 8vo, dedicated to his tutor Dr. Sebast. Benefield. His collections are in twenty-four volumes in 4to, and seven in folio, and contain for the most part notes from ancient manuscripts, and sometimes from printed authors, relating to history and antiquity.

His fever powder was for a long time violently opposed by the faculty, who, as the composition was kept a secret, considered it as a nostrum, and refused to prescribe or countenance it. The admirable effects experienced from it forced it into general use, and it is now considered as the most efficacious medicine for fevers that is known. Dr. Pearson, who, in the Philosophical Transactions,vol. LXXXI. took great pains to analyze it, concludes that “by calcining bone ashes, that is, phosphorated lime, with antimony in a certain proportion, and afterwards exposing the mixture to a white heat, a compound may be formed containing the same ingredients, in the same proportion, and possessing the same chemical properties;” and the London Pharmacopoeia of 1788 contains a prescription, under the title of Pulvis Antimonialis, which is intended to answer the same purposes. “It is well known,” says Dr. Pearson, “that this powder cannot be prepared by following the directions of the specification in the court of chancery.” He therefore instituted a laborious chemical inquiry, first analytical, and then synthetical, in order to ascertain the composition.

According to the receipt in the possession of Mr. Bromfield, by which this powder was prepared forty-five years ago, and before any medicine was known by the name of James’s powder, two pounds of hartshorn shavings must be boiled, to dissolve all the mucilage, and then, being dried, be calcined with one pound of crude antimony, till the smell of sulphur ceases, and a light grey powder is produced. The same prescription was given to Mr. Willis above forty years ago, by Dr. John Eaton of the college of physicians, with the material addition, however, of ordering the calcined mixture to be exposed to a given beat in a close vessel, to render it white.“” Schroeder prescribes equal weights of antimony and calcined hartshorn; and Poterius and Michaelis, as quoted by Frederic Hoffman, merely order the calcination of these two substances together (assigning no proportion) in a reverberatory fire for several days." It has been alleged, that Dr. James obtained the receipt for his powder of a German baron named Schwanberg, or one Baker, to whom Schwanberg had sold it. This account we have not been able to verify, but if it- be true, baron Schwanberg, as he is called, was probably the descendant of the Schawanberg mentioned so long ago. Be it as it may, Dr. James was able to give that credit and currency to the medicine which otherwise it would not have had, and the public are therefore indebted to him for publishing, if not for inventing, a preparation of most admirable effect.

On the Malabar coast, soon after this, he fell in with a French ship from Mauritius, very much his superior in men and guns; she was called L'lndienne: after a smart action she struck, and he carried her in triumph to Bombay. Captain James, in an eminent manner, displayed his nautical abilities by shewing, that in despightof a contrary monsoon, a communication between Bombay and the Coromandel coast may be effected in cases of exigency. This passage was attempted by him in the first instance, and he accomplished it in nearly as short a time as it usually was done in the favourable monsoon. It was of the utmost moment that he succeeded at the time he did, for by it he confirmed to admiral Watson (then in the Ganges) the intelligence of the war with France, and brought to his assistance five hundred troops, by which the admiral and colonel Clive were enabled, in March 1757, to take Chandenagore, the chief of the French settlements in Bengal. In effecting this passage James crossed the equator in the meridian of Bombay, and continued his course to the southward as far as the tenth degree, and then was enabled to go as far to the eastward as the meridian of Atcheen head, the north-west extremity of Sumatra, from whence, with the north-east monsoon, which then prevailed in the bay of Bengal, he could with ease gain the entrance of the Ganges, or any port on the Coromandel coast.

, a celebrated Dominican, so called from the place of his birth in the state of Genoa, was born about 1230. He was provincial and counsellor of his order, and afterwards appointed archbishop of Genoa, by pope Nicholas IV. 1292. He ruled his church with great wisdom and prudence, held a provincial council in 1293, and died July 14, 1298. He left a “Chronicle of Genoa,” published in tom. XXVI. of the collection of Italian authors by Muratori; a great number of “Sermons,” 1589, and 1602, 2 vols. 8vo, and other works; among the most celebrated is a collection of legends of the saints, known by the name of “The Golden Legend;” the first edition is Cologna, 1470, fol. scarce; the Italian translation, Venice, 1476, fol. is also very scarce, as is the first edition of the French translation by John Batallier, Lyons, 1476, folio. This work contains so many puerile and ridiculous fables, that Melchior Cano said, “the author had a mouth of iron, a heart of lead, and but little wisdom, or soundness of judgment.”

, an eminent artist, the Vandyck of Scotland, was born in Aberdeen in 1586. At what age he went abroad is not known, but he studied under Rubens, with Vandyck, and returned to Scotland in 1628. After his return, he applied with indefatigable industry to portrait in oil, though he sometimes practised in history and landscape. His largest portraits were generally somewhat less than life. His excellence is said to consist in delicacy and softness, with a clear and beautiful colouring. When king Charles I. visited Scotland in 1633, the magistrates, knowing his majesty’s taste, employed Jameson to make drawings of the Scotish monarchs, with which the king was so much pleased, that he sat to him for a full length picture, presented him with a diamond ring from his finger, and on account of a complaint in his eyes or head, the king made him wear his hat, a privilege which he ever after used, and commemorated by always drawing himself with his hat on. So far also he imitated his master Rubens.

Many of the considerable families in Scotland are possessed of works by this great artist. The greatest collection is that at Taymouth, the seat of the earl of Breadalbane, Sir John Campbell of Glenorchy, his lordship’s ancestor, having been the chief and earliest patron of Jameson, who had attended that gentleman in his travels. In different gentlemen’s houses in the county of Aberdeen, there are portraits by Jameson, as well as in the halls of Marischal and King’s colleges. The most interesting of his pictures is that belonging to the earl of Findlater, at Cullen-house. This piece represents Jameson himself, as large as life, with a round hat on his head. He is looking you in the face, with his left hand, in which is his pallet, on a table, and his right over it, the forefinger of which points to several small pictures in the back ground. Dress, a black jacket with a white falling band. In the back ground are ten squares, of about six inches, representing portraits, some of them full lengths; some of the squares have two or three figures, and one of them is a sea-piece. Size of the picture, within the frame, two feet ten inches in breadth, by two feet eight in height. In the same house is another picture attributed to the same artist, three feet six inches high, by two feet eight broad. The subject must allude to the civil war, as it represents a crown, bottom upmost; sceptre, baton, royal standard, heaped near it; a printed scroll, a casket covered with crimson velvet, lid open, with necklaces and toys. At the bottom, on the right hand, is a small figure about four inches long, badly executed, of Charles I. which seems as if done with red chalk on a white ground.

, bishop of Ypres, principal of the sect called Jansenists, was born in a village called Akoy, near Leerdam in Holland, of Roman Catholic parents, John Ottie and Lyntze Gisberts and, having had his grammar-learning at Utrecht, went to Louvain in 1602, and from that to Paris, where he met with John du Verger de Hauranne, afterwards abbot of Saint Cyran, with whom he had contracted a very strict friendship. Some time after, du Verger removing to Bayonne, he followed him thither; where, pursuing their studies with unabated ardour, they were noticed by the bishop of that province, who, conceiving a great esteem for them, procured du Verger a canonry in his cathedral, and set Jan sen at the head of a college or school. He spent five or six years in Bayonne, applying himself with the same vigour to the study of the fathers, St. Austin in particular; and, as he did not appear to be of a strong constitution, du Verger’s mother used sometimes to tell her son, that he would prove the death of lhat worthy young Fleming, by making him overstudy himself.

Jansen was no sooner possessed of the bishopric of Ypres, than he undertook to reform the diocese; but before he had completed this good work, he fell a sacrifice to the plague, May 16, 1638. He was buried in his cathedral, where a monument was erected to his memory; but in 1665, his successor, Francis de Robes, caused it to be taken down privately in the night; there being engraved on it an eulogium of his virtue and erudition, and particularly on his book entitled “Augustinus;” declaring, that this faithful interpreter of the most secret thoughts of St. Austin, had employed in that work a divine genius, an indefatigable labour, and his whole life-time; and that the church would receive the benefit of it upon earth, as he did the reward of it in heaven; words that were highly injurious to the bulls of Urban VIII. and Innocent X. who then had censured that work. The bishop destroyed this monument by the express orders of pope Alexander VII. and with -the consent of the archduke Leopold, governor of the Netherlands, in spite of the resistance of the chapter, which went such lengths that one of the principal canons had the courage to say, “it was not in the pope’s nor the king’s power to suppress that epitaph;” so dear was Jansen to this canon and his colleagues. He wrote several other books besides those already mentioned: 1. “Oratio de interioris hominis reformatione.” 2. “Tetrateuchus sive commentarius in 4 evangelica.” 3. “Pentateuchus sive commentarius in 5 libros Mosis.” 4. The Answer of the Divines of Louvain, “de vi obligandi conscientias quam habent edicta regia super re monetaria.” 5. Answer of the Divines and Civilians, “De juramento quod publica auctoritate magistratui designate imponi solet.” But his “Augustinus” was his principal work, and he was employed upon it above twenty years. He left it finished at his death, and submitted it, by his last will, in the completes! manner, to the judgment of the holy see. His executors, Fromond and Calen, printed it at Louvain, in 1640, but suppressed his submission. The subject is divine grace, freewill, and predestination. “In this book,” says Mosheim, “which even the Jesuits acknowledge to be the production of a man of learning and piety, the doctrine of Augustine, concerning man’s natural corruption, and the nature and efficacy of that divine grace which alone can efface this unhappy stain, is unfolded at large, and illustrated, for the most part, in Augustine’s own words. For the end which Jansenius proposed to himself in this work, was not to give his own private sentiments concerning these important points; but to shew in what manner they had been understood and explained by that celebrated father of the church, whose name and authority were universally revered in all parts of the Roman Catholic world. No incident could be more unfavourable to the Jesuits, and the progress of their religious system, than the publication of this book; for as the doctrine of Augustine differed but very little from that of the Dominicans; as it was held sacred, nay almost respected as divine, in the church of Rome, on account of the extraordinary merit and authority of that illustrious bishop; and at the same time was almost diametrically opposed to the sentiments generally received among the Jesuits; these latter could scarcely consider the book of Jansenius in any other light, than as a tacit but formidable refutation of their opinions concerning human liberty and divine grace; and accordingly they not only drew their pens against this famous book, but also used their most strenuous endeavours to obtain, a public condemnation of it from Rome.” In Louvain, where it was first published, it excited prodigious contests. It obtained several violent advocates, and was by others opposed with no less violence, and several theological theses were written against it. At length they who wished to obtain the suppression of it by papal authority, were successful; the Roman inquisitors began by prohibiting the perusal of it, in Ihe year 1641; and, in the following year, Urban VIII. condemned it as infected with several errors that had been long banished from the church.This bull, which was published at Louvain, instead of pacifying, inflamed matters more; and the disputes soon passed into France, where they were carried on with equal warmth. At length the bishops of France drew up the doctrine, as they called it, of Jansen, in five propositions, and applied to the pope to condemn them. This was done by Innocent X. by a bull published May 31, 1653; and he drew up a formulary for that purpose, which was received by the assembly of the French clergy. These propositions contained the following doctrines: 1. That there are divine precepts, which good men, notwithstanding their desire to observe them, are nevertheless absolutely unable to obey; nor has God given them that measure of grace which is essentially necessary to render them capable of such obedience. 2. That no person, in this corrupt state of nature, can resist the influence of divine grace, when it operates upon the mind. 3. That in order to render human actions meritorious, it is not requisite that they be exempt from necessity, but only that they be free from constraint. 4. That the Semipelagians err grievously in maintaining that the human will is endowed with the power of either receiving or resisting the aids and influences of preventing grace. 5. That whoever affirms that Jesus Christ made expiation by his sufferings and death, for the sins of all mankind, is a Semipelagian.

Of these propositions the pontiff declared the first four only heretical; but he pronounced the fifth rash, impious, and injurious to the Supreme Being. Jansenius, however, was not named in the bull, nor was it declared that these five propositions were maintained in the book entitled “Augustinus,” in the sense in which the pope had condemned them. Hence Antony Arnauld, doctor of the Sorbonne, invented a distinction, which the other Jansenists took up as a defence. He separated the matter of doctrine, or right, and of fact, in the controversy; and acknowledged that they were bound to believe the five propositions justly condemned by the Roman pontiff, but did not acknowledge that these propositions were to be found in the book of Jansenius, in the sense in which they were condemned. Hence arose the famous distinction between the fact and the right. They did not, however, long enjoy the benefit of this artful distinction. The restless and invincible hatred of their enemies pursued them in every quarter, and at length engaged Alexander VII. the successor of Innocent, to declare by a solemn bull, issued in 1656, that the five propositions were the tenets of Jansenius, and were contained in his book. The pontiff did not stop here; but to this flagrant instance of imprudence added another still more shocking: for, in the year 1665, he sent into Fiance the form of a declaration, which was to be subscribed by all who aspired to any preferment in the church; and in which it was affirmed that the five propositions were to be found in the book of Jansenius, ia die same sense in which they had been condemned by the church. This declaration, the unexampled temerity of which, as well as its contentious tendency, appeared in the most odious light, not only to the Jansenists, but also to the wiser part of the French nation, produced the most deplorable divisions and tumults. It was immediately opposed with vigour by the Jansenists, who, thus provoked, went so far as to maintain that, in matters of fact, the pope was fallible, especially when his decisions were merely personal, and not confirmed by a general council; and consequently that it was neither obligatory or necessary to subscribe this papal declaration, which had, as they alleged, only a matter of fact for its object. The assembly of the clergy, nevertheless, insisted upon subscription to the formulary; and all ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, and others, in every diocese, were obliged to subscribe. Those who refused, were interdicted and excommunicated; and they even talked of entering a process against four bishops, who in their public instruments had distinguished the fact from the right; and declared, that they desired only a respectful and submissive silence in regard to the fact. The affair wasat length accommodated in 1668, under the pontificate of Clement IX. who was satisfied that the bishops should subscribe themselves, and make others subscribe purely and simply; though they declared expressly, that they did not desire the same submission for the fact, but for the right. This accommodation, styled the Peace of Clement, was for a time complied with; yet the dispute about subscribing was afterwards renewed both in Flanders and France; and therefore Innocent XII. by a brief, in 1694, directed to the bishops in Flanders, declared that no addition should be made to the formulary, but that it should be sufficient to subscribe sincerely, without any distinction, restriction, or exposition, condemning the propositions extracted from Jansen’s book, in the plain and obvious sense of the words. A resolution of a case of conscience, signed by forty doctors, in which the distinction of the fact from the right was tolerated, re-inflamed the dispute in France about the beginning of the last century: when pope Clement XIII. by a bull dated July 15, 1705, declared, that a respectful silence is not sufficient to testify the obedience due to the constitutions; but that all the faithful ought to condemn as heretical, not only with their mouths, but in their hearts, the sense of Jaoseu’s book, which is condemned in the five propositions, as the sense which the words properly import; and that it is unlawful to subscribe with any other thought, mind, or sentiment. This constitution was received by the general assembly of the French clergy in 1705, and published by the king’s authority. Nevertheless, it 'did not put an end to the disputes, especially in the Low Countries, where various interpretations of it were made it may even be said that the contest grew hotter than ever, after the pope, by his constitution of Sept. 13, 1713, condemned 101 propositions, extracted from the “Paraphrase on the New Testament,” by Pere Quesnel, who was then at the head of the Jansenists.

