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

In 1588, he published a piece, entitled “The Consent of Scriptures.” This was a work in which he was employed several years; and which, therefore, he used to call his “little book of grest pains.” It is a kind of scripture chronology, and scripture genealogies, and appears to have been compiled with great labour. It was dedicated to queen Elizabeth, to whom it was presented by himself, on her inauguration day, Nov. 17, 1589 . He appears to have had some assistance in it from Speed, who overlooked the press, and compiled those genealogies which are prefixed to the old Bibles; but Broughton certainly directed and digested them. Speed is said to have owed many obligations to Broughton, and had a vast number of his manuscripts, which, for whatever reason, he burnt. But, to return to the “Consent of Scripture;” it excited much attention at its first publication, but was strongly opposed by Dr. Reynolds at Oxford. This gave great offc-nce to Mr. Broughton, who had a very earnest and absurd desire to have the dispute between him and Dr. Reynolds, concerning the scripture chronology, settled by public authority. He addressed on this subject queen Elizabeth, Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. His work was opposed, not only at Oxford, but at Cambridge, where Mr. Lively, a professor, read publicly against it. He was, therefore, induced to read lectures in defence of his performance, which he did first in St. Paul’s, at the east end of the church, and afterwards in a large room in Cheapside, and in Mark-lane .

He continued several years in London, where he procured many friends. One of these was Mr. William Cotton, whose son Rowland, who was afterwards knighted, he instructed in the Hebrew tongue. In 1589 Mr. Broughton went over into Germany, accompanied by Mr. Alexander Top, a young gentleman who had put himself under his care, and travelled with him, that he might continually receive the benefit of his instructions. He was some time at Frankfort, where he had a long dispute in the Jewish synagogue, with rabbi Elias, on the truth of the Christian religion. He appears to have been very solicitous for the conversion of the Jews, and his taste for rabbinical and Hebrew studies naturally led him to take pleasure in the conversation of those learned Jews whom he occasionally met with. In the course of his travels, he had also disputes with the papists; but in hig contests both with them and with the Jews, he was not very attentive to the rules either of prudence or politeness. It appears, that in 1590 he was at Worms; but in what other places is not mentioned. In 1591 he returned again to England, and met at London with his antagonist Dr. Reynolds; and they referred the -decision of the controversy between them, occasioned by his “Consent of Scripture,” to Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. Another piece which he published, entitled “An Explication of the article of Christ’s Descent to Hell,” was a source of much controversy, though his opinion on this subject is now generally received. Two of his opponents in this controversy were archbishop Whitgift and bishop Bilson. He addressed on this subject “An Oration to the Geneveans,” which was first published in Greek, at Mentz, by Albinus. In this piece he treats the celebrated Beza with much severity. In 1592 he was in Germany again, and published a piece called “The Sinai Sight,” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass, at a considerable expence. About the year 1596, rabbi Abraham Reuben wrote an epistle from Constantinople to Mr. Broughton, which was directed to him in London; but he was then in Germany. He appears to have continued abroad till the death of queen Elizabeth; and during his residence in foreign countries, cultivated an acquaintance with Scaliger, Raphelengius, Junius, Pistorius, Serrarius, and other eminent and learned men. He was treated with particular favour by the archbishop of Mentz, to whom he dedicated his translation of the Prophets into Greek. He was also offered a cardinal’s hat, if he wo<;ld have embraced the Romish religion. But that offer he retused to accept, and returned again to England, soon after the accession of king James I. In 1603 he preached before prince Henry, at Oatlands, upon the Lord!s Prayer. In 1607 the new translation of the Bible was begun; and Mr. Broughton’s friends expressed much surprize that he was not employed in that work. It might probably be disgust on this account, which again occasioned him to go abroad; and during his stay there, he was for some time puncher to the English at Middleburgh. But finding his health decline, 'having a consumptive disorder, which he found to increase, he returned again to England in November, 1611. He lodged in London, during the winter, at a friend’s house in Cannon-street; but in the spring he was removed, for the benefit of the air, to the house of another friend, at Tottenham High-cross, where he died of a pulmonary consumption on the 4th of August, 1612, in the sixty-third year of his age. During his illness he made such occasional discourses and exhortations to his friends, as his strength would enable him; and he appears to have had many friends and admirers’ even to the last. His corpse was brought to London, attended by great numbers of people, many of whom had put themselves in mourning for him; and interred in St. Amholin’s church, where his funeral sermon was preached by the rev. James Speght, B. D. afterwards D. D. minister of the church in Milkstreet, London. Lightfoot mentions it as a report, that the bishops would not suffer this sermon to be published; but it was afterwards printed at the end of his works.

