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

, 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”

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.

, 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.”

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born at Winende, a village in the duchy of Wirtemburg, in 1550. He was educated at the schools in that vicinity, and took his degree in arts at Tubingen, in 1567. He then applied himself earnestly to the study of theology, and was so remarkable for his progress in it, that in 1576he was made professor of divinity at Marpurg. About the same period he married. He was particularly zealous against the Calvinists, and not long after this time began to write against them, by which he gained so much reputation, that in 1592 he was sent for into Saxony to reform that electorate, was made divinity-professor at Wittemburg, and a member of the ecclesiastical consistory. In these offices he proved very vigilant in discovering those who had departed from the Lutheran communion; and, from the accounts of the severities practised against those who would not conform to that rule, it appears that nothing less than a strong persecution was carried on by him and his colleagues. In 1595 he was appointed pastor of the church at Wittemburg, and in the same year published his most celebrated polemical work, entitled “Calvin us Judaizans,” in which he charges that reformer with all possible heresies. At the same time he carried on a controversy with Hnberus, about predestination and election. Against Calvin he wrote with the most intemperate acrimony. Hunnius was present at the conference at Ratisbon in 1601, between the Lutherans and Roman catholics. He died of an inflammation brought on by the stone, in April 1603. His works have been collected in five volumes; and contain, funeral orations, a catechism, prayers, colloquies, notes on some of the evangelists, &c. &c. His acrimony in writing went beyond his judgment.

In 1747, Dr. Hunt was appointed regius professor of Hebrew, and consequently canon of the sixth stall in Christ church. He had in 1740 been elected a fellow of the royal society, and was also a fellow of that of antiquaries. In 1757, as we have noticed in the life of bishop Hooper, he published the works of that prelate, in the preface to which he represents himself as “one who had received many obligations from his lordship, was acquainted with his family, and had been formerly intrusted by him with the care of publishing one of his learned works,” viz. “De Benedictione patriarchs Jacobi, conjecturae,” Oxon. 1728, 4to, by the preface to which it appears that bishop Hooper was one of his early patrons. Of this only 100 copies were printed as presents to friends, but it is included in the bishop’s works.

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 anatomist and physician, was born May 23, 1718, at Kilbride in the county of Lanark. He was the seventh of ten children of John and Agnes Hunter, who resided on a small estate in that parish, called Long Calderwood, which had long been in the possession of his family. His great grandfather, by iiis fatner’s side, was a youoger son of Hunter of Hunterston, chief of the family of that name. At the age of fourteen, his father sent him to the college of Glasgow; where he passed five years, and by nis prudent behaviour and diligence acquired the esteem of the professors, and the reputation of being a good scholar. His father had designed him for the church, but the necessity of subscribing to articles of faith was to him a strong objection. In this state of mind he happened to become acquainted with Dr Cullen, who was then just established in practice at Hamilton, under the patronage of the duke of Hamilton. By the conversation of Dr. Cullen, ha was soon determined to devote himself to th^ profession of pbysic. His father’s consent having been previously obtained, he went, in 1737. to reside with Dr. Cullen. In the family of this excellent friend and preceptor he passed nearly three years, and these, as he has been often heard to acknowledge, were the happiest years of his life. It was then agreed, that he should prosecute his medical studies at Edinburgh and London, and afterwards return to settle at Hamilton, in partnership with Dr. Cullen.

Mr. Hunter set out for Edinburgh in Nov. 1740, and continued there till the following spring, attending the lectures of the medical professors, and amongst others those of the late Dr. Alexander Monro. He arrived in London in the summer of 1741, and took up his residence at Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Smellie’s, who was at that time an apothecary in Pall-mall. He brought with him a letter of recommendation to his countryman Dr. James Douglas, from Mr. Foulis, printer at Glasgow, who had been useful to the doctor in collecting for him different editions of Horace. Dr. Douglas was then intent on a great anatomical work on the bones, which he did not live to complete, and was looking out for a young man of abilities and industry whom he might employ as a dissecter. This induced him to pay particular attention to Mr. Hunter; and finding him acute and sensible, he after a short time invited him into his family, to assist in his dissections, and to superintend the education of his son. Mr. Hunter having communicated this offer to his father and Dr. Cullen, the latter readily and heartily gave his concurrence to it; but his father, who was very old and infirm, and expected his return with impatience, consented with reluctance. His father did not long survive, dying Oct. 30 following, aged 78.

Mr. Hunter, having accepted Dr. Douglas’s invitation, was by his friendly assistance enabled to enter himself as a surgeon’s pupil at St. George’s hospital under Mr. James Wilkie, and as a dissecting pupil under Dr. Frank Nichols, who at that time taught anatomy with considerable reputation. He likewise attended a course of lectures on experimental philosophy by Dr. Desaguliers. Of these means of improvement he did not fail to make a proper use. He soon became expert in dissection, and Dr. Douglas was at the expence of having several of his preparations engraved. But before many months had elapsed, he had the misfortune to lose this excellent friend. Dr. Douglas died April 1, 1742, in his 67th year, leaving a widow and two children. The death of Dr. Douglas, however, made no change in his situation. He continued to reside with the doctor’s family, and to pursue his studies with the same diligence as before. In 1743 he communicated to the royal society “An Essay on the Structure and Diseases of articulating Cartilages.” This ingenious paper, on a subject which till then had not been sufficiently investigated, affords a striking testimony of the rapid progress he had made in his anatomical inquiries. As he had it in contemplation to teach anatomy, his attention was directed principally to this object; and it deserves to be mentioned as an additional mark of his prudence, that he did not precipitately engage in this attempt,but passed several years in acquiring such a degree of knowledge, and such a collection of preparations, as might insure him success. After waiting some time for a favourable opening, he succeeded Mr. Samuel Sharpe as lecturer to a private society of surgeons in Covent-garden, began his lectures in their rooms, and soon extended his plan from surgery to anatomy. This undertaking commenced in the winter of 1746. He is said to have experienced much solicitude when he began to speak in public, but applause soon inspired him with courage; and by degrees he became so fond of teaching, that for many years before his death he was never happier than when employed in delivering a lecture.

In 1762 we find him warmly engaged in controversy, supporting his claim to different anatomical discoveries, in, a work entitled “Medical Commentaries,” the style of which is correct and spirited . As an excuse for the tardiness with which he brought forth this work, he observes in his introduction, that it required a good deal of time, and be had little to spare; that the subject was unpleasant, and therefore he was very seldom in the humour to take it up. In 1762, when our present excellent queen became pregnant, Dr. Hunter was consulted; and two years after he had the honour to be appointed physicianextraordinary to her majesty. About this time his avocations were so numerous, that he became desirous of lessening his fatigue, and having noticed the ingenuity and assiduous application of the late Mr. William Hewson, F. R. S. who was then one of his pupils, he engaged him, first as an assistant, and afterwards as a partner in his lectures. This connection continued till 1770, when some disputes happened, which terminated in a separation. [See Hewson]. Mr. Hewson was succeeded in the partnership by Mr. Cruikshank, whose anatomical abilities were deservedly respected.

Of the magnitude and value of his anatomical collection, some idea may be formed, when we consider the great length of years he employed in making anatomical preparations, and in the dissection of morbid bodies; added to the eagerness with which he procured additions, from the collections that were at different times offered for sale in London. His specimens of rare diseases were likewise frequently increased by presents from his medical friends and pupils, who, when any thing of this sort occurred to them, very justly thought they could not dispose of it more properly than by placing it in Dr. Hunter’s museum. Before his removal to Windmill-street, he had confined his collection chiefly to specimens of human and comparative anatomy, and of diseases; but now he extended his views to fossils, and likewise to the branches of polite literature and erudition. In a short space of time he became possessed of “the most magnificent treasure of Greek and Latin books that has been accumulated by any person now living, since the days of Mead.” A cabinet of ancient medals contributed likewise greatly to the richness of his museum. A description of part of the coins in this collection, struck by the Greek free cities, has been published by the doctor’s learned friend Mr. Combe, under the title of “Nummorum veterurn populorum & urbium qui in museo Guliehni Hunter asservantur descriptio figuris illustrata. Opera & studio Caroli Combe, S. R. & S. A. Soc. Londini,” 1783, 4to. In a classical dedication of this elegant volume to the queen, Dr. Hunter acknowledges his obligations to her majesty. In the preface, some account is given of the progress of the collection, which had been brought together since 1770, with singular taste, and at the expence of upwards of 20,000l. In 1781, the museum received a valuable addition of shells, corals, and other curious subjects of natural history, which had been collected by the late Dr. Fothergill, who gave directions by his will, that his collection should be appraised after his death, and that Dr. Hunter should have the refusal of it at 500l. under the valuation. This was accordingly done, and Dr. Hunter purchased it for the sum of 1200l.

This alteration in his plan did not tend to improve his health. In the course of a few years the returns of his gout became by degrees more frequent, sometimes affecting his limbs, and sometimes his stomach, but seldom remaining many hours in one part. Notwithstanding this valetudinary state, his ardour seemed to be unabated. In the last year of his life he was as eager to acquire new credit, and to secure the advantage of what he had before gained, as he could have been at the most enterprising port of his life. At length, on Saturday, March 15, 1783, after having for several days experienced a return of wandering gout, he complained of great head-ache and nausea. In this state he went to bed, and for several days felt more pain than usual, both in his stomach and limbs. On the Thursday following he found himself so much recovered, that he determined to give the introductory lecture to the operations of surgery. It was to no purpose that his friends urged to him the impropriety of such an attempt. He was determined to make the experiment, and accordingly delivered the lecture; but towards the conclusion, his strength was so exhausted that he fainted away, and was obliged to be carried to bed by two servants. The following night and day his symptoms were such as indicated danger; and on Saturday morning Mr. Combe, who made him an early visit, was alarmed on being told by Dr. Hunter himself, that during the night he had certainly had a paralytic stroke. As neither his speech nor his pulse were affected, and he was able to raise himself in bed, Mr. Combe encouraged him to hope that he was mistaken. But the event proved the doctor’s idea of his complaint to be but too well founded; for from that time till his death, which happened on Sunday March 30, he voided no urine without the assistance of the catheter, which was occasionally introduced by his brother; and purgative medicines were administered repeatedly, without procuring a passage by stool. These circumstances, and the absence of pain, seemed to shew that the intestines and bladder had lost their sensibility and power of contraction; and it was reasonable to presume, that a partial palsy had affected the nerves distributed to those parts. The latter moments of his life exhibited a remarkable instance of calmness and fortitude. Turning to his friend Mr. Combe, “If I had strength enough to hold a pen,” said he, “I would write how easy and pleasant a thing it is to die.”

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.

On the 5th of February, 1767, Mr. Hunter was elected a fellow of the royal society; and in order to make that situation as productive of knowledge as possible, he prevailed on Dr. George Fordyce, and Mr. Gumming (the celebrated watch-maker) to form a kind of subsequent meeting at a coffee-house, for the purpose of philosophical discussion, and inquiry into discoveries and improvements. To this meeting some of the first philosophers of the age very speedily acceded, among whom none can be more conspicuous than sir Joseph Banks, Dr. Solander, Dr. Maskelyne, sir Geo. Shuckburgh, sir Harry Englefieid, sir Charles Blagden, Dr. Noothe, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Watt of Birmingham. About the same time, the accident of breaking his tendo Achillis, led him to some very successful researches into the mode in which tendons are reunited so completely does a true philosopher turn every accident to the advantage of science. In 176M, Dr. Hunter having finished his house in Windmill-street, gave up to his brother that which he had occupied in Jermyn-street; and in the same year, by the interest of the doctor, Mr. Hunter was elected one of the surgeons to St. George’s hospital. In 1771 he married Miss Home, the eldest daughter of Mr. Home, surgeon to Burgoyne’s regiment of light-horse, by whom he had two sons and two daughters. In 1772 he undertook the professional education of his brother-in-law Mr. Everard Home, then leaving Westminster-school, who has assiduously pursued his steps, ably recorded his merits, and successfully emulates his reputation.

The death of Mr. Hunter was perfectly sudden, and the consequence of one of those spasmodic seizures in the heart to which he had now for several years been subject. It happened on the 16th of October, 1793. Irritation of mind had long been found to bring on this complaint; and on that day, meeting with some vexatious circumstances at St. George’s hospital, he put a degree of constraint upon himself to suppress his sentiments, and in that state went into another room; where, in turning round to a physician who was present, befell, and instantly expired without a groan. Of the disorder which produced this effect, Mr. Home has given a clear and circumstantial account, of a very interesting nature to professional readers. Mr. Hunter was short in stature, but uncommonly strong, active, and capable of great bodily exertion. The prints of him by Sharp, from a picture by sir Joshua Reynolds, give a forcible and accurate idea of his countenance. His temper was warm and impatient; but his disposition was candid and free from reserve, even to a fault. He was superior to every kind of artifice, detested it in others, and in order to avoid it, expressed his exact sentiments, sometimes too openly and too abruptly. His mind was uncommonly active; it was naturally formed for investigation, and so attached to truth and fact, that he despised all unfounded speculation, and proceeded always with caution upon the solid ground of experiment. At the same time his acuteness in observing the result of those experiments, his ingenuity in contriving, and his adroitness in conducting them, enabled him to deduce from them advantages which others would not have derived. It has been supposed, very falsely, that he was fond of hypothesis; on the contrary, if he was defective in any talent, it was in that of imagination; he pursued truth on all occasions with mathematical precision, but he made no fanciful excursions. Conversation in a mixed company, where no subject could be connectedly pursued, fatigued instead of amusing him; particularly towards the latter part of his life. He slept little; seldom more than four hours in the night, and about an hour after dinner. But his occupations, laborious as they would have been to others, were far from being fatiguing to him, being so perfectly congenial to his mind. He spoke freely and sometimes harshly of his contemporaries; but he considered surgery as in its infancy, and, being very anxious for its advancement, thought meanly of those professors whose exertions to promote it were unequal to his own. Money he valued no otherwise than as it enabled him to pursue his researches; and in his zeal to benefit mankind, he attended too little to the interests of his own family. Altogether he was a man such as few ages produce, and by his great contributions to the stores of knowledge, will ever deserve the gratitude and veneration of posterity.

