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

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.

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

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.

The style of this lady is rapid and animated, but her pencil is not always correct, nor her incidents probable. Her short histories certainly had the merit of extinguishing the taste for the old tedious romances, and led the way to the novel, but were by no means of such excellence in that style as those that have since been written by Duclos, Marivaux, Marmontel, and others. She has also the fault of attributing her feigned adventures to great personages known in history, and thus forming that confusion of fictitious and real narratives which is so pernicious to young readers. Her verse is inferior to her prose, being languid and feeble.

, 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.

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

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.

His works are, 1. “An Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils,” 1688, 4to. 2. “A Defence of the Profession which bishop Lake made upon his Death-bed,” 1690, 4to. 3. “Defensio S. Augustini adversus Jo. Phereponum,” 1707, 8vo. 4. “An English translation of the Life of Apollonius Tyaneus, from the French of Tillemont,” 1702, 8vo. 5. “Remarks on Four Books lately published; viz. Basnage’s History of the Jews; Whiston’s Eight Sermons; Locke’s Paraphrase and Notes on St. Paul’s Epistles; and Le Clerc’s Bibliotheqne Choisie.” 6. “The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion;” of which a fifth edition, corrected, appeared in 1721. 7. “A brief confutation of the pretences against natural and revealed religion,” and 8. An inaugural oration in ms.

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

England in July 1644, being: enter- the laws and usages of the country

tained there at the charge of Lewis and that madame royale of France,

to London, and having settled her re- by those laws the only person capable

venues here, went back to Franc^, to of succeeding; Charles II. and the

coining again into England, she settled expressly excluded and disabled by the

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.

* 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.”

In 1767 he published a small pamphlet entitled “Thoughts on the Causes and Consequences of the present high price of Provisions.” Various writers at that time had employed their pens on this subject, some arraigning the bounties on corn, and others blaming the practices of forestallers and monopolizers. Mr. Jenyns imputes the high price of provisions to the increase of the national debt, and the increase of our riches, that is, to the poverty of the public, and the wealth of private individuals. These positions are maintained with much ingenuity, but experience has shewn that the influence of such causes has not increased proportionally, and that with ten times more debt and more wealth than the nation had at that time, the price of provisions is found to rise and fall in fluctuations which cannot be explained by his theory. If provisions were dear with the national debt and private wealth of 1767, they ought in 1814 to be inaccessible to all but the most opulent classes. The newspapers were filled with answers to Mr. Jenyns’s, pamphlet, and the return of plenty made it be forgotten.

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.

Mr. Jenyns’s poems were added to the second and third editions of Dr. Johnson’s Collection. As a prose writer, we have few that can be compared to him for elegance and purity. As a poet he has many equals and many superiors. Yet his poems are sprightly and pleasing and if we do not find much of that creative fancy which marks the true genius of poetry, there is the spirit, sense, and wit, which have rendered so many modern versifiers popular. 1

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

“Oh, lasting as thy colours may they shine, Free as thy stroke, yet faultless as thy line; New graces yearly, like thy works, display, Soft without weakness, without glaring gay, Led by some rule, that guides, but not constrains, And finish'd more through happiness than pains.”

In this passage the whole is obscure, the connection with the preceding part particularly so; and part is parodied from Denham. It is no wonder that Jervas did not better inspire his friend to praise him, if the judgment of lord Orford be accurate, on which we may surely rely. He says, that “he was defective in drawing, colouring, and composition, and even in that most necessary, and perhaps most easy talent of a portrait- painter, likeness. In general, his pictures are a light, flimsy kind of fan-painting, as iargv as life.” His vanity, inflamed perhaps by the undeserved praises he received from wits and poets, was excessive. He affected to be violently in love with lady Bridgewater; yet, after dispraising the form of her ear, as the only faulty part about her face, he ventured to display his own as the complete model of perfection. Jervas appeared as an author in his translation of Don Quixote, which he produced, as Pope used to say of him, without understanding Spanish. Warburton added a supplement to the preface of Jervas’ s translation, on the origin of romances of chivalry, which was praised at the time, but has since been totally extinguished by the acute criticisms of Mr. Tyrwhitt. Jervas died about 1740.