His person was comely and graceful, and his countenance expressive of studiousness and gravity. His indefatigable attention to his studies, gave him an air of austerity; and, at times, there appears to have been no inconsiderable degree of moroseness in his deportment: notwithstanding which, he is represented as behaving in a very kind and affable manner to his friends, and as being very pleasant in conversation with them, especially at his meals. He would also be free and communicative to any persons who desired to learn of him, but very angry with scholars, if they did not readily comprehend his meaning. Open impiety and profaneness were always opposed by him with great zeal and courage. He was much dissatisfied, as appears from several passages in his works, that his great learning had not procured him more encouragement, and he evidently thought that he had a just claim to some considerable preferment. He was unquestionably a man of very uncommon erudition, but -extremely deficient in taste and judgment. He was also of a testy and choleric temper, had a high opinion of his own learning and abilities, was extremely dogmatical, and treated those who differed from him in opinion with much rudeness and scurrility; though some allowance must be made for the age in which he lived, in which that mode of writing was much more common among divines and scholars than it is at present. From the general tenor of his life and of his works, and the opinion formed of him by those who were the best acquainted with him, it seems equitable to conclude, that, with all his failings, he meant well; nor do we apprehend that there is any sufficient ground for the extreme severity with which the late Mr. Gilpin has treated him in his “Lite of Bernard Gilpin.” He translated the Prophetical writings into Greek, and the Apocalypse into Hebrew. He was desirous of translating the whole New Testament into Hebrew, which he thought would have contributed much to the conversion of the Jews, if he had met with proper encouragement. And he relates, that a learned Jew with whom he conversed, once said to him, “O that you would set over all your New Testament into such Hebrew as you speak to me, you should turn all our nation.” Most of his works were collected together, and printed at London in 1662, under the following title: “The Works of the great Albionean divine, renowned in many nations for rare skill in Salems and Athens tongues, and familiar acquaintance with all Rabbinical learning, Mr. Hugh Broughton.” This edition o'f his works, though bound in one large volume, folio, is divided into four tomes. Dr. Lightfoot, who was himself a great rmister of Hebrew and rabbinical learning, says, that in the writings of Broughton, “the serious and impartial student of them will find these two things. First, as much light given in scripture, especially in the difficultest things thereof, as is to be found in any one author whatsoever; nay, it may be, in all authors together. And, secondly, a winning and enticing enforcement to read the scriptures with a seriousness and searching more than ordinary. Amongst those that have studied his books, multitudes might be named that have thereby grown proficients so far, as that they have attained to a most singular, and almost incredible skill and readiness, in his way, in the understanding of the Bible, though otherwise unlearned men. Nay, some such, that, by the mere excitation of his books, have set to the study of the Hebrew tongue, and come to a very great measure of knowledge in it; nay, a woman might be named that hath done it. This author’s writings do carry with them, I know not what, a kind of holy and happy fascination, that the serious reader of them is won upon, by a sweet violence, to look in the scripture with all possible scrulinousness, and cannot choose. Let any one but set to read him in good earnest, and, if he find not, that he sees much more in scripture than ever he could see before, and that he is stirred up 'to search much more narrowly into the scripture than ever he was before, he misseth of that which was never missed of before by any that took that course, if multitude of experiences may have any credit.” It will justly be thought in the present age, that Dr. Lightfoot formed'too high an opinion of the value of Broughton’s writings; but in whatever estimation they may now be held, the celebrity of Broughton in his own time, and his extraordinary learning, gave him a reasonable claim to some memorial in a work of this kind. Many of his theological Mss. are preserved in the British Museum, of which a list is given in Ayscough’s catalogue.