, 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.

, a learned English divine, was born at Deorhyrst in Gloucestershire, where his father was minister, in 1636. Having been educated in school learning at Bristol, he was sent to Merton-college, Oxford, of which in due time he was chosen fellow. He went through the usual course of arts and sciences with great applause, and then applied himself most diligently to divinity and the Oriental languages. The latter became afterwards of infinite service to him, for he was chosen, chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, and sailed from England in Sept. 1670. During his eleven years’ residence in this place, he applied himself particularly to search out and procure manuscripts; and for this purpose maintained a correspondence with the learned and eminent of every profession and degree, which his knowledge in the Eastern, languages, and especially the Arabic, enabled him to do. He travelled also for his diversion and improvement, not only into the adjacent, but even into distant places; and after having carefully visited almost all Galilee and Samaria, he went to Jerusalem. In 1677 he went into Cyprus; and the year after undertook a journey of 150 miles, for the sake of beholding the venerable ruins of the once noble and glorious city of Palmyra; but, instead of having an opportunity of viewing the place, he and they that were with him were very near being destroyed by two Arabian princes, who had taken possession of those parts. He had better success in a journey to Egypt in 1680, where he met with several curiosities and manuscripts, and had the pleasure of conversing with John Lascaris, archbishop of mount Sinai.

, 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.

Mr. Kurd’s first literary performance, as far as can be ascertained, was “Remarks on a late book entitled ‘An Enquiry into the rejection of the Christian miracles by the Heathens, by William Weston, B. D.’” 1746. On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, he contributed some verses to the university collection of 1749. In the same year he took the degree of B. D. and published his “Commentary on Horace’s Ars Poetica,” in the preface to which he took occasion to compliment Mr. Warburton in a manner which procured him the acquaintance of that author, who soon after returned the eulogium, in his edition of Pope’s works, in which he speaks of Mr. Kurd’s Commentary in terms of the highest approbation. Hence arose an intimacy which remained unbroken during the whole of their lives, and is supposed to have had a considerable effect on the opinions of Mr. Hurd, who was long considered as the first scholar in what has been called the Warburtonian school. His Commentary was reprinted in 1757, with the addition of two Dissertations, one on the Province of the Drama, the other on Poetical Imitation, and a letter to Mr. Mason, on the “Marks of Imitation.” A fourth edition, corrected and enlarged, was published in 3 vols. 8vo. in 1765, with the addition of another Dissertation on the idea of universal Poetry; and the whole were again reprinted in 1776. It is needless to add that they fully established Mr. Kurd’s character as an elegant, acute, and judicious critic.

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 1775, by the recommendation of lord Mansfield, who had for some time cultivated his acquaintance, and had a high esteem for his talents, he was promoted to the bishopric of Lichneld and Coventry, and consecrated Feb. 12, of that year. On this occasion he received an elegant and affectionate letter of congratulation from the members of Emanuel college, to which he returned an equally elegant and respectful letter of thanks. In this year he edited ft republication of bishop Jeremy Taylor’s “Moral Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion,” 8vo; and early in 1776, published a volume of “Sermons preached at Lincoln’s-inn,” which was followed afterwards by a second and third. These added very greatly to the reputation he had derived from his sermons on prophecy, and are equally distinguished by elegant simplicity of style, perspicuity of method, and acuteness of elucidation. On June 5th of this year, he was appointed preceptor to their royal highnesses the prince of Wales, and prince Frederick, now duke of York. Very soon after entering into the episcopal office, appeared an excellent “Charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Lichneld and Coventry, at the bishop’s primary visitation in 1775 and 1776,” and soon after, his “Fast Sermon” for the “American rebellion,” preached before the House of Lords. In 1781 he* was elected a member of the royal society of Gottingen. It is somewhat remarkable that he did not belong to that of London.

In the end of February 1788, was published in 7 vols. 4to, a complete edition of the Works of bishop Warburton, prepared by our prelate, but who did not publish the “Life” until 1795. In March 1788, a fine gold medal was given to him by his majesty at the queen’s house; the king’s head on one side; the reverse was taken from the bishop’s seal (a cross with the initials on a label, 1. N. R. I. a glory above, and the motto below sx irurleus), which his majesty chanced to see and approved. The die was cut by Mr. Burch, and the medal designed for the annual prize-dissertation on theological subjects, in the university of Gottingen. In the summer of the same year he was honoured with a visit from their majesties at Hartlebury castle.

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.

Dr. Hurd was early an admirer of Addison, and although afterwards seduced into the love of a style more flighty and energetic, maturer judgment led him back to the favourite of his youth. “His taste is so pure,” Dr. Hurd says in a letter to Mason, “and his Virgiliau prose (as Dr. Young styles it) so exquisite, that I have but now found out, at the close of a critical life, the full value of his writings.” This letter is dated 1770; and the author, whose life was then far from its close, employed his leisure hours in preparing an edition of Addison’s works, which he left quite ready for the press! It was published accordingly in six handsome volumes, 8vo, with philological notes. These are accounted for in a very short address prefixed in these words: “Mr. Addison is generally allowed to be the most correct and elegant of all our writers; yet some inaccuracies of style have escaped him, which it is the chief design, of the following notes to point out. A work of this sort, well executed, wouldbe of use to foreigners who study our language and even to such of our countrymen as wish to write it in perfect purity.” This is followed by an elegant Latin inscription to Addison, written in 1805, by which we learn that he intended this edition as a monument to Addison “Hoc monumentum sacrum esto.” In the same year, 1810, a new edition of the works of bishop Warburton appeared, according to Dr. Kurd’s directions; and, for the first time, an edition of his own works, in 8 vols. 8vo, consisting of his critical works, moral and political dialogues, his sermons, and controversial tracts.

, 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.

All this time, utterly regardless of what was doing at Rome, Huss continued to preach and write with great zeal against the errors and superstitions of that church, and in defence of Wickliffe and his doctrines. His discourses were pointed directly against the pope, the cardinals, and the clergy of that party; and at the same time he published writings, to shew the lawfulness of exposing the vices of ecclesiastics. In 1413, the religious tumults and seditions were become so violent, that Subinco applied to Wenceslaus to appease them. Wenceslaus banished Huss from Prague; but still the disorders continued. Then the archbishop had recourse to the emperor Sigismond, who promised him to come into Bohemia, and assist in settling the affairs of the church; but, before Sigismond could be prepared for the journey, Subinco died in Hungary. About this time bulls were published by John XXIil. at Prague against Ladislaus king of Naples; in which a crusade was proclaimed against that prince, and indulgences promised to all who would go to the war. This furnished Huss, who had returned to Prague upon the death of Subinco, with a favourable occasion of preaching against indulgences and crusades, and of refuting these bulls: and the people were so affected and inflamed with his preaching, that they declared pope John to be Antichrist. Upon this, some of the ringleaders among the Hussites were seized and imprisoned; which, however, was not consented to" by the people, who were prepared to resist, till the magistrate had promised that no harm should happen to the prisoners; but the Hussites discovering that these persons had been executed in prison, took up arms, rescued their bodies, and interred them honourably, as martyrs, in the church of Bethlehem, which was Huss’s church. Huss, says Mr. Gilpin, discovered on this occasion a true Christian spirit The late riot had given him great concern; and he had now so much weight with the people as to restrain them from attempting any farther violence, whereas, at the sound of a bell, he could have been surrounded with thousands, who might have laughed at the police of the city.

Matters were in this state at Prague and in Bohemia, till the council of Constance was called where it was agreed between the pope and the emperor, that Huss should appear and give an account of himself and his doctrine. The emperor promised him security against any danger, and that nothing should be attempted against his person; upon which he set out, after declaring publicly, that he was going to the council of Constance, to answer the accusations that were formed against him and challenging all people who had any thing to except to his life and convey sation, to do it without delay. He made the same declaration in all the towns through which he passed, and arrived at Constance, Nov. 3, 1414. Here he was accused in form, and a list of his heretical tenets laid before the pope and the prelates of the council. He was summoned to appear the twenty-sixth day after his arrival; and declared himself ready to be examined, and to be corrected by them, if he should be found to have taught any doctrine worthy of censure. The cardinals soon after withdrew to deliberate upon the most proper method of proceeding against Huss; and the result of their deliberations was, that he should be imprisoned. This accordingly was done, notwithstanding the emperor’s parole for his security; nor were all his prince’s endeavours afterwards sufficient to release him, though he exerted himself to the utmost. Huss was removed from prison to prison for six; months, suffering great hardships from those who had the care of him; and at last was condemned of heresy by the council in his absence, and without a hearing, for maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be administered to the people in both kinds. The emperor, in the mean time, complained heavily of the contempt that was shewn to himself, and of the usage that w is employed towards Huss; insisting, that Huss ought to be allowed a fair and public hearing. In pretended compliance with this, he was on the 5th and 7th of June 1415, brought before the council, and permitted to say what he could in behalf of himself and his doctrines; but every thing was carried on with noise and tumult, and Huss soon given to understand that they were not disposed to hear any thing from him but a recantation of his errors; which, however, he absolutely refused, and was ordered back to prison. On July 6, he was brought again before the council, where he was condemned of heresy, and ordered to be burnt. The ceremony of his execution was this he was first stripped of hi& iacerdotal vestments by bishops nominated for that purpose; next he was formally deprived of his university-degrees; then he had a paper-crown put upon his head, painted round with devils, and the word heresiarch inscribed in great letters; then he was delivered over to the magistrate, who burnt him alive, after having first burnt his books at the door of the church. He died with great firmness and resolution; and his ashes were afterwards gathered up and thrown into the Rhine. His writings, which are very numerous and learned, were collected into a body and published, 1558, in two volumes folio, under this title, “Joannis Hussi Opera, quse extant.” To preserve his memory, it is said that the 7th of July was, for many years, held sacred among the Bohemians. In some places large fires were lighted in the evening of that day upon the mountains, to preserve the memory of his sufferings; round which the country people would assemble and sing hymns. Huss, although a martyr for the opinions of Wickliffe, did not imbibe the whole of them. He was in most points a strenuous Calvinist, if we may anticipate the epithet, but neither he nor Jerora of Prague denied the real presence in the eucharist, and transubstantiation. It is said that at his execution he asked the excutioner, “Are you going to burn a goose?” (the meaning of Huss in the Bohemian language) “In one century you will have a swan you can neither roast nor boil.” This was afterwards interpreted to mean Luther, who had a swan for his arms. Much of Huss’s writings are in Fox, Gilpin, and other ecclesiastical writers.

, a distinguished artist, was the sixth, but only surviving son and heir of John Hussey of Marnhull, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and was born at Marnhull (in Dorsetshire), Feb. 10, 1710. At seven years of age he was sent by his father, who was a Roman catholic, to Doway for his education, where he continued two years. He then was removed to St. Osier’s, where he pursued his studies for three years more. His father, though willing to afford him some education, yet designed him for trade; to which, perhaps, he was the more inclined, as a near relation, in the commercial world, offered to take him under his protection and care. Thought from a sense of parental authority, and filial obedience, Mr. Hussey did not at first openly oppose this design, yet it was so repugnant to his natural turn and bent, that he found his mind greatly embarrassed and perplexed; but after some opposition, his father very wisely yielded to his son’s request, to be permitted to follow the direction of his genius; and for that end he placed him under the care and tuition of Mr. Richardson, the painter; with whom he continued scarcely a month; revolting at the idea and proposal of being kept in the bondage of apprenticeship for seven years. He then commenced pupil at large under one Damini, a Venetian artist, esteemed one of the best painters at that time in England, with whom he continued nearly four years. During this time he was principally employed in copying pictures, and finishing those of his master, whom he assisted in painting the ornaments of the cathedral of Lincoln. During their work, on a scaffold nearly twenty feet high, as Mr. Hussey was drawing back to see the effects of his pencil, he would have fallen, had not his master saved him as ingeniously as affectionately, and at some risque to himself. Mr. Hussey entertained such a sense of his master’s humanity and kindness, that he could not bear the thought of being separated from him, and therefore requested permission of his father for Damini to attend him whilst pursuing his studies in Italy. This he obtained; and under the care and direction of the Venetian, our young and inexperienced pupil set out for the seat of science and genius; bending first his course for Bologna. But, soon after their arrival, the poor unsuspecting pupil found that one act of friendship is by no means a sure pledge of another; Damini having in a few days decamped, taking with him all his pupil’s money and the best of his apparel. Mr. Hussey was, however, kindly relieved from this state of distress by signor Gislonzoni, who had been ambassador from the States of Venice to the court of London, and now became his friend and protector.

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.

Whilst thus employed, our artist met with great opposition and very illiberal treatment from those to whom, in the simplicity of his heart, he communicated his principles, as well as from those whose professional pride was piqued, and envy excited, by those masterly, elegant, and graceful performances which were the result of these principles. The meek spirit of Hussey, as well as his pride of conscious superiority, could ill bear the treatment both himself and his performances met with from the envy of those who depreciated their merit. This, as he often complained, affected him deeply; and so depressed his spirits, and repressed his ardour, as to give him a disgust to the world, and almost a dislike to his profession, and his temper, though not rendered sour and morose, was certainly exasperated. After conflicting with this and other difficulties and misfortunes, Mr. Hussey left London in the month of October 1768, and retired for three years into the country, to recover his health and spirits; and having at length, by the death of his elder brother, Mr. Hussey, in 1773, succeeded to possession of his paternal estate at Marnhull, he resided there in affluence, ease, and content, and pursued his favourite studies, and amusements of gardening, till the autumn of 1787; when, from motives purely of a religious nature (after having transferred and resigned all his worldly possessions to a near relation) he retired to Beaston, near Ashburton, in Devonshire; at which place, in the month of June 1788, as he was working in the garden in a very sultry day, he suddenly fell, and expired.