, an eminent German divine, was born at Osnaburgh, in 1709, and died in 1789. Of his life we have no farther account than that his talents raised him to the offices of vice-president of the consistory of Brunswick, abbot of Marienthal, court preacher, and director of the Caroline-college at Brunswick, of which, in 1745, he wrote an account. He was reckoned in his country one of the most original and most excellent defenders of religion that the eighteenth century had produced. His principal works were, 1. Two volumes of “Sermons,” Brunswick, 1756 69. 2. “Letters on the Mosaic Religion and Philosophy,” 1773. This work contains a demonstration that Moses really wrote the books attributed to him: and observations on his being the author of the book of Genesis, and of the style of that book, &c. 3. “Life of prince Albert-Henry of Brunswick Lunenburgh.” 4. “Thoughts on the principal Truths of Religion,” Brunswick, 1768, &c. in several volumes, reckoned a very capital performance. The abbot Jerusalem had'been tutor to the late duke of Brunswick, and his highness desired him to digest the instructions he had given him on the Christian religion in a regular form; and afterwards gave him leave to publish them. 5. “Character of prince William Adolphus of Brunswick,” Berlin, 1771. 6. “Thoughts on the Union of the Church;” and 7. a very elegant and judicious letter “concerning German literature,” addressed to her royal highness the duchess dowager of Brunswick- Wolfenbuttel, 1781.

, a learned Spanish rabbi in the fifteenth century, is the author of a book, entitled “Halicoth olam,” “The Ways of Eternity;” a very useful piece for understanding the Talmud. It was translated into Latin by Constantin PEmpereur; and Bashuysen printed a good edition of it in Hebrew and Latin, at Hanover, 1714, 4to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, called by Platina John VIII. seems to require some notice in this work, although her history is involved in much doubt, and even her existence is thought by some uncertain. This subject has been treated with as much animosity on both sides, between the papists and the protestants, as if the whole of religion depended on it. There are reckoned upwards of sixty of the Romish communion, and among them several monks and canonized saints, by whom the story is related thus:

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

To this story several modern historians add many particulars of a more delicate nature, and assert that she formed an improper connexion with the friend to whose assistance she owed her advancement in learning. This commerce, however, might have remained a secret, had not Joan, mistaken without doubt in her reckoning, ventured to go to a procession, where she had the misfortune to be brought to bed in the middle of the street, between the Colosseum and the church of St. Clement; and it v is added that she died there in labour, after having held the pontifical see about two years.

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

But the protestants thought themselves the more obliged to labour in support of it, as an indelible blot and reproach upon their adversaries; and to aggravate the matter, several circumstances were mentioned with the view of exposing the credulity and weakness of that church, which, it was maintained, had authorized them. In this spirit it was observed, that Joan, being installed in her office, admitted others into orders, after the manner of other popes; made priests and deacons, ordained bishops and abbots, sung mass, consecrated churches and altars, administered the sacraments, presented her feet to be kissed, and performed all other actions which the popes of Rome are wont to do, with other particulars not now worth reciting, as the best informed historians seem to give the whole up as a fable.

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

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

Raising the siege of Orleans was one part of the maid’s promise to Charles crowning him at Rheims was the other and she now vehemently insisted that he should set out immediately on that journey. A few weeks before, such a proposal would have appeared altogether extravagant. Rheims lay in a distant quarter of the kingdom; was then in the hands of a victorious enemy the whole road that led to it was occupied by their garrisons and no imagination could have been so sanguine as to hope that such an attempt could possibly be carried into execution. But, as it was the interest of the king of France to maintain the belief of something extraordinary and divine in these events, he resolved to comply with her exhortations, and avail himself of the present consternation of the English. He accordingly set out for Rheims, at the head of 12,000 men, and scarcely perceived as he passed along, that he was marching through an enemy’s country. Every place opened its gates to him; Rheims sent him its keys, and the ceremony of his inauguration was performed with the holy oil, which a pigeon is said to have brought from heaven to Clovis, on the first establishment of the French monarchy.

As a mark of his gratitude, Charles had a medal struck in her honour. On one side was her portrait, on the other a hand holding a sword with these words, Consilio confirmata Dei. “Sustained by the assistance of God.” The king also ennobled all her family, as well in the male as in the female line; the former became extinct in 1760. In 1614 the latter, at the request of the procurator-general, were deprived of their privilege of ennobling their children, independent of their husband. The town of Domremi, also, where she was born, was exempted from all taxes, aids, and subsidies for ever.