, a learned divine, and one of the original writers of the Biographia Britannica, was born at London, July 5, 1704, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn; of which parish his father was minister. At an early age he was sent to Eton-school, where he soon distinguished himself by the acuteness of his genius and the studiousness of his disposition. Being superannuated on this foundation, he removed, about 1722, to the university of Cambridge; and, for the sake of a scholarship, entered himself of Gonville and Caius college. Here two of the principal objects of his attention were, the acquisition of the knowledge of the modern languages, and the study of the mathematics under the famous professor Sanderson. May 28, 1727, Mr. Broughton, after taking the degree of B. A. was admitted to deacon’s orders. In the succeeding year, Sept. 22, he was ordained priest, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. At this time he removed from the university to the curacy of Offley in Hertfordshire. In 1739, he was instituted to the rectory of Stepington, otherwise Stibmgton, in the county of Huntingdon, on the presentation of John duke of Bedford, and was appointed one of that nobleman’s chaplains. Soon after, he was chosen reader to the Temple, by which means he became known to bishop Sherlock, then master of it, who conceived so high an opinion of our author’s merit, that, in 1744, this eminent prelate presented Mr. Broughton to the valuable vicarage of Bedminster, near Bristol, together with the chapels of St. Mary Redcliff, St. Thomas, and Abbot’s Leigh, annexed. Some short time after, he was collated, by the same patron, to the prebend of Bedminster and Redcliff, in the cathedral of Salisbury. Upon receiving this preferment, he removed from London to Bristol, where he married the daughter of Thomas Harris, clerk of that city, by whom he had seven children, six of whom survived him. He resided on his living till his death, which happened Dec. 21, 1774, in the 71st year of his age. He was interred in the church of St. Mary RedclifF.

, viscount Brouncker, of Castle Lyons in Ireland, son of sir William Brouncker, afterwards made viscount in 1645, was born about 1620; and, having received an excellent education, discovered an early genius for mathematics, in which he afterwards became very eminent. He was created M. D. at Oxford, June 23, 1646. In 1657 and 1658, he was engaged in a correspondence on mathematical subjects with Dr. John Wallis, who published the letters in his “Commercium. Epistoiicum,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. He, with others of the nobility and gentry who had adhered to king Charles I. in and about London, signed the remarkable declaration published in April 1660. After the restoration, he was made chancellor to the queen consort, and a commissioner of the navy. He was one of those great men who first formed the royal society, and, by the charter of July 15, 1662, and that of April 22, 1663, was appointed the first president of it: which office he held with great advantage to the society, and honour to himself, till the anniversary election, Nov. 30, 1677. Besides the offices mentioned already, he was master of St. Ratherine’s near the Tower of London; his right to which post, after a long contest between him and sir Robert &tkyns, one of the judges, was determined in his favour, Nov. 1681. He died at his house in St. James’s street, Westminster, April 5, 1684; and was succeeded in his honours by his younger brother Harry, who died Jan. 1687. Of his works, notwithstanding his activity in promoting literature and science, there are few extant. These are: “Experiments on the recoiling of Guns,” published in Dr. Sprat’s History of the Royal Society; “An algebraical paper upon the squaring of the Hyperbola,” published in the Philosophical Transactions. (See Lowthorp’s Abr. vol. I. p. 10, &c.); “Several Letters to Dr. James Usher, archbishop of Armagh,” annexed to that primate’s life by Dr. Parr; and “A translation of the Treatise of Des Cartes, entitled Musicae Compendium,” published without his name, but enriched with a variety of observations, which shew that he was deeply skilled in the theory of the science of music. Although he agrees with his author almost throughout the book, he asserts that the geometrical is to be preferred to the arithmetical division; and with a view, as it is presumed, to the farther improvement of the “Systema Participato,” he proposes a division of the diapason by sixteen mean proportionals into seventeen equal semitones; the method of which division is exhibited by him in an algebraic process, and also in logarithms. The “Systema Participato,” which is mentioned by Bontempi, consisted in the division of the diapason, or octave, into twelve equal semitones, by eleven mean proportionals. Descartes, we are informed, rejected this division for reasons which are far from being satisfactory. Mr. Park, in his edition of lord Orford’s “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which we are frequently indebted, points out an original commission, among the Sloanian Mss. from Charles II. dated Whitehall, Dec. 15, 1674, appointing lord Brouncker and others to inquire into, and to report their opinions of a method of finding the longitude, devised by Sieur de St. Pierre.