, otherwise Raschi and Isaaki, a famous rabbi, was born in 1104, at Troyes in Champagne in France. Having acquired a good stock of Jewish learning at home, he travelled at thirty years of age visiting Italy, Greece, Jerusalem, Palestine, and Egypt, where he met with Maimonides. From Egypt he passed to Persia, and thence to Tartary and Muscovy; and last of all, passing through Germany, he arrived in his native country, after he had spent six years abroad. After his return to Europe, he visited all the academies, and disputed against the professors upon any questions proposed by them. He was a perfect master of the Talmud and Gemara, but filled the postils of the Bible with so many Talmudical reveries, as totally extinguished both the literal and moral sense of it. Many of his commentaries are printed in Hebrew, and some have been translated into Latin by the Christians, among which is his “Commentary upon Joel,” by Genebrard; those upon Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah, by Pontac; that upon Esther, by Philip JDaquin. But the completest of these translations is that of his Commentaries on the Pentateuch, and some other books, by Fred. Breithaupt, who has added learned notes. The style of Jarchi is so concise, that it is no easy thing to understand him in several places, without the help of other Jewish interpreters. Besides, when he mentions the traditions of the Jews recorded in their writings, he never quotes the chapter nor the page; which gives no small trouble to a translator. He introduces also several French words of that century, which have been very much corrupted, and cannot be easily understood. M. Breithaupt has overcome all those difficulties. The style of his translation is not very elegant: but it is clear, and fully expresses the sense of the author. It was printed at Gotha in 1710, 4to. There are several things in this writer that may be alleged against the Jews with great advantage. If, for instance, the modern Jews deny that the Messias is to be understood by the word Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10, they may be confuted by the authority of this interpreter, who agrees with the Christians in his explication of that word. M. Reland looks upon rabbi Jarchi as one of the best interpreters we have and tells us in his preface to the “Analecta Rabbinica,” that when htf met with any difficulty in the Hebrew text of the Bible, the explications of that Jewish doctor appeared to him more satisfactory than those of the great critics, or any other commentator.

Jarchi wrote also Commentaries upon the Talmud, and upon Pirke-Avon, and other works. It is said that he was skilled in physic and astronomy, and was master of several languages besides the Hebrew. He died at Troyes in 1180 and his body was carried into Bohemia, and buried at Prague. His decisions were so much more esteemed, as he had gathered them from the mouths of all the doctors of the Jewish academies in the several countries through which he had travelled. His “Commentary upon the Gemara,” appeared so full of erudition, that it procured him the title of “Prince of Commentaries.” His Commentaries upon the Bibles of Venice are extant; his glosses or Commentaries upon the Talmud are also printed with the text. They were published collectively in 1660, in 4 vols. 12mo. He was so highly esteemed among the Jews, as to be ranked among the most illustrious of their rabbies. He married, and had three daughters, who all were married to very learned rabbies.

, an advocate in the parliament of Paris, very remarkable for his profound knowledge of languages, is celebrated for having printed a Polyglott at his own expence, and thus purchased glory with the loss of his fortune. The whole edition was offered to sale in England, but too great a price being set upon it, the Polyglott of Walton was undertaken in a more commodious form. Le Jay might still have made great profit by his work if he would have suffered it to appear under the name of cardinal Richelieu, who was very desirous to emulate the fame of Ximenes in this respect. Being now poor, and a widower, Le Jay became an ecclesiastic, was made dean of Vezelai, and obtained a brevet as counsellor of state. He died July 10, 1675. The Polyglott of Le Jay is in ten folumes, large folio, a model of beautiful typography, but too bulky to be used with convenience. It is common in France, but of so little demand, that, according to Brunet, it sells at present for (40 francs, not 61. of our money. It has the Syriac and Arabic versions, which are not in the Polyglott of Ximenes. The publication commenced in 1628, and was concluded in 1645. We cannot suppose the editor to have been less than two or three and thirty, when he had finished a volume of this kind, in which case he "must have been near eighty at the time of his death. It is not improbable that he was still older.

, a native of Nottingham, and a member of Peter-house, Cambridge, became attached to the nonjurors, and accepted the office of librarian to the celebrated Jeremy Collyer. While he was at Peter-house he printed a translation of “Martyn’s Answers to Emlyn,” 1718, 8vo, reprinted in 1719; in which latter year he inscribed to that society his “Studiorum Primitiae” namely, “S. Justini Martyris cum Tryphone Dialogus,” 1719, 8vo. On leaving the university, he married a relation of the celebrated apothecary Mr. Dillingham, of Red-lion-square, from whom he took instructions in pharmacy and chemistry by the recommendation of Dr. Mead, and afterwards practised physic at Stratford in Essex. In 1722 he was editor of the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” a learned work, of which only ten numbers were printed, and in which are interspersed the observations of Masson, Wasse, and other eminent scholars of the time. He also published, 1. “De Vita & Rebus gestis Marise Scotorum Regina?, Francise Dotarice.” “The History of the Life and Reign of Mary Queen of Scots and Dowager of France, extracted from original records and writers of credit,” 1725, 8vo. 2. Art edition of “Aristides,” with notes, 1728, 2 vols. 4to, a very excellent edition. 3. A beautiful and correct edition of “Joannis Caii Britanni de Canibus Britannicis liber unus; de variorum Animalium & Stirpium, &c. liber unus; de Libris propriis liber unus; de Pronunciatione Græcæ & Latinæ Linguæ, cum scriptione nova, libellus; ad optimorum exemplarium fidem recogniti; à S. Jebb, M. D.” London, 1729, 8vo. 4. An edition of Bacon’s “Opus Majus,” folio, neatly and accurately printed for W. Bowyer, 1733. 5. “Humphr. Hodii, lib. 2. de Græcis illustribus Linguæ Græcæ Literarumque humaniorum instauratoribus,” &c. Lond. 1742, 8vo. “Præmittitur de Vita & Scriptis ipsius Humphredi Dissertatio, auctore S. Jebb, M. D.” He wrote also the epitaph inscribed on a, small pyramid between Haut-Buisson and Marquise, in the road to Boulogne, about seven miles from Calais, in memory of Edward Seabright, esq. of Croxton in Norfolk, three other English gentlemen, and two servants, who were all murdered Sept. 20, 1723. The pyramid, being decayed, was taken down about 1751, and a small oratory or chapel erected on the side of the road. In 1749, Dr. Jebb possessed all Mr. Bridges’s Mss. relative to the “History of Northamptonshire,” which were afterwards bought by sir Thomas Cave, bart. and finally digested, and published in 2 vols. folio, by the rev. Peter Whalley, in 1791. Dr. Jebb practised at Stratford with great success till within a few years of his death, when he retired with a moderate fortune into Derbyshire, where he died March 9, 1772, leaving several children, one of whom is the subject of the next article. He was uncle to the preceding Dr. John Jebb.

, an English divine, was born Dec. 20, 1647, at Ipswich, where he had his grammar-learning; and thence removed in 1664 to Catharine-hall, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. John Echard. Here he took his first degree, and as soon after as he could, he went into orders, and accepted of the curacy of Dennington in Suffolk. He applied very closely to his studies, lived quite retired, and was not known or heard of in the world for some years. At length, becoming known, he was, in 1678, elected minister of St. Peter’s of Mancroft in Norwich; where his good temper, exemplary life, judicious preaching, and great learning, soon recommended him to the esteem of the wisest and best men in his parish. Sir Thomas Brown, so well known to the learned world, respected and valued him. Sir Edward Atkyns, lord chief baron of the Exchequer, who then spent the long vacations in that city, took great notice of his singular modesty of behaviour, and rational method of recommending religion in sermons; gave him an apartment in his house, took him up to town with him, carried him into company, and brought him acquainted with Dr. Tillotson, then preacher at Lincoln’s-inn, who often engaged Mr. Jeffery to preach for him, and was probably the means of making him known to Dr. Whichcote, three volumes of whose sermons he afterwards published, and to other eminent men. In 1687, Dr. Sharp, then dean of Norwich, afterwards archbishop of York, obtained for him, without solicitation, the two small livings of Kirton and Falkenham in Suffolk; and, in 1694, archbishop Tillotson made him archdeacon of Norwich. In 17 Jo he married a second wife; and after his marriage, discontinued his attendance on the convocation: and when he was asked the reason, would pleasantly excuse himself out of the old law, which saith, “that, when a man has taken a new wife, he shall not be obliged to go out to war.” He died in 1720, aged 72.

, or Geoffrey, of Monmouth (ap Arthur), the famous British historian, who flourished in the time of Henry I. was born at Monmouth, and probably educated in the Benedictine monastery near that place; for Oxford and Cambridge had not yet risen to any great height, and bad been lately depressed by the Danish invasion so that monasteries were at this time the principal seminaries of learning. Tradition still points out a small apartment of the above monastery as his library; it bears in the ceiling and windows remains of former magnificence, but is much more modern than the age of Jeffery. He was made archdeacon of Monmouth, and afterwards promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph in 1152. He is said by some to have been raised to the dignity of a cardinal also, but on no apparent good grounds. Robert earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I. and Alexander bishop of Lincoln, were his particular patrons; the first a person of great eminence and authority in the kingdom, and celebrated for his learning; the latter, for being the greatest patron of learned men in that time, and himself a great scholar and statesman.

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

Nennius, abbot of Bauchor, who flourished, according to some accounts, in the seventh century, or however, without dispute, some hundreds of years before Jeffery’s time, has written very copiously concerning Brutus; recounting Jhis genealogy from the patriarch Noah, and relating the sum of his adventures in a manner that differs but in few circumstances from the British history. Giraldus Cambrensis, contemporary with Jeffery, says, that in his time the Welsh bards and singers could repeat by heart, from their ancient and authentic books, the genealogy of their princes from Roderic the Great to Belim the Great and from him to Sylvius, Ascanius, and Æneas, and from Æneas lineally carry up their pedigree to Adam. From these authorities it appears, that the story of Brutus is not the produce of Jeffery’s invention, but, if it be a fiction, is of much older date.

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

The work of Jeffery is extremely entertaining, and his fables have been frequently clothed in rhyme. In the thirteenth century, Robert, a monk of the abbey of Gloucester, wrote an history of England in verse, in the Alexandrian measure, from Brutus to the reign of Edward I. Warton justly observes, in his History of English Poetry, “that the tales have often a more poetical air in Jeffery’s prose than in this rhyming chronicle, which is totally destitute of art or imagination, and, from its obsolete language, scarcely intelligible.” This historical romance, however, was not only versified by monkish writers, but supplied some of our best poets with materials for their sublime compositions. Spenser, in the second book of his Faerie Queene, has given,

He was very active in the duke’s interest, and carried through a cause which was of very great consequence to his revenue, respecting the right of the Penny-post-office. He was first made a judge in his native country; and, in 1680, was knighted, and made chief justice of Chester, and a baronet in 1681. When the parliament began the prosecution of the abhorrers, he resigned the recordership, and obtained the place of chief justice of the king’s-bench; and, soon after the accession of James II. the great seal. He was one of the greatest advisers and promoters of all the oppressive and arbitrary measures of that unhappy and tyrannical reign; and his sanguinary and inhuman proceedings against Monmouth’s miserable adherents in the West will ever render his name infamous. There is, however, a singular story of him in this expedition, which tends to his creuit; as it shews, that when he was not under state influence, he had a proper sense of the natural and civil rights of men, and an inclination to protect them. The mayor, aldermen, and justices of Bristol, had been used to transport convicted criminals to the American plantations, and sell them by way of trade; and finding the commodity turn to a good account, they contrived a method to make it more plentiful. Their legal convicts were but few, and the exportation was inconsiderable. When, therefore, any petty rogues and pilferers were brought before them in a judicial capacity, they were sure to be threatened with hanging; and they had some very diligent officers attending, who would advise the ignorant intimidated creatures to pray for transportation, as the only way to save them; and, in general, by some means or other, the advice was followed. Then, without any more fornij each alderman in course took one and sold for his own benefit; and sometimes warm disputes arose among them about the next turn. This trade had been carried on unnoticed many years, when it came to the knowledge of the lord chief justice; who, finding, upon inquiry, that the mayor was equally involved in the guilt of this outrageous practice with the rest of his brethren, made him descend from the bench where he was sitting, and stand at the bar in his scarlet and furs, and plead as a common criminal. He then took security of them to answer informations; but the amnesty after the revolution stopt the proceedings, and secured their iniquitous gains.

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

This provoked the House so much, that without any trial they voted him and sir Francis Butler guilty of high treason, and fixed the day of execution, on which judge Jenkins “resolved to suffer with the Bible under one arm, and Magna Charta under the other;” but his enemies were diverted from this design by a facetious speech of Harry Marten, a kind of parliamentary buffoon. He was, however, fined 1000l. for contempt, and committed to Newgate, and his estates sequestered. There seems some confusion in the dates of this affair as given in our author rities; but it appears by Jenkins’s own account that he was imprisoned, in various places, in all about fifteen years. The parliament, however, were sensible of the weight of his character, and would have been glad to have gained him over by'any means. While in Newgate, they sent a committee, and made an offer to him, that if he“would own their power to be lawful, they would not only take off the sequestrations from his estate, which was about 500l. per annum, but would also settle a pension on him of 1000l. a year. To this he answered, that he never would allow rebellion, although successful, to be lawful. They then made another proposal, that he should have the same as mentioned above, if he would suffer them to put in print that he owned and acknowledged their power to be lawful and just, and would not gainsay it. To this he replied, that he would not connive at their doing so for all the money they had robbed the kingdom of, and should they be so impudent as to print any such matter, he would sell his doublet and coat to buy pens, ink, and paper, and would set forth the House of Commons in their proper colour. When they found him so firm, one of the committee used this motive,” You have a wife and nine children, who all will starve if you refuse this offer; so consider for their sakes; they make up ten pressing arguments for your compliance.“” What 1“said the judge,” did they desire you to press me in this matter?“” I will not say they did,“replied the other,” but I think they press you to it without speaking at all.“On this the old man’s anger was heightened to the utmost, and he exclaimed,” Had my wife and children petitioned you in this matter, I would have looked on her as a whore, and them as bastards." The committee then departed, and judge Jenkins remained in Newgate, or in other prisons, until the restoration. Wood says that in 1656 he was set at liberty, and lived a while at Oxford, but this seems a mistake.