Mr. Barry, that ingenious and liberal artist, whose great work in the paintings which adorn the large room at the Society of Arts in the Adelphi, together with his description of these paintings, do no less honour to himself than to his country, has, among other illustrious characters, thought Mr. Hussey entitled to an eminent place in his Elysium, and thus notices him: " Behind Phidias, I have introdced<Giles Hussey, a name that never occurs to me without fresh grief, shame, and horror, at the mean, wretched cabal of mechanics, for they deserve not the name of artists; and their still meaner runners, and assistants, that could have co-operated to cheat such an artist out of the exercise of abilities, that were so admirably calculated to have raised this country to an immortal reputation, and for the highest, species of excellence. Why will the great, who can have no interest but in the glory of their country, why will they suffer any dirty, whispering medium to interfere between them and siicji characters as Mr. Russey, who appears to have been no less amiable as a man, than he was admirable as an artist?

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."

In the decline of life, when he had a reasonable prospect of seeing his “History” through the press, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, which greatly debilitated him, and hastened his dissolution, which took place June 21, 1773, He was buried in St. Mary’s church at Wareham, in the ancient chapel under the south aile of the church. He married Anne, daughter of the rev. Thomas Stephens, for-: merly rector of Pimperne, by whom he had issue one daughter, who was married to the late John Bellasis, esq. major-general of artillery in the service of the East-India company, who died at Bombay in 1808. The profit arising from his “History,” was the chief provision Mr. Hutchins made for his family. A second edition was brought forwards, of which vol. I. was published in 1796, and vol. II. in 1803, under the auspices of gen. Bellasis, who expended a large sum to promote the undertaking, and with the assistance of Mr. Gough and Mr. Nichols. The improvements in this edition were so many as to extend the work to four volumes, the third of which was nearly ready for publication at the time when the unfortunate fire in Mr. Nichols’s printing-office and warehouses destroyed that and a vast mass of other valuable literary property. Mr. Nichols has since printed the third and fourth volumes, so essential to the completion of the work, and we may add so indispensable to every public library and private topographical collection.

, 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.”

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.

At his return to Germany in 1516, he was recommended in such strong terms to the emperor, that be received from him the poetical crown; and from that time Hutten had himself drawn in armour, with a crown of laurel on his head, and took great delight in being so represented. He was of a very military, disposition, and had given many proofs of courage, as well in the wars as in private rencounters. Being once at Viterbo, where an ambassador of France stopped, a general quarrel arose, in which Hutten, forsaken by his comrades, was attacked by five Frenchmen at once, and put them all to flight, after receiving some small wounds. He wrote au epigram on that occasion, “in quinque Gallbs a se profligates,” which mky be seen in Melchior Adam. He had a cousin John de Hutten, who was court-marshal to Ulric duke of Wirtemberg, and was murdered by that duke in 15 15, for the sake of his wife, whom the duke kept afterwards as a mistress. The military poet, as soon as he heard of it, breathed nothing but resentment; and because he had no opportunity of shewing it with his sword, took up his pen, and wrote several pieces in the form of dialogues, orations, poems, and letters. A collection of these was printed io the castle of Steckelberg, 1519, 4to.

It was now that he devoted himself wholly to the Lutheran party, to advance which he laboured incessantly both by his writings and actions. We do not know the exact time when he quitted the castle of Ebernberg; but it appears, that in January 1523, he left Basil, where he had flattered himself with the hopes of finding an asylum, and had only been exposed to great daggers. Erasmus, though his old acquaintance and friend, had here refused a visit from him, for fear, as he pretended, of heightening the suspicions which were entertained against him but his true reason, as he aftersvards declared, in a letter to Melancthon, was, “that he should then have been under a necessity of taking into his house that proud boaster, oppressed with poverty and disease, who only sought for a nest to lay himself in, and to borrow money of every one he met.” This refusal of P>asmus provoked Hutten to attack him severely, and accordingly he published an “Expostulatio” in 1523, which Erasmus answered the same year, in _a very lively piece, entitled, “Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Ilutteni.” Hutten probably intended to reply, had he not been snatched away by death; but he died in an island of the lake Zurich, where he had liimself for security, August 1523. tie was a man of little stature; of a weak and sickly Constitution; extremely brave, but passionate: for he was mot satisfied with attacking the Roman Catholics with his pen, he attacked them also with his sword. He acquainted Luther with the double war which he carried on against the clergy. “I received a letter from Hutten,” says Luther, “filled with rage against the Roman pontiff, declaring he would attack the tyranny of the clergy both with his pen and sword: he being exasperated against the pope for threatening him with daggers and poison, and commanding the bishop of Mentz to send him bound to Rome.” Camerarius says, that Hutten was impatient, that his aif and discourse shewed him to be of a cruel disposition and applied to him what was said o Demosthenes, namely, that “he would have turned the world upside down, had his power been equal to his will.” His works are numerous, though he died young. A collection of his “Latin Poems” was published at Francfort in 1538, 12mo; all which, except two poemsj were reprinted in the third part of the “Deliciae Poetarum Germanorum.” He was the author of a great many works, chiefly satirical, in the way of dialogue; and Thuanus has not scrupled to compare him to Lucian. Of this cast were his Latin Dialogues on Lutheranism, published in 4to, in 1520, and now very scarce. He had also a considerable share in the celebrated work called “Epistolae virorum obscurorum,” which Meiners, in his “Liv$s of Illustrious Men,” says, was the joint work of Ulrick and Crotus Rubianus, alias John Jaeger, of Dornheim,in Thuringia. The produc“­tions of each, according to Meiners, may easily be distinguished. Wherever we are struck with the” peculiar levity, rapidity, and force of the style with a certain sol- ­dier-like boldness and unclerical humour, in obscene jests and pictures, and comical representations of saints, reliques, &c. with no small degree of keenness in the relation of laughable anecdotes, with a knowledge of Italy, to be obtained only by experience, with a pleasant explanation and derivation of words in the style of the monkish schools; 'in all these places, the hand of Ulrick Hutten may be traced.“That these letters were the work of different hands, says an acute critic, is not improbable; but we are not certain that Crotus Rubianus had any share in them; nor can we tell from what authority it is sq affirmed. Goethe, who wrote his” Tribute to the memory of Ulrick of Hutten," translated into English by Antony Aufrtre, esq. 1789, and who wrote that some years before the appearance of Meiners’ Biography, seems to have led the latter into this opinion. With much more probability might Reuchlin have been mentioned, who, indeed, by some has been supposed the sole author. Upon the whole, however, there is most reason to think them Hutten' s.

, 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,”

, was also a native of Ulm, and born in 1563. He studied at Strasbourg, and early applied himself with great diligence to theology; he was afterwards at Leipsic, Heidelberg, Jena, and Wirtemburg, and in the latter place was appointed one of the public professors of theology. He married a lady of illustrious birth in 1599; and died of a fever in 1616, being then, for the fourth time rector of the university. The opinion held of his principles may be judged by five anagrams of his names Leonardus Hutterus, four of them implying that he was another Luther. They are formed, says the author who gives them, “per literarum haud vanam transposijtionem;” thus, “Redonatus Lutherus;” “Leonhartus Hutterus;” “Ah tu noster Lutherus-,” “Notus arte Lutherus;” “Tantus ero Lutherus.” His works are very numerous; a great part of them controversial, directed against the church of Rome. Besides these, 1. “Compendium Theologiae, cum Notis D. Gotofredi Cundisii.” 2. “Explicatio Libri Concordiae Christiante,” 8vo. 3. “Loci Communes Theologici,” folio. 4. “formulae concionandi,” 8vo. 5. “Disputationes de verbo Dei scripto, ac traditionihus non scriptis,” in 4to, 6. “Collegium Theologicum, sive XI disputationes de articulis confessionis Augustanse,” 8vo. 7. “Libri Christianae Concordisc,” 8vo; and several pieces in defence of the Formula: Concordiae, which in his time were highly esteemed; besides many other tracts in Latin, and in German, all of which are enumerated by Freher, but seem too uninteresting at the present day to be transcribed.

, was a physician of considerable reputation, who practised his profession at Plymouth, where he died in 1768. It is remarkable that no biographical memoirs of this able and learned practitioner are extant. Mr. Polwhele informs us only that he was the sou of a butcher at Halberton. Yet he possessed an innate genius and a strong propensity for medical acquisitions. By these he was led to the university of Leyden, where he pursued his studies with indefatigable application, and took his doctor’s degree in medicine. At length, settling at Plymouth, by a successful course of practice he acquired a considerable fortune, and by several admirable publications gained universal fame. His “Treatise on Fevers” Mr. Polwhele notices, as the most eminent, and as it leads to the subsequent anecdote. “The queen of Portugal being ill of a fever, and being reduced to the last extremity, notwithstanding the efforts of the physicians of the country; his majesty, hearing of the eminence of a physician of the English factory at Lisbon, sent for him, and giving him the particulars of the queen’s disorder, inquired whether it was in his power to administer any assistance. The physician replied that he was not without hope, but that hecould do nothing unless her majesty was left to his sole care and direction. This being granted, the disorder soon took a turn, and in a short time the queen was restored to perfect health. The doctor being complimented by the king on his abilities and success, said he had ne claim but to the application; for that the merit was due to Dr. Huxham, an eminent physician at Plymouth, whose tract on the management of fevers he had implicitly followed. Upon which, the king immediately procured the treatise, had it translated into the Portuguese language, printed it in handsome 4to, and sent it richly bound to Dr. Huxham, as an acknowledgment of the sense he entertained of his abilities, and of his debt of gratitude on the recovery of the queen.”

Dr. Huxham' s writings display a most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the ancients, and a great veneration for those of Hippocrates in particular; and he quotes the ancient languages, and writes the Latin, with great fluency and familiarity. He appears to have spent his life ;at Plymouth in the active exercise of his profession for he kept a register of the state of health and reigning diseases at that place, together with an account of the variety of the seasons, for nearly thirty years, (namely, from 1724 to 1752 inclusive); which were published in Latin, under the title of“Gbservationes de Acre et Morbis Epidemicis,” tc. in 3 vols. 8vo. The first of these volumes commences with an account of the year 1728 but in the dedication to sir Hans Sloane, he refers to an account of the constitution and diseases of the seasons from 1724 to 1727, already published. The third volume was edited in 1770, after the death of the author, by his son J. Cor. Huxham, A. M. F. R. S.; who, it is to be regretted, did not insert any memoirs of his father’s life.

Dr. Huxham was at an early period elected a member of the royal society, and communicated several papers on the subjects of pathology and morbid anatomy, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions. But the work upon which his reputation principally rests, is his “Essay on Fevers,” published about 1739, of which a fifth edition appeared the year before his death, containing also “A Dissertation on the Malignant, Ulcerous Sore Throat.” His accuracy and acuteness, as an observer of the phenomena of disease, were particularly exemplified in his discriminative history of the “Slow Nervous Fever,' to which his name is often aunexed when this fever is mentioned by succeeding authors. His theory was the ancient humoral pathology, which much influenced his practice; but that was the general fault of the age. He was the author of some” Observations on Antimony," 1756, 4to; and was elected a fellow of the royal college of physicians at Edinburgh. He has given few prescriptions in his works; for he observes, with Hippocrates, that the physician who knows a disease, cannot be at a loss in respect to the form of his remedy; but, having mentioned a favourite formula for the preparation of a tincture of the Peruvian bark, in his Essay on Fevers, in which the bitter is corrected by aromatics, his name has become attached to the tincture of bark which is commonly prepared in the shops according to his prescription, and is also adopted in the Pharmacopoeia of the college of physicians.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

Besides the post of lord chancellor, in which he was continued, he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford in Oct. 1660 and, in November following, created a peer by the title of baron Hyde of Hindon in Wiltshire; to which were added, in April 1661, the titles of viscount Cornbury in Oxfordshire, and earl of Clarendon in Wiltshire. These honours, great as they were, were, however, by no means beyond his merit. He had, upon the Restoration, shewn great prudence, justice, and moderation, in settling the just boundaries between the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people. He had reduced much confusion into order, and adjusted many clashing interests, where property was concerned. He had endeavoured to make things easy to the Presbyterians and malcontents by the act of indemnity, and to satisfy the Royalists by the act of uniformity. But it is not possible to stand many years in a situation so much distinguished, without becoming the object of envy; which created him such enemies as both wished and attempted his ruin, and at last effected it. Doubtless nothing more contributed to inflame this passion against him, than the circumstance of his eldest daughter being married to the duke of York, which became known in a few months after the king’s return. She had been one of the maids of honour to the princess royal Henrietta, some time during the exile, when the duke fell in love with her; and being disappointed by the defeat of sir George Booth, in a design he had formed of coming with some forces to England in 1659, he went to Breda, where his sister then resided. Passing some weeks there, he took this opportunity, as Burnet tells us, of soliciting miss Hyde to indulge his desires without marriage; but she managed the matter with such address, that in the conclusion he married her, Nov. 4 that year, with all possible secrecy, and unknown to her father. After their arrival in England, being pregnant, she called upon the duke to own his marriage; and though he endeavoured to divert her from this object, both by great promises and great threatenings, yet she had the spirit and wisdom to tell him, “She would have it known that she was his wife, let him use her afterwards as he pleased.” The king ordered some bishops and judges to peruse the proofs of her marriage; and they reporting that it had been solemnized according to the doctrine of gospel and the law of England, he told his brother, that he must live with her whom he had made his wife, and at the same time generously preserved the honour of an excellent servant, who had not been privy to it; assuring him, that “this accident should not lessen the esteem and favour he had for him.”

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."

A charge urged with so much anger and inconsistency as this was, it is easy to imagine, could not much affect him on the contrary we find, that the prosecution ended greatly to the honour of the chancellor; notwithstanding which, his enemies advanced very considerably by it in their design, to make him less in favour with his master, less respected in parliament, and less beloved by the people. The building of a magnificent house, which was begun in the following year, 1664, furnished fresh matter for obloquy. “The king,” says Burnet, “had granted him a large piece of ground, near St. James’s palace, to build upon. He intended a good ordinary house; but not understanding these matters himself, he put the management of it into the hands of others, who run him to a vast expence of above 50,000l. three times as much as he had designed to lay out upon it. During the war, and in the year of the plague, he had about 300 men at work, which he thought would have been an acceptable thing, when so many men were kept at work, and so much money as was daily paid circulated about; but it had a contrary effect; it raised a great outcry against him. Some called it Dunkirk-house, intimating that it was built by his share of the price of Dunkirk: others called it Holland-house, because he was believed to be no friend to the war; so it was given out he had the money from the Dutch. It was visible that, in a time of public calamity, he was building a very noble palace. Another accident was, that before the war there were some designs on foot for the repairing of St. Paul’s, and many stones were brought thither for the purpose. That project was laid aside; upon which he bought the stones, and made use of them in building his own house. This, how slight soever it may seem to be, had a great effect by the management of his enemies.” To this remark it may be added, that this stately pile was not finished till 1667; so that it stood a growing monument for the popular odium to feed upon, almost the whole interval between his first and his last impeachment; and to aggravate and spread that odium, there was published a most virulent satirical song, entitled “Clarendon’s House-warming,” to irritate the minds of the populace.