, a French Protestant and martyr, was born at Nismes, in 1647, He was an advocate, and distinguished by his 'pleadings at Castres and Toulouse; and it was at his house that the deputies of the Protestant churches assembled in 1683: where they took a resolution to continue to assemble, although their churches were demolished. The execution of this project occasioned violent conflicts, seditions, executions, and massacres, which ended at length in an amnesty on the part of Lewis XIV. Brousson retired then to Nismes; but, fearing to be apprehended with the principal authors of this project, who do not seem to have been comprised within the amnesty, he became a refugee at Geneva first, and thence at Lausanne. He shifted afterwards from town to town, and kingdom to kingdom, to solicit the compassion of Protestant princes towards his suffering brethren in France. Returning to his own country, he travelled through several provinces, exercised some time the ministry in the Cevennes, appeared at Orange, and passed to Berne, in order to escape his pursuers. He was at length taken at Oleron, in 1698, and removed to Montpellier; where, being convicted of having formerly held secret correspondence with the enemies of the state, and of having preached in defiance of the edicts, he was broke upon the wheel the same year. He was a man of great eloquence as well as zeal, greatly esteemed among strangers, and regarded as a martyr by those of his own persuasion. The states of Holland added six hundred florins, as a pension for his widow, to four hundred which had been allowed to her husband. His writings being principally those which, arose out of the circumstances in which the reformed church were then placed, we shall refer to Moreri for the exact titles and dates, and give only the subjects, namely: 1. “The state of the reformed in France.” 2. “Letters to the French clergy in favour of the reformed religion.” 3. “Letters from the Protestants in France to all other Protestants,” printed and circulated at the expence of the elector of Brandenburg. 4. “Letters to the Roman Catholics.” 5. “A summary relation of the wonders, wrought by God in the Cevennes and Lower Languedoc, for the consolation of his church.” 6. A volume of Sermons. 7. “Remarks on Amelotte’s translation of the New Testament;” and some religious tracts, which he published for circulation in France.

, a celebrated painter, according to some, was born at Oudenarde, in Flanders, or according to others, at Haerlem, in Holland, in 1608. His parents were of the poorer sort. His mother sold to the country people bonnets and handkerchiefs, on which Adrian, when almost in infancy, used to paint flowers and birds, and while thus employed, was discovered by Francis Hals, an eminent artist, who, charmed with the ease and taste he displayed in his art, proposed to take him as an apprentice, and Brouwer did not long hesitate about accepting such an dffer. His master soon discovered his superior talents, and separated him from his companions, that he might profit the better by him, locked him up in a garret, and compelled him to work, while he nearly starved him, but some pieces he painted by stealth, which probably irritated his jailor to be more watchful of him. By the advice, however, of Adrian Van Ostade, one of his companions, he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in a church. There, almost naked, and not knowing where to go, he was recognised by some person, who brought him back to his master, and by means of a suit of clothes and some caresses, effected a temporary reconciliation; but being again subjected to the same mercenary and tyrannical usage, he made his escape a second time, and went to Amsterdam, where he had the happiness to find that his name was well known, and that his works bore a great price. A picture dealer with whom he lodged, gave him an hundred ducatoons for a painting representing gamesters, admirably executed, which Brouwer, who had never possessed so much money, spent in a tavern in the course of ten days. He then returned to his employer, and when asked what he had done with his money, answered that he had got rid of it, that he might be more at leisure; and this unfortunate propensity to alternate work and extravagance marked the whole of his future life, and involved him in many ridiculous adventures and embarrassments unworthy of a man of genius. As soon as ‘he had finished any piece, he offered it for sale; and if it did not produce a stipulated price, he burnt it, and began another with greater care. Possessing a vein of low humour, and engaging, both sober and drunk, in many droll adventures, he removed from Amsterdam to Antwerp, where he was arrested as a spy, and committed to prison. This circumstance introduced him to an acquaintance with the duke d’Aremberg, who, having observed his genius, by some slight sketches drawn with black lead while in custody, requested Rubens to furnish him with materials for painting. Brouwer chose for his subject a groupe of soldiers playing at cards in a corner of the prison; and when the picture was finished, the duke himself was astonished, and Rubens, when he saw it, offered for it the sum of 600 guilders. The duke, however, retained it, and gave the painter a much larger sum. Upon this, Rubens procured his release, and received him into his house; but, uninfluenced by gratitude to his benefactor, he stole away, and returned to the scenes of low debauch, to which he had been formerly accustomed. Being reduced to the necessity of flying from justice, he took refuge in France; and, having wandered through several towns, he was at length constrained by indigence to return to Antwerp, where he was taken ill, and obliged to seek relief in an hospital; and in this asylum of self-procured poverty and distress he died in his 32d year. Rubens lamented his death, and procured for him an honourable interment in the church of the Carmelites.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Arnheim in 1559, and entered among the Jesuits at Cologne in 1580, among whom he was distinguished for his talents. He taught philosophy at Treves, was afterwards rector of the college of Fulde, and chiefly employed at his leisure hours in composing his works, which procured him great reputation, and the esteem of many men of learning, especially cardinal Baronius, who often mentions Brower in his annals of the church, with high praise. He died -at Treves June 2, 1617. His writings are, 1. An edition of “Venantius Fortunattis,” with notes and additions, Cologne, 1624, 4to. 2. “Scholia on the poems of Rabanus Maurus,” in vol. VI. of the works of Maurus. 3. “Antiquitates Fuldenses,” 1612, 4to. 4. “Sidera illustrium et 'S. S. Virorum qui Germaniam lebus gestis ornarunt,” Mentz, 1616, 4to. 5. “Historia Episcoporum Trevereusium, &c.” Cologne, 162t>. He had also a principal hand in the “Antiquities and Annals of Treves,” 1626, 2 vols. folio, and reprinted 1670; but some antiquaries are of opinion that in his anxiety to give correct copies of certain ancient documents, he took liberties with the originals which tend to lessen the authority of his transcripts.