After the restoration he was designed to be made one of the judges in Westminster-hall, but refusing to comply with the usual demands of the perquisites on that occasion, which he thought unreasonable after having suffered so much, he retired to his estate in Glamorganshire, then restored to him, and died at Cowbridge, in that county, Dec. 6, 1667, aged about eighty-one or two. He was buried at the west end of that church. He died as he lived, inculcating with his last breath, to his relations and friends, loyalty to his majesty and obedience to the laws of the land. He was a person of great ability in his profession, and was often consulted by sir John Banks and William Noy in their attorneyships. His vindication of himself, and several other occasional tracts of his writing, aJl very short, were printed in 1648, 12mo, under the title of liis “Works.” Most of these were written in prison, and have been often reprinted. He is also the author of “A preparative to the treaty with the king,” &c. 1648 “A Proposition for the safety of the king;” and a Reply to an Answer to it. But he is now chiefly known in the profession by his “Reports,” or “Eight Centuries of Reports solemnly adjudged in the exchequer chamber, or upon writs of error, from 4 Hen. III. to 21 Jac. I.” originally published in French, 1661, fol. and again in French 1734, folio; but the third edition was translated by Theodore Barlow, esq. with the addition of many references, and a table of the principal matters, and published in 1771 or 1777, folio. Mr. Bridgman adds to his publications another, which was published in 1657, 12mo, entitled “Pacis consultum, or a directory to the public peace, briefly describing the antiquity, extent, &c. of several county corporation courts, especially the court-leet,” &c.

He did not approve the rupture which brought on the second war with the Dutch in 1672. Being appointed an. ambassador and plenipotentiary, with others, for settling a treaty of peace, and resigning his place of principal of Jesus-college, he arrived in his new character at Cologne, in June 1673; but after several fruitless endeavours to effect it, he returned to England in 1674. On his arrival in May, he gave the privy-council an account of his negotiation, which was well received; and in December was appointed one of the mediators of the treaty at NLmeguen. He continued there throughout the whole course of that long and laborious negotiation; and the chief part of the business lay upon him, as is acknowledged by sir William Temple, his brother mediator, who in his pleasant manner observes, that “where there were any ladies in the ambassador’s houses, the evenings were spent in dancing or play, or careless and easy suppers, or collations. In these entertainments,” says he, “as I seldom failed of making a part, and my colleague never had any, so it gave occasion for a bon mot, a good word, that passed upon it: Sue la mediation estoit tou jours en pied pour fair e safonction: that is, that the mediation was always on foot to go on with its business; for I used to go to bed and rise late, while my colleague was a-bed by eight and up by four; and to say the truth, two more different men were never joined in one commission, nor ever agreed better in it.”

Soon after his arrival in England he was chosen one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford-and, in the parliament which met Oct. 17 following, opposed, to the utmost of his power, the bill brought in for the exclusion of the duke of York from the crown. He was sworn a privycounsellor before the expiration of this year; and received the seals as secretary of state, April 1680, being first secretary for the northern province, and in 1681 for the southern. He entered upon this arduous office in critical and dangerous times, which continued so all the while he enjoyed it yet he escaped the then common fate of being assailed by addresses against him,- or committed and impeached. Being chosen again for Oxford, in the parliament which met there March 21, 1681, he earnestly again opposed the exclusion of the duke of York, as he did also the printing of the Votes of the House of Commons; a practice which had then been lately (October 1680) assumed, but was considered by him as inconsistent with the gravity of that assembly, and a sort of improper appeal to the people. With similar zeal he withstood the command of the House, to carry their impeachment of Edward FitzHarris up to the Lords, regarding it as designed to reflect upon the king in the person of his secretary; nor did he comply till he saw himself in danger of being expelled the House for refusing *. But when the corporations began to

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

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

, or Jansonius, a celebrated printer and letter-founder of Venice, but by birth a Frenchman, flourished in the fifteenth century. He is said to have been originally an engraver of coins and medals at Paris. About 1453 the report of the invention of printing at Mentz being circulated, he was sent by the king, Charles VII. to gain private information on the subject of that art. He fulfilled the object of his mission, but, on his return to France, finding that the king was dead, or perhaps having heard of his death, he removed to Venice. Such is the purport of an account in two old French manuscripts on the coinage, except that one places the mission of Jenson under Louis XL which is less probable. Jenson excelled in all branches of the art, and more than are now united with it. He formed the punches, he cast the letters, and conducted the typography. He first determined the form and proportion of the present Roman character: and his editions are still sought on account of the neatness and beauty of his types. The first book that issued from his press is a scarce work in quarto, entitled “Decor Puellarum,” the date of which is 1471; and in the same year he published in Italian “Gloria Mulierum,” a proper sequel to the former. After these are found many editions of Latin classics and other books, for ten years subsequent; but, as no books from his press appear after 1481, it is conjectured that he died about that time.

Soon after his father’s death, at the general election in 1742, he was unanimously chosen one of the representatives for the county of Cambridge. From this time he continued to sit in parliament, either for the county or borough of Cambridge, until 1780, except on the call of a new parliament in 1754, when he was returned for the borougli of Dumvich. In 1755, he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the board of trade and plantations, at which he sat during. all changes of administration, until the business of the board, which was not great, was removed into another department. At the time of its abolition, it consisted of our author, the present earl of Carlisle, the late lord Auckland, and Gibbon the historian. Mr. Cumberland, the well-known dramatic poet, was secretary. His parliamentary conduct was more uniform than is supposed to be consistent with freedom of opinion, or the usual attachments of party. When he was first elected a member, he found sir Robert Walpole on the eve of being dismissed from the confidence of the House of Commons, and he had the courage, unasked and unknown, to give his support to the falling minister, as far as he could without contributing his eloquence, for Mr. Jenyns seldom spoke, and only in reply to a personal question. He was conscious that he could make no figure as a public speaker, and early desisted from the attempt. After the dismissal of sir Robert Walpole, he constantly ranked among the friends of government. Without giving a public assent to every measure of the minister for the day, he contrived to give him no offence, and seems very early to have conceived an abhorrence of systematic oppositions. What his opinions were on great constitutional questions, may be found in his writings, where, however, they are not laid down with much precision, and seem at no time of his life to have been steady. In his attendance at the board of trade, he was very assiduous, and bestowed much attention on the commercial interests of his country. He has not left any thing in print expressly on this subject, but his biographer has given some of his private opinions, which are liberal and manly.

In 1757, he published his “Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil,” which brought him into notice as one of the most elegant writers of English prose that had appeared since ^he days of Addison. But the charms of style could not protect this singular work from objections of the most serious kind. It produced from Dr. Johnson, who was then editor of the “Literary Magazine,” a critical dissertation or review, which is perhaps the first of his compositions for strength of argument, keenness of reply, and brilliancy of wit. That Mr. Jenyns felt the force of this powerful refutation may be readily supposed, but it were to be wished he had not retained his resentment for so many years, and then given it vent in a paltry epitaph on Dr. Johnson, which his biographer thought worthy of a place in his works.

Other answers appeared to his “Inquiry” of less consequence: Johnson’s, after having been read with eagernesE in the Magazine, was printed in a small volume of which two editions were very soon sold. To a subsequent edition of the “Inquiry,” Mr. Jenyns prefixed a preface, containing a general answer to his opponents, but without retracting any of his positions. In 1761 he reprinted it, along with his poems, in 2 vols. 12mo, and added the papers he had contributed to “The World,” which are among the first in a collection written by the first wits of their time. There are points in them which prove either the natural purity of his style and delicacy of his humour, or that he must have “given his days and nights to Addi­$on.” It was in one of these papers that he first expressed an opinion in favour of the doctrine of a pre-existent state, which he afterwards insisted upon more seriously in the third letter on the “Origin of Evil.”

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

But whatever difference of opinion was excited by this performance, it would be unjust to question the author’s sincerity, or to omit the very explicit declaration he has made of his belief. “Should my work ever have the honour to be admitted into such good company (persons of fashion), they will immediately, I know, determine that it must be the work of some enthusiast or methodist, some beggar, or some madman; I shall therefore beg leave to assure them, that the author is very far removed from all these characters; that he once perhaps believed as little as themselves; but having some leisure, and more curiosity, he employed them both in resolving a question which seemed to him of some importance: Whether Christianity was really an imposture, founded on an absurd, incredible, and obsolete fable, as many suppose it? or whether it is what it pretends to be, a revelation communicated to mankind by the interposition of some supernatural power? On a candid inquiry, he soon found that the first was an absolute impossibility, and that its pretensions to the latter were founded on the most solid grounds. In the further pursuits of his examination, he perceived at every step new lights arising, and some of the brightest from parts of it the most obscure, but productive of the clearest proofs, because equally beyond the power of human artifice to invent, and human reason to discover. These arguments, which have convinced him of the divine origin of this religion, he has here put together in as clear and concise a manner as he wa? able, thinking they might have the same effect upon others; and being of opinion, that, if there were a few more true Christians in the world, it would be beneficial to themselves, and by no means detrimental to the public.”

In 1782 appeared another volume of doubtful tendency, and certainly more abounding in wild paradoxes, which he entitled “Disquisitions on several subjects.” These are metaphysical, theological, and political; and in all of them he advances, amidst much valuable matter, a number of fanciful theories, to which he seems to have been prompted merely by a love of novelty, or a desire to shew by what ingenuity opinions that contradict the general sense of mankind, may be defended. This volume, like the former, produced a few answers; and what perhaps disturbed our author’s tranquillity yet more, an admirable piece of humour, entitled “The Dean and the Squire,” by the author of the “Heroic Epistle to Sir William Chambers.” The Dean was Dr. Tucker, whose opinions on civil liberty approached those of our author. Tbe “Disquisitions” are, however, an extraordinary production from a man in his seventy-eighth year. Their style is, perhaps, more elegant and animated than that of any of his former writings, and if mere eloquence could atone for defect of argument, they would yet continue to be read as models of pure and correct English.

Mr. Cumberland, in his Memoirs of his own Life, lately published, giyes us some characteristic traits of Mr. Jenyns, which correspond with the above: " A disagreement about a name or a date will mar the best story that was ever put together. Sir Joshua Reynolds luckily could not hear an interrupter of this sort: Johnson would not hear, or if Vie heard him would not heed him: Soame Jenyns heard him, heeded him, set him right, and took up his tale where he had left it, without any diminution of its humour, adding only a few more twists to his snuff-box, a few more taps upon the lid of it, with a preparatory grunt or two, the invariable forerunners of the amenity that was at the heels of them. He was the man who bore his part in all societies with the most even temper and undisturbed hilarity of all the good companions whom I ever knew. He came into your house at the very moment you had put upon your card: he dressed himself, to do your party honour, in all the colours of the jay: his lace indeed had long since lost its lustre, but his coat had faithfully retained its cut since the days when gentlemen wore embroidered figured velvets with short sleeves, boot cuffs, and buckram skirts *. As nature cast him in the exact mould of an ill -made pair of stiff stays, he followed her so close in the fashion of his coat, that it was doubted if he did not wear them: because he had a protuberant wen just under his pole, he wore a wig that did not cover above half his head. His eyes were protruded like the eyes of the lobster, who wears them at the end of his feelers; and yet there was room between one of these and his nose for another wen that added nothing to his beauty: yet I heard this good man very innocently remark, when Gibbon published his History, that he wondered any body so ugly could write a book.

“Such was the exterior of a man, who was the charm of the circle, and gave a zest to every company he came into. His pleasantry was of a sort peculiar to himself; it harmonized with every thing; it was like the bread to our dinner, you did not perhaps make it the whole, or principal part of your meal, but it was an admirable and wholesome auxiliary to your other viands. Soame Jenyns told you no long stories, engrossed not much of your attention, and was not angry with those that did. His thoughts were original, and were apt to have a very whimsical affinity to the paradox in them. He wrote verses upon dancing, and prose upon the origin of evil yet he was a very indifferent metaphysician, and a worse dancer. Ill-nature and personality, with the single exception of his lines upon Johnson, I never heard fall from his lips; those lines I have forgotten, though I believe I was the first person to whom he recited them: they were very bad, but he had been told f that Johnson ridiculed his metaphysics, and some of us had just then been making extempore epitaphs upon each other. Though his wit was harmless, the general cast of it was ironical; there was a terseness in his repartees that had a play of words as well as of thought; as when speaking of the difference between laying out money upon land or purchasing into the funds, he said, * One was principal without interest, and the other interest without principal.‘ Certain it is, he had a brevity of expression that never hung upon the ear, and you felt the point in the very moment that he made the push. It was rather to be lamented that his lady, Mrs. Jenyns, had so great a respect for his good sayings, and so imperfect a recollection of them, for though she always prefaced her recitals of them with ’ As Mr. Jenyns says,' it was not always what Mr. Jenyns said and never, I am apt to think, as Mr. Jenyns said but she was an excellent old lady, and twirled her ian with as much mechanical address as her ingenious husband twirled his snuff-box.”

