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

, a learned antiquary, was born in Lincolnshire, in the sixteenth century, and flourished in the beginning of the seventeenth. He was descended from the ancient family of the Bucs, or Buckes, of West Stanton, and Herthill, in Yorkshire, and Melford-hall, in Suffolk. His great grandfather, sir John Buc, knight, was one of king Richard the Third’s favourites, and attended that unfortunate prince to the battle of Bosworth, where he lost his crown and life. In the first parliament of king Henry VII. this sir John Buc was attainted for being one of the chief aiders and assistants to the king just now mentioned, in the battle of Bosworth, and soon after was beheaded at Leicester. By this attainder his posterity were reduced to very great distress; but, through the interest of Thomas duke of Norfolk, the great patron of the family, they had probably some of their estates restored to them, and, among others, that in Lincolnshire, where our author was born. In the reign of king James I. he was made one of the gentlemen of his majesty’s privy-chamber, and knighted. He was also constituted master of the revels, whose office was then kept on St. Peter' s-hill, in London. What he mostly distinguished himself by, was writing “The Life and Reign of Richard III. in five books,” wherein, in opposition to the whole body of English historians, he endeavours to represent that prince’s person and actions in a quite different light from what they have been by others; and takes great pains to wipe off the bloody stains that have been fixed upon his character. He has also written: “The third universitie of England; or, a treatise of the foundations of all the colledges, ancient schooles of priviledge, and of houses of learning, and liberall arts, within and about the most famous citie of London. With a briefe report of the sciences, arts, and faculties therein professed, studied, and practised.” And a treatise t)f “The Art of Revels.” Mr. Camden gives him the character of “a person of excellent learning,” and thankfully acknowledges that he “remarked many things in his historiei, and courteously communicated his observations to him.” He has since received very able support, and Richard III. has found a powerful advocate in Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who in his “Historic Doubts” has, with much ingenuity, at least, shewn that the evidence produced in confirmation of Richard’s crimes, is far from being decisive, But we have now an “historic doubt” to bring forward of more importance to the present article, which we find in a note on Malone’s Shakspeare, in the following words: “I take this opportunity of correcting an error into which Anthony Wood has fallen, and which has been implicitly adopted in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, and many other books. The error I allude to, is, that this sir George Buc, who was knighted at Whitehall by king James the day before his coronation, July 23, 1603, was the author of the celebrated * History of king Richard the Third;' which was written above twenty years after his death, by George Buck, esq. who was, I suppose, his son. The precise time of, the father’s death, I have not been able to ascertain, there being no will of his in the prerogative office; but I have reason to believe that it happened soon after the year 1622. He certainly died before August 1629.”

, an eminent German reformer, was born in 1491, at Schelestadt, a town of Alsace. At the age of seven he took the religious habit in the order of St. Dominic, and with the leave of the prior of his convent, went to -Heidelberg to learn logic and philosophy. Having applied himself afterwards to divinity, he made it his endeavour to acquire a thorough knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew. About this time some of Erasmus’s pieces came abroad, which he read with great avidity, and meeting afterwards with certain tracts of Luther, and comparing the doctrine there delivered with the sacred scriptures, he began to entertain doubts concerning several things in the popish religion. His uncommon learning and his eloquence, which was assisted by a strong and musical voice, and his free censure of the vices of the times, recommended him to Frederick elector palatine, who made him one of his chaplains. After some conferences with Luther, at Heidelberg, in 1521, he adopted most of his religious notions, particularly those with regard to justification. However, in 1532, he gave the preference to the sentiments of Zuinglius, but used his utmost endeavours to re-unite the two parties, who both opposed the Romish religion. He is looked upon as one of the first authors of the reformation at Strasburg, where he taught divinity for twenty years, and was one of the ministers of the town. He assisted at many conferences concerning religion; and in 1548, was sent for to Augsburg to sign that agreement betwixt the Protestants and Papists, which was called the Interim. His warm opposition to this project exposed him to many difficulties and harships; the news of which reaching England, where his fame had already arrived, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, g av e him an invitation to come over, which he readily accepted. In 1549 an handsome apartment was assigned him in the university of Cambridge, and a salary to teach theology. King Edward VI. had the greatest regard for him; being told that he was very sensible of the cold of this climate, and suffered much for want of a German stove, he sent him an hundred crowns to purchase one. He died of a complication of disorders, in 1551, and was buried at Cambridge, in St. Mary’s church, with great funeral pomp. Five years after, in the reign of queen Mary, his body was dug up and publicly burnt, and his tomb demolished; but it was afterwards set up again by order of queen Elizabeth. He married a nun, by whom he had thirteen children. This woman dying of the plague, he married another, and, according to some, upon her death, he took a third wife. His character is thus given by Burnet: “Martin Bucer was a very learned, judicious, pious, and moderate person. Perhaps he was inferior to none of all the reformers for learning; but for zeal, for true piety, and a most tender care of preserving unity among the foreign churches, Melancthon and he, without any injury done to the rest, may be ranked apart by themselves. He was much opposed by the Popish party at Cambridge; who, though they complied with the law, and so kept their places, yet, either in the way of argument, as if it had been for dispute’s sake, or in such points as were not determined, set themselves much to lessen his esteem. Nor was he furnished naturally with that quickness that is necessary for a disputant, from which they studied to draw advantages; and therefore Peter Martyr wrote to him to avoid all public disputes.” His writings were in Latin and in German? and so numerous, that it is computed they would form eight or nine folio volumes. His anxiety to reconcile the Lutherans and Zuinglians led him to use many general and perhaps ambiguous expressions in his writings. He seems to have thought Luther’s notion of the sacrament too strong, and that of Zuinglius too weak. Verheiclen in Latin, and Lupton in English, have given a list of his works, but without size or dates.

"The Buchanites pay great attention to the bible; being always reading it, or having it in their pocket, or under their arm, proclaiming it the best book in the world. They read, sing hymns, preach, and converse much about religion; declaring the last day to be at hand, and that no one of all their company shall ever die, or be buried in the earth; but soon shall hear the voice of the last trumpet, when all the wicked shall be struck dead, and remain so for one thousand years: at the same moment they, the Buchanites, shall undergo an agreeable change, shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, from whence they shall return to this earth, in company with the Lord Jesus, with whom as their king they shall possess this earth one thousand years, the devil being bound with a chain in the interim. At the end of one thousand years, the devil shall be loosed, the wicked quickened, both shall assail their camp, but be repulsed, with the devil at their head, while they fight valiantly under the Lord Jesus Christ as their captain-general.

"Since the Buchanites adopted their principles, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, nor consider themselves bound to any conjugal duties, or mind to indulge themselves in any carnal enjoyments; but having one common purse for their cash, they are all sisters and brothers, living a holy life as the angels of God; and beginning and continuing in the same holy life, they shall live under the Lord Jesus Christ, their king, after his second coming. The Buchanites follow no industry, being commanded to take no thought of to-morrow; but, observing how the young ravens are fed, and how the lilies grow, they assure themselves God will much more feed and clothe them. They, indeed, sometimes work at mason -wright and husbandry work to people in their neighbourhood; but then they refuse all wages, or any consideration wliatever, but declare their whole object in working at air is to mix with the world, and inculcate those important truths of which they themselves are so much persuaded.

About this period, the work entitled “Domestic Medicine” was first published, with the view of laying open the science of medicine, and rendering it familiar to the comprehension of mankind in general. In this plan he was encouraged by the late Dr. Gregory, of liberal memory, who was of opinion, that to render medicine generally intelligible was the only means of putting an end to the impostures of quackery. This work was also patronised by, and dedicated to, sir John Pringle, then president of the royal society, and a distant relation of the author. This work has had a degree of success unequalled by any other medical book in the English language. It has also been translated into every European language. On its appearing in Russian, the late empress Catharine transmitted to the author a large and elegant medallion of gold, accompanied by a letter expressive of her sentiments of the utility of his exertions towards promoting the welfare of mankind in general. Yet successful as this work has proved, Dr. Buchan’s expectations from it were not great, and he sold the copyright in 1771 for a very inconsiderable sum but the liberal purchaser, the late Mr. Cadell, and his successors, made the doctor a handsome present on revising each edition, of which he lived to see nineteen published, amounting to upwards of 80,000 copies. It has likewise been printed in Ireland and America, and pirated in various shapes in England, but without much diminution either of the sale or credit of the authentic work.

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

In 1543, he quitted Bourdeaux, on account of the pestilence being there; and about this time seems to have had some share in the education of Michael de Montaigne, the celebrated author of the Essays. In 1544, he went to Paris, where he taught the second class of the college of Bourbon, as Turnebus did the first, and Ivluretus the third; and it appears that in some part of this year he was afflicted with the gout. In 1547, he went into Portugal with his friend Andrew Govea, who had received orders from the king his master to return home, and bring with him a certain number of learned men, qualified to teach the Aristotelian philosophy, and polite literature, in the university which he had lately established at Coimbra. He says, that he^the more readily agreed to go to Portugal, because that “all Europe besides was either actually engaged in foreign or domestic wars, or upon the point of being so; and that this corner of the world appeared to him the most likely to be free from tumults and disturbances. Besides which, his companions in that journey were such, that they seemed rather his familiar friends than strangers, or foreigners; for with most of them he had been upon terms of much intimacy for some years; and they were men well known to the world by their learned works .”

During the life of Govea, who was a great favourite of his Portuguese majesty, matters went on extremely well with Buchanan in Portugal; but after the death of Govea, which happened in 1548, a variety of ill treatment was practised against the learned men who followed him, and particularly against Buchanan. He was accused of being author of the poem against the Franciscans, of having eaten flesh in time of Lent, and of having said that, with respect to the Eucharist, St. Augustine was more favourable to the doctrine of the reformers, than to that of the church of Home. Besides these enormities, ibwas also deposed against him by certain witnesses, that they had heard from divers reputable persons, that Buchanan was not orthodox as to the Romish faith and religion. These were sufficient reasons in that country for. putting any man into the inquisition; and accordingly, Buchanan was confined there about a year and a half. He was afterwards removed to a more agreeable prison, being confined in a monastery till he should be better instructed in the principles of the Romish church. He says of the monks under whose care he was placed, that “they were altogether ignorant of religion, but were otherwise, men neither bad in their morajs, nor rude in their behaviour.” It was during his re-­sidence in this monastery, that he began to translate the Psalms of David into Latin verse; and which he executed, says Mackenzie, “with such inimitable sweetness and elegancy, that this version of the Psalms will be esteemed and admired as long as the world endures, or men have any relish for poetry.” Having obtained his liberty in 1551, he desired a passport of the king, in order to return to France; but his majesty endeavoured to retain him in his service, and assigned him a small pension till he should procure him an employment. But these uncertain hopes did not detain him long in Portugal; and indeed, it was not to be supposed that the treatment which he had received there, could give a man of Buchanan’s temper any great attachment to the place. He readily embraced an opportunity which offered of embarking for England, where, however, he made no long stay, though some advantageous offers were made him. Edward VI. was then upon the throne of England, but Buchanan, apprehending the affairs of that kingdom to be in a very unsettled state, went over into France at the beginning of the year 1553. It seems to have been about this time that he wrote some of those satirical pieces against the monks, which are found in his “Fratres Fraterrimi.” He was also probably now employed at Paris in teaching the belleslettres; but though he seems to have been fond of France, yet be sometimes expresses his dissatisfaction at his treatment and situation there. The subject of one of his elegies is the miserable condition of those who were employed in teaching literature at Paris. His income was, perhaps, small; and he seems to have had no great propensity to ceconomy; but this is a disposition too common among the votaries of the Muses, to afford any peculiar reproach against Buchanan. In 1555, the marshal de Brissac, to whom he had dedicated his “Jephthes,” sent for Buchanan into Piedmont, where he then commanded, and made him preceptor to Timoleon de Cosse, his son; and he spent five years in this station, partly in Italy, and partly ill France. This employment probably afforded him much leisure; for he now applied himself closely to the study of the sacred writings, in order to enable him to form the more accurate judgment concerning the subjects in controversy between the Protestants and Papists. It was also during this period that he composed his ode upon the taking of Calais by the duke of Guise, his epithalamiuni upon the marriage of Mary queen of Scots to the Dauphin of France, and part of his poem upon the Sphere.

During his residence in England, he wrote some encomiastic verses in honour of queen Elizabeth, and several English ladies of rank, from whom he received presents. He appears to have been very ready to receive favours of that kind; and, like Erasmus, not to have been at all backward in making his, wants known, or taking proper measures to procure occasional benefactions from the great. In 1571 he published his “Detectio Marise Reginae,” in which he very severely arraigned the conduct and character of queen Mary, and expressly charged her with being concerned in the murder of her husband lord Darnly. At the beginning of 1570, his pupil, the earl of Murray, regent of Scotland, was assassinated, which, Mackenzie says, “was a heavy stroke to him, for he loved him as his own life.” He continued, however, to be in favour with some of those who were invested with power in Scotland; for, after the death of the earl of Murray, he was appointed one of the lords of the council, and lord privy seal. It appears also that he had a pension of one hundred pounds a year, settled on him by queen Elizabeth. In 1579 he published his famous treatise “De Jure Regni apud Scotos;” which he dedicated to king James. In 1582 he published at Edinburgh, his “History of Scotland,” in twenty books, on which he had chiefiy employed the last twelve or thirteen years of his life. He died at Edinburgh the same year, on the 5th of December, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. Towards the close of his life, he had sometimes resided at Stirling. Ife is said, that when he was upon his death-bed, he was informed that the king was highly incensed against him for writing his book “De Jure Regni,” and his “History of Scotland;” to which he replied, that “he was not much conterned about that; for he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.” We are also told, that when he was dying, he called for his servant, whose name was Young, and asked him how much money he had of his; and finding that it was not sufficient to defray the expences of his burial, he commanded him to distribute it amongst the poor. His servant thereupon asked him: “Who then would be at'the charge of burying him?” Buchanan replied, “That he was very indifferent about that; for if he were once dead, if they would not bury him, they might let him lie where he was, or throw his corpse where they pleased.” Accordingly, he was buried at the expence of the city of Edinburgh. Archbishop Spotswood says of Buchanan, that “in his old age he applied himself to write the Scots History, which he renewed with such judgment and eloquence, as no country can shew a better: only in this he is justly blamed, that he sided with the factions of the time, and to justify the proceedings of the noblemen against the queen, he went so far in depressing the royal authority of princes, and allowing their controulment by subjects; his bitterness also in writing of the queen, and of the times, all wise men have disliked; but otherwise no man hath merited better of his country for learning, nor thereby did bring to it more glory. He was buried in the common burial-place, though worthy to have been laid in marble, and to have had some statue erected to his memory; but such pompous monuments in his life he was wont to scorn and despise, esteeming it a greater credit, as it was said of the Roman Cato, to have it asked, Why doth he lack a statue? than to have had one, though never so glorious, erected.”

Mr. Teissier says, that “it cannot be denied but Buchanan was a man of admirable eloquence, of rare prudence, and of an exquisite judgment; he has written the History of Scotland with such elegancy and politeness, that he surpasses all the writers of his age; and he has even equalled the ancients themselves, without excepting either Sallust or Titus Livius. But he is accused by some of being an unfaithful historian, and to have shewn in his history an extreme aversion against queen Mary Stuart; but his master-piece is his Paraphrase upon the Psalms, in which he outdid the most famous poets amongst the French and Italians.”

Mr. James Crawford, in his “History of the House of Este,” says, “Buchanan not only excelled all that went before him in his own country, but scarce had his equal in that learned age in which he lived. He spent the first flame and rage of his fancy in poetry, in which he did imitate Virgil in heroics, Ovid in elegiacs, Lucretius in philosophy, Seneca in tragedies, Martial in epigrams, Horace and Juvenal in satires. He copied after these great masters so perfectly, that nothing ever approached nearer the original: and his immortal Paraphrase on the Psalms doth shew, that neither the constraint of a limited matter, the darkness of expression, nor the frequent return of the same, or the like phrases, could confine or exhaust that vast genius. At last, in his old age, when his thoughts were purified by long reflection and business, and a true judgment came in the room of one of the richest fancies that ever was, he wrote our History with such beauty of style, easiness of expression, and exactness in all its parts, that no service or honour could have been done the nation like it, had he ended so noble a work as he begun, and carried it on till James the Fifth’s death. But being unhappily engaged in a faction, and resentment working violently upon him, he suffered himself to be so strangely biassed, that in the relations he gives of many of the transactions of his own time, he may rather pass for a satirist than an historian.”

Burnet says, that “in the writings of Buchanan there appears, not only all the beauty and graces of the Latin tongue, but a vigour of mind, and quickness of thought, far beyond Bembo, or the other Italians, who at that time affected to revive the purity of the Roman style. It was but a feeble imitation of Tully in them; but his style is so natural and nervous, and his reflections on things are so solid (besides his immortal poems, in which he shews how well he could imitate all the Roman poets, in their several ways of writing, that he who compares them will be often tempted to prefer the copy to the original), that he is justly reckoned the greatest and best of our modern authors.”

The celebrated Thuanus observes, that “Buchanan, being old, began to write the history of his own country; and although, according to the genius of his nation, he sometimes inveighs against crowned heads with severity, yet that work is written with so much purity, spirit, and judgment, that it does not appear to be the production of a man who had passed all his days in the dust of a school, but of one who had been all his life-time conversant in the most important affairs of state. Such was the greatness of his mind, and the felicity of his genius, that the meanness of his condition and fortune has not hindered Buchanan from forming just sentiments of things of the greatest moment, or from writing concerning them with a great deal of judgment.”

The genius and erudition of Buchanan have procured him, as a writer, the applause even of his enemies: but, as a man, he has been the subject of the most virulent invectives. Far from confining themselves to truth, they have not even kept within the bounds of probability; and some of the calumnies which have been published against him, related by Bayle, are calculated only to excite our risibility. The learned John Le Clerc has very ably shewn, that there is much reason to conclude, that many of the severe censures which have been thrown out against Buchanan, were the result of ignorance, of prejudice, and of party animosity. That he was himself influenced by some degree of partiality to the party with which he was connected, that he was sometimes deceived by the reports of others, and that in the earlier part of his History, his zeal for the honour of his country has led him into some misrepresentations, may be admitted: but we do not apprehend that he wilfully and intentionally violated the truth, or that there is any just ground for questioning his integrity. Le Clerc observes, that as to the share which Buchanan had in public affairs, it appears even from the Memoirs of sir James Melvil, who was of the opposite party, that “he distinguished himself by his probity, and by his moderation.” The prejudices of many writers against him have been very great: he had satirized the priests, and many of them therefore were his most inveterate enemies; he was generally odious to the bigotted advocates for the Romish church, and to the partisans of Mary; and his free and manly spirit rendered him extremely disagreeable to court flatterers and parasites, and the defenders of tyranny. His dialogue " De Jure Regni/' which certainly contains some of the best and most rational principles of government, whatever may be thought of some particular sentiments, and which displays uncommon acuteness and extent of knowledge, has been one source of the illiberal abuse that has been thrown out against him. But it is a performance that really does him great honour; and the rather, because it was calculated to enforce sound maxims of civil policy, in an age in which they were generally little understood. Some farther testimonies of authors concerning him may be found in our references.

, a popish divine of some note^ was born at West Harptre, the seat of an ancient family of his name in Somersetshire, about 1564. In 1579, he was admitted commoner in Magdalen college, Oxford, and afterwards passed some years in one of the inns of court. Having at last embraced the popish religion, he spent seven years in Doway college, and being ordained priest, returned to England, acted as a missionary for about twenty years, and died in 1611. He published, 1. A translation of the “Lives of the Saints” from Surius. 2. “A Per. suasive against frequenting Protestant Churches,” 12mo. 3. “Seven sparks of the enkindled flame, with four lamentations, composed in the hard times of queen Elizabeth,” 12mo. From this book, archbishop Usher, in a sermon preached in 1640, on Nov. 5, produced some passages hinting at the gun-powder plot. The passages are not, perhaps, very clearly in point, nor can we suppose any person privy to the design fool enough at the same time to give warning of it. This Buckland also wrote “De Persecutione Vandalica,” a translation from the Latin of Victor, bishop of Biserte, or Utica.

, D. D. a learned and ingenious English clergyman and antiquary, was born in 1716, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1739. He was afterwards elected a fellow of All-Souls college, where he proceeded B. D. in 1755, and D. D. in 1759. In 1755 he was presented to the vicarage of Cumner in Berkshire, by the earl of Abingdon. He was also rector of Frilsham in the same county. He died and was buried at Cumner, Dec. 24, 1780, being at that time likewise keeper of the archives in the university of Oxford, to which office he was elected in 1777. His talents would in all probability have advanced him to higher stations, had they been less under the influence of those honest principles, which, although they greatly dignify a character, are not always of use on the road to preferment. In truth, says the author of his epitaph, he preserved his integrity chaste and "pure: he thought liberally, and spoke openly; a mean action was his contempt. He possessed not great riches, secular honours, or court favours; but he enjoyed blessings of a much higher estimation, a competency, a sound mind, an honest heart, a good conscience, and a faith unshaken.

Dr. Buckler, who was an able antiquary, assisted his friend and contemporary, Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his researches respecting the right of fellowships, &c. in AllSouls college, and drew up that valuable work, the “Stemmata Chicheleana; or, a genealogical account of some of the families derived from Thomas Chichele, of HighamFerrers, in the county of Northampton; all whose descendants are held to be entitled to fellowships in All-Souls college, Oxford, by virtue of their consanguinity to archbishop Chichele, the founder,” Oxford, 1765, 4to. The college having afterwards purchased, at Mr. Anstis’s sale, many large ms volumes by him, relating to the history and constitution of this college, and the case of founder’s kindred, Dr. Buckler published “A Supplement to the Stemmata,” Oxford, 1775, and afterwards went on continuino' it, as information offered itself, but no more has been published. We find him also as one of the proctors, signing his name to a pamphlet, which he probably wrote, entitled “A reply to Dr. Huddesford’s observations relating to the delegates of the press, with a narrative of the proceedings of the proctors with regard to their nomination of a delegate,” Oxford, 1756, 4to. In this it is the object to prove, against Dr. Huddesford, that the right of nominating such delegates is in the proctors absolutely, and that the vice-chancellor has not a negative.

Long before this, Dr. Buckler afforded a proof of excellent humour. Mr. Pointer having in his account of the antiquities of Oxford, a superficial and incorrect work, degraded the famous mallard of All-Souls into a goose, Buckler published, but without his name, “A complete vindication of the Mallard of All-Souls college against the injurious suggestions of the rev. Mr. Pointer,” Lond. 1750, 8vo, and a second edition, 1751. This produced another exquisite piece of humour, entitled “Proposals for printing by subscription, the History of the Mallardians,” This was to have been executed in three parts, the contents of which will give the reader some idea of Mr. Bilson’s humour, and that of Rowe Mores, who assisted him in drawing up the proposals, and bore the expence of some engravings which accompany it. “Part I. Of the origin of the Mallardians. Of the foundation of the house of Mallardians. The intent of that foundation, and how far it has been answered. Of the affinity between the Mallardians and the order of the Thelemites. Of the library of the Mallardians; and of the cat that was starved to death in it. Part II. Of the manners of the Mallardians. Of their comessations, compotations, ingurgitations, and other enormities, from their first settlement till their visitation by archbishop Cranmer. Part III. The subject of the second part continued from the death of archbishop Cranmer to the dissolution of Bradgate-Hall, alias les Tunnys, (i.e. the Three Tuns Tavern). To the whole will be added, a full account of the annual festival of the Mallardians. Of the adventures common at this festival. Of the presidents, or lords of this festival, with their characters drawn at length. Of the Swopping-Song of the Mallardians, with annotations on the same. Of the progress of the Mallardians to Long Crendon, and of their demeanour to Damosels. And, lastly, a true history of their doughty champion Pentrapolin a Calamo, usually styled by way of eminence, The Buckler of the Mallardians.” Dr. Buckler published also two occasional sermons in 1759.

, or Bude’ (William), an eminent scholar and critic, the descendant of an ancient and illustrious family in France, lord of Marli-la-ville, king’s counsellor, and master of requests, was born at Paris in 1467. He was the second son of John Budé, lord of Yere and Villiers, secretary to the king, and one of the grand officers of the French chancery. In his infancy he was provided with masters; but such was the low state of Parisian education at that time, that when sent to the university of Orleans to study law, he remained there for three years, without making any progress, for want of a proper knowledge of the Latin language. Accordingly, on his return home, his parents had the mortification to discover that he was as ignorant as when he went, disgusted with study of any kind, and obstinately bent to pass his time amidst the gaieties and pleasures of youth, a coarse which his fortune enabled him to pursue. But after he had indulged this humour for some time, an ardent passion for study seized him, and became irresistible. He immediately disposed of his horses, dogs, &c. with which he followed the chace, applied himself to study, and in a short time made very considerable progress, although he had no masters, nor either instruction or example in his new pursuit. He became, in particular, an excellent Latin scholar, and although his style is not so pure or polished as that of those who formed themselves in early life on the best models, it is far from being deficient in fluency or elegance. His knowledge of the Greek was so great that John de Lascaris, the most learned Grecian of his time, declared that Budé might be compared with the first orators of ancient Athens. This language is perhaps complimentary, but it cannot be denied that his knowledge of Greek was very extraordinary, considering how little help he derived from instructions. He, indeed, employed at a large salary, one Hermonymus, but soon found that he was very superficial, and had acquired the reputation of a Greek scholar merely from knowing a little more than the French literati, who at that time knew nothing. Hence Budé used to call himself ανἶομαθης & οψιμαϑης i. e. self-taught and late taught. The work by which he gained most reputation, and published under the title “De Asse,” was one of the tirst efforts to clear up the difficulties relating to the coins and measures of the ancients; and although an Italian, Leonardus Portius, pretended to claim some of his discoveries, Budé vindicated his right to them with spirit and success. Previously to this he had printed a translation of some pieces of Plutarch, and “Notes upon the Pandects.” His fame having reached the court, he was invited to it, but was at first rather reluctant. He appears to have been one of those who foresaw the advantages of a diffusion of learning, and at the same time perceived an unwillingness in the court to entertain it, lest it should administer to the introduction of what was called heresy. Charles VIII. was the first who invited him to court, but died soon after: his successor Louis XII. employed him twice on embassies to Italy, and made him his secretary. This favour continued in the reign of Francis I. who sent for Budé to court when it was held at Arches at the interview of that monarch with Henry VIII. the king of England. From this time Francis paid him much attention, appointed him his librarian, and master of the requests, while the Parisians elected him provost of the merchants. This political influence he employed in promoting the interests of literature, and suggested to Francis I. the design of establishing professorships for languages and the sciences at Paris. The excessive heats of the year 1540 obliging the king to take a journey to the coast of Normandy, Budé accompanied his majesty, but unfortunately was seized with a fever, which carried him off Aug. 23/1540, at Paris. His funeral was private, and at night, by his own desire. This circumstance created a suspicion that he died in the reformed religion; but of this there is ho direct proof, and although he occasionally made free with the court of Rome and the corruptions of the clergy in his works, yet in them likewise he wrote with equal asperity of the reformers. Erasmus called him porttntum Gallic, the prodigy of France. There was a close connection between these two great men. “Their letters/' says the late Dr. Jortin,” though full of compliments and civilities, are also full of little bickerings and contests: which shew that their friendship was not entirely free from some small degree of jealousy and envy; especially on the side of Budé, who yet in other respects was an excellent person." It is not easy to determine on which side the jealousy lay; perhaps it was on both. Budé might envy Erasmus for his superior taste and wit, as well as his more extensive learning; and perhaps Erasmus might envy Budé for a superior knowledge of the Greek tongue, which was generally ascribed to him.

Having regularly made his progress in the secretary of state’s office in Ireland, upon the arrival of George I. in England, he was appointed under secretary to Addison, and chief secretary to the lords justices of Ireland. He was made likewise deputy-clerk of the council in that kingdom; and soon after chosen member of the Irish parliament, where he acquitted himself as a very good speaker, and performed all his official duties with great exactness and ability, and with very singular disinterestedness. In 1717, when Addison became principal secretary of state in England, he procured for Mr. Budgell the place of accomptant and comptroller-general of the revenue in Ireland, and might have had him for his under-secretary; but it was thought more expedient for his majesty’s service that he should continue where he was. He held these several places till 1718, at which time the duke of Bolton was appointed lord-lieutenant. His grace carried over with him one Mr. Edward Webster, whom he made a privy-counsellor and his secretary. A misunderstanding arising on some account or other, between this gentleman and Mr. Budgell, the latter treated Mr. Webster himself, his education, his abilities, and his family, with the utmost contempt. Mr. Budgell was indiscreet enough (for he was naturally proud and full of resentment) to write a lampoon, prior to this, in which the lord-lieutenant was not spared; and which he published in spite of all Addison could say against it. Hence many discontents arose between them, till at length, the lord-lieutenant, in support of his secretary, superseded Mr. Budgell, and very soon after got him removed from the place of accomptant-general. Mr. Budgell, not thinking it safe to continue longer in Ireland, set out for England, and soon after his arrival published a pamphlet representing his case, entitled “A Letter to the lord ***, from Eustace Budgell, esq. accomptant-general of Ireland, and late secretary to their excellencies the lords justices of that kingdom;” eleven hundred copies of which were sold off in one day, either from curiosity, or sympathjr with his sufferings, which seem about this time to have affected his reason. In the Postboy of Jan. 17, 1719, he published an advertisement to justify his character against reports which had been spread to his disadvantage; and he did not scruple to declare in all companies, that his life was attempted by his enemies, which deterred him from attending his seat in parliament. Such behaviour made many of his friends conclude him delirious; his passions were certainly very strong, nor were his vanity and jealousy less predominant. Addison, who bad resigned the seals, and was retired into the country for the sake of his health, found it impossible to stem the tide of opposition, which was every where running against his kinsman, through the influence and power of the duke of Bolton; and therefore dissuaded him in the strongest terms from publishing his case, but to no manner of purpose: which made him tell a friend in great anxiety, that “Mr. Budgell was wiser than ^ny man he ever knew, and yet he supposed the world would hardly believe that he acted contrary to his advice.”

Mr. Budgell’s great and noble friend lord Halifax, to whom in 1713 he had dedicated a translation of “Theophrastus’s Characters,” was dead, and lord Orrery, who held him in the highest esteem, had it not in his power to serve him. Addison had indeed got a promise from lord Sunderland, that, as soon as the present clamour was a little abated, he would do something for him; but that gentleman’s death, happening in 1719, put an end to all hopes of succeeding at court: where he continued, nevertheless, to make several attempts, but was constantly kept down by the weight of the duke of Bolton. One case seems peculiarly hard. The duke of Portland, who was appointed governor of Jamaica, made Budgell his secretary, who was about to sail, when a secretary of state was sent to the duke, to acquaint him “that he might take any man in England for his secretary, excepting Mr. Budgell, but that he must not take him” In 1720, the fatal year of the South Sea, he was almost ruined, having lost abdve 20,000l. in it. He tried afterwards to get into parliament at several places, and spent 3000l. more in unsuccessful attempts, which completed his ruin. And from this period he began to behave and live in a different manner from what he had done before; wrote libellous pamphlets against sir Robert Walpole and the ministry, and did many unjust things in regard to his relations, being distracted in his own private fortune, as indeed he waa judged to be in his senses. In 1727 he had 1000l. given him by the duchess of Marlborough, to whose husband, the famous duke, he was related by his mother’s side, with a view to his getting into parliament. She knew that he had a talent for speaking in public, that he was acquainted with business, and would probably run any lengths against the ministry. But this scheme failed, for he could never get chosen. In 1730 he joined the band of writers against the administration, and published many papers in the “Craftsman.” He published also, about the same time, many other pieces of a political nature. In 1733, he began a weekly pamphlet called “The Bee,” which he continued for about a hundred numbers, making seven or eight volumes, 8vo. During the progress of this work, which was entirely filled with his own disputes and concerns, and exhibited many proofs of a mind deranged by oppression, or debased by desperate efforts to retrieve his character, Dr. Tindal died, by whose will Mr. Budgell had 2000l. left him; and the world being surprised at such a gift from a man entirely unrelated to him, to the exclusion of the next heir, a nephew, and the continuator of Rapin’s History of England, immediately imputed! it to his making the will himself. Thus the satirist:

Mr. Budgell, as a writer, is very agreeable; not argumentative, or deep, but ingenious and entertaining; and his style was thought peculiarly elegant, and almost ranked with Addison’s, and it is certainly superior to that of most English writers. Besides what are above mentioned, he published: “Memoirs of the Lives and Characters of the family of the Boyles,” 1737, 8vo, third edition, a work of unquestionable authority, in most of the facts. Except this and his papers in the Spectator, none of his works are now in request; but his life is interesting and instructive. His wayward temper; indulgence of passion and spleen; irregular ambition; and his connection with Tindal, which ended in a dereliction of moral and religious principle, sufficiently explain the causes of his unhappiness, and afford an important lesson.

, a learned metaphysician, and voluminous writer, was born in Poland, of French parents, May 25, 1661. His parents having removed to Rouen, he was educated there, and afterwards entered among the Jesuits at Paris in 1679, and took the four vows “in 1695. In 1698 he went to Rome, not at the invitation of the general of his order, as has been asserted, but merely to see that celebrated city, in which he remained about four months, and then returned to Paris, where he passed the greater part of his life in the Jesuits college. Here he was first employed on the” Memoires de Trevoux,“and afterwards wrote his numerous separate publications. He died May 17, 1737. His eloge appeared in the” Memoires“in the same year, but principally regards his writings, as his life appears to have passed without any striking or characteristic circumstances, being entirely devoted to the composition of works of learning or piety, of which the following is supposed to be a correct list: 1. Some French verses on the taking of Mons and Montmelian, inserted in the” Recueil de vers choisis,“Paris, 1701, 12mo. 2.” La vie de PHermite de Compiegne,“Paris, 1692, 1737, 12mo. 3.” Vie de Dominique George,“abbot of Valricher, Paris, 1696, 12mo. 4.” Pratique de la memoire artificielle pour apprendre et pour retenir la chronologic, Phistoire universeile, c.“Paris, 1701, 3 vols. and often reprinted and extended to 4 vols. 5.” Verites consolantes du Christianisme,“ibid. 1718, 2d edit. 16mo. 6.” Histoire de Porigine du royaume de Sicile et de Naples,“ibid. 1701, 12mo. 7.” La pratique des devoirs des cures,“from the Italian, Lyons, 1702, 12mo. 8.” Abrege de l‘histoire d’Espagne,“Paris, 1704, 12mo. 9.” Examen de prejuges vulgaires pour disposer F esprit a juger sainement detout,“ibid. 1704, 12mo. 10.” Les Abeilles,“a fable. 11.” Le degat du Parnasse, ou La Fausse litterature,“a poem, ibid. 1705. 12.” La vie du comte Louis de Sales,“ibid. 1708, 12mo, afterwards translated into Italian, and often reprinted. 13.” Grammaire Franchise sur un plan nouveau,“ibid. 1709, 12mo, often reprinted. 14. e6 Le veritable esprit et le saint emploi des fetes de l'eglise,” ibid. 1712, 12mo. 15. “Les prlncipes du raisonnement exposes en deu:: logiques nouvelles, avec des remarques sur les logiques,” &c. ibid. 1714, 12mo. 16. “Geographic universelle avec le secours des vers artificiels et avec des cartes,” ibid. 1715, 2 vols. 12mo. 17. “Homere en arbitrage,” ibid. 1715; two letters addressed to the marchioness Lambert, on the dispute between madame Dacier and de la Motte, on Homer. 18. “Hist, chronologique da dernier siecle, e.” from the year 1600, ibid. 1715, 12mo. 19. “Introduction a l‘histoire de maisons souveraines de l’Europe,” Paris, 1717, 3 vols. 12mo. 20. “Exercice dela piete,” &c. ib. 1718, often reprinted. 21. “Tableau chronologique de l'histoire universelle en forme de jeu,” Paris, 1718. 22. “Nouveau x elomens d'histoire et de geographic,” Paris, 1718. 22. “Sentimens Chretien sur les principales verites de la religion,” in prose and verse, and with engravings, 1718, 12mo. 24. “Traite* des premieres verites,” Paris, 1724, 12mo. A translation of this, one of father Buffer’s most celebrated works, was published in 1781, under the title of “First Truths, and the origin of our opinions explained; with an inquiry into the sentiments of moral philosophers, relative to our primary notions of things,” 8vo. The author has proved himself to be a metaphysician of considerable abilities, and with many it will be no diminution of his merit, that he starts some principles here, which were afterwards adopted and expanded by Drs. Reid, Oswald, and Beattie, under the denomination of common sense. To prove how much these gentlemen have been indebted to him, appears to be the sole object of this translation, and especially of the preface, which, says one of the literary Journals, “though it is not destitute of shrewdness, yet is so grossly illiberal, that we remember not to have read any thing so offensive to decency and good manners, even in the rancorous productions of some of the late controvertists in metaphysics. The writer hath exceeded Dr. Priestley in the abuse of the Scotch doctors; but with a larger quantity of that author’s virulence, hath unluckily too small a portion of his ingenuity and good sense, to recompense for that shameful affront to candour and civility which is too flagrant in every page, to escape the notice or indignation of any unprejudiced reader.”

, the most eminent French naturalist of the eighteenth century, the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Dijon, was born at Moytbard in Burgundy, September the 7th, 1707. Having manifested an early inclination to the sciences, he gave up the profession of the law, for which his father had designed him. The science which seems to have engaged his earliest attachment was astronomy; with a view to which he applied with such ardour to the study of geometry, that be always carried in his pocket the elements of Euclid. At the age of twenty he travelled into Italy, and in the course of his tour he directed his attention to the phenomena of nature more than to the productions of art: and at this early period he was also ambitious of acquiring the art of writing with ease and elegance. In 1728 he succeeded to the estate of his mother, estimated at about 12,000l. a year; which by rendering his circumstances affluent and independent, enabled him to indulge his taste in those scientific researches and literary pursuits, to which his future life was devoted. Having concluded his travels, at the age of twenty-five, with a journey to England, he afterwards resided partly at Paris, where, in 1739, he was appointed superintend ant of the royal garden and cabinet, and partly on his estate at Montbard. Although he was fond of society, and a complete sensualist, he was indefatigable in his application, and is said to have employed fourteen hours every day in study; he would sometimes return from the suppers at Paris at two in the morning, when he was young, and order a boy to call him at five; and if he lingered in bed, to drag him out on the floor. At this early hour it was his custom, at Montbard, to dress, powder, dictate letters, and regulate his domestic concerns. At six he retired to his study, which was a pavilion called the Tower of St. Louis, about a furlong from the house, at the extremity of the garden, and which was accommodated only with an ordinary wooden desk and an armed chair. Within this was another sanctuary, denominated by prince Henry of Prussia “the Cradle of Natural History,” in which he was accustomed to compose, and into which no one was suffered to intrude. At nine his breakfast, which consisted of two glasses of wine and a bit of bread, was brought to his study; and after breakfast he wrote for about two hours, and then returned to his house. At dinner he indulged himself in all the gaieties and trifles which occurred at table, and in that freedom of conversation, which obliged the ladies, when any of character were his guests, to withdraw. When dinner was finished, he paid little attention either to his family or guests; but having slept about an hour in his room, he took a solitary walk, and then he would either converse with his friends or sit at his desk, examining papers that were submitted to his judgment. This kind of life he passed for fifty years; and to one who. expressed his astonishment at his great reputation, he replied, “Have not I spent fifty years at my clesk?” At nine he retired to bed. In this course he prolonged his life, notwithstanding his excessive indulgences with women, and his excruciating sufferings occasioned by the gravel and stone, which he bore with singular fortitude and patience, to his 81st year; and retained his senses till within a few hours of his dissolution, which happened on the 16th of April, 1788. His body was embalmed, and presented first at St. Medard’s church, and afterwards conveyed to Mont-bard, where he had given orders in his will to be interred in the same vault with his wife. His funeral was attended by a great concourse of academicians, and persons of rank, and literary distinction; and a crowd of at least 20,000 spectators assembled in the streets through which the hearse was to pass. When his body was opened, 57 stones were found in his bladder, some of which were as large as a small bean: and of these 37 were crystallized in a triangular form, weighing altogether two ounces and six drams. All his other parts were perfectly sound; his brain was found to be larger than the ordinary size; and it was the opinion of the gentlemen of the faculty who examined the body, that the operation of the lithotomy might have been performed without the least danger; but to this mode of relief M. Buffon had invincible objections. He left one son, who fell a victim to the atrocities under Robespierre. This son had erected a monument to his father in the gardens of Montbard; which consisted of a simple column, with this inscription:

With respect to personal character, his figure was noble and manly, and his countenance, even in advanced age, and notwithstanding excruciating pains, which deprived him of sleep sometimes for sixteen successive nights, was calm and placid, and exhibited traces of singular intelligence. Vanity, however, which seemed to have been his predominant passion, extended even to his person and to all his exterior ornaments. He was particularly fond of having his hair neatly dressed, and for this purpose he employed the friseur, in old age, twice or thrice a day. To his dress he was peculiarly attentive; and took pleasure in appearing on Sundays before the peasantry of Montbard in laced clothes. At table, as already noticed, he indulged in indelicate and licentious pleasantries, and he was fond of hearing every gossiping tale which his attendants could relate. In his general intercourse with females he was as lax and unguarded as in his conversation. During the life of his wife, he was chargeable with frequent infidelities; and he proceeded to the very unwarrantable extreme of debauching young women, and even of employing means to procure abortion. His confidence, in the latter period of his life, was almost wholly engrossed by a mademoiselle Blesseau, who lived with him for many years. His vanity betrayed itself on a variety of occasions in relation to his literary performances, which were often the subjects of his discourse, and even of his commendation. When he was recommending the perusal of capital works in every, department of taste and science, he added, with singular presumption and self-confidence; “Capital works are scarce; I know but five great geniuses; Newton, Bacon, Leibnitz, Montesquieu, and myself” He was in the habit of reciting to those who visited him whole pages of his compositions, for he seemed to know them almost all by heart; but notwithstanding his vanity, he listened to objections, entered into a discussion of them, and surrendered his own opinion to that of others, when his judgment was convinced. He expressed himself with rapture concerning the pleasures accruing from study; and he declared his preference of the writings to the conversations of learned men, which almost always disappointed him; and therefore he voluntarily secluded himself from society with such, and in company was fond of trifling. He maintained, however, an extensive correspondence with persons of rank and eminence, but his vanity was perpetually recurring, particularly towards the end of his life, when his infidelity suggested to him that immortal renown was the most powerful of death-bed consolations .

His first publication was a translation from the English of “Hales’s Vegetable Statics,” 1735, which was followed in 1740 by a translation from the Latin of “Newton’s Fluxions.” His “Theory of the Earth” was first published in 1744, which was included in his more celebrated work entitled “Natural History, general and particular,” which commenced in 1749, and at its completion in 1767 extended to 15 vols. 4to, or 3 1 vols. 12mo; and supplements, amounting to several more volumes, were afterwards added. In the anatomical part the author was aided by M. D'Aubenton, but in all Ihe other parts Buffon himself displays his learning, genius, and eloquence, and indulges his fancy in exploring and delineating the whole oeconomy of nature. To this work, which includes only the history of quadrupeds, he added, in 1776, a supplementary volume, containing the history of several new animals, and additions to most of those before described. As this, as well as his other works, has been so long before the public, it would be unnecessary to enter in this place on their excellences or defects. All succeeding naturalists have found something to blame and something to praise in his works, with respect to facts, and much indeed with regard to theory.

In 1774 Buffon began to publish a “Supplement” to his Natural History, consisting of the “History of Minerals,” which contains many curious and valuable experiments, as well as much theory, too lax for the rigour of modern science. The concluding volume may be considered as a kind of philosophical romance. It comprehends what the author fancifully denominates the “Epochas of Nature,” or those great changes in the state of the earth which he supposes to have successively resulted from his hypothesis of its original formation out of the sun. Of these epochas he enumerates seven, of which six are supposed to have been previous to the creation of man. In the description of these epochas, as to both their causes and effects, the author has indulged the sport of fancy, and formed a sort of fairy tale, which he has contrived to render amusing and instructive. His works have been collected and published in 35 vols. 4to, and 62 vols. 12mo, and of the whole or parts of them new editions occasionally appear. After he had completed his “History of Minerals,” he had formed a design of composing the “History of Vegetables;” but this project was defeated by his death. Several of the subjects that occur in his “Natural History,” and its supplements, have been discussed in separate memoirs, and may be found in the Memoirs of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, for the years 1737, 1738, 1739, 1741, and 1742.

, one of the German reformers, sometimes, from his native country, called Pomeranus, was born at Julin, or Wollin, near Stetin, in Pomerania, June 24, 1485, and his parents being of some rank in the state were enabled to give him a very liberal education. He was sent early to the university of Grypswald, where he employed his time so assiduously in classical learning, that, at the age of twenty, he taught school at Treptow, and raised that school to a very high degree of reputation. The first impressions he appears to have received of the necessity of a reformation was from a tract of Erasmus: this induced him to look with more attention into the sacred volume, and he proceeded to instruct others by lecturing in his school on various parts of the Old and New Testament. As a preacher he likewise became very popular, and chiefly on account of his learning, in which he exceeded many of his contemporaries. His knowledge extending also to history and antiquities, prince Bogislaus engaged him to write a “History of Pomerania,” furnishing him with money, books, and records, and this was completed in two years, but it was long unpublished, the prince reserving it in manuscript, for the use of himself and his court. It appeared at last in 1727, 4to. He was still, however, attached to the religious principles in which he had been brought up, until in 1521 Luther’s treatise on the Babylonish captivity was published. Even when he began first to read this, he declared the author to be “the most pestilent heretic that ever infested the church of Christ;” but after a more attentive perusal, he candidly recanted this unfavourable opinion, in the following strong terms, “The whole world is blind, and this man alone sees the truth.” It is probable that he had communicated this discovery to his brethren, for we find that the abbot, two aged pastors of the church, and some other of the friars, began to be convinced of the errors of popery about the same time. Bugenhagius now avowed the principles of the reformation sa openly, that he found it necessary to leave Treptow, and being desirous of an interview with Luther, went to Wittemberg, where he was chosen pastor of the reformed ^church. Here he constantly taught the doctrines of the reformation, both by preaching and writing, for thirty-six years. He always opposed the violent and seditious practices of Carlostadt, and lived on the most friendly terms with Luther and Melancthon. At first he thought Luther had been too.violent in his answer to Henry VIII. of England, but he changed his opinion, and declared that the author had treated that monarch with too much lenity.

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

, a celebrated musician, and doctor in that faculty, was descended from a family of that name in Somersetshire, and born about the year 1563. Having discovered an excellent natural genius for music, he was educated in that science, when very young, under Mr. William Blitheman, an eminent master, and organist of the chapel to queen Elizabeth. On the 9th of July 1586 he was admitted bachelor of music at Oxford, having exercised that art fourteen years; and, we are told, he would have proceeded in that university “had he not met with clowns and rigid puritans there, that could not endure church-music.” Some time after, he was created doctor of music at Cambridge; but in what year is uncertain, there being a deficiency in the register. In 1591 he was appointed organist of the Queen’s chapel, in the room of Mr. Blitheman, deceased; and on the 7th of July, the year following, he was incorporated doctor of music at Oxford. He was greatly admired for his fine hand on the organ, as well as for his compositions; several of which have been long since published in musical collections, besides a large number in manuscript, that made a part of the curious and valuable collection of music lately reposited in the library of Dr. Pepusch. Upon the establishment of Gresham-college, Dr. Bull was chosen the first professor of music there, about the beginning of March 1596, through the recommendation of queen Elizabeth; and not being able to speak in Latin, he was permitted to deliver his lectures altogether in English; which practice, so far as appears, has been ever since continued, though the professors of that science have often been men of learning. In 1601, his health being impaired, so that he was unable to perform the duty of his place, he went to travel, having obtained leave to substitute, as his deputy, Mr. Thomas Birde, son pf Mr. William Birde, one of the gentlemen of her majesty’s chapel. He continued abroad above a year. After the death of queen Elizabeth, our professor became chief organist to king James I. and December the 20th, the same year, he resigned his professorship of Gresham-college; but for what reason is not known. In 1613 he again left England, induced, probably, by the declining reputation of church-music, which at this time had not that regard paid to it, tfrat had been formerly. He went directly into the Netherlands, where, about Michaelmas, the same year, he was received into the service of 'the archduke; and Mr. Wood says he died at Hamburgh, or (as others, who remember him, have said) at Lubeck. His picture is yet preserved in the musicschool at Oxford, among other famous professors of that science, which hang round the room.