, an English traveller and scholar, the son of James Brown, M. D. (who died Nov. 24, 1733), was born at Kelso, in the shire or Roxburgh, in Scotland, May 23, 1709, and was educated under Dr. Freind at Westminster school, where he made great proficiency in the Latin and Greek classics. In the latter end of 1722, he went with his father to Constantinople, and having a great aptitude for the learning of languages, acquired a competent knowledge of the Turkish, vulgar Greek, and Italian; and on his return home in 1725, made himself master of the Spanish tongue. About the year 1732, he first started the idea of a very useful book in the mercantile world, although not deserving a place in any literary class, “The Directory,” or list of principal traders in London; and having taken some pains to lay the foundation of it, he gave it to the late Mr. Henry Kent, printer in Finch-lane, Cornhill, who continued it from year to year, and acquired an estate by it. In 1741, Mr. Brown entered into an agreement with twenty-four of the principal merchants of London, members of the Russia Company, as their chief agent or factor, for the purpose of carrying on a trade, through Russia, to and from Persia, and he sailed for Riga Sept. 29. Thence he passed through Russia, down the Volga to Astracan, and sailed along the Caspian sea to Reshd in Persia, where he established a factory, in which he continued near four years. During this time, he travelled in state to the camp of Nadir Shah, commonly known by the name of Kouli Khan, with a letter which had been transmitted to him from the late George II. to that monarch. While he resided in this country, he applied himself much to the study of that language, and made such proficiency in it that, after his return home, he compiled a very copious “Persian Dictionary and Grammar,” with many curious specimens of their writing, which is yet in manuscript. But not being satisfied with the conduct of some of the merchants in London, and being sensible of the dangers that the factory was constantly exposed to from the unsettled and tyrannical nature of the government of Persia, he resigned his charge to the gentlemen who were appointed to succeed him, returned to London Dec. 25, 1746, and lived to be the last survivor of all the persons concerned in the establishment of that trade, having outlived his old friend Mr. Jonas Hanway above two years. In May 1787, he was visited with a slight paralytic stroke, all the alarming effects of which very speedily vanished, and he retained his wonted health and chearfulness till within four 1 days of his death; when a second and more severe stroke proved fatal Nov. 30, 1788. He died at his house at Stoke Newington, where he had been an inhabitant since 1734, and was succeeded by his worthy son James Brown, esq. F. S. A. now of St. Alban’s. Mr. Lysons informs us that the elder Mr. Brown published also a translation of two “Orations of Isocrates” without his name. He was a man of the strictest integrity, unaffected, piety, and exalted, but unostentatious benevolence; of an even, placid, chearful temper, which he maintained to the last, and which contributed to lengthen his days. Few men were ever more generally esteemed in life, or more respectfully spoken of after death by all who knew him.

