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

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.

In 1655 he travelled into France, and took the degree of doctor of laws at Angiers. In 1658 he published his “Horologium oscillatorium, sive de motu pendulorum,” &c. at the Hague. He had exhibited in a preceding work entitled “Brevis institutio de usu HorologioKum ad inveniendas longitudines,” a model of a new invented pendulum; but as some persons envious of his reputation were labouring to deprive him of the honour of the invention, he wrote this book to explain the construction of it, and to shew that it was very different from the pendulum of astronomers invented by Galileo. In 1659 he published his “Systema Saturninum, sive de causis mirandorum Saturni phenomenon, & comiteejus planeta novo.” Galileo had endeavoured to explain some of the surprising appearances of the planet Saturn. He had at first perceived two stars which attended it; and some time after was amazed to find them disappear. Huygens, desirous to account for these changes, laboured with his brother Constautine to bring the telescopes to greater perfection; and made himself glasses by which he could view objects at a greater distance than any that had yet been contrived. With these he applied himself to observe all the phases and appearances of Saturn, and drew a journal of all the different aspects of thai planet. He discovered also one of the satellites belonging to that planet, which had hitherto escaped the eyes of astronomers; and, after a long course of observations, perceived that the planet is surrounded with a solid and permanent ring, which never changes its situation. These discoveries gained him an high rank among the astronomers of his time.

In 1660 he took a second journey into France, and the year after passed over into England, where he communicated his art of polishing glasses for telescopes, and was made a fellow of the royal society. About this time the air-pump was invented, which received considerable im-rprovements from him. This year also he discovered the laws of the collision of elastic bodies: as did afterwards our own countrymen, the celebrated Wallis and Wren, with whom he had a dispute about the honour of this discovery. After he had stayed some months in England, he returned to France in 1663, where his merit became Sq conspicuous, that Colbert resolved to fix him at Paris, by settling on him a considerable pension. Accordingly, in. 1665, letters written in the king’s name were sent to him to the Hague, where he then was, to invite him to Paris, with, the promise of a large stipend, and other considerable advantages. H.uygens consented to the proposal, and resided at Paris from 1666 to 1681; where he was made a member of the royal academy of sciences. During this time he was engaged in mathematical pursuits, wrote several works, which were published from time to time, and invented and perfected several useful instruments and machines. But continual application hegan then to impair his health; and, though he had twice visited his native air, in 1670 and 1675, for the sake of recovering from illness, he now found it permanently necessary to his constitution; but perhaps the revocation of the edict of Nantz was a principal reason for his wishing to return to his own country. Though he was assured that he should enjoy the same liberty as before, and not be molested for his religions opinions, he would not consent to live in a country where his religion was proscribed, and therefore left Paris in. 3681, and passed the remainder of his life in his own country, occupied in his usual pursuits and employments. He died at the Hague June 8, )695, in his sixty-seventh year, while his “Cosmotheoros,” a Latin treatise concerning the plurality of worlds, was printing; he provided, however, in his will for its publication, desiring his brother Constantine, to whom it was addressed, to take that trouble upon him. But Constantine was so occupied with business, as being secretary in Holland to the king of Great Britain, that he died also before it could be printed; so that the book did not appear in public till 1698.

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

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

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

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

Of his brothers, Justus Van Huysum was born at Amsterdam, and died when he had arrived only at his twentysecond year. He painted battles in a large and a small size, with exceeding readiness and freedom, without having recourse to any models; and he composed his subjects merely by the power of his own lively imagination, disposing them also with judgment and taste and Jacob Van Huysum, also born at Amsterdam, in 1680, died at London, where he had resided for several years. His merit chiefly consisted in imitating the works of his brother John; which he did with so much critical exactness, beauty, and delicacy, as frequently to deceive the most sagacious connoisseurs and he usually had twenty guineas for each copy. He also composed subjects of his own invention in the same style, which were very much prized; and his paintings increased in their value like those of his brother Jfohn. He died in 1740.

, 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.

Hyde withdrew to the king at York, having first obtained the great seal to be sent thither on May 20, 1642: and, upon his arrival, was admitted into the greatest confidence, though he was not under any official character in the court for some months. But, towards the latter end of the year, upon the promotion of sir John Colepepper to be master of th,e rolls, he succeeded him in the chancellorship of the exchequer, and the same year was knighted, and made a privy-counsellor. With these characters he sat in the parliament assembled at Oxford, Jan. 1643; and, in 1644, was one of the king’s commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge. Not long after, the king sending the prince of Wales into the West, to have the superintendency of the affairs there, sir Edward Hyde was appointed to attend his highness, and to be of his council; where he entered, by his majesty’s command, into a correspondence with the marquis of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Upon the declension of the king’s cause, he with the lords Capel and Colepepper sailed from Pendennis castle in Cornwall to Scilly, and thence to Jersey, where he arrived in March 1645; but being greatly disgusted at the prince’s removal thence the following year to France, he obtained leave to stay in that island. His opinion respecting the prince’s removal into France, is warmly expressed in the following letter to the duke of Ormond:

“June 22, 1646. ' Edward Hyee.” We see here not barely a disgust, but even a resentment shewn to the prince’s going to Paris; the ground of which undoubtedly lay in the manifest danger his religion might be brought into from the restless endeavours of his mother; since it is notorious, that the chancellor was never upon any tolerable terms with the queen, on account of his watchfulness against every attempt of this kind.

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.

In May 1648, sir Edward received a letter from the queen to call him to Paris; where, after the king’s death, he was continued both in his seat at the privy council, and in his office of the exchequer, by Charles II. In Nov. 1649, he was sent by the king with lord Cottington ambassador extraordinary into Spain, to apply for assistance in the recovery of his crown; but returned without success in July 1651. Soon after his arrival, the king gave him an account of his escape after the battle of Worcester, in that unfortunate expedition to Scotland, which had been undertaken during sir Edward’s absence,- and much against his judgment. He now resided for some time at Antwerp, but left no means unattempted, by letters and messages to England, for compassing the Restoration; in which, however, he solely relied upon the episcopal party. In 1653, he was accused of holding a correspondence with Cromwell; but being declared innocent by the king, was afterwards made secretary of state. More attempts were made to ruin him with the king, but in vain; for in 1657 he was made chancellor of England. Upon the Restoration, as he had been one of the greatest sharers in his master’s sufferings, so he had a proportionable share in his glory.

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.

Besides the “History of the Rebellion” already mentioned, the chancellor wrote other pieces, theological as well as political. In 1672, while he resided at Moulins, he wrote his “Animadversions upon Mr. Cressy’s book entitled ‘ Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted by J. C.’” He is supposed to have been led to this work from the knowledge he had of Cressy, by means of an acquaintance commenced at Oxford, where that gentleman was his contemporary; and a motive of a similar nature might probably induce him to draw up his “Survey of Mr. Hobbes’s Leviathan,” which he dedicated the year following to Charles II. from the same place. He wrote also some things of a smaller kind, which have been collected and published with his “Miscellaneous Tracts.” And lastly, in 1759, was published “An Account of his own Life from his birth to the restoration in 1660; and a Continuation of the same, and of his History of the Grand Rebellion, from the restoration to his banishment in 1667;” written by himself; and printed in one volume, folio, and three in 8vo, from his original ms. given to the university of Oxford by his heirs: and his “State Papers” were published in 3 vols. fol. the first in 1767, the second in 1773, and the third in 1786.