, bart. a judge of the court of king’s-bench and common-pleas, the son of James Buller, esq. member of parliament for the county of Cornwall, by Jane, his second wife, one of the daughters of Allen earl Bathurst, was born in 1745, and educated at a private school in the west of England. After this he removed ta London, and was admitted of the Inner Temple, Feb. 1763, and became a pupil of sir William Ashurst, who was at that time a very eminent spe'cial-pleader, but whom, it has been thought, he excelled. He was always ranked among the most eminent of the profession in this branch, and his business, as a common -law draughtsman, was immediate, and immense. His practice also at the bar, to which he was called by the honourable society of the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1772, was at first considerable, and in a very short period, became equal to that of almost any of his brethren. Devoting himself entirely to it, he never came into parliament. On Nov. 24, 1777, he was appointed king’s-counsel, and on the 27th of the same month, second judge of the Chester circuit. In Easter term, May 6, 1778, by the patronage of lord Mansfield, who had a high opinion of his talents, he was made a judge of the king’s-bench, in the room of sir Richard Aston. During the indisposition of lord Mansfield, for the last three or four years that he held the office of chief justice, sir Francis Buller executed almost all the business at the sittings ap nisi prius, with great ability, and lord Mansfield left him 2000l. in his will, which, it is said, Mr. justice Buller declined receiving of his lordship, when offered as a compensation for his trouble. On the resignation of lord Mansfield, his expectations were directed to the succession to the high office so long and ably filled by that venerable lawyer, but, for various reasons, sir Lloyd Kenyon was preferred. In 1794, in consequence of his declining state of health, which rendered him unequal to the laborious duties of that court, he was, on the death of judge Gould, removed to the court of common-pleas, but his health still continuing to decay, he was about to have obtained his majesty’s leave to resign, when he died suddenly, at his house in Bedford-square, June 4, 1800, and was interred in a vault in St. Andrew’s burying-ground. He was created a baronet in 1789, and was succeeded in titles and estate by his son sir F. Buller Yarde, which last name he took for an estate. Sir Francis Buller was allowed to be ably and deeply versed in the law, and was certainly more distinguished for substantial than showy talents. His eloquence at the bar was seldom admired, but his addresses from the bench were perspicuous, dignified, and logical. He possessed great quickness of perception, saw the consequences of a fact, and the drift of an argument at its first opening, and could immediately reply to an unforeseen objection, but was on some occasions thought rather hasty. He seldom, however, formed his opinions without due ^consideration, and was particularly tenacious of what he had thus considered.

He wrote, 1. “The Government of Health,” 1558, 8vo. 2. “Regimen against the Pleurisy,” 1562, 8vo. 3. “Bulwark of defence against all sickness, soreness, and wounds, that daily assault mankind,” &c. 1562, folio. This work consists of, first, The book of compounds, with a table of their names, and the apothecaries rules or terms; secondly, The book of the use of sick men and medicines. These are both composed in dialogues between Sickness and Health. Then follows, thirdly, The book of simples, being an Herbal in the form of a dialogue; at the end of which are the wooden cuts of some plants, and of some limbecks or stills; and, fourthly, a dialogue between Soreness and Chirurgery, concerning impostumations and wounds, and their causes and cures. This tract has three wooden cuts in it; one representing a man’s body on the forepart full of sores and swellings; the other, in like manner, behind; the third is also a human figure, in which the veins are seen directed to, and named, which are to be opened in phlebotomy. 4. A dialogue both pleasant and pitiful, wherein is shewed a godly regimen against the plague, with consolations and comfort against death, 1564, 8vo. Some other pieces of a smaller nature are ascribed to Dr. Bulleyn, but of very little consequence.

, a celebrated astronomer and scholar, was born of protestant parents, at Houdun in France, September the 28th, 1605; and having finished his studies in philosophy at Paris, and in civil law at Poictiers, he applied to mathematics, theology, sacred and profane history, and civil law, with such assiduity, that he became eminent in each of these departments, and acquired the reputation of an universal genius. As he had travelled for his improvement into Italy, Germany, Poland, and the Levant, he formed an extensive acquaintance with men of letters, and maintained a correspondence with the most distinguished persons of his time. Although he had been educated a protestant, he changed his profession at the age of 27 years, and became a catholic priest. His life was prolonged to his 89th year; and having retired to the abbey of St. Victor at Paris in 1689, he died there November the 25th, 1694. Besides his pieces concerning ecclesiastical rights, which excited attention, and the history of Ducas, printed at the Louvre, in 1649, in the original Greek, with a Latin version and notes, he was the author of several other works, chiefly mathematical and philosophical. His “Treatise on the Nature of Light” was published in 1638; and his work entitled, “Philolaus, sive de vero Systema Mundi,” or his true system of the world, according to Philolaus, an ancient philosopher and astronomer, in the same year, and republished in 1645, under the title of “Astronomia Philolaica,” grounded upon the hypothesis of the earth’s motion, and the elliptical orbit described by the planet’s motion about a cone. To which he added tables entitled “Tabulæ Philolaicæ:” a work which Riccioli says ought to be attentively read by all students of astronomy. He considered the hypothesis, or approximation of bishop Ward, and found it not to agree with the planet Mars; and shewed in his defence of the Philolaic astronomy against the bishop, that from four observations made by Tycho on the planet Mars, that planet in the first and third quarters of the mean anomaly, was more forward than it ought to be according to Ward’s hypothesis; but in the 2d and 4th quadrant of the same, the planet was not so far advanced as that hypothesis required. He therefore set about a correction of the bishop’s hypothesis, and made it to answer more exactly to the orbits of the planets, which were most eccentric, and introduced what is called by Street, in his “Caroline Tables,” the Variation: for these tables were calculated from this correction of Bullialdus, and exceeded all in exactness that went before. This correction is, in the judgment of Dr. Gregory, a very happy one, if it be not set above its due place; and be accounted no more than a correction of an approximation to the true system: For by this means we are enabled to gather the coequate anomaly a priori and directly from the mean, and the observations are well enough answered at the same time; which, in Mercator’s opinion, no one had effected before. It is remarkable that the ellipsis which he has chosen for a planet’s motion, is such a one as, if cut out of a cone, will have the axis of the cone passing through one of its foci, viz. that next the aphelion.

, one of the reformers, was born, at Bremgarten, “a village near Zurich, in Switzerland, July 18, 1504. At the age of twelve he was sent by his father to Emmeric, to be instructed in grammar-learning, and here he remained three years, during which his father, to make him feel for the distresses of others, and be more frugal and modest in his dress, and temperate in his diet, withdrew that money with which he was wont to supply him; so that Bullinger was forced, according to the custom of those times, to subsist on the alms he got by singing from door to door. While here, he was strongly inclined to enter among the Carthusians, but was dissuaded from it by an elder brother. At fifteen years of age he was sent to Cologn, where he studied logic, and commenced B. A. at sixteen years old. He afterwards betook himself to the study of divinity and canon law, and to the reading of the fathers, and conceived such a dislike to the schooldivines, as in 1520, to write some dialogues against them; and about the same time he began to see the errors of the church of Rome, from which, however, he did not immediately separate. In 1522, he commenced M. A. and returning home, he spent a year in his father’s house, wholly employing himself in his studies. The year after, he was called by the abbot of La Chapelle, a Cistercian abbey near Zurich, to teach in that place, which he did with great reputation for four years, and was very instrumental in causing the reformation of Zuinglius to be received. It is very remarkable that while thus teaching and changing the sentiments of the Cistercians in this place, it does not appear that he was a clergyman in the communion of the see of Rome, nor that he had any share in the monastic observances of the house. Zuinglius, assisted by Oecolampadius and Bucer, had established the reformed doctrines at Zurich in 1523; and in 1527, Bullinger attended the lectures of Zuinglius in that city, for some months, renewed his acquaintance with Greek, and began the study of Hebrew. He preached also publicly by a licence from the synod, and accompanied Zuinglius at the famous disputation held at Bern in 1528. The year following, he was called to be minister of the protestant church, in his native place at Bremgarten, and married a wife, who brought him six sons and five daughters, and died in 1564. He met with great opposition from the papists and anabaptists in his parish, but disputed publicly, and wrote several books against them. The victory gained by the Romish cantons over the protestants in a battle fought 1531, forced him, together with his father, brother, and colleague, to fly to Zurich, where he was chosen pastor in the room of Zninglius, slain in the late battle. He was also employed in several ecclesiastical negociations, with a view to reconcile the Zuiuglians and Lutherans, and to reply to the, harsh censures which were published by Luther against the doctrine of the Swiss churches respecting the sacrament. In 1549, he concurred with Calvin in drawing up a formulary, expressing the conformity of belief which subsisted between the churches of Zurich and Geneva, and intended on the part of Calvin, for obviating any suspicions that he inclined to the opinion of Luther with respect to the sacra, ment. He greatly assisted the English divines who fled into Switzerland from the persecution raised in England by queen Mary, and ably confuted the pope’s bull excommunicating queen Elizabeth. The magistrates of Zurich, by his persuasion, erected a new college in 1538. He also prevailed with them to erect, in a place that had formerly been a nunnery, a new school, in which fifteen youths were trained up under an able master, and supplied with food, raiment, and other necessaries. In 1549, he by his influence hindered the Swiss from renewing their league with Henry It. of France; representing to them, that it was neither just nor lawful for a man to suffer himself to be hired to shed another man’s blood, from whom himself had never received any injury. In 1551 he wrote a book, the purport of which was to shew, that the council of Trent had no other design than to oppress the professors of sound religion; and, therefore, that the cantons should pay no regard to the invitations of the pope, which solicited their sending deputies to that council. In 1561 he commenced a controversy with Brentius concerning the ubiquity of the body of Christ, zealously maintained by Brentius, and as vehemently opposed by Bullinger, which Continued till his death, on the 17th of September, 1575. His funeral oration was pronounced by John Stukius, and his life was written by Josias Simler (who had married one of his daughters), and was published at Zurich in 1575, 4to, with Stukius’s oration, and the poetical tributes of many eminent men of his time. Bullinger' s printed works are very numerous, doctrinal, practical, and controversial, but no collection has ever been made of them. His high reputation in England, during the progress of the reformation, occasioned the following to be either translated into English, or published here: 1.” A hundred Sermons upon the Apocalypse,“1561, 4to. 2.” Bullae papisticae contra reginam Elizabetham, refutatio,“1571, 4to. 3.” The Judgment of Bullinger, declaring it to be lawful for the ministers of the church of England to wear the apparel prescribed by the laws, &c.“Eng. and Lat. 1566, 8vo. 4.” Twenty-six Sermons on Jeremiah,“1583. 5.” An epistle on the Mass, with one of Calvin’s,“1548, 8vo. 6.” A treatise or sermon, concerning Magistrates and Obedience of Subjects, also concerning the affairs of War,“1549, 8vo. 7,” Tragedies of Tyrants, exercised upon the church of God from the birth of Christ unto this present year 1572,“translated by Tho. Twine, 1575, 8vo. 8.” Exhortation to the ministers of God’s Word, &c.“1575, 8vo. 9.” Two Sermons on the end of the World,“1596, 8vo. 10.” Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the same, and answered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurich, reduced into seventeen common places,“1572, 8vo. 11.” Common places of Christian Religion,“1572 and 158J, 8vo. 12.” Bullinger’s Decades, in Latin,“1586. 13.” The Summe of the Four Evangelists,“1582, 8vo. 14.” The Sum or Substance pf St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians,“1538, 8vo. 15.” Three Dialogues between the seditious Libertine or rebel Anabaptist, and the true obedient Christian,“1551, 8vo. 16.” Fifty godly and learned Sermons, divided into five decades, containing the chief and principal points of Christian religion," a very thick 4to vol. 1577, particularly described by Ames. This book was held in high estimation in the reign of queen Elizabeth. In 1586, archbishop Whitgift, in full convocation, procured an order to be made that every clergyman of a certain standing should procure a copy of them, read one of the sermons contained in them every week, and make notes of the principal matters.

, a lawyer of some note during the usurpation, was the second son of Edward Buistrode of Hughley or Hedgley, near Beaconsfield in Buckinghamshire, and was born in 1588. 'In 1603 he became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, but left it without a degree, and removed to the Inner Temple, London, where he studied law, under the patronage of sir James Whitlock, whose learning Bulstrode celebrates in high terms. After being called to the bar, he was in 8 Car. I. Lent-reader, and taking part with the presbyterians in the rebellion, was promoted to be one of the justices of North Wales in 1649, by the interest of his nephew the celebrated Bulstrocle Whitlock. He was also an itinerant justice, particularly at Warwick in 1653, in which county he had an estate at Astley. He died at the Inner Temple, of which he was a bencher, in April 1659, and was buried in the Temple church. He published “A Golden Chain, or Miscellany of divers sentences of the sacred scriptures, and of other authors, &c.” London, 1657, 8vo, but what he is best known by is his “Reports of Cases in B. R. regn. Jac. 1. & Car. I.” which were first published in 1657, 1658, and 1659, in three parts, fol. Mr. Bridgman remarks that in 2 Bulstrode, 1658, there is a chasm in the paging from 99 to 109. In 1688 a second edition was published, in which there is also a chasm from 104 to 114; yet there are the same number of pages in both editions, and the book is perfect. Wood mentions an edition of 1691. Biilstrode is said to have adopted the method of Plowden in his reports, than which there cannot be a stronger recommendation.

, eldest son of the preceding, was educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, whence he went to London, and after studying law became a barrister; but being of very different principles from his father, joined the forces of his unhappy sovereign Charles I. and was quarter-master general until the forces were disbanded at Truro. At the restoration, he was sent to reside as agent at Brussels, and on his return in 1675, Charles II. knighted and made him resident, and James II. made him his envoy. Disapproving of the revolution, he adhered to the abdicated monarch, and accompanied him to St. Germains, where he remained twenty-two years. We know not if this be meant as the period of his life, but he is said to have died aged 101, which brings him to the year 1782, contrary to all probability, or even fact, for his great age at the time of his death is mentioned in a panegyric upon him, inserted in 1715, in the ninth volume, or what is called the spurious volume of the Spectator, and if he died much before 1715, he could not have attained the vast age attributed to him, consistently with the dates of his father’s age.

, of the seventeenth century, was author of several books of the language of the hand, of physiognomy, and of instructions to the deaf and dumb, intended, as he expresses it, “to bring those who are so born to hear the sound of words with their eyes, and thence to learn to speak with their tongues.” This is explained in his “Chirologia, or the natural Language of the Hand, &c.” 1644, 8vo. He was also, author of “Pathomyotomia,” or a dissection of the significative muscles of the affections of the mind, 1649, 12mo. The most curious of his works is his “Anthropo-metamorphosis; Man transformed, or the artificial changeling;” 1653, 4to, in which he shews what a strange variety of shapes and dresses mankind have appeared in, in the different ages and nations of the world. At the end bf the first edition of this book in 12mo is a catalogue of the author’s works in print and ms. What he calls the language of the hand, or the art of speaking by the fingers, is yet known in every boardingichool and nursery, where, however, the more natural substitute is very soon learned.

, descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire, was born at a house called the Vache, near Chalfont St. Giles’s, in Buckinghamshire, in 1540, and when sixteen years old was sent to Oxford, and having taken his bachelor’s degree, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen college. He was at this time distinguished for his knowledge of logic and philosophy, and soon after went to Staple’s Inn, and then to Gray’s Inn, where he spent about two years in the study of the law, which profession his father wished him to follow. His own inclination, however, was for the study of divinity, which displeased his father so much, that, to use his own words, he “cast him off,” although a man of piety himself, and one that had fled for his religion in queen Mary’s days. He returned accordingly to Oxford, and took his master’s degree in 1564. In, the year following he was elected fellow of Merton college, an irregular act of the society, which, however, Wood says was absolutely necessary, as there was no person then in Merton college able to preach any public sermon in the college turn; and not only there, but throughout the university at large, there was a great scarcity of theologists. In 1570 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and about the same time became chaplain to 'archbishop Grindall, who gave him a prebend in that church, and the rectory of Bolton-Percy about six miles distant. This rectory he held twenty-five years, and then resigned it, but retained his prebend. In 1570 we also find that he was subdean of York, which he resigned in 1579. In 1585 he was collated, being then B. D. to a prebend in Carlisle, and had likewise, although we know not at what period, a prebend in St. Paul’s. It appears that he preached and catechised very frequently, both in Oxford and in many other places, travelling over a considerable part of the kingdom, and preaching wherever there appeared a want of clergy. This zeal, his being a Calvinist, and his preaching extempore, brought him under the imputation of being too forward and meddling, against which he vindicated himself in “A Defence of his labours in the work of the Ministry,” written Jan. 20, 1602, but circulated only in manuscript. He died at Cawood in Yorkshire, Feb. 26 (on his monument, but 27 in archbishop Matthews’s ms diary) 1617, and was buried in York cathedral. He published, 1. “The Sum of Christian Religion,” Lond. 1576, 8vo. 2. “Abridgment of Calvin’s Institutions,” from May’s translation, ibid. 1580, 8vo. 3. “Sceptre of Judah,” &c. ibid. 1584, 8vo. 4. “The Coronation of King David, &c.” 4to, 1588. 5. Three or four controversial pamphlets with Parsons, the Jesuit. 6. “The Corner Stone, or a form of teaching Jesus Christ out of the Scriptures,” ibid. 1611, fol.

, author of the justly-admired allegory of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” was born at Elstow, near Bedford, 1628. His parents, though very mean, took care to give him that learning which was suitable to their condition, bringing him up to read and write, both which he quickly forgot, abandoning himself to all manner of wickedness, but not without frequent checks of conscience. One day being at play with his companions (the writer of his life tells us), a voice suddenly darted from heaven into his soul, saying, “Wilt thou leave thy sins and go to heaven, or have thy sins and go to hell!” This put him into such a consternation, that he immediately left his sport; and looking up to heaven, thought he saw the Lord Jesus looking down upon him, as one highly displeased with him, and threatening him with some grievous punishment for his ungodly practices. At another time, whilst he was uttering many oaths, he was severely reproved by a woman, who was herself a notorious sinner: she told him he was the ugliest fellow for swearing that ever she heard in all her life, and that he was able to spoil all the youth of the town, if they came but into his company. This reproof coming from a woman, whom he knew to be very wicked, filled him with secret shame; and made him, from that time, very much refrain from it. His father brought him up to his own business, which was that of a tinker. Being a soldier in the parliament army, at the siege of Leicester, in 1645, he was drawn out to stand sentinel; but another soldier of his company desired to take his place, to which he agreed, and thus escaped being shot by a musket-ball, which took off his comrade. About 1655 he was admitted a member of a baptist congregation at Bedford, and soon after was chosen their preacher. In 1660, being convicted at the sessions of holding unlawful assemblies and conventicles, he was sentenced to perpetual banishment, and in the mean time committed to gaol, from which he was discharged, after a confinement of twelve years and an half, by the compassionate interposition of Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln. During his imprisonment, his own hand ministered to his necessities, making many an hundred gross of long-tagged thread laces, a trade which he had learned since his confinement. At this time he also wrote many of his tracts, particularly the “Pilgrim’s Progress.” Afterwards, being at liberty, he travelled into several parts of England, to visit and confirm the brethren, which procured him the epithet of Bishop Bunyan. When the declaration of James II. for liberty of conscience was published, he, by the contributions of his followers, built a meeting-house in Bedford, and preached constantly to a numerous audience. He died in London of a fever, 1688, aged sixty. He had by his wife four children, one of whom, named Mary, was blind. This daughter, he said, lay nearer his heart whilst he was in prison, than all the rest; and that the thought of her enduring hardship would be sometimes almost ready to break his heart, but that God greatly supported him by these two texts of scripture, “Leave the fatherless children, I will preserve them alive; and let the widows trust in. me. The Lord said, Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil.” Jer. xlix. 11. and chap. xv. 11. His works are collected in two volumes in folio, printed at London in 1736-7, and reprinted in 1760, and often since in various forms. The continuator of his life, in the second of those volumes, tells us, that “he appeared in countenance to be of a stern and rough temper, but in his conversation mild and affable; not given to loquacity, or much discourse in company, unless some urgent occasion required it; observing never to boast of himself or his parts, but rather seem low in his own eyes, and submit himself to the judgment o others; abhorring lying and swearing; being just in all that lay in his power to his word; not seeking to revenge injuries, loving to reconcile differences, and making friendship with all. He had a sharp quick eye; accompanied with an excellent discerning of persons, being of good judgment and quick wit. As for his person, he was tall of stature, strong boned, though not corpulent: somewhat of a ruddy face, with sparkling eyes, wearing, his hair oil his upper lip, after the old British fashion; his hair reddish, but in his latter days time had sprinkled it with gray; his nose well-set, but not declining or bending, and his mouth moderately large; his forehead something high, and his habit always plain and modest.”

Of all his works, the “Pilgrim’s Progress” has attained the greatest popularity, and greater than any other human composition. It w.as remarked by the learned Dr. Samuel Johnson, that the Pilgrim’s Progress has had the best evidence of its merit, namely, the general and continued Approbation of mankind. No work of human composition can certainly be compared with it in universality and extent of popularity. Besides having been translated into several European languages, scarce a year has passed, since its first appearance, in which the public has not called for a new edition. For many years, however, this work was confined to the serious part of the world for whom it was intended, and was seldom noticed by others but as the production of an illiterate man, calculated only to please illiterate people: an objection which, if it had been just, could not be said to militate very strongly against its merit. However necessary learning may be to guard the outworks of Christianity against the attacks of infidels, pure and undefiled religion requires so little literature to inculcate it in the case of others, or to receive it ourselves, that we find it had no hand in the first promulgation of the gospel, nor much in the various means that have been taken to perpetuate it. But Banyan’s want of education is the highest praise that can be given. Such a defect exhibits the originality of his genius in the strongest light: and since more attention has been paid by men of critical taste to his “Pilgrim’s Progress,” he has been admitted into a higher rank among English writers, and it seems universally acknowledged that nothing was wanting to advance him yet higher but the advantages of education, or of an intimacy with the best writers in his own language.

Mr. Granger’s opinion of the probable advancement he might have made in poetry, has been opposed by the late Dr. Kippis in the Biographia Britaunica. but in a manner which evinces that the learned doctor was a very incompetent judge. He says Bunyan “had the invention, but not the other natural qualifications which are necessary to constitute a great poet.” Now, we believe it is the universal opinion of all critics, since criticism was known, that invention is the first qualification of a poet, and the only one which can be called natural, all others depending upon the state of refinement and education in the age the poet happens to live. Hence it is that our early poets are in general so exceedingly deficient in the graces of harmony, and that many of our modern poets have little else. With respect to Patrick’s Pilgrim, mentioned above, it is necessary to observe that (besides its being doubtful which was first published, Bunyan’s or Patrick’s) the question is not, whether Bunyan might not have been preceded by authors who have attempted something like the Pilgrim’s Progress: far less is it necessary to inquire, whether he be entitled to the merit of being the first who endeavoured to convey religious instruction in allegory. It is sufficient praise that when his work appeared, all others which resembled it, or seemed to resemble it, became forgotten; and the palm of the highest merit was assigned to him by universal consent. It was, therefore, to little purpose that a small volume was lately published, entitled “The Isle of Man, or the legal proceedings in Man-shire against Sin,” by the rev. R. Bernard, from which Bunyan was “supposed” to have taken the idea of his Pilgrim. Bunyan’s work so far transcends that and every similar attempt, that he would have been very much to blame (allowing, what cannot be proved, that he took the idea from Bernard) had he not adopted a plan which he was qualified to execute with such superior ability.

Of late years many imitations have been attempted, and many rivals have appeared to Bunyan, but while candour obliges us to allow, in some instances, the goodness of the intention, and that they are written in a style which promises to be useful, it is at the same time justice to our author to say, that they fall very short of his performance in almost every requisite: in simplicity, in the preservation of the allegorical characters, and in that regular and uniform progress which conducts the hero through every scene, and renders every scene and every episode subservient to the main purpose. How well this has been executed, the constant and increasing popularity of the “Pilgrim’s Progress” is sufficient to demonstrate. What pleases all, and pleases long, must have extraordinary merit: and that there is a peculiar fascination about the Pilgrim has never been denied either by those who do not read to be instructed, or “who are averse to the author’s religious opinions. Of this latter, we have a striking instance in dean Swift. In his celebrated Letter to a yeung Clergyman he says,” I have been better entertained, and more informed, by a few pages in the Pilgrim’s Progress, than by a long discourse upon the will, and the intellect, and simple and complex ideas." It must be allowed to be no small merit to have fixed the attention of such a man as Swift, and to have conciliated the esteem of men of critical taste, on account of the powers of invention, and the exercise of a rich and fertile imagination.

, a most illustrious painter, sculptor, and architect, was born in the castle of Gaprese, in Tuscany, March 6, 1474, and descended from the noble family of the counts of Canossa. At the time of his birth, his father, Lodovico di Leonardo Buonarroti Sinione, was podesta, or governor of Caprese and Chiusi, and as he had not risen above the superstitious belief in astrological predictions, so common in that age, he was probably pleased to hear that “his chikl would be a very extraordinary genius.” His biographers indeed go so far as to tell us of a prediction, that he would excel in painting, sculpture, and architecture. When of a proper age, Michel Angelo was sent to a grammar-school at Florence, where, whatever progress he might make in his books, he contracted a fondness for drawing, which at first alarmed the pride of his family, but his father at length perceiving that it was hopeless to give his mind any other direction, placed him under Domenico Ghirlanda‘io, the most eminent painter at that time in Florence, and one of the most celebrated in Italy. He was accordingly articled for three years to Ghirlanda’io, from April 1488, but is said to have reaped no benefit from his instructions, as his master soon became jealous of his talents. He rapidly, however, surpassed his contemporary students, by the force of his genius, and his study of nature; and adopted a style of drawing and design more bold and daring than Ghirlandaio had been accustomed to see practised in his school; and, from an anecdote Vasari tells, it would seem Michel Angelo soon felt himself even superior to his master. One of the pupils copying a female portrait from a drawing by Ghirlandu'io, he took a pen and made a strong outline round it on the same paper, to shew him its defects; and the superior style of the contour was as much admired as the act was considered confident and presumptuous. His great facility in copying with accuracy whatever objects were before him sometimes forced a compliment even from Ghirlandaio himself.

When about this time Lorenzo de Medici established a school for the advancement of sculpture, in a garden in Florence, under the superintendence of Bertoldo, Lorenzo requested Ghirlandaio to permit any of his scholars to study there, who were desirous of drawing from the antique, and from that time the Medici garden became the favourite school of Michel Angelo. No sooner had he entered upon his studies here, than seeing a student modelling some figures in clay, he felt an emulation to do the same; und Lorenzo, who frequently visited the gardens, observing his progress, encouraged him with expressions of ap^ probation. He was, not long after, desirous to try his skill in marble, and being particularly interested in a mutilated old head, or rather a mask representing a laughingFaun, he chose it for his original. Although this was hig first essay in sculpture, he finished it in a few days, supplying what was imperfect in the original, and making some other additions. Lorenzo visiting his garden as usual, found Michel Angelo polishing his mask, and thought it an extraordinary work for so young an artist; yet jestingly remarked, “You have restored to the old Faun all his teeth, but don't you know that a man of such an age has generally some wanting?” Upon this observation, the moment Lorenzo departed, Michel Angelo broke a tooth from the upper jaw, and drilled a hole in the gum to represent its having fallen out.

On the promotion of Pietro Soderini, to the rank of perpetual gonfaloniere, or chief magistrate of Florence, Michel Angelo was advised to return thither, as Soderini had the reputation of an encourages of genius, and he introduced himself to his patronage by a colossal statue of David, a figure in bronze, name unknown, and a groupe of David and Goliath. At the same time, that he might not entirely neglect the practice of painting, he painted a holy family for one Angelo Dorii, concerning which Vasari relates the following anecdote. When the picture was finished, it was sent home with a note requesting the payment of seventy ducats: Angelo Doni did not expect such a charge, and told the messenger he would give forty, which he thought sufficient: Michel Angelo immediately sent back the servant, and demanded his picture, or an hundred ducats: Angelo Doni, not liking to part with it, returned the messenger, agreeing to pay the original sum, but Michel Angelo, indignant at being haggled with, then doubled his first demand, and Angelo Doni, still wishing to possess the picture, acceded, rather than try any further experiment to abate his price.

Near to the Sistine chapel, in the Vatican, Antonio de San Gallo built another by the order of Paul III. which is called after its founder the Paoline chapel, and the pope being solicitous to render it more honourable to his name, desired Michel Angelo would paint the walls in fresco. Although he now began to feel he was an old man, he undertook the commission, and on the sides opposite to each other painted two large pictures, representing the martyrdom of St. Peter, and the conversion of St. Paul. These pictures, he said, cost him great fatigue, and in their progress declared himself sorry to find fresco painting was not an employment for his years; he therefore petitioned his holiness that Perino del Vaga might finish the ceiling from his designs, which was to have been decorated with painting and stucco ornaments; but this part of the work was not afterwards carried into execution. The pope often consulted Michel Angelo as an architect, although Antonio de San Gallo was the architect df St. Peter’s church, and promoted to that situation by his interest when cardinal Farnese, and now employed in his private concerns. The Farnese palace in Rome was designed by San Gallo, and the building advanced by him during his life; yet Michel Angelo constructed the bold projecting cornice that surrounds the top, in conjunction with him, at the express desire of the pope. He also consulted Michel Angelo in fortifying the Borgo, and made designs for that purpose; but the discussion of this subject proved the cause of some enmity between these two rivals in the pope’s esteem. In 1546 San Gallo died, and Michel Angelo was called upon to fill his situation as architect of St. Peter’s: he at first declined that honour, but his holiness laid his commands upon him, which admitted neither of apology nor excuse; however he accepted the appointment upon those conditions, that he would receive no salary, and that it should be so expressed in the patent, as he undertook the office purely from devotional feelings; and that, as hitherto the various persons employed in all the subordinate situations had only considered their own interest to the extreme prejudice of the undertaking, he should be empowered to discharge them, and appoint others in their sjead; and lastly, that he should be permitted to make whatever alterations he chose in San Gallo’s design, or entirely supply its place with what he might consider more simple, or in a better style. To these conditions his holiness acceded, and the patent was made out accordingly: vi

San Gallo’s model being more conformable to the principles of Saracenic than of Grecian or Roman architecture in the multiplicity and division of its parts, Michel Angelo made an original design upon a reduced scale, on the plan of a Greek cross, which met with the pope’s approbation; for, although the dimensions were less, the form was more grand than that of San Gallo’s model. Having commenced his labours on this edifice, it advanced with considerable activity, and before the end of the pontificate of Paul III. began to assume its general form and character. This, however, was only a part of his extensive engagements. He was commissioned to carry on the building of the Farnese paictfee, left unfinished by the death of San Gallo; and employed to build a palace on the Capitoline-hill for the senator of Rome, two galleries for the reception of sculpture and pictures, and also to ornament this celebrated site with antique statues and relics of antiquity, from time to time dug up and discovered in Rome and its environs.

As in proceeding with St. Peter’s, he had, agreeably to his patent, chosen his own workmen, and dismissed others, the latter seldom failed of exerting such malice against him as they could display with impunity; and being exasperated by disappointments, they endeavoured to represent him as an unworthy successor of San Gallo, and upon the death of Paul III. an effort was mad^ to remove him from his situation, but Julius III. who succeeded to the pontificate, was hot less favourably disposed towards him than his predecessor; however, they presented a memorial, petitioning the pope to hold a committee of architects in St. Peter’s at Rome, to convince his holiness that their accusations and complaints were not unfounded. At the head of this party was cardinal Salviati, nephew to Leo X. and cardinal Marcello Cervino, who was afterwards pope by the title of Marcellus II. Julius agreed to the investigation, and the parties appeared in his presence. The complainants stated, that the church wanted light, and the architects had previously furnished the two cardinals with a particular example to prove the basis of the general position, which was, that he had walled up a. recess for three chapels, and made only three insufficient windows; upon which the pope asked Michel Angelo. to give his reasons for having done so; he replied, “I should wish first to hear the deputies.” Cardinal Marcello immediately said for himself and cardinal Salviati, “We ourselves are the deputies.” Then said Michel Angelo, “In the part of the church alluded to, over those windows are to be placed three others.” “You never said that before,” replied the cardinal; to which he answered with some warmth: “1 am not, neither will I ever be obliged to tell your eminence, or any one else, what I ought or am disposed to do; it is your office to see that the money be provided, to take care of the thieves, and to leave the building of St. Peter’s to me.” Turning to the pope, “Holy father, you see what I gain; if these machinations to which I am exposed are not for my spiritual welfare, I lose both my labour and my time.” The pope replied, putting his hands upon his shoulders, “Do not doubt, your gain is Dpw, and will be hereafter;” and at the same time gave him assurance of his confidence and esteem. Julius prosecuted no work in architecture or sculpture without consulting him. What was done in the Vatican, or in his villa on the Flaminian way, was with Michel Angelo’s advice and superintendance. He was employed also to rebuild a bridge across the Tiber, but as his enemies artfully pretended to commiserate his advanced age, he so far fell into this new snare as to leave the bridge to be completed by an inferior artist, and in five years it was washed away by a flood, as Michel Angelo had prophesied. In 1555 his friend and patron pope Julius died, and perhaps it would have been happier for Michel Angelo if they had ended their days together, for he was now eighty-one years old, and the remainder of his life was interrupted by the caprices of four successive popes, and the intrigues under their pontificates. Under all these vexations, however, he went on by degrees with his great undertaking, and furnished designs for various inferior works, but his enemies were still restless. He now sawthat his greatest crime was that of having lived too long; and being thoroughly disgusted with the cabals, he was solicitous to resign, that his last days might not be tormented by the unprincipled exertions of a worthless faction. That he did not complain from the mere peevishness of age will appear from a statement of the last effort of his enemie.s, the most formidable of whom were the directors of the building. Their object was to make Nanni Biggio the chief architect, which they carefully concealed, and the bishop of Ferratino, who was a principal director, began the contrivance by recommending to Michel Angelo not to attend to the fatigue of his duty, owing to his advanced age, but to nominate whomever he chose to supply his place. By this contrivance Michel Angelo willingly yielded to so courteous a proposition, and appointed Daiiiello da Volterra. As soon as this was effected, it was made the basis of accusation against him, for incapacity, which left the directors the power of choosing a successor, and they immediately superseded da Volterra, by appointing Biggio in his stead. This was so palpable a trick, go untrue in principle, and so injurious in its tendency, that in justice to himself, he thought it necessary to represent it to the pope, at the same time requesting that it might be understood there was nothing he more solicited than his dismission. His holiness took up the discussion with interest, and begged he would not recede until he Vol. VII. X had made proper inquiry, and a day was immediately appointed for the directors to meet him. They only stated in general terms, that Michel Angelo was ruining the building, and that the measures they had taken were essentially necessar}*, but the pope previously sent Signor Gabrio Serbelloni to examine minutely into the affair, who was a man well qualified for that purpose. Upon this occasion he gave his testimony so circumstantially, that the whole scheme was shown in one view to originate in falsehood, and to have been fostered by malignity. Biggio was dismissed and reprimanded, and the directors apologized, acknowledging they had been misinformed, but Michel Angelo required no apology; all he desired was, that the pope should know the truth; and he would have now resigned, had not his holiness prevailed upon him to hold his situation, and made a new arrangement, that his designs might not only be strictly executed as long as he lived, but adhered to after his death.

The merits of Michel Angelo, as an artist, have been so frequently the object of discussion, that it would be impossible to examine or analyse the various opinions thsrt have been published, without extending this article to an immoderate length. Referring, therefore, to our authorities, and especially to Mr. Duppa’s elaborate “Life of Michel Angelo,” which we have followed in the preceding sketch, we shall present the following outline from Mr. Fuseli, and conclude with some interesting circumstances in the personal history of this great artist: “Sublimity of conception,” says Mr. Fuseli, “grandeur of form, and breadth of manner, are the elements of Michel Angelo’s style; by these principles he selected or rejected the objects of imitation. As painter, as sculptor, as architect, he attempted, and above any other man succeeded, to unite magnificence of plan, and endless variety of subordinate parts, with the utmost simplicity and breadth. His line is uniformly grand. Character and beauty were admitted only as far as they could be made subservient to grandeur. The child, the female, meanness, deformity, were by him indiscriminately stamped with grandeur. A beggar rose from his hand the patriarch of poverty; the hump of Jiis dwarf is impressed with dignity; his women are moulds of generation; his infants teem with the man; his men are a race of giants. This is the” Terribil Via“hinted at by Agostino Carracci. To give the most perfect ease to the most perplexing difficulty, was the exclusive power of Michel Angelo. He is the inventor of epic painting in the sublime compartments of the Sistine chapel. He has personified motion in the groupes of the Cartoon of Pisa; embodied sentiment on the monuments of St. Lorenzo; unravelled the features of meditation in his Prophets and Sibyls; and, in the Last Judgment, with every attitude that varies the human body, traced the mastertrait of every passion that sways the human heart. Neither as painter or sculptor he ever submitted to copy an individual, Julio II. only excepted, and in him he represented the reigning passion rather than the man. In painting he contented himself with a negative colour, and, as the painter of mankind, rejected all meretricious ornament. The fabric of St. Peter’s, scattered into infinity of jarring parts by his predecessors, he concentrated, suspended the cupola, and to the most complex gave the air of the most simple of edifices. Such, take him all in all, was Michel Angelo, the salt of art; sometimes he, no doubt, had moments, and perhaps periods of dereliction, deviated into manner, or perplexed the grandeur of his forms with futile and ostentatious anatomy; both met with herds of copyists, and it has been his fate to have been and still to be censured for their folly.”

Michel Angelo was never married, and whether he was at any time on the point of being so, is not known: that he was a man of domestic habits is certain, and he possessed ardent and affectionate feelings. Although love is the principal subject which pervades his poetry, and Petrarch the sole object of his imitation, no mention is made of his Laura, his Stella, or Eliza: her name is concealed if she had any; but the prevalency in his day of consolidating all personal feeling into Platonism, and a species of unintelligible metaphysics, may probably have given birth to most of his sonnets.

In his professional labours he continued to study to the end of his life, but never was satisfied with any thing he did: when he saw any imperfection that might have been avoided, he easily became disgusted, rather preferring to commence his undertaking entirely anew than attempt an emendation. With this operating principle in his mind he completed few works in sculpture. Lomazzo tells an anecdote, that cardinal Farnese one day found Michel Angelo, when an old man, walking alone in the Colosseum, and expressed his surprize at rinding him solitary amidst the ruins; to which he replied, “I yet go to school that I may continue to learn something.” Whether the anecdote be correctly true or not, it is evident he entertained this feeling, for there is still remaining a design by him, of an old man with a long beard in a child’s go-cart, and an hour-glass before him; emblematical of the last stage of life, and on a scroll over his head, Anchora Inparo, denoting that no state of bodily decay or approximation to death was incompatible with intellectual improvement. An outline of this, as well as of many of the principal works of Michel Angelo, is given in his Life by Mr. Duppa, who concludes the best and most ample account of any artist in our language, with remarking that although Michel Angelo’s high-minded philosophy made him often regardless of rank and dignity, and his knowledge of human nature in one view concentrated the plausible motives and the inconsistent professions of men, yet he was not morose in his disposition, nor cynical in his habits. Those who knew him well esteemed him most, and those who were worthy of his friendship knew how to value it. The worthless flatterers of powerful ignorance, and the cunning, who at all times trust to the pervading influence of folly, feared and hated him. He was impetuous in the highest degree when he felt the slightest attack upon his integrity, and hasty in his decisions, which gave him an air of irascibility; but to all who were in need of assistance from his fortune or his talents he exercised a princely liberality; and to those of honourable worth, however low their station, he was kind and benevolent, he sympathized with their distresses, nor ever refused assistance to lessen the weight of oppression. In the catholic faith of his ancestors he was a sincere Christian, and enjoyed its beneficent influence; he was not theoretically one man, and practically another; nor was his piety ever subservient to caprice or personal convenience; his religion was not as a staff he leaned upon, but the prop by which he was supported.

, born at Paris in 1665, was the son of a surgeon, who, not being very prosperous in his practice, had recourse for his support to music; and first performed, professionally, at Lyons; and afterwards went to Paris and played on the harp to Louis XIV. who was much pleased with his performance. His son, Peter John, was so sickly and feeble during infancy, that he passed almost his whole youth in amusing himself on the spinet, and in the study of music; but he had so strong a passion for this instrument, that he had scarcely arrived at his ninth year when he was heard at court, accompanied by his father on the harp. Two years after, the king heard him again, when he performed a duet with his father on the harp, and at eleven years of age he assisted him in giving lessons to his scholars. His taste for music, however, did not extinguish his passion for other sciences. He taught himself Latin and Greek with little assistance from others; and the study of these languages inclined him to medical inquiries. At eighteen years old he attended, for the first time, the public schools, went through a course of philosophy, and took lessons in the schools of medicine. And even during this time he learned Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Italian, Spanish, German, and English, sufficiently to understand them in books. He was at length admitted of the faculty at Paris, and practised with reputation during thirty-three years. In 1705, he was received into the academy of belleslettres, and in 1706 he had a considerable share in the publication of the “Journal des Scavans,” at which he laboured more than thirty years. In 1718, he had an appointment in the royal library. The public are obliged to the abbe Fraguier for the learned dissertation which M. Burette produced on the music of the ancients. This learned abbe, supposing that the Greeks applied the same sense to the word harmony, as is given to it by the moderns, and that, consequently, they knew counterpoint, or music in parts, Burette proved that he was mistaken, and that the ancients meant no more by the term harmony, than we do by proportion. He demonstrated, that the Greeks practised no other simultaneous consonances than unisons and octaves. This learned and indefatigable inquirer after the music of the ancient Greeks, was seized, in 1745, with a paralytic affection, and after languishing during during the whole year 1746, he died in 1747, at eighty-two. His library, consisting of 15,000 volumes, was composed of the most curious and well-chosen books that could be procured in all languages. He has supplied the Memoires of the Acad. des inscrip. et belles-lettres with dissertations on the dancing of the ancients, on play or gaming, on single combat, and on horse-racing, and enriched these memoirs with a translation of Plutarch’s treatise on music, with notes and remarks. He must be allowed, oil every subject concerning ancient music, the merit of great diligence and learning; but he does not seem always to have been possessed of an equal share of sagacity, or with courage sufficient to confess himself unable to explain inexplicable passages in his author. He never sees a difficulty; he explains all. Hence, amidst great erudition, and knowledge of antiquity, there are a thousand unintelligible explanations in his notes upon Phrtarch.

, a German poet of considerable celebrity in his own country, and known in this by several translations of one of his terrific tales, was born in 1748, at Wolmerswende, in the principality of Halberstadt. His father was a Lutheran minister, and appears to have given him a pious domestic education; but to school or university studies young Burger had an insuperable aversion, and much of his life was consumed in idleness and dissipation, varied by some occasional starts of industry, which produced his poetical miscellanies, principally ballads, that soon became very popular from the simplicity of the composition. In the choice of his subjects, likewise, which were legendary tales and traditions, wild, terrific, and grossly improbable, he had the felicity to hit the taste of his countrymen. His attention was also directed to Shakspeare and our old English ballads, and he translated many of the latter into German with considerable effect. His chief employment, or that from which he derived most emolument, was in writing for the German Almanack of the Muses, and afterwards the German Musaeum. In 1787 he lectured on the critical philosophy of Kant, and in 1789 was appointed professor of belles-lettres in the university of Gottingen. He married three wives, the second the sister of the first, and the third a lady who courted him in poetry, but from whom, after three years cohabitation, he obtained a divorce. Her misconduct is said to have contributed to shorten his days. He died in June 1794. His works were collected and published by Reinhard, in 1798—99, 4 vols. 8vo, with a life, in which there is little of personal history that can be read with pleasure. Immorality seems to have accompanied him the greater part of his course, but he was undoubtedly a man of genius, although seldom under the controul of judgment. His celebrated ballad of “Leonora” was translated into English in 1796, by five or six different poets, and for some time pleased by its wild and extravagant horrors; and in 1798, his " Wild Huntsman’s Chase' 7 appeared hi an English dress; but Burger’s style has obtained, perhaps, more imitators than admirers, among the former of whom may be ranked some caricaturists.

, a Nonconformist clergyman, was the son of a schoolmaster at Watford, in Hertfordshire^ and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge. He afterwards became a fellow of Emanuel college, and took his master’s degree. He obtained the living of SuttonColfield, in Warwickshire, in 1635, by the death of the rev. John Burgess, but no relation. He was afterwards one of the assembly of divines, and although inclined to conformity before the rebellion, acquired such opinions on the subject as induced him to submit to ejectment aftet the restoration. Dr. Racket, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, who had a high opinion of his learning, and said he was fit for a professor’s chair in the university, endeavoured by every argument to retain him in the church, but in vain, although Mr. Burgess went to the parish church of Tamworth, where he spent the remainder of his days, and lived in cordiality with the incumbent. At what time he died, is not mentioned. The celebrated Dr. John Wallis was his pupil, and says he was “a pious, learned, and able scholar, a good disputant, a good tutor, an eminent preacher, and a sound and orthodox divine.” (See Hearne’s Langtoft, publisher’s appendix to his preface, p. cxlviii). His principal works are: 1. “Spiritual Refinings; or a Treatise of Grace and Assurance,” 1658, foJ. 2. Sermons on John xvii.“fol. 1656. 3.” The Doctrine of Original Sin,“1659, fol. 4.” Commentary on the 1. and 2. of Corinthians," 1661, 2 vols. fol. with some smaller tracts, and several sermons before the long parliament.

, D. D. another Nonconformist, but of a very different stamp, was descended from the Burgesses of Batcomb, in Somersetshire. In 1611 he was entered at Oxford, but in what college is uncertain. He translated himself, however, to Wadham, and afterwards to Lincoln. When he took orders, he had the rectory of St. Magnus, London-bridge, the date of which promotion is not mentioned, and the living of Watford, in Hertfordshire, in 1618. In the beginning of Charles the First’s reign he became one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 took both degrees in divinity, at which time Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor, told him he was a sorry disputant, but might make a good preacher. At this time and for several years after he was a zealous friend to the church of England, but either from being disappointed in certain expected preferments, as Wood insinuates, or from being vexed, as Calamy says, for opposing archbishop Laud’s party, he became a powerful advocate for the principles which soon overthrew church and state; and particularly directed his attacks against the revenues of deans and chapters, and bishops. He procured, however, that St. Paul’s cathedral might be opened, and himself appointed lecturer there, with a salary of 400l. and the dean’s house to reside in. Enriched by this and similar advantages, he not only purchased church lands, but even wrote a book in vindication of such purchases. On the restoration, however, he lost all this plunder, to the amount of many thousand pounds, and died in extreme poverty, June 9, 1665. Calamy, his continuator, and Mr. Neal, find great difficulty in refuting Wood’s account of this Dr. Burgess. Their strongest plea is, that he was against the king’s murder, and drew up the paper signed by the London ministers to prevent that act. At his death, although he had been obliged from poverty to dispose of his library, he left some curious editions of the Prayer-book to the university of Oxford. He wrote some devotional tracts, enumerated by Calamy, and several of the controversial kind.

He continued as a pastor over this congregation for thirty years, during which a new place of worship was built by them in Carey-street, and when much injured, or as it is called, gutted, by Dr. Sacheverell’s mob, was repaired at the expence of government. He died January 1712-13, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried in St. Clement Danes, Strand. It has escaped the notice of his biographers, that the celebrated lord Bolingbroke* was once his pupil, and the world has perhaps to regret that his lordship did not learn what Daniel Burgess might have taught him, for Daniel, with all his oddities, which made him for so many years the butt of Swift, Steele, and the other wits of the time, was a man of real piety. Unfortunately, like his successor Bradbury, he had a very considerable portion of wit, which he could not restrain, and where he thought an argument might be unsuccessful, he tried a pun. One of his biographers has furnished us with two instances that may illustrate the general character of his preaching. When treating on “the robe of righteousness,” he said, “If any of you would have a good and cheap suit, you will go to Monmouth-street; if you want a stiit for life, you will go to the court of chancery; but if you wish for a suit that will last to eternity, you must go to the Lord Jesus Christ, and put on his robe of righteousness.” In the reign of king William, he assigned a new motive for the people of God who were the descendants of Jacob, being called Israelites; namely, because God did not choose that his people should be called Jacobites! His works were numerous, but principally single sermons, preached on funeral and ether occasions, and pious tracts. One of his sermons is entitled “The Golden Snuffers,” and was the first sermon preached to the societies for the reformation of manners. It is a fair specimen of Daniel’s method and style, being replete with forced puns and quaint sayings, and consequently, in our opinion, better adapted to amusement than edification.