, the author of some dramas and poems of considerable merit, was a native of Ireland, where he was born in 1736. He appears to have profited by a liberal education, but entered early into the army, and attained the rank of captain in the 73d regiment of foot on the Irish establishment. When that regiment was reduced in 1763, he was put on the half- pay list. In 1763 he became acquainted with the late William Gerard Hamilton, esq. who was charmed with his liveliness of fancy and uncommon talents, and for about five years they lived together in the greatest and most unreserved intimacy; Mr. Jephson usually spending the summer with Mr. Hamilton at his house at Hampton-court, and also giving him much of his company in town during the winter. In 1767, Mr. Jephson married one of the daughters of Sir Edward Barry, hart, a celebrated physician, and author of various medical works; and was obliged to bid a long farewell to his friends in London, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Burke, Mr. Charles Townsend, Garrick, Goldsmith, &c. in consequence of having accepted the office of master of the horse to lord viscount Townsend, then appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland. Mr. Hamilton also used his influence to procure Mr. Jephson a permanent provision on the Irish establishment, of 300l. a year, which the duke' of Rutland, from personal regard, and a high admiration of Mr. Jephson’s talents, increased to 600l. per annum, for the joint lives of himself and Mrs. Jephson. In addition to this proof of his kindness and esteem, Mr. Hamilton never ceased, without any kind of solicitation, to watch over Mr. Jephson’s interest with the most lively solicitude constantly applying in person, in his behalf, to every new lord lieutenant, if he were acquainted with him; or, if that we.e not the case, contriving by some circuitous means to pro Mire Mr. Jephson’s re-appointment to the office originally con i erred upon him by lord Townsend and by these means chiefly he was continued for a long series of years, under tw- ive successive governors of Ireland, in the same station, which always before had been considered a temporary office. In Mr. Jephson’s case, this office was accompanied by a seat in the house of commons, where he occasionally amused the house by his wit, but does not at any time appear to have been a profound politician. His natural inclination was for literary pursuits; and he supported lord Towosend’s government with more effect in the “Bachelor,” a set of periodical essays which he wrote in conjunction with Mr. Courtenay, the Rev. Mr. Burroughs, and others. He died at his house at Blackrock, near Dublin, of a paralytic disorder, May 31, 1803.

As a dramatic writer, his claims seem to be founded chiefly on his tragedies of “Braganza,” and “The Count of Narbonne.” “Braganza was very successful on its original appearance, but fell into neglect after the first season, in 1775. Horace Walpole, whose admiration of it is expressed in the most extravagant terms, addressed to the author” Thoughts on Tragedy,“in three letters, which are included in his printed works. In return, Mr. Jephson took the story of his” Count of Narbonne“from Walpole’s” Castle of Otranto,“and few tragedies in our times have been more successful. It was produced in 1781, and continued to be acted until the death of Mr. Henderson, the principal performer. Of Mr. Jephson’s other dramas it may be sufficient to give the names:” The Law of Lombardy,“a tragedy, 1779;” The Hotel,“a farce, 1783;” The Campaign,“an opera, 1785” Julia,“a tragedy, 1787;” Love and War,“1787, and” Two Strings to your Bow,“1791, both farces; and” The Conspiracy“a tragedy. Mr. Jephson afterwards acquired a considerable share of poetical fame from his” Roman Portraits,“a quarto poem, or rather collection of poems, characteristic of the Roman heroes, published in 1794, which exhibited much taste and elegance of versification. About the same time he published anonymously,” The Confession of James Baptisto Couteau," 2 vols. 12mo, a kind of satire on the perpetrators of the revolutionary atrocities in France, and principally the wretched duke of Orleans.

, metropolitan of Larissa, was raised to the patriarchal chair or' Constantinople in 1572, when only in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The Lutherans presented to him the confession of Augsburg, in hopes of his approbation; but he opposed it, both in his speeches and writings. He seemed even not far from uniting the Greek to the Roman church, and had adopted the reformation of Gregory XIII. in the calendar; but some persons, who were envious of him, taking occasion from thence to accuse him of corresponding with the pope, procured his banishment in 1585. Two years after he was recalled and restored to his dignity, but from that time we find no account of him. His correspondence with the Lutherans was printed at Wittemberg, in Greek and Latin, 1584, folio. It had previously been published by a Catholic, in Latin, 1581.

, an elegant English poet, descended from an ancient Roman catholic family in Norfolk, was the youngest brother of the late sir William Jerningham, bart. and was born in 1727. He was educated in the English college at Douay, and from thence removed to Paris, where he improved himself in classical attainments, becoming a good Latin scholar, and tolerably well acquainted with the Greek, while the French and Italian languages, particularly the former, were nearly as familiar to him as that of his native country. In his mind, benevolence and poetry had always a mingled operation. His taste was founded upon the best models of literature, which, however, he did not always follow, with respect to style, in his latter performances. The first production which raised him into public notice, was a poem in recommendation of the Magdalen hospital; and Mr. Jonas Hanway, one of its most active patrons, often declared, that its success was very much promoted by this poem. He continued 'occasionally to afford proofs of his poetical genius; and his works, which passed through many editions, are uniformly marked by taste, elegance, and a pensive character, that always excites tender and pleasing emotions; and in some of his works, as in “The Shakspeare Gallery,” “ Enthusiasm,” and “The Rise and Fall of Scandinavian Poetry,” he displays great vigour, and even sublimity. The fiist of these poems had an elegant and spirited compliment from Mr. Burke, in the following passage: “I have not for a, long time seen any thing so well-finished. He has caught new fire by approaching in his perihelium so near to the Sun of our poetical system.” His last work, published a few months before his death, was entitled “The Old Bard’s Farewell.” It is not unworthy of his best days, and breathes an air of benevolence and grateful piety for the lot in life which Providence had assigned him. In his later writings it has been objected that he evinces a species of liberal spirit in matters of religion, which seems to consider all religions alike, provided the believer is a man of meekness and forbearance. With this view in his “Essay on the mild Tenour of Christianity” he traces historically the efforts to give an anchorite-cast to the Christian profession, and gives many interesting anecdotes derived from the page of Ecclesiastical history, but not always very happily applied. His “Essay on the Eloquence of the Pulpit in England,” (prefixed to bishop Bossuet’s Select Sermons and Orations) was very favourably received by the public, but his notions of pulpit eloquence are rather French than English. Mr. Jerningham had, during the course of a long life, enjoyed an intimacy with the most eminent literary characters in the higher ranks, particularly the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and the present earl of Carlisle. The illness which occasioned his death, had continued for some months, and was at times very severe; but his sufferings were much alleviated by a course of theological study he had imposed on himself, and which he considered most congenial to a closing life. He died Nov. 17, 1812. He bequeathed all his manuscripts to Mr. Clarke, New Bond-street. Mr. Jerningham’s productions are as follow: J. “Poems and Plays,” 4 vols. 9th edition, 1806. 2. “Select Sermons and Funeral Orations, translated from the French of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux,” third edition, 1801. 3. “The mild Tenour of Christianity, an Essay, (elucidated from Scripture and History; containing a new illustration of the characters of several eminent personages,)” second edition, 1807. 4. “The Dignity of Human Nature, an Kssay,” 1805. 5. “The Alexandrian School; or, a narrative of the first Christian Professors in Alexandria,” third edition, 1810. 6. “The Old Bard’s Farewell,” a Poem, second edition, with additional passages, 1812. His dramatic pieces, “The Siege of Berwick,” the “Welsh Heiress,” and “The Peckham Frolic,” have not been remarkably successful.

, or Hieronymus, a very celebrated father of the church, was born of Christian parents at Stridon, a town situated upon the confines of Pannoniaand Dalmatia, in the year 331. His father Eusebius, who was a man of rank and substance, took the greatest care of his education; and, after grounding him well in the language of his own country, sent him to Rome, where he was placed under the best masters in every branch of literature. Donatus, well known for his “Commentaries upon Virgil anfl Terence,” was his master in grammar, as Jerom himself tells us: and under this master he made a prodigious progress in every thing relating to the belles lettres. He had also masters in rhetoric, Hebrew, and in divinity, who conducted him through all parts of learning, sacred and profane; through history, antiquity, the knowledge of languages, and of the discipline and doctrines of the various sects in philosophy; so that he might say of himself, as he afterwards did, with some reason, “Ego philosophus, rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, Hebraeus, Groecus, Latinus, &c.” He was particularly careful to accomplish himself in rhetoric, or the art of speaking, because, as Erasmus says in the life which he prefixed to his works, he had observed, that the generality of Christians were despised as a rude illiterate set of people; on which account he thought, that the unconverted part of the world would sooner be drawn over to Christianity, if it were but set off and enforced in a manner suitable to the dignity and majesty of it. But though he was so conversant with profane learning in his youth, he renounced it entirely afterwards, and did all he could to make others renounce it also; for he relates a vision, which he pretended was given to him, “in which he was dragged to the tribunal of Christ, and terribly threatened, and even scourged, for the grievous sin of reading secular and profane writers, Cicero, Virgil, and Horace, whom for that reason he resolved never to take into his hands any more.”

He was in his 31st year, when he entered upon this monastic course of life; and he carried it, by his own practice, to that height of perfection, which he ever after enforced upon others so zealously by precept. He divided all his time between devotion and study: he exercised himself much in watchings and fastings; slept little, ate less, and hardly allowed himself any recreation. He applied himself very severely to the study of the Holy Scriptures, which he is said to have gotten by heart, as well as to the study of the Oriental languages, which he considered as the only keys that could let him into their true sense and meaning, and which he learned from a Jew Who visited him privately lest he should offend his brethren. After he had spent four years in this laborious way of life, his health grew so impaired, that he was obliged to return to Antioch: where the church at that time was divided by factions, Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis all claiming a right to the bishopric of that place. Jerom being a son of the church of Rome, where he was baptized, would not espouse any party, till he knew the sense of his own church upon this contested right. Accordingly, he wrote to Damasus, then bishop of Rome, to know whom he must consider as the lawful bishop of Antioch; and upon Damasus’s naming Paulinus, Jerom acknowledged him as such, and was ordained a presbyter by him in 378, but would never proceed any farther in ecclesiastical dignity. From this time his reputation for piety and learning began to spread abroad, and be known in the world. He went soon after to Constantinople, where he spent a considerable time with Gregory Nazianzen; whom he did not disdain to call his master, and owned, that of him "he learned the right method of expounding the Holy Scriptures. Afterwards, in the year 382, he went to Rome with Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, and Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in the isle of Cyprus; where tie soon became known to Damasus, and was made his secretary. He acquitted himself in this post very well, and yet found time to compose several works. Upon the death of Damasus, which happened in the year 385, he began to entertain thoughts of travelling again to the East; to which he was moved chiefly by the disturbances and vexations he met with from the followers of Origen, at Rome. For these, when they had in vain endeavoured, says Cave, to draw him over to their party, raised infamous reports and calumnies against him. They charged him, among other things, with a criminal passion for one Paula, an eminent matron, in whose house he had lodged during his residence at Rome, and who was as illustrious for her piety as for the splendor of her birth, and the dignity of her rank. For these and other reasons he was determined to quit Rome, and accordingly embarked for the East in August in the year 385, attended by a great number of monks and ladies, whom he had persuaded to embrace the ascetic way of life. He sailed to Cyprus, where he paid a visit to Epiphanius; and arrived afterwards at Antioch, where he was kindly received by his friend Paulinus. From Antioch he went to Jerusalem; and the year following from Jerusalem into Egypt. Here he visited several monasteries: but rinding to his great grief the monks every where infatuated with the errors of Origen, he returned to Bethlehem, a town near Jerusalem, that he might be at liberty to cherish and propagate his own opinions, without any disturbance or interruption from abroad. This whole peregrination is particularly related by himself, in one of his pieces against RufRnus; and is very characteristic, and shews much of his spirit and manner of writing.

Jerom was as exceptionable in many parts of his literary character, as he was in his moral, whatever Erasmus or his panegyrists may have said to the contrary instead of an orator, he was rather a declaimer and, though he undertook to translate so many things out of Greek and Hebrew, he was not accurately skilled in either of those languages; and did not reason clearly, consistently, and precisely, upon any subject. This has been shewn in part already by Le Clerc, in a book entitled “Quaestiones Hieronymianae,” printed at Amsterdam in 1700, by way of critique upon the Benedictine edition of his works. In the mean time we are ready to acknowledge, that the writings of Jerom are useful, and deserve to be read by all who have any regard for sacred antiquity. They have many uses in common with other writings of ecclesiastical authors, and many peculiar to themselves. The writings of Jerom teach us the doctrines, the rites, the manners, and the learning of the age in which he lived; and these also we learn from the writings of other fathers. But the peculiar use of JeronVs works is, 1. Their exhibiting to us more fragments of the ancient Greek translators of the Bible, than the works of any other father 2. Their informing us of the opinions which the Jews of that age had of the signification of many Hebrew words, and of the sense and meaning they put upon many passages in the Old Testament; and, 3. Their conveying to us the opinion of Jerom himself; who, though he must always be read with caution, on account of his declamatory and hyperbolical style, and the liberties he allowed himself of feigning and prevaricating upon certain occasions, will perhaps, upon the whole, be found to have had more judgment as well as more learning than any father who went before him.

The principal of his works, which are enumerated by Cave and Dupin, are, a new Latin version of the whole “Old Testament,” from the Hebrew, accompanied with a corrected edition of the ancient version of the “New Testament,” which, after having been at first much opposed, was adopted by the Catholic church, and is commonly distinguished by the appellation of “Vulgate;” “Commentaries” on most of the books of the Old and New Testament “A Treatise on the Lives and Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors” “A continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius” moral, critical, historical, and miscellaneous “Letters.” The first printed edition of his works was that at Basil, under the care of Erasmus, 1516 1526, in six vols. folio, of which there have been several subsequent impressions at Lyons, Rome, Paris, and Antwerp. The most correct edition is that of Paris, by father Martianay, a Benedictine monk of the congregation of St. Maur, and Anthony Pouget, 1693 1706, in 5 vols. folio. There is, however, a more recent edition, with notes by Vallarsius, printed at Verona in 1734 -42, in eleven volumes, folio. The eleventh contains the life of Jerom, certain pieces attributed to him on doubtful authority, and an Index. Of his “Letters, or Epistles,” there are many editions executed about the infancy of printing, which are of great beauty, rarity, and value.