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.

On the accession of James II. he was first made lord privy-seal, and then lord-lieutenant of Ireland: but being too firmly attached to the protestant religion for those times, he was recalled from his government to make room for lord Tyrconnel; and soon after removed from the privy-seal, that lord Arundel, of Wardour, another papist, fhight succeed him. About this time he was made highsteward of the university of Oxford. After the landing of the prince of Orange, he was one of the protestant lords, summoned by the king, when it was too late, to repair the ill consequences of his popish councils, and had spirit enough to take the lead, and to speak his mind frankly and openly in that memorable assembly. Yet though he had so great a regard to the constitution as to oppose king James’s encroachments, he would not transfer his allegiance to the new establishment, nor take the oaths to king William: on which account he was, with some others, suspected of designs against the government; and, when the king was in England, and the French fleet appeared on the English coast, the regency thought proper to secure him in the Tower. After some months he was released, and spent the remainder of his days privately at his own house in the country; where he died Oct. 22, 1709, aged seventy -one.

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

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

, 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.

About this time Hyde became known to Mr. Boyle, to whom he was very useful in communicating from Oriental writers several particulars relating to chemistry, physic, and natural history. In Oct. 1666, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury. In 1674, he published “A Catalogue of the books in the Bodleian library.” In 1678, he was made archdeacon of Gloucester; and, in 1682, took the degree of doctor in divinity. Dec. 1691, he was elected Arabic professor, on the death of Dr. Edward Pocock; and the same year published the “Itinera Mundi” of Abraham Peritsol, the son of Mordecai Peritsol, a very learned Jew. This was done to supply in some measure the Arabic geography of Abulfeda, which, at the request of Dr. Fell, he had undertaken to publish with a Latin translation: but the death of his patron putting an end to that work, he sent this smaller performance abroad, and dedicated it to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, in hopes that it might excite a stronger curiosity amongst the learned to search into this branch of literature. Dr. Altham, regius-professor of Hebrew, and canon of Christ-church, being, on some dispute about the oaths, removed from both preferments, Hyde became possessed of both, as they are always annexed, in July 1697.

Three years after he had ready for the press, as Wood tells us, an excellent work, on a subject very little known even to the learned themselves, “The Religion of the Ancient Persians,” a work of profound and various erudition, abounding with many new lights on the most curious and interesting subjects, filled with authentic testimonies, which none but himself could bring to public view, and with many ingenious conjectures concerning the theology, history, -and learning of the Eastern nations. This work, which was printed at Oxford in 1700, in 4to, containing 550 pages, and is now become exceedingly scarce, and sells at a very high price, was entitled “Historia Religionis Vetejum Persarum, eorumque Magorum.” It was dedicated to lord Somers. Foreign writers, as well as those of our own country, have spoken of it with high admiration and applause; and, if Hyde had left us no other monument of his studies, this alone had been sufficient to establish and preserve his reputation, as long as any taste for Oriental learning shall remain.

In April 1701 he resigned the office of principal keeper of the Bodleian library, on account of his age and infirmities; and died Feb. 18, 1703, at his lodgings in Christchurch, in his 67th year. He had occupied the post of interpreter and secretary in the Oriental languages, during the reigns of Charles II. James II. and William III. and, it is said, had, in the course of this employment, made himself accurately acquainted with whatever regarded the policy, ceremonies, and customs of the Oriental nations. He was succeeded in his archdeaconry of Gloucester by Mr. Robert Parsons; and, what was singular enough, in the chair of Hebrew professor and in his eanonry of Christchurch by his predecessor Dr. Altham. Besides the works already mentioned, he published “Qiiatuor Evangelia & Acta Apostolorum Lingua Malaica, characteribus Europaeis,” Oxford, 1677, 4to. His “Epistola de mensuris & ponderibus Serum sive Sinensium,” &c, was printed at the end of Dr. Edward Bernard’s book, entitled “De mensuris & ponderibus antiquis Libri tres,” Oxford, 1688, 8vo. In 1690 he published at Oxford in. 4to, “Annotatiunculae in Tractatum Alberti Bobovii Turcarum Imp. Mohammedis IV. olim interpretis primarii, da Turcarum Liturgia, peregrinatione Meccana, Circnmcisione, aegrotorum visitatione, &c. Subjuugitur Castigatio in Angelum a Sancto Josepho, Carmelitarum discalceatorum in Perside praefectum olim generalem.” In 1694 he published at Oxford in 8vo, “De Ludis Orientalibus Libri duo,” &c. The first book is divided into two parts the first of which parts contains “Mandragorias, seu Historia Shahiludii,” c. in Latin; and the second part “Hist. Shahiludii,” &c. in Hebrew and Latin. This “Historia Shahiludii” had been published by itself at Oxford, 1689, in 8vo. The second book contains “Historia Nerdiludii, hoc est dicere, Trunculorum,” &c. He wrote likewise “In Historiam Plantarum Oxoniensium Annotationes Noininum singularum Plantarum Lingua Arabica & Persic^ & TurcicV published by Jacob Bobart in his” Historia Plantarum," at Oxford, 1699, in 4to.

, 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.

, an Athenian orator, disciple of Plato and Isocrates, flourished about 335 years before the Christian aera. He was a sincere patriot, and so strenuous a lover of justice and liberty, that he did not hesitate to accuse his I'riend Demosthenes of receiving money from Harpalus, and actually drove him into banishment. They were afterwards reconciled, and perished about the same time. When the Athenians were beaten at Cranon, he was dragged out of the temple of Ceres, and delivered up to Antipater. He died about 322. He published many of his orations, of which one only is extant, and that in some degree dubious. It stands the 17th among those of Demosthenes. There are also some fragments. His style of eloquence has been variously estimated by the critics of his own country.

, 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.

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

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

, a Polish prince, devoted himself chiefly to the sciences, and, for the sake of improvement, frequently visited Germany and France. When the troubles broke out in Poland he resigned his senatorial dignity, left the country, and took up his residence at Leipsic, where he distinguished himself not only as a friend and protector of science, but as a man of great literary acquirements. He founded a society which was named after himself, and assigned a liberal sum for the purpose of distributing premiums to the authors of the best answers to questions proposed on various literary subjects. This society still exists, holds its meetings at Leipsic, and occasionally presents the world with the fruit of its labours. The prince died in 1777, at the age of sixty-five. His works are, “The Lives of Twelve Generals,” written in the Polish language “A Treatise on the Sclavonic Poetry” and some pieces of a similar nature.