Mr. Burgh being of a sociable disposition, and not meeting, at Marlow, with company which was suited to his liberal taste, he quitted that place, and engaged himself as art assistant to Mr. Kenross at Enfield. Here he remained only one year; for, at the end of that term, Mr. Kenross very generously told him, that he ought no longer to lose his time, by continuing in the capacity of an assistant; that it would be adviseable for him to open a boardingschool for himself; and that, if he stood in need of it, he would assist him with money for that purpose. Accordingly, in 1747, Mr. Burgh commenced master of an academy at Stoke Newington, in Middlesex; and in that year he wrote “Thoughts on Education.” The next production of his pen was “An hymn to the Creator of the world,” to which was added in prose, “An Idea of the Creator, from his works.” A second edition, in 8vo, was printed in 1750. After Mr. Burgh had continued at Stoke Newington three years, his house not being large enough to contain the number of scholars that were offered to him, he removed to a more commodious one at Newingtongreen, where, for nineteen years, he carried on his school with great reputation and success. Few masters, we believe, ever existed, who have been animated with a more ardent solicitude for forming the morals as well as the understandings of their scholars. In 1751, Mr. Burgh married Mrs. Harding, a widow lady, and a woman of excellent sense and character, who zealously concurred with him in promoting all his laudable and useful undertakings. In the same year, at the request of Dr. Stephen Hales, and Dr. Hayter, bishop of Norwich, he published a small piece, in 12mo, entitled “A Warning to Dram Drinkers.” Our author’s next publication was his great work, entitled “The Dignity of Human Nature; or, a brief account of the certain and established means for attaining the true end of our existence.” This treatise appeared in 1754, in one volume quarto, and has since been reprinted in two volumes octavo. It is divided into four books, in which the author treats distinctly concerning prudence, knowledge, virtue, and revealed religion; and makes a great number of important observations under each of these heads. In 1762 Mr. Burgh published, in octavo, “The Art of Speaking;” consisting, first, of an essay, in which are given rules for expressing properly the principal passions and humours that occur in reading, or in public elocution; and secondly, of lessons taken from the ancients and moderns, exhibiting a variety of matter for practice. The essay is chiefly compiled from Cicero, Quintilian, and other rhetorical writers. In the lessons, the emphatical words are printed in Italics, and marginal notes are added to shew the various passions, in the several examples, a they change from one to another. It is evident, from an inspection of this work, that it must have cost our author no small degree of labour. It has gone through three editions, and was much used as a school-book. The late sir Francis Blake Delaval, who had studied the subject of elocution, and who had distinguished himself in the private acting of several plays in conjunction with some other persons of fashion, had so high an opinion of Mr. Burgh’s performance, that he solicited on that account an interview with him. Our author’s next appearance in the literary world was in 1766, in the publication of the first volume, in 12mo, of “Crito, or Essays on various subjects.” To this volume is prefixed a dedication, not destitute of humour, “To the right rev. father (of three years old) his royal highness Frederic bishop of Osnaburgh.” The essays are three in number: the first is of a political nature; the second is on the difficulty and importance of education, and contains many pertinent remarks, tending to shewthat Mons. Rousseau’s proposals on this head are improper, ineffectual, or impracticable; and the third is upon the origin of evil. In this essay Mr. Burgh has collected together and arranged, though with but little regard to order, the sentiments of many writers, both ancient and modern, on the subject, and endeavoured to shew the inconsistency of their reasonings. His own opinion is, that the natural and moral evil which prevails in the world, is the effect of the hostility of powerful, malignant, spiritual beings; and that Christianity is the deliverance of the human species from this peculiar and adventitious distress, as an enslaved nation is by a patriotic hero delivered from tyranny. In 1767 came out the second volume of “Crito,” with a long dedication (which is replete with shrewd and satirical observations, chiefly of a political kind) to the good people of Britain of the twentieth century. The rest of the volume contains another “Essay on the Origin of Evil,” and the rationale of Christianity, and a postscript, consisting of farther explanations of the subjects before considered, and of detached remarks on various matters. If our author has not succeeded in removing the difficulties which relate to the introduction of evil into the world, and to the ceconomy of the gospel, it may be urged in his favour, that he is in the same case with many other ingenious philosophers and divines.

Mr. Burgh having, for many years, led a very laborious life, and having acquired also a competem, though not a large fortune (for his mind was always far raised above pecuniary views), he determined to retire trona business. In embracing this resolution, it was by no means his intention to be unemployed. What he had particularly in contemplation was, to complete his “Political Disquisitions,” for which he had, during ten years, been collecting suitable materials. Upon quitting his school at Newrngton-greenj which was in 1771, he settled in a house at Colebrooke-row, Islington, where he continued till his decease. He had not been long in his new situation before he became convinced (of what was only suspected before) that he had a stone in his bladder. Witn this dreadful malady he was deeply afflicted the four latter years of his life; and for the two last of these years his pain was exquisite. Nevertheless, to the astonishment of all who were witnesses of the misery he endured, he went on with his “Political Disquisitions.” The two first volumes were published in 1774, and the third volume in 1775. Their title is, “Political Disquisitions: or, an enquiry into public errors, defects, and abuses. Illustrated by, and established upon, facts and remarks extracted from a variety of authors ancient and modern. Calculated to draw the timely attention of government and people to a due consideration of the necessity and the means of reforming those errors, defects, and abuses; of restoring the constitution, and saving the state.” The first volume relates to government in general, and to parliament in particular; the second treats of places and pensions, the taxation of the colonies, and the army; and the third considers manners. It was our author’s intention to have extended his Disquisitions to some other subjects, if he had not been prevented by the violence of his disease, the tortures of which he bore with uncommon patience and resignation, and from which he was happily released, on the 26th of August, 1775, in the sixty-first year of his age. Besides the publications already mentioned, and a variety of manuscripts which he left behind him, he wrote, in 1753 and 1754, some letters in the General Evening Post, called “The Free Enquirer;” and in 1770, a number of papers entitled “The Constitutionalist,” in the Gazetteer; which were intended to recommend annual parliaments, adequate representation, and a place bill. About the same time he also published another periodical paper in the Gazetteer, under the title of “The Colonist’s Advocate;” which was written against the measures of government with respect to the colonies. He printed likewise for the sole use of his pupils, “Directions, prudential, moral, religious, and scientific;” which were pirated by a bookseller, and sold under the title of “Youth’s friendly Monitor.”

, a Frenchman, born at Bethune in Artois, was a renowned philosopher or schoolman of the fourteenth century. He discharged a professor’s place in the university of Paris with great reputation; and wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s logic, ethics, and metaphysics, which were much esteemed. Some say that he was rector of the university of Paris in 1320. Aventine relates, that he was a disciple of Ockam; and that, being expelled Paris by the power of the realists, which was superior to that of the nominalists, he went into Germany, where he founded the university of Vienna. “Buridan’s Ass,” has been a kind of proverb a long time in the schools; though nobody has ever pretended to explain it, or to determine with certainty what it meant. He supposed an ass, very hungry, standing betwixt two bushels of oats perfectly equal; or an ass, equally hungry and thirsty, placed betwixt a bushel of oats and a tub of water, both making an equal impression on his organs. After this supposition he used to ask, What will this ass do? If it was answered, He will remain there as he stands: Then, concluded he, he will die of hunger betwixt two bushels of oats; he will die of hunger and thirst with plenty of food and drink before him. This seemed absurd, and the laugh was wholly on his side: But, if it was answered, This ass will not be so stupid as to die of hunger and thirst with such good provision on each side of it: then, concluded he, this ass has free will, or of two weights in equilibre one may stir the other. Leibnitz, in his Theodicea, confutes this fable; he supposes the ass to be between two meadows, and equally inclining to both: concerning this he says, it is a fiction which, in the present course of nature, cannot subsist. Indeed, were the case possible, we must say, that the creature would suffer itself to die of hunger. But the question turns on an impossibility, unless God should purposely interfere to produce such a thing; for the universe cannot be so divided, by a plane drawn through the middle of the ass, cut vertically in its length, so that every thing on each side shall be alike and similar; for neither the parts of the universe, nor the animal’s viscera, are similar, nor in an equal situation on both sides of this vertical plane. Therefore will there always be many things, within and without the ass, which, though imperceptible to us, will determine it to take to one side more than the other. After all this, not very edifying discussion, the world must confess its obligations to Buridan for one of the most common proverbs, denoting hesitation in determining between two objects of equal or nearly equal value.

Mr. Burke’s biographers are not agreed as to his birthplace. Some say he was born in the city of Dublin; others, in a little town in the county of Cork; but all are agreed in the date, Jan. 1, 1730. His father was an attorney of considerable practice, who had married into the ancient and respectable family of the Nagles, and besides the results of his practice, possessed a small estate of 150l. or 200l. a year. Edmund was his second son, and at a veryearly age, was sent to Balytore school; a seminary in the North of Ireland, well known for having furnished the bar and the pulpit of Ireland with many eminent characters. This school has been kept by quakers for near a century; and the son of Mr. Abraham Shackleton, to whom Mr. Burke was a pupil, has been for these many years past the head-master. It has been creditable to both parties (viz. the present preceptor and the quondam pupil of his father), that the strictest friendship has always subsisted between them; not only by a constant correspondence, but by occasional visits. At this school young Burke soon distinguished himself by an ardent attachment to study, a prompt command of words, and a good taste. His memory unfolded itself very early, and he soon became distinguished as (what was called) the best capper of verses in the school; but as this phrase is not so generally known in England as in Ireland, it may be necessary to explain it: What is called capping of verses is repeating any one line out of the classics, and following it up by another, beginning with the same letter with which the former line ended; for instance,

According to some accounts, he went from Dublin, where there was little prospect of a settlement adequate to his talents and wishes, to London, where he entered himself as a student in the Middle Temple. According to other accounts, however, he was by design or accident at Glasgow, where he became a candidate for the professorship of logic, then vacant, but whether the application was made too late, or that the university was unwilling to receive a stranger, certain it is thai he was unsuccessful. One account says, that he was passing the old college gate, when a label affixed to it struck his eye, which had teen pasted up as -a mere matter of form, inviting all candidates for the professorship to a competition, although it was known that a successor was already fixed upon. If this be the fact, Mr. Burke’s mistake must have been very soon rectified, without his having the mortification of a disappointment after trial.

The next production of Mr. Burke’s pen was “A Philosophical Enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful,” 1756, 8vo, which soon engaged all readers who had the least pretensions to taste or science. Beside possessing novelty of opinion in many particulars, this book attracted by its style and ingenuity of reasoning: every body read it; and even those who could not assent to many of the general principles, concurred in praising the author for talents of a very extraordinary kind. A criticism on it, ascribed to Johnson, but really written by Mr. Murphy, concludes in the following manner: “Upon the whole, though we think the author of this piece mistaken in many of his fundamental principles, and also in his deductions from them, yet we must say, we have read his book with pleasure. He has certainly employed much thinking: there are many ingenious and elegant remarks, which, though they do not enforce or improve his tirst position, yet, considering them detached from his system, they are new and just. And we cannot dismiss this article without recommending a perusal of the book to all our readers, as we think they will be recompensed by a great deal of sentiment, perspicuous, elegant, and harmonious style, in many passages both sublime and beautiful /” Some time after this, Mr. Burke, who had devoted much of his time to the study of history and politics, proposed to Mr. Dodsley, the plan of an “Annual Register” of the civil, political, and literary transactions of the times; and the proposal being acceded to, the work was begun, and carried on for many years, either by Mr. Burke himself, or under his immediate inspection, and was uncommonly successful.

Mr. Burke’s fame as a writer was now established; and what added another wreath to this character were some pamphlets written before the peace of 1763. These introduced him to the acquaintance of the late Mr. Fitzherbert, father of the present lord St. Helen’s; a gentleman who esteemed and protected men of letters; and who possessed, with a considerable share of elegant knowledge, talents for conversation which were very rarely equalled. Through the medium of Mr. Fitzherbert, and owing to some political essays in the Public Advertiser, he became acquainted with the late marquis of Rockingham, and the late lord Verney; events which opened the first great dawn of his political life: and soon after his acquaintance with lord Rockingham, a circumstance took place which gave this nobleman an opportunity to draw forth Mr. Burke' s talents. The administration formed in 1763, under the honourable George Grenville, becoming unpopular from various causes, his majesty, through the recommendation of his uncle, the duke of Cumberland, appointed a new ministry, of which the duke of Grafton and general Conway were secretaries of state, and the marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury. In this arrangement, which took place in 1765, Mr. Burke was appointed private secretary to the marquis of Rockingham, and soon after, through the interest of lord Verney, was returned one of the representatives in parliament for the borough of Wendover in Buckinghamshire. On this he prepared himself for becoming a public speaker, by studying, still more closely than he had yet done, history, poetry, and philosophy; and by storing his mind with facts, images, reasonings, and sentiments. He paid great attention likewise to parliamentary usage; and was at much pains to become acquainted with old records, patents, and precedents, so as to render himself complete master of the business of office. That he might communicate without embarrassment the knowledge which he had thus acquired, he frequented, with many other men of eminence, the Robin Hood society; and, thus prepared, he delivered in the ensuing session his maiden speech, which excited the admiration of the house, and drew very high praise from Mr. Pitt, afterwards earl of Chatham. The proceedings of the administration with which Mr. Burke was connected, belong to history; and it may be sufficient here to notice, that the principal object which engaged their attention was the stamp-act, which had excited great discontents in America. Mr. Grenville and his party, under whose auspices this act was passed, were for inforcing it by coercive measures; and Mr. Pitt and his followers denied that the parliament of Great Britain had a right to tax the Americans. By Mr. Burke’s advice, as it has been said, the marquis of Rockingham adopted a middle course, repealing the act to gratify the Americans, and passing a law declaratory of the right of Great Britain to legislate for America in taxation, as in every other case. But by whatever advice such a measure was carried, it argued little wisdom, the repeal and the declaratory act being inconsistent with each other. The ministry were therefore considered as unfit to guide the helm of a great empire, and were obliged to give way to a new arrangement, formed under the auspices of Mr. Pitt, then earl of Chatham. This change created a considerable deal of political commotion; and the public papers and pamphlets of that day turned their satire against the newly-created earl of Chatham; they charged him with weakening and dividing an interest which the public wished to be supported; and lending his great name and authority to persons who were supposed to be of a party which had been long held to be obnoxious to the whig interest of the country. Though these charges were afterwards fully refuted by the subsequent conduct of the noble earl, the late ministry were entitled to their share of praise, not only for being very active in promoting the general interests of the state by several popular acts and resolutions, but by their uncommon disinterestedness; as they shewed, upon quitting their places, that they retired without a place, pension, or reversion, secured to themselves or their friends. This was a stroke which the private fortune of Mr. Burke could ill bear; but he had the honour of being a member of a virtuous administration; he had the opportunity of opening his great political talents to the public; and, above all, of shewing to a number of illustrious friends (and in particular the marquis of Rockingham) his many private virtues and amiable qualities, joined to a reach of mind scarcely equalled by any of his contemporaries.

The parliament being dissolved in 1768, Mr. Burke was re-elected for Wendover. The opposition to the duke of Graf ton’s administration consisted of two parties, that of the marquis of Rockingham, and that of Mr. Grenville, but these two parties had nothing in common except their dislike of the ministry. This appeared very strikingly in a pamphlet written by Mr. Grenville, entitled “The present state of the Nation,” which was answered by Burke, in “Observations on the present state of the Nation.” One of the first subjects which occupied the attention of the new parliament was the expulsion of Wilkes for various libels, and the question, whether, after being so expelled, he was eligible to sit in the same parliament. Burke, on this occasion, endeavoured to prove that nothing but an act of the legislature can disqualify any person from sitting in parliament who is legally chosen, by a majority of electors, to fill a vacant seat. It is well known that his friend Dr. Johnson maintained a contrary doctrine in his “False Alarm;” but in this as well as other occasions during the American war, difference of opinion did not prevent a cordial intercourse between two men whose conversation during their whole lives was the admiration and ornament of every literary society. The question itself can hardly be said to have ever received a complete decision. All that followed was the expulsion of Wilkes during the present parliament, and the rescinding of that decision in a future parliament, without argument or inquiry, in order to gratify those constituents who soon after rejected Wilkes with unanimous contempt. The proceedings on this question gave rise to the celebrated letters signed Junius, which appeared in the Public Advertiser, and had been preceded by many other anti-ministerial letters by the same writer, under other signatures. They were at that time, and have often since been attributed to Mr. Burke, and we confess we once, and indeed for many years, were strongly of this opinion, but after the recent publication of these celebrated Letters, with Junius’s private correspondence with Mr. Henry Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, and with Mr. Wilkes r it is as impossible to attribute them to Burke, as it is at present to discover any other gentleman to whom they may, from any reasonable grounds, be ascribed. It may be added too, that in a confidential conversation with Dr. Johnson, he spontaneously denied them, which, as the doctor very prpperly remarks, is more decisive proof than if he had denied them on being asked the question.

His speech to the electors was as liberal as their invitation. He did not, like other candidates, on a spur of mistaken gratitude, or the artifice of popular conciliation, pledge himself to be the mere vehicle of their instructions; he frankly told them his opinion of the trust they had reposed in him; and what rendered this conduct still more creditable to his feelings was, that his colleague (Mr. Cruger) had just before expressed himself in favour of the coercive authority of his constituents’ instructions. Mr. Burke' s sentiments on this occasion are well worth transcribing, as, in our opinion, they place that point, “How far representatives are bound by the instructions of their constituents,” out of the reach of all future litigation. “Certainly, gentlemen,” says he, “it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention; it is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own: but his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men. Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates: but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole: you choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavour to give it effect.”

Upon the meeting of parliament after the recess, the new ministry, which stood pledged to the country for many reforms, began to put them into execution. They first began with the affairs of Ireland; and as the chief ground of complaint of the sister kingdom was the restraining power of the 6th of George the First, a bill was brought in to repeal this act, coupled with a resolution of the house, “That it was essentially necessary to the mutual happiness of the two countries tha& a firm and solid connection should be forthwith established by the consent of both, and that his majesty should be requested to give the proper directions for promoting the same.” These passed without opposition, and his majesty at the same time appointed his grace the duke of Portland lord lieutenant of that kingdom. They next brought in bills for disqualifying revenue officers for voting in the election for members of parliament; and on the 15th of April, Mr. Burke brought forward his great plan of reform in the civil list expenditure, by which the annual saving (and which would be yearly increasing) would amount to 72,368l. It was objected by some members that this bill was not so extensive as it was originally framed; but Mr. Burke entered into the grounds of those omissions which had been made either from a compliance with the opinions of others, or from a fuller consideration of the particular cases; at the same time he pledged himself, that he should at all times be ready to dbey their call, whenever it appeared to be the general sense of the house and of the people to prosecute a more complete system of reform. This bill was followed by another for the regulation of his own office; but the lateness of the season did not afford time for the completion of all plans of regulation and retrenchment, which were in the contemplation of the new ministry, and indeed all their plans were deranged by the death of the marquis of Rockingham July 1, 1782. On this event it was discovered that there was not that perfect union of principles among the leaders of the majority, to which the country had looked up; for, lord Shelburne (afterwards marquis of Lansdowne) being appointed first lord of the treasury, a statesman who had incessantly and powerfully co-operated with the party in opposition to the late war, except in the article of avowing the independence of America, this gave umbrage to the Rockingham division of the cabinet, who were of opinion that “by this change the measures of the former administration would be broken in upon.” Mr. Fox, therefore, lord John Cavendish, Mr. Burke, and others, resigned their respective offices, and Mr. Pitt, then a very young man, succeeded lord George Cavendish as chancellor of the exchequer, lord Sidney succeeded Mr. Fox as secretary of state, and colonel Barre Mr. Burke as paymaster of the forces, lord Sherburne retaining his office as first minister.

Referring, therefore, at large to these documents, the next great political object of Mr. Burke’s attention was in the impeachment of Warren Hastings, esq. governor general of Bengal. Whatever merit or demerit there was in this procedure, it originated with him; he pledged himself to undertake it long before Mr. Hastings’ s return from India, and was as good as his word on his arrival; parliament, however, sanctioned his motions for an impeachment, and from that time to its final determination it was their own act and deed. In the prosecution of this tedious and expensive trial, the variety and extent of Mr. Burke’s powers, perhaps, never came out with greater lustre; he has been charged by some with shewing too much irritability of temper on this occasion, and by others of private and interested pique; but though we acknowledge there appear to be grounds for the first charge (which is too often the concomitant of great and ardent minds in the eager and impassioned pursuits of their object) we have every reason to acquit him of the other. It was, on the contrary, his political interest to forego the impeachment, and his friends, we believe, strongly advised him to that measure, but we have every reason to think he felt it his duty to act otherwise; and though the subsequent decision of the house of lords has shewn he was in an error, we must suppose it an error of his understanding, not of his heart. Such at least is the language of some of his biographers on this subject; but, although he may be exculpated of malice or avarice in this affair, we cannot help being of opinion, that his character, the character of his heart, as well as his head) must suffer by the recollection of his many and violent exaggerations without proof, and particularly his harsh and coarse notice of Mr. Hastings, and his own personal ostentation. On one occasion, when in the moment of Mr. Hastings’ s hesitation about the ceremony of kneeling at the bar, which proceeded from accident, he commanded him to kneel, with a ferocity in his countenance which no painting could express, we question if there was a human being in that vast assembly who would have exchanged feelings with him.

The next important measure in which Mr. Burke stood forward with an unusual degree of prominence, was thfc settlement of a regency during his majesty’s illness in 1788—9. On his conduct at this time, his biographers who wish to prove him uniformly consistent in political principle, seem inclined to cast a veil; but, as in that conduct he betrayed more characteristic features of the man as well as the politician than at any other period of his life, we know not how to get rid of some notice of it in a narrative, however short, which professes to be impartial. In fact, his repeated interference in the debates to which the regency gave rise, were far more formidable to his own friends than to the ministers. Either unconscious that constitutional principles and popular opinion were against the part his friends took, or despising both in a case in which he thought himself right, prudence so completely deserted him, that, not content with the urgency of legal and speculative argument, he burst forth in expressions, respecting his majesty, so indecent, irreverent, and cruel, as to create more general dislike to his character than had ever before been entertained; and when we consider that this violence of temper and passion were exercised on the illustrious personage to whom in a very few years he was gratefully to acknowledge his obligations for the independence and comfort of his latter days, we cannot be surprised that those who intend an uniform and unqualified panegyric on his public life, wish to suppress his conduct during this memorable period.

The next and last sera of his history is, perhaps, the most important of all, as it is that concerning which the opinions of the world are still divided. We allude to his interference, for such it may be called, with the conduct and progress of the French revolution. Many of his friends in parliament, as well as numbers of wise and good men out of it, augured from the meeting of the states-general of France, great benefit to that nation, of which the government was considered as despotic and oppressive; and some were sanguine enough to predict a new and happy order of things to all the nations connected with France, when its government should become more free. These sentiments, we can well remember, were not only general, but perhaps universal, although they might not always proceed from the same sources. There were some who loved liberty, and would hail its dawn in any country. There were others who hated the French government as the perpetual enemy of Great Britain. Mr. Burke saw nothing in the proceedings of the French which was favourable either to liberty or peace. He was well acquainted with the genius of the French people, and with the principles of those philosophers, as they called themselves, by whom a total revolution in church and state had long been projected; and from the commencement of their career in the constituent assembly, when they established, as the foundation of all legal government, the metaphysical doctrine of the “rights of man,” he predicted that torrent of anarchy and infidelity which they have since attempted to pour over all Europe. Mr. Fox, and some of the other leading men in opposition, considered this as a vain fear, and a coolness took place between them and Mr. Burke, although they continued for some time to act together in parliament. In the mean time he published his celebrated “Reflections on the French Revolution,” the instantaneous effect of which was to reduce the nation, hitherto unanimous or indifferent on the subject, to two distinct parties, the one admiring the glorious prospects arising from the French revolution, the other dreading its consequences to this nation in particular, and to the world at large. Many able writers of the former class took up their pens on this occasion, in what were called “answers” to Mr. Burke, and some of them were certainly written with great ability. The controversy was long and obstinate, and cannot be said to have terminated until the commencement of the war in 1793, when the changes of government and practice in France rendered most of the points discussed with Mr. Burke no longer of immediate importance. France, as he had predicted, was plunged into barbarous and atrocious anarchy, and the friends of her projected liberty, dearly as they clung to the idea, were obliged to confess themselves disappointed in every hope, while Mr. Burke’s predictions were erroneous in one only, namely, that France was now blotted out of the map of Europe.

After some members of his own party had called Mr. Burke to order, Mr. Fox, after declaring his conviction that the British Gonstitution, though defective in theory, was in practice excellently adapted to this country, repeated his praises of the French revolution; he thought it, on the whole, one of the most glorious events in the history of mankind; and proceeded to express his dissent from Mr. Burke’s opinions on the subject, as inconsistent with just views of the inherent rights of mankind. These, besides, were, he said, inconsistent with Mr. Burke’s former principles. Mr. Burke, in reply, said: “Mr. Fox has treated me with harshness and malignity; after having harassed with his light troops in the skirmishes of order, he brought the heavy artillery of his own great abilities to bear on me.” He maintained that the French constitution and general system were replete with anarchy, impiety, vice, and misery; that the discussion of a new polity for a province that had been under the French, and was now under the English government, was a proper opportunity of comparing the French and British constitutions. He denied the charge of inconsistency; his opinions on government, he insisted, had been the same during all his political life. He said, Mr. Fox and he had often differed, and that there had been no loss of friendship between them; but there is something in the “cursed French revolution” which envenoms every thing. On this Mr. Fox whispered: “There is no loss of friendship between us.” Mr. Burke, with great warmth, answered: “There is! I know the price of my conduct; our friendship is at an end.” Mr. Fox was very greatly agitated by this renunciation of friendship, and made many concessions; but in the course of his speech still maintained that Mr. Burke had formerly held very different principles. It would be difficult, says one of his biographers, to determine with certainty, whether constitutional irritability or public principle was the chief cause of Mr. Burke’s sacrifice of that friendship which he had so long cherished, and of which the talents and qualities of its object rendered him so worthy. It would perhaps be as difficult to prove that uch a sacrifice was necessary, and we fear that his reconciliation with lord North and his quarrel with Mr. Fox must, even by the most favourable of his panegyrists, be placed among the inconsistencies of this otherwise truly eminent character. From this time, Messrs. Burke and Fox remained at complete variance, nor have we ever heard that any personal interview took place afterwards between them.

From the beginning of July 1797, his health rapidly declined; but his understanding exerted itself with undiminished force and uncontracted range. On the 7th of that month, when the French revolution was mentioned, he spoke with pleasure of the conscious rectitude of his own intentions in what he had done and written respecting it; intreated those about him to believe, that if any unguarded expression of his on the subject had offended any of his former friends, no offence was by him intended; and he declared his unfeigned forgiveness of all who had on account of his writings, or for any other cause, endeavoured to do him an injury. On the day following, whilst one of his friends, assisted by his servant, was carrying him into another room, he faintly uttered, “God bless you,” fell back, and instantly expired in the sixty-eighth year of his age. He was interred on the 15th, in the church of Beaconsfield, close to his son and brother.

Of his talents and acquirements it would be difficult to speak, did we not trust to his long and justly-established fame to fill up the deficiencies of our description. The richness of his mind illustrated every subject he touched upon. In conversing with him he attracted by his novelty, variety, and research; in parting from him, we involuntarily exclaimed “What an extraordinary man!” As an orator, though not so grand and commanding in his manner as lord Chatham, whose form of countenance and penetrating eye gave additional force to his natural and acquired talents, yet he had excellencies which always gave him singular pre-eminence in the senate. He was not (though it was evident he drew from these great resources) like Cicero, or Demosthenes, or any one else; the happy power of diversifying his matter, and placing it in various relations, was all his own; and here he was generally truly sublime and beautiful. He had not, perhaps, always the art of concluding in the right place, partly owing to the vividness of his fancy, and the redundancy of his matter; and partly owing to that irritability of temper which he himself apologizes for to his friends in his last notice of them; but those speeches which he gave the public do not partake of this fault, which shew that in his closet his judgment returned to its usual standard.

On his return he engaged in the practice of the law, and was attaining high reputation in the courts of justice, when he was summoned in 1691, by the magistrates of Utrecht, to undertake the charge of collector of the tenths, an office in that place of great honour, and which he accepted therefore as a proof of their confidence and esteem. While thus engaged, he married Eve Clotterboke, a young kdy of a good family, hy whom he had ten children, two of whom only survived him. But neither public business, nor domestic cares, detained Bui-man from the prosecution of his literary inquiries; by which he so much endeared himself to Graevius, that he was recommended by him to the regard of the university of Utrecht, and accordingly, in 1696, was chosen professor of eloquence and history, to which was added, after some time, the professorship of the Greek language, and afterwards that of politics; so various did they conceive his abilities, and so extensive his knowledge. Having now more frequent opportunities of displaying his learning, he rose, in a short time, to a high reputation, of which the great number of his auditors was a sufficient proof, and which the proficiency of his pupils shewed not to be accidental, or undeserved.

He was a man of moderate stature, of great strength and activity, which he preserved by temperate diet, without medical exactness, and by allotting proportions of his time to relaxation and amusement, not suffering his studies to exhaust his strength, but relieving them by frequent intermissions. In his hours of relaxation he was gay, and sometimes gave way so far to his temper, naturally satirical, that he drew upon himself the ill-will of those who had been unfortunately the subjects of his mirth; but enemies so provoked he thought it beneath him to regard or to pacify; for he was fiery, but not malignant, disdained dissimulation, and in his gay or serious hours, preserved a settled detestation of falsehood. So that he was an open and undisguised friend or enemy, entirely unacquainted with the artifices of flatterers, but so judicious in the choice of friends, and so constant in his affection to them, that those with whom he had contracted familiarity in his youth, had, for the greatest part, his confidence in his old age.

His abilities, which would probably have enabled him to have excelled in any kind of learning, were chiefly employed, as his station required, on polite literature, in which he arrived at very uncommon knowledge, but his superiority, however, appears rather from judicious compilations than original productions. His style is lively and masculine, but not without harshness and constraint, nor, perhaps, always polished to that purity which some writers have attained. He was at least instrumental to the instruction of mankind, by the publication of many valuable performances, which lay neglected by the greater part of the learned world; and, if reputation be estimated by usefulness, he may claim a higher degree in the ranks of learning than some others of happier elocution, or more vigorous imagination. The malice or suspicion of those who either did not know, or did not love him, had given rise to some doubts about his religion, which he took an opportunity of removing on his death-bed, by a voluntary declaration of his faith, his hope of everlasting salvation from the revealed promises of God, and his confidence in the merits of our Redeemer, of the sincerity of which declaration his whole behaviour in his long illness was an incontestable proof; and he concluded his life, which had been illustrious for many virtues, by exhibiting an example of true piety. His literary contests are now forgotten, and although we may agree with Le Clerc, that Barman might have been better employed than in illustrating such authors as Petronius Arbiter, yet we are at a loss to find an apology for Le Clerc’s personal abuse and affected contempt for Burman. Burman has^ by the gerteral voice of modem critics, been allowed the merit of giving to the public some of the best editions of the Latin classics, among which we may enumerate his 1. “Phsedrus,” Leyden, 1727, 4to. 2. “Quintilian,” ibid* 1720, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Valerius Flaccus,” Traj, ad Rhenum “(Utrecht), 1702, 12mo. 4.” Ovid,“Amst. 1727, 4 vols. 4to. To this admirable edition, according to the Bipont editors, he had composed a long and learned preface, which did not appear until fifteen years after his death, when it was published under the title” P. Burmanni Praefatio ad Ovidii editionem majorem excusam Amst. 1727,“175G, 4t6. 5.” Poetoe Latini Minores,“1731, 2 vols. 4to. 6.” Velleius Paterculus,“Leyden, 1719, and 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 7.” Virgil,“Amst. 1746, 4 vols. 4to. 8.” Suetonius,“ibid. 1736, 2 vols. 4to. 9.” Lucau,“Leyden, 1740, 4to. 10.” Buchanani Opera,“Leyden, 1725, 2 vols. 4to. To these may be added:” Sylioges Epistolarum a viris illustribus scriptarum,“Leyden, 1727, 5 vols. 4to, a work of great curiosity and utility in literary history; and his” Orationes, antea sparsim editae, et ineditis auctae. Accedit carminum Appendix," Hague, 1759, 4to. To these orations the editor annexed his funeral oration, pronounced by the learned Mr. Oesterdyke, professor of medicine in Leyden, which contains those particulars of his life, which are given above, and were first translated by Dr. Johnson, and published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1742.

, is said to have been the son of the preceding, but little is recorded of him, unless that he was a magistrate of Utrecht, and died in 1755. He wrote in Latin a “Life of Pope Adrian VI.” Utrecht 1727, and in 1738 a quarto volume, to which we have been considerably indebted, entitled “Trajectum eruditum,” or, an account of the learned men of Utrecht.

, called the second, or the younger, was son to Francis Burman and nephew to the first Francis Burman, whose life* we have given above, and was celebrated for philosophical knowledge. He was born at Amsterdam in 1713, and educated principally by his uncle, He rose to the offices of professor of history and eloquence atFraneker; and in 1742 removed to Amsterdam, where he died June 24, 1778, of an apoplexy. A year before, he had resigned his professorship, and had retired to a country house between Leyden and the Hague. He published editions, 1. of “Aristophanes,” properly Bergler^s edition, but under the care of Burman, Leyden, 1760, 2 vols. 4to, 2. “Claudian,” Amst. 1760, 4to. 3. “Anthologia,” of the Latin poets, Amst. 1759, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Propertius,” Utrecht, 1780, 4to, a posthumous work superintended by Santenius, by far the best edition of Propertius ever published. 5. “Poematum Libri Quatuor,” Leyden, 1774, 4to.

, father of the preceding, once a pupil of Boerhaave, and professor of botany at Amsterdam, employed much labour and expence in editing various botanical works, particularly those giving accounts of plants procured from the Indies. In 1736 he published an edition of Weinman’s Herbal, to Which he added several plates with African plants. His next publication, in which he had the assistance of Linnæus, then a young man, was the “Thesaurus Zeylanicus, exhibens Plantas in Insula Zeylana nascentes, Iconibus illustratus,” 4to, 1737, taken from, various travellers, with new descriptions and plates. The following year he was appointed professor to the botanical garden at Amsterdam, and soon after published “Rariarum Africanarum Plantarum Decades Decem,” 4to, principally from Witsen and Vanderstell, to which, however, hemadeseveral additions. He translated Rumphius’s great work into Latin, which he enriched with valuable notes, and published under the title of “Everhardi Rumphii Herbarium Amboinense, continens plantas in ea, et adjacentibus Insulis repertas.” His last labour was procuring engravings to be executed from the drawings of American plants left by Plumier, to which he added descriptions, with the modern and former names. He died at a very advanced age in 1779. It must not be forgot that he was one of the earliest and kindest patrons of Linnæus, and when the latter, who had been introduced to him by Boerhaave, pleaded his poverty as an excuse why he could not remain at Amsterdam, Dr. Burman boarded and lodged him at his house for a considerable time, free of all expence. He was not always so liberal, or even courteous to strangers of eminence, according to the account of Dr. Smith in his Tour, p. 29.

, D. D. archdeacon of Leicester and vicar of Greenwich, was born in 1732, at Asfordby in Leicestershire, of which place his father, grandfather, and great grandfather, were in succession patrons and rectors, as his youngest brother is at this time. He was elected into Westminster college in 1748, but removed from that school, and was entered of Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1754, and his master’s in 1757. After having travelled through the middle settlements in North America in 1759 and 1760, Dr. Burnaby was appointed chaplain to the British factory at Leghorn, were he resided five years; in occasional excursions visited Corsica, and almost every part of Italy; and during the last of those years (sir John Dick having obtained his majesty’s leave to return to England for his private concerns) had the honour to do the consular business, by the appointment of government, under the denomination of proconsul. In 1769 he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich; and in 1786 the archdeaconry of Leicester was conferred on him by bishop Thurlow, without the least expectation or solicitation on his part; both which preferments he enjoyed till his death, March 9, 1812. His widow, the heiress of John Edwyn, esq. of Bagrave in Leicestershire, died on the 16th of the same month, aged seventy-six. Dr. Burnaby was distinguished by the purest integrity and benevolence of heart, the most unaffected urbanity of manners, and a lively and ardent zeal for his profession. His principal works were, 1. “Travels through the middle settlements in North America in the years 1759 and 1760, with observations upon the state of the colonies,” 1775, 4to, of which a third edition, considerably enlarged, was published in 1798-9. 2. Various Sermons, preached on Fast, Thanksgiving, and other public occasions, and some charges, reprinted together in one vol. 8vo, 1805. Most of them were highly valued both for matter and manner. He printed also, for the use of particular friends, “A Journal of a Tour to Corsica in the year 1766, with a series of original letters from general Paoli to the author, referring to the principal events which have taken place in that island from the year 1769 to 1302, with explanatory notes,” 1804.

Our author received the first rudiments of his education from his father, under whose care he made so quick a progress, that, at ten years of age, he perfectly understood the Latin tongue; at which time he was sent to the college of Aberdeen, where he acquired the Greek, and went through the usual course of Aristotelian logic and philosophy, with uncommon applause. He was scarcely fourteen when he commenced master of arts, and then applied himself to the study of the civil law; but, after a year’s diligent application to that science, he changed his resolution, and turned his thoughts wholly to the study of divinity. At eighteen years of age, he was put upon his trial as a probationer or expectant preacher; and, at the same time, was offered the presentation to a very good benefice, by his cousin-german sir Alexander Burnet, but thinking himself too young for the cure of souls, he modestly declined that offer. His education, thus happily begun, was finished by the conversation and advice of the most eminent Scotch divines. In 1663, about two years after his father’s death, he came into England, where he first visited the two universities. At Cambridge he had an opportunity of conversing with Dr. Cud worth, Dr. Pearson, Dr. Burnet, author of the “Sacred Theory,” and Dr. Henry More, one of whose sayings, in relation to rites and ceremonies, then made a great impression on him: “None of these,” said he, “are bad enough to make men bad, and 1 am sure none of them are good enough to make men good.” At Oxford our author was much caressed, on account of his knowledge of the councils and fathers, by Dr. Fell, and Dr. Pocock, that great master of Oriental learning. He was much improved there, in his mathematics and natural philosophy, by the instructions of Dr. Waliis, who likewise gave him a letter of recommendation to the learned and pious Mr. Boyle at London. Upon his arrival there, he was introduced to all the rnost noted divines, as Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Lloyd, Whitchcot, and Wilkins; and, among others of the laity, to sir Robert Murray.

About six months after he returned to Scotland, where he declined accepting the living of Saltoun, offered him by sir Robert Fletcher of that place, resolving to travel for some time on the continent, in 1664, he went over into Holland; where, after he had seen what was remarkable in the Seven Provinces, he resided for some time at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Paris. At Amsterdam, by the help of a learned Rabbi, he increased his knowledge in the Hebrew language, and likewise x became acquainted with the leading men of the different persuasions tolerated in that country: among each of whom, he used frequently to declare, he had met with men of such real piety and virtue, that he contracted a strong principle of universal charity. At Paris he conversed with the two famous ministers of Charenton, Dailie and Morus. His stay in France was the longer, on account of the great kindness with which he was treated by the lord Holies, then ambassador at the French court. Towards the end of the year he returned to Scotland, passing through Londo/rr, where he was introduced, by the president sir Robert Murray, to be a member of the royal society. In 1665, he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Edinburgh, and presented by sir Robert Fletcher to the living of Saitoun, which had been kept vacant during his absence. He soon gained the affections of his whole parish, not excepting the presbyterians, though he was the only clergyman in Scotland that made use of the prayers in the liturgy of the church of England. During the five years he remained at Saitoun, he preached twice every Sunday, and once on one of the week-days; he catechized three times a-week, so as to examine every parishioner, old or young, three times in the compass of a year: he went round the parish from house to house, instructing, reproving, or comforting them, as occasion required: the sick he visited twice a day: he administered the sacrament four times a year, and personally instructed all such as gave notice of their intention to receive it. All that remained above his own necessary subsistence (in which he was very frugal), he gave away in charity. A particular instance of his generosity is thus related: one of his parishioners had been in execution for debt, and applied to our author for some small relief; who inquired of him, how much would again set him up in his trade: the man named the sum, and he as readily called to his servant to pay it him: “Sir,” said he, “it is all we have in the house.” “Well,” said Mr. Burnet, “pay it this poor man: you do not know the pleasure there is in making a man glad.” This may be a proper place to mention our author’s practice of preaching extempore, in which he attained an ease chiefly by allotting many hours of the day to meditation upon all sorts of subjects, and by accustoming himself, at those times, to speak his thoughts aloud, studying always to render his expressions correct. His biographer gives us here two remarkable instances of his preaching without book. In 1691, when the sees, vacant by the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops, were filled up, bishop Williams was appointed to preach one of the consecration -sermons at Bow-church; but, being detained by some accident, the archbishop of Canterbury desired our author, then bishop of Sarum, to supply his place; which he readily did, to the general satisfaction of all present. In 1705, he was appointed to preach the thanksgiving-sermon before the queen at St. Paul’s; and as it was the only discourse he had ever written before-hand, it was the only time that he ever made a pause in preaching, which on that occasion lasted above a minute. The same year, he drew up a memorial of the abuses of the Scotch bishops, which exposed him to the resentments of that order: upon which, resolving to confine himself to study, and the duties of his function, he practised such a retired and abstemious course, as greatly impaired his health. About 1668, the government of Scotland being in the hands of moderate men, of whom the principal was sir Robert Murray, he was frequently consulted by them; and it was through his advice that some of the more moderate presbyterians were put into the vacant churches; a step which he himself has since condemned as indiscreet. In 1669, he was made professor of divinity at Glasgow; in which station he executed the following plan of study. On Mondays, he made each of the students, in their turn, explain a head of divinity in Latin, and propound such theses from it as he was to defend against the rest of the scholars; and this exercise concluded with our professor’s decision of the point in a Latin oration. On Tuesdays, he gave them a prelection in the same language, in which he proposed, in the course of eight years, to have gone through a complete system of divinity. On Wednesdays, he read them a lecture, for above an hour, by way of a critical commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel;' which he finished before he quitted the chair. On Thursdays, the exercise was alternate; one Thursday, he expounded a Hebrew Psalm, comparing it with the Septuagint, the Vulgar, and the English version; and the next Thursday, he explained some portion of the ritual and constitution of the primitive church, making the apostolical canons his text, and reducing every article of practice under the head of one or other of those canons. On Fridays, he made each of his scholars, in course, preach a short sermon upon some text he assigned; and, when it was ended, he observed upon any thing that was defective or amiss in the handling of the subject. This was the labour of the mornings: in the evenings, after prayer, he every day read some parcel of scripture, on which he made a short discourse; and, when that was over, he examined into the progress of their several studies. Ail this he performed during the whole time the schools were open; and, in order to acquit himself with credit, he was obliged to study hard from four till ten in the morning; the rest of the day being of necessity allotted, either to the care of his pupils, or to hearing the complaints of the clergy, who, rinding he had an interest with men of power, were not sparing in their applications to him. In this situation he continued four years and a half, exposed, through his principles of moderation, to the censure both of the episcopal and presbyterian parties. The same year he published his “Modest and free Conference between a Conformist and a Nonconformist.” About this time he was entrusted, by the duchess of Hamilton, with the perusal and arrangement of all the papers relating to her father’s and uncle’s ministry; which induced him to compile “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,” and occasioned his being invited to London, to receive farther information, concerning the transactions of those times, by the earl of Lauderdale; between whom and the duke of Hamilton he brought about a reconciliation. During his stay in London, he was offered a Scotch bishopric, which he refused. Soon after his return to Glasgow, he married the lady Margaret Kennedy, daughter of the earl of Cassilis. In 1672, he published his “Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws, of the Church and State of Scotland,” against the principles of Buchanan and others; which was thought, at that juncture, such a public service, that he was again courted to accept of a bishopric, with a promise of the next vacant archbishopric, but he persisted in his refusal of that dignity. In 1673, he took another journey to London; where, at the express nomination of the king, after hearing him preach, he was sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He became likewise in high favour with his majesty and the duke of York . At his return to Edinburgh, finding the animosities between the dukes of Hamilton and Lauderdale revived, he retired to his station at Glasgow; but was obliged the next year to return to court, to justify himself against the accusations of the duke of Lauderdale, who had represented him as the cause and instrument of all the opposition the measures of the court had met with in the Scotch parliament. Thus he lost the favour of the court; and, to avoid putting himself into the hands of his enemies, he resigned the professor’s chair at Glasgow, and resolved to settle in London, being now about thirty years of age. Soon after, he was offered the living of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, which he declined accepting, because he heard that it was intended for Dr. Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. In 1675, our author, at the recommendation of lord Holies, and notwithstanding the interposition of the court against him, was appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by sir Harbottle Grimstone, master of the Rolls. The same year he was examined before the house of commons in relation to the duke of Lauderdale, whose conduct the parliament was then inquiring into. He was soon after chosen lecturer of St. Clement’s, and became a very popular preacher. In 1676, he published his “Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton;” and the same year, “An account of a Conference between himself, Dr. Stillingfleet, and Coleman.” About this time, the apprehensions of popery increasing daily, he undertook to write the “History of the Reformation of the Church of England.” The rise and progress of this his greatest and 'most useful work, is an object of too great curiosity to require any apology on account of its length. His own account of it is as follows: “Some time after I had printed the ‘ Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton,’ which were favourably received, the reading of these got me the acquaintance and friendship of sir William Jones, then attorney-general. My way of writing history pleased him; and so he pressed me to undertake the History of England. But Sanders’s book, that was then translated into French, and cried up much in France, made all my friends press me to answer it, by writing the History of the Reformation. So now all my thoughts were turned that way. I laid out for manuscripts, and searched into all offices. I got for some days into the Cotton Library. But duke Lauderdale hearing of my design, and apprehending it might succeed in my hands, got Dolben, bishop of Rochester, to divert sir John Cotton from suffering me to search into his library. He told him, I was a great enemy to the prerogative, to which Cotton was devoted, even to slavery. So he said, I would certainly make an ill use of all 1 had found. This wrought so much on him, that I was no more admitted, till my first volume was published. And then, when he saw how I had composed it, he gave me free access to it.” The first volume of this work lay near a year after it was finished, for the perusal and correction of friends; so that it was not published tiii the year 1679, when the affair of the popish plot was in agitation. This book procured our author an honour never before or since paid to any writer: he had the thanks of both houses of parliament, with a desire that he would prosecute the undertaking, and complete that valuable work. Accordingly, in less than two years after, he printed the second volume, which met with the same general approbation as the first: and such was his readiness in composing, that he wrote the historical part in the compass of six weeks, after all his materials were laid in order. The third volume, containing a supplement to the two former, was published in 1714. “The defects of Peter Heylyn’s” History of the Reformation,“as bishop Kicolson observes,” are abundantly supplied in our author’s more complete history. He gives a punctual account of all the affairs of the reformation, from its beginning in the reign of Henry VIII. to its final establishment under queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. And the whole is penned in a masculine style, such as becomes an historian, and is the property of this author in all his writings. The collection of records^ which he gives at the end of each volume, are good vouchers of the truth of what he delivers in the body of the history, and are much more perfect than could reasonably be expected, after the pains taken, in queen Mary’s days, to suppress every thing that carried the marks of the reformation upon it.“Our author’s performance met with a very favourable, reception abroad, and was translated into most of the European languages; and even the keenest of his enemies, Henry Wharton, allows it to have” a reputation firmly and deservedly established.“The most eminent of the French writers who have attacked it, M. Varillas and M. Le Grand, have received satisfactory replies from -the author himself. At home it was attacked by Mr. S. Lowth, who censured the account Dr. Burnet had given of some of archbishop Cranmer’s opinions, asserting that both our historian and Dr. Stillingfleet had imposed upon the world in that particular, and had” unfaithfully joined together“in their endeavours to lessen episcopal ordination. Our author replied to Mr. Lowth, in some” letters. in answer“to his book. The next assailant was Henry Wharton, who, under the name of Anthony Harrner, published” A specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,“1693, 8vo, a performance of no great candour; to which, however, our historian vouchsafed a short answer, in a” Letter to the Bishop of Lichfield.“A third attack on this History was made by Dr. Hickes in” Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson;“in which the whole charge amounts to no more than this, that,” in a matter of no great consequence, there was too little care had in copying or examining a letter writ in a very bad hand,“and that there was some probability that Dr. Burnet” was mistaken in one of his conjectures.“Our author answered this piece, in a” Vindication“of his History. The two first parts were translated into French by M. de Rosemond, and into Latin by Melchior Mittelhorzer. There is likewise a Dutch translation of it. In 1682, our author published” An abridgment of his History of the Reformation," in 8vo, in which he tells us, he had wholly waved every thing that belonged to the records, and the proof of what he relates, or to the confutation of the falsehoods that run through the popish historians; all which is to be found in the History at large. And therefore, in this abridgment, he says, every thing is to be taken upon trust; and those who desire a fuller satisfaction, are referred to the volumes he had before published.