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

In common with many of the early martyrs, his consistency has been attacked by the Romish writers; but one of their number, the celebrated Poggio Bracciolini, in a letter he wrote to Leonard Aretin, has delineated his character in language of the highest admiration. Poggio was present at the council when Jerome made his defence, and immediately wrote the letter we speak of, which has been translated by Mr. Gilpin with an elegance corresponding to the fervent glow of the original. We shall transcribe only one passage which respects the eloquence of this martyr, and the impression it made on the liberal and learned Poggio: “His voice was sweet, distinct, and full; his action every way the most proper, either to express indignation, or to raise pity: though he made no affected application to the passions of his audience. Firm and intrepid, he stood before the council collected in himself; and not only contemning, but seeming even desirous of death. The greatest character in ancient story could not possibly go beyond him. If there is any justice in history, this man will be admired by all posterity I speak not of his errors: let these rest with him. What I admired was his learning, his eloquence, and amazing acuteness. God knows whether these things were not the ground-work of his ruin.” After giving an account of his death, Poggio adds, "Thus died this prodigious man. The epithet is not extravagant. I was myself an eye-witness of his whole behaviour. Whatever his life may have been, his death, without doubt, is a lesson of philosophy. 7 ' Of his recantation it may be remarked, that like Cranmer, and a few others, who in their first terror offered to exchange principles for life, they became afterwards, and almost immediately afterwards, more confident in the goodness of their cause, and more willing to suffer in defence of it.

, a celebrated French divine, was born in 1592, at Poligrii in Franche-Comte. His father was a counsellor in the parliament at Dole. The piety of Le Jeune was of the most exemplary kind. He delighted in the most arduous offices of his profession; and refused a canonry of Arbois, to enter into the then rising, 'but strict society of the oratory. His patience and humility were no less remarkable than his piety. He lost his sight at the age of thirty-five, yet did not suffer that great misfortune to depress his spirits. He was twice cut for the stone, without uttering a single murmur of impatience. As a preacher he was highly celebrated, but totally free from all ostentation. As a converter of persons estranged from religion, or those esteemed heretical, he is said to have possessed wonderful powers of persuasion. Many dignitaries of the church were highly sensible of his merits; particularly cardinal Berulle, who regarded him as a son, and La Fayette bishop of Limoges, who finally persuaded him to settle in his diocese. Le Jeune died Aug. 19, 1672, at the age of eighty. There are extant ten large volumes of his sermons, in 8vo, which were studied and admired by Massillon, and have been also translated into Latin. His style is simple, insinuating, and affecting, though now a little antiquated. He published also a translation of Grotius’s tract “De Veriiate Ileligionis Christiana.”

He had early imbibed Protestant principles, and inculcated them among his pupils; but this was carried on privately till the accession of Edward VI. in 1546, when he made a public declaration of his faith, and entered into a close friendship with Peter Martyr, who was professor of divinity at Oxford. Mr. Jewel was one of his most constant hearers, and used to take down his lectures, by means of a kind of short-hand invented by himself, with so much accuracy, that he was frequently afterwards employed in taking down the substance of public debates on religion, which were then common. In 1551 he took the degree of B. D. and frequently preached before the university with great applause. At the same time he preached and catechised every other Sunday at Sunningwell in Berkshire, of which church he was rector. Thus he zealously promoted the Reformation during this reign, and, in a proper sense, became a confessor for it in the succeeding; so early, as to be expelled the college by the fellows, upon their private authority, before any law was made, or order given by queen Mary. On this occasion, they had nothing to object against him, but, 1, His followiug of Peter Martyr. 2. His preaching some doctrines contrary to popery. 3. His taking orders according to the laws then in force. 4. And, according to Fuller, his refusal to be present at mass, and other popish solemnities. At his departure he took leave of the college in a Latin speech, full of pathetic eloquence. Unwilling, however, to leave the university, he took chambers in Broadgate-halJ, now Pembroke college, where many of his pupils followed him, besides other gentlemen, who were induced by the fame of his learning to attend his lectures. But the strongest testimony to his literary merit was given by the university, who made him their orator, and employed him to write their first congratulatory address to her majesty. Wood indeed observes, that this task was evidently imposed upon him by those who meant him no kindness; it being taken for granted, that he must either provoke the Roman catholics, or lose the good opinion of his party. If this be true, which is probable enough, he had the dexterity to escape the snare; for the address, being both respectful and guarded, passed the approbation of Tresham the commissary, and some other doctors, and was well received by the queen; but his latest biographer attributes the appointment solely to the opinion the university had of him as an elegant writer, and therefore the most fit to pen an address on such an occasion.

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

The much wished-for event at length was made known, and upon the accession of the new queen, or rather the year after, 1559, Jewel returned.to England; and we find his name, soon after, among the sixteen divines appointed hy queen Elizabeth to hold a disputation in Westminsterabbey against the papists. In July 1559, he was in the commission constituted by her majesty to visit the dioceses of Sarum, Exeter, Bristol, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester, in order to exterminate popery in the west of England; and he was consecrated bishop of Salisbury on Jan. 21 following, and had the restitution of the temporalities April 6, 1560. This promotion was presented to him as a reward for his great merit and learning; and another attestation of these was given him by the university of Oxford, who, in 1565, conferred on him, in his absence, the degree of D. D. in which character he attended the queen to Oxford the following year, and presided at the divinity disputations held before her majesty on that occasion. He had, before, greatly distinguished himself, by a sermon preached at St. Paul’s-cross, soon after he had been made a bishop, in which he gave a public challenge to all the Roman catholics in the world, to produce but one clear and evident testimony out of any father or famous writer who flourished within 600 years after Christ, of the existence of any one of the articles which the Romanists maintain against the church of England; and two years afterwards he published his famous “Apology” for that church. In the mean time he gave a particular attention to his diocese, where he began in his first visitation, and completed in his last, a great reformation, not only in his cathedral and parochial churches, but in all the courts of his jurisdiction. He watched so narrowly the proceedings of his chancellor and archdeacons, and of his stewards and receivers, that they had no opportunities of being guilty of oppression, injustice, or extortion, nor of being a burden, to the people, or a scandal to himself. To prevent these, and the like abuses, for which the ecclesiastical courts are often censured, he sat in his consistory court, and there saw that all things were conducted rightly: he also sat often as an assistant on the bench of civil justice, being himself a justice of the peace.

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

Dr. Humfrey, in the Life of our bishop, has endeavoured to represent him a favourer of the nonconformists. But it is certain, that he opposed them in his exile, when they began their disputes at Francfort; and in a sermon of his preached at Paul’s Cross, not long before his death, and printed among his Works in 1609, he defended the rites and ceremonies of the church against them. He had likewise a conference with some of them concerning the ceremonies of the present state of the church, which he mentioned with such vigour, that though upon his death-bed he professed that neither his sermon nor'conference were undertaken to please any mortal man, or to trouble those who thought differently from him; yet the puritans could not forbear shewing their resentments against him. “It was strange to me,” says Dr. Whitgift, “to hear so notable a bishop, so learned a man, so stout a champion of true religion, so painful a prelate, as bishop Jewel, so ungratefully and spightfully used by a sort of wavering wicked tongues.” He is supposed likewise to have been the author of a paper, entitled “A brief and lamentable Consideration of the Apparel now used by the Clergy of England,” written in 1566, in which he addresses the nonconformists in a style which evidently shews his dislike of their obstinacy in matters of trivial importance, and his dread of what might be the consequences to the church in future times.

Dr. Jewel’s writings, which have rendered his name celebrated over all Europe, are: 1. “Exhortatio ad Oxonienses.” The substance printed in Humfrey’s Life of him, p. 35, 1573, 4to. 2. “Exhortatio in collegio CC. sive concio in fundatoris Foxi commemorationem,” p. 45, &c. 3. “Concio in templo B. M. Virginis,” Oxon. 1550, preached for his degree of B. D. reprinted in Humfrey, p. 49. 4. “Oratio in aula collegii CC.” His farewell speech on his expulsion in 1554, printed by Humfrey, p. 74, &c. 5. A short tract, “De Usura,” ibid. p. 217, &c. 6. “Epistola ad Scipionem Patritium Venetum,” &c. 1559, and reprinted in the appendix to father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” in English, by Brent, third edition, 1629, folio. 7. “A Letter to Henry Bullinger at Zurich, concerning the State of Religion in England,” dated May 22, 1559, printed in the appendix to- Strype’s (l Annals,“No. xx. 8. Another letter to the same, dated Feb. 8, 1566, concerning his controversy with Hardy nge, ibid. No. 36, 37. 9.” Letters between him and Dr. Henry Cole, &c. 1560,“8vo. 10.” A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross, the second Sunday before Easter, anno 1560,“8vo. Dr. Cole wrote several letters to him on this subject 11.” A Reply to Mr. Hardynge’s Answer, &c.“1566, fol. and again in Latin, by Will. Whitaker, fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, at Geneva, 1578, 4to; and again in 1585, in folio, with our author’s” Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae.“12.” Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1562, 8vo several times printed in England, and translated into German, Italian, French, Spanish, and Dutch and a Greek translation of it was printed at Oxford, in 1614, 8vo. It was likewise translated into Welsh, Oxford, 157] The English translation by the lady Bacon, wife to sir Nicolas Bacon, was entitled” An Apology or Answer in Defence of the Church of England, &c.“1562, 4to. This” Apology“was approved by the queen, and set forth with the consent of the bishops. 13.” A Defence of the Apology, &c.“1564, 1567, foiio; again in Latin, by Tho. Braddock, fellow of Christ’s college, Cambridge, at Geneva, 1600, fol. The” Apology“was ordered by queen Elizabeth, king James, king Charles, and four successive archbishops, to be read and chained up in all parish churches throughout England and Wales. 14.” An Answer to a book written by Mr. Hardynge, entitled c A Detection of sundry foul Errors,' &c.“1568 and 1570, folio. 15.” A View of a seditious Bull sent into England from Pius V. &c.“1582, 8vo. 16. A Treatise of the Holy Scriptures,” 8vo. 17. “Exposition on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians,” 1594, 8vo. 18. A Treatise of the Sacraments, c.“1583. 19.” Certain Sermons preached before the queen’s majesty at Paul’s Cross, and elsewhere.“All these books (except the first eight), with the” Sermons“and Apology,” were printed at London, 1609, in one volume, folio, with an abstract of the author’s life, by Dan. Featly; but full of faults, as Wood says. There is a better life prefixed to the octavo edition of the Apology, 1685. 20. “An Answer to certain frivolous Objections against the Government of the Church of England,” 1641, 4to, a single sheet. 21. Many Utters in the collection of records in Part III. of Burnet’s “History of the Reformation.”

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

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

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

, an eminent divine among the nonjurors, the only son of the rev. Thomas Johnson, vicar of Frindsbury, near Rochester, was born Dec. 30, 1662, and was educated in the king’s school in Canterbury, where he made such progress in the three learned languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, under Mr. Lovejoy, then master of that school, that when he was very little more than fifteen years of age, he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted in the college of St. Mary Magdalen, under the tuition of Mr. Turner, fellow of that house, March the 4th, 1677-8. In Lent term 1681-2, he took the degree of B. A. and soon after was nominated by the dean and chapter of Canterbury to a scholarship in Corpus Christi college' in that university, of the foundation of archbishop Parker, to which he was admitted April the 29th, 1682, under the tuition of Mr. Beck, fellow of that house. He took the degree of M. A. at the commencement 1685. Soon after he entered into deacon’s orders, and became curate to the rector of Upper and Lower Hardres, near Canterbury. He was ordained priest by the right rev. Dr. Thomas Sprat, lord bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, December the 19th, 1686 and July the 9th, 1687, he was collated to the vicarage of Bough ton under the Blean, by Dr. Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and at the same time he was allowed by the same archbishop to hold the adjoining vicarage of Hern-hill by sequestration; both which churches he supplied himself. About 1689 one Sale, a man who had counterfeited holy orders, having forged letters of ordination both for himself and his father, came into this diocese, and taking occasion from the confusion occasioned by the revolution during the time archbishop Bancroft was under suspension, and before Dr. Tin lotson was consecrated to the archbishopric, made it his business to find out what livings were held by sequestration only, and procured the broad seal for one of these for himself, and another for his father. On this Mr. Johnson thought it necessary to secure his vicarage of Hern -hi II, that he might prevent Sale from depriving him of that benefice; and archbishop Sancrot't being then deprived ah officio only, but not a bencficio, presented him to Hern-hill, to which he was instituted October the 16th, 1689, by Dr. George Oxenden, vicar-general to the archbishop, but at that time to the dean and chapter of Canterbury, guardians of the spiritualities during the suspension of the archbishop. But as the living had been so long held by sequestration that it was lapsed to the crown, he found it necessary to corroborate his title with the broad seal, which was given him April the 12th, 1690. In 1697. the vicarage of St. John in the Isle of Thanet, to which the town of Margate belongs, becoming void, archbishop Tenison, the patron, considering the largeness of the cure, was desirous to place there a person better qualified than ordinary to supply it, and could think of no man in his diocese more fit than Mr. Johnson, and therefore entreated him to undertake the pastoral care of that large and populous parish. And because the benefice was but small, and the cure very great, the archbishop, to induce him to accept of it, collated him to the vicarage of Appledore (a good benefice) on the borders of Romney Marsh, on the 1st of May, 1697: but Mr. Johnson chose to hold Margate by sequestration only. And having now two sons ready to be instructed in learning, he would not send them to school, but taught them himself; saying that he thought it as much the duty of a father to teach his own children, if he was capable of doing it, as it was of the mother to suckle and nurse them in their infancy, if she was able; and because he believed they would learn better in company than alone, he took two or three boarders to teach with them, the sons of some particular friends. He was much importuned by several others of his acquaintance to take their sons, but he refused. At length, finding he could not attend the he had, his great cure, and his studies, in such a manner as he was desirous to do, he entreated his patron the archbishop, to give him leave entirely to quit Margate, and to retire to his cure of Appledore, which, with some difficulty, was at last granted him; but not till his grace had made inquiry throughout his diocese and the university of Cambridge for one who might be thought qualified to succeed him. He settled at Appledore in 1703, and as soon as his eldest son was fit for the university (which was in 1705) he sent him to Cambridge, and his other son to school till he was of age to be put out apprentice; and dismissed all the rest of his scholars. He seemed much pleased with Appledore at his first retirement thither, as a place where he could follow his studies without interruption. But this satisfaction was not of long continuance; for that marshy air, in a year or two, brought a severe sickness on himself and all his family, and his constitution (which till then had been very good) was so broken, that he never afterwards recovered the health he had before enjoyed. This made him desirous to remove from thence as soon as he could; and the vicarage of Cranbrook becoming void, he asked the archbishop to bestow it on him, which his grace readily did, and accordingly collated him to it April the 13th, 1707, where he continued till his death, holding Appledore with it. In 1710, and again in 1713, he was chosen by the clergy of the diocese of Canterbury to be one of their proctors for the convocation summoned to meet with the parliament in those years. And as the first of these convocations was permitted to sit and act, and to treat of matters of religion (though they brought no business to any perfection, owing to the differences that had been raised between the two houses) he constantly attended the house of which he was a member whilst any matter was there under debate; and his parts and learning came to be known and esteemed by the most eminent clergy of the province, as they had been before by those of the diocese where he lived; so that from this time he was frequently resorted to for his opinion in particular cases, and had letters sent to him from the remotest parts of the province of Canterbury, and sometimes from the other province also, requiring his opinion in matters of learning, especially as to what concerned our religion and ecclesiastical laws. He continued at Cranbrook about eighteen years; and as he had been highly valued, esteemed, and beloved at all other places where he had resided, so was he here also by all that were true friends, says his biographer, “to the pure catholic religion of Jesus Christ, as professed and established in the church of England. But as there were many dissenters of all denominations in that place, and some others, who (though they frequented the church, yet) seemed to like the Dissenters better, and to side with them upon all occasions, except going to their meetings for religious worship, I cannot say how they loved and esteemed him. However, he was so remarkably upright in his life and conversation, that even they could accuse him of no other fault, except his known hearty zeal for the church of England, which all impartial persons would have judged a virtue. For certainly those that have not an hearty affection for a church ought not to be made priests of it. Some of those favourers of the dissenters studied to make him uneasy, by endeavouring to raise a party in his parish against him, merely because they could not make him, like themselves, a latitudinarian in matters of religion; but they failed in their design, and his friends were too many for them *.” A little before he left Appledore, he began to discover that learning to the world, which till this time was little known beyond the diocese where he lived, except to some particular acquaintance, by printing several tracts; though his modesty was such, that he would not put his name to them, till they had at least a second edition. The first of these was a “Paraphrase with Notes on the Book of Psalms according to the Translation retained in our Common Prayer- Book,” published in 1706. The next book he wrote was the “Clergyman’s Vade-Mecum,” 1708, which went through five editions, and was followed, in 1709, by a second part. In 1710 he published the “Propitiatory Oblation in the Eucharist;” in 1714, “The Unbloody Sacrifice/' part I.; and in 1717, part II.; in 1720,” A Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws."