, a learned Polish Protestant divine, was born Nov. 20, 1660, at Dantzic, and had the first part of his education in Germany; after which he travelled into Holland, and thence to England, for further improvement in his studies. Thus accomplished, he became successively minister of Magdebourg, Lissa, Koningsberg, and Berlin, and was at length ecclesiastical counsellor and president of the society of sciences in this last city. His zeal against infidelity, both in the atheists and deists, shewed itself on all occasions; and he took a deal of pains to effect an union betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists, but to no purpose. The truth is, considering the rooted prejudices on each side, such a coalition, like that between the church of England and the Dissenters, is rather to be wished than expected. Mr. Jablonski died in May 1741.

, brother to the preceding, and born at Dantzic in 1654, was counsellor of the court of Prussia, and secretary of the royal society of sciences at Berlin. He was a man of the most exact probity and a strict piety, united to a sweetness of temper, a polite urbanity, and an inclination to oblige all that applied to him. He loved the sciences, and did them honour, without that ambition which is generally seen in men of learning. It was owing to this modesty that he did not put his name to the greater part of his works; the chief of which are, “Dictionaire Francois- Allemand & Allemand -Francois,” printed in 1711 “A Course of Morality in the German Tongue, 1713;” “An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, 1721;” a translation into High Dutch of “Tacitus- de moribus Germanorum,” with remarks, 1724. He died in 1731.

, the son of Daniel-Ernest, above- mentioned, was a native of Berlin, a Protestant divine, and a professor of theology at Francfort on the Oder, as well as pastor there. He was born in 1693, and in 1714 published a learned dissertation, entitled “Disquisitio de Lingua Lycaonic^,” ad Act. Apost. xiv. 11. It appeared at Berlin in quarto. A oreat expectation of his talents was excited by this publication, which he fully justified in his subsequent life. He published also, 2. “De Memnone Graecorum, 1753,” Francfort, 1753. 3. “Institutiones Histories Ecclesiasticae,” in 2 vols. 8vo. But his most learned and important work was, 4 “Pantheon Ægyptiorum, sive de Diis eorum Commentarius, cum Prolegomenis de Religione et Theologia Egyptiorum,” in three volumes, 8vo, published at Francfort in 1750 and 1752. It is a book of great and extensive erudition. Jablonski died in 1757.

, an Italian writer, was born at Florence, in 1466, and was the disciple of Marsiiius Ficinus, under whom he studied the- Platonic philosophy, and became a great master of it. He was also a good orator, and succeeding Ficinus in his professorship, held it till his death, which happened in 1522. There is extant by him, “A Treatise of Beauty,” and another of “Love,” according to the doctrine of Plato, besides several others, which were all printed together at Basil in 1563.

, 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.”

, an eminent musical composer, was the son of a tradesman of Exeter, where he was born in 1730. As he early discovered a great genius for music, he was educated to that profession under the celebrated Travers, and may be said to have jtnbibed no small portion of that composer’s spirit. It must be allowed that Jackson possessed a considerable share of intellectual ability, and evinced on many occasions a very distinguished taste for the fine arts. His judgment in general was sound; genius will not be denied him; and when genius, judgment, and taste are united in the same person, we are entitled to expect an approximation to human excellence. At the same time it must be confessed, thatthese qualities were strongly alloyed by a mixture of selfishness, arrogance, and an insatiable rage for superiority. In many of his musical compositions he has displayed traits o'.;ioveity, but these are not the most estimable of nis productions. The “Eltgies,” the best of his works, possess superior melody, for which we may allow him credit but the harmony of these- is in some measure derived from his old master; that is, they are constructed upon the model of that composer’s canzonets. Indeed, many of Jackson’s early compositions savour much of the spirit and contrivance of Travers.

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

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

Though his general mode of living was temperate, yet he thought that a still greater abstinence would prolong his existence. In his latter days, he dined on milk-porridge, and drank water. This experiment was fatal. His habit necessarily became impoverished, and his existence terminated in a dropsy, at the age of 73, July 12, 1803.

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

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

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

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

From the catalogue of Mr. Jacob’s writings here annexed, it will be evident that he was a person of uncommon erudition. “Oratio inauguralis, sub Aditu praelectionis Philologicse publice habita apud Collegium Oxonio-Merton.” 4 Aug. 1636. “Grasca et Latina Poemata.” “Description of Oakley-hole, near Wells,” an. 1632, written in English verse. “Annotaliones in earn Partem Orationis inaug. in qua dicitur, Oratione soluta scripsit Aristaeus Proconnesius.” These four pieces were published at Oxford, while the author lived, in 1652, in quarto, by his intimate friend, Henry Birkhead, fellow of All Souls college.

, 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.

His works are as follow: 1. “De Ranis dissertatio, Romae,” 1676, of which a better edition was published at Paris in 1682, 8vo. 2. “Bartholomei Scalae equitis Florentini historia Florentinorum,” &c. Romae, 1677: the famous Magliabecchi furnished him with this ms. from the Medicean library. 3. “Oratio in obitum Tho, Bartholini,” 1681. 4. “Compendium institutionum medicarum,” Hafniae, 1684, 8vo. 5. “De Ranis & Lacertis dissertatio,” 1686. 6. “Francisci Ariosti de oleo mentis Zibinii, seu petroleo agri Mutinensis,” &c. 1690. 7. “Panegyricus Christiano Vto dictus,” 1691. 8. “Gaudia Arctoi orbis ob thalamos augustos Frederici & Ludovicae,” 1691. 9. “Museum regium, sive catalogus rerum, &c. quee in basilica bibliotheca Christiani V. Hafnise asservantur,” 1696, fol. reprinted with valuable additions in 1710. He had af great talent for poetry, and composed several excellent poems upon various subjects, some of which have been published. He left the character of a good husband, a good master, a good neighbour, and a good friend.

, bishop of Lucera, was employed in various important affairs by Sixtus IV. and his successors, and created cardinal in 1517, by Leo X. He died July 2, 1527, aged 84. He left a “Treatise on the Councils,” in Latin, which is sold very dear, though justly considered by the learned as worth very little. It is in the last volume of P. Labbe’s councils; the first edition is Rome, 1538, fol. but the edition of Paris., made for Labbe’s councils, is the only one which is esteemed, and no copy of Labbe can be complete without it. The re-impression of Venice is not valued.

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

, an ancient Italian poet, a contemporary and friend of Dante, whose true name was Jacopo de' Benedetti, was born at Todi of a noble family. Late in life he became a widower, upon which he distributed his wealth to the poor, and entered into the order of minors, where, through humility, he remained always in the class of servitors. He died, at a very advanced age, in 1306; and the reputation of sanctity he had acquired procured him the title of The happy. He composed sacred canticles, full of fire and zeal; which are still admired in Italy, notwithstanding their uncultivated style, which abounds with barbarous words, from the Calabrian, Sicilian, and Neapolitan dialects. He wrote also some poems of the same stamp in Latin, and was the author of the “Stabat Mater.” The completest edition of his canticles is that of Venice, printed in 1617, in quarto, with notes.