As he had always looked upon Confirmation as the likeliest means of reviving a spirit of Christianity, he wrote a short “Directory,” for preparing the youth upon such occasions, and sent copies of it, some months beforehand, to the minister of every parish where he intended to confirm. Every summer, he made a tour, for six weeks or two months, through some district of his bishopric, daily preaching and confirming from church to church, so as, in the compass of three years (besides his triennial visitation), to go through all the principal livings of his diocese. In these circuits he entertained all the clergy that attended upon him, at his own expence, and held conferences with them upon the chief heads of divinity. During his residence at Salisbury, he constantly preached a Thursday’s lecture, founded at St. Thomas’s church: he likewise preached and confirmed, every Sunday morning, in some church of that city, or of the neighbourhood round about it; and, in the evening, he had a lecture in his own chapel, wherein he explained some portion of scripture. Every week, during the season of Lent, he catechised the youth of the two great schools in the cathedral church, and instructed them in order for confirmation. He endeavoured, as much as possible, to reform the abuses of the bishop’s consistorial court.' No part of the episcopal office was more strictly attended to by him, than the examination of candidates for holy orders. He examined them himself as to the proofs of the Christian religion, the authority of the scriptures, and the nature of the gospel covenant; and, a day or two before ordination, he submitted all those whom he had accepted to the examination of the dean and prebendaries. As the qualification of clergymen for the pastoral care was always uppermost in his thoughts, he instituted at Salisbury a little nursery of students in divinity, being ten in number, to each of whom he allowed a salary of thirty pounds a year. Once every day he examined their progress in learning, and gave them a lecture on some speculative or practical point of divinity, or some part of the pastoral function. But this foundation being considered as reflecting upon the method of education at the universities, he was prevailed upon, after some years, to lay it wholly aside. He was a warm and constant enemy to pluralities, where non-residence was the consequence of them, and in some cases hazarded a suspension, rather than give institution. In the point of residence, he was so strict, that he immediately dismissed his own chaplains, upon their preferment to a cure of souls. He exerted the principle of toleration, which was deeply rooted in him, in favour of a nonjuring meeting-house at Salisbury, which he obtained the royal permission to conAive at; and this spirit of moderation brought over several dissenting families of his diocese to the commnnion of the church.

As it would lead us, after “so long an account of the facts of Dr. Burnet’s life, into an article perhaps yet longer, were we to enter on the controversy so ably and so frequently repeated respecting the veracity of his ' History of his own Time,” we shall only notice, that as the strong party zeal which prevailed at the beginning of the last century becomes either less, or of less importance to be revived, bishop Burnet’s works seem to rise in public estimation. All that is controversial, indeed, is nearly forgotten; but his History of the Reformation, and of his own Time, and his Lives of Rochester, Bedell, Hale, &c. afford a fair prospect that his fame will yet be prolonged. The events of his life show that both at home and abroad he stood high in the estimation of his contemporaries, and his errors and prejudices, of whatever kind, would not have excited so many enemies had not his talents given him an unusual degree of consequence both in church and state. On the subject of his public character, however, we shall content ourselves with referring to our authorities, and conclude this article with some particulars of his private habits, which, as well as the above account of his life, stand uncontradicted, and surely entitle him to our respect.

His time, we are told, was employed in one regular and uniform manner: he was a very early riser, seldom in bed later than five or six o'clock in the morning. Private meditation took up the two first hours, and the last half hour of the day. His first and last appearance to his family was at the morning and evening prayers, which he always read himself, though his chaplains were present. He took the opportunity of the tea-table to instruct his children in religion, and in giving them his own comment upon some portion of scripture. He seldom spent less than six, often eight, hours a day in his study. He kept an open table, in which there was plenty without luxury: his equipage was decent and plain; and all his expences generous, but not profuse. He was a most affectionate husband to his wives; and his love to his children expressed itself, not so much in hoarding up wealth for them, as in giving them the best education. After his sons had perfected themselves in the learned languages, under private tutors, he sent them to the university, and afterwards abroad, to finish their studies at Leyden. In his friendships he was warm, open-hearted, and constant; and though his station and principles raised him many enemies, he always endeavoured, by the kindest good offices, to repay all their injuries, and overcome them by returning good for evil. He was a kind and bountiful master to his servants, and obliging to all in employment under him. His charities were a principal article of his expence. He gave an hundred pounds at a time for the augmentation of small livings: he bestowed constant pensions on poor clergymen and their widows, on students for their education at the universities, and on industrious, but unfortunate families: he contributed frequent sums towards the repairs or building of churches and parsonage-houses, to all public collections, to the support of charity-schools (one of which, for fifty children at Salisbury, was wholh' maintained by him), and to the putting out apprentices to trades. Nor were his alms confined to one nation, sect, or party; but want, and merit, in the object, were the only measures of his liberality. He looked upon himself, with regard to his episcopal revenue, as a mere trustee for the church, bound to expend the whole in a decent maintenance of his station, and in acts of hospitality and charity; and he had so faithfully balanced this account, that, at his death, no more of the income of his bishopric remained to his family than was barely sufficient to pay his debts.

, eldest son of the preceding, was educated privately at first, and when perfected in the learned languages, was removed to the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted a gentleman commoner of Trinity college. In 1706 he was sent with his two younger brothers abroad, to finish his studies at Leyden; from whence he appears to have made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. By his own choice he was bred to the law; but it is uncertain whether he practised at the bar. In 1720 he was one of the unhappy persons who suffered greatly in the infatuation of the South-Sea scheme. He had, however, a place in the revenue, of twelve hundred pounds a year; but, being desirous of retrieving his fortune, he quitted that post, and was appointed governor of New York and the Jerseys. In this station his conduct in general was very acceptable to those colonies, and approved of in England. After the accession of king George the Second, in order to provide for a gentleman who was understood to be in particular esteem with his majesty, Mr. Burnet was removed from the governments of New York and the Jerseys to those of the Massachusets and New Hampshire. This change was highly disagreeable, and he considered it as a great hardship to be obliged to part with posts that were very profitable, for such. as would afford him, at best, only a decent support; and to leave an easy administration for one which he foresaw would be extremely troublesome. Of this he complained to his friends, and it had a visible effect upon his spirits. On the 13th of July, 1728, he arrived at Boston, and was received with unusual pomp. Having been instructed from England to insist on a fixed salary’s being settled upon him as governor, he adhered to his instructions with such unabated vigour and perseverance, as involved him in the warmest disputes with the general assembly of the province. A large detail of these contests may be seen in Mr. Hutchinson’s History of Massachusets’ Bay, from which Mr. Burnet’s abilities, firmness, and spirit will appear in a striking light. Being deprived of his salary, by refusing to receive it in the mode proposed by the assembly, and having by that means been driven to such straits as obliged him to apply to the assistance of his friends for the support of his family, he thought he might be justified in establishing a fee and perquisite which had never been known in the province before. At New York, all vessels took from the governor a pass, or permission for sailing out of the harbour, which, though it had no foundation in law, was submitted to without complaint. The same disposition did not prevail in the inhabitants of Boston. The fee which Mr. Burnet imposed on the ships, for their passes, being complained of to the king and council as illegal and oppressive, it was immediately disapproved. In all other respects his administration was unexceptionable, but this controversy with the general assembly made a great impression upon his mind. In the latter end of August, 1729, he was seized, at Boston, with a fever, which carried him off on the 7th of September, and the assembly ordered him a very honourable funeral at the public expence. Though he had been steady and inflexible in his adherence to his instructions, he discovered nothing of a grasping avaricious temper. His superior talents, and free and easy manner of communicating his sentiments, rendered him the delight of men of sense and learning; and his right of precedence in all companies, facilitated his natural disposition to take a great lead in conversation. His own account of his genius was, that it was late before it budded; and that, until he was nearly twenty years of age, his father despaired of his ever making any figure in life. This, perhaps, might proceed from the exact discipline of the bishop’s family, not calculated alike for every temper. To long and frequent religious services at home in his youth, Mr. Burnet would sometimes pleasantly attribute his indisposition to a scrupulous attendance on public worship. Mr. Burnet' s first lady was a daughter of Dr. George Stanhope, dean of Canterbury, and was a woman equally distinguished for her beauty, wit, good-humour, singing, and various accomplishments. Her sense will appear from the following anecdote: When she was dying, being worn out with a long and painful sickness, as they rubbed her temples with Hungary water, in her last faintings, she begged them not to do it, for “that it would make her hair gray.” Mr. William Burnet was the author of a tract entitled “A View of Scripture Prophecy.”

, the third and youngest son of the bishop, had an education equally advantageous with that of his two elder brothers. When he had acquired a sufficient preparation of grammatical learning, he was sent to the university of Oxford, where he becam^a commoner of Merton-college. After this, he studied two years at Leyden, from whence he seems to have made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Having chosen the profession of the law, he was entered at the Temple, where he appears to have contracted wildness of disposition, and irregularity of conduct. To this part of his character there are frequent allusions in the satirical publications of the times; and particularly in Dr. Arbuthnol’s notes and memorandums of the six days preceding the death of a right reverend prelate. Mr. Thomas Burnet was even suspected of being one of the Mohocks mentioned in the Spectator, whose extravagant and cruel exploits made much noise, and excited no small degree of terror at that period. Swift, in one of his letters to Stella, has the following passage: “Young Davenant was telling us, how he was set upon by the Mohocks, and how they ran his chair through with a sword. It is not safe being in the streets at night. The bishop of Salisbury’s son is said to be of the gang. They are all whigs. A great lady sent to me, to speak to her father, and to lord treasurer, to have a care of them, and to be careful likewise of myself; for she heard they had malicious intentions against the ministry and their friends. I know not whether there be any thing in this, though others are of the sante opinion.” The report concerning Mr. Burnet might be groundless; but it is certain that his time was not wholly spent in dissipation; for, being warmly devoted to the cause of the whigs, he commenced political writer against the administration of the four last years of queen Anne. No less than seven pamphlets of this kind, though without his name, were written by him, in 1712 and 1713. His first was entitled “A Letter to the People, to be left for them at the Booksellers; with a word or two of the Bandbox Plot.” This small tract is drawn up in short paragraphs, after the manner of Mr. Asgill; but not in ridicule of that author, who is spoken of in terms of high commendation. Another piece of Mr. Burnet’s was: “Our Ancestors as wise as we, or ancient Precedents for modern Facts, in answer to a Letter from a noble Lord;” which was followed by “The History of Ingratitude, or a second Part of ancient Precedents for modern Facts,” wherein many instances are related, chiefly from the Greek and Roman histories, of the ungrateful treatment to which the most eminent public characters have been exposed; and the whole is applied to the case of the duke of Marlborough. A subsequent publication, that had likewise a reference to the conduct of the ministry towards the same great general, and which was dedicated to him, was entitled “The true Character of an honest Man, especially with relation to public Affairs.” Another of Mr. Burnet’s tracts, which was called “Truth, if you can find it; or a Character of the present Ministry and Parliament,” was entirely of an ironical nature, and sometimes the irony is well supported. But our author’s principal political pamphlet, during the period we are speaking of, was, “A certain Information of a certain Discourse, that happened at a certain Gentleman’s House, in a certain County: written by a certain Person then present; to a certain Friend now at London; from whence you may collect the great Certainty of the Account.” This is a dialogue in defence of the principles and conduct of the whigs; and it gave such offence to queen Anne’s Tory ministry, that on account of it, Mr. Burnet was taken into custody in January 1712—13. He wrote, also, “Some new Proofs by which it appears that the Pretender is truly James the Third;” in which, from the information, we suppose, of his father, he gives the same account, in substance, of the Pretender’s birth, that was afterwards published in the bishop’s History of his own Time. What Mr. Burnet endeavours to make out is, that three supposititious children Vol. VII. C c were introduced; and consequently, that the “Pretender was James the Third;” or, to put it more plainly, “the third pretended James.” Whilst our young author, notwithstanding his literary application and engagements, still continued his wild courses, it is related, that his father one day seeing him uncommonly grave, asked what he was meditating. “A greater work,” replied the son, “than your lordship’s History of the Reformation.” “What is that, Tom?” “My own reformation, my lord.” “I shall be heartily glad to see it,” said the bishop, “but almost despair of it.” This, however, was happily accomplished, though, perhaps, not during the life of the good prelate, and Mr. Burnejt became not only one of the best lawyers of his time, but a very respectable character. After the accession of king George the First, he wrote a letter to the earl of Halifax, on “the Necessity of impeaching the late Ministry,” in which he urges the point with great zeal and warmth, and shews the utmost dislike of treating with any degree of lenity, a set of men whose conduct, in his opinion, deserved the severest punishment. He insists upon it, that the makers of the treaty of Utrecht ought to answer for their treasons with their heads. The letter to the earl of Halifax, which appeared with Mr. Burnet’s name, was followed by an anonymous treatise, entitled “A second Tale of a Tub; or the History of Robert Powel the Puppet-Showman.” This work, which is a satire on the earl of Oxford and his ministry, and is far from being destitute of wit and humour, hath never had the good fortune (nor, indeed, did it deserve it,) of being read and admired like the original “Tale of a Tub.” The author himself, in the latter part of his life, wished it to be forgotten; for we are well informed that he sought much for it, and purchased such copies as he could meet with, at a considerable price. Soon after his father’s death, he published “A Character of the right reverend father in God, Gilbert lord bishop of Sarum; with a true copy of his last Will and Testament.” In ridicule of this publication, was printed in Hudibrastic verse, and with a very small portion of merit, “A certain dutiful Son’s Lamentation for the Death of a certain right reverend; with the certain Particulars of certain Sums and Goods that are bequeathed him, which he will most certainly part with in a ctrtain time.” In 1715, Mr. Burnet, in conjunction with Mr. Ducket, wrote a truvestie of the first book of the Iliad, under the title of “Homerides;” which exposed him to the lash of Mr. Pope, and occasioned that great poet to give him a place, though not with remarkable severity, in the Dunciad. He was likewise concerned in a weekly paper, called “The Grumbler.” He was, however, soon, taken from these literary occupations, by being appointed his majesty’s consul at Lisbon, where he continued several years. Whilst he was in this situation, he had a dispute with lord Tyrawley, the ambassador, in which the merchants sided with Mr. Burnet. During the continuance of the dispute, the consul took an odd method of affronting-' his antagonist. Employing the same taylor, and having learned what dress his lordship intended to wear on a birthday, Mr. Burnet provided the same dress as liveries for his servants, and appeared himself in a plain suit. It is said, that in consequence of this quarrel (though how truly, may, perhaps, be doubted), the ambassador and consul were both recalled. Upon Mr. Burnet’s return to his country, he resumed the profession of the law. In 1723, he published, with a few explanatory notes, the first volume of his father’s “History of his own Time;” and, in 1732, wrote some remarks in defence of that history, in answer to lord Lansdowne’s letter to the author of the “Reflections historical and political.” When Mr. Burnet gave to the public, in 1734, the second volume of the bishop’s history, he added to it the life of that eminent prelate. In Easter term 1736 he was called to the degree of serjeant at law; and, in May 1740, was appointed king’s serjeant, in the room of serjeant Kyre > deceased. When, in 1741, judge Fortescue was raised to the mastership of the rolls, Mr. Burnet, in the month of October in that year, succeeded him as one of the justices of the court of common-pleas. On the 23d of No-/ vember, 1745, when the lord chancellor, the judges, and the associated gentlemen of the law, waited on the king, with their address on occasion of the rebellion, his majesty conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. He was also a member of the royal society. Sir Thomas Burnet continued in the court of common -pleas, with great reputation, to his death, which happened on the 5th of January, 1753. He died of the goat in his stomach, and left behind nim the character of an ab<e and upright judge, a sincere friend, a sensible and agreeable companion, and a munificent benefactor to the poor. Dr. Ferdinando Warner, in his dedication of sir Thomas More’s Life to the then lord keeper Henley, haying mentioned that Mr. justice Burnet recommended to him the translation of the Utopia, adds: “of whom I take this opportunity to say with pleasure, and which your lordship, I am sure, will allow me to say with truth, that for his knowledge of the world, and his able judgment of things, he was equalled by few, and excelled by none of his contemporaries.” The following clause in our learned judge’s will was the subject of conversation after his decease, and was inserted in the monthly collections, as being somewhat extraordinary. “I think it proper in this solemn act to declare, that as I have lived, so I trust I shall die, in the true faith of Christ as taught in the Scriptures; but not as taught or practised in any one visible church that I know of; though I think the church of England is as little stuffed with the inventions of men as any of them; and the church of Rome is so full of them, as to have destroyed all that is lovely in the Christian religion.” This clause gave occasion to the publication of a serious and sensible pamphlet, entitled: “The true Church of Christ, which, and where to be found, according to the Opinion of the late judge Burnet; with an Introduction concerning divine worship, and a caution to gospel preachers; in which are contained, the Reasons for that Declaration in his last Will and Testament.” A judgment may be formed of his abilities in his profession, from his argument in the case of Ryal and Rowls. In 1777 were published in 4to, “Verses written on several occasions, between the years 1712 and 1721.” These were the poetical productions of Mr. Burnet in his youth, of whom it is said by the editor, that he was connected in friendship and intimacy with those wits, which will for ever signalise the beginning of the present century; and that himself shone with no inconsiderable lustre amidst the constellation of geniuses which then so illustriously adorned the British hemisphere.

, lord Monboddo, a learned writer of the eighteenth century, was descended from the ancient family of the Burnetts of Leys, in Kincardineshire, and was born at the family seat of Monboddo, in October or November, 1714. He was first educated at the parish school of Laurencekirk, whence he went to King’s college, Aberdeen, and after the usual courses there, studied civil law at Groningen. On his return in 1738, he was admitted to the Scotch bar, where he acquired considerable practice. During the rebellion in 1745, when the administration of justice was interrupted, he went to London, where he became acquainted with some of the literati of the time, particularly Mallet, Thomson, and Armstrong. These visits he often repeated, and enlarged his acquaintance and correspondence with the succeeding generations of learned men, most of whom he survived. During his practice at the Scotch bar, he was particularly distinguished for the part he took in the celebrated Douglas cause, and was eminently instrumental in assisting the family of Douglas, in the prosecution of a suit which was finally determined in their favour. On the death of his relation lord Milton, in 1767, he was promoted to the bench by the title of lord Monboddo, which political intrigue delayed for some time.

During his periods of leisure, the course of his studies led him to attempt the composition of a work, which should afford, to the confusion and astonishment of the moderns, a complete vindication of the wisdom and eloquence of his admired ancients. The volumes of his “Origin and Progress of Language,” were published about the year 1773, and were very variously treated by the critics. Those who were partial to modern literature, on account of their ignorance of that of antiquity, or who, though not unacquainted with the more popular of the ancient authors, were, however, strangers to the deeper mysteries of Greek erudition, condemned lord Monboddo’s work with bitter and contemptuous censure. Nothing, it was said, but the strange absurdity of his opinions, could have hindered his book from falling dead-born from the press. In the late Mr. Harris, however, (the philosopher of Malmesbury), he found an admirer and literary friend, who was himself deeply versant in Grecian learning and philosophy, and was exceedingly delighted to meet with one that had cultivated those studies with equal ardour, and worshipped the excellence of the ancient Greeks, as far above all other excellence. Lord Monboddo’s private life was spent in the practice of all the social virtues, and in the enjoyment of much domestic felicity; the latter, indeed, was for a time interrupted by the death of a wife and son whom he tenderly loved; but he endured the loss with a firmness fitted to do honour either to philosophy or religion.

Amidst this progress of his literary and philosophical studies, lord Monboddo neglected not his duties as a judge. Whether officiating singly, in the character of lord ordinary or reporting judge; assisting his brother judges in full court; or attending to those parts of his judicial duty which were to be discharged by private study, he was still solemnly and indefatigably diligent in these engagements, in preference to all others. As a lawyer, his arguments. opinions, and decisions, were sound, learned, marked with acute discrimination, and free from fantastic peculiarity. He was no favourer of the rich in preference to the poor; nor yet of the poor, at the expence of injustice to the rich. All his whimsies and partialities as a scholar disappeared, when he came to determine concerning the rights of his fellow subjects.

On May 19, 1685, he was made master of the Charterhouse, by the interest of the duke of Ormond; and soon after commenced LL. D. At what time he entered into orders is not exactly known; but it is plain that he was a clergyman at his election to this mastership, from the objection then made against him by some of the bishops who were governors, namely, “that he generally appeared in a lay-habit,” which was over-ruled by his patron the duke of Ormond, by asserting in his favour, that he had no living or other ecclesiastical preferment; and that his life and conversation were in all respects suitable to the clerical character. In the latter end of 1686, Dr. Burnet’s integrity, prudence, and resolution, were fully tried in his new station, upon the following occasion: one Andrew Popham, a Roman Catholic, came to the Charter-house, with a letter from king James to the governors, requiring them to choose and admit him the said Andrew Popham a pensioner thereof, “without tendering any oath or oaths unto him, or requiring of him any subscription, recognition, or other act or acts, in conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the church of England as the same is now established; and notwithstanding any statute, order, or constitution, of or in the said hospital; with which, says his majesty, we are graciously disposed to dispense in his behalf.” On the meeting of the governors, the king’s letter was read, and the lord chancellor Jefferies moved, that without any debate they should proceed to vote whether Andrew Popham should be admitted a pensioner of the hospital, according to the king’s letter. The master, Dr. Burnet, as the junior, was to vote first, but he told the governors, that he thought it was his duty to acquaint their lordships with the state and constitution of that hospital; and, though this was opposed by some, yet, after a little debate, he proceeded to observe, that to admit a pensioner into the hospital without his taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was not only contrary to the constitution of the ho&pital, but to an express act of parliament for the better establishment thereof. One of the governors asked what this was to the purpose? The duke of Ormond replied, that he thought it much to the purpose; for an act of parliament was not so slight a thing as not to deserve a consideration. After some other discourse, the question was put, whether Popham should be admitted? and passed in the negative. A second letter from the king was afterwards sent; to which the governors, in a letter addressed to his majesty, humbly replied, and gave their reasons why they could not admit Andrew Popham as a pensioner of the hospital. This not satisfying king James, he ordered chancellor Jefferies to find out a way how he might compel their submission, and the master was particularly threatened to be summoned before the ecclesiastical commissioners. But his subsequent quarrels with the universities, and the commotions which followed, prevented any farther proceeding on the part of the king. This was the first stand made against the dispensing power of that reign, by any society in England, and was of great importance to the public, A relation of the Charter-house proceedings upon this occasion was published by Dr. Burnet in 1689. After the revolution, he was introduced to court by his tutor and friend, archbishop Tillotson, and was made chaplain to the king, and soon after, clerk of the closet. He was now considered as in the high road to great preferment, and had certainly a fine prospect before him; when he ruined all by some unadvised strokes of his pen. In 1692 he published “Archæologiæ philosophiæ; sive doctrina antiqua de rerum originibus,” 4to, with a dedication to king William, whose character he diws with great strength of genius and art, and in that beautiful style which was peculiar to himself. But neither the high rank and authority of his patron, nor the elegance and learning displayed throughout the work, could protect the author from the clamours raised against him for allegorizing in a very indelicate manner the scripture account of the fall of Adam and Eve. In consequence of which, as appears from a Latin letter written by himself to Walters, a bookseller at Amsterdam, dated Sept. 14, 1694, he desires to have the most offensive parts omitted in the future editions of that work. He had expressed himself to the same purpose, some time before the date of this letter, in a Latin epistle, “Ad virum clarissimum circa nuper editum de Archæologiis Philosophicis libellum;” where he says, that he cheerfully wished that any passages which have given offence to the pious and wise, and particularly the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent, may be expunged. The person to whom this letter is addressed, and also a second afterwards upon the same subject, was generally understood to be archbishop Tillotson. Both the letters are subjoined to the second edition of “Archæologiæ philosophicæ,” printed in 1728, in 8vo, and in both he acknowledges sacred scripture, whether literally or mystically understood, to be given us from heaven, as the rule of our faith, the guide of our life, and the refuge of our salvation; and professes to pay to it all possible respect, honour, and veneration.

But all this proved insufficient; and the storm raised against him was rather increased than abated, by the encomium which Mr. Charles Blount, the deistical author of the “Oracles of Reason,” thought proper to bestow upon his work. Blount, in a letter to his friend Gildon, tells him, that “according to his promise, he has sent him a translation of the seventh and eighth chapters, and also the appendix, of the great and learned Dr. Burnet’s” Arehseologiae philosophic^," &c. a piece which he thinks one of the most ingenious he ever read, and full of the most acute as well as learned observations. The* seventh and eighth chapters, here translated for Mr. Gildon’s use, were, unfortunately, the most objectionable in the whole work; and being immediately adopted by an infidel writer, gave such support to the complaints of the clergy, that it was judged expedient, in that critical season, to remove him from his place of clerk of the closet. He withdrew accordingly from court; anc if Mr. Oldmixon can be credited, ac-. tually missed the see of Canterbury, upon the death of Tillotson, on account of this very work, which occasioned him to be then represented by some bishops as a sceptical writer. He then retired to his studies in the Charter-house, without seeking, or perhaps desiring, any farther preferment; for he does not appear to have been a man of ambition; and there he lived, in a single state, to a good old age, dying Sept. 27, 1715.

, an eminent modern poet of Scotland, was born on the 29th day of January, 1759, in a small house about two miles from the town of Ayr, in Scotland. His father, William, after various attempts to gain a livelihood, took a lease of seven acres of land, with a view of commencing nurseryman and public gardener; and having built a house upon it with his own hands, he married, December 1757, Agnes Brown. The first fruit of his marriage was Robert, who in his sixth year was sent to a school at Alloway Miln, about a mile distant from his father’s house, where he made considerable proficiency in reading and writing, and where he discovered an inclination for books not very common at so early an age. With these, however, he appears at that time to have been rather scantily supplied; but what he could obtain he read with avidity and improvement. About the age of thirteen, or fourteen, he was sent to the parish school of Dalrymple, where he increased his acquaintance with English gramroar, and gained some knowledge of the French language. Latin was also recommended to him; but he was not induced to make any great progress in it. In the intervals from these studies, he was employed on his father’s farm, which, in spite of much industry, became so unproductive as to involve the family in great distress. This early portion of affliction is said to have been, in a great measure, the cause of that depression of spirits of which our poet often complained, and during which his sufferings appear to have been very acute. His father having taken another farm, the speculation was yet more fatal, and involved his affairs in complete ruin. He died Feb. 13, 1784.

This was the most momentous period of his life, in which he was to emerge from obscurity and poverty to distinction and wealth. In the metropolis he was soon introduced into the company and received the homage of men of literature, rank, and taste; and his appearance and behaviour at this time, as they exceeded all expectation, heightened and kept up the curiosity which his works had excited. He became the object of universal admiration and fondness, and was feasted, caressed, and flattered, as if it had been impossible to reward his merit too highly, or to grace his triumphal entry by too many solemnities. But what contributed principally to extend his fame into the sister kingdom* was his fortunate introduction to Mr. Mackenzie, who^ in the 97th paper of the Lounger, then published periodically at Edinburgh, recommended his poems by judicious specimens, and such generous and elegant criticism, as placed the poet at once in the rank he was destined to hold. From this time, whether present or. absent, Burns and his genius were the objects which engrossed all attention and all conversation.

It cannot be surprising if so much adulation, in this new scene of life, produced effects an Burns which were the source of much of the unhappiness of his future life: for, while he was admitted into the company of men of taste, delicacy, and virtue, he was also seduced, by pressing invitations, into the society of those whose habits, without being very gross, are yet too social and inconsiderate; and the festive indulgences of these his companions and professed admirers were temptations which often became irresistible. Among his superiors in rank and merit, his behaviour was in general decorous and unassuming; but among his more equal or inferior associates, he: was permitted to dictate the mirth of the evening, and repaid the attention and submission of his hearers by sallies of wit. which, from one of his birth and education, in addition to their sterling value, had all the fascination of wonder. His introduction, about thasame time, into certain convivial clubs of higher rank was, to say the least, an injudicious mark of respect to one who, whatever his talents, was destined, unless very uncommon aad liberal patronage should interpose, to return to the plough, and to the simple and frugal enjoyments of a peasant’s life.

It has already been noticed, that Burns very fondly cherished those notions of independence, and those feelings of an independent spirit that are dear to the young and ingenuous, and were, perhaps, not less so to him, because so often sung by the greatest of our poets. But he had not matured these notions by reflection; and he was now to learn, that a little knowledge of the world will overturn many such airy fabrics. If we may form any judgment, however, from his correspondence, his expectations were not very extravagant, since he expected only that some of his illustrious patrons would have placed him, on whom they had bestowed the honours of genius, in a situation where his exertions might have been uninterrupted by the fatigues of labour, and the calls of want. Disappointed in this, be now formed a design of applying for the office of exciseman, as a kind of resource in case his expectations from the farm should be baffled. By the interest of one of his friends, this object was accomplished; and after the usual forms were gone through, he was appointed exciseman, or, as it is vulgarly called, ganger, of the district in which he lived. It soon appeared, as might naturally have been expected, that the duties of this office were incompatible with his previous employment. “His farm,” says Dr. Currie, “was, in a great measure, abandoned to his servants, while he betook himself to the duties of his new appointment. He might still, indeed, be seen in the spring, directing his plough, a labour in which he excelled, or with a white sheet, containing his seed-corn, slung across his shoulders, striding with measured steps along his turned-up furrows, and scattering the grain in the earth. But his farm no longer occupied the principal part of his care or his thoughts. It was not at Ellisland that he was now in general to be found: Mounted on horse-back, this high: minded poet was pursuing the defaulters of the revenue among the hills and vales of Nithsdale, his roving eye wandering over the charms of nature, and muttering his wayward fancies as he moved along.”

Burns also found leisure to form a society for purchasing and circulating books among the farmers of the neighbourhood; but these, however praiseworthy employments, still interrupted the attention he ought to have bestowed on his farm, which became so unproductive that he found it convenient to resign it, and, disposing of his stock and crop, removed to a small house which he had taken in Dumfries, a short time previous to his lyric engagement with Mr. Thomson. He had now received from the board of excrse, in consequence of his diligence and integrity, an appointment to a new district, the emoluments of which amounted to about seventy pounds sterling per annum. While at Dumfries, his temptations to irregularity, partly arising from the wandering and unsettled duties of his office, and partly from the killing kindness of his friends, recurred so frequently as nearly to overpower those resolutions, which he appears to have formed with a perfect knowledge of what is right and prudent. During his quiet moments, however, he was enlarging his fame by those admirable compositions he sent to Mr. Thomson: and his temporary sallies and flashes of imagination, in the merriment of the social table, still bespoke a genius of wonderful strength and of high captivations. It has been said, indeed, with great justice, that, extraordinary as his poems are, they afford but an inadequate proof of the powers of their author, or of that acuteness of observation and fertility of expression he displayed on the most common topics in conversation. In the society, likewise, of persons of taste and respectability, he could refrain from those indulgences which among his more constant companions probably formed his chief recommendation.

Although not satisfied with the issue of this affair, he continued to look up to the contingencies and gradations of promotion. In a letter written to one of his patrons (whose name is concealed), dated 1794, he states that he is on the list of supervisors; that in two or three years he should be at the head of that list, and be appointed, as a matter of course; but that then a friend might be of service in getting him into a part of the kingdom which he would like. A supervisor’s income varies from about 120l. to 2001. a year; but the business, he says, is “an incessant drudgery, and would be nearly a complete bar to every species of literary pursuit.” He proceeds, however, to observe, that the moment he is appointed supervisor in the common routine, he might be nominated on the collector’s list, “and this is always a business purely of political patronage. A collectorship varies from muck better than two hundred a year to near a thousand. Collectors also come forward by precedency on the list, and have, besides a handsome income, a life of complete leisure. A life of literary leisure, with a decent competence, is the summit of my wishes.” He then respectfully solicits the interest of his correspondent to facilitate this.

As to the person of our poet, he is described as being nearly five feet ten inches in height, and of a form that indicated agility as well as strength. His well -raised forehead, shaded with black curling hair, expressed uncommon capacity. His eyes were large, dark, full of ardour and animation. His face was well formed, and his countenance uncommonly interesting. Of his general behaviour, some traits have already been given. It usually bespoke a mind conscious of superior talents, not however unmixed with the affections which beget familiarity and affability. It was consequently various, according to the various modes in which he was addressed, or supposed himself to be treated: for it may easily be imagined that he often felt disrespect where none was meant. His conversation is universally allowed to have been uncommonly fascinating, and rich in wit, humour, whim, and occasionally in serious and apposite reflection. This excellence, however, proved a lasting misfortune to him: for while it procured him the friendship of men of character and taste, in whose company his humour was guarded and chaste, it had also allurements for the lowest of mankind, who know no difference between freedom and licentiousness, and are never so completely gratified as when genius condescends to give a kind of sanction to their grossness. Yet with all his failings, no man had a quicker apprehension of right and wrongvin human conduct, or a stronger sense of what was ridiculous or mean in morals or manners. His own errors he well knew and lamented, and that spirit of independence which he claimed, and so frequently exhibited, preserved him from injustice or selfish insensibility. He died poor, but not in debt, and left behind him a name, the fame of which will not be soon eclipsed.

Of his poems, which have^been so often printed, and so eagerly read, it would be unnecessary here to enter into a critical examination. All readers of taste and sensibility have agreed to assign him a high rank among the rural poets of his country. His prominent excellencies are humour, tenderness, and sublimity; a combination rarely found in modern times, unless in the writings of a few poets of the very highest fame, with whom it would be improper to compare him. As he always wrote under the impression of actual feeling, much of the character of the man may be discovered in the poet. He executed no great work, for he never was in a situation which could afford the means of preparing, executing, and polishing a work of magnitude. His time he was compelled to borrow from labour, anxiety, and sickness. Hence his poems are short, various, and frequently irregular. It is not always easy to predict, from the beginning of them, what the conclusion or general management will be. They were probably written at one effort, and apparently with ease. He follows the guidance of an imagination, fertile in its images, but irregular in its expressions, and apt to be desultory. Hence Jie mixes the most affecting tenderness with humour almost coarse, and from this frequently soars to a sentiment of sublimity, a lofty flight, indicative of the highest powers of the art. Although in pursuit of flowers, he does not scruple to pick up a weed, if it has any thing singular in its appearance, or apposite in its resemblance. Yet the reader, who has been accustomed to study nature, and the varieties of the human mind, will always find something in unison with his boldest transitions.

If the merit of a poet is to be estimated by comparison, Burns has certainly surpassed his countrymen Ramsay and Fergusson, the only two writers of any eminence with whom a comparison has been, or can be instituted. In his early attempts, these were the best models he had to follow; and it is evident that he had studied their works, and derived considerable improvement from them. He acknowledged that, meeting with Fergusson’s Scottish Poems, he “strung his lyre anew with emulating vigour.” But still he exceeds in versatility of talent. The poems of Ramsay and Fergusson are characterized by humour or pathos only: but our poet, while his humour was more exuberant than theirs, and his pathos equally touching, rose superior by flights of the sublime and terrible, which they never attained. He may therefore be believed when he says, that “although he had these poets frequently in his eye, it was rather with a view to kindle at their flame, than to servile imitation.”

Burns was entirely the poet of nature. Of literature he had none. He knew the Greek and Roman poets, if he knew them at all, only in translations. There have been, indeed, few poets less indebted to art and education. He was a total stranger to the tinsel, the overloading epithets, and other shifts of modern poets. If he read French, he imbibed nothing of the French manner: but his knowledge of that language does not appear to have been very intimate, although some common-place phrases occur in his letters. What superior culture might have done for a mind naturally vigorous and easily susceptible of knowledge, we shall not now inquire. Burns’ s w: orks claim no charitable allowance on account of the obscurity of his birth, or the stnallness of his acquisitions; they are such as few scholars could have produced, and such as learning could not have materially improved: as a poet, he may await the verdict of criticism, without the least necessity of putting in the plea of poverty, or want of literature. In all his works, he discovers his feelings, without betraying his situation. Had they been sent into the world without a name, conjecture would have found no pretence to fix them on a ploughman, or to suppose that they were published merely to raise pity and relief.

By some it has been regretted, that the best performances of our poet are in a language now accounted barbarous, which is never used in serious writing, and which is gradually falling into disuse, because every man gets rid of it as soun as he can. It has been asked, why he should write only for a part of the island, when he could command the admiration of the whole? In answer, it has been urged, that he wrote for the peasantry of his country, in a language which was to them familiar, and rich in expression. It was likewise for many years the only language he knew so well as to be able to express himself fluently in it; fyis early thoughts were conveyed in it, and it was endeared to him by the pleasures of memory and association. He wrote it when he had no very extensive ambition, and when he had no suspicion that it would obscure his sentiments, or narrow his fame. Nor, it must be confessed, has he been disappointed in his expectations, if we suppope that they were more enlarged. In England, Ireland, and America, his poems have been read and studied with pleasure and avidity, amidst all the interruptions of glossarial reference. These remarks, however, do not apply to many of his graver poems which are written in English, and in English which proves that he had cultivated that language with attention and success; although he did not conceive it to be adapted to such pieces as he intended, perhaps exclusively, far the use of his humble neighbours, and tagive classic dignity to his native scenery.

It has already been mentioned, that Burns had received a religious education, such as is common to the lower classes in Scotland; and it may be observed, that many of his sentiments run in a devotional strain, while he 'frequently, but not always with equal judgment, introduces the language and imagery of the Holy Scriptures in his writings. It is to be lamented, however, that the religious impressions of his youth were neither so strong nor so durable as to afford him consolation amidst the untoward events of his life. He appears to have been much affected by the bigotry of his neighbours, and has satirized it with peculiar humour; but in this discharge of what he might think was his duty, he overlooked the mean betwixt superstition and unbelief. In his latter days he felt severely the folly of thus removing from one extreme to another; and probably lamented the loss of that happier frame of mind in which he wrote the concluding verses of the “Cotter’s Saturday Night.” Let us hope, however, that his many and frank acknowledgments of error finally ended in that “repentance which is not to be repented of.” It is but justice to add, that he corrected certain improprieties introduced into his early poems; and it was his intention to have revised all his works, and make reparation to the individuals he had been supposed to irritate, or to the subjects he had treated with unbecoming levity. “When we reflect,” says Mr. Mackenzie, “on his rank in life, the habits to which he must have been subject, and the society in which he must have mixed, we regret, perhaps, more than wonder, that delicacy should be so often offended in perusing a volume in which there is so much to interest and please us.”

The character of Burns will still be incomplete, without some notice of his abilities as a prose-writer; for of these we have ample proofs in his familiar correspondence. That his letters were never intended for the public eye, that many of them are mutilated, and that some, perhaps, might have been suppressed, are deductions which do not affect their merit as the effusions of a very uncommon mind, enriched with knowledge far beyond what could have been reasonably expected in his situation. He appears to have cultivated English prose with care, and certainly wrote it with a sprightly fluency. His turns of expression are various and surprizing, and, when treating the most common topics, his sentiments are singular and animated. His letters, however, would have attained a higher portion of graceful expression, and would have been more generally pleasing, had they not been too frequently the faithful transcripts of a disappointed mind, gloomily bent on one set of indignant and querulous reflections. But with this, and another exception which might be made to these letters, from a frequent imitation of the discursive manner of Sterne, they must ever be considered as decided proofs of genius. They contain many admirable specimens of critical acumen, and many flights of humour, and observations on life and manners, which fully justify our belief that, had he cultivated his prose talents only, he might have risen to very high distinction in epistolary or essay writing. Upon the whole, Burns was a man who undoubtedly possessed great abilities with great failings. The former he received from nature, he prized them highly, and he improved them; the latter were exaggerated by circumstances less within his controul, and by disappointments which, trusting to the most liberal encouragement ever offered to genius, he could not have foreseen. They may yet serve to guard ambitious and ardent minds from similar irregularities and wanderings, and to explain why such a man, after the first burst of popular applause was past, lived and died more unhappily than would probably have been the case had he never known what it was to be caressed and admired.

, knt. garter king at arms, is said to have been the son of a gardener or a brewer at Sandwich, who appears, however, to have been a person of considerable opulence, as he married into the family of the Dennes of Dennehili, and gave his son a very liberal education. He studied law in Gray’s-inn, and in 1623, was appointed keeper of the records in the Tower, and about the same time became secretary to the Earl Marshal. In the former reign (Elizabeth) he had been created Mowbray herald extraordinary, to enable him to become a king at arms, upon, a vacancy, and was knighted by king James I. July 17, 1624. He attended Charles I. when he wetit to Scotland to be crowned. In 1633 he was made garter king at arms. In 1636, he obtained a grant to entitle him to the fees and perc “e. of his office, because he had been abroad upon the L^siness of the crown, which enabled him to take his share of the dues of his office, the same as if he had been personally present in the college. In 1640, he attended the treaty held by the sovereign with his subjects in Scotland, and upon the civil war breaking out, withdrew from the college, to attend his duty upon his royal master. Whilst in this service, a grace passed in convocation at Oxford for the degree of LL. D. but Wood says it does not appear by the register whether he was admitted, which, however, is highly probable. He died at Oxford, Oct. 21, 1643, and was buried in Christ church cathedral. He wrote, 1.” Impetus juveniles, et quaedam sedatioris aliquantulum animi epistolae,“Oxon. 1643, 8vo, in which his name is Latinized into Burrhus. Most of the epistles are written to Philip Bacon, sir Francis Bacon (lord Verulam), Thomas Famabie, Thomas Coppin, sir Henry Spelman, &c. 2.” The Sovereignty of the British Seas, proved by records, &c.“written in 1633, but not published until 1651, 12mo. Wood says he also made” A Collection of Records in the Tower of London." There are many ms pedigrees remaining of his drawing up. In the Inner Temple library is a commentary in ms. from his pen, on the formulary for combats before the constable and marshal. His abilities and erudition were universally acknowledged during his life.

In April 1625, he presented a letter to king Charles, remonstrating against Dr. Neile and Dr. Laud, his majesty’s continual attendants, as popishly affected; and for this was forbidden the court. Soon after he was presented to the rectory of -St, Matthew’s, in Friday-street, London. In Dec. 1636, he was summoned to appear before Dr. Duck, one of the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, who tendered to him the oaths ex officio, to answer to certain articles brought against him, for what he had advanced in two sermons preached in his own church on the preceding 5th of November . Burton, instead of answering, appealed to the king: but a special high-commission court, which was called soon after at Doctors’ Commons, suspended him, in his absence, from both his office and benefice; on which he thought fit to abscond, but published his two sermons under the title of “For God and the King;” together with an apology justifying his appeal. February 1, a serjeant at arms, with other officers, by virtue of a warrant from the star-chamber, broke open his doors, seized his papers, and took him into custody. Next day, he was, by an order of the privy-council, committed to the Fleet prison; from which place he dated one epistle to his majesty, another to the judges, and a third to the “truehearted nobility.” March 1!, he was proceeded against in the star-chamber, for writing and publishing seditious, schismatical, and libellous books, against the hierarchy of the church, and to the scandal of the government. To this information he (and Bastwick and Prynne who were indicted with him) prepared answers . In the end of May 1637, a person came to the Fleet to examine Burton upon his answer; but hearing that the greatest part of it had been expunged, he refused to be examined, unless his answer might be admitted as it was put in, or he permitted to put in a new answer. June 2, it was ordered by the court, that if he would not answer to interrogatories framed upon his answer, he would be proceeded against pro confesso. Accordingly, June 14, Burton, and the two others, being brought to the bar, the information was read; and no legal answer having been put in in time, nor filed on record, the court began for this contempt to proceed to sentence. The defendants cried out for justice, that their answers might be read, and that they might not be condemned unheard, but because their answers were not filed on record, the court proceeded to pass sentence: which was, that Burton, Prynne, and Bastwick pay a fine of 50OO/. each, and that Burton in particular be deprived of his ecclesiastical benefice, degraded from his ministerial function and degrees in the university, be set on the pillory, have both his ears cut off there, confined to perpetual close imprisonment in Lancaster-castle, debarred the access of his wife or any other except his keeper, and denied the use of pen, ink, and paper: all which, except the fine and the solitary part of the confinement, was executed accordingly, and the cutting off his ears with circumstances of great cruelty, they being pared so close, that the temporal artery was cut. During his twelve weeks imprisonment in the common gaol at Lancaster, great crowds pitying his misfortunes resorted to him, and some of his papers being dispersed in London, he was removed, by an order of council, to Cornet-castle in the isle of Guernsey, October 1637, where he was shut up almost three years; till in November 1640, the house of, commons, upon his wife’s petition, complaining of the severity of his sentence, ordered that he should be brought to the parliament in safe custody. Burton, on his arrival at London, presented a petition to the house of commons, setting forth his sufferings, and there was now a house of commons willing enough to listen to more trifling complaints. In consequence of this, the house resolved that the sentence against him was illegal, and ought to be reversed; that he be freed from the fine of 5000l. and from imprisonment, and restored to his degrees in the university, orders in the ministry, and to his ecclesiastical benefice in Friday-street, London; also have recompense for his imprisonment, and for the loss of his ears, which they fixed at six thousand pounds; but owing to the ensuing confusions in the kingdom, he never received that sum. He was, however, restored to his living of St. Matthew’s, after which he declared himself an Independent, and complied with all the alterations that ensued; but, according to Wood, when he saw to what extravagant lengths the parliament went, he grew more moderate, and afterwards fell out with his fellow-sufferers Prynne and Bastwick, and with Mr. Edmund Calamy. He died Jan. 7, 1648. Besides the tracts mentioned above, he wrote several others, which are thus enumerated. 1. “A Censure of Simony,” Loud. 1624. 2. “A Plea to an Appeal, traversed Dialoguewise,” Lond. 1626. 3. “The baiting of the Pope’s Bull,” Lond. 1627. 4. “A Tryal of private Devotions, or a Dyal for the Hours of Prayer,” Lond. 1628. 5. “Israel’s Fast; or, Meditations on the 7th Chapter of Joshua,” Lond. 1628. 6. “Seven Vials, or an Exposition on the loth and 16th Chapters of the Revelations,” Lond. 1628. 7. “Babel no Bethel; i. e. The Church of Rome no true visible Church of Christ, being an Answer to Hugh Cholmeley’s Challenge, and Robert Butterfield’s Maschil.” 8. “Truth’s Triumph over Trent, or the great Gulph between Sion and Babylon,” Lond. 1629. 9. “The Law and the Gospel reconciled against the Antinomians,” Lond. 1631^ 4to. 10. “Christian’s Bulwark, or the Doctrine of Justification,” Lond. 1632, 4to. 11. “Exceptions against a passage in Dr. Jackson’s Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes.” 12. “The sounding of the two last Trumpets; or, Meditations on the 9th, 10th, and llth Chapters of the Revelations,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 13. “The Protestation protested, or a short Remonstrance, shewing what is principally required of all those that have or do take the last Parliamentary Protestation,” London, 1641, 4to. 14. “Relation of Mr. Chillingworth.” 15. “A Narration of his own Life,” Lond. 1643, 4to. J6. “A Vindication of Independent Churches, in answer to Mr. Prynne’s two books of Church-Government, and of Independency,” Lond. 1644, 4to. 17. “Parliament’s Power for Laws in Religion,” 1645, 4to. 18. “Vindiciae Veritatis: Truth vindicated against Calumny: In a brief Answer to Dr. Bastwick’s two late books, entitled, Independency not God’s Ordinance,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 19. “Truth shut out of Doors; or, A brief Narrative of the Occasion and Manner of Proceeding of Aldermanbury Parish, in shutting their Church-Door against him,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 20. “Conformity’s Deformity, in a Dialogue between Conformity and Conscience,” Lond. 1646, 4to.