, an excellent antiquary, and founder of the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding, was descended from a family much distinguished in the last century. At Berkhamstead, the seat of one of his relations, were half-length portraits of his grandfather, old Henry Johnson and his lady, and sir Charles and lady BickerstafF, and their daughter, who was mother to sir Henry Johnson, and to Benjamin Johnson, poet-laureat to James I. who, agreeably to the orthography of that age, spelt his name Jonson. Sir Henry was painted half-length, by Frederick Zucchero; and the picture was esteemed capital. The family of Johnson were ajso allied to many other families of consideration. Mr. Johnson, born at Spalding, a member of the Inner Temple, London, and steward of the soke or manor of Spalding, married early in life a daughter of Joshua Ambler, esq. of that place. She was the granddaughter of Sir Anthony Oldh'eld, and lineally descended from Sir Thomas Gresham, the founder of Gresham-coilege, and of the Royal Exchange, London. By this lady he had twenty-six children, of whom sixteen sat down together to his table.

Mr. Johnson in the latter part of his life was attacked with a vertiginous disorder in his head, which frequently interrupted his studies, and at last put a period to his life, Feb. 6, 1755. He acquired a general esteem from the frankness and benevolence of his character, which displayed itself not less in social life than in the communication of his literary researches. Strangers who applied to him for information, though without any introduction except what arose from a genuine thirst for knowledge congenial with his own, failed not to experience the hospitality of his board. While their spirit of curiosity was feasted by the liberal conversation of the man of letters, their social powers were at the same time gratified by the hospitable frankness of the benevolent Englishman. The following eulogium on him by Dr. Stukeley, is transcribed from the original in the “Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries:” “Maurice Johnson, esq. of Spalding in Lincolnshire, counsellor at law, a fluent orator, and of eminence in his profession one of the last of the founders of the Society of Antiquaries, 1717, except Br. Willis and W. Stukeley founder of the literary society at Spaldfog, Nov. 3, 1712, which, by his unwearied endeavours, interest, and application in every kind, infinite labours in writing, collecting, methodizing, has now [1755] subsisted forty years in great reputation, and excited a great spirit of learning and curiosity in South Holland [in Lincolnshire]. They have a public library, and all conveniences for their weekly meeting. Mr. Johnson was a great lover of gardening, and had a fine collection of plants, and an excellent cabinet of medals. He collected large memoirs for the ‘ History of Carausius,’ all which, with his coins of that prince, be sent to me, particularly a brass one which he supposed his son, resembling those of young Tetricus. A good radiated Caes Spfa. Rev. a woman holds a cornucopiæ, resting her right hand on a pillar or rudder, Locis or Cislo. In general the antiquities of the great mitred priory of Spalding, and of this part of Lincolnshire, are for ever obliged to the care and diligence of Maurice Johnson, who has rescued them from oblivion.”

When Mr. Johnson was brought to trial, he employed Mr. Wallop as his counsel, who urged for his client, that he had offended against no law of the land that the book, taken together, was innocent but that any treatise might be made criminal, if treated as those who drew up the information had treated this. The judges, however, had orders to proceed in the cause, and the chief justice Jeffries upbraided Johnson for meddling wi^tt what did not belong to him, and scoffingly told him, that he would give him a text, which was, “Let every man study to be quiet, and rnmd his own business:” to which Johnson replied, that he did mind his business as an Englishman when he wrote that book. He was condemned, however, in a fine of 500 marks, and committed prisoner to the King’sbench till he should pay it. Here he lay in very necessitous circumstances, it being reckoned criminal to visit or shew him any kindness; so that few had the courage to come near him, or give him any relief; by which means he was reduced very low. Notwithstanding which, when his mother, whom he had maintained for many years, sent to him for subsistence, such was his filial affection, that though he knew not how to supply his own wants, and those of his wife and children, and was told on this occasion, that “charity begins at home,” he sent her forty shillings, though he had but fifty in the world, saying, he would do his duty, and trust Providence for his own supply. The event shewed that his hopes were not vain; for the next morning he received lOl. by an unknown hand, which he discovered at a distant period to have been sent by Dr. Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester.

A Popish priest made an offer for 200L to get the whipping part of the sentence remitted: the money was accordingly lodged, by one of Johnson’s friends, in a third hand, for the priest, if he performed what he undertook but to no purpose; the king was deaf to all in treaties the answer was, “That since Mr. Johnson had the spirit of martyrdom, it was fit he should suffer.” Accordingly, Dec. 1, 1686, the sentence was rigorously put in execution; which yet he bore with great firmness, and went through even with alacrity. He observed afterwards to an intimate friend, that this text of Scripture which came suddenly into his mind, “He endured the cross, despising the shame,” so much animated and supported him in his bitter journey, that, had he not thought it would have looked like vain-glory, he could have sung a psalm while the executioner was doing his office, with as much composure and cheerfulness as ever he had done in the church; though at the same time he had a quick sense of every stripe which was given him, to the number of 317, with a whip of nine cords knotted. This was the more remarkable in him, because he had not the least tincture of enthusiasm . The truth is, he was endued with a natural hardiness of temper to a great degree; and being inspirited by an eager desire to suffer for the cause he had espoused, he was enabled to support himself with the firmness of a martyr. After the execution of this sentence, the king gave away his living; and the clergyman who had the grant of it, made application to the three bishops abovementioned for institution; but they, being sensible of his imperfect degradation, would not grant it without a bond of indemnity; after which, when he went to Corringham for induction, the parishioners opposed him, so that he could never obtain entrance, but was obliged to return re iiifectd. Mr. Johnson thus kept his living, and with it, his resolution also to oppose the measures of the court; insomuch that, before he was out of the surgeon’s hands, he reprinted 3000 copies of his “Comparison between Popery and Paganism.” These, however, were not then published; but not long after, about the time of the general toleration, he published “The Trial and Examination of a late Libel,” &c. which was followed by others every year till the Revolution. The parliament afterwards, taking his case into consideration, resolved, June 11, 1689, that the judgement against him in the King’s-bench, upon an information for a misdemeanor, was cruel and illegal; and a committee was at the same time appointed to bring in a bill for reversing that judgement. Being also ordered to inquire how Mr. Johnson came to be degraded, and by what authority it was done, Mr. Christy, the chairman, some days after reported his case, by which it appears, that a libel was then exhibited against him, charging him with great misdemeanors, though none were specified or proved that he demanded a copy of the libel, and an advocate, both which were denied that he protested against the proceedings, as contrary to law and the 132d canon, not being done by his own diocesan but his protestation was refused, as was also his appeal to the king in chancery and that Mrs. Johnson had also an information exhibited against her, for the like matter as that against her husband. The committee came to the following resolutions, which were all agreed to by the house “That the judgement against Mr. Johnson was illegal and cruel: that the ecclesiastical commission was illegal, and consequently, the suspension of the bishop of London, and the authority committed to three bishops, null and illegal: that Mr. Johnson’s not being degraded by his own diocesan, if he had deserved it, was illegal: that a bill be brought in to reverse the judgement, and to declare all the proceedings before the three bishops null and illegal: and that an address be made to his majesty, to recommend Mr. Johnson to some ecclesiastical preferment, suitable to his services and sufferings.” The house presented two addresses to the king, in behalf of Mr. Johnson: and, accordingly, the deanery of Durham was offered him, which however he refused, as an unequal reward for his services,

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

, one of the most eminent and highly-distinguished writers of the eighteenth century, was born on the 18th of September, 1709, at Lichfield in Staffordshire, where his father, Michael Johnson, a native of Derbyshire, of obscure extraction, was at that time a bookseller and stationer. His mother, Sarah Ford, was a native of Warwickshire, and sister to Dr. Ford, physician, who was father to Cornelius Ford, a clergyman of loose character, whom Hogarth has satirized in the print of Modern Midnight Conversation. Our author was the eldest of two sons. Nathaniel, the youngest, died in 1737 in his twenty-fifth year. The father was a man of robust body and active mind, yet occasionally depressed by melancholy, which Samuel inherited, and, with the aid of a stronger mind, was not always able to shake off. He was also a steady high-churchman, and an adherent of the house of Stuart, a prejudice which his son outlived in the nation at large, without entirely conquering in himself. Mrs. Johnson was a woman of good natural understanding, unimproved by education; and our author acknowledged with gratitude, that she endeavoured to instil sentiments of piety as soon as his mind was capable of any instruction. There is little else in his family history worthy of notice, nor had he much pleasure in tracing his pedigree. He venerated others, however, who could produce a recorded ancestry, and used to say, that in him this was disinterested, for he could scarcely teil who was his grandfather. That he was remarkable in his early years has been supposed, but many proofs have not been advanced by his biographers. He had, indeed, a retentive memory, and soon discovered symptoms of an impetuous temper; but these circumstances are not enough to distinguish him from hundreds of children who never attain eminence. In his infancy he was afflicted with the scrophula, which injured his sight, and he was carried to London to receive the royal touch from the hand of queen Anne, the last of our sovereigns who encouraged that popular superstition. He was first taught to read English by a woman who kept a school for young children at Lichfield; and afterwards by one Brown. Latin he learned at Lichfield school, under Mr. Hunter, a man of severe discipline, but an attentive teacher. Johnson owned that he needed correction, and that his master did not spare him; but this, instead of being the cause of unpleasant recollections in his advanced life, served only to convince him that severity in school-education is necessary; and in all his conversations on the subject, he persisted in pleading for a liberal use of the rod. At this school his superiority was soon acknowledged by his companions, who could not refuse submission to the ascendancy which he acquired. His proficiency, however, as in every part of his life, exceeded his apparent diligence. He could learn more than others in the same allotted time: and he was learning when he seemed to be idle. He betrayed an early aversion to stated tasks, but, if roused, he could recover the time he appeared to have lost with great facility. Yet he seems afterwards to have been conscious that much depends on regularity of study, and we find him often prescribing to himself stated portions of reading, and recommending the same to others. No man perhaps was ever more sensible of his failings, or avowed them with more candour; nor, indeed, would many of them have been known, if he had not exhibited them as warnings. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, and to his last days he prided himself on it, considering a defect of memory as the prelude of total decay. Perhaps be carried this doctrine rather too far when he asserted, that the occasional failure of memory in a man of seventy must imply something radically wrong; but it may be in. general allowed, that the memory is a pretty accurate standard of mental strength. Although his weak sight prevented him from joining in the amusements of his schoolfellows, for which he was otherwise well qualified by personal courage and an ambition to excel, he found an equivalent pleasure in sauntering in the fields, or reading such books as came in his way, particularly old romances. For these he retained a fondness throughout life; but was wise and candid enough to attribute to them, in some degree, that unsettled turn of mind which prevented his fixing in any profession.

During the vacation in the following year, he suffered severely by an attack of his constitutional melancholy, accompanied by alternate irritation, fretfulness, and languor. It appears, however, that he resisted his disorder by every effort of a great mind, and proved that it did not arise from want of mental resources, or weakness of understanding. On his return to the university, he probably 'continued his desultory manner of reading, and occasionally formed resolutions of regular study, in which he seldom persisted. Among his companions he was looked up to as a young man of wit and spirit, singular and unequal in temper, impatient of college rules, and not over-respectful to his seniors. Such at least seems to be the result of Mr. Boswell’s inquiries, but little is known with certainty, except what is painful to relate, that he either put on an air of gaiety to conceal his anxious cares, or secluded himself from company that that poverty might not be known, which at length compelled him to leave college without a degree.

She had a fortune of eight hundred pounds, and with part of this, he hired a large house at Edial near Lichfield, which he fitted up as an academy where young gentlemen were to be boarded and taught the Latin and Greek languages. Gilbert Walmsley, a man of learning and worth, whom he has celebrated by a character drawn with unparalleled elegance, endeavoured to promote this plan, but it proved abortive. Three pupils only appeared, one of whom was David Garrick. With these he made a shift to keep the school open for about a year and a half, and was then obliged to discontinue it, perhaps not much against his inclination. No man knew better than Johnson. what ought to be taught, but the business of education was confessedly repugnant to his habits and his temper. During this short residence at Edial, he wrote a considerable part of his “Irene,” which Mr. Walmsley advised him to prepare for the stage, and it was probably by this gentleman’s advice that he determined to try his fortune in London. His pupil Garrick had formed the same resolution; and in March 1737, they arrived in London together. Garrick, after some farther preparatory education, was designed far the study of the law, but in three or four years went on the stage, and obtained the highest honours that dramatic fame could confer, with a fortune splendid beyond all precedent. The difference in the lot of these two young men might lead to many reflections on the taste of the age, and the value of its patronage; but they are too obvious to be obtruded on any reader of feeling or judgment, and to others they would be unintelligible.