The Maid of Orleans, as she is called, declared after this coronation, that her mission was now accomplished; and expressed her inclination to retire to the occupations and course of life which became her sex. But Dunois, sensible of the great advantages which might still b- reaped from her presence in the army, exhorted her to persevere till the final expulsion of the English. In pursuance of this advice, she threw herself into the town of Compiegne, at that time besieged by the duke of Burgundy, assisted by the earls of Arundel and Suffolk. The garrison, on her appearance, believed themselves invincible; but Joan, after performing prodigies of valour, was taken prisoner in a sally, and no efforts having been made by the French court to deliver her, was condemned by the English to be burnt alive, which sentence she sustained with great courage in the nineteenth year of her age, 1431. Such are the outlines of the history of this extraordinary heroine, which however is involved in many doubts and difficulties, and has too many of the features of romance for serious belief. It has lately even been doubted whether she was actually put to death; and some plausible evidence has been brought forward to prove that the judges appointed by the duke of Bedford to try her, passed a sentence from which they saved her on the day of execution by a trick, and that she afterwards made her appearance, was married to a gentleman of the house of Amboise in 1436, and her sentence was annulled in 1456. Be this as it may, her memory has long been consecrated by her countrymen, none of whom, however, have done her so much honour as our present poet-laureat, in his admirable poem of “Joan of Arc.”

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

, an eminent antiquary, architect, and critic, was probably a native of Verona, and flourished in the sixteenth century. He was of the order of the Dominicans, but in his travels, and during his scientific labours, wore the habit of a secular priest. When at Rome, where he was first known as an architect, he began to apply to the study of classical antiquities, and made a judicious collection of inscriptions, which he dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici. He was some time at the court of the emperor Maximilian I. and thence went to France about 1500, where Louis X. appointed him royal architect. He built at Paris two bridges over the Seine, that of Notre Dame, and the little bridge. In the mean time, while he had leisure, he employed it in examining ancient manuscripts, and had the felicity to recover all the letters of Pliny the younger, and the work of Julius Obsequens on prodigies. These he arranged for publication, and sent them to Aldus Manutius, by whom they were both printed in 1508, 8vo. He also collated several other classics, and illustrated Caesar’s Commentaries by useful notes and figures, and was the first to give a design of the famous bridge which Caesar built across the Rhine. On his return to Italy, he edited the fine edition of Vitruvius, printed by Aldus in 1511, and enriched it with designs. When the famous bridge the Rialto was burnt down in 1513, he gave a magnificent design for a new one; but that of an inferior architect being preferred, he quitted Venice, and went to Rome, where, after the death of Bramante, he was employed on St. Peter’s church. His last work was the bridge over the Adige, at Verona, which he built in 1520: He died about 1530, at a very advanced age.

, a celebrated French poet, was born of a noble family at Paris, in 1532. He was esteemed by Henry II. and Charles IX. but so entirely devoted to poetry and luxury, that he reaped no advantage from their patronage, but lived in poverty. He was one of the earliest tragic poets of France, but abused the uncommon facility he had in writing verses; so that though his French poems were much admired when their author was living, it now requires great patience to read them. The same cannot, however, be said of his Latin poetry, which is written in a more pure and easy style, and in a better taste. Jodelle was well acquainted with Greek and Latin, had a genius for the arts, and is said to have understood architecture, painting, and sculpture he was one of the poets in the Pleiades fancied by Ronsard, and is considered as the inventor of the Vers rapportes. This author died very poor, July 1573. The collection of his poems was published at Paris, 1574, 4to, and at Lyons, 1597, 12mo. It contains two tragedies, Cleopatra, and Dido; Eugene, a comedy; sonnets, songs, odes, elegies, &c. Cardinal du Perron valued this poet’s talents so little, that he used to say Jodelle’s verses were but pois piles.

, a dramatic writer, was originally bred to the law, and a member of the Middle temple, but being a great admirer of the muses, and finding in himself a strong propensity to dramatic writing, he quitted his profession, and by contracting an intimacy with Mr. Wilks, the manager of the theatre, found means, through that gentleman’s interest, to get his plays on the stage without much difficulty. Some of them met with very good success, and being a constant frequenter of the meetings of the wits at Will’s and Button’s coffee-houses, he, by a polite and inoffensive behaviour, formed so extensive an acquaintance and intimacy, as constantly insured him great emoluments on his benefit night; by which means, being a man of oeconomy, he was enabled to subsist very genteelly. He at length married a young widow, with a tolerable fortune, on which he set up a tavern in Bow-street, Covent-garden, but quitted business at his wife’s death, and lived privately on an easy competence which he had saved. At what time he was born we know not, but he lived in the reigns of queen Anne, king George I. and part of George II. and died March 11, 1748. As a dramatic writer, he is far from deserving to be placed amongst the lowest class; for though his plots are seldom original, yet he has given them so many additions, and has clothed the designs of others in so pleasing a dress, that a great share of the merit they possess ought to be attributed to him.