, an eminent Protestant divine, and celebrated preacher, was born December 16, 1647, at Vassy, of which place his father was minister. He distinguished himself so much by his studies that he was ordained at the age of twenty-one, and appointed colleague, and assistant to his father. On the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Jacquelot quitted France, and retiring to Heidelberg, received public marks of favour from the electress Palatine. He went afterwards to the Hague, where he gained great reputation by his sermons; and the king of Prussia being in that city, and having heard him preach, desired to have him far his French chaplain at Berlin, and settled a large pension upon him. Jaequelot went into Prussia, 17>02, and died at Berlin, October 15, 1708. His works are, 1. “Traite de l'Existence de Dieu,” Amsterdam, 1697, 4to. 2. “Dissertations sur le Messie,” Hague, 1699, 8vo. 3. Three books against Bayle’s Dictionary; the first entitled '“Conformite de la Foi avec la Raison,” 8vothe second, “Examen de la Theologie de M. Bayle,” I2nio; and the third, “Reponse aux Entretiens composes par M. BayLe,” 12mo. 4. “Traitede l'Inspiration des Livres Sacres,” 1715, 8vo, two parts, the first of which is excellent. To these may be added two small pamphlets, entitled, “Avis sur le Tableau du Socinianisme.” This last work occasioned much trouble to Jacquelot from Jurieu, author of the “Tableau du Socinianisme.” He wrote also twenty-eight “Letters” to the French bishops, persuading them to a mild conduct towards the Calvinists; and published “Sermons,” 2 vols. 12mo. All his works are distinguished by learning and strength of argument, but are thought to be defective in method.

, 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.

Some of his smaller pieces of poetry had before this time been inserted in Dodsley’s collection, but he put in for higher claims, by publishing the poem of “Edgehill,” in 1767; and in 1768, his more popular fable of “Labour and Genius.” In 1771 he was presented by his kind patron lord Willoughby de Broke, to the living of Kimcote, formerly held by his first wife’s father, which being worth near 300l. a year, enabled him to maintain his family with ease and comfort, especially as he retained Snitterfield, and resigned only the trifling living of Harbury. During the latter part of his life, when the infirmities of age made their approach, he resided almost entirely at Snitterfield, where he amused himself with improving the vicarage-house, and ornamenting his grounds, a taste he probably caught from Shenstone, but which he contrived to indulge at a much less expence. He died after a short illness, May 8th, 1781, aged sixty-five years, and was buried according to his desire, in a vault which he had made for his family in the church at Snitterfield. Three of his daughters, by the first wife, survived him.

His personal character is thus given by his biographer “Mr. Jago, in his person, was about the middle stature. In his manner, like most people of sensibility, he appeared reserved among strangers; amongst his friends he was free and easy; and his conversation sprightly and entertaining. In domestic life, he was the affectionate husband, the tender parent, the kind master, the hospitable neighbour, and sincere friend; and both by his doctrine and example, a faithful and worthy minister of the parish over which he presided.”

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.

, a native of Chalcis in Ccelosyria, an eminent philosopher, flourished about the beginning of the fourth century, and was the scholar first of Anatolius, and afterwards of Porphyry. Having become perfect master of the mysteries of the Piotinian system, he taught it with great credit and success, and gained the profound reverence of his scholars by certain wonders which he professed to perform, by means of an intercourse with invisible beings. His writings discover extensive reading, but his style is deficient in accuracy and elegance, and he borrows freely from other writers, particularly Porphyry, without the smallest acknowledgment. His philosophical works are exceedingly obscure, but valuable as authentic documents respecting the Alexandrian school. Those extant are, “The Life of Pythagoras” “An exhortation to the study of Philosophy” “Three books on Mathematical learning” “A commentary upon Nicomachus’s Institutes of Arithmetic,” and a “Treatise on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians.” The time and place of his death are uncertain; but it appears probable that he died about the year 333. This Jarnblicus must be distinguished from the person of the same name, to whom the emperor Julian dedicates his epistles; for Julian was scarcely born at the time when Porphyry’s successor died.

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

, an English physician of great eminence, and particularly distinguished by the preparation of a celebrated fever-powder, was born at Kinverston in Staffordshire, A. D. 1703. His’ father was a major in the army, his mother a sister of sir Robert Clarke. He was educated at St. John’s college in Oxford, where he took the degree of A. B. anc! afterwards practised physic successively at Sheffield, Li'jhneld, and Birmingham. He then removed to London, and became a licentiate in the college of physicians; but in what year we cannot say. At London, he applied himself to writing, as well as practising physic; and, in 1743, published a “Medicinal Dictionary,” 3 vols. folio. Soon after, he published an English translation, with a supplement by himself, of “Ramazzini de morbis artificum;” to which he also prefixed a piece of Frederic Hoffman upon “Endemial Distempers,” 8vo. In 1746, “The Practice of Physic,” 2 vols. 8vo; ia 1760, “On Canine Madness,” 8vo; in 1764, “A Dispensatory,” 8vo. On June 25, 1755, when the king was at Cambridge, James was admitted by mandamus to the doctorship of physic. In 1778, were published “A Dissertation upon Fevers,” and “A Vindication of the FeverPowder,” 8vo; with “A short Treatise on the Disorders of Children,” and a very good print of Dr. James. This was the eighth edition of the “Dissertation,” of which the first was printed in 1751; and the purpose of it was, to set forth the success of this powder, as well as to describe more particularly the manner of administering it. The “Vindication” was posthumous and unfinished: for he died at his house in Bruton-street, March 23, 1776, while he was employed upon it. The editor informs us, that “it is only a part of a much larger tract, which included a defence of his own character and conduct in his profession; and was occasioned,” he says, “by the violent and calumnious attacks of his brethren of the faculty.”

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.

Dr. James was rough in his manners, and, if not very generally misrepresented, far from temperate in his habits; but strong sense usually appeared in his coarse expressions, and no man had more sagacity, when his head was clear, which of a morning was always the case. Several whimsical stories, perhaps of no precise authority, are told of his evening prescriptions: and he is said, in comparing his patient’s pulse with his own, sometimes to have confused the two; and, finding that one was quickened by intemperance, to have bluntly accused the patient, perhaps a delicate lady, of being in liquor. But James, whatever failings he might have, was without doubt an able and acute physician, and his dictionary will remain a noble monument of his industry and knowledge. His person had not more delicacy than his manners, being large and gross.

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.

Whether James was the real inventor of the powder, may admit of a doubt. “The calcination of antimony and bone-ashes produces,” says Dr. Pearson, “a powder called Lile’s and Scbawanberg’s fever powder; a preparation described by Schroeder and other chemists 150 vears ago.”

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

Dr. James was married, and left sons and daughters. His eldest son, Robert Harcourt James, was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and afterwards at St. John’s college, Oxford, for the profession of physic.