, a learned divine, was born in 1696 at Wemb worth in Devonshire, of which parish his father wag rector. The first part of his grammatical education he received at Okehampton, and the remainder at Ely, under the rev. Sam. Bentham, his first cousin by the mother’s side. Such were the proofs which young Burton afforded at school of his capacity, diligence, and worthy dispositions, that the learned Dr. Ashton, master of Jesuscollege, Cambridge, designed to have him admitted into his own college. But in the mean time, Dr. Turner, president of Corpus-Christi college, Oxford, having made an accidental trial of Mr. Burton’s literary improvements, procured him a scholarship in that college in 1713, when he was 17 years of age. Here he made so distinguished a progress, that Dr. Mather, the president, appointed him to the important office of tutor, when he was only B. A. Soon after, the college conferred upon him the honour of reading the Greek lecture. During the whole course of his studies, he recommended himself both to the affection of his equals and the esteem of his superiors. Dr. Potter, in particular, at that time bishop of Oxford, conceived a great regard for him. March 24, 1720, Mr. Burton was admitted to the degree of M. A. In the exercise of his duty as a tutor, no one could exceed him in attention, diligence, and a zealous concern for the improvement of his pupils. As he was himself unacquainted with mathematics, and ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, he took effectual care that the young men under his tuition should be well instructed in these points. With regard to those of his pupils who were upon charitable foundations, he was solicitous that the acquisition of knowledge should be rendered as cheap to them as possible; and was so disinterested and beneficent in the whole of his conduct, that, after having discharged the office of a tutor almost fifteen years, he was scarcely possessed of 50l. when he quitted the university. In revising, correcting, and improving the exercises of the students, Mr. Burton displayed surprising patience and indefatigable diligence; and there are still extant his themes, declamations, orations, and poems of every kind, which he composed for the use of his own pupils, and even of others. His attention was also laudably and liberally directed to the restoration of the credit of the university press, and to enable editors to carry on their literary undertakings with diminished expence. With this view, he often prevailed upon Dr. Mather, Dr. Holmes, and other vice-chancellors, to order new types; and, by the assistance of some noble friends, he was so strenuous in behalf of the learned Hutchinson, the editor of Xenophon, that no editors since that time have had any delay or difficulty in obtaining the exemption from the duty on paper, which has been granted by parliament to books printed at the Clarendon press. It was also by Mr. Burton’s persuasion, that Mr. (afterwards lord) Rolle gave WOl. to the university, for the purpose of lending it to editors; and that Dr. Hodges, provost of Orielcollege, bequeathed 200l. to the same use. In 1725, when our learned tutor was pro-proctor and master of the schools, he spoke, before the determining bachelors, a Latin oration, entitled “Heli,” which was both written and published with a design of enforcing the salutary exercise of academical discipline. The same subject was still more fully considered by him in four Latin sermons, preached before the university; which, likewise, with appendices, were afterwards given to the public. Indeed, the labour that Mr. Burton, during two years, cheerfully went through, as master of the schools, was immense. July 19, 1729, Mr. Burton was admitted to the degree of B. D.; and in 1732, when the settlement of the colony of Georgia was in agitation, being solicitous to give his assistance in promoting that undertaking, he preached a sermon in its recommendation; and his discourse was afterwards published, with an appendix concerning the state of the colony. He was likewise, through his whole life, an ardent promoter of Dr. Bray’s admirable scheme of parochial libraries.

Among other youths who were committed to the tuition of Mr. Burton, there were several from Eton school, who excelled in genius and learning. This circumstance introduced him to an epistolary correspondence, and a social intercourse, with the masters of the school and the provost and fellows of the college; the consequence of which was, that they formed so good an opinion of his disposition and character, as to elect him, in 1733, into a fellowship of their society. About the same time, upon the death of Dr. Edward Littleton, he was presented to the vicarage of Maple-derham in Oxfordshire; which may be considered as a grand sera in Mr. Burton’s life. Upon going to take possession of his new preferment, he found the widow of his predecessor, and three infant daughters, without a home and without a fortune. A sight so affecting inspired him with compassion: compassion was followed by love, and love by marriage . Mr. Burton shewed the same contempt for money, and perhaps carried it to an excess, after he was settled in his living. His situation being remarkably pleasant, nothing gave him a greater delight than repairing, enlarging, and adorning his house, embellishing his gardens, planting trees, clearing fields, making roads, and introducing such other improvements as he believed would be of advantage to his Successors . Works of a similar kind were undertaken by him, when in 1766 he was instituted to the rectory of Worplesdon in Surry. In 1748, the death of his wife affected him in the tenderest manner, as is evident from the several parts of his “Opuscula metrico-prosaica;” but did not lessen his regard for her three orphan daughters, towards whom he continued to exert the greatest affection and liberality. After this event, he spent the principal part of the year at Eton-college; where he gave himself entirely up to the study of literature, and the assistance of his friends; but punctually attended any public meetings on literary or ecclesiastic affairs, whether at Oxford, London, or Cambridge. July 1, 1752, he took the degree of D. D. and afterwards published his lectures on that occasion. He was intimately connected with many of the bishops; and whilst caressed by the governors of the church, was equally dear to the lowest of the clergy. Nothing was more agreeable to him, than to see all around him easy, cheerful, and happy. To such of the young scholars at Eton as appeared so be of promising abilities and dispositions, he shewed a particular attention, made them the companions of his leisure hours, and afforded them every encouragement which lay in his power.

When Dr. Burton came to an advanced age, and his eyes began to fail him, he thought proper to collect together and publish his scattered pieces, under the title of “Opuscula miscellanea.” Scarcely had he finished this task, when he was suddenly attacked by an erysipelous fever, which disturbed his intellects, and shattered his decaying frame. He seemed however at intervals to recover, and to be desirous of resuming his studies. The day before his death, on Sunday evening, he sent, as had been his custom, for five or six promising youths; and after supper discoursed to them, with more than usual perspicuity and elegance, on some important subject of divinity. From this exertion, which he seemed to bear without inconvenience, his physician and friends conceived hopes, though mistaken ones, of his recovery; for after a most serene sleep, he quietly departed this Jife the next morning, Feb. 11, 1771, aged 76, and was buried at the entrance of the inner chapel at Eton.

Dr. Burton had some peculiarities of character, which wit or envy were accustomed to magnify; even his style, which is rather precise and pedantic, has been considered as peculiar, and called the Burtonian style; but his acknowledged virtues and talents were such as to entitle him to the serious regard of the majority of his contemporaries^ His works, some of which we have already noticed, consist of two volumes of occasional “Sermons,” 1764, and 1766, 8vo; his “Opuscula Miscellanea Theologica,” and his “Opuscula Miscellanea Metrico-prosaica.” Of these a very elegant poem, entitled “Sacerdos Parrecialis Rusticus,” has been recently (1800) translated by the Rev. Dawson Warren, under the title “The Parish Priest, a poem,” 4to. One of the most useful of Dr. Burton’s separate publications appeared in 1744, entitled “The Genuineness of Lord Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion printed at Oxford vindicated;” in which he clearly and fully refutes the slander that bad been advanced by Oldmixon, in his Critical History of England. In 1758, appeared the doctor’s “Dissertatio et Notae criticae spectantes ad Tragoedias quasdam Graecas editas in Pentalogia.” The publication. of the five select tragedies which constitute the “Pentalogia r” first begun, but interrupted by the death of Mr. Joseph Bingham, one of his pupils, took place in 1758, with a preface, dissertations, index, and additional notes, and has lately been reprinted at the university press. In 1766, he published a discourse, entitled “Papists and Pharisees compared; or, Papists the corrupters of Christianity;” occasioned by Philips’s Life of cardinal Pole. About the same time, he delivered at Oxford a set of sermons, still in manuscript, the design of which was to refute the articles of the council of Trent.

Dr. Burton is understood to have been the author, under the name of “Phileleutherus Londinensis,” of “Remarks on Dr. King’s Speech before the University of Oxford, at the Dedication of Dr. Radcliff’s Library, on the 13th of April, 1749.” This produced from Dr. King, “Elogium Famæ inserviens Jacci Etonensis, sive Gigantis; or, The Praises of Jack of Eton, commonly called Jack the Giant; collected into English metre, after the manner of Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, John Burton, and others. To which is added, a dissertation on the Burtonian style. By a Master of Arts.” Dr. Burton’s Life was written in Latin by Dr. Edward Bentham, his relation, and canon of Christ church, under the title “De Vita et moribus Johannis Burtoni,” 1771, addressed to Dr. Lowth, then bishop of Oxford, afterwards of London; and was translated the same year in the Gentleman? s Magazine.

, M.D. and F. R. S. and F. S.A. an eminent antiquary, of whom our accounts are very scanty, was born at Rjppon in Yorkshire 1697, and educated hi Christ church college in Oxford for some time, but took his degree in some foreign university; and on his settling at York, became very eminent in his profession. In 1745 it is said that he proposed joining himself to the pretender, then at Manchester; but that his friends had interest sufficient to dissuade him from a measure which must have terminated in his ruin. His conduct, therefore, appears to have unjustly exposed him to censure, if his own account may be relied on, to this purpose, that “going out of York, with leave of the mayor, &c. to take care of his estates, on the approach of the rebels, he was taken by them, and in consequence of that was apprehended Dec. 3, 1745, and detained till March 25, 1746—7.” This is explained in “British liberty endangered, demonstrated by the following narrative, wherein is proved from facts, that J. B. has hitherto been a better friend to the English constitution, in church and state, than his persecutors. Humbly dedicated to the most reverend and worthy the archbishop of Canterbury, late of York (Herring). With a proper preface, by John Burton, of York, M. D.” London, 3 749. There was afterwards published “An account of what passed between Mr. George Thomson of York, and doctor John Burton of that city, physician and manmidwife, at Mr. sheriff Jubb’s entertainment, and the consequences thereon, by Mr. George Thomson,” London, 1756, 8vo, a narrative, in the lowest and most abusive language, says Mr. Gough, of a quarrel and assault, for the doctor’s refusing to drink certain healths proposed to him, drawn up with all the virulence of disappointment for a verdict against the writer. Long before these events, he published “A Treatise on the Non-naturals, in which the great influence they have on human bodies is set forth, and mechanically accounted for. To which is subjoined, a short Essay on the Chin-Cough, with a new method of treating that obstinate distemper,” York, 1738, 8vo. In the title of this work, he calls himself “M. B. Cant, and M. D. Rhem.” by which it would appear that his bachelor’s was a Lambeth degree, and that he graduated as doctor at Rheims. In 1751, he published “An Essay towards a complete new system of Midwifery,” 8vo, and in 1753, “A Letter to William Smellie, M. D. containing critical and practical remarks upon his Treatise on the theory and practice of Midwifery,” 8vo. But the work by which he is principally known, and for which he was employed in making collections during his latter years, was, his “Monasticon Eboracense; and the Ecclesiastical History of Yorkshire, &c.” the first volume of which was published in 1758, folio. This is in all respects a most valuable work; and it is to be regretted that it was not completed by a second volume, for which he had ample materials. Mr. Gough seems to intimate that his conduct in 1745 was a check both to encouragement and the means for publishing his second volume. Previously to that period, his zeal for illustrating the antiquities of his native country, and his indefatigable researches, met with due encouragement from those who had many important materials in their hands; and he was himself possessed of an invaluable and unparalleled collection for illustrating the history and antiquities of that county, which before his death in 1771, he sold for a sum of money and an annuity for himself and wife to William Constable, esq. of Burton Constable, in whose, or his family’s hands, they probably now remain. Mr. Gough has given an ample list of them.

was a name placed in the titlepages of a numerous set of popular volumes printed about the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, and sold by Nath. Crouch, a bookseller of that period, who is supposed to have composed them. In the Bodleian Catalogue, Burton is called “alias Nat Crouch,” of whom Dunton says, “I. think I have given you the very soul of his character, when I have told you that his talent lies at * Collections.' He has melted down the best of our English histories into Twelve-penny-Books, which are filled with Wonders, Rarities, and Curiosities, for you must know his title-pages are a little swelling.” Of his brother Samuel Crouch, Dunton speaks more favourably: “He is just and punctual in all his dealings; never speaks ill of any man; has a swinging soul of his own; would part with all he has to serve a friend; and that’s enough for one bookseller.” These Burton’s books were formerly confined to the perusal of the lowest classes of readers, and were long called chapmen’s books, and sold only by the petty booksellers, and at fairs, &c. But of late years they have become a favourite object with collectors, and their price has risen accordingly; and more completely to gratify the trifling taste of the age, some of them have been reprinted in a pompous and expensive manner. Being, therefore, from whatever cause, the subjects of modern attention, we shall subjoin a list of them, for which we are indebted to Mr. Malone. 1. “Historical Rarities in London and Westminster,” 1681. 2. “Wars in England, Scotland, and Ireland,” 1681. 3. “Wonderful prodigies of Judgment and Mercy,” 1681. 4. “Strange and prodigious religious Customs and Manners of sundry Nations,” 1683. 5. “English Empire in America,” 1685, 6. “Surprising Miracles of Nature and Art,” 1685, probably the same with “Admirable Curiosities of Nature,” 1681. 7. “History of Scotland,” 1685. 8. History of Ireland,“1685. 9.” Two Journies to Jerusalem,“1685. 10.” Nine Worthies of the World,“1687. 11.” Winter’s Evening’s Entertainments,“1687. 12.” The English Hero, or the Life of Sir Francis Drake,“1687. 13.” Memorable Accidents, and unheard-of Transactions,“1693. 14.” History of the House of Orange,“1693. 15. Martyrs in flames,” 1695. 16. “Curiosities of England,” 1697. 17. “History of Oliver Cromwell,” 1698. 18. “Unparalleled Varieties,” 1699. 18. “Unfortunate Court Favourites of England,” 1706. 20. “History of the Lives of English Divines,” 1709. 21. “Ingenious Riddles.” 22. “Unhappy Princesses, or the history of Anne Boleyn, and Lady Jane Grey,” 1710. 23. “Esop’s Fables in prose and verse,” 1712. 24. “History of Virginia,” 1722. 25. “English acquisitions in Guinea and the East Indies,” 1726. 26. Female Excellency, or the Ladies’ Glory,“1728. 27.” General History of Earthquakes,“1736. 8.” The English Heroine, or the Life and Adventures of Mrs. Christian Davis, commonly called Mother Ross.“29.” Youth’s Divine Pastime."

, author of the “History of Leicestershire,” and eldest son of Ralph Burton, esq. of Lindley in Leicestershire, was born August 24, 1575, educated at the school of Nuneaton in Warwickshire, and while there distinguished himself by no common taste and skill in Latin poetry. He was admitted of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, 1591, and of the Inner Temple May 20, 1593, B. A. June 22, 1594, and was afterwards a barrister and reporter in the court of common pleas. But “his natural genius,” says Wood, “leading him to the studies of heraldry, genealogies, and antiquities, he became excellent in those obscure and intricate matters; and, look upon him as a gentleman, was accounted by all that knew him to be the best of-his time for those studies, as may appear by his description of Leicestershire.” The author himself says, he began his History of Leicestershire in 1597, not many ): ears after his coming into the Inner Temple. In 1602 he corrected Saxton’s map of that county, with the addition of eighty towns. His weak constitution riot permitting him to follow his business, he retired into the country; and his great work, the “Description of Leicestershire,” was published in folio, 1622. He tells his patron, George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, that “he has undertaken to remove an eclipse from the sun without art or astronomical dimension, to give light to the county of Leicester, whose beauty has long been shadowed and obscured;” and in his preface declares himself one of those who hold that “gloria totius res est vanissima mundi;” and that he was unfit and unfurnished for so great a business: “unfit,” to use his own words, “for that myself was bound for another study, which is jealous, and will admit no partner; for that all time and parts of time, that could possibly be employed therein, were not sufficient to be dispensed thereon, by reason of the difficulty of getting, and multiplicity of kinds of learning therein. Yet if a partner might be assigned or admitted thereto, there is no study or learning so fit or necessary for a lawyer, as the study of antiquities.” He was assisted in this undertaking by his kinsmen John Beaumont of Gracedieu, esq. and Augustus Vincent, rougecroix; but the church notes were taken by himself. He drew up the corollary of Leland’s life, prefixed to the “Collectanea,” with his favourite device, the sun recovering from an eclipse, and motto “Rilucera,” dated Faledi 1612, from Falde, a pleasant village near Tutbury, Staffordshire, and a great patrimony belonging to his family, and then to him. The County History was dated from the same village, Oct. 30, 1622. He also caused part of Leiand’s Itinerary to be transcribed 163), and gave both the transcript and the seven original volumes to the Bodleian library 1632; as also Talbot’s notes. To him his countryman Thomas Purefoy, esq. of Barwell, bequeathed Leland’s Collectanea after his death 1612. Wood charges him with putting many needless additions and illustrations into these Collectanea, from which charge Hearne defends him. Wood adds, he made a useful index to them; which, Hearne says, was only of some religious houses and some authors. In 1625 he resided at Lindley, where, among other works, he compiled a folio volume (which still remains in ms.) under the title of “Antiquitates de Dadling-­ton, manerio com. Leic, sive exemplificatio scriptorum, cartarum veterum, inquisitionum, rotulorum curiarum, recordorum, et evidentium probantium antiquitates dicti manerii de Dadlingtori, et hsereditatem de Burton in dicto manerio de Dadlington, quoe mine sunt penes me Will'mum Burton de Lindley com. Leic. modernum dominum dicti manerii de Dadlington. Lahore et studio mei Will 1 mi Burton de Lindley, apprenticii legum Angliae, et socii Interioris Templi Londini; nuper habitatitis apud Falde com. Staff, nunc apud Lindley, 25 Aug. 1625, set, 50.” He died at Falde, after suffering much in the civil wars April 6, 1645, and was buried in the parish church thereto belonging, called Hanbury. He left several notes, collections of arms and monuments, genealogies, and other matters of antiquity, which he had gathered from divers churches and gentlemen’s houses. Derby collections are mentioned in Gascoigne’s notes, p. 53, probably by himself. In Osborne’s Catalogue, 1757, was “Vincent on Brooke,” with ms notes by William Burton, probably not more than those on Cornwall, which Dr. Rawlinson had. He was one of sir Robert Cotton’s particular friends, and had the honour to instruct sir William Dugdale. He was acquainted with Somner; and Michael Drayton, esq. was his near countryman and acquaintance, being descended from the Draytons of Drayton, or Fenny Drayton, near Lindley. He married, 1607, Jane, daughter of Humphry Adderley, of Wedington, Warwickshire; by whom he had one son, Cassibelan, born 1609, heir of his virtues as well as his other fortunes, who, having a poetical turn, translated Martial into English, which was published 1658. He consumed the best part of his paternal estate, and died Feb. 28, 1681, having some years before given most, if not all, his father’s collections to Mr. Walter Chetwynd, to be used by him in writing the antiquities of Staffordshire. Several printed copies of Burton’s Leicestershire, with ms notes by different persons, are existing in various collections *. “The reputation of Burton’s book,” as Mr. Gough justly observes, “arises from its being written early, and preceded only by Lambarde’s Kent 1576, Carew’s Cornwall 1602, and Norden’s Surveys; and it is in comparison only of these, and not of Dugdale’s more copious work, that we are to understand the praises so freely bestowed on it, and because nobody has treated the subject more remotely and accurately; for Dugdale, says Burton, as well as Lambarde and Carevv, performed briefly. The present volume, though a folio of above 300 pages, if the unnecessary digressions were struck out, and the pedigrees reduced into less compass, would shrink into a small work. The typographical errors, especially in the Latin, are so numerous, and the style, according to the manner of that time, so loose, that the meaning is often doubtful. The description is in alphabetical order, and consists chiefly of pedigrees and moot-cases.” The author, sensible of its defect, greatly enlarged and enriched it with the addition of Roman, Saxon, and other antiquities, as appears from his letter to sir Robert Cotton, dated Lindley, June 9, 1627, still extant among Cotton’s correspondences, in his library, Jul. C. iii. This book, thus augmented, was, with other Mss. by the same author, in the possession of Mr. Walter Chetwynd, of Ingestry, in Staffordshire, whom Camden in Staffordshire calls “venerandae antiquitatis cultor maximus;” and afterwards came to, or was borrowed by, Mr. Charles King, tutor to Mr. Chetwynd, in whose hands Brokesby mentions it, and says Mr. Chetwynd made considerable additions to it. He died in 1693. Lord Chetwynd lent it to sir Thomas Cave, in whose hands Mr. Ashby saw it in 1763 f. It is continued to 1642. It is not necessary to say more of a work now so totally eclipsed, and rendered useless, by the more elaborate, accurate, and satisfactory “History of Leicestershire” lately published by Mr. Nichols, to which we may refer for many curious particu­* These are particularized in the History of Hinckley, p. 131. A new edition of the Description of Leicestershire was absurdly printed in 1777, without the least improvement. lars of Burton’s life, and especially an account by himself in the form of a diary.

, another antiquary of the seventeenth century, son of William Burton of Atcham in Shrop^ shire, was born in Austin Friars, London, educated in St. Paul’s school, and became a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1625. When at the university, he was patronised by the learned Mr. Allen, of Glocester-hall, who appointed him Greek lecturer there. His indigence obliging him to leave the university in 1630, after he had taken the degree of bachelor of the civil law, he was for some time usher to Mr. Thomas Farnaby, a famous schoolmaster in Kent. He was afterwards master of the free grammarschool at Kingston upon Thames, in which station he continued till within two years of his death, when he retired to London, where he died in 1657, and was buried in St. Clement’s Danes, Strand. He published, 1. “Laudatio* funebris in obitum D. Thomae Alleni,” Oxon. 1633, 4tc*. 2. “Annotations on the first Epistle of Clement the Apostle to the Corinthians,” Lond. 1647, and 1652, 4to. 3. “Graecse Linguae Historia,” ibid. 1657, part of his lecttfres in Gloucester-hall, and printed with “Veteris Linguae Persicae Historia,” with a recommendatory epistle by Langbaine. 4. “A Commentary on Antoninus’s Itinerary, or Journey of the Roman Empire, so far as it concerneth Britain,” Lond. 1658, fol. He also translated from the Latin, of Alstedius, a book in favour of the doctrine of the Millenium, entitled “The beloved city, or the Saints’ reign on earth a thousand years, &c.” Lond. 1643, 4to. The “Commentary on Antoninus” procured him, from bishop Kennett, the character of the best topographer since Camden.

, founder of the society of the priests, or fathers, of the Christian doctrine, was born of a noble family at Cavaillon, Feb. 3, 1544. He at first cultivated poetry, and gave himself up to a life of pleasure, but afterwards reformed, lived in a most exemplary manner, went into holy orders, and travelled from place to place, confessing and catechising. His zeal having procured him many disciples, he formed them into a society, whose principal duty was to teach what they called the Christian doctrine. He was appointed general of this society in 1598, the institution having been first approved by pope Clement VIII. in the preceding year. That which goes by the same name in Italy was founded by Mark Cusani, a Milanese knight, and was established by the approbation and authority of Pius V. and Gregory XIII. Caesar de Bus had also some concern in establishing the Ursulines of France. He lost his sight about fourteen years before his death, which happened at Avignon, April 15, 1607. He left only a book of instructions, drawn up for his society, called “Instructions familieres sur les quatre parties de la Doctrine Chretienne,” 1666, 8vo. His life was written by James Beauvais, 4to.

, was the natural son of the lord of Bnsbec, or Boesbec, and born at Commines, a town in Flanders, 1522. The early proofs he gave of extraordinary genius induced his father to spare neither care nor expence to get him properly instructed, and to obtain his legitimation from the emperor Charles V. He was sent to study at the universities of Louvain, Paris, Venice, Bologna, and Padua, and was some time at London* whither he attended the ambassador of Ferdinand, king of the Romans, and was present at the marriage of Philip and Mary. In 1554 he was appointed ambassador at Constantinople; but made a very short stay there. Being sent back the following year, his second embassy proved longer and more fortunate; for it lasted seven years, and ended in a beneficial treaty. He acquired a perfect, knowledge of the state of the Ottoman empire, and the true means of attacking it with success; on which subject he composed a very judicious discourse, entitled “De re militari contra Turcam instituenda consilium.” Without neglecting any thing that related to the business of his embassy, he laboured successfully for the republic of letters, collecting inscriptions, purchasing manuscripts, searching after rare plants, and inquiring into the nature of animals, and when he set out the second time to Constantinople, he carried with him a painter, to make drawings of the plants and animals that were unknown in the west. The relation which he wrote of his two journies to Turkey is much commended by Thuanus. He was desirous of passing the latter part of his life in privacy, but the emperor Maximilian made choice of him to be governor to his sons; and when his daughter princess Elizabeth was married to Charles IX. of France, Busbec was nominated to conduct her to Paris. This queen gave him the whole superintendance of her houshold and her affairs, and, when she quitted France, on her husband’s death, left him there as her ambassador, in which station he was retained by the emperor Rodolph until 1592, when, on a journey to the Low Countries, he was attacked by a party of soldiers, and so harshly treated as to bring on a fever which proved fatal in October of that year. He was a man of great learning, and an able antiquary. The public is indebted to him for the “Monumentum Anciranum,” which would be one of the most curious and instructive inscriptions of antiquity, if it was entire, as it contained a list of the actions of Augustus. Passing through Ancyra, a city of Galatia, Busbec caused all that remained legible of that inscription to be copied from the marble of a ruined palace, and sent it to Schottus the Jesuit. It may be seen in Gruevius’s Suetonius. Gronovius published this Monumentum Anciranum at Leyden in 1695, with notes, from a more full and correct copy than that of Busbec. Busbec also vyrote “Letters from France to the emperor Rodolph,” which exhibit an interesting picture of the French court at that period. An edition of all his letters was published by Elzivir at Leyden, 1633, and at London in 1660, 12mo. His “Itinera Constantinopolitanum et Amasianum” was printed at Antwerp, 1582, 4to; “Legationis Turcicæ Epistolæ,” Francfort, 1595, 8vo, &c.

, the most eminent schoolmaster in his time, was the second son of Richard Busby, of the city of Westminster, gent, but born at Lutton in Lincolnshire, September 22, 1606. He received his education in Westminster-school, as a king’s scholar; and in 1624 was elected student of Christ Church. He took the degree of bachelor of arts Oct. 21, 1628; and that of master June 18, 1631; at which time he was esteemed a great master of the Greek and Latin tongues, and a complete orator. Towards the expence of taking his degrees, a sum was honourably voted him by the vestry of St. Margaret, Westminster (in all 11l. 13s. 4d.) which he afterwards as honourably repaid, adding to it an annual sum towards the maintenance of the parish school. On the 1st of July 1639, he was admitted to the prebend and rectory of Cudworth, with the chapel of Knowle annexed, in the church of Wells; of which he lost the profits during the civil wars; but found means to keep his student’s place, and other preferment. He was appointed master of Westminster-school, December 13, 1640; in which laborious station he continued above fifty-five years, and bred up the greatest number of learned scholars that ever adorned any age or nation . But he met with great uneasiness from the second master, Edward Bagshaw, who endeavoured to supplant him; but was himself removed out of his place for his insolence, in May 1658 (See Edward Bagshaw). After the restoration, Mr. Busby’s merit being noticed> his majesty conferred on him a prebend of Westminster, into which he was installed July 5, 1660; and the llth of August following, he was made treasurer and canon-residentiary of Wells. On October 19, 1660, he took the degree of D. D. At the coronation of king Charles II. April 1661, he carried the Ampulla. In the convocation, which met June 24, the same year, he was proctor for the chapter of Bath and Wells; and one of those who approved and subscribed the Common Prayer-Book. He gave two hundred and fifty pounds towards repairing and beautifying Christ Church college and cathedral; and intended, but never completed the foundation of two lectures in the same college, one for the Oriental languages, and another for the mathematics; but he left a stipend for a catechetical lecture, 10 be read in one of the parish churches in Oxford, by a member of Christ Church . He contributed also to the repair of Lichfield church. As for his many other benefactions, they are not upon record, because they were done in a private manner. This great man, after a loBg, healthy, and laborious life, died April 6, 1695, aged eighty-nine, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, where there is a curious monument erected to him. He composed several books for the use of his school, as, 1. “A short institution of Grammar,” Cambr. 1647, 8vo. 2. “Juvenalis et Persii Satira?,” Lond. 1656, purged of all indecent passages. 3. “An English Introduction to the Latin Tongue,” Lond. 1659, &c. 8vo. 4. “Pvlartiaiis Epigrammata selecta,” Lond. 1661, 12mo. 5. “Grsecae Grammaticae Rudimenta,” Lond. 1663, 8vo. 6. “Nomenclatura Brevis Reformata, adjecto cum Syllabo Verborum et Adjectivorum,” At the end is printed “Duplex Centenarius Proverbiorum Anglo-Latino-Graecorum,” Lond. 1667, &c. 8vo. 7. “Ανθολογία δευτέρα: sive Græcorum Epigrammatum Florilegium novum,” Lond. 1673, &c. 8vo. 8. “Rudimentum Anglo-Latinum, Grammatica literalis et numeralis,” Lond. 1688, 8vo. 9. “Rudimentum Grammaticæ Græco-Latinæ Metricum,” Lond. 1689, 8vo.

As to his character, we are told by those who had the best opportunities of knowing him, that he was acquainted with all parts of learning, especially Philology; and of his skill in grammar, his works are sufficient proof. Notwithstanding his being the greatest master of it, he was the freest man in the world from that pedantic humour and carriage which hath made some of that profession ridiculous to the more sensible part of the world. No one ever trained up a greater number of eminent men, both in church and state, than himself; which was a plain demonstration of his uncommon skill and diligence in his profession. He extremely liked, and even applauded, and rewarded, wit in any of his scholars, though it reflected upon himself; of which many instances, are still remembered. We are farther told, that there was an agreeable mixture of seventy and sweetness in his manners; so that if his carriage was grave, it was at the same time full of good-nature, as his conversation was always modest and learned; but in his school he was extremely severe, and his character in this respect, probably exaggerated by tradition, is become almost proverbial. Several letters, however, from his scholars have been lately discovered, by which it appears that he was much beloved by them. His piety was unfeigned and without affectation, and his steadfast zeal to the church^ and loyalty to the crown, were eminent, and not without trials in the worst of times. But his greatest virtue was chanty; in the discharge of which none ever took more care that his right hand should not know what his left did. As to his constitution of body, he was healthy to such a degree, that his old age proved altogether free from those diseases and infirmities which most commonly attend other persons: and as this was the consequence and reward of his chastity, sobriety, and temperance, so he spent this bodily strength altogether upon his indefatigable labours, in the education of youth in Westminster-school; which he never remitted till he was released of it by death, ‘to which he submitted with the utmost constancy and patience. Mr. Seward informs us that he is said not to have allowed notes to any classical author that was read at Westminster. According to the late Dr. Johnson, Busby used to declare that his rod was his sieve, and that whoever J c’ould not pass through that was no boy for him. He early discovered the genius of Dr. South, lurking, perhaps, under idleness and obstinacy. “I see,” said he, “great talents in that sulky boy, and I shall endeavour to bring them out,” which he is said to have effected by means of very great severity. When the rev. Philip Henry, who was one of his scholars, requested leave to attend the nonconformist morning lecture at Westminster abbey, Busby granted his, or rather his mother’s request, but did not suffer him to abate any part of his school-tasks. Henry says he never punished him but once, and that for telling a lie, and appointed him also to make a penitential copy of Latin verses, which When he brought, he gave him sixpence, and received him 'into favour. Henry farther informs us of the great pains Dr. Busby took with his scholars when they were to partake of the sacrament. When afterwards Henry was ejected for non-conformity, his old master said, “Prithee, child, who made” thee a non-conformist?“to which Henry answered,” Truly, sir, you made me one, for you taught me those things that hindered me from conforming.“Many of Busby’s witticisms are in circulation. His biographers give us the following: Once, in a large company, he sat at table between Mrs. South and Mrs. Sherlock, when the conversation turned upon wives. Dr. Busby said that he believed wives, in general, were good;” though, to be sure, there might be a bad one here, and a bad one there." The late Mr. Duncombe informed the editors of the Biographia Brit, that the face on Dr. Busby’s monument is said to have been copied from a cast taken after his death, as he would never sit for his picture; if so, whence came the portraits of him in Christ Church, Oxford?

, an eminent geographer, was born at Stadthagen in Germany in 1724. After having been instructed in the learned languages, mathematics, and astronomy, by M. Hauber, at Copenhagen, he went, in 1744, to study divinity at Halle. In 1746, he published his first work, “An Introduction to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians,” which was followed by his “Lectures” on Isaiah and on the New Testament. Having been employed, in 1748, to superintend the education of the son of count Lynar, he accompanied that nobleman to Petersburgh in 1749, and in the course of this journey planned his new system of geography, for the completion of which he went in 1752 to Copenhagen. Here he edited a periodical work on the state of the arts and sciences in Denmark. In 1759, he accepted the office of extraordinary professor of philosophy at Gottingen, with a salary of 200 rix-dollars to enable him to complete his geography. In consequence of the death of Mosheim, he wished to succeed to the theological chair of Gottingen, but he had so openly avowed the principles of the new German theological school, that he was not only denied the professorship, but ordered afterwards to abstain from lecturing on the subject, or publishing any thing not approved of by the privy council of Hanover. This, however, did not prevent his being appointed professor of philosophy in 1759; and in 1761 he became pastor to a Lutheran congregation at Petersburgh, where he established a public school, sanctioned by Catherine the empress. He had a dispute soon after with his congregation, and removed to Altona. In 1766, he was appointed director of a school at Berlin, where he passed the remainder of his life. He died in 1793, and according to his own desire, was buried in his garden, where he had formerly buried his wife, In his own delineation of his character, he acknowledges, that though he was candid and open-hearted, affable, ready to assist others, and of a compassionate disposition, he had behaved with harshness to many persons, and on various occasions. He expresses his confidence in * the Supreme Being, his firm faith in the Saviour of the world, and his satisfaction with the dispensations of providence. His temper, he says, was warm, and occasionally irritable; and his firmness had sometimes assumed the appearance of obstinacy; and his quickness had betrayed him occasionally into precipitation. “I am moderate,” says he, “in all things; contented with little, and master of my appetites. In my intercourse with the world I expect too much from myself; I am therefore often dissatisfied with my own conduct; and on that account wish to confine my intercourse within a very narrow circle, and to shun society. I am free from pride, but not void of ambition, though I often struggle with this passion, and on reflection endeavour to suppress it. I am so much attached to labour, that it seems to me a requisite to life, and that my impulse to it is greater than to any sensual pleasure whatever.” Thiebault, in his “Original Anecdotes of Frederic the Great,” assures us that in no country he met with a man whose vanity was equal to that of Busching. “I have heard,” says Thiebault, “of two or three persons in Europe, who said there were, in their time, no more than three great men, Voltaire, Frederic, and themselves. To these persons M. Busching cannot be compared, for he never acknowledged any man to be so great as himself; in short, his excessive vanity rendered him absolutely intolerable.”

, a man once of considerable eminence for his philosophical pursuits, was born about 1594, of a good family at Cleve Prior, in Worcestershire, and was educated at Oxford, as Wood thinks, in Baliol college. He was afterwards taken into the service of sir Francis Bacon, who, when lord chancellor, made him seal-bearer, and in other respects patronized him liberally. He afterwards travelled, directing his attention chiefly to mineralogy, some curious experiments in which he made at Enston in Oxfordshire, where he constructed a curious cistern, erected a banquetting house, &c. which in 1636, he exhibited to king Charles 1. and his queen, who gave orders that the place should be called after her, Henrietta. Here likewise he entertained the royal visitors with a kind of mask, poetical addresses, &c. which were afterwards published under the title of “The several Speeches and Songs at the presentment of the Rock at Enston, to the queen’s most excellent majesty,” Oxon. 1636, 4to. Soon after Mr. Bushel became farmer of his majesty’s mines in Wales, which he worked with great skill and indefatigable labour; and having obtained his majesty’s grant to coin silver, he supplied the army at Oxford, when the parliament had got possession 6f the Tower mint. When the parliament army reached Wales, he was obliged to make his escape with other men of known loyalty. Aubrey informs us that about the time Cromwell was made protector, Mr. Bushel concealed himself in a house in Lambeth marsh, and he constantly lay in a long garret, hung with black baize; at one end was painted a skeleton extended on a mattress; at the other, was a small pallet bed; and the walls were covered with various emblems of mortality. Here he continued above a year, till his friends had made his peace with the protector. After the restoration he obtained an act of parliament for working certain mines in Somersetshire, but what progress he made we are not told. He died in 1674. Besides the pamphlet already noticed, he published “A just and true remonstrance of his Majesty’s Mines Royal in Wales,” Lond. 1642, 4to; and an “Extract, or Abstract of the lord chancellor Bacon’s Philosophical Theory of Mineral Prosecutions,” Lond. 1660.

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1607, either at Villa Franca in Beaujolais, or at Lyons, and became a very frequent and admired writer, although little of his fame has reached modern times. He died in 1678. His French poetry is now forgot, but his Latin poetry published at Lyons in 1675, 8vo, still has some admirers; and in his “Scanderbeg,” an epic poem, and his “Rhea,” are some animated passages. He published also an abridgment of the History of France, and another, in Latin, of the universal history, called “Floscoli Historiarum,” which he afterwards translated into French, under the title “Parterre historique,” Lyons, 1672, 12nio; the ridiculous dedication of which to the Virgin Mary may be seen in Seward’s Anecdotes. He wrote also “Memoires de Ville Tranche en Beaujolais,” 1671, 4to; and a history of Spain, still in manuscript.

, author of the “Lives of the Saints,” the second son of Simon Butler, esq. of Appletree, in the county of Northampton, was born in 1710, and educated for a short time at a school in Lancashire, whence in his eighth year he was sent to the English college at Douay, where he applied himself with uncommon diligence to the studies prescribed in that Roman catholic seminary, and was admired for his early piety. After completing his course, he was admitted an alumnus, and appointed professor of philosophy, in lecturing on which he followed the Newtonian system, then gaining ground in the foreign universities, in preference to the systems of Wolfe and Leibnitz, in which he discovered some things irreconcileable with the opinions of the church. He was next appointed professor of divinity, and while at this college published his first work, “Letters on the History of the Popes, published by Mr. Archibald Bower,” which were written with ease and good humour, and shew various and extensive learning. In 1745 he accompanied the late earl of Shrewsbury, and the hon. James and Thomas Talbot, on their travels through France and Italy. On his 1 return from these travels, he was sent on the English mission, and wished to be settled in London; where he might have access to literary society and the public libraries, with a view to complete his “Lives of the Saints,” on which he had long been engaged; but the vicar apostolic of the middle district claimed him, as belonging to that district, and appointed him, much against his will, to a mission in Staffordshire. Here, however, he did not remain long, being appointed chaplain to Edward duke of Norfolk, and to superintend the education of Mr. Edward Howard, his nephew and presumptive heir, whom he accompanied abroad, but who died soon. During his being at Paris, on this occasion, he completed and sent to press his “Lives of the Saints, which is said to have cost him the labour of thirty years. At the finishing of it he gave, what hisbiographer very truly calls, a very edifying instance of humility. The manuscript of the first volume having been, submitted to Mr. Cnalloner, the vicar-apostolic of the London district, he recommended the omission of all the notes, that the work might be less expensive and more useful. It is easy to suppose what it must have cost our author to consign to oblivion the fruit of so much labour. He obeyed, however, and to this circumstance it is owing, that in the first edition the notes.are omitted. Some years after, he published the” Life of Mary of the Cross,“a nun in the English convent of the poor Clatvs at Rouen, not, strictly speaking, apiece of biography, but a vehicle for instructions on religious life on Roman catholic principles. Sometime after our author’s return to England from his travels with Mr. Edward Howard, he was chosen president of the English college at St. Omer’s, in which station he continued until his death. He had projected many works besides those already mentioned, and among them, his treatise on the” Moveable Feasts,“which was published, after his death, under the inspection of Mr. Challoner. He proposed writing the lives of bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, and had made copious collections for both, some of which are in the hands of his biographer. He had begun a treatise on” Natural and revealed religion,“being dissatisfied with what Bergier had published on those subjects. Three volumes of his” Discourses“have been published since his decease. As a preacher, however, we are told, that he almost wholly failed. His sermons were sometimes interesting and pathetic; but they were always desultory, and almost always immeasurably long. His” Short life of Sir Toby Matthews,“has lately been published by his biographer. His literary correspondence was very extensive, and among other correspondents of distinction, may be mentioned the learned Lambertini, afterwards pope Benedict XIV. and the late Dn Lowth, bishop of London; and the assistance he afforded to English men of literature has been liberally acknowledged by Dr. Kennicot, and others. After a life spent in devotion to his profession, and in various studies, he died May 15, 1773, in the sixtythird year of his age; and was interred in the chapel of the English college at St. Omers, where a monument of white marble was erected to his memory, with an elegant Latin inscription. His” Lives of the Saints," although run free from the peculiarities of his predecessors in that branch of biography, is a work of great value and research. It was first published in 1745, 5 vols. 4to; and in 1779, or 1780, an edition was published at Dublin, in 12 vols. 8vo; and in 1799 1800, at Edinburgh, in the same form, to which his nephew, Charles Butler, esq. barrister at law, prefixed a life, from which the preceding sketch is taken.

, an ingenious writer of the seventeenth century, was born in 1559, at High Wycomb, in Buckinghamshire; and entered a student into Magdalen hall, Oxford, in 1579, where he took a degree in arts; and was translated to Magdalen college, and made one of the bible clerks. Soon after, he became master of the free school at Basingstoke in Hampshire; and had the cure of a small church in the neighbourhood. About 1600 he was promoted to the vicarage of Lawrence Wotton, in Hampshire; which Wood thinks a very inadequate preferment for a scholar of his abilities. There, however, he appears to have remained until his death, March 29, 1647, in his eighty-eighth year. He wrote: 1. “The Feminine Monarchy; or a Treatise on Bees,” Oxon. 1609, 8vo, and Lond. 1623, Oxon. 1634, 4to; a work not more curious for its matter, than for the manner of printing, abounding in new characters, which appear to have been cast on purpose, and a very singular mode of orthography. It was afterwards translated into Latin by Rich. Richardson, of PJmanuel college, Cambridge, Lprid. 1673, 8vo. 2. “Rhetoricee libri duo,” Oxon. 1618; often reprinted. 3. “De propinquitate matrimonium impediente regula generalis,” on the marriage of cousin-germans, a work much approved by Dr. Prideaux, Oxon. 1625, 4to. 4. “Oratoriae libri duo,” Oxon. 1633, 4to, Lond. 1635, 8vo. 5. “English Grammar,” Oxon. 1634, 4to. 6. “The Principles of Music,” Lond. 1636, 4to. Dr. Johnson, in the preface to his Dictionary, gives an account of his “Grammar/' with a specimen of his orthography from his” Treatise on Bees.“Of his” Principles uf Music," Dr. Burney says* that it was the only theoretical or didactic work published on the subject of music during the reign of king Charles I. and that it contains more knowledge in a small compass than any other of the kind in our language; but the Saxon and new characters he uses, in order to explode such letters as are redundant, or of uncertain powers, render this musical tract somewhat difficult to peruse.

During his short residence in this country, he corresponded with the Irish for the purpose of inducing them to engage in the royal cause; and having engaged lord Inchiquin to receive him in Munster, he landed at Cork, after escaping the imminent danger of shipwreck, in 1648, and on his arrival, adopted measures which were not a little assisted by the abhorrence which the king’s death excited through the country; and in consequence of this favourable impression, the lord lieutenant caused Charles II. to be immediately proclaimed. But Owen O'Neile, instigated by the pope’s nuncio, and supported by the old Irish, raised obstacles in his way, which he determined to overcome by the bold enterprise of attacking the city of Dublin, then held for the Parliament by governor Jones. This enterprise, however, failed, with very considerable loss on the part of the marquis; and soon after Cromwell arrived in Ireland, and having stormed Drogheda, surrendered it to military execution, thus striking tenor into the Irish, so that they becoming dissatisfied with the lord lieutenant, and insisting on his leaving the kingdom, he embarked for France, in 1650, and joined the exiled family. In order to retrieve his affairs, the marchioness went over to Ireland, and having in some measure succeeded in exempting her own estate from forfeiture, she remained in the country, and never saw her husband till after the restoration. In the mean while the marquis was employed in various Commissions in behalf of the king; and he rendered essential service to his cause by rescuing the duke of Gloucester out of the hands of the queen-mother, and preventing her severe treatment from inducing him to embrace the Catholic religion. He was also instrumental in detaching the Irish Catholic regiments from the service of France, one of which he was appointed to command, and in obtaining the surrender of the town of St. Ghilan, near Brussels, to the Spaniards. In a secret embassy to England for the purpose of inquiring into the actual state of the royal party, he had some narrow escapes from the spies of Cromwell; and at length, when Charles II. was restored to the throne of his ancestors, the Marquis accompanied him, and not only recovered his large estates in the county of Tipperary, but was raised to the dignity of duke of Ormond, and officiated as lord high steward of England at the king’s coronation. In 1662, he was again appointed lord lieutenant, and had considerable success in reducing the country to a state of tranquillity; and he promoted various very important and lasting -improvements, particularly with respect to the growth of flax and manufacture of linen. His attachment to earl Clarendon, however, involved him in the odium which pursued that great man; and notwithstanding the purity of his conduct, he was deprived of his government by the machinations of the duke of Buckingham, in 1669; but in the same year he was elected to the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford. In 1670 a desperate design was formed ' against him by colonel Blood, whom he had imprisoned in Ireland on account of his having engaged in a plot for the surprisal of D.ublin castle. Blood, being at this time in London, determined to seize his person, in his return from an entertainment given in the city to the Prince of Orange; and in the prosecution of his purpose, his accomplices dragged the duke out of his coach, and placed him behind one of them who was on horseback, in order to convey him to Tyburn, and execute him on the pubiic gallows; or, as others say, to take him out of the kingdom, and compel him to sign certain papers relating to a forfeited estate of Blood. The duke by his struggles threw both the man and himself from the horse, and by seasonable assistance he was released from the custody of these assassins. This daring act of violence excited the king’s resentment; but Blood, for certain reasons, having been taken into favour, hi* Majesty requested the duke to forgive the insult. To which message he replied, “that if the king could forgive Blood for attempting to steal his crown, he might easily forgive him for an attempt on his life; and that he would obey his Majesty’s pleasure without inquiring into his reasons.” For seven years the duke was neither in favour with the court nor employed by it; but at length, in 1677, he was surprised by a message announcing the king’s intention to visit him. The object of this visit was to disclose his Majesty’s resolution of appointing him to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland; and this resolution had been adopted by the influence of the duke of York, who had reason to imagine, that the “cabal,” or court party, proposed to introduce the duke of Monmouth into this high station in the room of the earl of Essex, who had been removed. In order to counteract this plan, the duke of York recommended his grace of Ormond to the king, as the most likely person to engage general confidence, and to unite discordant parties in both countries. On this the duke consented, and upon his arrival adopted vigorous measures for disarming the papists and maintaining public tranquillity; and though he did not escape calumny, the king determined to support him against all attempts for removing him, and declared with an oath, *' that while the duke of Ormond lived, he should never be put out of that government." He opposed the duke only in the measure of calling a parliament in Ireland for settling affairs, to which the king would not give his consent. In 1682, when he came over to England to acquaint the king with the state of his government, he was advanced to the dignity of an English dukedom; but, notwithstanding this mark of royal favour, he had given such offence by his importunity with respect to an Irish parliament, that immediately on his return he was apprised of an intention to remove him. Upon the accession of James, the duke caused him to be proclaimed, and soon after resigned his office and came over to England.; Although the duke’s principles did not suit the projects of the new reign, he was treated with respect by the king, and received from him the honour of a visit whilst he was confined to his chamber with the gout. He died at Kingston ^hall, in Dorsetshire, July 21, 1688, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster-abbey.