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

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

In 1728, Mary his daughter and only surviving child, being his executrix, published some posthumous discourses of his which he had designed for the press; and as no man was more careful and diligent to instruct those

(probably from his intimacy with Dr. George I. This occasioned hrm some iiickes) became a nonjurar in principle trouMe, and he was forced to submit,

and practice, denying the king’s su- which he did very reluctantly, 'y, anJ refusing to read the

I committed to his care in the knowledge of their duty by his sermons and discourses, so was he no less careful to instruct them by his example in a regular Christian life; and therefore none was better beloved by his parishioners in -general. This learned divine, of whom his biographer, Dr. Brett, has given a very high, although perhaps somewhat partial character, died Dec. 15, 1725, and was buried in Cranbrook church-yard.

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

In 1748 was published “The Life of the late Rev. J. Johnson, &c. by the late Rev. Thomas Brett,” with three of Mr. Johnson’s posthumous tracts, and part of his correspondence with Dr. Hickes, Mr. Nelson, and Dr. Brett.

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

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

, an English divine of remarkable learning and steadiness in suffering for the principles of tha Revolution in 1688, was born in 1649, in Warwickshire and being put to St. Paul’s school in London, studied with such* success and reputation, that as soon as he was fit for the university, he was made keeper of the library to that school. In this station he applied himself to the Oriental languages, in which he made great progress. He was of Trinity-college, Cambridge, but left the university without taking a degree. He entered into orders, and was presented by a friend, Mr. Robert Biddulph, in 1669-70, to the rectory of Corringham in Essex. This living, worth only 80l. a year, was the only church preferment he ever had and, as the air of the place did not agree with him, he placed a curate upon the spot, and settled himself at London; a situation so much the more agreeable to him, as he had a strong disposition for politics, and had even made some progress in that study before he was presented to this living.

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is, he was his own chief enemy; and his disappointment, in his expectations of preferment, was the effect of his own temper and conduct. For, with very good abilities, considerable learning, and great clearness, strength, and vivacity of sentiment and expression, of which his writings are a sufficient evidence; and with a firmness of mind capable of supporting the severest trials, for any cause which he considered as important, he was passionate, impatient of contradiction, conceited in his own opinions, haughty, apt to overrate his own services, and undervalue those of others, whose advancement above himself was an insupportable mortification to him. The roughness of his temper, and turbulency of his genius, rendered him also unfit for the higher stations of the church, of which he was immoderately ambitious. Not being able to obtain a bishopric, lady Russel made use of the influence she had with Dr. Tillotson, to solicit a pension for him; and in consequence of this application, king William granted him, 300l. a year out of the post-office, for his own and his son’s life, with 1000l. in money, and a place of 100l. a year for his son.

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

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

About the age of fifteen he paid a long visit to his uncle Cornelius Ford; but on his return, his master, Hunter, refused to receive him again on the foundation of Lichfield school. What his reasons were is not known. He was now removed to the school of Stourbridge in Worcestershire, where he remained about a year, with very little acquisition of knowledge; but here, as well as at Lichfield, he gave several proofs of his inclination to poetry, and afterwards published some of these juvenile productions in the Gentleman’s Magazine. From Stourbridge he returned home, where he remained about two years without any regular application. His time, however, was not entirely wasted, as he employed it in reading many of the ancient writers, and stored his mind with so much various information, that when he went to Oxford, Dr. Adams said he “was the best qualified for the university that he had ever known come there.”