, an eminent English officer in the East India service, was born at Milford Haven about 1721, and embarked in a sea life at twelve years of age. He was not more than twenty when he obtained the command of a ship. He was with sir Edward Hawke in the West Indies in 1738, as a junior officer. Some years after he commanded a ship in the Virginia trade but in her he wsa taken by the Spaniards in the gulph of Florida, and carried a prisoner to the Havannah. After he and his crew, consisting of fifteen persons, were released from the Spanish prison, they embarked in a small brig for Carolina. The second day after putting to sea, a very hard gale of wind came on, the vessel strained, and soon became so leaky that the pumps and the people baling could not keep her free; and at length, being worn out with labour, seven of them, with Mr. James, got into the only boat they had, with a small bag of biscuit and a keg of water: the vessel soon after disappeared, and went down. They were twenty days in this boat without a compass; their biscuit soon got wet with the sea, which for two days made a breach over the boat; a snuff-box sir William had with him served to distribute their daily allowance of water: and after encountering every difficulty of famine and severe labour, on the twentieth day they found themselves on the islam) of Cuba, not ten miles from whence they had been embarked out of a Spanish prison: but a prison had no horrors to them. The Spaniards received them once more into captivity; and it is remarkable, that only one out of the seven perished, though after they got on shore few of them had the use of their limbs for many days.

In the beginning of 1747 Mr. James went to the East Indies as chief officer of one of the East India company’s ships, and performed two voyages in that station. In 1749 the East India company appointed him. to the command of a new ship, the Guardian, equipped as a ship of war. In her he sailed to Bombay, to protect the trade on the Malabar coast, which was much annoyed by the depredations of Angria, and other pirates, with which those seas swarmed; and during the two years occupied by him in convoying the merchant ships from Bombay and Surat to the Red Sea, the gulph of Persia, and along the Malabar coast from the gulph of Cambay to cape Comorin, he was frequently attacked by the vessels of the different piratical states. At one time when he had near seventy sail under his protection, he was assailed by a large fleet of Angria’s frigates and gallivats, not badly provided with guns, and, as usual, full of men. Having formed the line with his little squadron, consisting of the Guardian, Bombay grab, and Drake bomb-ketch, he engaged the enemy, and kept them in close action while his convoy got safe into Tellicherry. In this conflict, which seems on the part of both to have been disputed with great animation, the brave English commander sunk one of the enemy’s largest gallivats, and obliged the rest to take shelter in Ghtriah and Severn-droog.

About the begUiuing of 1751 he v/as appointed commander in chief of the East India company’s marine forces, and hoisted his broad pendant on board the Protector, a fine ship of 44 guns. On April 2, 1755, he was sent with the Protector, Guardian, Bombay grab, the Drake bomb, and some gallivats, to attempt such of the ports belonging to Angria as lie to the northward of Gheriah, his principal fortress and capital. The chief of these fortresses was Severndroog, which was well defended by batteries along the shore, and the entrance of the harbour was secured by a strong castle, on which were mounted seventy pieces of cannon. Having reconnoitered the place, and informed himself of its strength, captain James made his attack, and in less than three hours the governor surrendered the castle and the vessels in the harbour: this was quickly followed by the surrender of Victoria and four other forts. When captain James returned with his victorious fleet to Bombay, he found admiral Watson there, with three line of battle ships, and some frigates, &c. The government of Bombay consulted with the admiral about means to destroy the power of Angria; and the Mahratta states joined in the confederacy, having suffered by his depredations. He was accordingly sent with his little squadron to reconnoitre Gheriah, a place represented to be almost impregnable from the sea. He judiciously stood close in to the walls, under the cover of night, and with his boat sounded and examined the channels leading to the harbour and outer road; in the day-time he stood in within gunshot of the walls; and having in two days made himself perfectly master of the enemy’s strength, he returned to Bombay. This piece of service he performed with so much promptness and skill, that he received the thanks of the governor and admiral; and they were so well persuaded, from his report, of the practicability of the enterprize, that no time was lost in equipping the ships, and embarking the troops.

The squadron formed off Gheriah, the 10th of February, 1716. Captain James, in the Protector, led the squadron to the attack in one division, while another division of frigates led the bomb-ketches in another line; a heavy and tremendous fire began on our part from the ships of the line, while the shells were thrown with great success from the bombs into the harbour, where all Angria’s ships were hauled for safety; these were soon set on fire by the bombs; the fire from the castle and batteries soon slackened, and before the evening set in, the castle surrendered, and Gheriah, and all its dependencies, fell into our hands. Thus shortly ended an enterprise, which, for many years, had been in contemplation by the European governments in India, but which was never before attempted, from an idea that no force sufficient could be brought against the walls of this castle. Lord Clive, at this time a lieutenantcolonel, commanded the land forces.

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

In 1759 captain James returned to his native country. The East India company presented him with a handsome elegant gold-hilted sword, with a complimentary motto, expressive of their sense of his gallant services. Soon afterward he was chosen a director, and continued a member of that respectable body more than twenty years; in which time he had filled both the chairs. He was fifteen years deputy-master of the corporation of the Trinityhouse; a governor of Greenwich hospital; served two sessions in parliament for West Looe; and on the 25th of July, 1778, the king was pleased to create him a baronet. He planned the reduction of Pondicherry during the American war, and received a rich service of plate from the India company, as a testimony of their sense of his skill and judgment in that affair. On the 16th of December 1783, sir William died, aged sixty-two. In the year following, a handsome building was erected on his estate in Kent, near the top of Shooter' shill, in the style of a castle, with three sides, and commanding a most extensive view. The lowest room is adorned with weapons, peculiar to the different countries of the east. The room above has different views of naval actions and enterprises painted on the ceiling, in which sir William had been a considerable actor. The top of the building is finished with battlements, about sixty feet from the base. The top of the battlements is four hundred and eighty feet above the level of Shooter’s-hill, and more than one hundred and forty feet higher than the top of St. Paul’s cupola. On a tablet over the entrance door is this inscription:

“This building was erected MDCCLXXXIV, by the representative of the late sir William James, bail, to commemorate that gallant officer’s achievements in the East Indies, during his command of the company’s marine forces in those seas; and in a particular manner to record the conquest of the castle of Severndroog, on the coast of Malabar, which fell to his superior valour and able conduct on the 2d day of April, M,DCC,LV.”

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.

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

, a celebrated cardinal in the thirteenth century, born at Vitry, a village near Paris, was canon of Ognies, then pastor of Argenteuil, attended the crusades, staid a long time in the Levant, and was made bishop of Acre, otherwise called Ptolemais. Gregory IX. created him cardinal in 1230, and gave him the bishopric of Frescati. He was afterwards legate in France, Brabant, and the Holy Land; in all which offices his zeal and prudence were remarkable. He died April 30, 1244, at Rome. He left many works, the most curious and most sought after among which, is an “Eastern and Western History,” ^in Latin, in “Gesta Dei per Francos,” by Canisius. The third book has been published, with some alterations, in the third volume of P. Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum.”