The value of his contributions to this Magazine must have been soon acknowledged. It was then in its infancy, and there is a visible improvement from the time he began to write for it. Cave had a contriving head, but with too much of literary quackery. Johnson, by recommending original or selected pieces calculated to improve the taste and judgment of the public, raised the dignity of the Magazine above its contemporaries; and to him we certainly owe, in a great measure, the various information and literary history for which that miscellany has ever been distinguished, and in which it has never been interrupted by a successful rival. By some manuscript memorandums concerning Dr. Johnson, written by the late Dr. Farmer, and obligingly given to the writer of this life by Mr. Nichols, it appears that he was considered as the conductor or editor of the Magazine for some time, and received an hundred pounds per annum from Cave.

In 1738 he m.ade his name at once known and highly respected among the eminent men of his time, by the publication of “London,” a poem in imitation of the third satire of Juvenal. The history of this publication is not uninteresting. Young authors did not then present themselves to the public without much cautious preparation. Johnson conveyed his poem to Cave as the production' of another, of one who was “under very disadvantageous circumstances of fortune;” and as some small encouragement to the printer, he not only offered to correct the press, but even to alter any stroke of satire which he might dislike. Cave, whose heart appears to more advantage in this than in some other of his transactions with authors, sent a present to Johnson for the use of his poor friend, and afterwards, it appears, recommended Dodsley as a purchaser. Dodsley had just begun business, and had speculated but on a few publications of no great consequence. He had, however, judgment enough to discern the merit of the poem now submitted to him, and bargained for the whole property. The sum Johnson received was ten guineas, and such were his circumstances, or such the state of literary property at that time, that he was fully content, and was ever ready to acknowledge Dodsley’s useful patronage. The poem was accordingly published in May 1738, and on the same morning with Pope’s satire of “Seventeen hundred and thirty-eight.” Johnson’s was so eagerly bought up, that a second edition became necessary in less than a week. *Pope behaved on this occasion with great liberality. He bestowed high praise on the “London,” and intimated that the author, whose name had not yet appeared, could not be long concealed. In this poem may be observed some of those political prejudices for which Johnson frequently contended afterwards. He thought proper to join in the popular clamour against the administration of sir Robert YValpole; but lived to reflect with more complacency on the conduct of that minister, when compared with some of his successors.

His “London” procured him fame, and Cave was not sorry to have engaged the services of a man whose talents had now the stamp of public approbation. Whether he had offers of patronage, or was thought a formidable enemy to the minister, is not certain; but, having leisure to calculate how little his labours were likely to produce, he soon began to wish for some establishment of a more permanent kind. With this view an offer was made to him of the mastership of the school of Appleby in Leicestershire, the salary of which was about sixty pounds, but the laws of the school required that the candidate should be a master of arts. The university of Oxford, when applied to, refused to grant this favour. Earl Gower was then solicited, in behalf of Johnson, by Pope, who knew him only as the author of “London.” His lordship accordingly wrote to Swift, soliciting a diploma from the university of Dublin, but, for what reason we are not told, this application, too, was unsuccessful. Mr. Murphy says, “There is reason to think, that Swift declined to meddle in the business; and to that circumstance Johnson’s known dislike of Swift has been often imputed.” That Swift declined to meddle in the business is not improbable, for it appears by his letters of this date (August 1738) that he was incapable of attenc(­ing to any business; but Johnson’s Life of Swift proves that his dislike had a more honourable foundation. About this time Johnson formed a design of studying the civil law, in order to practise in the Commons, yet this also was rendered impossible for want of a degree, and he was obliged to resume his labours in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The various articles which came from his pen are enumerated in chronological series by Mr. Boswell. It will be sufficient for our purpose to notice only his more important productions, or such as were of sufficient consequence to be published separately. In 1739, he wrote “A Complete Vindication of the Licensers of the Stage, from the malicious and scandalous aspersions of Mr. Brooke, author of Gustavus Vasa;” and a political tract entitled t( Marmor Norfolciense, or an Essay on an ancient prophetical inscription, in monkish rhyme, lately discovered near Lynne in Norfolk, by Probus Britannicus.“These pieces, it is almost needless to add, were ironical, a mode of writing in which our author was not eminently successful. Some notice has already been taken of” Gustavus Vasa“in the Life of Brooke. The” Marmor Norfolciense" was a severe attack on the Walpole administration, and on the reigning family; but whether it was not well understood, or when understood, considered as feeble, it certainly was not much attended to by the friends of government, nor procured to the author the reputation of a dangerous opponent. Sir John Hawkins indeed says that a prosecution was ordered, but of this no traces can be found in any of the public offices. One of his political enemies reprinted it in 1775, to shew what a change had been effected in his principles by a pension; but the publisher does not seem to have known what a very small change was really effected, and how little was necessary to render Johnson a loyal subject to his munificent sovereign, and a determined enemy of the popular politics of that time.

His next publication of any note was his “Life of Savage,” which he afterwards prefixed to that poet’s works when admitted into his collection. With Savage he had been for some time intimately acquainted, but how long is not known. They met at Cave’s house. Johnson admired his abilities, and while he sympathized with the very singular train of misfortunes which placed him among the indigent, was not less touched by his pride of spirit, and the lofty demeanour with which he treated those who neglected him. In all Savage’s virtues, there was much in common with Johnson, but his narrative shows with what nicety he could separate his virtues from his vices, and blame even firmness and independence when they degenerated into obstinacy and misanthropy. He has concealed none of Savage’s failings; and what appears of the exculpatory kind is merely an endeavour to present a just view of that unfortunate combination of circumstances, by which Savage was driven from the paths of decent and moral life; and to incite every reflecting person to put the important question “who made me to differ” This Life, of which two editions were very speedily sold, affords an extraordinary proof of the facility with which Johnson composed. He wrote forty-eight pages of the printed copy in the course of a day or night, for it is not very clear which. His biographer, who records this, enters at the same time into a long discussion intended to prove that Savage was not the* son of the countess of Macclesfield; but had this been possible, it would surely have been accomplished when the proof might have been rendered unanswerable.

In 1750 he commenced a work which raised his fame higher than it had ever yet reached, and will probably convey his name to the latest posterity. He appears to have entered on “The Rambler” without any communication with his friends, or desire of assistance. Whether he proposed the scheme himself, is uncertain, but he Was fortunate in forming a connexion with Mr. John Payne, a bookseller in Paternoster-row, and afterwards chief accountant in the Bank of England, a man with whom he lived many years in habits of friendship, and who on the present occasion treated him with great liberality. He engaged to pay him two guineas for each paper, or four guineas per week, which at that time must have been to Johnson a very considerable sum; and he admitted him to a share of the future profits of the work, when it should be collected into volumes; this share Johnson afterwards sold. As a full history of this paper has been given in another work *, it may suffice to add, that it began Tuesday, March 20, 1749-50, and closed on Saturday, March 14, 1752. So conscious was Johnson that his fame would in a great measure rest on this production, that he corrected the first two editions with the most scrupulous care, of which specimens are given in the volume referred to in the note.

In 1751 he was carrying on his “Dictionary” and “The Rambler;” and besides some occasional contributions to the Magazine, assisted in the detection of Lauder, who had imposed on him and on the world by advancing forged evidence that Milton was a gross plagiary. Dr. Douglas, the late bishop of Salisbury, was the first who refuted this unprincipled impostor; and Johnson, whom Lauder' s ingenuity had induced to write a preface and postscript to his work, now dictated a letter addressed to Dr. Douglas, acknowledging his fraud in terms of contrition, which Lauder subscribed. The candour of Johnson on this occasion was as readily acknowledged at that time, as it has since been misrepresented by the bigotted adherents to Milton’s politics. Lauder, however, returned to his “dirty work,” and published in 1754, a pamphlet entitled “The Grand Impostor detected, or Milton convicted of forgery against Charles 1.” which was reviewed, with censure, in the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year, and probably by Johnson.

In 1755 the degree of M. A. was conferred upon him by the university of Oxford, after which (in May) his “Dictionary” was published in two large volumes, folio. Of a work so well known it is unnecessary to say more in this place, than that after the lapse of half a century, neither envy has injured, nor industry rivalled its usefulness or popularity. In the following year he abridged his “ Dictionary into an octavo size, and engaged to superintend a monthly publication entitled” The Literary Magazine, or Universal Register.“To this he contributed a great many articles enumerated by Mr. Boswell, and several reviews of new books. The most celebrated of his reviews, and one of his most finished compositions, both in point of style, argument, and wit, was that of Soame Jenyns’s” Free Inquiry into the nature and origin of Evil.“This attracted so much notice that the bookseller was encouraged to publish it separately, and two editions were rapidly sold. The Magazine continued about two years, after which it was dropped for want of encouragement. He wrote also in 1756 some essays in the” Universal Visitor," another magazine, which lasted only a year. His friend Cave died in 1754, and, for whatever reason, Johnson’s regular contributions appear no more in the Gentleman’s Magazine. But he wrote a very elegant life of Cave, and was afterwards an occasional contributor. This, it would appear, was one of his worst years as to pecuniary matters. We find him, in the month of March, arrested for the sum of five pounds eighteen shillings and relieved by Mr. Richardson. His proposal for an edition of Shakspeare was again revived, and subscription tickets issued out, but it did not go to press for many years after.

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

Among his occasional productions about this time were his translation of a “Dissertation on the Greek Comedy,” for Mrs. Lennox’s English version of Brumoy, the general conclusion of the book, and an introduction to the “World Displayed,” a collection of voyages and travels, projected by his friend Newbery. When a new bridge was about to be built over the Thames at Blackfriars, he wrote some papers against the plan of the architect, Mr. Mylne. His principal motive appears to have been his friendship for Mr. Gwyn, who had given in a plan; and probably he only cloathed Gwyn’s arguments in his own stately language. Such a contest was certainly not within his province, and he could derive little other advantage than the pleasure of serving his friend. He appeared more in character when he assisted his contemporaries with prefaces and dedications, which were very frequently solicited from him. Poor as he was at this time, he taught how dedications might be written without servile submission or flattery, and yet with all the courtesy, compliment, and elegance which a liberal mind could expect.

In the same year he received a diploma from Trinity college, Dublin, complimenting him with the title of doctor of laws; and after many delays, his edition of Shakspeare was published in eight volumes octavo. The preface is universally acknowledged to be one of the most elegant and acute of all his compositions. But as an illustrator of the obscurities of Shakspeare, it must be allowed he has not done much, nor was this a study for which he was eminently qualified. He was never happy when obliged to borrow from others, and he had none of that useful industry which indulges in research. Yet his criticisms have rarely been surpassed, and it is no small praise that he was the precursor of Steevens and Malone. The success of the Shakspeare was not great, although upon the whole it increased the respect with which the literary world viewed his talents. Kenrick made the principal attack on this work, which was answered by an Oxford student named Barclay. But neither the attack nor the answer attracted much notice. In 1766 he furnished the preface, and some of the pieces which compose a volume of poetical “Miscellanies” by Mrs. Anna Williams. This lady was still an inmate in his house, and was indeed absolute mistress. Although her temper was far from pleasant, and she had now gained an ascendancy over him which she often maintained in a fretful and peevish manner, he forgot every thing in her distresses, and was indeed in all his charities, which were numerous, the most remote that can be conceived from the hope of gratitude or reward. His house was filled by dependants whose perverse tempers frequently drove him out of it, yet nothing of this kind could induce him to relieve himself at their expence. His noble expression was, “If 1 dismiss them, who will receive them r” Abroad, his society was now very extensive, and included almost every man of the age distinguished for learning, and many persons of considerable rank, who delighted in his company and conversation.

In 1770, his first political pamphlet made its appearance, in order to justify the conduct of the ministry and the House of Commons in expelling Mr. Wilkes, and afterwards declaring col. Luttrell to be duly elected representative for the county of Middlesex, notwithstanding Mr. Wilkes had the majority of votes. The vivacity and pointed sarcasm of this pamphlet formed its chief recommendation, and it continues to be read as an elegant political declamation; but it failed in its main object. It made no converts to the right of incapacitating Mr. Wilkes by the act of expulsion, and the ministry had not the courage to try the question of absolute incapacitation. Wilkes Jived to see the offensive resolutions expunged from the Journals of the House of Commons; and what seemed yet more improbable, to be reconciled to Johnson, who, with unabated dislike of his moral character, could not help admiring his classical learning and social talents* His pamphlet, which was entitled the “False Alarm,” was answered by two or three anonymous writers of no great note.

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

In 1773, he carried into execution a design which he had long meditated, of visiting the western isles of Scotland. He arrived at Edinburgh on the 18th of August, and finished his journey on the 22jd of November. During this time be passed some days at Edinburgh, and then went by St. Andrew’s, Aberdeen, Inverness, and Fort Augustus, to the Hebrides, visiting the isles of Sky, Rasay, Col, Mull, Inchkenneth, and Icolmkill. He then travelled through Argyleshire by Inverary, and thence by Lochlomond and Dumbarton to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The popularity of his own account, which has perhaps been more generally read than any book of travels in modern times, and the “Journal” of his pleasant companion Mr. Boswell, render any farther notice of this journey unnecessary. The censure he met with is now remembered with indifference, and his “Tour” continues to be read without any of the unpleasant emotions which it first excited in those who contended that he had not stated the truth, or were unwilling that the truth should be stated.

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

The rupture between Great Britain and America once more roused our author’s political energies, and produced his “Taxation no Tyranny,” in which he endeavoured to prove that distant colonies which had in their assemblies a legislature of their own, were notwithstanding liable to be taxed in a British parliament, where they had no representatives, and he thought that this country was strong enough to enforce obedience. This pamphlet, which appeared in 1775, produced a controversy, which was carried on for some time with considerable spirit, although Johnson took no share in it but the right of taxation was no longer a question for discussion the Americans were in arms, blood had been spilt, and " successful rebellion became revolution.' 7 No censure was more generally advanced at this time against our author, than that his opinions were regulated by his pension, and none could be more void of foundation. His opinion, whether just or not, of the Americans, was uniform throughout his life; and he continued to maintain them, when in strict prudence they might as well have been softened to the measure of changed times.