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

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

He now (1731) returned to Lichfield, with very gloomy prospects. His father died a few months after his return, and the little he left behind him was barely sufficient for the temporary support of his widow. In the following year he accepted the place of usher of the school of Market Bosworth in Leicestershire, an employment which the pride of Sir Wolstan Dixie, the patron, soon rendered irksome, and he threw it up in a disgust which recurred whenever he recollected this part of his history. For six months after he resided at Birmingham as the guest of Mr. Hector, an eminent surgeon, and is supposed during that time to have furnished some periodical essays for a newspaper printed by Warren, a bookseller in Birmingham. Here, too, he abridged and translated Father Lobo’s Voyage to Abyssinia, which was published in 1735 by Bettesworth and Hitch in Paternoster-row, London. For this, his first literary performance, he received the small sum of five guineas. In the translation there is little that marks the hand of Johnson; but in the preface and dedication are a few passages in the same energetic and manly style which he may be said to have invented, and to have taught to his countrymen.

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

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

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

In what manner Johnson was employed for some time after his arrival in London, is not known. He brought a small sum of money with him, and he husbanded it with frugality, while he mixed in such society as was accessible to a friendless and uncourtly scholar, and amused himself in contemplating the manners of the metropolis. It appears that at one time he took lodgings at Greenwich, and proceeded by fits to complete his tragedy. He renewed his application also to Cave, sending him a specimen of a translation of the “History of the Council of Trent,” and desiring to know if Cave would join in the publication of it. Cave appears to have consented, for twelve sheets were printed, for which our author received forty-nine pounds; but another translation being announced about the same period (1738) by a rival whose name was also Samuel Johnson, librarian of St. Martin’s in the Fields, our author desisted, and this other design was also dropped.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1745 he published “Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth, with remarks on sir Thomas Hanmer’s edition of Shakspeare,” to which he affixed proposals fora new edition of that poet; and it is probable that he was now devoting his whole time to this undertaking, as we find a suspension of his periodical contributions during the years 1745 and 1746. It is perhaps too rash to conclude that he declined writing in the Magazine, because he would not join in the support of government during the rebellion in Scotland; but there are abundant proofs in Mr. Boswell’s Life, that his sentiments were favourable to that attempt. As to his plan of an edition of Shakspeare, he had many difficulties to encounter. Little notice was taken of his proposals, and Warburton was known to be engaged in a similar undertaking. Warburton, however, had the liberality to praise his “Observations on Macbeth,” as the production of a man of parts and genius; and Johnson never forgot the favour. Warburton, he said, praised him when praise was of value.

In 1747 he resumed his labours in fche Gentleman’s Magazine, and although many entire pieces cannot be ascertained to have come from his pen, he was frequently, if not constantly, employed to superintend the materials of the Magazine, and several introductory passages may be pointed out which bear evident marks of his composition. In this year his old pupil and friend, Garrick, became manager of Drnry-lane theatre, and obtained from Johnson a prologue, which is generally esteemed one of the finest productions of that kind in our language. In this year also he issued his plan for a “Dictionary of the English language.”

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

In 1749 he published his second imitation of Juvenal, under the title of the “Vanity of Human Wishes,” for which, with all the fame he had now acquired, he received only fifteen guineas. In his “London,” we have the manners of common life 5 in the “Vanity of Human Wishes,” he has given us more of his own mind, more of that train of sentiment, excited sometimes by poverty, and sometimes by disappointment, which always inclined him to view the gloomy side of human affairs. In the same year Garrick offered to produce his " Irene' 7 on the DruryJane theatre, but presumed at the same time to suggest such alterations as his superior knowledge of stage effect might be supposed to justify. Johnson did not much like that his labours should be revised and amended at the pleasure of an actor, and with some difficulty was persuaded to yield to Garrick’s advice. The pl^y, however, was at length performed, but without much success; altnough the manager contrived to have it played long enough to entitle the author to the profits of his three nights, and Dodsley bout ht the copyright for one hundred pounds. It has ever been admired in the closet, for the propriety of its sentiments and the elegance of its language.