, a prelate of the most distinguished character and abilities, was born at Wantage in Berkshire, in 1692. His father, Mr. Thomas Butler, who was a reputable shopkeeper in that town, observing in his son Joseph an excellent genius and inclination for learning, determined to educate him for the ministry, among the protestant dissenters of the presbyterian denomination. For this purpose, after he had gone through a proper course of grammatical literature, at the free grammarschool of his native place, under the care of the rev. Mr. Philip Barton, a clergyman of the church of England, he was sent to a dissenting academy, then kept at Gloucester, but which was soon afterwards removed to Tewkesbury, the principal tutor of which was Mr. Jones, a man of uncommon abilities and knowledge. At Tewkesbury, Mr. Butler made an extraordinary progress in the study of divinity; of which he gave a remarkable proof in the letters addressed by him, whilst he resided at Tewkesbury, to Dr. Samuel Clarke, laying before him the doubts that had arisen in his mind concerning the conclusiveness of some arguments in the doctor’s “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.” The first of these letters was dated November the 4th, 1713; and the sagacity and depth of thought displayed in it immediately excited Dr. Clarke’s particular notice. This condescension encouraged Mr. Butler to address the doctor again upon the same subject, which, ^likewise, was answered by him; and the correspondence being carried on in three other letters, the whole was annexed to the celebrated treatise before mentioned, and the collection has been retained in all the subsequent editions of that work. The management of this correspondence was entrusted by Mr. Butler to his friend and fellow-pupil Mr. Seeker, who, in order to conceal the affair, undertook to convey the letters to the post-office at Gloucester, and to bring back Dr. Clarke’s answers. When Mr. Butler’s name was discovered to the doctor, the candour, modesty, and good sense with which he had written, immediately procured him his friendship. Our young student was not, however, during his continuance at Tewkesbury, solely employed in metaphysical speculations and inquiries. Another subject of his serious consideration was, the propriety of his becoming a dissenting minister. Accordingly, he entered into an examination of the principles of non-conformity; the result of which was, such a dissatisfaction with them, as determined him to conform to the established church. This intention was at first very disagreeable to his father, who endeavoured to divert him from his purpose; and with that view called in the assistance of some eminent presbyterian divines; but finding his son’s resolution to be fixed, heat length suffered him to be removed to Oxford, where he was admitted a commoner of Oriel college, on the 17th of March, 1714. At what time he took orders is uncertain, but it must have been soon after his admission at Oxford, if it be true, as is asserted, that he sometimes assisted Mr. Edward Talbot in the divine service, at his living of Hendred near Wantage. With this gentleman, who was the. second son of Dr. William Talbot, successively bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, Mr. Butler formed an intimate friendship at Oriel college, which laid the foundation of all his subsequent preferments, and procured for him a very honourable situation when he was only twentysix years of age. In 1718, at the recommendation of Mr. Talbot and Dr. Clarke, he was appointed by sir Joseph Jekyll to be preacher at the Rolls. This was three years before he had taken any degree at the university, where he did not go out bachelor of law till the 10th of June, 1721, which, however, was as soon as that degree could statutably be conferred upon him. Mr. Butler continued at the Rolls till 1726, in the beginning of which year he published, in one volume 8vo, “Fifteen Sermons preached at that Chapel.” In the mean time, by the patronage of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, to whose notice he had been recommended (together with Mr. Benson and Mr. Seeker) by Mr. Edward Talbot on his death-bed, our author had been presented first to the rectory of Haughton, near Darlington, in 1722, and afterwards to that of Stanhope in the same diocese, in 1725, At Haughton there was a necessity for rebuilding a great part of the parsonagehouse, and Mr. Butler had neither money nor talents for that work. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who had always the interest of his friends at heart, and had acquired a very considerable influence with bishop Talbot, persuaded that prelate to give Mr. Butler, in exchange for Haughton, the rectory of Stanhope, which was not only free from any such incumbrance, but was likewise of much superior value, being indeed one of the richest parsonages in England. Whilst our author continued preacher at the Rolls chapel, he divided his time between his duty in town and country; but when he quitted the Rolls, he resided, during seven years, wholly at Stanhope, in the conscientious discharge of every obligation appertaining to a good parish priest. This retirement, however^ was too solitary for his disposition, which had in it a natural cast of gloominess: and though his recluse hours were by no means lost either to private improvement or public utility, yet he felt at times very painfully the want of that select society of friends to which he had been accustomed, and which could inspire him with the greatest chearfulness. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who knew this, was extremely anxious to draw him out into a more active and conspicuous scene, and omitted no opportunity of expressing this desire to such as he thought capable of promoting it. Having himself been, appointed king’s chaplain in 1732, he took occasion, in a conversation which he had the honour of holding with queen Caroline, to mention to her his friend Mr. Butler. The queen said she thought he had been dead. Mr. Seeker assured her he was not. Yet her majesty afterwards asked archbishop Blackburne if he was not dead? His answer was, “No, madam, but he is buried.” Mr. Seeker, continuing his purpose of endeavouring to bring his friend out of his retirement, found means, upon Mr. Charles Talbot' s being made lord chancellor, to have Mr. Butler recommended to him for his chaplain. His lordship accepted and sent for him; and this promotion calling him to town, he took Oxford in his way, and was admitted there to the degree of doctor of law, on the 8th of December, 1733. The lord chancellor, who gave him also a prebend in the church of Rochester, had consented that he should reside at his parish of Stanhope one half of the year.

, a poet of a very singular cast, was born at Strensham in Worcestershire, and baptized Feb. 8, 1612. His father’s condition is variously represented. Wood mentions him as competently wealthy; but the author of the short account of Butler, prefixed to Hudibras, who, Dr. Johnson erroneously says, was Mr. Longueville, asserts he was an honest farmer with some small estates who made a shift to educate his son at the grammar-school of Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright, from whose care he removed for a short time to Cambridge; but, for want of money, was never made a member of any college. Wood leaves us rather doubtful whether he went to Cambridge of Oxford; but at last makes him pass six or seven years at Cambridge, without knowing in what hall or college: yet it can hardly be imagined that he lived so long in either university, but as belonging to one house or another; and it is still less likely that he could have so long inhabited a place of learning with so little distinction as to leave his residence uncertain. Dr. Nash has discovered that his father was owner of a house and a little land, worth about eight pounds, a year, still called Butler’s tenement. Wood had his information from his brother, whose narrative placed him at Cambridge, in opposition to that of his neighbours, which sent him to Oxford. The brother’s seems the best authority, till, by confessing his inability to tell his hall or college, he gives reason to suspect that he was resolved to bestow on him an academical education, but durst not name a college, for fear of detection. Having, however, discovered an early inclination for learning, his father placed him at the free-school of Worcester; whence he was sent, according to the above report, for some time to Cambridge. He afterwards returned to his native country, and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys of Earl’s Croomb, an eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom he lived some years in an easy and reputable station. Here he found sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatsoever learning his inclinations led him; which was chiefly history and poetry; adding to these, for his diversion, music and painting. He was afterwards recommended to that great encourager of learning, Elizabeth countess of Kent; in whose house he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but of conversing with Mr. Seldeo, who often employed him to write letters beyond sea, and translate for him. He lived some time also with sir Samuel Luke, a gentleman of an ancient family in Bedfordshire, and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwell. Whilst he resided in this gentleman’s family, it is generally supposed that he planned, if he did not write, the celebrated Hudibras; under which character it is thought he intended to ridicule that knight. After the restoration of Charles II. he was made secretary to Richard earl of Carbury, lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him. steward of Ludlow-castle, when the Court was revived there. In this part of his life, he married Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a good family; and lived, says Wbod^ upon her fortune, having studied the common law, but never practised it. A fortune she had, says his biographer, but it was lost by bad securities. In 1663 was published the first part, containing three cantos, of the poem of “Hudibras,” which, as Prior relates, was made known at court by the taste and influence of the earl of Dorset, and when known, it was necessarily admired: the king quoted, the courtiers studied, and the whole party of the royalists applauded it. Every eye watched for the golden shower which was to fall upon the author, who certainly was not without his share in the general expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his whole reward. Clarendon, says Wood, gave him reason to hope for “places and employments of value and credit;” but no such advantages did he ever obtain. It is reported, that the king once gave him 300 guineas; but of this temporary bounty we find no proof. Wood relates that he was secretary to Villiers duke of Buckingham, when he was chancellor of Cambridge: this is doubted by the other writer, who yet allows the duke to have been his frequent benefactor. That both these accounts are false there is reason to suspect, from a story told by Pack, in his account of the life ef Wycherley, and from some verses which Mr. Thyer has published in the author’s Remains. “Mr. Wycherley,” says Pack, “had always laid hold of any opportunity which offered of representing to the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the royal family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras; and that it was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty and wit should suffer in obscurity, and under the wants he did. The duke always seemed to hearken to him with attention enough; and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretensions to his majesty. Mr. Wycherley, in Jiopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest and unfortunate poet to his new patron. At last an appointment was made, and the place of meeting was agreed to be the Roebuck. Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly: the duke joined them; but, as the devil would have it, the door of the room where they sat was open, and his grace, who had seated himself near it, observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement, to follow another kind of business, at which he was more ready than in doing good offices to men of desert; though no one was better qualified than he, both in regard to his fortune and understanding, to protect them; and, from that time to the day of his death, poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise!” Such is the story. The verses are written with a degree of acrimony, such as neglect and disappointment might naturally excite; and such as it would be hard to imagine Butler capable of expressing against a man who had any claim to his gratitude. Notwithstanding this discouragement and neglect, he still prosecuted his design; and in. 1678 published the third part, which still leaves the poem imperfect and abrupt. How much more he originally intended, or with what events the action was to be concluded, it is vain to conjecture. Nor can it be thought strange that he should stop here, however unexpectedly. To write without reward is sufficiently unpleasing. He had now arrived at an age when he might think it proper to be in jest no longer, and perhaps his health might now begin to fail. He died Sept. 25, 1680; and Mr. Longueville, having unsuccessfully solicited a subscription for his internment in Westminster abbey, buried him at his own cost in the chureb-yard of Covent Garden. Dr. Simon Patrick read the service. About sixty years afterwards, Mr. Barber, a printer, lord mayor of London, bestowed on him a monument in Westminster abbey.

After his death were published three small volumes of his posthumous works, and lately, two volumes more have been printed by Mr. Thyer of Manchester, indubitably genuine. From none of these pieces can his life be traced, or his character discovered. Some verses, in the last collection, shew him to have been among those who ridiculed the institution of the Royal Society, of which the enemies were for some time very numerous and very acrimonious; for what reason it is hard to conceive, since the philosophers professed not to advance doctrines, but to produce facts; and the most zealous enemy of innovation must admit the gradual progress of experience, however he may oppose hypothetical temerity. In this mist of obscurity passed the life of Butler, a man whose name can only perish with his language. The mode and place of his education are unknown; the events of his life are variously related; and all that can be told with certainty is, that he^ was poor.

, M. D. a native of Derbyshire, or according to Mr. Bosvvell, of Scotland, was born“in 1726, After the usual school education, he went to Edinburgh, where he resided about seven years, and during his medical course of study, published” A method of cure for the Stone, chiefly by injections,“1754, 12mo, and” Dissertatio de frigore quatenus morborom causa,“1757, Hvo. In 1761 he took his degree of M. D. and published far his inaugural thesis,” Dissertatio Medica et Chirurgica tie Arteriotomia,“a subject on which he is said to have held some bold opinions, and when at Edinburgh, made an attempt publicly to open the carotid artery of a patient in the hospital, but after making the first incision, the patient fainted, and the operation, which he intended to renew next day, was prevented by the interference of the managers of the hospital. He afterwards practised medicine for several years at Derby, whence, in 1778, he removed and settled in London. In 1773 he published a treatise on the kink-cough, the name he gives to the tussis convulsiva, or whooping-cough. In the cure he relied principally on the efficacy of the extract of hemlock, which he considered as a specific in the complaint. Two years after, he gave an account of the puerperal fever, as it appeared in Derbyshire and some of the adjacent counties, 8vo; in 1782,” A Treatise on the Worm Fever;“in 1783,” An improved method of opening the Temporal Artery;“and in 1794, a treatise on the angina pectoris, first described by Dr. Heberden. His account of it is published in the second volume of” Medical Transactions,“by the royal college of physicians. Dr. Butter calls it the diaphragmatic gout, and thinks it generally curable. In the fit he gives opium with aromatics, and for the cure he recommends pills with aloes and soap, to keep the body soluble. These, with temperance, he says, will usually succeed in putting an end to the complaint. In 1801, he published” A Treatise on the Venereal Rose," in which he considers virulent gonorrhea as a species of erysipelas, and resorts to his favourite hemlock for a cure. He died at his house in Lower Grosvenor-street, March 21, 1805. His practice in London was not very extensive, nor had he the good fortune to procure the approbation of his, brethren to his writings. Striving to be an inventor, he became a nostrum-monger, and in his latter days his manners had none of that polish which procures respect.

, an extraordinary calculator, was born at Elmeton, or Elmton, a small village not far from Chesterfield, in Derbyshire. His grandfather John Buxton was vicar of Elmeton, and his father William Buxton was schoolmaster in the same parish. We cannot precisely ascertain the year in which Jedediah was born; but it is probable that it was in 1704 or 1705. Notwithstanding the profession of his father, Jedediah’s education seems to have been totally neglected, for he was never taught either to read or write. How he came first to know the relative proportions of numbers, their denominations and powers, he never could remember; but upon these his attention was constantly riveted, and he scarcely took any notice of external objects, except with respect to their numbers. If any space of time was mentioned before him, he would soon after say that it contained so many minutes; and if any distance, he would assign the number of hair breadths in it, even when no question was asked him by the company. His power of abstraction was so great, that no noise whatever could disturb him, and when asked any question, he would immediately reply, and return to his calculation without any confusion, or the loss of more time than the answer required. A person who had heard of his astonishing performances, meeting with him accidentally, in order to try his calculating powers, proposed to him the following question: In a body whose three sides are 23,145,789 yards, 5,642,732 yards, and |4,965 yards, how many cubical eighths of an inch? After once naming the several figures distinctly, one after the other, in order to assure himself of the several dimensions, this self-taught calculator fell to work amidst more than a hundred of his fellow-labourers, and the proposer of the question leaving him for about five hours, returned and found Jedediah ready with his answer, which was exactly right. A variety of questions, too numerous to be here inserted, he would solve in very little time, by the mere force of memory. He would multiply any number of figures, either by the whole or any part of them, and at different times, and store up the various products in his memory, so as to give the answers several months after. He would work at several questions; first begin one and work it half through; then another, and so on, working in this manner six or eight questions, and would either as soon as finished, or several months after, tell the result. This extraordinary man would stride over a piece of land, and tell the contents of it with as much exactness as if he had measured it by the chain; and in this manner he measured the whole lordship of Elmton, of some thousand acres, belonging to sir John Rhodes, and brought him the contents, not only in acres, roods, and perches, but in square inches, and after this reduced them into square hair-breadths, computing forty-eight to each side of the inch, which produced an incomprehensible number,

His perpetual application to figures prevented him from making the smallest acquisition in any other branch of knowledge; for, beyond mere calculation, his ideas were as confined, perhaps, as those of a boy at ten years of age in the same class of life. The only objects of Jedediah’s curiosity, next to figures, were the king and royal family; and his desire to see them was so strong, that in the beginning of spring, 1754, he walked up to London for that purpose, but was obliged to return disappointed, as his majesty had removed to Kensington just as he arrived in town. He was however introduced to the royal society, whom he called the volk of the siety court. He was likewise taken to see the tragedy of Richard III. at Drury-lane, and it was expected that the novelty of every thing in this place, together with the splendour of the surrounding objects, would have fixed him in astonishment, or that his passions would in some degree have been roused by the action of the performers, even if he did not fully comprehend the dialogue. Instead of this, during the dances his attention was engaged in reckoning the number of steps. After a fine piece of music, he declared that the innumerable sounds produced by the instruments perplexed him beyond measure, but he counted the words uttered by Mr. Garrick in the whole course of the entertainment, and affirmed that in this he had perfectly succeeded. He lived to about seventy years of age, but the exact time of his death we cannot learn. He was married, and had several children.

, either son or nephew to the preceding, was likewise an able orientalist, and succeeded his father in the professorship on his death in 1664, and died in 1704. He made various translations from rabbinical works, and added a supplement % to the “Bibliotheca Rabbinica.” Niceron attributes to him the “Florilegium Hebraicum,” Basil, 1648, 8vo, but he must have been too young at that time for such a work.

, D.D. a learned preacher and loyalist in the seventeenth century, the son of Laurence Byam, of Luckham, or East Luckham, near Dunster, in Somersetshire, was born there Aug. 31, 1580, and in Act term 1697, was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where, in 1699, he was elected a student of Christ-church. In both colleges his application was such as to make him be considered as one of the greatest ornaments x)f the university; and when he took orders, one of the most acute and eminent preachers of the age. After taking the degree of B. D. in 1612, he succeeded his father in the rectory of Luckham, and a Mr. Fleet in that of Salworthy, adjoining. In 1631 he became a prebendary of Exeter, and on the meeting of parliament, was unanimously chosen by the clergy of his diocese, to be their clerk in convocation. In the beginning of the rebellion he was one of the first who were apprehended for their loyalty, but making his escape, joined the king at Oxford, where he was, with others, created D. D. In the king’s cause his zeal and that of his family could not fail to render him obnoxious. He had not only assisted in raising men and horse for his majesty, but of his five sons, four were captains in the army. His estate, therefore, both clerical and private, was exposed to the usual confiscations; and to add to his sufferings, his wife and daughter, in endeavouring to escape to Wales by sea, were both drowned. When the prince Charles, afterwards Charles II. fled from England, Dr. Byam accompanied him first to the island of Scilly, afterwards to that of Jersey, where he officiated as chaplain until the garrison was taken by the parliamentary forces. He contrived afterwards to live in obscurity until the restoration, when he was made canon of Exeter, and prebendary of Wells, but we do not find that his services were rewarded by any higher preferment. He died June 16, 1669, and was buried in the chancel of the church at Luckham, where a monument with an inscription by Dr. Hamnet Ward was erected to his memory. His works were: “Thirteen Sermons, most of them preached before his majesty Charles II. in his exile,” Lond. 1675, 8vo These were published after his death by Hamnet Ward, M. D. vicar of Sturminster-Newton-Castle, in Dorsetshire, with some account of the author. Dr. Byam was the father of the governor alluded to in Southern’s play of Oroonoko, whom the profligate Mrs. Behn endeavoured to stigmatize from private pique.

, an eminent landscape engraver, was born in 1742, and educated under an uncle, who engraved heraldry on plate; but young Byrne having succeeded in a landscape after Wilson, which obtained a premium from the society for the encouragement of arts, it was regarded as the precursor of talent of a superior order, and he was sent to Paris, at that time the chief seminary in Europe for the study of engraving. There he studied successively under Aliamet and Wille: from the former of whom he imbibed the leading traits of that style of engraving which he afterwards adopted as his own r under the latter he engraved a large plate of a storm after Vernet; but the manual dexterity of Wille was alien to his mind, and probably contributed not rnuch to his improvement, although he alw r ays spoke of Wille’s instructions with respect. When he returned to England, the success of Woollett, as a landscape engraver, had set the fashion in that department of the art; but Byrne, disdaining to copy what he did not feel, or perhaps scorning the infiuence of fashion in art, preserved the independence of his style; and continued to study, and to recommend to his pupils*, nature, Vivares, and the best examples of the French school. His larger performances are after Zuccarelli and Both: but his principal works (containing probably his best engraving) are the “Antiquities of Great Britain,” after Hearne; a set of “Views of the Lakes,” after Farringdon; and Smith’s “Scenery of Italy.” His chief excellence consisting in his aerial perspective, and the general effect of his chiaroscuro, he was more agreeably and more beneficially employed, in finishing than in etching, and hence he generally worked in conjunction with his pupils, who were in his later years his own sons and daughters. His manners were unassuming; his professional industry unremitting; and his moral character exemplary. This ingenious artist died at his house in Great Titchfield street, Sept. 24, 1805.

During his residence in France, he met with Malebranche’s “Search after Truth,” and some of the works of Mademoiselle Bourignon, the consequence of which, Dr. Nichols informs us, was, that he came home strongly possessed with the visionary philosophy of the former, and the enthusiastic extravagances of the latter. From the order of his poems, however, which was probably that of their respective dates, he appears to have been at first rather a disciple of the celebrated Mr. Law, and a warm opponent of those divines who were termed latitudinarian. His admiration of Malebranche, and of Bourignon, afterwards increased, but he never followed either so far as to despise human learning, in which his acquirements were great; and the delight which he took in various studies, ended only with his life. By what means he was maintained abroad, or after his return, are matters of conjecture. His biographer tells nothing of his father’s inclination or abilities to forward his pursuits. It is said that he studied medicine in London for some time; and thence acquired, among his familiar friends, the title of Doctor Byrom. But this pursuit was interrupted by his falling In love with his cousin, Elizabeth, daughter of Joseph Bylom, a mercer at Manchester, then on a visit in London. To this young lady he disclosed his passion, and followed her to Manchester, where the ardour of his addresses soon procured a favourable return. Her father, however, was extremely averse to the match, and when it took place without his consent, refused the young couple any means of support. Dr. Nichols assigns two reasons for this conduct, which are not very consistent: the one, that the father was in opulent circumstances; the other, that he thought our poet out of his senses, and therefore would not permit him to superintend the education of his children, but took that care upon himself. If so, however wrong his reasons might be, he could not be said to withdraw his support; and he was probably soon convinced that he had formed an erroneous estimate of Viis son-in-law’s understanding and general character.

In this dilemma, however, Mr. Byrom had recourse to the teaching of short-hand writing, as a means of supporting himself and his wife, who adhered to him with affectionate tenderness in all his vicissitudes. Dr. Nichols informs us, that he had invented his short-hand at Cambridge on the following occasion: Some manuscript sermons being communicated to him, written in short-hand, he easily discovered the true reading, but observing the method to be clumsy and ill-contrived, he set about inventing a better. The account given by the editor of his System, published in 1764, is somewhat different. It is said that the first occasion of his turning his attention that way arose from his acquaintance with Mr. Sharp of Trinity college, son to archbishop Sharp. Mr. Sharp had been advised by his father to study the art, and Mr. Byrom joined him. All the systems then in vogue appearing inadequate to the end, he devised that which now goes by his name. This discovery was made, not without considerable exultation, and provoked Weston, then the chief stenographer, to a trial of skill, or rather a controversy, which terminated in favour of Byrom. Weston published his system in 1725, and the dispute was carried on probably about that time. Into the respective merits of these systems, it is unnecessary to enter. Angel, another professor of the art, who prefixed a short history of Stenographers to his own system (published in 1758) considers Weston' s method as one that few have either capacity, patience, or leisure to learn. He also tells us that Dr. Byrom “so far distinguished himself as a professor or teacher of the art of short-writing, that about the year 1734, he obtained an act of parliament, (perhaps he means a patent) for that purpose, as presuming he had discovered a wonderful secret; and great care has since been taken to preserve it inviolably such, except to his pupils, in hopes that by exciting a greater curiosity, it might increase their number;” and, as Mr. Angel had a new system to propose, it was necessary for him to add, “that he could discover no peculiar excellence in Byrom’s, either in the form of the letters, the rules, or the application of them.” Byrom, however, preserved his system in manuscript as long as he lived. When his friends wished to publish it after his death, they found no part of it finished for the press, although he had made some progress in drawing it up in form, enoilgh, says his editor, to show the plan upon which he intended to proceed. Among his pupils, of whom an ample list is given, in honour of his system, we find the names of many distinguished scholars, of Isaac Hawkins Browne, Martin Folkes, Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Hartley, lord Camden, &c. Lord Chesterfield, according to Dr. Nichols, was likewise taught by him, which appears to be doubtful. The same biographer informs us, that it was Byrom’s practice to read a lecture to his scholars upon the history and utility of short-hand, interspersed with strokes of wit that rendered it very entertaining. About the same time he became acquainted with that irregular genius Dr. Byfield, with whom he used to have skirmishes of humour and repartee at the Rainbow coffee-house, near Temple Bar. Upon that chemist’s decease, who was the inventor of the Sal volatile oleosum, Byrom wrote the following impromptu:

He first taught short-hand at Manchester, but afterwards came to London during the winter months, and not only had great success as a teacher, but became distinguished as a man of general learning. In 1723-4, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, and communicated to that learned body, two letters, one containing some remarks on the elements of short-hand, by Samuel Jeake, esq. which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 488, and another letter, printed in the same volume, containing remarks on Mr. Lodwick’s alphabet. The summer months he was enabled to pass with his family at Manchester. By the death of his elder brother, Edward Byrom, without issue, the family estate at Kersall devolved to him. At what time this happened, his biographer has not informed us, but in consequence of this independence, he began to relax from teaching, and passed the remainder of his days in the enjoyment of the quiet comforts of domestic life, for which he had the highest relish, and which were heightened by the affectionate temper of his wife. It is said by Dr. Nichols, that he employed the latter part of his life in writing his poems, but an inspection of their dates and subjects will shew that a very considerable part must have been written much sooner. Some he is said to have committed to the flames a little before his death; these were probably his juvenile effusions. What remain were transcribed from his own copies. He died at Manchester, Sept. 28, 1763, in the 72d year of his age. His character is given briefly in these words: “As the general tenor of his life was innocent and inoffensive, so he bore his last illness with resignation and cheerfulness. The great truths of Christianity had made from his earliest years a deep impression on his mind, and hence it was that he had a peculiar pleasure in employing his pen upon serious subjects.” Of his family we are told only that he had several children, and that his eldest son was taken early into the shop of his grandfather, where he acquired a handsome fortune. His opinions and much of his character are discoverable in his poems. At first he appears to have been a disciple of Mr. Law, zealously attached to the church of England, but with pretty strong prejudices against the Hanoverian succession. He afterwards held some of the opinions which are usually termed methodistical, but he rejected Mr. Hervey’s doctrine of imputed righteousness, and entertained an abhorrence of predestination. His reading on subjects of divinity was extensive, and he watched the opinions that came from the press with the keenness of a polemic: whenever any thing appeared adverse to his peculiar sentiments, he immediately opposed it in a poem, but as scarcely any of his writings were published in his life-time, he appears to have employed his pen chiefly for his own amusement, or that of his friends. At what time he began to lean towards the mysticism of Jacob Behmen is uncertain. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LI.) says, that in 1744 he learned High Dutch of a Russian at Manchester, in order to read Jacob’s works in the original; and being asked whether Jacob was more intelligible in that than in the English translation, he affirmed that “he was equally so in both; that he himself perfectly understood him, and that the reason others do not, was the blindness and naughtiness of their hearts.” If this account be true, Byrom was farther gone in Behmenism than we should conjecture from his works. It certainly does not appear by them that he really thought he understood Jacob perfectly, for he adopts, concerning him, the reply of Socrates concerning Heraclitus’s writings:

Among his poems may be found a version of one of Behmen’s epistles, which will at least afford the reader an opportunity of determining whether it be most intelligible in prose or verse.

The character of Byrom, as a poet, has been usually said to rest on his pastoral of Colin and Phebe, which has been universally praised for its natural simplicity; but, if we inquire what it is that pleases in this poem, we shall probably find that it is not 4:he serious and simple expression of a pastoral lover, but the air of delicate humour which runs through the whole, and inclines us to think, contrary to the received opinion, that he had no other object in view. Much, therefore, as this piece has been praised, he appears to have more fully established his character in many of those poems written at a more advanced age, and published for the first time, in two elegant volumes, at Manchester, inl 1773, especially “The Verses spoken extempore at the meeting of a Club”——“The Astrologer” ——“The Pond”——“Contentment, or the Happy Workman”——most of his Tales and Fables, and the paraphrase on the twenty-third psalm, entitled a “Divine Pastoral.” In these there appears so much of the genuine spirit of poetry, and so many approaches to excellence, that it would be difficult even upon the principles of fastidious criticism, and impossible upon those of comparison, to exclude Byrom from a collection of English poets. His muse is said to have been so kind, that he always found it easier to express his thoughts in verse than in prose, and although this preference appears in many cases where the gravity of prose only ought to have been employed, yet merely as literary curiosities, the entire works of Byrom appear to deserve the place allotted to them in the late edition of the English poets, 1810, 21 vols. 8vo.

Byrom’s lines “On the Patron of England” are worthy of notice, as having excited a controversy which is, perhaps, not yet decided. In this poem he endeavoured to prove the non-existence of St. George, the patron saint of England, by this argument chiefly, that the English were converted by Gregory the First, or the Great, who sent over St. Austin for that purpose; and he conceives that in the ancient Fasti, Georgius was erroneously set down for Gregorius, and that George nowhere occurs as patron until the reign of Edward III. He concludes with requesting that the matter may be considered by Willis, Stukeley, Ames, or Pegge, all celebrated antiquaries, or by the society of antiquaries at large, stating the plain question to be, “Whether England’s patron was a knight or a pope?” This challenge must have been given some time before the year 1759, when all these antiquaries were living, but in what publication, if printed at all, we have not been able to discover. Mr. Pegge, however, was living when Byrom’s collected poems appeared, and judged the question of sufficient importance to be discussed in the society. His “Observations on the History of St. George” were printed in the fifth volume of the Archseologia, in answer, not only to Byrom, but to Dr. Pettingal, who in 1760 expressed his unbelief in St. George by a “Dissertation on the Equestrian Figure worn by the knights of the Garter:” Mr. Pegge is supposed to have refuted both. The controversy was, however, revived at a much later period (1795) by Mr. Milner, of Winchester, who, in answer to the assertions of Gibbon, the historian, has supported the reality of the person of St. George with much ingenuity.

, a learned Polander, and a very voluminous writer, was descended from a good family, and born in 1567. His parents dying when he was a child, he was educated by his grandmother on the mother’s side, in the city of Prosovitz; and made so good use of the instructions of one of his uncles, that at ten years of age he could write Latin, compose music, and make verses. After this, he went to continue his studies at Cracow, and there took the habit of a Pominican. Being sent into Italy, he read lectures of philosophy at Milan, and of divinity at Bologna. After he returned into his own country, he preached in Posnania, and in Cracow, with the applause of all his hearers; and taught philosophy and divinity. He was principal of a college of his own order; and did several considerable services to that and to his country. Afterwards he went to Rome; where he was received with open arms by the pope, and lodged in the Vatican. From his holiness he certainly deserved that reception, for he imitated Baronius closely in his ambition to favour the power, and raise the glory, of the papal see. His inconsiderate and violent zeal, however, led him to representations in his history of which he had reason to repent. He had very much reviled the emperor Lewis of Bavaria, and razed him ignominiously out of the catalogue of emperors. The duke of Bavaria was so incensed at this audaciousness, that, not satisfied with causing an apology to be wrote for that emperor, he brought an action in form against the annalist, and got him condemned to make a public retractation, and he was also severely treated in the “Apology of Lewis of Bavaria,” published by George Herwart; who affirms, that Bzovius had not acted in his annals like a man of honesty, or wit, or judgment, or memory, or any other good quality of a writer. Bzovius would probably have continued in the Vatican till his deat^h, if the murder of one of his servants, and the loss of a great sum of money, which was carried off by the murderer, had not struck him with such a terror, as obliged him to retire into the convent of Minerva, where he died in 1637, aged seventy. The letter which the king of Poland writ to the pope in 1633, does our Dominican much honour; for in it the king supplicates Urban VIII. most humbly to suffer the good old man to return into Poland, that he might employ him in composing a history of the late transactions there. He declares, that he shall esteem himself much indebted to his holiness, if he will be pleased to grant him that favour, which he so earnestly requests of him.

, or Cab-Ben-Zohair, a distinguished Arabian poet, was one of the rabbis among those Arabians who had embraced Judaism. Mahomet, irritated by a satirical poem which Caab had written against him and his new sect, made war on the Jewish Arabian tribes, in hopes of seizing him and putting him to death. Caab, however, contrived to escape his fury, until Mahomet had made himself master of Arabia, when he had the art to be reconciled to him, turned Mahometan, and altered his poem by inserting the name of Abubeker wherever that of Mahomet occurred; and as these concessions did not seem to effect a complete reconciliation, he wrote a poem in favour of one of his mistresses, which was so successful that Mahomet received him into friendship, and bestowed on him his own mantle, which the caliph Moavias purchased when he came to the throne, and it became the dress of his successors on state occasions. Caab is also said to have had a considerable hand in drawing up the Alcoran. According to Herbelot he died in the first year of the hegira, or A. C. 622. An edition of his poem in praise of Mahomet was published under the title “Caab Ben-Zohair carmen panegyricum in laudem Mohammedis, &c.” Leyden, 1748, 4to, with an eloge by Albert Scultens.

, archbishop of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, under the empire of the Andronicus’s, wrgainst the Latins; the first to prove that the division between the Greek and Latin churches is owing in a great measure to the conduct of the Pope, who wishes to act independently of an œcumenical council, contrary to the usage of the church the second is a 'more direct attack on the infallibility of the Pope, and reduces his primacy to merely a primacy of honour; and he urges many arguments against the assumed power of the pope which are perfectly consistent with the opinions on which the reformers afterwards proceeded. These treatises, Du Pin says, are written with method, perspicuity, and learning. They were at first printed at London in Greek, without date, according to Du Pin, but we have not been able to discover this edition. They were, however, published in English at London, in 1560; or at least the latter of them, under the title “A Treatise containing a declaration of the Pope’s usurped primacie; written in Greek above seven hundred yeares since by Nilus archbishop of Thessalonica. Translated by Thomas Gressop, student in Oxford,” 8vo. There are also editions in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1544, Francfort, 1555, and with Salmasius’s notes, 1608. Our author also wrote a large work on the procession of the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the Latins.

, a navigator of great eminence? and abilities, was born at Bristol about the year 1477. He was son of John Cabot, a Venetian pilot, who resided much in England, and particularly in the city of Bristol; and who was greatly celebrated Cor his skill in navigation. Young Cabot was early instructed by his father in arithmetic, geometry, geography, and those branches of knowledge which were best calculated to form an able and skilful seaman; and by the time he was seventeen years of age, he had already made several trips to sea, in order to add to the theoretical knowledge which he had acquired, a competent skill in the practical part of navigation. The first voyage of any importance in which he was engaged, appears to have been that made by his father, for the discovery of unknown lands; and also, as it is said, of a northwest passage to the East Indies. John Cabot was encouraged to this attempt by the discoveries of Columbus. It was in 1493 that Columbus returned from his first expedition; and in 1495, John Cabot obtained from king Henry VII. letters patent, empowering him and his three sons, Lewis, Sebastian, and Sanctius, to discover unknown lands, and to conquer and settle them, for which they were to be admitted to many privileges the king reserving to himself one- fifth part of the neat profits; and with this single restraint, that the ships they fitted O ut should be obliged to return to the port of Bristol. It was not till the year after these letters patent were granted, that any preparations were made for fitting out vessels for the intended voyage; and then John Cabot had a permission from his majesty, to take six English ships in any haven of the realm, of the burden of two hundred tons and under, with as many mariners as should be willing to go with him. Accordingly, one ship was equipped at Bristol, at the king’s expence; and to this the merchants of that city, and of London, added three or four small vessels, freighted with proper commodities.

John Cabot, attended by his son Sebastian, set sail with this fleet in the spring of the year 1497. They sailed happily on their north west course, till the 24th of June, jn the same year, about five in the morning, when they discovered the island of Baccalnos, now much better known by the name of Newfoundland. The very day on which they made this important discovery, is known by a large? map, drawn by Sebastian Cabor, and cut by Clement Adams, which hung in the privy gallery at Whitehall; whereon was this inscription, under the author’s picture “Eftigics Seb. Caboti, Angli, Filii Jo. Caboti, Venetian!, 'IMilitis Aurati, &c.” and on this map was likewise the following account of the discovery, the original of which was in Latin: “In the year of our Lord 1497, John Cabot, a Venetian, and his son Sebastian, with an English fleet, set out from Bristol, and discovered that island which no man before had attempted. This discovery was made on the four and twentieth of June, about five o'clock in the morning. This land he called Prima Vistu. (or First Seen), because it was that part of which they had the first sight from the sea. The island, which lies out before the land, he called the island of St. John, probably because it was discovered on the festival of St. John the Baptist. The inhabitants of this island wore beasts’ skins, and esteemed them as the finest garments.” To this Purchas adds, “In their wars they used bows, arrows, pikes, darts, wooden clubs, and slings. They found the soil barren in some places, and yielding little fruit; but it was full of white bears and stags, far larger than those of Europe. It yielded plenty of fish, and those of the larger kind, as seals and salmon. They found soles there above a yard in length, and great abundance of that kind of fish which the savages called baccalaos. They also observed there partridges, as likewise hawks and eagles; but what was remarkable in them, they were all as black as ravens.”

After the voyage in which Newfoundland was discovered, there is a considerable chasm in the life of Sebastian Cabot; for we have no distinct accounts of what he performed for the space of twenty years together, though he probably performed several voyages during that period. Nor have we any account at what time, or in what place, his father John Cabot died; though it is supposed to have been in England. The next transaction concerning Sebastian Cabot, of which we meet with any mention, was in the eighth year of the reign of King Henry VIII. and our accounts relative to this are not very clear. But it seems he had entered into a close connexion with sir Tljomas Pert, then vice-admiral of England, and who procured him a good ship of the king’s, in order to make discoveries. It is supposed, however, that he had now changed his route, and intended to have passed by the South to the East Indies; for he sailed first to Brazil, and missing there of his purpose, shaped his course for the islands of Hispaniola and Porto Rico, where he carried on some traffic, and then returned, failing absolutely in the design upon which he went; not through any want either of courage or of conduct in himself, but from the timidity of his coadjutor, sir Thomas Pert.

It was this disappointment which is supposed to have induced Sebastian Cabot to leave England, and go over into Spain. There he was treated with great respect, and appointed pilot-major, or chief pilot of Spain; and by his office entrusted with the reviewing of all projects for discovery; which at that period were numerous and important. His great capacity and reputation as a navigator, induced many opulent merchants to treat with him, in 1524, about a voyage to be undertaken at their expence by the new-found passage of Magellan to the Moluccos; and Cabot accordingly agreed to engage in the voyage. He set sail from Cadiz, with four ships, about the beginning of April 1525, first to the Canaries, then to the Cape Verd islands, and from thence to Cape St. Augustine, and the island of Patos, or Geese; and near Bahia de Todos los Santos, or the bay of All Saints, he met a French ship. When he came to the island just mentioned, he was in great want of provisions; but the Indians treated him with much kindness, and supplied him with provisions for all his ships. This he returned by an act of base ingratitude, carrying off with him by force four sons of the principal persons of the island. He then proceeded to the river of Plate, having left ashore, on a desert island, Martin Mendez, his vice-admiral, captain Francis do Rojas, and Michael de Rojas, because they censured his conduct. He was now prevented from prosecuting his original design of going to the Spice Islands, both by a scarcity of provisions, and a mutiny among his men. He sailed, however, up the river of Plate; and about thirty leagues above the mouth he found an island, which he called St. Gabriel, about a league in compass, dnd half a league from the continent towards Brazil. There he anchored; and, rowing with the boats three leagues higher, discovered a river he called San Salvador, or St. Saviour, very deep, and a safe harbour for the ships on the same side; whither he brought up his vessels, and unloaded them, because there was not much water at the mouth of the river. Having built a fort, and left some men in it, he determined to proceed up that river with boats, and a flat-bottomed caravel, in order to make discoveries; for he thought his voyage might thereby be rendered beneficial, though he did not pass through the Straits to the Spice Islands. When he had advanced thirty leagues, he came to a river called Zarcarana; the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of which he found to be intelligent, and not unfriendly; and here he erected another fort, calling it Santi Spiritus, i. e. of the Holy Ghost, and his followers by another name, viz. Cabot’s Fort. He then discovered the shores of the river Parana, where he found several islands and rivers, and at length came to the river Paraguay, in the neighbourhood of which he found people tilling the ground; a circumstance which had not occurred to him before in that part of the world. But here the natives opposed him with so much vigour, that he advanced no farther, though he had killed many of the Indians; but they slew twenty-five of his Spaniards, and took three of them, who went out to gather palmetos.

, another skilful navigator. the son of Ferdinand Cabral, a Portuguese nobleman, was appointed commander of the second fleet which the king of Portugal sent to the Indies in 1500. After sailing for a month, he was driven by a storm on an unknown coast, to which he gave the name of Saint Croix, but which is better known since by that of Brazil, and is at present the seat of the Portuguese monarchy. Cabral took possession of this country on April 24, 1500. He then sailed for Sofala in AtVica, where he arrived with only seven out of thirteen ship* with which he left Portugal and having then proceeded to Calecut, he entered into a treaty with the zamorin or emperor, who allowed him to build a factory for the Portuguese, and although die zamorin behaved treache r rously afterwards, Cabral, by chastising his insolence, finally atchieved his purpose. He entered into a similar treaty with the prince of Cananpr, and in 1501 returned to Portugal with his fleet richly laden. Of his future life we have no account, but he wrote a detail of his voyage, which liamusio translated into Italian, and published with some others at Venice.

, an artist, knqwn by the name of Moncalvo, from his long abode in that place, was born in 1568 at Montebone, in Montferrat, and marks perhaps the brightest data of Piemontese art, though with less celebrity than merit, for no traces appear of his education: had he been a scholar of the Caracci, his first essays in fresco would have been made at Bologna, not at the stationary chapels of Monte Crea; his style of design would resemble that of Annibale more than the ideal line of Raffaello, or Andrea del Sarto, or Parmigiano; and his landscape have Jess of Paul Brill. His numerous small Madonnas breathe the spirit of the Roman and Florentine school, and one in the royal palace of Torino seems to have issued from the hands of Andrea, if we except the colour, which, though graceful and delicate, has more of the weakness that marked the tints of Sabbatini and the predecessors of the Caracci. The powers of Moncalvo were not, however, coiir fined to soft subjects: the contrary appears in the church of the Conventuals at that place in numerous instances, and still more in a chapel of S. Domenico at Chieri, where the Resuscitation of Lazarus, and the Multiplication of the Loaves, two collateral altar-pieces, vie with each other in pathetic imagery, legitimate composition, energy of expression and attitude, and correctness of design. He was assisted by several scholars of no very eminent note, but N. Sacchi of Casale, in energy of varied expression and decision of pencil, perhaps excelled the master. His two daughters i< raneesca and Orsola Caccia became, under his tuition, apt associates of his labours in fresco, a practice else unknown to female hands; they drew from the father the structure of bodies, but not their animation; and such was the similarity of their execution, that to avoid confusion, Francesca, the younger, marked her performances with a small bird, whilst Orsola distinguished her own by a flower; she founded the Conservatory of the Ursuliiies at Moncalvo, where, and at Casale, she left altar-pieces and numerous cabinet-pictures, touched in the manner of Paul Brill, and strewn with flowers; A holy family in that taste is among the rich collection of the palace Natta. Caccia died about 1625.

, an eminent bookseller, and a striking instance of the effects of a strong understanding united with industry and integrity, was born in Wine-street, Bristol, on the 27th of October, 1742, O. S. After being educated in his native city, he was apprenticed, in 1758, to Mr. Andrew Millar, at that time at the head of his profession in London, anil the steady patron of Thomson, Fielding, and many other celebrated writers. In Mr. Cadell he soon discovered a taste for business, a love of industry, and an understanding uncommonly acute, which embraced all the concerns of a trade that necessarily requires more than mere mechanical talents; and Mr. Millar being Dow advanced in life readily admitted Mr. Cadell into partnership in 1765, and in 1767, a year before his death, relinquished the whole to him. Mr. Cadell thus became, at a very early period, at the head of his profession, and by associating with himself the late William Strahan, esq. secured the advice and assistance of a printer of corresponding liberality and taste. Introduced at the same time by Mr. Millar to writers of the first rank in literature, to Johnson, Hume, Robertson, Warburton, Hurd, &c, he pursued the same commendable track, iind acting upon the liberal principles of his predecessor in respect to authors, enlarged upon it to an extent, which, at the same time that it did honour to his spirit, was well suited to the more enlightened period in which he carried on business. In conjunction with Mr. Strahan, already noticed, and afterwards with his son Andrew Strahan, esq. the present member for Aldborough, munificent remunerations were held out to writers of the most eminent talents, and, as Dr. Johnson was accustomed to aay, “the price of literature was raised.” The names of some of the writers whose works were brought forward under Mr. Cadell’s auspices have already been mentioned; nor was he less fortunate in the judicious connexions formed, upon the most liberal principles, with Blackstone, Burn, Henry, Gibbon, and many others whose works are to be found in every library. Although in success such as Mr. Cadell experienced, and which must depend ultimately on the pleasure of the public, chance may be supposed to have some influence, yet it is but justice to add that Mr. Cadell had acquired, by whatever means, an uncommon discernment in the value of books, which led him with apparent facility, and almost always with success, to predict the future fate of what was submitted to him; and when any plan of republication was discussed in conjunction with his brethren, we have the testimony of some yet living, and of many now off the stage, that no man could see more clearly than Mr. Cadell into the disposition and bias of the reading world, or display more judgment in every arrangement of editions, &c calculated to gratify public taste. Hence, in his individual capacity, it was universally remarked that he gave the largest prices for the most successful works, and that at a time when their success could be only in his own contemplation; and when that success seemed to be delayed beyond all reasonable hope, even in such cases the final issue justified his original opinion, and proved that he had formed it upon substantial grounds.

, a physician of considerable note in London, was educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1755; and the same year was made bachelor and doctor in medicine. He had previously, viz. in 1750, published a small treatise on the nursing and management of children, which was much esteemed, and contributed toward abolishing some improper treatment, both in feeding and dressing infants. His rules on this subject were first adopted by the managers of the Foundling hospital, and by degrees became general. His next publication was “Dissertations on the Gout, and all Chronical diseases,” 1764, 8vo written in a popular manner, and so generally read, that several large impressions were sold of it. The three principal causes or sources of the gout, he says, are indolence, vexation, and intemperance. The book was animadverted upon in eleven different pamphlets, some with the authors’ names, and some without, but he did not condescend to answer any of them. It is, on the whole, well written, and the regulations given for the conduct of gouty patients, with the view of mitigating the fit, and preventing frequent relapses, or returns of the complaint, are judicious, and well deserving attention, he was fellow of the college of physicians, and, which is by no means usual, spoke two Harveian orations, the one in the year 1764, the other in 17i)3. They were both published. He died in his eighty-sixth year, at his house in George-street, Hanover-square, Feb. 26, 1797.

On lis return, he was sworn of the privy council, on March 30, 1717; and in the month of July ensuing, was constituted general of all his majesty’s foot forces employed, or to be employed, in his service. The following year he was again appointed ambassador extraordinary at the Hague, where he arrived on Sept. 17, 1717; and, havingbrought his negotiations to a conclusion, embarked at the Brill for England, on Nov. 7, and put to sea the same evening. Qn May 8, 1718, he was advanced to the dignity of Baron of Oakley, viscount Caversham, and earl of Cadogan, with remainder of the barony of Oakley to Charles his brother. He set out for the Hague immediately after, where he arrived May 15, 1718, and on the 18th was visited by the public ministers, and by the president of the States General in the name of that body. Ten days after he was at Antwerp, where he conferred with tjie marquis de Prie, governor for the emperor in the Netherlands, in order to put an end to the difficulties that had long obstructed the execution of the barrier treaty; and bringing him to comply with what was demanded, he returned to the Hague on June 2 following, and communicated to the States his transactions at Antwerp, who appeared sensible of his friendly offices, and of the great obligations they were under to his Britannic majesty. And having fixed for his public entry the king his master’s birth-day, it was conducted with great splendour and magnificence. He then laboured with great diligence to adjust the difficulties, which deferred the finishing of the convention for the entire execution of the treaty of barrier, and had frequent conferences with the Imperial ministers and the State? General for that purpose.

The parishioners of St. Giles’s were deeply affected by the death of Mr. Talbot, and equally grieved at the appointment of his successor; and their only hopes were, that as he was a youth of noble family, he would have no inclination to do the duties himself, and might, perhaps, continue Mr. Halvvard as curate, who had been appointed to that office by Mr. Talbot, and was highly acceptable to them. Upon a petition, however, being presented to Mr. Cadogan in favour of Mr. Halward, he rejected it with the strongest marks of disapprobation, and the congregation that usually met in St. Giles dispersed themselves among the dissenting meetings, and some of them went so far as to erect a meeting in lady Huntingdon’s connection. On this occasion several letters passed between Mr. Cadogan and Mrs. Talbot, whose house was opened for religious exercises. At first he was highly offended; but at length his views of religious doctrines became materially altered, and he attained before his death a popularity equal, or rather superior, to that of his predecessor, and a corresponding change took place in his manner and habits. He had usually divided his time between Reading and Chelsea; but finding his labours there attended with little or no success, and having been prevailed upon to let the rectory-house, he left that populous parish to the care of his curate, the rev. Erasmus Middleton, except at the season of Lent, and of the monthly sacrament. At Reading, besides preaching on Sundays, morning and evening, he preached on Thursday evenings; and on Tuesday evenings he prayed and expounded the scriptures in his own house; but finding the number of his hearers too large, he removed this instructive exercise into the chancel. He also instituted four Sunday schools, in which upwards of 120 poor children were instructed. These schools he constantly attended, encouraging those who made the greatest improvement, by presents of money or books; and supplying every deficiency in the collections of the parishioners at his own expence. He was usually in his study by six o'clock, and devoted the greater part of his mornings to reading the scriptures in the original languages; the remainder he employed in exercise, or in visiting the sick and poor. He passed much time in secret prayer, and has been frequently surprised on his knees by his servant, when the family had retired to rest. His generosity and charity were truly great; nor could an object of distress be mentioned to him by any of his congregation without experiencing his liberality. Many clergymen, in circumstances of indigence or affliction, have received assistance from him, which was conveyed in the most private way. He had great politeness in his manners and behaviour: in his conversation, the scholar, the gentleman, and the Christian were united. In the pulpit, he endeavoured to reform the sinner, and display to all men the blessings of salvation. His voice was not pleasing, but his delivery was forcible; and he commanded attention by the earnestness with which he impressed upon his hearers the sublime truths of the gospel. Amidst these Christian duties, Mr. Cadogan was seized on a Thursday evening after his lecture, with an inflammation in his bowels, which, after a short interval of relief, proved fatal Jan. 18, 1797.