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.

, 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?”

, a very learned writer, was son of Mr. Ralph Hyde, minister of Billingsley near Bridgenorth in Shropshire, and born there June 2i), 1636. Having a strong inclination for the Oriental languages from his youth, he studied them first under his father; and afterwards, in 1652, being admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, he became acquainted with Mr. Abraham Wheelock, an admirable linguist, who encouraged him to prosecute his study of them in that place. By him, Hyde, when he had been at Cambridge little more than a year, was sent to London, and recommended to Walton, afterwards bishop of Chester, as a person very capable of assisting him in the Polyglott Bible, in which work he was then engaged. Hyde rendered him great services; for, besides his attendance in the correction of it, he transcribed the Pentateuch out of the Hebrew characters, in which it was first printed at Constantinople, into the proper Persian characters; which by archbishop Usher was then judged impossible to have been done by a native Persian, because one Hebrew letter frequently answered to several Persian letters, which were difficult to be known. He translated it likewise into Latin. What he did farther in the Polyglott, is specified by the editor in these words: “Nee praetereundus est D. Thomas Hyde, summae spei juvenis, cjui in linguis Orientalibus supra aetatem magnos progressuB fecit, quorum specimina dedit turn in Arabibus, Syriacis, Persicis, &c. corrigendis, turn in Pentateucho Persico characteribus Persicis describendo, quia antea soils Hebraicis extitit, ejusque versionem Latinam concinnando.”

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.

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished in the time of Augustus. Suetonius, in. his book “De illustribus Grammaticis,” says that he was a freedman of Augustus, and by nation a Spaniard; though some think that he was an Alexandrian, and brought by Caesar to Rome when Alexandria was taken. He was a diligent follower and imitator of Cornelius Alexander, a celebrated Greek grammarian; and was also himself a teacher at Rome. He was made keeper of the Palatine library; was very intimate with the poet Ovid, and with Caius Licmius, a man of consular dignity and an historian, who has taken occasion to inform us, that he died very poor, and, while he lived, was supported chiefly by his generosity; but Vossius thinks that the person here named the consular historian Caius Licinius, should be Caius Asinius, who wrote a history of the civil war, and was consul with Cneius Domitius Calvinus, U. C. 723.

, a most beautiful, virtuous, and learned lady of antiquity, was the daughter of Theon, who governed the Platonic school at Alexandria, the place of her birth and education, in the latter part of the fourth century. Theon was famous among his contemporaries for his extensive knowledge and learning; but what has chiefly rendered him so with posterity, is, that he was the father of Hypatia, whom, encouraged by her prodigious genius, he educated not only in all the qualifications belonging to her sex, but likewise in the most abstruse sciences. She made an amazing progress in every branch of learning, and the things that are said of her almost surpass belief. Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, a witness whose veracity cannot be doubted, at least when he speaks in favour of an heathen philosopher, tells us, that Hypatia “arrived at such a pitch of learning, as very far to exceed all the philosophers of her time:” to which Nicephorus adds, “those of Other times.” Philostorgius, a third historian of the same stamp, affirms, that “she was much superior to her father and master Theon, in what regards astronomy;” and Suidas, who mentions two books of her writing, one “on the Astronomical Canon of Diophantus, and another on the Conies of Apollonius,” avers, that “she not only exceeded her father in astronomy, but also that she understood all the other parts of philosophy.” It is some confirmation of these assertions that she succeeded her father in the government of the Alexandrian school: filling that chair, where Ammonius, Hierocles, and many great and celebrated philosophers had taught; and this, at a time, when men of immense learning abounded both at Alexandria, and in many other parts of the Roman empire. Her fame was so extensive, and her worth so universally acknowledged, that we cannot wonder, if she had a crowded au> ditory. “She explained to her hearers,” says Socrates, “the several sciences, that go under the general name of philosophy for which reason there was a confluence to her, from all parts, of those who made philosophy their delight and study.”

Her scholars were as eminent as they were numerous: one of whom was the celebrated Synesius, who was afterwards bishop of Ptolemais. This ancient Christian Platonist every where bears the strongest, as well as the most grateful testimony to the learning and virtue of his instructress; and never mentions her without the profoundest respect, and sometimes in terms of affection coming little short of adoration. In a letter to his brother Euoptius, “Salute,” says he, “the most honoured and the most beloved of God, the Philosopher”; and that happy society, which enjoys the blessing “of her divine voice.” In another, he mentions one Egyptus, who “sucked in the seeds of wisdom from Hypatia.” In another, he expresses himself thus “I suppose these letters will be delivered by; Peter, which he will receive from that sacred hand.” In a letter addressed to herself, he desires her to direct a hydroscope to be maJe and bought for him, which he there describes. That famous silver astrolabe, which he presented to Peonius, a man equally excelling in philosophy and arms, he owns to have been perfected by the directions of Hypatia. In a long epistle, he acquaints her with his reasons for writing two books, which he sends her; and asks her judgment of one, resolving not to publish it without her approbation. But it was not Synesius only, and the disciples of the Alexandrian school, who admired Hypatia for her great virtue and learning: never woman was more caressed by the public, and yet never woman had a more unspotted character. She was held as an oracle for her wisdom, which made her consulted by the magistrates in all important cases; and this frequently drew her among the greatest concourse of men, without the least censure of her manners. “On account of the confidence and authority,” says Socrates, “which she had acquired by her learning, she sometimes came to the judges with singular modesty. Nor was she any thing abashed to appear thus among a crowd of men; for all persons, by reason of her extraordinary discretion, did at the same time both reverence and admire her.” The same is confirmed by Nicephorus, and other authors, whom we have already cited. Danaascius and Suidas relate, that the governors and magistrates of Alexandria regularly visited her, and paid their court to her; and, when Nicephorus intended to pass the highest compliment on the princess Eudocia, he thought he could not do it better, than by calling her “another Hypatia.”

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.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine and professor of divinity, was born at Ypres in Flanders, whence he took his name, May 16, 1511. His father, who was a civilian, and had sent him to study at various places, when near his death in 1528, removed him to Paris, where he studied philosophy for three years, in the college of Calvi; and after he had taken a journey to Ypres, he returned to Paris in 1532, and studied divinity there till 1535. He went afterwards to Louvain, and then he travelled through several provinces of the Low- Countries and of Germany which rendered ineffectual the pains his friends had taken to procure him a living without his knowledge; for as soon as it was represented to Carondilet, archbishop of Palermo and chancellor to the emperor, that he had travelled in Germany, this rendered him so much suspected of heresy, that he was obliged to think of a sanctuary. He went into England, and lived about four years with an English nobleman, Charles lord Mountjoy, who was a lover of learning, and settled a handsome pension on him. He crossed the sea again in 1541, and designed to visit the university of Strasburg, and particularly to see Bucer, who made that university very famous. But as he passed through the country of Hesse, he met at Marpurg with a professor of divinity, named Geldenhaur, who was one of his friends, and who, in order to keep him there, gave him hopes of some employment in the university of that city. He accordingly settled there, and soon after succeeded his friend, who died in January 1542. He continued in that employment until his death at Marpurg, February the 1st, 1564. He was author of numerous works, some of which were published by himself, and the rest were published after his death. They consist of “Commentaries on the Scriptures;” “Theological Dissertations;” “Controversial Tracts;” treatises in rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, optics, natural philosophy, &c. Several of these, enumerated by Ames and Herbert, were translated into English, and published here in the sixteenth century. Hyperius had a very clear head, and a very happy talent in conveying instruction. He was meek and polite in conversation, and delighted in social convivial intercourse, possessed true wit and good sense, and added to those qualities a high degree of virtue and zeal.

, 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.

, an English divine, son of the rev. John Jackson, first rector of Lensey, afterwards rector of Rossington, and vicar of Doncaster in Yorkshire, was born at Lensey, April 4, 1686. He was educated at Doncasterschool under the famous Dr. Bland, who was afterwards head master of Eton-school, dean of Durham, and from 1732 to 1746 provost of Eton college. In 1702, he was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge; and, after taking the degree of B. A. at the usual period, left the university in 1707. During his residence there, he learned Hebrew under Simon Ockley, the celebrated orientalist; but never made any great proficiency. In 1708, he entered into deacon’s orders, and into priest’s two years after; when he took possession of the rectory of Rossington, which had been reserved for him from the death of his father by the corporation of Doncaster. That politic body, however, sold the next turn of this living for 800l. and with the money paved the long street of their town, which forms part of the great northern road. In 17)2, he married Elizabeth, daughter of John Cowley, collector of excise at Doncaster; and, soon after, went to reside at Rossington. In 1714, he commenced author, by publishing three anonymous letters, in defence of Dr. S. Clarke’s “Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity,” with whom he soon after became personally acquainted and nine treatises by Jackson on this controversy, from 1716 to 1738, are enumerated in the supplementary volume of the “Biographia Britannica.” In 1718, he offered himself at Cambridge for the degree of M. A. but was refused on account of his heretical principles. Upon his return, he received a consolatory letter from Dr. Clarke, who also procured for him the contratership of Wigston’s hospital in Leicester; a place which is held by patent for life from the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and was particularly acceptable to Jackson, as it requires no subscription to any an ides of religion. To this he was presented, in 1719, by lord Lechmere, in whose gift it was then, as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and from whom Dr. Clarke had the year before received the mastership of that hospitah He now removed from Rossington to“Leicester; where, between politics (Leicester being a great party-town) and religion, he was engaged in almost continual war: and his spirit was by no means averse from litigation. In May 1720, he qualified himself for afternoon-preacher at St. Martin’s church in Leicester, as confrater; and, in the two following years, several presentments were lodged against him in the bishop’s and also in the archdeacon’s court, for preaching heretical doctrines; but he always contrived to defeat the prosecutions; and, after the” Case of the Arian Subscription“was published by Dr. Waterland, he resolved, with Dr. Clarke, never to subscribe the articles any more. By this he lost, about 1724, the hopes of a prebend of Salisbury, which bishop Hoadly refused to give him without such subscription.” The bishop’s denial,“says his biographer,” was the more remarkable, as he had so often intimated his own dislike of all such subscriptions:" Jackson, however, had keen presented before by sir John Fryer to the private prebend of Wherwell in Hampshire, where ho such qualification was required.

On the death of Dr. Clarke, in May 1729, he succeeded, by the presentation of the duke of Rutland, thdn chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, to the mastership of Wigston’s hospital, which situation he preserved to“his death. The year before, 1728, he had published, in 8vo,” Novatiani Opera, ad antiquiores editiones castigata, & a multis mendis expurgata:“and now, intent upon books, and perhaps the more so by being incapable of rising to preferment, ha continued from time to time to send out various publications. In 1730,” A Defence of Human Liberty, against Cato’s Letters;“and, in the second edition,” A Supplement against Anthony Collins, esq. upon the same subject.“In 1730 and 1731,” Four Tracts in Defence of Human Reason, occasioned by bishop Gibson’s second Pastoral Letter.“In 1731, a piece against” Tindal’s Christianity as old as the Creation;“in 1733, another by way of answer to Browne bishop of Corke’s book, entitled” Things Divine and Supernatural, conceived by Analogy with Things Natural and Human;“in 1734,” The Existence and Unity of God, &c.“which led him into a controversy with Law, and other writers; and, in 1735,” A Dissertation on Matter and Spirit,“with remarks on Baxter’s” Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul.“In 173G, he published” A Narrative of his being refused the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper at Bath:" this had been done in a very public manner by Dr. Coney, and was the second refusal of that kind he had experienced; for, in 1730, he had been denied the use of the pulpit at St. Martin’s in Leicester, by the vicar, who set the sacristan at the bottom of the stairs to restrain him from ascending.

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,

, an ingenious letter-founder, whose history affords one of those edifying examples which cannot be too often placed before the eyes of the young artisan, was born in Old-street, London, Sept. 4, 1733, and was educated at Fuller’s school in that neighbourhood. At the usual age he was put apprentice to Mr. Caslon, letterfounder, son to the first of that family. Having acquired a knowledge of the common operations, he had an ambition to learn the method of cutting punches; which was so much a secret, that both his master and his master’s father always locked themselves into a private apartment, when employed in that important branch of the business. Mr. Jackson, however, surmounted this difficulty, by boring a hole through the wainscot, and prying into their operations with such success, that he was soon enabled to finish a punch, and brought it in triumph to his master, probably expecting some reward. His surprise and chagrin must have therefore been great, when his master gave him a hard blow, and threatened him with Bridewell, if ever he made such another felonious attempt. Mr. Jackson, however, whose conscience was more easily reconciled to his crime, than his temper was to his punishment, was, by the assistance of his mother, provided with the necessary tools, and took every opportunity of improving himself in the art at her house. He continued also to work for his master for some time after the expiration of his apprenticeship, until a dispute respecting wages occasioned his being discharged, along with a Mr. Cottrell, with whom he united in partnership; but, on the death of his mother, in 1759, went on board the Minerva frigate, as armourer. He appears to have returned to London after the peace of 1762-3, and worked for some time under Mr. Cottrell, until, determining to adventure in business for himself, he was encouraged in the scheme, by two life-guardsmen, his felJow workmen, who engaged to allow him a small pittance for his subsistence, and to supply money to carry on the trade, for two years. Taking a small house in Cock-lane, he soon satisfied his partners that the business would be productive, before the time promised. When he had pursued his labours about six months, Mr. Bowyer, the cele.­brated printer, accidentally calling to inspect some of his punches (for he had no specimen), approved them so much, that he promised to employ him. Business increasing rapidly, Mr. Jackson removed to larger premises in Dorsetstreet; and about 1771 was applied to by the late duke of Norfolk, to make a mould to cast a hollow square. His grace informed him, that he had applied to allthe skilful mechanics in London, Mr. Caslon not excepted, who declared it impossible. Mr. Jackson howeve'r undertook, and in the course of three months produced it. He proceeded then in raising the reputation of his foundery; and among other articles of superior difficulty, we may mention the fac-simile types for the Domesday-book, and for the Alexandrian New Testament, and the types for Macklin’s Bible. Mr. Jackson died at his house in Dorset-street, Salisburysquare, Jan. 14, 1722.