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

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

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

When he had in some measure recovered from the shock of Mrs. Johnsons death, he contributed several papers to the “Adventurer,” which was carried on by Dr. Hawkesworth and Dr. Warton. The profit of these papers he is said to have given to Dr. Bathurst, a physician of little practice, but a very amiable man, whom he highly respected. Mr. Boswell thinks he endeavoured to make them pass for Bathurst’s, which is highly improbable. In 1754 we find him approaching to the completion of his “Dictionary.” Lord Chesterfield, to whom he once looked up as to a liberal patron, had treated him with neglect, of which, after Johnson declined to pay court to such a man, he became sensible, and, as an effort at reconciliation, wrote two papers in the “World,” recommending the Dictionary, and soothing the author by some ingenious compliments. Had there been no previous offence, it is probable this end would have answered, and Johnson would have dedicated the work to him. He loved praise, and from lord Chesterfield, the Maecenas of the age, and the most elegant of noble writers, praise was at this time valuable. But Johnson never departed from exacting the just respect due to a man of letters, and was not to be appeased by the artifice of these protracted compliments. He could not even brook that his lordship should for a moment suppose him reconciled by his flattery, but immediately wrote that celebrated letter which has been so much admired as a model of dignified contempt. The allusion to the loss of his wife, and to his present situation, is exquisitely beautiful. “The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind; but it has been delayed till I am indifferent, and cannot enjoy it till I Am Solitary, and cannot impart it till I am known, and do not want it.” Lord Chesterfield is said to have concealed his feelings on this occasion with his usual art, conscious, perhaps, that they were not to be envied.

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

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

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

But an end was now approaching to his pecuniary embarrassments. In 1762. while he was proceeding with his edition of Shakspeare, he was surprised by the information, that his present majesty had been pleased to grant him a pension of three hundred pounds a year, not, as has been invidiously asserted, in order to induce him to write for administration, but as the reward of his literary merit. Had it been otherwise, he had surely the strongest inducement to have exerted his talents in favour of lord Bute, by whose recommendation the pension was grained, and who at this time wanted much abler support than the hired writers of government could supply. But it is well known that he wrote no political tract for nearly eight years afterwards. He now took a house in Johnson’s court, Fleet-street, and allotted an apartment for Mrs. Williams. In 1765 he was introduced to the late Mr. Thrale and family, a circumstance which contributed much to alleviate the solicitudes of life, and furnished him with the enjoyment of an elegant table and elegant society. ' Here an apartment was fitted up for him, which he occupied when he pleased, and he accompanied the family in their various summer excursions, which tended to exhilarate his mind and render the return of his constitutional melancholy less frequent.

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

In 1767, he had the honour to be admitted to a personal interview with his majesty, in the library of the queen’s palace. Of the conversation which passed, Mr. Boswell has given a very interesting and authentic account, which, it may here be mentioned, he prized at so high a rate, as to print it separately in a quarto sheet, and enter it in that form at Stationers’-hall, a few days before the publication of his “Life of Johnson.” He attempted in the same manner to secare Johnson’s letter to lord Chesterfield. In 1767, on the institution of the royal academy of arts, Johnson was appointed professor in ancient literature, and there probably was at that time some design of giving a course of lectures. But this, and the professorship of ancient history, are as yet mere sinecures.

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

In 1771, he appeared to more advantage as the author of “Thoughts on the late Transactions respecting Falkland Islands,” from materials partly furnished by the ministry, but highly enriched by his vigorous style and peculiar train of thought. The object of this pamphlet was to represent the dispute, respecting a barren island, as an insufficient cause for war; and in the course of his reasoning, he has taken an opportunity to depict the miseries as well as the absurdity of unnecessary war, in a burst of animated and appropriate language which will probably never be exceeded. His character of Junius in this pamphlet, is scarcely inferior. The sale of the first edition was stopped for a: while by lord North, and a few alterations made before it appeared in a second. Johnson’s opinion of these two pamphlets was, that “there is a subtlety of disquisition in the ‘False Alarm,’ which is worth all the fire of the other.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of this edition it is yet necessary to say, that Dr. Johnson was not in all respects to be considered as the editor. He had not the choice of the poets to be admitted, although in addition to the list prepared by his employers, he recommended Blackmore, Watts, Pomfret, and Yalden. The selection was made by the booksellers, who appear to have been guided partly by the acknowledged merit of the poet, and partly by his popularity, a quality which, is sometimes independent of the former. Our author, however, felt himself under no restraint in accepting the list offered, nor did he in any instance consider himself bound to lean with partiality to any author merely that the admission of his works might be justified. This absurd species of prejudice which lias contaminated so many single lives and critical prefaces, was repugnant to his, as it must ever be to the opinion of every man who considers truth as essential to biography, and that the possession of talents, however brilliant, ought to be no excuse for the abuse of them. Every preliminary having been settled in the month of April, 1777, the new edition of the Poets was sent to press, and Johnson was informed that his lives might be written in the mean time, so as to be ready to accompany the publication.

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