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

Mr. Jameson died at Edinburgh in 1644, and was interred in the churchyard of the Grey Friars, but without, any monument. By his will, written witli his own hand in 1641, and breathing a spirit of much piety and benevolence, he provides kindly for his wife and children, and leaves many legacies to his relations and friends. Of his family, his daughter Mary was thrice married: first to Mr. Burnett, of EIrick, in the county of Aberdeen; afterwards to James Gregory, the celebrated mathematician; and lastly to Mr. Eddie, one of the magistrates of Aberdeen. By all these gentlemen she had children, and many of the descendants of the two first have numerous families in the county of Aberdeen. Mary seems to have inherited a portion of her father’s genius. Several specimens of her needle-work remain, particularly Jephtha’s rash vow; Susannah and the Elders, &c. probably from a design of her father’s; these now adorn the East end of St. Nicholas church, Aberdeen. Though Jameson was little known in England, and has not been noticed by any English writer on the arts, except lord Orford, his character, as well as his works, were highly esteemed in his own country. Arthur Johnston, the poet, addressed to him an elegant Latin epigram, on the picture of the marchioness of Huntley, which may be seen in the works of that author, printed at Middleburgh in 1642.

, 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.

, a political writer of some note, was born at Paris in 1674, the son of a Protestant, and sent early into Holland for education. For a time he quitted his studies for the army, but at the peace of Ryswick he resumed his literary labours, and became concerned in the gazettes of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht. A simple and historical style, with a clear head, and much political sagacity, seemed to promise great success to these labours; but his press being silenced, on account of a political tract (in which, however, he had no concern), he retired to the Hague, and became agent to the landgrave of Hesse. He died of an apoplexy in 1730, at the age of fifty-six. Of his works there are, 1. His *' Gazettes,“written in a good style, and with sound political knowledge, t. A translation of Steele’s” Ladies’ Library,“published in 1717 and 1719, in 2 -vols. duodecimo. 3. A translation of an indifferent satire against monks and priests, written originally by Antony Gavin, and printed in 1724, in 4 vols. 12mo. 4.” The present State of the Republic of the United Provinces, and their dependencies," published in 1729, in 2 vols. 12mo. This is the most correct work that is extant, though it has been considered by Niceron as not altogether devoid of faults.

, a learned Flemish prelate, was born at Hulst in the year 1510, and educated at Ghent and Louvain. He became a proficient in the Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin languages, and devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. He was appointed professor of divinity at Louvain, and admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. In the council of Trent he commanded respect by his learning and modesty, and upon his return to Flanders in 1568, was nominated the first bishop of Ghent, where he died in 1576, His works were, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms,” with copious notes, in Latin, printed at Louvain in 1569. “Notes on the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, the Canticles, and the Book of Wisdom,” printed in 1586. “Commentaries upon some passages in the Old Testament,” &c. His chief work, however, was the “Concordia Evangelica,” first printed in 1549, and frequently reprinted. Of this work Dupin says, that it is the most perfect harmony of the four Gospels which had till that time appeared. To the author he pays a very distinguished tribute of respect, as a very able expositor of Scripture, and eminently characterized by his learning, judgment, and perspicuity.

, 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.

, an excellent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1569, with a wonderful genius for painting, and in his youth executed some pieces which set him above all the young painters of his time; but becoming enamoured of a young woman at Antwerp, whom he obtained in marriage, he gave himself up to a dissipated course of life, which soon impoverished him, and affected his temper. He grew jealous of Rubens, and sent a challege to that painter, with a list of the names of such persons as were to decide the matter, so soon as their respective works should be finished; but Rubens, instead of accepting the challenge, answered that he willingly yielded him the preference, leaving the public to do them justice. There are some of Janssens’ works in the churches at Antwerp. He painted a descent from the cross for the great church of Boisleduc, which has been taken for a piece of Rubens; and is thought no ways inferior to any of the works of that great painter; but his chief work is his resurrection of Lazarus, in the Dussldorf gallery.

, another artist, was born at Brussels in 1664. Having applied sedulously to the practice of the art, and made much proficiency, he was employed by the duke of Holstein at a pension of 800 florins, and afterwards enabled, by the same munificent patron, to go to Italy, where, at Rome, he studied the works of Raphael, and became eminent in fame. He afterwards associated withTempesta the landscape painter, and painted figures in his pictures. In general his pictures are small in size, and have somewhat of the style of Albano His invention was copious, and his works are very pleasing. He died in 1739, at the age of 75.

, called also Johnson, a portrait-painter of very extraordinary merit, was born at Amsterdam; when, is not exactly ascertained. It appears that he painted in England as early as the year 1618, in the reign of James I. Here he continued with very great and deserved success till the arrival of Vandyke, whose transcendent talents and taste Janssens was not quite equal to cope with. On the breaking out of the civil war he returned to his own country in 1648; leaving behind him a number of excellent characteristic portraits in the great families of this island. He retired first to Middleburg, and afterwards to Amsterdam, where he died in 1665. His style of design was formal and void of taste, but his features are justly marked, and the faces of his portraits have great character, and an air of nature, possessing much sweetness of tone in the colouring, and finished very highly; too much so, indeed. His pictures are generally on wood, and with black draperies an arrangement adopted frequently by Rubens and Vandyke.

, 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 French preacher and poet, was born in the village of Jarry, near Xantes, about 1658. He went young to Paris, where the duke of Montausier, M. Bossuet, Bourdaloue, and Flechier, became his patrons, and encouraged him to write. He gained the poetical prize in the French academy in 1679 and in 1714, and it is remarkable that, on this latter occasion, Voltaire, then very young, was one of his competitors. The successful poem was, however, below mediocrity, and contained some blunders with which his young antagonist amused himself and the public. One of his verses began, “Poles, glaces, brulans.” “These torrid poles,” could not escape ridicule. At the same time he was celebrated as a preacher. He was prior of Notre Dame du Jarry of the order of Grammont, in the diocese of Xantes, where he died in 1730. We have of his, a work entitled “Le Ministere Evangelique;” of which the second edition was printed at Paris in 1726. 2. “A Collection of Sermons, Panegyrics, and Funeral Orations,” 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Uu Recueil de divers ouvrages de Piete,” 1638, 12mo. 4. “Des Poeses Chretiennes Heroiques & Morales,” 1715, 12mo.

, a French mineralogist, was born at Lyops in 1732. His father was concerned in the mines of the Lyonnois, and as the son discovered an early attachment to the art of metallurgy, he was placed in the establishment, under Trudaine, for the construction of bridges and causeways, in order to obtain a practical knowledge of the business of a miner and civil engineer. He was soon, fixed on as a fit person for introducing improvements into the art of working mines in France; and with this view, in 1757, &c. he visited and strictly scrutinized most of the mines on the continent, and in 1765 those in Scotland and England. On his return he set about arranging the observations which he had been able to make, when a sudden death, in 1769, broke off his designs. His works were published by his brother at Lyons, entitled “Voyages Metallurgiques, ou Recherches et Observations sur les Mines et Forges de Fer, la Fabrication de l'Acier, celle du Ferblanc, et plusieurs Mines de Charbon de Terre, &c.” in three vols, 4to, 1774 1777. They are said to form a complete collection of theoretical and practical metallurgy, down to the time in which the observations were made.

, 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.