Thus distinguished, he fell under the notice of Dr. Osbaldeston; who, when raised to the see of Carlisle, made him one of his chaplains; he had before obtained for him from the chapter of Carlisle the living of Moreland in Westmoreland. It is probably about this time that he wrote his poem entitled “Honour;” to shew, that true honour can only be founded in virtue: it was inscribed to lord Lonsdale. His next poetical production, though not immediately published, was his “Essay on Satire,” in three parts, afterwards addressed to Dr. Warburton, who introduced him to Mr. Allen of Prior Park near Bath. While at Mr. Alien’s he preached at Bath, April 22, 1750, a sermon for promoting the subscription towards the general hospital in that city, entitled “On the pursuit of false pleasure, and the mischiefs of immoderate gaming;” and there was prefixed to it, when published, the following advertisement: “In justice to the magistrates of the city of Bath, it is thought proper to inform the reader, that the public gaming-tables were by them suppressed there, soon after the preaching of this sermon.” The year after, appeared the “Essay on Satire,” prefixed to the second volume of Pope’s Works by Warburton; with which it still continues to be printed, as well as in Dodsley’s collection.

Brown now began to make no small figure as a writer 5 and in 1751, published Jiis “Essays on Shaftesbury’s Characteristics,” 8vo, a work written with elegance and spirit, aud so applauded as to be printed a fifth time in 1764. This was suggested to him by Warburton, and to Warburton by Pope, who told Warburton that to his knowledge the Characteristics had done more harm to revealed religion in England than all the works of infidelity put together. He is imagined to have had a principal hand in another book, published also the same year, and called w An essay on musical expression;“though the avowed author was Mr. Charles Avison. (See Avison.) In 1754 he printed a sermon,” On the use and abuse of externals in religion: preached before the bishop of Carlisle, at. the consecration of St. James’s church in Whitehaven, and soon after he was promoted to Great Horkesiey in Essex; a living conferred upon him by the late earl of Hard wick e. His next appearance was as a dramatic writer. In 1755, hk tragedy “Barbarossa,” was produced upon the stage, and afterwards his “Athelstan” in 1756. These tragedies were acted with considerable success, under the management of Garrick; and the former long remained what is called a stock-piece, notwithstanding many critical objections offered to it in the publications of the time.

Our author had taken his doctor of divinity’s degree in 1755. In 1757, came out his famous work, “An Estimate of the manners and principles of the times,” 8vo; of which, seven editions were printed in little more than a year, and it was perhaps as extravagantly applauded, and as extravagantly censured, as any book that was ever written. The design of it was to show, that “a vain, luxurious, and selfish effeminacy, in the higher ranks of life, marked the character of the age; and to point out the effects and sources of this effeminacy.” And it must be owned, that, in the prosecution of it, the author has given abundant proofs of great discernment and solidity of judgment, a deep insight into human nature, an extensive knowledge of the world; and that he has marked the peculiar features of the times with great justness and accuracy. The great objection was, that a spirit of self-importance, dogmaticalness, and oftentimes arrogance, mixed itself in what he says; and this certainly did more towards sharpening the pens of his numerous adversaries, and raised more disgust and offence at him, than the m'atter objected to in his work, for it may be added that those who wrote against him were not men of the first rank in literature, and could have done little against him without the aid of those personalities which arise from the temper of an author. In 1758 he published a second volume of the Estimate, &c. and, afterwards, “An explanatory defence of it, &c.”