, a learned English divine, was born at Willowing, in the bishopric of Durham, 1579. Many of his relations being merchants in Newcastle, he was designed to have been bred in that profession; but his great inclination to learning being observed, he was sent to Oxford, and admitted into Queen’s college in 1595, and removed to Corpus- Christi the year after. He took his degrees in arts at the stated times; and May 10, 1606, became probationer-fellow, being then well-grounded in arithmetic, grammar, philology, geometry, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, the oriental languages, history, &c. with an insight into heraldry and hieroglyphics. But he made all his knowledge subservient to the study of divinity, to which he applied with great vigour, and became so distinguished in it, that he not only read a divinity-lecture in his college every Sunday morning, but another on the week-day at Pembroke college (then newly founded) at the request of the master and fellows. He was al|p chosen vice-president of his college for many years successively, by virtue of which office he moderated at the divinity disputations, with remarkable learning, and no less candour and modesty. He commenced D. D. in 1622, and quitted the college two years afterwards, being preferred to a living in his nativfc county, and soon after to the vicarage of Newcastle. In that large and laborious cure, he performed all the duties of an excellent parish-priest, and was particularly admired for his discourses from the pulpit. At this time he was a rigid Calvinist, but yielded the point of absolute predestination to the persuasions of Dr. Richard Neile, bishop of Durham, who took him for his chaplain, and joined with Dr. Laud in bringing him back to his college, where he was elected president by their interest, in 1630. Upon this promotion he resigned the vicarage of Newcastle; and, in 1635, was collated to a prebend of Winchester, having been made king’s chaplain some time before. Dr. Towers being advanced to the bishopric of Peterborough, Dr. Jackson succeeded him in the deanery in 1638; but he did not enjoy this dignity quite two years, being taken from it by death, in 1640. He was interred in the inner chapel of Corpus-Christi college. He was a man of a blameless life, studious, humble, courteous, and remarkably charitable, pious, exemplary in his private and public conversation; so that he was respected and beloved by the most considerable persons in the nation; and indeed the greatest esteem was no more than his due, on account of his learning, for he was well skilled in all the learned languages, arts, sciences, and physics. As an instance of his charitable disposition, we are told, that while he was vicar of Newcastle, whenever he went out, he usually gave what money he had about him to the poor, who at length so flocked about him, that his servant took care he should not have too much in his pocket. Dr. Jackson was profoundly read in the fathers, and endued with an uncommon depth of judgment. His works are very numerous, printed at different times, but were all collected and published in. 1672 and 1673, in three volumes, folio, consisting chiefly of sermons, besides his “Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed,” which are his principal work. His writings were much admired and studied by the late bishop Home, in the account of whose life his merits are thus displayed by the biographer. “Dr. Jackson is a magazine of theological knowledge, every inhere penned with great elegance and dignity, so that his style is a pattern of perfection. His writings, once thought inestimable by every body but the Calvinists, had been greatly neglected, and would probably have continued so, but for the praises bestowed upon them by the celebrated Mr. Merrick, of Trinity college, Oxford, who brought them once more into repute with many learned readers. The early extracts of Mi;. Home, which are now remaining, shew how much information he derived from this excellent writer, who deserves to be numbered with the English fathers of the church.”

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:

, 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.

, a professor of physic and philosophy at Copenhagen, was born in July 1650-1, at Arhusen in the peninsula of Jutland, where his father was bishop, who took all possible care of his son’s education; but dying in 1671, he was sent by his mother, the famous Caspar Bartholin’s daughter, to the university of Copenhagen, where he took the usual degrees, and then travelled to France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, England, and the Netherlands, with a view to improve himself in his profession. On his return home in 1679, he received letters from his prince, appointing him professor of physic and philosophy in the capital of his kingdom. He entered upon the discharge of this post in 1680, and performed the functions of it with the highest reputation; so that, besides the honour conferred on him by the university, Christian V. king of Denmark, committed to him the charge of augmenting and putting into order that celebrated cabinet of curiosities which his predecessors bad begun; and Frederic IV. in 1698, made him a counsellor in his court of justice. Thus loaded with honours, as well as beloved and respected by his compatriots, he passed his days in tranquillity, till the loss of his wife, Anne Marguerete, daughter of Thomas Bartholin, who, after seventeen years of marriage, died in 1698, leaving him father of six boys. This threw him into a melancholy, which at length proved fatal. In vain he sought for a remedy, by the advice of his friends, in a second marriage with Anne Tistorph: his melancholy increased; and, after languishing under it near three years, he died, in 1701, at the age of fifty-one.

, 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.

For several years after his marriage, he resided at Harbury, to which living he was presented in 1746; lord Willoughby de Broke gave him also the living of Chesterton, at a small distance from Harbury. These two benefices together did not produce more than one hundred pounds a year. In 1751 he had the misfortune to lose his wife, who appears to have been an amiable and accomplished woman, and was left with the care of seven very young children. In 1754, lord Clare, the late earl Nugent, procured for him from Dr. Madox, bishop of Worcester, the vicarage of Snitterfield, worth about 140l. In 1759 he married a second wife, Margaret, daughter of James Underwood, esq. of Rudgely, in Staffordshire, who survived him, but by whom he had no children.

In 1784, his poems, as corrected, improved, and enlarged by the author a short time before his death, with some additional pieces, were published by his friend, the late John Scott Hylton, esq. of Lapall- house near Hales Owen, who was likewise the correspondent of Shenstone. To this publication Mr. Hylton prefixed some account of Jago’s life, which, however meagre and unsatisfactory, is all that can now be procured. A very few particulars, indeed, but perhaps’ of no great importance, have been gleaned from Shenstone’s Letters, &c. His life, it may be presumed, was that of a man not dependent on fame, and whose productions formed the amusement of his leisure hours. It would appear by one of Shenstone' s letters that he occasionally used his pencil as well as his pen. His rank as a poet cannot be thought very high. Yet we have few more beautiful specimens of tenderness and sensibility than in, his elegies on the Blackbirds and Goldfinches. The fable of “Labour and Genius” has a pleasing mixture of elegance and humour. The “Elegy on Blackbirds” appeared first in the “Adventurer,” to the editor of which it was sent by Gilbert West, and published as his. The author claimed it, however, when added to Dodsley’s collection, a circumstance which Dr. Johnson has noted, but not with sufficient precision, in his life of that excellent man. Even when Mr. Jago put his name to it, a manager of the Bath theatre endeavoured to make it pass for his own, and with great effrontery asserted that Jago was a fictitious name Adopted from the play of Othello. His longest poem, “Edge-hill,” has some passages not destitute of animation, but it is so topographically exact, that to enjoy it the reader must have a map constantly before him; and perhaps with that aid, if he is not conversant with the various scenery, the effect will be languor and indifference. Even his friend Shenstone seems to speak coldly of it. “You must by no means lay aside the thoughts of perfecting Edge-hill, at your leisure. It is possible, that in order to keep clear of. flattery, I have said less in its favour than I really ought but I never considered it otherwise than as a poem which it was very adviseable for you to complete and finish.” Shenstone did not live to see it published in its finished state; and whatever his objections, probably bestowed the warmest praise on the tender and simple episode of Lydia and the blind lover, taken from a story in the Tatler.

The school of Jamblicus produced many eclectic philosophers, who were dispersed through various parts of the Roman empire. But the fate of one of their number, Sopater, who was put to death by order of the emperor (probably for insidious practices against the peace of the state), and the discredit into which the Pagan theology was now, through the general spread of Christianity, almost universally fallen, induced these philosophers to propagate their tenets, and practise their mysteries, with caution and concealment. In this state of depression the sect continued through the reigns of Constantine and Constantius. But under the emperor Julian, who apostatised from the Christian faith, the Alexandrian sect revived, and again flourished in great vigour. The best editions of Jamblicus’s works are those “De Myst. Ægypt. Chald. et Assyr. necnon et alii Tractatus Philosophici,” printed by Aldus, at Venice, 1497, fol. “De Myst Ægypt, necnon Porphyrii Epistola, &.c. Gr. et Lat. ex Interpretatione et cum Notis Thomae Gale,” Oxon. 1678, fol.; and “De Vita Pythag. Liber. Gr. et Lat. ex emendatione et cum notis Ludolphi Kusteri,” Amster. 1707, 4to.

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

, 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.”

He had made good progress in this undertaking, and no doubt would have proceeded much farther towards completing his design, had not he been prevented by death. This happened August 1629. He was buried towards the upper end of New college chapel at Oxford. Wood informs us, that he left behind him the character of being the most industrious and indefatigable writer against the papists, that had been educated in Oxford since the reformation; and in reality his designs were so great, and so well known to be for the public benefit of learning and the church of England, that Camden, speaking of him in his ife-time, calls him “a learned man and a true lover of books, wholly dedicated to learning; who is now laboriously searching the libraries of England, and proposeth that for the public good which will be for the great benefit of England.”

, 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.”

The affectionate remembrance of Dr. James, by Johnson in his Life of Smith, deserves to be preserved among the honourable testimonies to the character of the former. “At this man’s table,” says the biographer, speaking of Mr. Walinsley, “I enjoyed many cheerful and instructive hours, with companions such as are not of‘teh found; with one who has lengthened, and one who has gladdened life; with Dr. James, whose skill in physic will be long remembered: and with David Garrick, whom I hoped to have gratified with this character of our common friend: ’but what are the hopes of man” &c. -It appears from the life of Johnson, that he had gained some knowledge of physic from James, which he in return made useful to his friend, by assisting him in his Medicinal Dictionary. “My knowledge of physic,” said he, “I learnt from Dr. James, whom I helped in writing the proposals for his dictionary, and also a little in the dictionary itself.” Boswell adds, “I have in vain endeavoured to find out what parts Johnson wrote for Dr. James. Perhaps medical men may.” There can be very little doubt, from the style of the address, that the dedication of that work to Dr. Mead belongs entirely to the pen of Johnson. The elegance and originality of the compliments in it sufficiently mark the hand of that great master. It may not be amiss to insert it here, as a model of dedicatory address, highly honourable to Dr. James if his own, and creditable even to have deserved from Johnson.

The dictionary is, in effect, considered as a work highly honourable to the author, and retains its credit unimpaired after the continued progress and improvements of medicine for several years. Dr. Johnson certainly held James in high esteem, and though he did not burst out into any passionate exclamation of grief, on reading of his death (as his biographer relates), he doubtless felt considerable regret, as appeared not only by his manner of returning to the subject; but by his mention of him above-cited from the life of Smith. The regret which remains upon the mind after reflection, is as sincere, if not as violent, as that which shews itself at first in impatient lamentations. “No man,” said he, on some occasion, “brings more mind to his profession than James” and undoubtedly no man was better able to judge of mind, than the person who pronounced that opinion.

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.

Of sir William, it is said, by a person who knew him intimately near thirty years, and was well acquainted with his professional abilities, that as a thorough practical seaman, he was almost without an equal; as an officer, he was brave, vigilant, prompt, and resolute; patient in difficulty, with a presence of mind that seemed to grow from danger.

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.

, a French poet, was, in his youth, a great traveller, and ran over Greece, the isles of the Archipelago, and Asia Minor. Poetry being his delight, he applied himself to it from his infancy; and his writings, both in verse and prose, shew that he had carefully studied the Greek and Latin authors, especially the poets. He is esteemed the rival of Ronsard, who was his contemporary and friend; but he is not so bombastical, nor so rough in the use of Greek words, and his style is more natural, simple, and pleasing. Jamyn was secretary and chamberreader in ordinary to Charles IX. and died about 1585. We have, 1. his “Poetical Works,” in 2 vols. 2. “Discours de philosophic a Passicharis & a Pedanthe,” with seven academical discourses, the whole in prose, Paris 1584, 12mo. 3. “A Translation of Homer’s Iliad,” in French verse, begun by Hugh Sale!, and finished by Jamyn from the 12th book inclusive, to which is added a translation of the three first books of the " Odyssey.*' He appears to have had some notion of the style into which Homer ought to be translated, but he has rendered his performance sufficiently ridiculous by giving modern titles to the Greeks, such as the duke Idomeneus, and the chevaliers Neptune and Nestor.

, a nonconformist divine, some of whose works are still highly popular, was born in 1636. He was the son of a clergyman in Hertfordshire, and the third of five brothers, who were all bred to the ministry were all consumptive, and all died under forty years of age. In 1655 he became a student of Christ Church Oxford, and took his master’s degree, but was ejected soon after the Restoration for nonconformity. He then set up a meeting at Rodierhithe. He was a young man of great industry and strictness of life, and his preaching is said to have been attended with signal effects upon many, especially in the time of the plague, when he entered into the deserted pulpits, and preached to great numbers. He also made it his business to visit the sick at that dangerous period. His labours, which were too many for his delicate constitution, are said to have hastened his death, which happened March 16, 1674. A considerable number of his “Sermons” are in print. He also published the well-known Life of his elder brother John, a young man of extraordinary piety, which, with his very popular “Token for Children,” has often been reprinted. His “Legacy to his Friends,” before which is his portrait, contains twenty-seven famous instances of remarkable deliverances from dangers by sea.

, 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.