, or, as some have called him, Lucius Cælius Arianus, an ancient physician, and the only one of the sect of the methodists of whom we have any remains, is supposed to have been a native of Sicca, a town of Numidia, in Africa. This we learn from the elder Pliny; and we might almost have collected it, without any information at all, from his style, which is very barbarous, and much resembling that of the African writers. It is half Greek, half Latin, harsh, and difficult; yet strong, masculine, and his works are valuable for the matter they contain. He is frequently very acute and smart, especially where he exposes the errors of other physicians and always nervous. What age Cælius Aurelianus flourished in we cannot determine, there being so profound a silence about it amongst the ancients; but it is very probable that he lived before Galen, since it is not conceivable that he should mention, as he does, all the physicians before him, great as well as small, and yet not make the least mention of Galen. Le Clerc places him in the fifth century. He was not only a careful imitator of Soranus, but also a strenuous advocate for him. He had read over very diligently the ancient physicians of all the sects and we are obliged to him for the knowledge of many dogmas, which are not to he found but in his books “De celeribus et tardis passionibus.” The best edition of these books is that published at Amsterdam, 1722, in 4to. He wrote, as he himself tells us, several other works; but they are all perished. This, however, which has escaped the ruins of time and barbarism, is highly valued, as being the only monument of the Medicina methodica which is extant. He is allowed by all to be judicious in the history and description of diseases

, an eminent botanist and physician, was born at Arezzo, in the district of Florence, in 1519. He was educated under Luke Ghinus, superintendant of the public garden at Pisa, where he appears to have acquired his taste for botanical pursuits. There also he was appointed first professor of physic and botany in the university, and afterwards first physician to pope Clement VIII. a promotion which required his residence at Home, where he died in 1603. He described, says Dr. Pulteney, with exquisite skill, the plants of his own country, and left an herbarium of 768 species. He extended Gesner’s idea, and commenced the period of systematic arrangement. In his “Libri XVI de Plantis,” published in 1583, at Florence, he has arranged upwards of 800 plants into classes, founded, after the general division of the trees from herbs, on characters drawn from the fruit particularly, from the number of the capsules and cells; the number, shape, and disposition of the seeds; and from the situation of the corculum, radicle, or eye of t]ie seed, which he raised to great estimation. The orders, or subdivisions, are formed on still more various relations. On the other hand, the biographer of Linnceus remarks, that, though his genius was inventive, his knowledge of botany was neither original nor universal. He missed both leisure and opportunity. Clusius had discovered more fresh plants than he ever was acquainted with. His herbal did not contain nine hundred species, a fact fully proved by the Florentine botanist Micheli, who had it in his possession. A provision of this kind was too small to give a comprehensive view of botany, and the knowledge which Ca?salpinus acquired of the internal structure of plants was too defective to point out the most perfect order. He was only directed by the fruit, and mostly by that part on which tlui shoots or germins repose. This system had its defects, but it brought CiEsalpinus much nearer to the truth, and he discovered more real similarities, more natural classes, than all the botanists who preceded, and many who followed him. His speculations in anatomy are still more ingenious. He describes very clearly the circulation of the blood through the heart, and was acquainted with the uses of the valves. Douglas thinks him entitled to equal praise with Harvey, who only completed what he had nearly achieved. He clearly, Douglas says, describes the contraction and dilatation of the heart, which is shewn from the following passage from his fourth book “Question um Peripateticarum.” “The lungs,” he says, “drawing the warm blood through a vein (the pulmonary artery) like the arteries, out of the right ventricle of the heart, and returning it by an anastomosis to the venal artery (the pulmonary vein) which goes to the left ventricle of the heart, the cool air being in the mean time let in through the canals of the aspera arteria, which are extended along the venal artery, but do not communicate with it by inosculations, as Galen imagined, cools it only by touching. To this circulation of the blood out of the right ventricle of the heart through the lungs into its left ventricle, what appears upon dissection answers very well: for there are two vessels which end in the right ventricle, and two in the left: but one only carries the blood in, the other sends it out, the membranes being contrived for that purpose.” His works on the practice of medicine have also their portion of merit. “Questionum Medicarum Libri ii.;” “De Facultatibus Medicamentorum Libri duo,” Venet. 1593, 4to; “Speculum Artis Medicae Hippocraticae, exhibens dignoscendos curandosque morbos, in quo multa visuntur, quae a prjcclarissimis medicis intacta relicta erant,” Lyons, 1601-2-3, 3 vols. 8vo.

, the illustrious Roman general and historian, was of the family of the Julii, who pretended they were descended from Venus by Æneas. The descendants of Ascanius son offlLneas and Creusa, and surnamed Julius, lived at Alba till that city wns ruined by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, who carried them to Rome, where they flourished. We do not find that they produced more than two branches. The first bore the name of Tullus, the other that of Cæsar. The most ancient of the Caesars were those who were in public employments in the llth year of the first Punic war. After that time we find there was always some of that family who enjoyed public offices in the commonwealth, till the time of Caius Julius Cæsar, the subject of this article. He was born at Rome the 12th of the month Quintilis, year of the city 653, and lost his father anno 669, and the year after he was made priest of Jupiter. Sylla was aware of his ambition, and endeavoured to remove him but Cæsar understood his intentions, and, to avoid discovery, changed every day his lodgings. He was received into Sylla’s friendship some time after; and the dictator told those who solicited the advancement of young Cæsar, that they were warm in the interest of a man who would prove some day or other the ruin of their country and of their liberty. When Cæsar went to finish his studies at Rhodes, under Apollonius Molo, he was seized by pirates, who offered him his liberty for thirty talents. He gave them forty, and threatened to revenge their insults; and he no sooner was out of their power than he armed a ship, pursued them, and crucified them all. His eloquence procured him friends at Rome; and the generous manner in which he lived, equally served to promote his interest. He obtained the office of high priest at the death of Metellus; and after he had passed through the inferior employments of the state, he was appointed over Spain, where he signalized himself by his valour and intrigues. At his return to Rome he was made consul, and soon after he effected a reconciliation between Crassus and Pompey. He was appointed for the space of five years over the Gauls, by the interest of Pompey, to whom he had given his daughter Julia in marriage. Here he enlarged the boundaries of the Roman empire by conquest, and invaded Britain, which was then unknown to the Roman people. He checked the Germans, and soon after had his government over Gaul prolonged to five other years, by means of his friends at Rome. The death of Julia and of Crassus, the corrupted state of the Roman senate, and the ambition of Cassar and Pompey, soon became the causes of a civil war. Neither of these celebrated Romans would suffer a superior, and the smallest matters were sufficient ground for unsheathing the sword. Cæsar’s petitions were received with coldness or indifference bjr the Roman senate; and by the influence of Pompey, a decree was passed to strip him of his power. Antony, who opposed it as tribune, fled to Cæsar’s camp with the news; and the ambitious general no sooner heard this, than he made it a plea of resistance. On pretence of avenging the violence which had been offered to the sacred office of tribune in the person of Antony, he crossed the Rubicon, which was the boundary of his province. The passage of the Rubicon was a declaration of war, and Cæsar entered Italy sword in hand. Upon this, Pompey, with all the friends of liberty, left Rome, and retired to Dyrrachium and Cæsar, after he had subdued all Italy, in sixty days, entered Rome, and provided himself with money from the public treasury. He went to Spain, where he conquered the partizans of Pompey, under Petreius, Afranius, and Varro; and at his return to Rome was declared dictator, and soon after consul. When he left Rome he went in quest of Pompey, observing that he was marching against a general without troops, after having defeated troops without a general in Spain. In the plains of Pharsalia, B.C. 48, the two hostile generals engaged, Pompey was conquered, and fled into Egypt, where he was basely murdered. Cæsar, after he had made a noble use of victory, pursued his adversary into Egypt, where he sometime forgot his fame and character in the arms of Cleopatra, by whom he had a son. His danger was great while at Alexandria but he extricated himself with wonderful success, and made Egypt tributary to his power. After several conquests in Africa, the defeat of Cato, Scipio, and Juba, and that of Pompey‘a sons in Spain, he entered Rome, and triumphed over five different nations, Gaul, Alexandria, Pomus, Africa, and Spain, and was created perpetual dictator. But now his glory was at an end, his uncommon success created him enemies, and the chiefest of the senators, among whom was Brutus his most intimate friend, conspired against him, and stabbed him in the seriate house on the ides of March. He died, pierced with tuenty-tliree wounds, the 15th of March, B. C. 44, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Casca gave him the first blow, and immediately he attempted to make some resistance; but when he saw Brutus among the conspirators, he submitted to his fate, and fell down at tlu-ir feet, muffling up his mantle, and exclaiming, M Tu quoque Brute 1*’ Cæsar might have escaped the sword of the conspirators if he had listened to the advice of his wife Calpurnia, whose dreams, on the night previous to the day of his murder, were alarming. He also received, as he went to the senatehouse, a paper from Artemidorus, which discovered the whole conspiracy to him; but he neglected the reading of what might have saved his life. When he was in his first campaign in Spain, he was observed to gaze at a statue of Alexander, and even he shed tears at the recollection that that hero had conquered the world at an age in which he himself had done nothing. The learning of Cæsar deserves commendation, as well as his military character. He reformed the calendar. He wrote his commentaries on the Gallic wars on the spot where he fought his battles, and the composition has been admired for the elegance as well as the correctness of its style. This valuable book was nearly lost and when Cæsar saved his life in the bay of Alexandria, he was obliged to swim from his ship, with his arms in one hand and his commentaries in the other. Besides the Gallic and civil wars, he wrote other pieces which are now lost. The history of the war in Alexandria and Spain is attributed to him, and by others to Hirtius. Cæsar has been blamed for his debaucheries and expences, and the first year he had a public office, his debts were rated at 830 talents, which his friends discharged yet, in his public character, he must be reckoned one of the few heroes that rarely make their appearance among mankind. His qualities were such, that in every battle he could not be but conqueror* and in every republic, master; and to his sense of his superiority over the rest of the world, or to his ambition, we are to attribute his saying, that he wished rather to be first in a little village, than second at Rome. It was after his conquest over Pharnaces in one day, that he made use of these remarkable words, to express the celerity of his operations, “Veni, vidi, vici.” Conscious of the services of a man, who in the intervals of peace beautified and enriched the capital of his country with pubiic buildings, libraries, and porticoes, the senate permitted the dictator to wear a laurel crown on his bald head; and it is said, that, to reward his benevolence, they were going to give him the title or authority of king all ovftr the Roman empire, except Italy, when he was murdered. In his private character, Cæsar has been accused of seducing one of the Vestal virgins, and suspected of being privy to Catiline’s conspiracy and it was his fondness for dissipated pleasures, which made his countrymen say, that he was the husband of all the women at Rome. It is said that he conquered 300 nations, took 800 cities, and defeated three millions of men, one of which fell in the field of battle. Pliny says?, that he could employ at the same time, his ears to listen, his eyes to read, his hand to write, and his mind to dictate. His death was preceded, as many authors mention, by uncommon prodigies and immediately after his death, a large comet made its appearance. Cæsar when young, was betrothed to Cossutia, a rich heiress, whom he dismissed to marry Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, by whom he had Julia. His attachment to Cornelia was so great, that he never could be prevailed upon by the arts or threats of Sylla to divorce her; but her attachment he boldly preferred to his own personal safety. After her early death, which he lamented with great bitterness of grief, he married Pompeia, the grand-daughter of Sylla; and for his fourth wife he took Calpurnia, the daughter of the consul Piso, a connection formed from political motives. The best editions of Cesar’s Commentaries, are the magnificent one by Dr. Clarke, Lond. 1712, Hoi.; that of Cambridge, with a Greek translation, 1727, 4to; that of Oudendorp, 2 vols. 4to, L. Bat. 1737; that of Elzevir, 8vo, L. Bat. 1635; that of Homer, London, 1790, 2 vols. 8vo and of Oberlin, Leipsic, 1805, 8vo.

, a learned civilian, was born near Tottenham, in Middlesex, in 1557. His father was Cæsar Adelmar, physician to queen Mary and queen Elizabeth lineally descended from Adelmar count of Genoa, and admiral of France, in the year 806, in the reign of Charles the Great. This Cæsar Adelmar’s mother was daughter to the duke de Cesarini, from whom he had the name of Cæsar which name Mary I. queen of England, ordered to be continued to his posterity and his father was Peter Maria Dalmarius, of the city of Trevigio in Italy, LL. D. sprung from those of his name living at Cividad del Friuli. Julius, who is the subject of this article, had his education in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 17, 1575, as a member of Magdalen hall. Afterwards he went and studied in the university of Paris where, in the beginning of 1581, he was created D. C. L. and had letters testimonial for it, under the seal of that university, dated the 22d of April, 1531. He was admitted to the same degree at Oxford, March the 5th, 1583; and also became doctor of the canon law. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, he was master of requests, judge of the high court of admiralty, and master of St. Catherine’s hospital near the Tower. On the 22d of January, 1595, he was present at the confirmation of Richard Vaughan, bishop of Bangor, in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. Upon kingJames’s accession to the throne, having before distinguished himself by his merit and abilities, he was knighted by that prince, at Greenwich, May 20, 1603. He was also constituted chancellor and under- treasurer of the exchequer and on the 5th of July, 1607, sworn of his majesty’s privy council. January 16th, in the eighth of king James I. he obtained a reversionary grant of the office of master of the rolls after sir Edward Phillips, knight; who, departing this life September 11, 1614, was succeeded accordingly by sir Julius, on the 1st of October following; and then he resigned his place of chancellor of the exchequer. In 1613 he was one of the commissioners, or delegates employed in the business of the divorce between the earl of Essex and his countess; and gave sentence for that divorce. About the same time, he built a chapel at his house, <on the north side of the Strand, in London, which was consecrated, May 8, 1614. As he had been privy-counsellor to king James I. so was he also to his son king Charles I.; and appears to have been custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford. We are likewise informed by one author, that he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. After having thus passed through many honourable employments, and continued in particular, master of the rolls for above twenty years, he departed this life April 28, 1636, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. He lies buried in the church of Great St. Helen’s within Bishopgate, London, under a fair, but uncommon monument, designed by himself; being in form of a deed, and made to resemble a ruffled parchment, in allusion to his office as master of the rolls. With regard to his character, he was a man of great gravity and integrity, and remarkable for his extensive bounty and charity to all persons of worth, or that were in want: so that he might seem to be almoner-general of the nation. Fuller gives the following instance of his uncommon charity “A gentleman once borrowing his coach (which was as well known to poor people as any hospital in England) was so rendezvouzed about with beggars in London, that it cost him all the money in his purse to satisfy their importunity, so that he might have hired twenty coaches on the same terms.” He entertained for some time in hisr house the most illustrious Francis lord Bacon, viscount St. Alban’s. He made his grants to all persons double kindnesses by expedition, and cloathed (as one expresses it) his very denials in such robes of courtship, that it was not obviously discernible, whether the request or denial were most decent. He had also this peculiar to himself, that he was very cautious of promises, lest falling to an incapacity of performance he might forfeit his reputation, and multiply his certain enemies, by hisoiesign of creating uncertain friends. Besides, he observed a sure principle of rising, namely, that great persons esteem better of such they have done great courtesies to, than those they have received great civilities from; looking upon this as their disparagement, the other as their glory.

, a celebrated artist, called Paul Veronese, the great master of what is called the ornamental style, was born at Verona in 1530, and was the disciple of Antonio adile. When young, in concurrence with Batista del Moro, Domenico Brusasorci, and Paol Farinato, he painted at the summons of cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, in the cathedral of Mantua, and left no doubt of his superiority in the. contest. He then went to Venice, and with the procurator Grimani to Rome, where, from the frescos of M. Angelo and Raffael, he acquired the idea of that breadth which distinguishes him in all his allegorical and mythologic pictures; and though the simplicity inseparable from real grandeur vras not a principle to be courted by him who aimed at captivating the debauched Venetian eye, he gave proofs, that, if he did not adopt, he had a sense for its beauties. The Apotheosis of Venice in the ducal palace, in magnificence of combination, loftiness, splendor, variety, offers in one picture the principles and the elemental beauties of his style. It was, however, less to this work, than to his Cene, or convivial compositions, that Paolo owed his celebrity. He painted four at Venice, for four refectories of convents, all of enormous dimensions and equal copiousness of invention. The first, with the Nuptials of Cana, once in the refectory of*St. Giorgio Maggiore, now in the Louvre, and known by numerous copies, is thirty palms long, comprizes 130 figures, with a number of distinguished portraits; and yet was painted, says Lanzi, for no more than ninety ducats. The second, better preserved, was painted for the convent of S. Giovanni and Paolo, and represents the call of St. Matthew; it is chiefly praised for the character of the heads, which Ricci copied for his studies at an advanced age. The third, at St. Sebastian, is the Feast of Simon, which is likewise the subject of the fourth, painted for the refectory o/ the Servi, but sent to Lewis XIV. and placed at Versailles. This, perhaps, is the master-piece of the four, though placed in an unfavourable light, and greatly injured by neglect, and the dampness of the place.

No painter ever was hurried along by a greater torrent of commissions, and no painter ever exerted himself with greater equality of execution. Light grounds and virgin tints have contributed to preserve the freshness of his pictures: the family of Darius presented to Alexander, in the Pisani palace at Venice, and the S. Giorgio, once at Verona, now in the Louvre, have, without the smallest loss of the bloom that tones them, received from time that mellowness, that sober hue, which time alone can give. More fixed in a system, and consequently nearer to manner than Titian, with less purity and delicacy; greyer, not so warm, so sanguine, or so juicy as Tintoretto, Paolo excels both in fascinating breadth of bland and lucid demi-tints; and in his convivial scenes, though thronged with pomp, gorgeous attire, and endless ornament, never once forgets that they were admitted to shew and not to eclipse the actors. The actors were not, indeed, those of the historian, no more than the costume that of the times, or the ornaments and architecture those of the country. The ostentation of ornamental painting is not to be arraigned at the tribunal of serious history. The humble guests of Cana, the publican forsaking his till, Magdalen at the feet of Christ, travestied into Venetian patriarchs, belles, or nobles, were only called upon to lend their names, and by their authority to palliate or flatter the reigning taste or vice of a debauched and opulent public.

For such transactions as these he was several times arrested and put into prison; but either for want of sufficient evidence, or from the complicated nature of the business, or from the extensive influence of his relations, he as often found means of soon regaining his liberty. At length he was forced to take to night for cheating a silversmith, named Marano, of upwards of sixty ounces of gold, under pretence of shewing him a treasure hid in a cave. On bringing him to the place, he began to exhibit a variety of fantastical mummeries, as if practising some magical rites, which terminated in the appearance of some accomplices of Balsamo, who, in the disguise of theatrical devils, belaboured the shoulders of poor Marano. The silversmith, though highly incensed at this infamous treatment, thought it not prudent to have recourse to the law, but resolved to have his revenge by murdering the impostor, which being suspected by Balsamo, he thought it expedient to remove to another place.

Balsamo, who had quitted his country, Palermo, in the manner above mentioned, now began to roam about the world. We can here only follow his own account, till we meet him at Rome, for want of other traces and informations. With the money he had procured by his fraud on the silversmith he travelled to Messina. Here he got acquainted with a certain Altotas, a Greek, or, according to others, a Spaniard, who was versed in several languages, possessed a number of Arabic writings, and gave himself out for a great chemist. With this new friend he took ship, visited the Archipelago, and landed at Alexandria in Egypt, where they staid about forty days, and his fellow traveller undertook a variety of chemical operations, and among the rest that of making a sort of silky stuff from temp and flax, by which he got much money. From Alexandria they proceeded to Rodi, where they likewise obtained some money by chemical operations. Quitting the isle of Rodi they bent their course to Grand Cairo, but by contrary winds were driven to Malta, where they remained some time, working in the laboratory of the grandmaster Pinto. Here Altotas died; and Balsamo resolved to go, in company with a knight to whom he was recommended by the grand-master himself, to Naples.

It is impossible by any means to contract the numberless tricks and stratagems of this grand impostor, in almost every part of Europe, within the limits prescribed to the articles of this work. His astonishing ingenuity in every species of fiction and deceit, exceeds all that has been recorded in the annals of ancient or modern roguery, insomuch that he was held for a real prodigy by every one to whose ears his fame had reached. His impostures in each of the places he visited would fill a considerable volume; and we must content ourselves with adding, that, for some enormities committed at Rome, he was thrown into the castle of St. Angelo, where he died towards the latter end of 1794; referring such readers as would wish to know more of him to the Italian original, published at Rome by the apostolical chamber, under the title of “Compendium of the Life and Actions of Giuseppe Balsamo, otherwise called count Cagliostro, extracted from the documents of the process carried on against him at Rome in the year 1790,” &c.

Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he was a most subtle logician, an admirable philosopher, and an incomparable divine. He wrote commentaries upon Aristotle’s philosophy, and upon Thomas Aquinas’ s theology; the latter, however, by no means calculated to give us a favourable idea of his logic, or his perspicuity, He gave a literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testaments from the originals, excepting Solomon’s Song and the Pro-' phets, which he had begun, but did not live to proceed far in; and the Revelations of St. John, which he designedly omitted, saying, that to explain them, it was necessary for a man to be endued, not with parts and learning, but with the spirit of prophecy. Father Simon’s account of him, as a translator of the Bible, is critical and historical: “Cardinal Cajetan,” says he, “was very fond of translations of the Bible purely literal; being persuaded, that the Scripture could not be translated too literally, it being the word of God, to which it is expressly forbid either to add or diminish any thing. This cardinal, in his preface to the Psalms, largely explains the method he observed in his translation of that book; and he affirms, that although heknew nothing of the Hebrew, yet he had translated part of the Bible word for word from it. For this purpose he made use of two persons, who understood the language well, the one a Jew, the other a Christian, whom he desired to translate the Hebrew words exactly according to the letter and grammar, although their translation might appear to make no sense at all. I own, says he, that my interpreters were often saying to me, this Hebrew diction Is literally so; but then the sense will not be clear unless it is changed so: to whom I, when I heard all the different significations, constantly replied, Never trouble yourselves about the sense, if it does not appear to you; because is not your business to expound, but to interpret: do you interpret it exactly as it lies, and leave to the expositors the care of making sense of it.” Cardinal Pullavicini, who looked upon this as too bold, says, that Cajetan, “who has succeeded to the admiration of the whole world in his other works, got no reputation by what he did upon the Bible, because he followed the prejudices of those who stuck close to the Hebrew grammar.” But father Simon is of opinion that he “may in some measure be justified: for he did not, says he, pretend to condemn the ancient Latin translator, or the other translators of the Bible; but would only have translations of the Bible to be made from the original as literally as can be, because there are only these originals, which can be called the pure word of God; and because in translations, which are not literal, there are always some things which do not thoroughly express the original.” These “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” if they deserve the name, were published at Lyons in 5 vols. fol. 1639.

, an eminent French Inathematician and astronomer, was born at Rumigiiy in the diocese of Rheims on March 15, 1713. His father having quitted the army, in which he had served, amused himself in his retirement with studying mathematics and mechanics, in which he proved the author of several inventions of considerable use to the public. From this example of his father, our author “almost in his infancy took a fancy to mechanics, which proved of signal service to him in his maturer years. At school he discovered early tokens of genius. He came to Paris in 1729; where he studied the classics, philosophy, and mathematics, and afterwards divinity in the college de Navarre, with a view to the church, but he never entered into priest’s orders, apprehending that his astronomical studies, to which he had become much devoted, might too much interfere with his religious duties. His turn for astronomy soon connected him with the celebrated Cassini, who procured him an apartment in the observatory; where, assisted by the counsels of this master, he soon acquired a name among the astronomers, in 1739 he was joined with M. Cassini de Thury, son to M. Cassini, in verifying the meridian through the whole extent of France; and in the same year he was, named professor of mathematics in the college of Mazarine. In 1741 or author was admitted into the academy of sciences as an adjoint member for astronomy and had many excellent papers inserted in their memoirs; beside which he published several useful treatises, viz. Elements of Geometry, Astronomy, Mechanics, and Optics. He also carefully computed all the eclipses of the sun and moon that had happened since the Christian sera, which were printed in the work entitled” L'Art de verifier les dates,“&c. Paris, 1750, 4to. He also compiled a volume of astronomical ephemerides for the years 1745 to 1755; another for the years 1755 to 1765 and a third for the years 1765 to 1775 as also the most correct solar tables of any; and an excellent work entitled” Astronomic fundamenta novissimis solis et stellarum observationibus stabilita."

M. de la Caille returned to France in the autumn of 1754, after an absence of about four years; loaded, not with the spoils of the east, but with those of the southern heavens, beiore then almost unknown to astronomers. Upon his return, he first drew up a reply to some strictures which the celebrated Euler had published relative to the meridian: after which he settled the results of the comparison of his observations for the parallaxes, with those of other astronomers that of the sun he fixed at 9|“; of the naoon at 56 56”; of Mars in his opposition, 36“of Venus 3.” He also settled the laws by which astronomical refractions are varied by the different density or rarity of the air, by heat or cold, and by dry ness or moisture. And lastly he shewed an easy and practicable method of finding the longitude at sea, by means of the moon. His fame being now celebrated every where, M. de la Caille was soon elected a member of most of the academies and societies of Europe, particularly of those of London, Bologna, Petersburg!], Berlin, Stockholm, and Gottingen. In 1760 he was attacked by a severe fit of the gout, which, however, did not interrupt the course of his studies; for he then planned out a new and large work, no less than a history of astronomy through all ages, with a comparison of the ancient and modern observations, and the construction and use of the instruments employed in making them. Towards the latter part of 1761, his constitution became greatly reduced; though his mind remained unaffected, and he resolutely persisted in his studies to the last. He died March 21, 1762, in the forty-ninth year of his age. Besides the publications before mentioned, he had a vast number inserted in the Memoirs of the French academy, from 1711 to 1763. In most of the volumes of those years are two or more of his papers.

, an eminent nonconformist divine in the seventeenth century, was the sou of a citizen of London, and born there in February 1600. July 4, 1616, he was admitted of Pembroke-hall 5 in the university of Cambridge. In 1619, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts and in 1632, that of bachelor of divinity. He shewed himself very early no friend, to the Arminian party, which was the reason that he could not obtain a fellowship in that society, even when he seemed to be entitled to it from his standing, as well as from his learning and unblemished character. At last, however, he so far conquered all prejudices, that he was elected Tanquam Socius of that hall, which entitled him to wear the cap, and take pupils, but he had no share in the government of the house. Dr. Felton, the pious and learned bishop of Ely, had so great a regard to his diligence in study, and unaffected zeal for religion, that he made him his chaplain, and paid him, during his residence in his family, uncommon marks of respect. His lordship gave him likewise, as a farther mark of his favour, the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Swaffham- Prior, in Cambridgeshire, in which capacity he did much good, though he diid not reside on his cure by reason of its small distance from the episcopal place. But after the death of the bishop in 1626, Mr. Calamy being chosen one of- th$; lecturers of St. Edmund’s-Bury, in Suffolk, he resigned his vicarage, and applied himself wholly to the discharge of his function at Bury. He continued there ten years, and, as some writers say, was during the greatest part of that time a strict conformist. Others, and indeed himself, say the contrary. The truth seems to be, that he was unwilling to oppose ceremonies, or to create a disturbance in the church about them, so long as this might, in, his opinion, be avoided with a safe conscience; but when bishop Wren’s articles, and the reading of the book of sports, came to be insisted on, he thought himself obliged to alter his conduct, and not only avoid conforming for the future, but also to apologize publicly for his former behaviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex, a rectory of considerable value, and yet it proved a fatal present to Mr. Calamy; for, removing from one of the best and wholesomest airs in England, that of St. Edmund’sbury, into the hundreds of Essex, he contracted such an illness as broke his constitution, and left behind it a dizziness in his head, which he complained of as long as he Jived. Upon the death of Dr. Stoughton, he was chosen minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, which brought him tip to London, 1639. The controversy concerning churchgovernment was tlu n at its greatest height, in which Mr. Calainy had a very large share. In the month of July 1639, he was incorporated of the university of Oxford, which, however, did not take him off from the party in which he was engaged. In 1640 he was concerned in writing that famous book, called Smectymnuus, which himself says, gave the first deadly blow to episcopacy, and therefore we find frequent references to it in all the defences and apologies for nonconformity which have been since published. In 1641 he was appointed by the house of lords a member of the sub-committee for religion, which consisted of very eminent divines, whose conduct, however, has been differently censured. He made a great figure in the assembly of divines, though he is not mentioned in Fuller’s catalogue, and distinguised himself both by his learning and moderation. He likewise preached several times before the house of commons, for which his memory has been very severely treated. He was at the same time one of the Cornhill lecturers, and no man had a greater interest in the city of London, in consequence of his ministerial abilities. He preached constantly in his own parish church for twenty years to a numerous audience, composed of the most eminent citizens, and even persons of great quality. He steadily and strenuously opposed the sectaries, and gave many pregnant instances of his dislike to those violences which were committed afterwards, on the king’s being brought from the Isle of Wight, He opposed the beheading of his sovereign king Charles I. with constancy ^ncl courage. Under the usurpation of Cromwell he was passive, and lived as privately as he could; yet he gave no reason to suspect that he was at all a well-wisher to that government. When the times afforded a favourable opportunity, he neglected not promoting the return of king Charles II. and actually preached before the house of commons on the day they voted that great question, which, however, has not hindered some from suggesting their suspicions of his loyally. After this step was taken, he, Mr. Ash, and other eminent divines were sent over to compliment the king in Holland, by whom they were extremely well received. When his majesty was restored, Mr. Calainy retained still a considerable share in his favour, and in June 1660, was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, and was offered the bishopric, of Coventry and Litchfield, which he refused. When the convocation came to be chosen, he and Mr. Baxter were elected, May 2, 1661, for London; but the bishop of that diocese having the power of chusing two out of four, or four out of six, elected within a certain circuit, Dr. Sheldon, who was then bishop, was so kind as to excuse both of them; which, perhaps, was owing to the share they had in the Savoy conference. After the miscarrying of that design, Mr. Calamy made use of all his interest to procure the passing of an act agreeable to the king’s declaration at Breda: but when this was frustrated, and the act of uniformity passed, he took a resolution of submitting to ejection, and accordingly preached his farewel sermon at Aldermanbury, August 17, 1662. He made, however, a last effort three days afterwards, by presenting a petition to his majesty to continue in the exercise of his ministerial office. This petition was signed by many of the London clergy, and Dr. Man ton and Dr. Bates assisted at the presenting it, when Mr; Calamy made a long and moving speech; but neither it nor the petition had any good effect, though the king expressed himself in favour of toleration. He remained, however, in his parish, and came constantly to church, though another was in the pulpit, which proved an occasion of much t;rouble to him for on December 28, 1662, the expected preacher not coming in time, some of the principal persons in the parish prevailed upon Mr. Calamy to supply his place, which, with some importunity, he did; but delivered himself with such freedom, that he was soon after, by the lord mayor’s warrant, committed to Newgate for his sermon. But the case itself being thought hard, and some doubt arising how far the commitment was legal, his majesty in a few days discharged him. He lived to see London in ashes, the sight of which broke his heart. He was driven through the ruins in a coach to Enfield, and was so shocked at the dismal appearance, that he could never wear off the impression, but kept his chamber ever after, and died October 29, 1666, within two naonths after this accident happened. He was, though a very learned man, yet a plain and practical preacher, and one who was not afraid to speak his sentiments freely of and to the greatest; men . He was twice married. By his first wife he had a son and daughter; and by his second seven children, some of whom we shall have occasion to mention in succeeding articles.

Beisides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Calamy published several single sermons preached on different occasions, and five sermons entitled “The Godly Man’s Ark, or a city of refuge in the day of his distress,” the eighth edition of which was printed at London, 1683, in 12mo. He had a hand in drawing up the “Vindication of the Presbyterian Government and Ministry,” London, 1650; and the “Jns Divinum Ministerii Evangelic! Anglicani,” printed in 1654. Since his death, there was a treatise of Meditation printed in a clandestine way, not by his son, nor from his manuscript, but from some imperfect notes taken by an auditor.

, an eminent divine of the church of England, was the son of Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury before-mentioned, by a second wife, and received the first tincture of learning at St. Paul’s school, from whence he was sent, when very young, to the university of Cambridge, and there entered of Catherine-hall. In 1664-5, he took the degree of bachelor of arts; in 1668, that of master of arts, and became also fellow of that hall, and a very eminent tutor there. April 25, 1677, he was chosen in the room of Dr. Simon Ford, minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury; and soon after appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1680, he took his degree of doctor in divinity. In 1683, he preached in that church his famous sermon, which he afterwards published under the title of “A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience,” than which no piece of its kind or size gamed more credit to its author, or was more taken notice of by the public. This sermon he preached a second time at Bow church with great effect, and this excited a zealous nonconformist, one Mr. Thomas De Laune, who had been formerly a schoolmaster, to write against it; which he did in such a manner as drew upon him a fatal imprisonment, which he endeavoured by all means to ascribe to Dr. Calamy, though his complaints on this head had little or no foundation. In 1683, Dr. Calamy was admitted to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, with St. Mary Magdalen Milk-street annexed, to which he was collated by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, in the room of Dr. Benjamin Whichcot. June 18, 1685, he was, on the decease of Dr. John Wells, installed into the prebend of Harleston, in the cathedral church of St. Paul. These preferments are abundant proofs of his merit, and of his great interest in the city of London, which he maintained, not by attaching himself to any party, but by living in great intimacy with the best men of all parties. He was particularly acquainted with alderman Cornish, who was his parishioner, and for whom he had so great a respect, that he gave testimony in his favour when he was tried for high-treason, October 16, 1685, which was no ordinary mark of friendship in those times. It is thought, that a sense of public calamities had a great share in bringing his last illness upon our author, who fell into a declining state in the autumn of the year last mentioned, and died of a pleuritic fever in the month of January 1686. He was a man equally valuable for the abilities which he possessed, and the uses to which he applied them. He was a sincere son of the church of England, and very intent on gaining over dissenters of all sorts to her communion; and had an extensive charity, and a just aversion to persecution. He was heartily loyal, but without bitterness or passion; and his loyalty occasioned his grief, when he saw those steps taken which could end in nothing but public confusion. His own virtues, however, exempted him in a great measure from envy and scandal, even in the worst of times; insomuch, that the greatest men of all sects and all parties readily joined in paying a just tribute of praise to his memory. Though few in his situation were either better or more frequent preachers, yet he left behind him very little in print. Some sermons of his were after his decease, published by his brother, which served only to raise a great regret in the world, as that so many more of his excellent performances were buried in oblivion. His sermons are still valued as well for the beauty of their language as the excellent sentiments contained in them.

Next year Mr. Calamy published the second part of bin “Defence of moderate Nonconformity” with an answer to Mr. Hoadly’s Serious Admonition. In 1705 he sent abroad the third part of his Defence; to which was added, “A letter to Mr. Hoadly, in answer to his Defence of the Reasonableness of Conformity.” In 1707 Mr. Hoadly published his Defence of Episcopal Ordination; and Mr. Calamy drew up a reply, both to the argumentative and historical part of it, but forbore printing it, as he tells us himself in his abridgment of Baxter’s life, that he might not give his antagonist any disturbance in the pursuit of that political contest in which he was engaged. In 1709 Mr. Calamy made a tour to Scotland, and had the degree of D. D. conferred on him by the universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Glasgow. In 1713 he published a second edition of his Abridgment of Mr. Baxter’s history of his life and times; in which, among other additions, there is a continuation of the history through king William’s reign, and queen Anne’s, down to the passing of the occasional bill and in the close is subjoined the reformed liturgy, which was drawn up and presented to the bishops in 1661 “that the world may judge (he says in the preface) how fairly the ejected ministers have been often represented as irreconcileable enemies to all liturgies.” In 1718 he wrote a vindication of his grandfather and several other persons, against certain reflections cast upon them by Mr. archdeacon Echard in his History of England; and in 1728 appeared his continuation of the account of the ministers, lecturers, masters, and fellows of colleges, and school-masters, who were ejected and silenced after the restoration in 1660, by, or before the act of uniformity. He died June 3, 1732, greatly regretted, not only by the dissenters, but also by the moderate members of the established church, both clergy and laity, with many of whom he lived in great intimacy. Mr. Daniel Mayo, by whom his funeral sermon preached, observes, “that he was of a candid and benevolent disposition, and very moderate with regard to differences in point of religion.” Besides the pieces already mentioned, he published a great many sermons on several subjects and occasions, particularly a vindication of that celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, from being spurious, and an explanation of it on the supposition of being genuine, in Jour sermons, preached at the Salters’-hall lectures. He was twice married, and had thirteen children.

was an Indian philosopher who followed Alexander the Great in his expedition to the Indies. Being tormented with the colic after passing eighty-three years in health, he petitioned the conqueror to cause a funeral pile to be erected whereon he might finish his days according to the custom of his country. That prince, who loved and esteemed him, reluctantly yielding to his entreaties, ordered his army to range itself in order of battle round the funeral pile. Calanus, crowned with flowers, and magnificently habited, ascended the pile with a tranquil and composed countenance, saying as he went up, that “having lost his health, and seen Alexander, life had nothing more to interest him.” He bore the action of the fire without discovering any signs of uneasiness or pain and, on being asked if he had nothing to say to Alexander “No,”returned the philosopher, “I reckon soon to receive him at Babylon.” The hero dying three months afterwards in that city, the brachman was thought to have been a prophet; a circumstance which added not a little of the marvellous to his history. Calanus’s death took place in the fourth year of the 113th Olympiad, or 325 B. C.

, a canon of the church of Ferrara, and a poet and orator of considerable distinction, was born at Ferrara in 1479, and, as generally supposed, was the natural son of a person who was an apostolic notary. He studied under Peter Pomponazzo, but devoting himself to a military life, served under the emperor Maximilian. He afterwards engaged in the service. of Julius II. and was employed in several important negociations. Returning to Ferrara, he obtained the particular favour of the family of Este, and was chosen to accompany the cardinal Ippolito on his journeyMiuo Hungary. About the year 1520, he was appointed professor of the belles lettres in the university of Ferrara, which situation he filled with great credit until his death in 1541. He was interred in the library of the Jacobins, to which he bequeathed his books, and on which are two inscriptions to his memory, one signifying that “by continual study, he had learned to despise earthly things, and not to be insensible of his own ignorance,” (ignorantiam suam non ignorare.) His works were published at Basil in 1541, one vol. folio, or according to Moreri, in 1544, and contain sixteen books of epistles, and philosophical, political, and critical dissertations on various subjects, and he also wrote some Latin poetry, which the critics of his time prefer to his prose, the latter being heavy, unequal, and affected; his poetry was published with the poems of John Baptista Pigna and Louis Ariosto, at Venice, 1553, 8vo. He appears to have corresponded with Erasmus, whom, like many others, he blamed for his undecided character in the questions which arose out of the reformation.

, a famous divine of the church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family in that kingdom, and born in 1575. Being early designed for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the study of the scriptures in their original tongues, the works of the fathers, the councils, and the best writers of church history. He was settled, about 1604, at Crailing, not far from Jedburgh, in the south of Scotland. James VI. of that country, and the first of Great Britain, being desirous of bringing the church of Scotland to a near conformity with that of England, laboured earnestly to restore the episcopal authority, and enlarge the powers of the bishops in that kingdom; but this design was very warmly opposed by many of the ministers, and particularly by David Calderwood, who, when James Law, bishop of Orkney, came to visit the presbyteries of the Merse and Teviotdale, declined his jurisdiction, by a paper under his hand, dated May 5, 1603. The king, however, having its success much at heart, sent the earl of Dunbar, then high-treasurer of Scotland, Dr. Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and two other divines, into that kingdom, with instructions to employ every method to persuade both the clergy and the laity, of his majesty’s sincere desire to promote the good of the church, and of his zeal for the Protestant religion, in which they succeeded. Calderwood, however, did not assist at the general assembly held at Glasgow, June 8, 1610, in which lord Dunbar presided as commissioner; and it appears from his writings, that he looked upon every thing transacted in it as null and void. Exceptions were also taken by him and his party, against a great part of the proceedings of another general assembly > held with much solemnity at Aberdeen, Aug. 13, 1616. In May following, king James went to Scotland, and in June held a parliament at Edinburgh; at the same time the clergy met in one of the churches, to hear and advise with the bishops; which kind of assembly, it seems, was contrived in imitation of the English convocation. Mr. Calderwood was present at it, but declared publicly that he did not take any such meetings to resemble a convocation; and being opposed by Dr. Whitford and Dr. Hamilton, who were friends to the bishops, he took his leave of them in these words: “It is absurd to see men sitting in silks and satins, and to cry poverty in the kirk, when purity is departing.” The parliament proceeded mean while in the dispatch of business; and Calderwood, with several other ministers, being informed that a bill was depending to empower the king, with advice of the archbishops, bishops, and such a number of the ministry as his majesty should think proper, to consider and conclude, as to matters decent for the external policy of the church, not repugnant to the word of God; and that such conclusions should have the strength and power of ecclesiastical laws: against this they protested for four reasons: 1. Because their church was so perfect, that, instead of needing reformation, it might be a pattern to others. 2. General assemblies, as now established by law, and which ought always to continue, might by this means be overthrown. 3. Because it might be a means of creating schism, and disturb the tranquillity of the church. 4. Because they had received assurances, that no attempts should be made to bring them to a conformity with the church of England. They desired, therefore, that for these and other reasons, all thoughts of passing any such law may be laid aside; but in case this be not done, they protest, for themselves and their brethren who shall adhere to them, that they can yield no obedience to this law when it shall be enacted, because it is destructive of the liberty of the church; and therefore shall submit to such penalties, and think themselves obliged to undergo such punishments, as may be inflicted for disobeying that law. This protest was signed by Archibald Simpson, on behalf of the members, who subscribed another separate roll, which he kept for his justification. It was delivered to Peter Hewet, who had a seat in parliament, in order to be presented; and another copy remained in Simpson’s hands, to be presented in case of any accident happening to the other. The affair making a great noise, Dr. Spotswood, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, asked a sight of the protest from Hewet, one day at court and, upon some dispute between them, it was torn. The other copy was actually presented by Simpson to the clerk register, who refused to read it before the states in parliament. However, the protest, though not read, had its effect; for although the bill before-mentioned, or, as the Scottish phrase is, the article, had the consent of parliament, yet the king thought fit to cause it to be laid aside; and not long after called a general assembly at St. Andrew’s. Soon after, the parliament was dissolved, and Simpson was summoned before the high commission court, where the roll of names which he had kept for his justification, was demanded from him; and upon his declaring that he had given it to Harrison, who had since delivered it to Calderwood, he was sent prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and Calderwood was summoned to appear before the high commission court at St. Andrew’s, on the 8th of July following, to exhibit the said protest, and to answer for his mutinous and seditious behaviour.

July 12, the king came to that city in person, and soon after Hewet and Simpson were deprived and imprisoned. After this, Calderwood was called upon, and refusing to comply with what the king in person required of him, James, after haranguing at some length on his disobedience, committed him to prison; and afterwards the/ privy-council, according to the power exercised by them at that time, directed him to banish himself out of the king’s dominions before Michaelmas following, and not to return without licence; and upon giving security for this purpose, he was discharged out of prison, and suffered to return to his parish, but forbid to preach. Having applied to the king for a prorogation of his sentence without success, because he would neither acknowledge his offence, nor promise conformity for the future, he retired to Holland in 1619, where his publications were securely multiplied, and diffused through Scotland, particularly one entitled “The Perth Assembly,” which was condemned by the council. In 1623 he published his celebrated treatise entitled “Altare Damascenum, seu ecclesiae Anolicanse politia, ecclesiae Scoticanae obtrusa a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata, et examinata,” The writer of the preface prefixed to Calderwood’s “True history of the church of Scotland” telis us, that “the author of this very learned and celebrate 1 treatise (which is an answer to Lin wood’s ‘ Description of the Policy of the church of England’) doth irrefragably and unanswerably demonstrate the iniquity of designing and endeavouring to model and conform the divinely simple worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland to the pattern of the pompously prelatic and ceremonious church of England; under some conviction whereof it seems king James himself was, though implacably displeased with it, when, being after the reading of it somewhat pensive, and being asked the reason by an English prelate standing by and observing it, he told him he had seen and read such a book; whereupon the prelate telling his majesty not to suffer that to trouble him, for they would answer it he replied, not without some passion, < What would you answer, man There is nothing here but scripture, reason, and the fathers’.” This work was in fact an enlargement, in Latin, of one which he wrote in English, and published in 1621, under the title of “The Altar of Damascus,” and which is uncommonly rare. It concludes with noticing a rumour spread by bishop Spotswood, that Mr. Calderwood had turned Brownist, which rumour it denies in strong language, and with the following intemperate and unbecoming threat: “If either Spotswood, or his supposed author, persist in their calumny after this declaration, 1 shall try if there be any blood in their foreheads.” Calderwood having in 1624 been afflicted with a long fit of sickness, and nothing having been heard of him for some time, one Patrick Scot (as Calderwood himself informs us), took it for granted that he was dead; and thereupon wrote a recantation in his name, as if before his decease he had changed his sentiments. This imposture being detected, Scot went over to Holland, and staid three weeks at Amsterdam, where he made diligent search for the author of “Altare Damascenum,” with a design, as Calderwood believed, to have dispatched him: but Calderwood had privately returned into his own country, where he remained for several years. Scot gave out that the king furnished him with the matter for the pretended recantation, and that he only put it in order.

It may be necessary to say somewhat more of his manuscript history, which is contained in six large folio volumes, in the Glasgow library. In the first volume, immediately after the title-page, there is the following note. “This work, comprehended in pages, is collected out of Mr. Knox’s History, and his Memorials gathered for the continuation of his History, out of Mr. James Melvil’s Observations, Mr. John Davidson his Diary, the Acts of the General Assemblies, and Acts of Parliament, and out of several Proclamations, and Scrolls of diverse; and comprehendeth an History from the beginning of the reign of king James V. to the death of king James VI. but is contracted and digested in a better order, in a work of three volumes, bound in parchment, and is comprehended in 2013 pages. Out of which work contracted, is extracted another, in lesser bounds, but wanting nothing in substance, and comprehended in pages, which the author desireth only to be communicated to others, and this with the other, contracted into three volumes, to serve only for the defence of the third, and preservation of the History, in case it be lost.” The first of the six volumes gives a large introduction, in which the author undertakes to inform us of the time when, and the persons by whom the island of Great Britain was first inhabited; and afterwards brings down the Scottish Civil History as well as the Ecclesiastical, from the first planting of Christianity to the end of James the Fourth’s reign. After his account of the affairs of the state and the church, we have a view of all the most considerable wars and battles (domestic and foreign) wherein the people of Scotland have been engaged before the said period, as also of the ancient honorary titles, and their institution. On this last head he quotes an old manuscript, sent from Icolmkill to Mr. George Buchanan, which testifies that a parliament was held at Forfar, in the year 1061, wherein surnames are appointed to be taken, and several earls, barons, lords, and knights, were created. After this general preface he begins his proper work, The History of the Scottish Reformation. And in this volume advances as far as the marriage of queen Mary with the lord Darnley, in 1565. In his story of Mr. Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr in this cause, he gives a copy of the sentence pronounced against him, together with a congratulatory letter from the doctors at Louvain to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, on the occasion of his death. Amongst those learned men, who upon the first persecution fled into Germany, he reckons Mr. George Buchanan. In his large account of the disputes and sufferings of the reformers, under the administration of cardinal Beaton and the queen regent, we have the particulars of the contentions at Frankfurt, which are mostly taken out of a book entitled “A brief discovery of the Troubles of Mr. John Knox, for opposing the English Service Book, in 1554.” After which we have Knox’s Appeal from the sentence of the clergy, to the nobility, estates, and community of Scotland, with a great many letters from the nobility to the queen-regent and him, on the subject of religion. All this part of the history, which in the printed book makes no more than thirteen pages, ends at page 57 1; from whence (to the end of the book at page 902) there is a good collection of curious letters, remonstrances, &c. which are not in the prints, either of Knox or Calderwood. The second volume contains the history from 1565 to the arraignment of the earl of Moreton for treason, in December 15 So, and contains 614 pages, wherein are many valuable discoveries relating to the practices of David Rizzio, the king’s murder, Bothweil’s marriage and flight, &c. and a more periect narrative of the proceedings in the general assemblies, than the printed history will afford us. The third volume comprehends the entire history of both church and state, from the beginning of January 1581 to July 1586, when queen Mary’s letter to Babington was intercepted. Under the year 1584, there is a severe character of Mr. Patrick Adamson, archbishop of St. Andrew’s; which, in the conclusion, refers us for a farther account of him to a poem made by one Robert Semple, and entitled “The Legend of the Limmer’s Life.” Here is also “An account of the State and Church of Scotland to the Church of Geneva,” which was written by Andrew Melvil, in answer to the misrepresentations of the Scottish discipline scattered in foreign countries, by the said archbishop Adamson. The fourth gives the like mixed history of affairs, from July 1586 to the beginning of 1596. Here we have a full collection of papers relating to the trial, condemnation, and execution, of the unfortunate queen Mary, with abundance of others, touching the most remarkable transactions of this Decennium. In 1587 there is a large account of the coming of the sieur du Bartas into Scotland; of his being carried by king James to the university of St. Andrew’s, his hearing of the lectures of Mr. A. Melvil there, and the great opinion he had of the abilities of that professor, &c. In 1590 there are some smart reflections on Dr. Bancroft’s sermon at Paul’s Cross, censuring the proceedings of J. Knox, and others of the northern reformers, with the assembly’s letter to queen Elizabeth about that sermon. The fifth volume reaches from the beginning of January 1596, to the same month in 1607. After the accounts of the proceedings of the assembly in 1596, the author subjoins this pathetic epiphonema: “Here end all the sincere assemblies general of the kirk of Scotland, enjoying the liberty of the gospel under the free government of Christ.” The new and constant Platt of Planting all the Kirks of Scotland (written by Mr. David Lindsay, one of the Octavians) is here inserted at large, as it was presented to the king and states in the said year 1596. The history of the conspiracy of the Cowries, and the manner of its discovery, is likewise here recorded at length, in the same order, wherein the king commanded it to be published. The new form of ojmination to bishoprics, the protestation in parliament against the restitution of episcopacy, and the reasons offered against it by others, are the remaining matters of consideration in this book. The sixth concludes with the death of king James VI.