Amidst the cares of his new profession, he did not decline his attention to theological study, nor to what he considered as the cause of true liberty. He was, as he had been for many years, zealous for the abolition of subscription, a warm friend to the cause of America against England, an incessant advocate for annual parliaments and universal suffrage (those pernicious engines for destroying the British constitution), a writer in newspapers, and a speaker in public meetings. So many eager pursuits seem to have exhausted his constitution, and he died, apparently of a decline, in March 1786. Dr. John Jebb was a man of various and extensive learning, master of many languages, among which were Hebrew and Arabic; and during his last illness, he studied the Saxon, with the Anglo-Saxon laws and antiquities. He was twice a candidate for the professorship of Arabic at Cambridge. Besides his theological and medical knowledge, he was not a little versed in the science of law, which he once thought of making his profession, even after he had studied physic. He was also a mathematician and philosopher, and was concerned with two friends in publishing at Cambridge a small quarto, entitled “Excerpta quaedam e Newtonii principiis Philosophise naturalis, cum notis variorum;” which was received as a standard book of education in that university. His other works have been collected into 3 vols. 8vo, published in 17S7 by Dr. Disney, and contain chiefly, (besides the plan of his lectures, and harmony of the gospels, six sermons, and a medical treatise on paralysis,) controversial tracts and letters, on his intended improvements at Cambridge, on subscription, on parliamentary reform, &c. He seems to have been an active, enterprising, and rather turbulent, but a sincere man.

, 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.

He published, “Christian Morals, by sir Thomas Browne.” “Moral and religious Aphorisms, collected from Dr. Whichcote’s Papers,” and three volumes of sermons, by the same author, 1702. In 1701 he had printed a volume of his own discourses, and occasionally various sermons and tracts separately, for twenty years before. All these were collected, and published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1751. Dr. Jeffery was an enemy of religious controversy, alleging, “that it produced more heat than light.” He left behind him many manuscript volumes, entitled, Τα Εισ Εαυτον, affording an irrefragable proof of his great industry.

, 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.

There are two editions of Jeffery’s history extant in, Latin, one of which was published in 4to, by Ascensius, at Paris, A. D. 1517; the other in folio by Commeline, at Heidelberg, 1587, among the “Rerum Britannicarum. Scriptores vetustiores praecipui,” which is much the fairer and more correct edition. A translation of it into English by Aaron Thompson, of Queen’s-college, was published at London, 1718, in 8vo, with a large preface, in which the translator offers an elaborate vindication of the work, and defends Jeffery with great skill and learning; but, after refuting the charge of forgery, he has failed in establishing- it as an historical performance; for he himself invalidates its authority by acknowledging, that it was pnly such an irregular account as the Britons were able ta preserve in those times of destruction and confusion; besides some other romantic tales, which indeed might be traditions among the Welsh, and such as Jeffery might think entertaining stories for the credulity of the times.

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.

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

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.”

, baron Wem, commonly known by the name of Judge Jeffreys, was the sixth son of John Jeffreys, esq. of Acton in Denbighshire, by Margaret daughter to sir Thomas Ireland of Beausey, near Warrington. He was educated first at the free-school at Shrewsbury, from which he was removed to that of Westminster, where he became a good proficient in the learned languages; and was thence removed to the Inner-Temple, where he applied himself very assiduously to the law. His father’s family was large, and his temper parsimonious, consequently the young man’s allowance was very scanty, and hardly sufficient to support him decently: but his own ingenuity supplied all deficiencies, till he came to the bar; to which, however, he never had any regular call. In 1666, he was at the assize at Kingston, where very few counsellors attended, on account of the plague then raging. Here necessity gave him permission to put on a gown; and to plead; and he continued the practice unrestrained, till he reached the highest employments in the law.

About this time he made clandestine addresses to the daughter of a wealthy merchant, in which he was assisted by a young lady, the daughter of a clergyman. The affair was discovered, and the confidante turned out of doors. Jeffreys, with a generosity unknown to him in his prosperous days, took pity on, and married her. She proved an excellent wife, and lived to see him lord chief justice of England. On her death, he married the widow of Mr. Jones, of Montgomeryshire, and daughter to sir Thomas Blodworth.

Soon after commencing his professional career, alderman Jeffreys, a namesake, and probably a relation, introduced him among the citizens; and, being a jovial bottle companion, he became very popular among them, came into great business, and was chosen their recorder. His influence in the city, and his readiness to promote any measures without reserve, introduced him at court; and he was appointed the duke of York’s solicitor.

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.

On the bench, judge Jeffreys talked fluently, and with spirit; but his weakness was, that he could not reprehend without scolding, and in the very lowest language. He called it “giving a lick with the rough side of his tongue.” It was ordinary to hear him say,-“Go, you are a filthy, lousy, nitty rascal;” with much more of like elegance. He took a pleasure iir mortifying fraudulent attorneys. His voice and visage made him a terror to real offenders, and formidable indeed to all. A scrivener of Wapping having a cause before him, one of the opponent’s counsel said, “that he was a strange fellow, and sometimes went io church, sometimes to conventicles and none could tell what to make of him, and it was thought that he was a Trimmer.” At that the chancellor fired. “A Trimmer!” said he, “I have heard much of that monster, but never saw one; come forth, Mr. Trimmer, and let me' see your shape:” and he treated the poor fellow so roughly, that, when he came out of the hall, he declared “he would not undergo the terrors of that man’s face again to save his life; and he should certainly retain the frightful impressions of it as long as he lived.”

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.

Dr. Jenkin had an elder and a younger brother, Henry and John. John was a judge in Ireland, under the duke of Ormond. Henry, elder brother of the master, was vicar of Tilney, in Norfolk, and rector of South Rungton cum Wellington, where he died in 1732.

, 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.

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

, 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 continued with that patron of distressed cavaliers, enjoying all the opportunities of a well-furnished library, till the restoration, when he returned to Jesus-college, and was chosen one of the fellows. He was created LL. D. in. Feb. 1661, and elected principal in March following, upon the resignation of his patron Dr. Mansell; and sir William Whitmore soon after gave him the commissaryship of the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the deanery of Bridgenorth, in Shropshire. In 1662 he was made assessor to the chancellor’s court at Oxford; and the same year Dr. Sweit appointed him his deputy-professor of the civil law there. In 1663 he was made register of the consistory court of Westminster-abbey; and his friend Sheldon, newly translated to the see of Canterbury, soon after appointed him commissary and official for that diocese, and judge of the peculiars. Jenkins was very serviceable to that prelate in settling his theatre at Oxford; of which, as soon as it was finished, he was made one of the curators. He was useful to the archbishop on other occasions also relating to church and state; and it was by his encouragement that Dr. Jenkits removed to Doctors’ commons, and was admitted an advocate in the court of arches in the latter end of 1663. Here he was immediately made deputy-assistant to Dr. Sweit, dean of this court, as he had been to him before in the office of professor; and this situation brought his merit nearer the eye of the court. Upon the breaking out of the first Dutch war in 1664, the lords commissioners of prizes appointed Dr. Jenkins, with other eminent civilians, to review the maritime laws, and compile a body of rules for the adjudication of prizes in the court of admiralty, which afterwards became the standard of those proceedings. Then, by the recommendation of Sheldon, he tvas made judge-assistant in that court, March 21, 1664-5, Dr. Exton, the judge, being then very aged and infirm; and upon his death soon after, our author became principal, and sustained the weight of that important office alone, with great reputation. He had advanced the honour and esteem of that court to a high degree by a three years service; when finding the salary of 300l. per annum, allowed by the king, not a competent maintenance, he petitioned for an additional 200l. per annum, which was granted Jan. 29, 1668. He was now considered as so useful a man by the government, that the king became his patron; and having recommended him to the archbishop as judge of his prerogative court of Canterbury, which appointment he obtained in 1668, employed him the following year in an affair of near concern to himself.