At length, the bishop being raised to the archiepiscopal see of Tours, prevailed with du Verger to go to Paris; so that Jansen being thus separated from his friend, and not sure of the protection of the new bishop, left Bayonne; and after twelve years residence in France returned to Louvain, where he was chosen principal of the college of St. Pulcheria. But this place was not altogether so agreeable, as it did not afford him leisure to pursue his studies so much as he wished, for which reason he refused to teach philosophy. He took his degree of D. D. in 1617, with great reputation, was admitted a professor in ordinary, and grew into so much esteem, that the university sent him twice, in 1624, and the ensuing year, upon affairs of great consequence, into Spain; and the king of Spain, his sovereign, made him professor of the Holy Scriptures in Louvain, in 1630, notwithstanding the Spanish inquisition lodged some information against him in 1627, with Basil de Leon, the principal doctor of the university of Salamanca, at whose house he lodged, asserting that he was a Dutchman, and consequently an heretic; but Basil answered them so much to the advantage of Jansen, that his enemies were disappointed. Meanwhile, the king of Spain observing with a jealous eye the intriguing politics and growing power of the French, employed his new professor to write a book, insinuating that they were no good Catholics, since they made no scruple of forming alliances with Protestant states. Jansen performed the task in his “Mars Gallicus,” which is replete with invidious exclamations against the services France continually rendered to the Protestants of Holland and Germany, to the great injury of the Romish religion; and the Dutch are treated as rebels, who owe the republican liberty they enjoy to an infamous usurpation. It was this service that procured him the mitre, in 1635, when he was promoted to the see of Ypres.

Some years before, he had maintained a controversy against the Protestants upon the subject of grace and predestination, occasioned by the following circumstances: the States-General published an edict in 1629, forbidding the public exercise of the Romish religion in Boisleduc; and having appropriated the ecclesiastical revenues of the mayoralty of that city to the service of the Protestant religion, appointed four ministers to preach there. These, hearing that many slanders concerning their doctrine were secretly spread, published a manifesto, declaring that they taught nothing Jjut the pure gospel, and intreating their adversaries to propose whatever objections they might have to make in a public manner. This was answered only by Jansen, in a piece entitled “Alexipharmacum,” in 1630. Gilbert Voetius, one of the four ministers who preached in. Boisleduc, wrote “Remarks,” entitled “Philonius Romanus correctus,” which Jansen refuted in another piece, entitled “Notarum Spongia,” in 1631. The author of these “Remarks,” replying in a large book, entitled “Desperata causa Papatus,” in 1635; this was answered by Fromond, a friend of Jansen, who styled his piece, “Causae desperaue Gisberti Voetii, adversus Spongiam Jansenii, Crisis ostensa.” This was printed at Antwerp in 1636, and refuted by Martin Schoockius, professor of history and eloquence at Deventer, the title of whose answer was “Desperatissima causa Papatus;” this was published in 1638: and here the dispute ended, unless the piece belongs to it which was published by Fromondus in the year 1640, entitled “Sycophanta; epistola ad Gisbertum Voetium.”

But Jansen had another war to maintain, which may be called a Protestant one; for Theodore Simonis, a wavering Roman Catholic, who wanted a master, waited upon him at Louvain, desiring him to clear up some doubts he had about the pope’s infallibility, the worship of the eucharist, and some other points. Jansen, being puzzled with this man’s objections, told him one day, that he would not dispute with him by word of mouth, but in writing; and that he saw plainly he had to do with a Roman Protestant Catholic, who would soon go to Holland, and there boast he had overcome him. Simonis, with some difficulty, complied with the proposal; but after both had written twice on the subject in question, his lodgings were surrounded with soldiers, and himself threatened with the punishment due to heretics. The duke d'Archot’s secretary exclaimed aloud against him, and said, that there was wood enough in his master’s forests to burn that heretic. But as the person who examined Simonis, in the name of the archbishop of Malines, declared that he had found him a good Catholic, and fully resolved to persevere in the Romish communion, the prisoner was set at liberty, and Jansen obliged to pay the expences of the soldiers. Yet this Simonis, two years after, turned Protestant, and published a book, entitled “De statu et religione propria Papatus adversus Jansenium.” He appears to have been a man of no stability, for he tirst quitted the Lutheran communion to go over to that of Home, then turned Lutheran again, and at last Socinian. He was principal of the Socinian college of Kisselin in Lithuania, was well versed in the Greek tongue, and translated Comenius’s “Janua linguarum” into that language.

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.

, a French lady, famous for her writings, was born about 1640, at Alençon in Normandy, where her father was provost. Her passions as well as her genius came forward very early. Being obliged to quit Alençon, in consequence of an intrigue with one of her cousins, she went to Paris, where she undertook to support herself by her genius, studied the drama, and published at the same time some little novels, by which she acquired a name. She had, by her own description, a lively and pleasing countenance, though not amounting to beauty, nor entirely spared by the small-pox. Her attractions, however, soon furnished her with lovers, and among them she distinguished M. Villedieu, a young captain of infantry, of an elegant person and lively genius. He had been already married about a year, but she persuaded him to endeavour to dissolve his marriage. This proved impracticable; nor was it likely from the first to be effected; but the attempt served her as a pretext for her attachment. She followed her lover to camp, and returned to Paris by the name of madame de Villedieu. This irregular union was not long happy; and their disagreements had arisen to a considerable height, when Villedieu was ordered to the army, where soon after he lost his life. The pretended widow comforted herself by living among professed wits and dramatic writers, and leading such a life as is common in dissipated societies. A fit of devotion, brought on by the sudden death of one of her female friends, sent her for a time to a convent, where she lived with much propriety, till her former adventures being known in the society, she could no longer remain in it. Restored to the world, in the house of madame de St. Ramaine, her sister, she soon exchanged devotion again for gallantry. She now a second time married a man who was only parted from, his wife this was the marquis de la Chasse, by whom she had a son, who died when only a year old, and the father not long after. The inconsolable widow was soon after united to one of her cousins, who allowed her to resume the name of Villedieu. After living a few years longer in society, she retired to a little village called Clinchemare in the province of Maine, where she died in 1683. Her works were printed in 1702, and form ten volumes 12mo, to which two more were added in 1721, consisting chiefly of pieces by other writers. Her compositions are of various kinds: 1. Dramas. 2. Miscellaneous poems, fables, &c. 3. Romances; among which are, “Les Disordres de l'Amour;” “Portraits des Foiblesses Humaines;” “Les Exilés de la Cour d'Auguste;” which are reckoned her best productions in this styje: also, “Cleonice,” “Carmente,” “Les Galanteries Grenadines,” “Les Amours des Grands Hommes,” “Lysandre,” “Les Memoirs du Serail,” &c. 4. Other works of an amusing kind, such as, “Les Annales Galantes,” “Le Journal Amoreux,” &c.

, a man of a noble family, with the title of chevalier, who preferred study and literary labour, in which he was indefatigable, to the advantages of birth, which in his time were very highly estimated, was born in 1704. His disinterestedness and his virtues were conspicuous, and his knowledge extended to medicine, antiquities, manners, morals, and general literature; in all which branches he has furnished articles that are reckoned to do honour to the French Encyclopedic. The abbe Barruel says, that D' Alembert and Diderot artfully engaged a few such men of unblemished character to engage in that undertaking; and Jaucourt’s name alone, they knew, would be thought a sufficient guarantee against the bad principles of the work. Jaucourt likewise conducted the “Bibliotheque Raisounee,” a journal greatly esteemed, from its origin to the year 1740. In conjunction with the professors Gaubius, Musschenbroek, and Dr. Massuet, he published the “-Musaeuin Sebaeanum,” in 1734, a book greatly esteemed, and of high price. He had also composed a “Lexicon Medicum universale,” but his manuscript, which was just about to be printed in Holland, in 6 vols. folio, was lost with the vessel in which it was sent to that country. Some other works by him are also extant, on subjects of medicine and natural philosophy. He was a member of the royal society of London, elected in 1756,, and of the academies of Berlin and Stockholm; and having been a pupil of the illustrious Boerhaave, was, by his interest, strongly invited into the service of the stadtholder, on very advantageous terms. But promises had no effect upon a man who was, as he paints himself, “a man without necessities, and without desires, without ambition, withotit intrigues; bold enough to offer his compliments to the great, but sufficiently prudent not to force his company upon them; and one who sought a studious obscurity, for the sake of preserving his tranquillity.” He died in February 1780.

, 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 Burgundy, born in 1540, and bred as an advocate in the parliament of Dijon, rose by his talents and probity to the highest situations in his profession. The states of Burgundy employed him to administer the affairs oi that province, and had every reason to felicitate themselves upon their choice. When the orders for the massacre of St. Bartholomew were received at Dijon, he opposed the execution of them with all his influence; and a few days after arrived a courier to forbid the murders. The appointments of counsellor, president, and finally chief president, in the parliament of Dijon, were the rewards of his merit. Seduced by the pretences of the leaguers to zeal for religion and for the state, Jeanniu for a time united himself with that faction; but he soon perceived their perfidy and wickedness, as well as the completely interested views of the Spaniards, and repented of the step. After the battle of Fontaine Francoise, -in which the final blow was given to the league, Henry IV. called him to his council, and retained him in his court. From this time he became the adviser, and almost the friend of the king^ who admired him equally for his frankness and his sagacity. Jeannin was employed in the negotiation between the Dutch and the court of Spain, the most difficult that could be undertaken. It was concluded in 1609. After the death of Henry IV. the queen-mother confided to him the greatest affairs of the state, and the administration of the finances, and he managed them with Unparalleled fidelity; of which his poverty at his death afforded an undoubted proof. He died in 1622, at the age of eighty-two, having seen seven successive kings on the throne of France. He was the author of a folio collection of negociations and memoirs, printed in 1656, and reprinted in a beautiful edition, 2 vols. 12mo, in the year 1659, which Were long held in the bighest estimation. The regard which Henry IV. felt for him was very great. Complaining one day to his ministers that some among them had revealed a state secret of importance, he took the president by the hand, saying, “As for this good man, I will answer for him.” Yet, though he entertained such sentiments of him, he did little for him; and, being conscious that he had been remiss in this respect, said sometimes, “Many of my subjects I load with wealth, to prevent them from exerting their malice; but for the president Jeannin, I always say much, and do little.”

, son of Dr. John Jebb, dean of Casbell, was born in London, early in 1736. He was a man much celebrated among the violent partizans for unbounded liberty, religious and political; and certainly a man of learning and talents, though they were both so much absorbed in controversy as to leave little among his writings of general use. His education was begun in Ireland, and finished in England. His degrees were taken at Cambridge, where he bore public offices, and obtained the vicarage of St. Andrew’s, and where he married a daughter of Dr. Torkington, of Huntingdonshire, who was grand-daughter to the earl of Harborough. His college was Peter-house. He early took up the plan of giving theological lectures, which were attended by several pupils, till his peculiar opinions became known in 1770, when a prohibition was published in the university. How soon he had begun to deviate from the opinions he held at the time of ordination is uncertain, but in a letter dated Oct. 21, 1775, he says, “I have for seven years past, in my lectures, maintained steadily the proper unity of God, and that he alone should be the object of worship.” He adds, that he warned his hearers that this was not the received opinion, but that his own was settled, and exhorted them to inquire diligently. This confession seems rather inconsistent with the defence he addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1770. He was a strenuous advocate for the establishment of annual examinations in the university, but could not prevail. In. 1775, he came to the resolution of resigning his ecclesiastical preferments, which he did accordingly; and then, by the advice of his friends, took up the study of physic. For this new object he studied indefatigably, and in 1777, obtained his degree by diploma from St. Andrew’s, and was admitted a licentiate in London.

, 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.

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

, 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.

We have, however, no need of any other arguments than the confession of Jeffery himself, who acknowledges that the history of Britain was not wholly a translation of the Welsh manuscript; he avows that he added several parts, particularly Merlin’s Prophecies, before-mentioned, and inserted some circumstances “which he had heard from that most learned historian, Walter archdeacon of Oxford.”

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.

In this historical romance is also to be found, the affecting history of Leir king of Britain, the eleventh in succession after Brutus, who divided his kingdom between Gonerilla and Regan, his two elder daughters, and disinherited his youngest daughter Cordeilla. From this account Shakspeare selected his incomparable tragedy of “King Lear,” but improved the pathos by making the death of Cordeilla (which name he softened after the ex?, in pie- of Spenser into Cordelia) precede that of Lear, while, in the original story, the aged father is restored to his kingdom, and survived by Cordeilla. Milton seems to have been particularly fond of Jeffery’s tales, to which he was indebted for the beautiful fiction of Sabrina in the “Mask of Comus.”

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.

North, who informs us of this circumstance, tells us likewise, that, when he was in temper, and matters indifferent came before him, no one better became a seat of justice; and the following anecdote seems to prove that he at least knew what was right. At a contested election for a member of parliament for the town of Arundel in Sussex, government interfered so openly as to send down Jeffreys, then lord chancellor, with instructions to use every method to procure the return of the court candidate. On the day of election, in order to intimidate tl>e electors, he placed himself on the hustings close by the returning officer, the mayor, who had been an attorney, but was retired from business, with an ample fortune and fair character; he well fcnew the chancellor, but for prudential reasons acted as if he was a stranger both to his person and rank. In the course of the poll, that magistrate, who scrutinized every man before he permitted him to vote, rejected one of the court party, at which Jeffreys rising in a heat, after several indecent reflections, declared the man should poll, adding, “I am the lord chancellor of this realm.” The mayor, regarding him with a look of the highest contempt, replied in these words, “Your ungentlemanlike behaviour convinces me, it is impossible you should be the person you pretend; were you the chancellor, you would know that you have nothing to do here, where I alone preside;”“then turning to the crier,” Officer,“said he,” turn that fellow out of court;“his commands were obeyed without hesitation, and the chancellor retired to his inn, in great confusion, and the election terminated in favour of the popular candidate. In the evening the mayor, to his great surprise, received a message from Jeffreys, desiring the favour of his company at the inn, which he declining, the chancellor came to his house, and being introduced to him made the following compliment:” Sir, notwithstanding we are in different interests, I cannot help revering one who so well knows, and dares so nobly execute the law; and though I myself was somewhat degraded thereby, you did but your duty. You, as I have learned, are independent, but you may have some relation who is not so well provided for; if you have, let me have the pleasure of presenting him with a considerable place in my gift, just now vacant." Such an offer, and so handsomely made, could not fail of drawing the acknowledgments of the party to whom it was made; he having a nephew in no very affluent circumstances, named him to the chancellor, who immediately signed the necessary instrument for his appointment to a very lucrative and honourable employment.