, or Chaldwell, an English physician, was born in Staffordshire about 1513, and was admitted into Brazen-nose college in Oxford, of which he was in due season elected fellow. In 1539 he took his degree of M. A. and became one of the senior students of Christ Church in 1547, which was a little after its last foundation by king Henry VIII. Afterwards he studied physic and took the degrees in that faculty, and became so highly esteemed for his learning and skill, that he was examined, approved, admitted into, and elected censor of, the college of physicians at London in the same day. Six weeks after, he was chosen one of the elects of the said college, and in 1570 made president of it. Wood tells us, that he wrote several pieces upon subjects relating to his profession; but does not say what they were. He mentions a book written by Horatio Moro, a Florentine physician, and called “The Tables of Surgery, briefly comprehending the whole art and practice thereof;” which Caldwall translated into English, and published at London in 1585. We learn from Camden, that Caldwall founded a chirurgical lecture in the college of physicians, and endowed it with a handsome salary. He died in 1585, and was buried at the church of St. Bennet near Paul’s wharf.

, a modern Latin poet of the fifteenth century, was a native of Naples, and became preceptor to Frederic, the son of Ferdinand I. king of Naples, whom he endeavoured to inspire with the love of those virtues and principles of justice which would dignify his high station. He did not approve of condemning malefactors to death. According to him, “thieves should be obliged to restore what they had stolen, after being beaten for the theft; homicides should be made slaves; and other criminals be sent to the mines and the gallies.” He had also studied and practised agriculture and horticulture with great success. Having conic to France, he was a witness of the war between Charles the hardy, duke of Burgundy, and the Swiss, the history of which he was requested to write, but declined it, as he thought it did not become him to speak ill of princes, or to tell what was not true. It appears by his letters that he married young, was extremely fond of his wife, and had many children. Yet he was accused of illicit amours, which it is said kept him poor. He is supposed to have died about 1503. There have been three editions of his works, two at Rome, one in 1503, fol. “Opuscula Elisii Calentii, poetae clarissimi;” and a third at Basil, 1554. They consist of elegies, epigrams, epistles; the battle of the frogs, imitated from Homer; satires, fables, &c. &c. His poem of the battle between the rats and the frogs, from Homer, was reprinted in 1738 at Rouen, in a collection, 12mo, of select fables of la Fontaine put into Latin verse, published by the abbe Saas. Calentius composed this poem at eighteen years of age, and finished it in seven days.

, called IL Cremonese, an eminent artist of Ferrara, where he was born about 1600, studied and imitated, beyond all others, the tones of Titian, and carried the illusion to such a degree, that his half-figures, bacchanals, and small histories, entered the best galleries of Rome and Bologna as originals: nor is he easily discovered by the best eye or taste, but from the admission of some more modern conceit, or carelessness of execution. That he possessed talents superior to what mere mimickry can confer, is evident from his St. Mark, in the church of S. Benedetto at Ferrara, a majestic, correct, expressive figure, girt by a profusion of volumes, whose picturesque arrangement and truth of touch procured him the name of the Book-Painter (Pittor da' Libri). Immediately after the execution of this work, some say that he disappeared, and was heard of no more: whilst others, with less probability of conjecture, extend the date of his death to 1660.

, a learned divine of the sixteenth century, otherwise named Calfield, Cawfield, Chalfhill, or Calfed, was born in Shropshire, in 1530. Strype, however, says he was a Scotchman, and cousin to Toby Malhew, afterwards archbishop of York. He received his education at Eton school, and from thence was sent, in 1545, to King’s college in Cambridge, from which he was removed, with many Other Cambridge men, in 1548, to Christ Church in Oxford, newly founded by king Henry VIII. Here be shewed himself to be a person of quick wit and great capacity; being an excellent poet and author of a tragedy, with other theatrical performances. In 1549, he took his degree of bachelor of arts; and that of master in 1552, being junior of the act celebrated in St. Mary’s church, July 18. He was made, in 1560, canon of the second canonry in Christ Church cathedral, Oxon; and, On the 12th of December 1561, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. In 1562 he was proctor for the clergy of London and the chapter of Oxford in the convocation that made the XXXIX Articles and on the 16th of May, the same year, was admitted to the rectory of St. Andrew Wardrobe, London. The 4th of October following, he was presented by the crown to the prebend of St. Pancras, in the cathedral church of St. Paul; and May 4, 1565, was collated by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, to the rectory of Booking, in Essex; and on July 16th following, to the archdeaconry of Colchester in Essex, by Edmund Grindal, bishop of London. The same year, December 17th, he took the degree of doctor in divinity. In 1568, he preached two sermpns in Bristol cathedral, on purpose to confute Dr. Cheney, who held that see in commendam, and who had spoken disrespectfully of certain opinions of Luther and Calvin. In 1569 he made application to secretary Cecil, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, for the provostship of king’s college, but Dr. Goad’s interest prevailed. Upon the translation of.Dr. Edwin Sandys from the bishopric of Worcester to that of London in 1570, Dr. Calfhiil was nominated by queen Elizabeth to succeed him 3 but before his consecration he died, about the beginning of August (having a little before resigned his canonry of Christ Church, and rectory of St. Andrew Wardrobe), and was buried in the chancel of Bocking church. His works were, 1. “Querela Oxoniensis Academise ad Cantabrigiam,” Lond. 1552, 4to, a Latin poem on the death of Henry and Charles Brandon, sons of Charles duke of Suffolk, who died of the sweating-sickness in the bishop of Lincoln’s house at Bugden, July 14, 1551. 2. “Historia de exhumatione Catherines nuper uxoris Pet. Martyris;” or, The History of the digging up the body of Catherine late wife of Peter Martyr, Lond. 1562, 8vo. The remains of this lady had been deposited in the cathedral of Christ Church, near to the relics of St. Frideswide, and in queen Mary’s reign were dug up and buried in the dunghill near the stables belonging to the dean; but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, an order was given to replace them with suitable solemnity. This order our author partly executed, and the remains of Martyr’s wife were on this occasion purposely mixed with those of St. Frideswide, that the superstitious worshippers of the latter might never be able to distinguish or separate them. 3. Answer to John Martiall’s “Treatise of the Cross, gathered out of the Scriptures, Councils, and ancient Fathers of the primitive Church,” Lond. 1565, 4to. 4. “Progne,” a tragedy, in Latin; whichprobably was never printed. It was acted before que^n Elizabeth at Oxford in 1566, in Christ Church hall; but, says Wood, “it did not take half so well as the much admired play of Palsemon and Arcyte,” written by Edwards. 5. “Poemata varia.” As to his character, we are informed, that he was in his younger days a noted poet and comedian and in his elder, an exact disputant, and had an excellent faculty in speaking and preaching. One who had heard him preach, gives this account of him: “His excellent tongue, and rhetorical tale, tilled with good and wholesome doctrine, so ravished the minds of the hearers, that they were all in admiration of his eloquence.” One John Calfhill, chaplain to Dr. Matthew, archbishop of York, a prebendary of Durham, &c. who died in 1619, was probably son to our author.

, an eminent Lutheran divine, was born at Medelbui, in Holstein, Dec. 14, 1586. His father, who was also a minister, intended him for the same profession, and sent him to study at Helmstadt, Jena, and Giessen, and most of the protestant schools of Germany. He travelled also with Matthias Overbeck, a rich Lutheran, who resided in Holland, and conceiving a high opinion of Calixtus, became his liberal patron, as he had been to Herman Conringius and many others. After travelling also in France and England, Calixtus returned to Germany, and was appointed professor of theology at Helmstadt in 1614, and there he died, March 18, 1656, after a long theological warfare, both with his brethren and the Roman catholic, excited by his endeavours to effect a comprehension between the Roman and the Lutheran and Calvinist churches. According to Mosheim, Calixtus was the first person that reduced theology into a regular system, and gave it a truly scientific and philosophical form. As he had imbibed the spirit of the Aristotelian school, he arranged the substance of Christianity according to the method of the Stagirite; and divided the whole science of divinity into three parts, viz. the end, the subject, and the means. He was also the first who separated the objects of faith from the duties of morality, and exhibited the latter under the form of an independent science. These innovations rendered him the object of much censure and opposition. In his attempt to reunite the several bodies of Christians, and to comprehend " the different churches in one profession of religion, he was a principal promoter of that system which was called syncretism. The controversy which was thus occasioned, subsisted long after his death; and though he seemed, in his efforts for comprehension, to give advantage to the Romish church, no one attacked its tyranny and corruption with greater vigour. Mosheim has entered largely into his system and the consequence of it, but it appears to us to be in some parts inconsistent; and experience has shewn that all plans of comprehension are impracticable, without such sacrifices as the respective parties either cannot or will not make. His writings, which are extremely numerous, on various subjects of controversy, are enumerated by Freher, but without the necessary appendages of size, dates, &c.

The “Life of Alexander,” said to have been written by Callisthenes, often referred to by the ancients, has been long since lost; but a Greek life of Alexander, under the adopted name of Callisthenes, at present exists, and is no uncommon manuscript in good libraries. There is one copy in the Bodleian, and another in the royal library at Paris. It was written in Greek, being a translation from the Persic by Simeon Seth, styled magister and protovestiary or wardrobe-keeper of the palace of Antiochus at Constantinople, about the year 1070, under the emperor Michaei Ducas. It was most probably soon after translated from the Greek into the Latin, and at length from thence into French, Italian, and German. But it is unnecessary to say more of a work which does not belong to our Callisthenes. He is said to have written other works, as “A History of Greece,” a “History of the Trojan war,” &c. but no traces of them are now to be found.

This artist engraved in several styles; the first of which was an imitation of his master Canta Gallina. He afterwards worked altogether with the graver; but without success. His next style was the mixture of the point and the graver, with coarse broad hatchings in the shadows. But his best manner, is that which appears to have been executed with the greatest freedom, by which he has- expressed, as we may say, with a single stroke, variety of character, and correctness of design. He is said to have been the first who used hard varnish in etching, which has been found much superior to that which was before adopted. The fertility of invention, and the vast variety, found in the works of this excellent artist, are astonishing. It could Jiarclly have been supposed possible to combine so great a number of figures together as he has done, and to vary the attitudes, without forced contrast, so that all of them, whether single figures or groupes, may be easily distinguished from each other, even in the masses of shadow; more especially when it is considered that they are often exceedingly minute. On a cursory view of some of his most admired pieces, the whole appears confused, and without harmony; but a careful examination discovers the richness, the beauty, the taste, and the judgment which are bestowed on the disposition of the figures, the management of the groupes, and the variety and propriety of the attitudes. The works of this master are very numerous and various. In representation of all the varieties of human life, from beggars and peasants to knights and nobles, he excelled; characterising all with the nicest touches of nature. Of his subjects, many are of the most painful and shocking kind, such as public executions, the miseries of war, and the like; many are grotesque and fanciful, and exhibit a strong imagination. Among his most admired prints, Strutt enumerates: “The Murder of the InnocentSjJ' of which that engraved at Florence is most rare; a fine impression of it being found with difficulty;” The Marriage of Cana in Galilee,“from Paolo Veronese;” The Passion of Christ,“the first impressions of which are very scarce” St. John in the island of Palma;“” The Temptation of St. Anthony;“”The Punishments,“exhibiting the execution of several criminals;” The Miseries of War;“” The great Pair of Florence;“The little Fair,” otherwise called “The Players at Benti,” one of the scarcest of Callot’s prints;“” The Tilting, or the New Street at Nancy;“The Garden of Nancy;” “View of the Pont Neuf;” “View of the Louvre;” and “Four Landscapes.”

, a celebrated French philosopher, was a native of Mesnil-Hubert, near Argenton, in the diocese of Seez. About 165.5, he studied philosophy at Caen, and afterwards divinity at Paris, but philosophy was his favourite pursuit, and the foundation of his fame. In 1660 he taught in the college du Bois, in Caen, and became there acquainted with Huet, afterwards bishop of Avranches, who acknowledged the assistance he derived from Cally in his studies. Their intimacy, however, was interrupted by Cally’s avowal of adherence to ttie Cartesian system. CaJly was the first in France who had the courage to profess himself a Cartesian, in defiance of the prejudices and numbers of those who adhered to the ancient philosophy. He first broached his Cartesianism in the way of hypothesis, but afterwards taught it more openly, which procured him many enemies. Huet, although then very young, ventured to censure him; and father Valois, the Jesuit, who was a contemporary professor of philosophy, attacked both Cally and his opinions in a work which he published under the name of Louis de la Ville, in 1680, entitled “Sentimens de M. Descartes, touchant Pessence et les proprietes des corps, opposes a la doctrine de Peglise, et conformesaux erreurs de Calvin sur I'eucharistie.” Cally, not thinking there was much in this, did not answer it until pressed by his friends, when he wrote an answer in Latin, which, however, was not at this time published. When the duke de Montausier was appointed by Louis XIV. to provide eminent classical scholars to write notes on the classics published for the use of the Dauphin, Cally was selected for the edition of “Boethius de Consolatione,” which he published, accordingly, in 1680, in 4to, now one of the scarce quarto Delphin editions. In 1674 he published a short introduction to philosophy, “Institutio philosophica,” 4to, which he afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in 1695 under the title “Universae philosophise institutio,” Caen, 4 vols. 4to. In 1675 he was appointed principal of the college of arts in Caen, on which he began a new course of philosophical lectures, and laid out ten or twelve thousand francs on rebuilding a part of the college which had fallen into ruin. In 1684 he was appointed curate of the parish of St. Martin, in Caen, and the Protestants who were then very numerous in that city, flocked to his sermons, and he held conferences once or twice a week in his vestry, which they attended with much pleasure, and we are told he 'made many converts to the Popish religion. But this success, for which every Catholic ought to have been thankful, excited the envy of those who had quarrelled with him before on account of his Cartesianism, and by false accusations, they procured him to be exiled to Moulins in 1686, where he remained for two years. Finding on his return that the Protestants were still numerous in Caen, and that they entertained the same respect for him as before, he wrote for their use a work entitled “Durand cornmente, ou Paccord de la philosophie avec la theologie, tonchaut la transubstantialion.” In this, which contained part of his answer to father Valois, mentioned above, he revives the opinion of the celebrated Durand, who said, if the church decided that there was a transubstantiation in the eucharist, there must remain something of what was bread, to make a difference between the creation and production of a thing which was not, and annihilation or a thing reduced to nothing. Cally sent this work in ms. to M. Basnage, who had been one of his scholars, but received no answer. la the mean time, unwilling to delay a work which he hoped would contribute to the conversion of the Protestants, “he engaged with a bookseller at Caen to print only sixty copies, which he purposed to send to his friends at Paris, and obtain their opinion as to a more extended publication. The bookseller, however, having an eye only to his own interest, undertook to assure Cally that the work would be approved by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and he therefore would print eight hundred. Cally unfortunately consented, and the work no sooner appeared, than he who fondly hoped it would convert heretics, was himself treated as a heretic. M. de Nesmond, then bishop of Bayeux, condemned the work in a pastoral letter March 30, 1701, and Cally in April following made his retractation, which he not only read in his own church, but it was read in all other churches; and he also destroyed the impression, so that it is now classed among rare books. It was a small vol. 12mo, 1700, printed at Cologne, under the name of Pierre Marteau. Cally also published some of his sermons, but they were too philosophical and dry for the closet, although he had contrived to give them a popular effect in the pulpit. A work entitled” Doctrine heretique, &c. touchant la primauté du pape, enseignee par les Jesuites dans leur college de Caen," is attributed to him, but as it bears date 1644, he must have then been too young. He died Dec. 31, 1709.

, a learned Benedictine of the college of St. Vanncs, was born at Mesnil-la-Horgue, near Commercy, Feb. 26, 1672, and was first educated in the priory of Breuii. In 1687 he went to study at the university of Pont-a-Mousson, where he was taught a course of rhetoric. On leaving this class, he entered among the Benedictines in the abbey of St. Mansuy, in the fauxbourg of Toul, Oct. 17, 1688, and mad,e profession in the same place Oct. 23, 1689. He began his philosophical course in the abbey of fcfe. Evre, and completed that and his theological studies in the abbey of St. Munster. At his leisure hours he studied the Hebrew language with great attention and success, and likewise improved his knowledge of the Greek. In 1696 he was sent with some of his companions to the abbey of Moyenmoutier, where they studied the Holy Scriptures under P. D. Hyacinthe Alliot. Two years aftef, in 1698, Calmet was appointed to teach philosophy and theology to the young religious of that monastery, an employment which he filled until 1704, when he was sent, with the rank of sub-prior, to the abbey of Munster. There he was at the head of an academy of eight or ten religious, with whom he pursued his biblical studies, and having, while at Moyenmoutier written commentaries and dissertations, on various parts of the Bible, he here retouched and improved these, although without any other design, at this time, than his own instruction. During a visit, however, at Paris, in 1706, he was advised by the abbe Duguet, to whom he had been recommended by Mabillon, to publish his commentaries in French, and the first volume accordingly appeared in 1707. In 1715 he became prior of Lay, and in 1718 the chapter-general appointed bim abb 6 of St. Leopold, of Nancy, and the year following he was made visitor of the congregation. In 1728 he was chosen abbe* of Senones, on which occasion he resigned his priory of Lay. When pope Benedict XIII. confirmed his election, the cardinals proposed to his holiness that Calmet should also have the title of bishop in partibus infiddium, with power to exercise the episcopal functions in those parts of the province which are exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary; but this Calmet refused, and wrote on the subject to Rome. The pope in Sept. 1729, addressed a brief to him, accepting of his excuses, and some time after sent him a present of his works, in 3 vols. fol. Calmet took possession of the abbey of Senones, January 3, 1729, and continued his studies, and increased the library and museum belonging to the abbey with several valuable purchases, particularly of the medals of the deceased M. de Corberon, secretary of slate, and of the natural curiosities of M, Voile. Here be died Oct. 25, 1757, respected by all ranks, Roman catholics and Protestants, for his learning and candour, and by his more particular friends and those of his own order, for his amiable temper and personal virtues. His learning, indeed, was most extensive, as the greater part of his long life was devoted to study, but amidst such vast accumulation of materials, we are not surprized that he was sometimes deficient in selection, and appears rather as a collector of facts, than as an original thinker. His principal works are, 1. “Commentaire litteral sur tous les livres de l'Aneten et da Nouyeau Testament,” 1707 1716, 23 vols. 4to; reprinted in 26 vols. 4to, and fol. and abridged in 14 vols. 4to. Rondet published a new edition of this abridgment in 17 vols. 4to, Avignon, 1767 1773. M. Fourmont, Arabic professor in the royal college, had begun an attack on this commentary, because Calmet had not, as he thought, paid sufficient respect to the rabbins, but the king (Louis XIV.) and the cardinal de Noailles obliged him to desist. The celebrated father Simon wrote some letters against Calmet, which were communicated to him by Pinsonnat, the Hebrew professor, who did not approve of them, nor did Anquetille, the librarian of Tellier, archbishop of Rheims, nor were they published until eighteen or twenty years afterwards, and even then the censors expunged many illiberal passages respecting Calmet. 2. The “Dissertations and Prefaces” belonging to his commentary, published separately with nineteen new Dissertations, Paris, 1720, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Histoire de PAncien et du Nouveau Testament,” intended as an introduction to Fleury’s “Ecclesiastical History,” 2 and 4 vols. 4to; and 5 and 7 vols. 12mo. 4. “Dictionnaire historique, critique, et chronologique de la Bible.” Paris, 1730, 4 vols. fol. This work, which is a valuable treasure of sacred history and criticism, was soon made known to the English public by a translation, in 3 vols. fol. London, 1732, by Sam.D'Oyly, M. A. vicar of St. Nicholas, Rochester, and John Colson, F. R. S. vicar of Chalk, in Kent, a work elegantly printed and embellished with a profusion of fine engravings. A new edition appeared in 17^5, 4to, with valuable additions from subsequent critics, travellers, and philosophers. 5. “Histoire ecclesiasiique et civile de la Lorraine,” 3 vols. fol. reprinted 1745, in 5 vols. fol. 6. “Bibliotheque des Ecrivains de Lorraine,” fol, 1751. 7. “Histoire universelle sacrée et profane,” 15 vols. 4to. This Calmet did not live to finish, and in other respects it is not his best work. 7. “Dissertations sur les apparitions des Anges, des Demons, et des Esprits, et sur les Revenans et Vampires de Hongrie,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, and Einfidlen, 1749, 12mo, a work, say the French critics, in which there are many symptoms of old age, and its credulous weaknesses. It was however translated and published in English in 1759, 8vo. The author admits the reality of apparitions, on the authority of the scriptures, but discredits many of the miraculous stories concerning them to which his own church has given currency. 9. f Commentaire litteral, historique, et moral, sur la Regie de St. Benoit,“1754, 2 vols. 4to. 10.” De la Poesie et Musique des anciens Hebreux," Amst. 1723, 8vo. His conjectures on this subject, Dr. Burney thinks, are perhaps as probable as those of any one of the numerous authors who have exercised their skill in expounding and defining what some have long since thought involved in Cimmerian darkness. Calmet also left a vast number of manuscripts, or rather manuscript collections, as it had long been his practice to copy, or employ others to copy, whatever he found curious in books. In 1733, he deposited in the royal library, a correct transcript of the Vedam, a work which the natives of Hiudostan attribute to their legislator Brama, who received it, according to their tradition, from God himself. This copy came into Calmet' s possession by means of a bramin who had been converted by the Jesuit missionaries. Calmet’s life was written by Dom Fange, his nephew and successor in the abbey of Senones, and published in 8vo. It was afterwards translated into Italian by Benedetto Passionei, and published at Rome in 1770.

, an eminent but unfortunate French minister, was born at Douay in 1734. His father was president of the parliament of Flanders, and descended from a noble family, originally of Tournay, and well known in the history of that city, which makes honourable mention of his ancestors in the remotest times. Having finished his studies at the university of Paris with extraordinary success, young Calonne was appointed, in histwenty-third year, advocate or solicitor- general of the superior council of Artois and before he had attained the age of twenty -five, was promoted to the office of procurator-general of the parliament of Flanders, the duties of which he performed with distinguished ability for six years. He was then called as rapporteur to the king’s council, to report to his majesty the most momentous affairs of administration, of which arduous and laborious task he acquitted himself in a manner that evinced his profound knowledge of the government, constitution, history, and jurisprudence of France, and established his reputation as a writer of no less perspicuity and judgment, than elegance and energy of diction.

In 1776, he was named intendant of the province of the Trois Eveches, and for four years fulfilled the duties of that important office with universal approbation, and greatly to the satisfaction of the inhabitants, by whom he was much beloved, and who expressed the utmost regret at his departure when he quitted that province in 1780, being appointed intendant-general of Flanders and Artois. The same affability and mild and equitable conduct in the administration of public affairs, which had procured him their esteem, conciliated no less the affections of his countrymen in Flanders, to whose commercial interests he shewed particular attention, in promoting the fisheries and every useful establishment, both during the three years of his residence at Dunkirk, and after being appointed in 1783, Comptroller-general of the finances, and minister of state. In this important office he continued until 1787, and during the period of his administration raised and maintained the public credit by a punctuality till then unknown in the payments of the royal treasury, although on his accession he found it drained to the lowest ebb, and had the mortification to perceive that the annual income had long been inadequate to the annual expenditure. To trace the cause of this deficiency, its origin and progress, was the secret work of many an hour, supposed by the public to be devoted to pleasure or repose, as he conceived it of the utmost importance to conceal the deficiency until he had explored its source, and provided such an adequate remedy for it, as might restore the proper equipoise between the annual income and expenditure, and provide a surplus for emergencies without increasing the burthens of the people beyond their ability to support. For this purpose he prevailed on the king to revive the ancient usage of national assemblies, by calling together the Notables of the kingdom; and after laying before them a true state of the finances, he boldly proposed, as a chief remedy for the deficiency, that the pecuniary privileges and exemptions of the nobility, clergy, and magistracy, should be suppressed; and although aware that a measure which appeared to militate so much against the immediate interests of the three most powerful ranks of the community must meet with opposition, he determined to risk the sacrifice of his own situation, rather than longer to conceal or palliate the evil.

, or Calphurnius, a Latin poet, a native of Sicily, lived about the end of the third century, under the emperors Carus, Carinus, and Numeriamis. Seven of his eclogues are extant, which were once in such high reputation as to he read in schools; hut they have not preserved their reputation, and are generally considered, notwithstanding some occasional passages of genius, as indicating the declining taste of the age. Poggio is said to have found them in England, and sent them to his friend Niccolo Niccoli. They are published in the “Poetae rei Venaticae,” Leyden, 1728, 4to, and in the “Poetae Latini Minores;” but there are editions along with Silius Italicus and other writers, as early as 1471, 1472, 1481, &c. The latest edition is that of Beck, Leipsic, 1803, 8vo, with notes and a glossary. Adelung translated them into German, and published them in 1805, in a magnificent manner.

, an artist, remarkable for longevity as well as skill, a native of Genoa, was a son of Agostino Calvi, one of the most tolerable painters and reformers of the old style, and was with Pantaleo Calvi, his eldest brother, among the first pupils, of Perino del Vaga. Pantaleo was content to ^end his assistance and his name to Lazzaro, without pretending to share the praise due to his numerous ornamental works at Genova, Monaco, and Napoli; among which, none excels the facade of the palace Doria (now Spinola) with prisoners in various attitudes, and stories in colour and chiaroscuro, considered as a school of design and models of taste. In the palace Pallavicini‘al Zerbino they represented the story commonly called the Continence of Scipio, and a variety of naked figures, which, in the opinion of Mengs himself, might be adjudged to Penno. Whether or not he assisted them with his hand,* as he had with his cartoons, is matter of doubt: certain it is, that Lazzaro, giddy with self-conceit, fell into excesses unknown to other artists, if we except Corenzio. At the least appearance of rival merit, jealousy and avidity prompU ed him to have recourse to the blackest arts. Of Giacomo Bargone he rid himself by poison, and’ others he depressed by the clamour of hired ruffians. Such were his cabals when he painted the Birth of John the Baptist in the chapel Centurioni, in concurrence with Andrea Semini and Luca Cambiaso, which, though one of his best works and most in the style of his master, fell short of the powers of Luca, to whom prince Doria gave the preference in the ample commission of the frescos for the church of S. Matteo. This so enraged Calvi that he turned sailor, and touched no brush for twenty years: he returned at last to the art, and continued in practice to his eighty-fifth year, but with diminished powers: his works of that period are cold, laboured, and bear the stamp of age. The death of Pantaleo still farther depressed him, and the only remaining mark of his vigour was to have protracted life to one hundred and five years. He died at that very uncommon age in 1606, or 1607, leaving only a daughter, whom he had married to an opulent gentleman. Whatever his talents, we see nothing but what is -atrocious in his personal character.

, one of the chief reformers of the church, was born at Noyon in Picardy, July 10, 1509. He was instructed in grammar at Paris under Maturinus Corderius, to whom he afterwards dedicated his Commentary on the first epistle of the Thessalonians, and studied philosophy in the college of Montaigu under a Spanish professor. His father, uho discovered many marks of hitf early piety, particularly in his reprehensions of the vices of his companions, designed him for the church, and got him presented, May 21, 1521, to the chapel of Notre Dame de la Gesine, in the church of Noyon. In 1527 he was presented to the rectory of Marteville, which he exchanged in 1529 fortlie rectory of Pont I‘Eveque near Noyon. His father afterwards changed his resolution, and would have him study law; to which Calvin, who, by reading the scriptures, had conceived a dislike to the superstitions of popery, readily consented, and resigned the chapel of Gesine and the rectory of Pont l’Eveque in 1534. He had never, it must here be observed, been in priest’s orders, and belonged to the church only by having received the tonsure. He was sent to study the law first under Peter de l'Etoile (Petrus Stella) at Orleans, and afterwards under Andrew Alciat at Bourges, and while he made a great progress in that science, he improved no less in the knowledge of divinity by his private studies. At Bourges he applied to the Greek tongue, under the direction of professor Wolmar. His father’s death having called him back to Noyon, he staid there a short time, and then went to Paris, where he wrote a commentary on Seneca’s treatise “De dementia,” being at this time about twenty- four years of age. Having put his name in Latin to this piece, he laid aside his surname Cauvin, for that of Calvin, styling himself in the title-page “Lucius Calvinus civis Romanus.” He soon made himself known at Paris to such as had privately embraced the reformation, and by frequent intercourse with them became more confirmed in his principles. A speech of Nicholas Cop, rector of the university of Paris, of which Calvin furnished the materials, having greatly displeased the Sorbonne and the parliament, gave rise to a persecu^ tion against the protestants; and Calvin, who narrowly escaped being taken in the college of Forteret, was forced to retire to Xaintonge, after having had the honour to be introduced to the queen of Navarre, who allayed this first storm raised against the protestants. Calvin returned to Paris in 1534. This year the reformed met with severe treatment, which determined him to leave France, after publishing a treatise against those who believe that departed souls are in a kind of sleep. He retired to Basil, where he studied Hebrew; at this time he published his “Institutions of the Christian Religion,” a work well adapted to spread his fame, though he himself was desirous of living in obscurity. It is dedicated to the French king, Francis I. This prince being solicitous, according to Beza, to gain the friendship of the Protestants in Germany, and knowing that they were highly incensed by the cruel persecutions which their brethren suffered in France, he, by advice of William de Bellay, represented to them that he had only punished certain enthusiasts, who substituted their own imaginations in the place of God’s word, and despised the civil magistrate. Calvin, stung with indignation at this wicked evasion, wrote this work as an apology for the Protestants who were burnt for their religion in France. The dedication to Francis I. is one of the three that have been highly admired: that of Thuanus to his history, and Casaubon’s to Polybius, are the two others. But this treatise, when first published in 1555, was only a sketch of a larger work. The complete editions, both in Latin and in French, with the author’s last additions and corrections, did not appear till 1558. After the publication of this work, Calvin went to Italy to pay a visit to the duchess of Ferrara, a lady of eminent piety, by whom he was very kindly received. Prom Italy he came back to France, and having settled his private affairs, he purposed to go to Strasbourg, or Basil, in company with his sole surviving brother Antony Calvin; but as the roads were not safe on account of the war, except through the duke of Savoy’s territories, he chose that road. “This was a particular direction of Providence,” says Bayle; “it was his destiny that he should settle at Geneva, and when he was wholly intent on going farther, he found himself detained by an order from heaven, if I may so speak.” William Farel, a man of a warm enthusiastic temper, who had in vain used many entreaties to prevail with Calvin to be his fellow-labourer in that part of the Lord’s vineyard, at last solemnly declared to him, in the name of God, that if he would not stay, the curse of God would attend him wherever he went, as seeking himself and not Christ. Calvin therefore was obliged to comply with the choice which the consistory and magistrates of Geneva made of him, with the consent of the, people, to be one of their ministers, and professor of divinity. It was his own wish to undertake only this last office, but he was gbliged to take both upon him in August 1536. The year following he made all the people declare, upon oath, their assent to a confession of faith, which contained a renunciation of Popery: and because this reformation in doctrine did not put an entire stop to the immoralities that prevailed at Geneva, nor banish that spirit of faction which had set the principal families at variance, Calvin, in concert with his colleagues, declared that they could not celebrate the sacrament whilst they kept up their animosities, and trampled on the discipline of the church. He also intimated, that he could not submit to the regulation which the synod of the canton of Berne had lately made *. On this, the syndics of Geneva summoned an assembly of the people; and it was ordered that Calvin, Farel, and another minister, should leave the town in two days, for refusing to administer the sacrament. Calvin' retired to Strasbourg, and established a French church in that city, of which he was the first minister; he was also appointed to be professor of divinity there* During his stay at Strasbourg, he continued to give many marks of his affection for the church of Geneva; as appears, amongst other things, by the answer which he wrote in 1539, to the beautiful but artful letter of cardinal Sadolet, bishop of Carpentras, inviting the people of Geneva to return into the bosom of the Romish church. Two years after, the divines of Strasbourg being very desirous that he should assist at the diet which the emperor had appointed to be held at Worms and at Ratisbon, for accommodating religious differences, he went thither with Bucer, and had a conference with Melancthon. In the mean time the people of Geneva (the syndics who promoted his banishment being now some of them executed, and others forced to fly their country for their crimes), entreated him so earnestly to return to them, that at last he consented. He arrived at Geneva, Sept. 13, 1541, to the great satisfaction both of the people and the magistrates; and the first measure ha adopted after his arrival, was to establish a form of church, discipline, and a consistorial jurisdiction, invested with, the power of inflicting censures and canonical punishments,

The character of Calvin, like that of Luther, and the other more eminent reformers, has been grossly calumniated by the adherents of popery, but the testimonies in its favour are too numerous to permit us for a moment to doubt that he was not only one of the greatest, but one of the best men of his time, and the deduction which necessarily must be made from this praise, with respect to his conduct towards Servetus and others, must at the same time in candour be referred to the age in which he lived, and in which the principles of toleration were not understood . On the other hand his uncommon talents have been acknowledged not only by the most eminent persons of his age, but by all who have studied his works, or have traced the vast and overpowering influence he possessed in every country in Europe, where the work of reformation was carrying on. Every society, every church, every district, every nation that had in any degree adopted the principles of the reformers, were glad to consult and correspond with Calvin on the steps they were to pursue. The court of England in particular, Edward VI. queen Elizabeth, archbishop Cranmer, and the leading prelates and reformers here, expressed their high respect for him, and frequently asked and followed his advice. In France perhaps he was yet more consulted, and at Geneva he was an ecclesiastical dictator, whose doctrines and discipline became the regular church establishment, and were afterwards adopted and still remain in full force in Scotland. Calvinism was also extensively propagated in Germany, the United Provinces, and England. In France it was abolished, as well as every other species of protestantism, by the revocation of the edict >f Nantz in 1685. During the reign of Edward VI. it entered much into the writings of the eminent divines of that period; in queen Elizabeth’s time, although many of her' divines were of the same sentiments, it was discouraged as far as it showed itself in a dislike of the ceremonies, habits, &c. of the church. In the early part of Charles Ts time it was yet more discouraged, Arminiamsm being the favourite system of Laud; but during the interregnum it revived in an uncommon degree, and was perhaps the persuasion of the majority of the divines of that period, all others having been silenced and thrown out of their livings by the power of parliament. How far it now exists in the church of England, in her articles and homilies, has recently been the subject of a very long and perhaps undecided controversy, into which it is not our intention to enter, nor could we, indeed, make the attempt within any moderate compass. One excellent effect of this controversy has been to inform those of the real principles of Calvinism, who have frequently used that word to express a something which they did not understand. Perhaps it would be well if the word itself were less used, and the thing signified referred to the decision of more than human authority. It may be added, however, that the distinguishing theological tenets of Calvinism, as the term is now generally applied, respect the doctrines of Predestination, or particular Election and Reprobation, original Sin, particular Redemption, effectual, or, as some have called it, irresistible Grace in Regeneration, Justification by faith, Perseverance, and the Trinity. Besides the doctrinal part of Calvin’s system, which, so far as it differs from that of other reformers of the same period, principally regarded the absolute decree of God, whereby the future and eternal condition of the human race was determined out of mere sovereign pleasure and free-will; it extended likewise to the discipline and government of the Christian church, the nature of the Eucharist, and the qualification of those who were entitled to the participation of it. Calvin considered every church as a separate and independent body, invested with the power of legislation for itself. He proposed that it should be governed by presbyteries and synods, composed of clergy and laity, without bishops, or any clerical subordination; and maintained, that the province of the civil magistrate extended only to its protec-r tion and outward accommodation. In order to facilitate an union with the Lutheran church, he acknowledged a Vol. VIII. H renl, though spiritual, presence of Christ in the Eucharist; that true Christians were united to the man Christ in this ordinance; and that divine grace was conferred upon them, and sealed to them, in the celebration of it: and he confined the privilege of communion to pious and regenerate believers. In France the Calvinists are distinguished by the name of Huguenots; and, among the common people, by that of Parpaillots. In Germany they are confounded with the Lutherans, under the general title Protestants; only sometimes distinguished by the name Reformed.

, a learned German chronologist, the son of a Lutheran peasant, was born at Gorschleben, a village of Thuringia, in 1556. Being very poor in his youth, he got his livelihood by his skill in music, which he learned very early, and was so liberally encouraged at Magdeburgh, that he was enabled to study for some time at the university of Helmstadt, where he made great progress in the learned languages, and in chronology and astronomy. He died at Leipsic, where he held the office of chantor, in 1615. His “Opus Chronologicum” appeared first in 1605, on the principles of Joseph Scaliger, for which he was not a little commended by Scaliger. Isaac Casaubon, also, a better judge in this case than Scaliger, as being under less temptation to be partial, has bestowed high praises on Calvisius. In 1611, Calvisius published a work against the Gregorian calendar, under the title of “Elenchus calendarii a papa Gregorio XIII. comprobati;” or, a “Confutation of the calendar, approved and established by pope Gregory XI 11.” Vossius tells us, that he not only attempts in this work to shew the errors of the Gregorian calendar, but offers also a new and more concise, as well as truer method of reforming the calendar. He was the author also of “Enodatio duarum questionum, viz. circa annum Nativitatis et Tempus Ministerii Christi,” Ertbrd, 1610, 4to. His “Chronology” was often reprinted. Of his musical talents, he has left ample proofs to posterity in his short treatise called “Μελοποια, sive Melodiæ condendæ ratio, quam vulgò musicam poeticam vocant, ex veris fundamentis extracta et explicata,” 1592. This ingenious tract contains, though but a small duodecimo volume, all that was known at the time concerning harmonics and practical music; as he has compressed into his little book the science of most of the best writers on the subject; to which he has added short compositions of his own, to illustrate their doctrines and precepts. With respect to composition, he not only gives examples of concords and discords, and their use in combination, but little canons and fugues of almost every kind then known. He composed, in 1615, the 150th psalm in twelve parts, for three choirs, as an Epithalamium on the nuptials of his friend Casper Ankelman, a merchant of Hamburgh, and published it in folio at Leipsic the same year. Several of his hymns and motets appear in a collection of Lutheran church music, published at Leipsic, 1618, in eight volumes 4to, under the following title: “Florilegium portens CXV. selectissimas Cantiones, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, voc. prsBstantissimorum Auctorum.” Some of these which Dr. Burney had the curiosity to score, have the laws of harmony and fugue preserved inviolate.

, an ingenious English writer, was born in London, Feb. 14, 1717, of ancestors belonging to the county of Gloucester. His father, who was a younger brother, had been bred to business as a Turkey merchant, and died in London not long after the birth of his son, the care of whom then devolved on his mother and his maternal uncle Thomas Owen, esq. who adopted him as his future representative. He was sent to Eton, school, where quickness of parts supplied the place of diligence; yet although he was averse to the routine of stated tasks, he stored his mind with classical knowledge, and amuseid it by an eager perusal of works addressed to the imagination. He became early attached to the best English poets, and to those miscellaneous writers who delineate human life and character. A taste likewise for the beauties of rural nature began to display itself at this period, which he afterwards exemplified at his seat in Gloucestershire, and that at Twickenham. In 1734, he entered as a gentleman commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, and, without wishing to be thought a laborious scholar, omitted no opportunity of improving his mind in such studies as were suitable to his age and future prospects. His first, or one of his first, poetical effusions was on the marriage of the prince of Wales, which was published with the other verses composed at Oxford on the same occasion. In 1737, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, where he found many men of wit and congenial habits, but as he had declined taking a degree at Oxford, he had now as little inclination to pursue the steps that lead to the bar; and in 1741, in his twenty-fourth year, he married Miss Trenchard, the second daughter of George Trenchard, esq. of Woolverton in Dorsetshire, a lady who contributed to his happiness for upwards of half a century, and by whom he had a family equally amiable and affectionate. She died Sept. 5, 1806, Laving survived her husband four years.

He now settled at his family seat of Whitminster in Gloucestershire, for seven or eight years, where his life, though easy and independent, was never idle or useless. While he continued to cultivate polite literature, his more active hourswere employed in heightening the beauties of the scenery around his seat for this purpose he made the little river Stroud navigable for some distance, and not only constructed boats for pleasure or carriage, but introduced some ingenious improvements in that branch of naval architecture, which were approved by the most competent judges. In one of these boats or barges he had the honour to receive the prince and princess of Wales and other distinguished visitors, who were delighted with the elegance of his taste, and the novelty and utility of his various plans. For the sports of the field he had little relish, not, however, from a motive of tenderness, for he practised the bow and arrow, and we read, but with no great pleasure, that “the head of a duck, swimming in the river, was a favourite mark, which he seldom missed.” As, however, he ever endeavoured to unite knowledge with amusement, he studied the history of archery, and became a connoisseur in its weapons as used by modern and ancient nations. The collection he formed while this pursuit occupied his attention, he afterwards sent to sir Ash ton Lever’s museum.

During his residence at Whitminster, he wrote his most celebrated poem, “The Scribleriad.” The design he impurled to some of his particular friends, and communicated his progress from time to time. He had naturally a rich fund of humour, which he could restrain within the bounds of delicacy, or expand to the burlesque, as his subject required; and the topics which he introduced had evidently been the result of a course of multifarious reading. But such was his diffidence in his own powers, or in the sincerity of his friends who praised his labours, that he laid his poem aside for many years after it was completed, until he could ascertain, by their impatience, that they consulted his reputation in advising him to publish it.

“During this gradual increase of feebleness, and with the discouraging prospect, of still greater suffering, which he saw before him, his exemplary patience, and constant care to spare the feelings of his family, were eminently conspicuous: nor did the distressing infirmities, inseparably attendant on extreme debility, ever produce a murmur of complaint, or even a hasty or unguarded expression. It is somewhat singular, and may be regarded as a proof of an unusually strong frame, that no symptom of disease took place: all the organs of life continued to execute their respective functions, until nature being wholly exhausted, he expired without a sigh, on the 17th of September, 1802, leaving a widow, two sons, and a daughter.”

It appears from the whole of his Son’s very interesting narrative, that few men have enjoyed a life of the same duration so little interrupted by vexation or calamity. His fortune, if not relatively great, was rendered ample by judicious management, and as he had been highly favoured by Providence in his person and in his family, he felt the importance v of these blessings with the gratitude of a Christian. Such information as the following, so honourable to the subject of it, and to him who relates it, ought not to be suppressed.

“This principle. of piety led him also to bear afflictions in the most exemplary manner. Whatever trials or deprivations he experienced through life, he always met with fortitude, and his demeanour under the losses which hft was ordained to suffer in his own family, was such, that those only who saw him near, and knew how sacred he held the duty of submission to the divine will, and the selfcommand this produced, could form any idea how poignantly they were felt.”

The Scribleriad is one of those poems, that, with great merits, yet make their way very slowly in the world. It was received so coolly on the publication of the first two parts, that he found it necessary to write a preface to the second and complete edition, explaining his design. He had some reason to apprehend that it had been mistaken, and that the poem was in danger of being neglected. In this preface he lays down certain rules for the mock heroic, by which, if his own production be tried, it must-be confessed he has executed all that he intended, with spirit and taste. As an imitator of the true heroic he is in general faithful, and his parodies on the ancients show that he had studied their writings with somewhat different from the ardour of an admirer of poetry, or the acutencss of a critical linguist. But it may be doubted whether the rales he wishes to establish are sufficiently comprehensive, whether he has not been too faithful to his models, and whether a greater and more original portion of the burlesque would not have conferred more popularity on his performance. His preference of Don Quixote, as a true mock heroic, is less a matter of dispute. In all the attributes of that species of composition, it is unquestionably superior to any attempt ever made, and probably will ever remain without a rival, for what subject can the wit of man devise so happily adapted to the intention of the writer? Its great excellence too appears from its continuing to please every class of readers, although the folly ridiculed no longer exists, and can with some difficulty be supposed to have ever existed. But Cervantes is in nothing so superior, as in the delineation of his hero, who throughout the whole narrative creates a powerful interest in his favour, and who excites ridicule and compassion in such nice proportions as never to be undeserving of sympathy, or overpowered by contempt.

Mr. Cambridge was not so fortunate in a hero. He was content to take up Scriblerus where Pope and Swift, or rather Arbuthnot, left him, a motley, ideal being, without an exemplar, combining in one individual, all that is found ridiculous in forgotten volumes, or among the pretenders to science and the believers of absurdities. Mr. Cambridge’s hero, therefore, without any qualities to se< cure our esteem, is an antiquary, a pedant, an alchymist, and what seldom is found among such characters, a poet. In conducting him through a series of adventures, upon the plan sketched by the triumvirate above mentioned, it is with great difficulty that he is able to avoid the error they fell into, either of inventing nonsense for the sake of laughing at it, or of glancing their ridicule at the enthusiasm of useful research, and the ardour of real science and justifiable curiosity. The composition of the Scribleriad is in general so regular, spirited, and poetical, that we cannot but wish the author had chosen a subject of more permanent interest. The versification is elegant, and the epithets chosen with singular propriety. The events, although without much connection, all add something to the character of the hero, and the conversations, most gravely ironical, while they remind us of the serious epics, are never unnecessarily protracted.

, one of the most eminent English antiquaries, was born in the Old Bailey, London, May 2, 1551. His father, Samson Camden, was a native of Lichfield, whence he was sent very young to London, where he practised painting, and settling in London, became a member of the company of Puinter-stainers. The inscription on the cup left by his son to the company calls him Pictor Londinensis, which may refer either to his profession or to his company. His mother was of the ancient family of the Curwens of Workington in Cumberland. Their son received his first education at Christ’s hospital, which was founded the year after his birth by king Edward VI.; but the records of that house being destroyed in the fire of London, the date of his admission is lost. Bishop Gibson treats his admission at Christ’s hospital as a fiction, because not mentioned by himself; but as it is by Wheare, who pronounced his funeral oration very soon after his death, it seems to have some foundation, especially if we consider the lowness of his circumstances, and his dependence on Dr. Thornton at Oxford. Dr. Smith (his biographer) says, some infer from hence, that he had lost his father, and was admitted as an orphan; but it is certain Wheare does not give it that turn. Being seized with the plague in 1563, he was removed to Islington, or perhaps was seized with it there, “peste correptus Islingtonue” but on his recovery, he completed his education at St. Paul’s school; where under Mr. Cook or Mr. Malin, he made such progress in learning as laid the foundation of his future fame.

It was not till next year that Mr. Camuen perfectly recovered from his ague; and soon after published the fourth edition of his Britannia,' with great enlargements and improvements by his own care, and tliat of his friends. But all his attention could not defend him from the violent and indecent attack from Ralph Brooke (more properly Brookesmouth), York Herald, exposing certain mistakes which he pretended to have discovered in the pedigrees of the earls of each county, and which he fancied might be attended with circumstances dishonourable to many of the most ancient and noble families in this kingdom. Brooke’s book did not appear till many years after the fourth edition of the Britannia; but he had framed his materials soon after. Bishop Gibson ascribes this attack to envy of Mr. Camden’s promotion to the place of Clarencieux king at arms, in 1597, which place Brooke expected for himself. But though the piece is undated, it appears by the address to Maister Camden prefixed to it, that Camden was not then king at arms, and he was created Richmond herald but the day before. The truth is, that Mr. Camden in his first editions touched but lightly on pedigrees, and mentioned but few families whereas in the fourth he enlarged so much upon them, that he has given a particular index of Barones et illustriores famili<e, and recited near 250 noble houses. This Brooke, with the mean jealousy of a man whose livelihood was connected with his place, considered as an invasion on the rights of the college. This put him on examining these pedigrees, and on wishing to have them corrected, as Mr. Camden appears to have been ever ready to have his mistakes set right. Brooke tells us, indeed, that what he offered him for the fifth edition did not meet with that favourable reception he expected even before Camden professed himself an herald officially, and that foreigners, misled by his former editions, had blundered egregiously. He complains too, that he had been disturbed in writing, and much more in printing it, by Mr. Camden’s friends. That this was rather owing to a jealousy of his profession than of his promotion, appears further from hence, that though Mr. Camden himself in his answer to Brooke does not indeed take notice of his promotion, and the disgust it might have given him, yet this was after he had published his “Discoverie,” and he shews throughout that disdain of his adversary’s abilities, which Brooke complains of, never once admitting him to be right, or his corrections worth regarding, though in the fifth edition he wisely made use of them; and whoever peruses Brooke’s book carefully will find, that'what stung him most was, that a schoolmaster should meddle with descents and families, and at the same time treat heralds with so little respect.