The queen-mother, Henrietta Maria, widow of Charles I. dying Aug. 1, 1669, in France, her whole estate, both real and personal, was claimed by her nephew Lewis XIV., upon which matter, Dr. Jenkins being commanded to give his opinion, it was approved in council; and a commission being made out for him, with three others f, he attended it to Paris. He demanded and recovered the queen-mother’s effects, discharged her debts, and provided for her interment; when, retnrning home, his majesty testified his high approbation of his services, by conferring on him the honour of knighthood, Jan. 7, 1669-70. Immediately after this honour, he was nominated one of the commissioners of England, to treat with those authorized from

XIV. Upon the restoration, she came the aforesaid dutchess of Aujou, was

to her native country, where she died, court’s claim was at length admitted.

Under these circumstances it was pre- -|- Ralph Montague, esq. ambassatended that she was not only a native, dor at that court, the earl of St. Albut au inhabitant of France conse- ban’s, and lord Arundel. Scotland, about an union between the two kingdoms. In 1671 he was chosen a representative in parliament far Hythe, in Kent, one of the cinque ports.

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.

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

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

, 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.

The late earl of Liverpool made a very conspicuous figure during the whole of the present reign as a statesman; and for the greater part of it, shared the severe obloquy which attached to all the confidential friends of the Bute administration; and as he possessed the favour and confidence of his sovereign, he was called the king’s secret adviser. A suspicion of this kind the people were taught to cherish with uncommon animosity. Burke’s celebrated pamphlet on “Popular Discontents” encouraged the notipn; and the leaders of this party of supposed private power, were the incessant objects of clamour with the multitude and the disaffected. His lordship, however, lived long enough to weather this storm; to see his solid powers of mind, and solid services, crowned with the reward of high honours and great wealth; and to behold his ancient family, which in early life he had seen sadly decline in its property and consideration, placed by his own efforts near the pinnacle of ambition. Senseless cries and prejudices had gradually died away; and he was allowed to have deserved, as a laborious and profound statesman, the splendid public recompeuces which his sovereign had conferred upon him.

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 pious English divine and writer, was born in 1646, and was descended from an ancient family at Eaton under Heywood, in Shropshire. He was related to bishop Williams, of Chichester, to whom he dedicated his book of “Prayers.” Where he was educated we are not told, nor is it discoverable that he was at either university. He appears, however, when admitted into orders, to have been for some time curate of Harlay, in Shropshire. On the death of his rector, Richard earl of Bradford, the patron of the living, hearing Mr. Jenks spoken of respectfully by the parishioners, went one Sunday, in private, to hear him preach; and was so much pleased with the discourse, that he presented him to the living in 1668, and made him his chaplain. Mr. Jenks had also the living of Kenley, a small village about two miles from Harlay, at both which churches he officiated alternately, and kept no curate until old age and infirmities made assistance necessary. He died at Harlay on May 10, 1724, and was buried in the chancel of that church, where there is a monument to his memory. The work by which Mr. Jenks is best known is his “Prayers and offices of Devotion,” of which the 27th edition was published in 1810 by the Rev. Charles Simeon, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, with alterations and amendments in style. Mr. Jenks also was the author of “Meditations upon various important subjects,” of which a second edition was published in 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, with a recommendatory preface by Mr. Hervey. This, however, has never attained any high degree of popularity. One of these “Meditations” is upon his coffin, which he kept by him for many years, and in which were two sculls, one of them that of a near relation.

, 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.

, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1737, and educated at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, where he took the degrees of B. A. 1757; M.A. 1760; and obtained the Seatonian prizes in 1767 and 1769. He afterwards became rector of Cramford St. John, in Northamptonshire, and vicar of Claybrook, in Leicestershire, and died May 11, 1774. He wrote several novels and poems, as “Louisa,” a tale; “Poems,” 4to “The Gift of Tongues,” a poem “The destruction of Nineveh,” and “Town Eclogues;” “Letters from Lothario to Penelope,” 2 vols. to which is added “Lucinda,' 5 a dramatic entertainment” The Man of Family,“a comedy;” The Placid Man;“”Letters from Aitamout in the Capital," &c. none of which procured him much literary reputation, and all are now forgotten.

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

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

, an elegant and ingenious writer, was born in Great Ormond-street, London, at twelve o'clock at night, 1703-4. The day of his birth he could not ascertain, and considering himself at liberty to choose his birth-day, he fixed it on new-year’s day. His father, sir Roger Jenyns, knt. was descended from the ancient family of the Jenyns’s of Churchill, in Somersetshire. His country residence was at Ely, where his useful labours as a magistrate, and his loyal principles, procured him the honour of knighthood from king William. He afterwards removed to Bottisham-hall, which he had purchased, a seat not far from Cambridge. Our author’s mother was one of the daughters of sir Peter Soame, of Hayden, in the county of Essex, bart. a lady of great beauty, and highly esteemed for her piety, understanding, and elegance of manners.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1784, while the propriety of a parliamentary reformation was in agitation, he published some “Thoughts” on that subject, in which he repeated the objections he had already brought forward in his “Disquisitions,” to any of those innovations which, in his opinion, tended to anarchy. This was the last of our author’s productions. The infirmities of age were now creeping upon him, and closed his life Dec. 18, 1787, at his house in Tilney-street, Audleysquare. He was interred in Bottisham church, Dec. 27, where, in the parish register, the Rev. Mr. Lort Mansel, now Master of Trinity college, Cambridge, and bishop of Bristol, introduced a very elegant compliment to his memory.

Mr. Cole, his biographer, has drawn his character at great length, and with the partiality of a friend. Yet if we except the unsettled state of his opinions, much cannot be deducted from it. As the magistrate, and as the head of a family, he was exemplary in the discharge of all religious and moral duties, and fulfilled his engagements with the strictest integrity, but with a punctuality which brought on him sometimes the charge of being penurious. As a politician we have seen him giving his uniform support to a succession of ministers, but as he did not conceal his opinions, they could not always be in unison with those of his party, and his integrity, at least, must have been generally acknowledged, since no party offered to remove him.

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.”

This old lady was the second wife of Mr. Jenyns. His first died July 30, 1753, and in the month of February following he married Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry Grey, esq. of Hackney, Middlesex. She must at this time have been advanced in life, as she died at the age of ninety-four, July 25, 1796.

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

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

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

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

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

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.