When the prince of Orange came, and all was in confusion, the lord chancellor, being very obnoxious to the people, disguised himself in order to go abroad. He was in a seaman’s dress, and drinking a pot in a cellar. The scritener, whom he had so severely handled, happening tocome into the cellar after some of his clients, his eye caught that face which made him start; when the chancellor seeing himself observed, feigned a cough, and turned to the wall with his pot in his hand. But the scrivener went out, and gave notice that he was there; and the mob immediately rushed in, seized him, and carried him to the lord-mayor. Thence, under a strong guard, he was set to the lords of the council, who committed him to the Tower, where he died April 18, 1689, of a broken heart, aided by intemperance. He was first interred in the church belonging to the Tower, and afterwards was removed to that of St. Mary Aldermanbury, and deposited near the body of his son. His father survived him, and died in 1690. Pennant records an instance of insult on this once great man during his imprisonment. He received, as he thought, a present of Colchester oysters, and expressed great satisfaction at the thought of having some friend yet left; but on takiiig off the top of the barrel, instead of the usual contents appeared an halter.

This wretched man left an only son, who inherited his title as lord Jeffreys, and also his intemperate habit. Two poetical efforts, in the “State Poems,” 4 vols. 8vo, are attributed to him, and he is said to have published “An Argument in the case of Monopolies,” 1689. He died in 1703, when his title became extinct, and was buried in St. Mary Aldermanbury church. He married Charlotte, the daughter and heiress of Philip earl of Pembroke, by whom he had an only daughter, who married Thomas earl of Pomfretv After his death, the countess of Pomfret became a munificent benefactress to the university of Oxford, hy presenting to it the noble collection of the Pomfret marbles. Granger informs us that this very amiable lady met with very rude insults from the populace on the western road, merely because she was grand-daughter of the inhuman Jeffreys. Jeffreys’s seat, well known by the name of Buistrode, was purchased by William earl of Portland, in queen Anne’s reign, and until lately has been the principal seat of the Portland family. There is some reason to think that judge Jeffreys was created earl of Flint, but the fact has never been clearly ascertained.

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

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

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

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

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.

, a learned civilian and able statesman, was descended from a family in Wales, being the son of Leoline Jenkins, who was possessed of an estate of 40l, a year, at Llantrisaint, in Glamorganshire, where this son was born about 1623. He discovered an excellent genius and disposition for learning, by the great progress he made in Greek and Latin, at Cowbridge-school, near Llantrisaint; whence he was removed in 1641 to Jesus-r college, in Oxford, and upon the breaking out of the civil war soon after, took up arms, among other students, on the side of the king. This, however, did not interrupt his studies, which he continued with all possible vigour; not leaving Oxford till after the death of the king. He then retired to his own country, near Llantrythyd, the seat of sir John Aubrey, which, having been left void by sequestration, served as a refuge to several eminent loyalists; among whom was Dr. Mansell, the late principal of his college. This gentleman invited him to sir John Aubrey’s house, and introduced him to the friendship of the rest of his fellow-sufferers there, as Frewen, abp. of York, and Sheldon, afterwards abp. of Canterbury; a favour which through his own merit and industry, laid the foundation of all his future fortunes. The tuition of sir John Aubrey’s eldest son was the first design in this invitation; and he acquitted himself in it so well, that he was soon after recommended in the like capacity to many other young gentlemen of the best rank and quality in those parts, whom he bred up in the doctrine of the church of England, treating them like an intimate friend rather than a master, and comforting them with hopes of better times.

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

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.”

The detail of this negotiation is well known, and maybe seen in sir Leoline’s letters, and his colleague’s works, to which we must refer; it being sufficient to observe here, that all expedients proposed by the two mediators were rejected. Sir Leoline quitted the place on Feb. 16, 1679; and retiring to Neerbos, received a warrant from his royal master, dated Feb. 14, three days after the date of his letter of revocation, appointing him ambassador extraordinary at the Hague, in the room of sir William Temple, who had been then recalled. He accordingly arrived there, March 1; but continued in that station no longer than the 25th of the same month; for, by a new commission, dated Feb. 20, and which came to his hands six days after, he returned to Nimeguen March 26, authorised to resume his mediatorial function, at the desire of the prince of Orange and the States, and the earnest intreaty of the Northern princes. His instructions now left him in a great measure to himself, without other direction than to act as Be s ould find most consistent with his majesty’s honour, and the good of the general peace; which, as he was a modest man and very diffident of himself, put him under great anxiety. He happily succeeded, however, in accommodating all differences, and returned home, Aug. 1679, after having been employed about four years and a half in this tedious treaty.

* 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.

, earl of Liverpool, was the eldest son of colonel Charles Jenkinson, who was younger son of sir Robert Jenkinson, the first baronet of the family.

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

Having in early life bent his turn for literature to political studies, he became eminently conversant more especially with the laws of nations, and the principles and details of commerce, and political arithmetic. Of these studies the following fruits appeared at various periods of his life: I. “A discourse on the establishment of a national and constitutional Force in England,” 1756. This, though a juvenile performance, excited much attention and debate at the time. 2. “A discourse on the conduct of Great Britain in respect to Neutral Nations during the present War,” 1758. This was esteemed a performance of very great solidity and import, and was translated into all the languages of Europe. 3. “A Collection pf Treaties., from 1648 to 1783,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1785. 4. “A Treatise on the Coins of the realm, in a letter to the king,” 1805, 4to. Of this work the Edinburgh reviewers pronounce that “it is pleasing to find one, who must necessarily have been bred among the exploded doctrines of the elder economists, shaking himself almost quite loose from their influence at an advanced period of life, and betraying, while he resumes the favourite speculations of his early years, so little bias towards errors, which he must once have imbibed. It is no less gratifying, to observe one who has been educated in the walks of practical policy, and grown old amid the bustle of public employments, embellishing the decline of life by pursuits, which unite the dignity of science with the usefulness of active exertion.”

, a gentleman of considerable fortune at Gopsal, in Leicestershire, and a nonjuror, was descended from a family which was one among the many who have acquired ample fortunes at Birmingham, where they were equally famous for industry and generosity. In his youth he was so remarkable for the jiumber of his servants, the splendor of his equipages, and the profusion of his table, that he acquired the title of “Solyman the magnificent.” He is said to have composed the words for some of Handel’s oratorios, and particularly those for “the Messiah;” an easy task, as it is only a selection of verses from scripture. Not long before his death, he imprudently exposed himself to criticism by attempting an edition of Shakspeare, which he began by publishing “King Lear,” in 8vo; and printed afterwards, on the same model, the tragedies of “Hamlet,” 1772; “Othello” and “Macbeth,” 1773. He would have proceeded farther, but was prevented by death, Nov. 20, 1773. The tragedy of “Julius Csesar,” which in his life had been put to the press, was published in 1774. He had a numerous library, and a large collection of pictures, both in Great Ormond-street, and at Gopsal. Mr. Jennens’s character appears, by some curious documents in our authority, to have been a strange compound of vanity, "conceit, obstinacy, ignorance, and want of taste, joined to extensive benevolence. As an editor of Shakspeare, he can no longer be remembered but as the first suggester of oratorios in this country, he seems entitled to some notice.

, 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.

Mr. Jenyns received the first, part of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Hill, and afterwards of the rev. Stephen White, who became rector of Holton, in Suffolk. In 1722 he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted as a fellow-commoner of St. John’s, under Dr. Edmondson, at that time one of the principal tutors of the college. Here he pursued his studies with great industry for three years, and found so much satisfaction in the regular discipline and employments of a college life, that he %vas often heard to say he accounted the days he had lived there, among the happiest in his life. He left the university, however, without taking a degree, in consequence, probably, of his marriage, which took place when he was very young. His first wife was the natural daughter of his uncle, colonel Soame, of Deerham Grange, in Norfolk. With this lady he received a very considerable fortune, but in all other respects the union was unhappy. After some years she eloped from him with a Leicestershire gentleman; and a separation being agreed upon in form, Mr. Jenyns consented to allow her a maintenance, which was regularly paid until her death, in 1753. This affair, it may be conjectured, interrupted the plan of life he had formed after leaving Cambridge. If we may judge from his poetical efforts, his turn was gay, lively, and satirical. His songs and other amatory pieces were probably written when young, and bespeak a mind sufficiently at ease to trifle with the passions, and not always attentive to delicacy where it interfered with wit. His first publication, and perhaps his best, was the “Art of Dancing,” printed in 1730, and inscribed to lady Fanny Fielding, one of the daughters of the earl of Denbigh, and afterwards countess of Winchelsea. He did not put his name to this poem; but when discovered, it was considered as the prelude to greater performances. It must be confessed there is an ease and elegance in the versification which brought him near to the most favourite poets of his day. In 1735 he wrote the “Epistle to Lord Lovelace,” and this was followed by other pieces of poetry, which he contributed to Dodsley’s collection, and afterwards printed in a volume, in 1752. He wrote also some occasional essays on political topics, the precise dates of which cannot now be ascertained, as he never put his name to any of his works. They have, however, been since collected by Mr. Cole in that edition of his works which was published in 4 vols. 8vo, 1790, and again in 1793.

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.

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.

In private life he was, says Mr. Cole, a man of great mildness, gentleness, and sweetness of temper. His earnest desire was, as far as possible, never to offend any person. This is confirmed by the Rev. Mr. Cole of Milton, who is not remarkable for the lenity of his opinions respecting his contemporaries. “Mr. Jenyns was a man of lively fancy and pleasant turn of wit, very sparkling in conversation, and full of merry conceits and agreeable drollery, which was heightened by his inarticulate manner of speaking through his broken teeth, and all this mixed with the utmost humanity and good nature, having hardly ever heard him severe upon any one, and by no means satirical in his mirth and good-humour.”

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.

, 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.

, 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.”

When he had finished his education at Rome, and reaped all the fruits which books and good masters could afford, he resolved, for his further improvement, to travel. After being baptized therefore at Rome, when an adult, he went into France with Bonosus, a fellow-student, and remained a considerable time in every city through which he passed, that he might have opportunity and leisure to examine the public libraries, and to visit the men of letters, with which that country then abounded. He staid so long at Treveris, that he transcribed with his own hand a large volume of Hilary’s concerning Synods, which some time after he ordered to be sent to him in the deserts of Syria. From hence he went to Aquileia, where he became first acquainted with Ruffinus, who was a presbyter in that town, and with whom he contracted an intimate friendship. When he had travelled as long as he thought expedient, and seen every thing that was curious and worth his notice, he returned to Rome; where he began to deliberate with himself, what course of life he should take. Study and retirement were what he most desired, and he had collected an excellent library of books but Rome, he thought, would not be a proper place to reside in it was not only too noisy and tumultuous for him, but as yet had too much of the old leaven of Paganism in it. He had objections likewise against his own country, Dalmatia, whose inhabitants he represents, in one of his epistles, as entirely sunk in sensuality and luxury, regardless of every thing that was good and praise-worthy, and gradually approaching to a state of barbarism. After a consultation therefore with his friends, he determined to retire into some very remote region; and therefore leaving his country, parents, substance, and taking nothing with him but his books, and^ money sufficient for his journey, he set off from Italy for the eastern parts of the world. Having passed through Dalmatia, Thrace, and some provinces of Asia Minor, his first care was to pay a visit to Jerusalem, which was then considered as a necessary act of religion. From Jerusalem he went to Antioch, where he fell into a dangerous fit of illness; but having the good fortune to recover from it, he left Antioch, and set forward in quest of some more retired habitation; and after rambling over several cities and countries, with all which he was dissatisfied on account of the customs and manners of the people, he settled at last in a most frightful desert of Syria, which was scarcely inhabited by any thing but wild beasts. This however was no objection to Jerom it was rather a recommendation of the place to him for, says Erasmus, “he thought it better to cohabit with wild beasts and wild men, than with such sort of Christians as were usually found in threat cities men half Pagan, half Christian Christians in nothing more than in name.”

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.

He had now fixed upon Bethlehem, as the properest place of abode for him, and best accommodated to that course of life which he intended to pursue; and was no sooner arrived here, than he met with Paula, and other ladies of quality, who had followed him from Rome, with the same view of devoting themselves to a monastic life. His fame for learning and piety was indeed so very extensive, that numbers of both sexts rlocked from all parts and distances, to be trained up under him, and to form their manner of living according to his instructions. This moved the pious Paula to found four monasteries; three for the use of females, over which she herself presided, and one for males, which was committed to Jerom. Here he enjoyed all that repose which he had long desired; and he laboured abundantly, as well for the souls committed to his care, as in composing great and useful works. He had enjoyed this repose probably to the end of his life, if Origemsm had not prevailed so mightily in those parts: but, as Jerom had an abhorrence for every thing that looked like heresy, it was impossible for him to continue passive, while these asps, as he calls them, were insinuating their deadly poison into all who had the misfortune to fall in their way. This engaged him in violent controversies with John bishop of Jerusalem, and Ruffinus of Aquileia, which lasted many years. Ruffinus and Jerom had of old been intimate friends; but Ruffinus having of late years settled in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and espoused the part of the Origenists, the enmity between them was on that account the more bitter, and is a reproach to both their memories. Jerom had also several other controversies, particularly with Jovinian, an Italian monk, whom he mentions in his works with the utmost intemperance of language, without exactly informing us what his errors were. In the year 410, when Rome was besieged by the Goths, many fled from thence to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and were kindly received by Jerom into his monastery. He died in 422, in the ninety-first year of his age; and is said to have preserved his vivacity and vigour to the last.