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

A few months after the publication of his last pamphlet, he received his diploma of LL. D. from the university of Oxford, in consequence of a recommendation from the chancellor, lord North. It is remarkable, however, that he never assumed this title in writing notes or cards. In the autumn of this year, he went on a tour to France with Mr. and Mrs. Thrale. Of this tour Mr. Boswell has printed a few memorandums, which were probably intended as the foundation of a more regular narrative, but this he doesnot appear to have ever begun. As the tour lasted only about two months, it would probably have produced more sentiment than description.

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

Johnson was delighted with the task, the utility of which had probably occurred to his mind long before, and he had certainly more acquaintance than any man then living with the poetical biography of his country, and appeared to he best qualified to illustrate it by judicious criticism. Whether we consider what he undertook, or what he performed, the sum of two hundred guineas, which he demanded, will appear a very trivial recompense. His original intention, and all indeed that was expected from him, was a very concise biographical and critical account of each poet; but he had not proceeded far before he began to enlarge the lives to the present extent, and at last presented the world with such a body of criticism as was scarcely to be expected from one man, and still less from one now verging on his seventieth year.

Not long after he undertook this work, he was invited to contribute the aid of his aloquent pen in saving the forfeited life of Dr. William Dodd, a clergyman who was convicted of forgery. This unhappy man had long been a popular preacher in the metropolis; and the public sentiment was almost universal in deprecating so shameful a sight as that of a clergyman of the church of England suffering by a public, execution. Whether there was much in Dodd’s character to justify this sentiment, or to demand the interference of the corporation of London, backed by the petitions of thousands of the most distinguished and wealthy citizens, may perhaps be doubted. Johnson, however, could not resist what put every other consideration out of the question, “a call for mercy,” and accordingly contributed every thing that the friends of Dodd could suggest in his favour. He wrote his “Speech to the Recorder of London,” delivered at the Old Bailey when sentence of death was about to be passed on him “The Convict’s Address to his unhappy brethren,” a sermon delivered by Dodd in the chapel of Newgate Two Letters, one to the Lord Chancellor Bathurst, and one to Lord Chief Justice Mansfield A petition from Dr. Dodd to the King another from Mrs. Dodd to the Queen Observations inserted in the newspapers, on occasion of Earl Percy’s having presented to his Majesty a petition for mercy to Dodd, signed by twenty thousand persons; a petition from the city of London; and Dr. Dodd’s last solemn declaration, which he left with the sheriff at the place of execution. All these have been printed in Dr. Johnson’s VVorks, with some additional correspondence which Mr. Boswell inserted in his Life. Every thing is written in a style of pathetic eloquence; but, as the author could not be concealed, it was impossible to impress a stronger sense of the value of Dodd’s talents than had already been entertained. The papers, however, contributed to heighten the clamour, which was at that time raised against the execution of the sentence, and which was confounded with what was then thought more censurable, the conduct of those by whom the unhappy man might have been saved before the process of law had been begun.

Jn 1779 the first four volumes of his Lives of the Poets were published, and the remainder in 1781, which he wrote by uis own confession, “dilatorily and hastily, unwilling to work, and working with vigour and haste.” He had, however, performed so much more than was expected, that his employers presented him with an hundred pounds in addition to the stipulated sum. As he never was insensible to the pleasure or value of fame, it is not improbable that he was yet more substantially gratified by the eagerness with which his Lives of the Poets were read and praised. He enjoyed likewise another satisfaction, which it appears he thought not unnecessary to the reputation of a great writer. He was attacked on all sides for his contempt for Milton’s politics, and the sparing praise or direct censure he had bestowed on the poetry of Prior, Hammond, Collins, Gray, and a few others. The errors, indeed, which on any other subject might have passed for errors of judgment, were by the irascible tempers of his adversaries, magnified into high treason against the majesty of poetic genius. During his life, these attacks were not few, nor very respectful, to a veteran whom common consent had placed at the head of the literature of his country; but the courage of his adversaries was observed to rise very considerably after his death, and the name which public opinion had consecrated, was now reviled with the utmost malignity. Even some who during his life were glad to conceal their hostility, now took an opportunity to retract the admiration in which they had joined with apparent cordiality; and to discover faults in a body of criticism which, after all reasonable exceptions are admitted, was never equalled, and perhaps never will be equalled for justice, acuteness, and elegance. Where can we hope to find discussions that can be compared with those introduced in the lives of Cowley, Milton, Dryden, and Pope? His abhorrence, indeed, of Milton’s political conduct, Jed him to details and observations which can, never be acceptable to a certain class of politicians; but when he comes to analyze his poetry, and to fix his reputation on its proper basis, it must surely be confessed that no man, since the first appearance of Paradise Lost, has ever bestowed praise with a more munificent hand. He appears to have collected his whole energy to immortalize the genius of Milton; nor has any advocate for Milton’s democracy appeared, who has not been glad to surrender the guardianship of his poetical fame to Johnson.

In Midsummer 1784, he acquired sufficient strength to go for the last time into Derbyshire. During his absence, his friends, who were anxious for the preservation of so valuable a life, endeavoured to procure some addition to his pension, that he might be enabled to try the efficacy of a tour to the southern part of the continent. Application was accordingly made to the lord chancellor, who seconded it in the proper quarter, but without success. He evinced, however, his high respect for Johnson, by offering to advance the sum of five hundred pounds; and Johnson, when the circumstance was communicated, thanked his lordship in a letter elevated beyond the common expressions of gratitude, by a dignity of sentiment congenial to the feelings of his noble and liberal correspondent. Dr. Brocklesby also made a similar offer, although of a lesser sum; and such indeed was the estimation in which Johnson was held, that nothing would have been wanting which money or affection could procure, either to protract his days, or to make them comfortable.

It is unpleasant, however, to quit a subject, which, the more it is revolved, serves to gladden the mind with pleasing recollections. There are surely circumstances in the history of Johnson which compel admiration in defiance of prejudice or envy. That a man of obscure birth, of manners by no means prepossessing, whose person was forbidding, whose voice was rough, inharmonious, and terrifying, whose temper was frequently harsh and overbearing; that such a man should have forced his way into the.society of a greater number of eminent characters than perhaps ever gathered round an individual; that he should not only have gained but increased their respect to a degree of enthusiasm, and preserved it unabated for so long a series of years; that men of all ranks in life, and of the highest degrees of mental excellence, should have thought it a duty, and found it a pleasure, not only to tolerate his occasional roughness, but to study his humour, and submit to his controul, to listen to him with the submission of a scholar, and consult him with the hopes of a client All this surely affords the strongest presumption that such a man was remarkable beyond the usual standard of human excellence. Nor is this inference inconsistent with the truth, for it appears that whatever merit may be attributed to his works, he was perhaps yet more to be envied in conversation, where he exhibited an inexhaustible fertility of imagination, an elegance and acuteness of argument, and a ready wit, such as never appear to have been combined in one man. And it is not too much to say that whatever opinion was entertained by tftose who knew him only in his writings, it never could have risen to that pitch of admiration which has been excited by the labours of his industrious biographer.

His death formed a very remarkable aera in the literary world. For a considerable time the periodical journals, as well as general conversation, were eagerly occupied on an event which was the subject of universal regret; and every man hastened with such contributions as memory supplied, to illustrate a character in which all took a lively interest. Numerous anecdotes were published, some authentic and some imaginary, and the general wish to knew more of Johnson was for some years insatiable. At length the proprietors of his printed works met to consider of a complete and uniform edition, but as it was feared that the curiosity which follows departed genius might soon abate, some doubt was entertained of the policy of a collection of pieces, the best of which were already in the hands of the public in various forms; but this was fortunately overruled, and these collected Works have very recently been printed for the fifth time, and will probably be long considered as a standard book in every library. Less fortunately, however, sir John Hawkins, who was one of Johnson’s executors, and professed to be in possession of materials for his Life, was engaged to write that Life, as well as to collect his Works. They accordingly appeared in 1787, in 11 vols. 8vo. Of the Life it is unnecessary to add any thing to the censure so generally passed. Sir John spoke his mind, perhaps honestly but his judgment must have been as defective as his memory,when he decided with so much prejudice and so little taste or candour, on the merits of his author, and of other eminent persons, whom, as a critic humorously said, “he brought to be tried at the Middlesex quarter sessions.” In collecting the Works, he inserted some which no man could suspect to be Johnson’s, while he omitted other pieces that had been acknowledged. A more correct arrangement, however, has been since adopted.

Two years before this edition appeared, Mr. Boswell published his Tour to the Hebrides, and exhibited such a sample of Dr. Johnson’s conversation-talents as raised very high expectations from the Life which he then announced to be in a state of preparation. Mr. Boswell’s acquaintance with Dr. Johnson commenced in 1763; and from that time he appears to have meditated what he at length executed, the most complete and striking portrait ever exhibited of any human being. His “Tour” having shown the manner in which he was to proceed, Johnson’s friends willingly contributed every document they could collect from memory or writing; and Mr. Boswell, who meditated one volume only, was soon obliged to extend his work to two bulky quartos. These were published in 1791, and bought up with an avidity which their wonderful variety of entertainment, vivacity, anecdote, and sentiment, amply justified. Five or six very large editions have since appeared, and it seems to be one of those very fortunate and fascinating books of which the public is not likely to tire.

Mr. Boswell, indeed, has proved, contrary to the common opinion, and by means which will not soon be repeated, that the life of a mere scholar may be rendered more instructive, more entertaining, and more interesting, than than that of any other human being. And although the “confidence of private conversation” has been thought to be sometimes violated in this work, for which no apology is here intended, yet the world seems agreed to forgive this failing in consideration of the pleasure it has afforded; that wonderful variety of subjects, of wit, sentiment, and anecdote, with which it abounds; and above all, the valuable instruction it presents on many of the most important duties of life. It must be allowed that it created some enemies to Dr. Johnson among those who were not enemies before this disclosure of his sentiments. Vanity has been sometimes hurt, and vanity has taken its usual rerenge. It is generally agreed, however, that Mr. Boswell’s account of his illustrious friend is impartial: he conceals no failing that revenge or animosity has since been able to discover; all his foibles of manner and conversation are faithfully recorded, and recorded so frequently that it is easier to form a just estimate of Dr. Johnson than of any eminent character in the whole range of biography.

In 1632, as already remarked, was published at Aberdeen “Epigrammata Arturi Johnstoni;” and in 1633, he translated Solomon’s Song into Latin elegiac verse, and dedicated it to his majesty; in 1637, he edited the “Deliciae Poetarum Scoticorum,” to which he was himself a large contributor, and which, says Dr. Johnson, would have done honour to any country. His Psalms were reprinted at Middleburg, 1642; London, 1657; Cambridge,; Amsterdam, 1706 Edinburgh, by William Lauder, 1739 and at last on the plan of the Delphin classics, at London, 1741, 8vo, at the expence of auditor Benson, who dedicated them to his late majesty, and prefixed to this edition memoirs of Dr. Johnston, with the testimonies of various learned persons. A laboured, but partial and injudicious comparison between the two translations of Buchanan and Johnston, was printed the same year by Benson, in English, in 8vo, entitled <* A Prefatory Discourse to Dr. Johnston’s Psalms,“&c. and” A Conclusion to it.“This was ably answered by the learned Ruddiman in” A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,“1745, 8vo. Johnston’s translations of the” Te Deum, Creed, Decalogue,“&c. were subjoined to the Psalms. His other poetical works are his” Parerga,“and his” Musae Aulicse,“or commendatory verses upon persons of rank in church and state at that time. Johnston is evidently entitled to very high praise as a Latin poet; and the late lord Woodhouselee seems to admit that from his days the Latin muses have deserted the northern part of our island: Benson’s comparison between Buchanan and Johnston was absurd enough, but it is not fair that Johnston should suffer by his editor’s want of taste. The abler critic we have just mentioned, does not think Johnston’s attempt to emulate Buchanan as a translator of the Psalms, greatly beyond his powers; for, although taken as a whole, his version is certainly inferior (as indeed what modern has, in Latin poetry, equalled Buchanan) yet there are a few of his Psalms, such as the 24th, 30th, 74th, 81st, 82d, 102d, and above all, the 137th, which, on comparison, lord Woodhouselee says, will be found to excel the corresponding paraphrase of his rival. And Dr. Beattie seems to speak in one respect more decidedly. Johnston, he says,” is not so verbose as Buchanan, and has of course more vigour;" but he very justly censures the radical evil of Johnston’s Psalms, his choice of a couplet, which keeps the reader always in rnind of the puerile epistles of Ovid.

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

Mr. Johnston’s other publications, of the same kind, delineating in caricature the striking outlines of popular characters and public vices, were, “The Reverie; or a Flight to the Paradise of Fools,” 1762, 2 vols. 12mo; “The History of Arbases, prince of Betlis,” 1774, 2 vols. “The Pilgrim, or a Picture of Life,” 1775, 2 vols.; and “The History of John Juniper, esq. alias Juniper Jack,” 1781, 3 vols. None of these, however, attracted the attention of the public in any considerable degree. In 1782, he had some prospect of passing his days in comfort, if not in opulence, in India, and accordingly embarked for Bengal, with capt. Charles Mears, in the Brilliant, which was wrecked off Johanna, an island situated between Madagascar and the continent of Africa; but capt. Mears, with his son and daughter, and Mr. Johnston, and some others, were saved, and ultimately reached India. Here he employed his talents in writing essays for the Bengal newspapers, under the signature of “Oneiropolos,” and at length became a joint proprietor of a paper, and by this and some other speculations, acquired considerable property. He died there about 1800. These memoirs of a man, certainly deserving of some notice, have been derived from various anonymous authorities, and are therefore given with diffidence.

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

The first sketches of Dr. Johnstone' s physiological inquiry into the uses of the ganglions of the nerves, were published in the 54th, 57th, and 60th vols. of the Phil, Trans. They were afterwards enlarged, and printed separately. In this inquiry, he considers ganglions as “little brains, subordinate springs and reservoirs of nervous power, the immediate sources of the nerves sent to organs moved involuntarily, and the check or cause which hinders our volitions from extending to them. In a word, ganglions limit the exercise of the sours authority in the animal ceconomy, and put it out of our power, by a single volition, to stop the motions of the heart, and in one capricious moment irrecoverably to end our lives.” But his physiological researches did not stop here:^ In a treatise on the Walton water, which in quality strongly resembles the Cheltenham, he has pointed out the probable function of the lymphatic glands, supposing them to be organs destined to purify, digest, and animalize the matters selected and absorbed by the lacteals and other lymphatics; thus fitting them for their union with the blood, and the nutrition of the body.