Erasmus, who wrote his life, and gave the first edition of his works in 1526, says, that he was “undoubtedly the greatest scholar, the greatest orator, and the greatest divine that Christianity had then produced.” But Cave, who never yet was charged with want of justice to the fathers, says, that Jerom “was, with Erasmus’s leave, a hot and furious man, who had no command at all over his passions. When he was once provoked, he treated his adversaries in the roughest manner, and did not even abstain from invective and satire witness what he has written against Ruffinus, who was formerly his friend against John, bishop of Jerusalem, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and others. Upon the slightest provocation, he grew excessively abusive, and threw out all the ill language he could rake together, without the least regard to the situation, rank, learning, and other circumstances, of the persons he had to do with. And what wonder,” says Cave, “when it is common with him to treat even St. Paul himself in very harsh and insolent terms charging him, as he does, with solecisms in language, false expressions, and a vulgar use of words?” We do not quote this with any view of detracting from the real merit of Jerom, but only to note the partiality of Erasmus, in defending, as he does very strenuously, this most exceptionable part of his character, his want of candour and spirit of persecution; to which Erasmus himself was so averse, that hr lias ever been highly praised by protestants, and as highly dispraised by papists, for placing all his glory in moderation.

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.

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 painter of this country, more known from the praises of Pope, who took instructions from him in the art of painting, and other wits, who were influenced probably by the friendship of Pope, than for any merits of his own, was a native of Ireland, and studied for a year under sir Godfrey Kneller. Norris, framer and keeper of the pictures to king William and queen Anne, was the first friend who essentially served him, by allowing him to study from the pictures in the royal collection, and to copy them. At Hamptou-cour the made small copies of the cartoons, and these he sold to Dr. George Clark of Oxford, who then became his protector, and furnished him with money to visit France and Italy. In the eighth number of the Tatler, (April 18, 1709), he is mentioned as “the last great painter Italy has sent us.” Pope speaks of him with more enthusiasm than felicity, and rather as if he was determined to praise, than as if he felt the subject. Perhaps some of the unhappiest lines in the works of that poet are in the short epistle to Jervas. Speaking of the families of some ladies, he says,

, 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.”

, a learned prelate, and deservedly reputed one of the fathers of the English church, was descended from an ancient family at Buden in Devonshire, where he was born May 24, 1522. After learning the rudiments of grammar under his maternal uncle Mr. Bellamy, rector of Hamton, and being put to school at Barnstaple, he was sent to Oxford, and admitted a postmaster of Mertori college, in July 1535, under the tuition of Parkhurst, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who entertained a very high opinion of him from the beginning, and had great pleasure in. cultivating his talents. After studying four years at this college, he was, in August 1539, chosen scholar of Corpus Chnsti college, where he pursued his studies with indefatigable industry, usually rising at four in the morning, and studying till ten at night by which means he acquired a masterly knowledge in most branches of learning but, taking too little care of his health, he contracted such a cold as fixed a lameness in one of his legs, which accompanied him to his grave. In Oct. 1540, he proceeded B.A. became a celebrated tutor, and was soon after chosen reader of humanity and rhetoric in his college. In Feb. 1544, he commenced M. A. the expence of taking which degree was borne by his tutor Parkhurst.

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.

, 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.

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

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

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

, a pious and learned Jesuit, was a native of Paris, where he was born in 1647. He taught polite literature in his own order, and distinguished himself as a preacher. He died at Paris in 1719. There are several tracts of piety of his writing, besides a piece entitled “La Science des Medailles,” of which the best edition is that of Paris, in 1739, 2 vols. 12mo, but this superiority it owes to the editor, M. le Baron Bimard de la Bastie; and even of this edition, the second volume is a mere farrago of useless lumber. Pinkerton, who expresses a very low opinion of this work, affirms that Jobert borrowed much from Charles Patin’s “Introduction to the History of Medals,” without any acknowledgment.

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

, 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."

In 1689 he married Margaret, the daughter of Thomas Jenkin, gent, of the isle of Thanet, and half-sister of Dr. Robert Jenkin, master of St. John’s college in Cambridge. He had some children; and among them a son, who died in 1723, after having been fellow of the above college, and rector of Standish in Lancashire.

, 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.”

The times were turbulent; the duke of York declaring himself a Papist, his succession to the crown began to be warmly opposed; and. this brought the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right into dispute, which was strongly disrelished by Johnson, who was naturally of no submissive temper. This inclination was early observed by his patron, who warned him against the danger of it to one of his profession, and advised him, if he would turn his thoughts to that subject, to read Bracton and Fortescue “de laudibus legum Angliae,” &c. that so he might be acquainted with the old English constitution but by no means to make politics the subject of his sermons, for that matters of faith and practice formed more suitable admonitions from the pulpit. Johnson, it is said, religiously observed this advice; and though, by applying himself to the study of the books recommended to him, he became well versed in the English constitution, yet he never flitroduced it in his sermons, but employed these, with zeal, to expose the absurdity and mischief of the Popish religion, which was then too much encouraged, and would, he thought, unavoidably be established if the next heir to the crown was not set aside. This point he laboured incessantly in his private conversation, and became so good a master of the arguments for it, that the opposers of the court gave him suitable encouragement to proceed. The earl of Essex admitted him into his company and lord William Russel, respecting his parts and probity, made him his domestic chaplain. This preferment placed him in a conspicuous point of view; and in 1679 he was appointed to preach before the mayor and aldermen at Guildhallchapel, on Palm-Sunday. He took that opportunity of preaching against Popery; and from this time, he tells us himself, “he threw away his liberty with both hands, and with his eyes open, for his country’s service.” In short, he began to be regarded by his party as their immoveable bulwark; and to make good that character, while the bill of exclusion was carried on by his patron at the head of that party in the House of Commons, his chaplain, to promote the same cause, engaged the ecclesiastical champion of passive obedience, Dr. Hickes , in a book entitled “Julian' the Apostate, &c.” published in 1682. This tract being written to expose the doctrine, then generally received, of passive obedience, was answered by Dr. Hickes, in a piece entitled “Jovian, &c.” to which Johnson drew up a reply, under the title of “Julian’s arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity,” &c. This was printed and entered at Stationers’-hall, 1683, in order to be published; but, seeing his patron lord Russel seized and imprisoned, Johnson thought proper to check his zeal, and take the advice of his friends in suppressing it.

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

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.

Having, by the bonds of himself and two friends, obtained the liberty of the rules, he was enabled to incur still further dangers, by printing some pieces against Popery in 1685, and dispersing several of them about the country at his own expence. These being answered in three “Observators,” by sir Roger L'Estrange, who also, discovering the printer, seized all the copies that were in his hands, Johnson caused a paper to be posted up everywhere, entitled “A Parcel of wry Reasons and wrong Inferences, but right Observator.” Upon the encampment of the army the following year, 1686, on Hounslow-heath, he drew up “An humble and hearty Address to all the Protestants in the present Army,” &c. He had dispersed about 1000 copies of this paper, when the rest of the impression was seized, and himself committed to close custody, to undergo a second trial at the King’s-bench; where he was condemned to stand in the pillory in Palace-yard, Westminster, Charingcross, and the Old Exchange, to pay a fine of 500 marks, and to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn, after he had been degraded from the priesthood. This last ought to have been done, according to the canons, by his own diecesan, the bishop of London, Dr. Compton; but that prelate being then under suspension himself (for not obeying the king’s order to suspend Dr. Sharp, afterwards archbishop of York, for preaching against Popery in his own parish church of St. Giles’s in the Fields), Dr. Crewe, bishop of Durham, Dr. Sprat, bishop of Rochester, and Dr. White, bishop of Peterborough, who were then commissioners for the diocese of London, were appointed to degrade Mr. Johnson. This they performed in the chapter-house of St. Paul’s, where Dr. Sherlock, and other clergymen, attended; but Dr. Stillingfleet, then dean of St. Paul’s, refused to be present. Johnson’s behaviour on this occasion was observed to be so becoming that character of which his enemies would have deprived him, that it melted some of their hearts, and forced them to acknowledge, that there was something very valuable in him. Among other things which he said to the divines then present, he told them, in the most pathetic manner, et It could not but grieve him to think, that, since all he had wrote was designed to keep their gowns on their backs, they should be made the unhappy instruments to pull off his; and he begged them to consider whether they were not making rods for themselves.“When they came to the formality of putting a Bible in his hand and taking it from him again, he was much affected, and parted from it with difficulty, kissed it, and said, with tears,” That they could not, however, deprive him of the use and benefit of that sacred depositum." It happened, that they were guilty of an omission, in not stripping him of his cassock; which, slight as such a circumstance may seem, rendered his degradation imperfect, and afterwards saved him his living.

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.

By what means his father was enabled to defray the expence of an university education has not been very accurately told. It is generally reported that he went to assist the studies of a young gentleman of the name of Corbet. His frfend, Dr. Taylor, assured Mr. Boswell that he never could have gone to college, had not a gentleman of Shropshire, one of his schoolfellows, spontaneously undertaken to support him at Oxford, in the character of his companion,- though, in fact, he never received any assistance whatever from that gentleman. He was, however, entered a commoner of Pembroke college on the 31st October, 1728. His tutor was Mr. Jordan, a fellow of Pembroke, a man whom Johnson mentioned with respect many years after, but to whose instructions he did not pay much regard, except that he formally attended his lectures, as well as those in the college hall. It was at Jordan’s request that he translated Pope’s Messiah into Latin verse, as a Christmas exercise. Pope is said to have expressed his high approbation of it; but critics in that language, among whom Pope could never be ranked, have not considered Johnson’s Latin poems as the happiest of his compositions. When Jordan left college to accept of a living, Johnson became the scholar of Dr. Adams, who was afterwards the head of Pembroke, and with whom Johnson maintained a strict friendship to the last hour of his life.

In 1734 he returned to Lichfield, and issued proposals for an edition of the Latin poems of Politian, with the history of Latin poetry, from the aera of Petrarch to the time of Politian, and also the life of Politian; the book to be printed in thirty octavo sheets, price five shillings. Those who have not attended to the literary history of this country will be surprized that such a work could not be undertaken without the precaution of a subscription; and they will regret that in this case the subscription was so inadequate to the expence of printing, as to deter our author from executing what probably would have made him known and patronized by the learned world.

Disappointed in this scheme, he offered his services to Mr. Cave, the proprietor and editor of the Gentleman’s Magazine, who had given some proofs of a liberal spirit of enterprize, in calling forth the talents of unknown and ingenious writers. On this occasion he suggested some improvements in the management of the Magazine, and specified the articles which he was ready to supply. Cave answered his letter, but it does not appear that any agreement was formed at this time. He soon, however, entered into a connection of a more tender kind, which ended in marriage. His wife, who was about twenty years older than himself, was the widow of Mr. Porter, a mercer, of Birmingham, a lady whose character has been variously represented, but seldom to her discredit. She was, however, the object of his first passion, and although they did not pass the whole time of their union in uninterrupted harmony, he lamented her death with unfeigned sorrow, and retained an enthusiastic veneration for her memory.

In the ourse of the summer he went to Lichfield, where he had left Mrs. Johnson, and there, during a residence of three months, finished his tragedy for the stage. On his return to London with Mrs. Johnson, he endeavoured to prevail on Fleetwood, the patentee of Drurylane theatre, to accept “Irene,” but in this was unsuccessful, and having no interest with any other manager, he laid aside his play in pursuit of literary employment. He had now become personally known to Cave, and began to contribute to the Magazine original poetry, Latin and English, translations, biographical sketches, and other miscellaneous articles, particularly the debates in parliament, under the name of the Senate of Lilliput. At that time the debates were not allowed to be published, as now, the morning after the day of meeting, and the only safe mode of conveying the substance of them to the public was by adopting a historical form at more distant periods. At first Johnson merely revised the manuscript as written by Guthrie, who then supplied this department of the Magazine; but when he had attained a higher rank among authors, the whole devolved on his coadjutor. His only materials were a few notes supplied by persons who attended the houses of parliament, from which, and sometimes from information even more scanty, he compiled a series of speeches, of which the sentiments as well as the style were often his own. In his latter days he disapproved of this practice, and desisted from writing the speeches as soon as he found they were thought genuine.

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.

The design of this great work was at first suggested by Dodsley; and Johnson, having consented to undertake it, entered into an agreement with the booksellers for the sum of fifteen hundred guineas, which he was to receive in small payments proportioned to the quantity of manuscript sent to the press. The plan was addressed to the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, who had discovered an inclination to be the patron of the author; and Johnson, having made suitable preparations, hired a house in Gough-square, engaged amanuenses, and began a task which he carried on by fits, as inclination and health permitted, for nearly eight years. His amanuenses were six in number, and employed upon what may be termed the mechanical part of the work, but their expences and his own were so considerable, that before the work was concluded he had received the whole of the money stipulated for in his agreement with the proprietors. In what time it might have been completed, had he, to use his own phrase, “set doggedly about it,” it is useless to conjecture, and it would perhaps have been hurtful to try. Whoever has been employed on any great literary work knows, not only the pleasure, but the necessity of occasional relaxation; and Johnson’s mind, stored with various knowledge, and a rich fund of sentiment, afforded him many opportunities of this kind, in addition to the love of society, which was his predominant passion. We find accordingly that during the years in which his Dictionary was on hand, he accepted some inferior employment from the booksellers, and produced some of the most valuable of his original works.

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.

< ( The Rambler“was concluded on March 14, 1752 and three days after, the author’s wife died, a loss which he Jong deplored, and never, at the latest period of his life, recollected without emotion. Many instances of his affection for her occur in the collection of” Prayers and Meditations" published after his death, which, however they may expose him to ridicule, combine to prove that his attachment to her was uniformly sincere. She was buried at Bromley, and Johnson placed a Latin inscription on her tomb. She left a daughter by her former husband, and by her means our author became acquainted with Mrs. Anne Williams, the daughter of Zachary Williams, a physician who died about this time. Mrs. Williams wasa woman of considerable talents, and her conversation was^interesting. She was left in poverty by her father, and had the additional affliction of being totally blind. To relieve his melancholy reflections, Johnson took her home to his house in Gough-square, procured her a benefit play from Garrick, and assisted her in publishing a volume of poems, by both of which schemes she raised about three hundred pounds. With this fund she became an inmate in Johnson’s house, where she passed the remainder of her days, protected and cheered by every act of kindness and tenderness which he could have showed to the nearest relation.

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.