Dr. Brown was a man of uncommon ingenuity, but unfortunately tinctured with an undue degree of self-opinion, and perhaps the bias of his mind to insanity will assign this best cause, as well as form the best excuse, for this. genius was extensive; for, besides his being so elegant a prose writer in various kinds of composition, he was a poet, a musician, and a painter. His learning does not, however, appear to have been equal to his genius. His invention was, indeed, inexhaustible; and hence he was led to form magnificent plans, the execution of which required a greater depth of erudition than he was possessed of. In divinity, properly so called, as including an extensive knowledge of the controverted points of theology, and a critical acquaintance with the Scriptures, he was not deeply conversant. All we can gather from his sermons is, that his ideas were liberal, and that he did not lay much stress on the disputed doctrines of Christianity. His temper, we are told, was suspicious, and sometimes threw him into disagreeable altercations with his friends; but this arose, in a great measure, if not entirely, from the constitutional disorder described above, a very suspicious turn of mind being one of the surest prognostics of lunacy. He has been charged with shifting about too speedily, with a view to preferment; and it was thought, that his “Thoughts on Civil Liberty, Licentiousness, and Faction,” seemed to have something of this appearance. He, however, in that performance endeavoured to remove the objection, by observing, that, if he had indirectly censured those whom he had formerly applauded, he never was attached to men, but measures; and that, if he had questioned the conduct of those only who were then out of power, he had heretofore questioned their conduct with the same freedom, when in the fulness of their power. Upon the whole, Dr. Brown’s defects, which chiefly arose from a too sanguine temperament of constitution, were compensated by many excellencies and virtues. With respect to his writings, they are all of them elegant. Even those which are of a more temporary nature may continue to be read with pleasure, as containing a variety of curious observations; and in his Estimate are many of those unanswerable truths that can never be unseasonable or unprofitable.

, a Scotch artist, the son of a goldsmith and watchmaker, was born in 1752 at Edinburgh, and was early destined to take up the profession of a painter. He travelled into Italy in 1771, and durmg the course of ten years residence there, the pencil and crayon were ever in his hand, and the sublime thoughts of Raphael and Michael Angelo ever in his imagination. By continual practice he obtained a correctness and elegance of contour, rarely surpassed by any British artist, but he unfortunately neglected the mechanism of the pallet till his taste was so refined that Titian, and Murillo, and Correggio made his heart to sink within him when he touched the canvass. When he attempted to lay in his colours, the admirable correctness of his contour was lost, and he had not self-sufficiency to persevere till it should be recovered in that tender evanescent outline which is so difficult to be attained even by the most eminent painters. At Rome he met with sir William Young and Mr. Townley; who, pleased with some very beautiful drawings done by him in pen and ink, took him with them, as a draftsman, into Sicily. Of the antiquities of this celebrated island he took several very fine views in pen and ink, exquisitely finished, yet still preserving the character and spirit of the buildings he intended to represent. He returned some years afterwards from Italy to his native town, where he was much beloved and esteemed, his conversation being extremely acute and entertaining on most subjects, but peculiarly so on those of art; and his knowledge of music 'being very great, and his taste in it extremely just and refined. Lord Monboddo gave him a general invitation to his elegant and convivial table, and employed him ip, making several drawings in pencil for him. Mr. Brown, however, in 1786, came to London, and was caressed by scholars and men of taste in that metropolis, where he was very much employed as a painter of small portraits in black lead pencil, which were always correctly drawn, and exhibited, with a picturesque fidelity, the features and character of the person who sat to him.:

Mr. Brown was not only known as an exquisite drafts.­man, he was also a good philosopher, a sound scholar, and endowed with a just and refined taste in all the liberal and polite arts, and a man of consummate worth and integrity. Soon after his death his “Letters on the Poetry and Music of the Italian Opera,” 12mo, were published. They were originally written to his friend lord Monboddo, who wished to have Mr. Brown’s opinion on those subjects, which have so intimate a connection with his work on the Origin and Progress of Language; and who was so pleased with the style and observations contained in them, that he wrote an introduction, which was published with them, in one volume, 12mo, 1789, for the benefit of his widow. The letters, written with great elegance and perspicuity, are certainly the production of a strong and fervid mind, acquainted with the subject; and must be useful to most of the frequenters of the Italian opera, by enabling them to understand the reasons on which the pleasure they receive at that musical performance is founded, a knowledge in which they are generally very deficient. Not being written for publication, they have that spirit and simplicity which every man of genius diffuses through any subject which he communicates in confidence, and which he is but too apt to refine away when he sits down to compose a work for the public. Lord Monboddo, in the fourth volume of the Origin and Progress of Language, speaking of Mr. Brown, says, “The account that I have given of the Italian language is taken from one who resided above ten years in Italy; and who, besides understanding the language perfectly, is more learned in the Italian arts of painting, sculpture, music, and poetry, than any man I ever met with. His natural good taste he has improved by the study of the monuments of ancient art, to be seen at Rome and Florence; and as beauty in all the arts is pretty much the same, consisting of grandeur and simplicity, variety, decorum, and a suitableness to the subject, I think he is a good judge of language, and of writing, as well as of painting, sculpture, and music.” A very well-written character in Latin, by an advocate of Edinburgh, is appended to the Letters. Mr. Brown left behind him several very highly-finished portraits in pencil, and many very exquisite sketches in pencil and in pen and ink, which he had taken of persons and of places in Italy; particularly a book of studies of heads, taken from the life, an inestimable treasure to any history painter, as a common-place book for his pictures, the heads it contained being all of them Italian ones, of great expression, or of high character. He was so enraptured with his art, and so assiduous in the pursuit of it, that he suffered no countenance of beauty, grace, dignity, or expression, to pass him unnoticed; and to be enabled to possess merely a sketch for himself, of any subject that struck his fancy, he would make a present of a high-finished drawing to the person who permitted his head to be taken by him. The characteristics of his hancl were delicacy, correctness, and taste, as the drawings he made from many of Mr. Townley’s best statues very plainly evince. Of his mind, the leading features were acuteness, liberality, and sensibility, joined to a character firm, vigorous, and energetic. The last efforts of this ingenious artist were employed in making two very exquisite drawings, the one from Mr. Townley’s celebrated bust of Homer, the other from a fine original bust of Pope, supposed to have been the work of Rysbrac. From these drawings two very beautiful engravings have been made by Mr. Bartolozzi and his pupil Mr. Bovi. After some stay in London, his health, which had never been robust, yielded to extraordinary application, and he was forced to try a seavoyage, and return on a visit to Edinburgh, to settle his father’s affairs, who was then dead, having been some time before in a state of imbecility. On the passage from London to Leith, he was somehow neglected as he lay sick on his hammock, and was on the point of death when he arrived at Leith. With much difficulty he was brought up to Edinburgh, and laid in the bed of his friend Runciman, the artist, who had died not long before in the same place. Here he died, Sept. 5, 1787. His portrait with Runciman, disputing about a passage in Shakspeare’s Tempest, is in the gallery at Dryburgh abbey. This was the joint production of Brown and Runciman before the death of the latter in 1784.

, a clergyman of the church of Scotland, who long kept an academy for the education of young men for the ministry among the class called Seceders in that country, was born in 1722, in a village called Kerpoo, in the county of Perth. His parents died when he was very young, leaving him almost destitute, but by some means he contrived to obtain books, if not regular education, and by dint of perseverance acquired a considerable knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, with which last he was critically conversant. He could also read and translate the French, Italian, German, Arabic, Persian, Syriac, and Ethiopic, but his favourite studies were divinity, and history both ecclesiastical and civil. His principles being Calvinistic, his reading was much confined to writers of that stamp, but he appears to have studied every controversy in which the church has been involved, with much attention. At what time he was ordained, does not appear, but his extensive* learning pointed him out to the associate synod, or synod of seceders, as a fit person to be their professor of divinity, and train up young men, who had had a previous education, for the office of the ministry within their pale. His residence was at Haddington, where he was preacher to a numerous congregation of the seceders. At one time he received a pressing invitation from the Dutch church in the province of New York, to be their tutor in divinity, which he declined. He died June 19, 1787. His principal works are, 1. An edition of the Bible, called “The Self-interpreting Bible,” from its marginal references, which are far more copious than in any other edition, London, 1791, 2 vols. 4to, and since reprinted. 2. “Dictionary of the Bible, on the plan of Calmet, but principally adapted to common readers; often reprinted, 2 vols. 8vo. 3.” Ex-> plication of Scripture Metaphors,“' 12mo. 4.” History of the Seceders,“eighth edition, 1802, 12mo. 5.” The Christian Student and Pastor,“1781, an abridgment of the Lives of Pious Men. 6.” Letters on the Government of the Christian Church.“7.” General History of the Church,“1771, 2 vols. 12mo, a very useful compendium of church history, partly on the plan of Mosheim, or perhaps rather of Lampe. After his death appeared a volume entitled” Select Hemains," with some account of his life.

, M. D. author of what has been called the Brunonian system in medicine, was born in the parish of Buncle, in the county of Berwick, in the year 1735, of parents in a mean situation in life, but, in common with the children of other villagers in Scotland, he received his education at a grammar-school. As his mind was much above the rank he was born in, his progress in literature was proportionably superior to the rest of his school-fellows. He there imbibed a taste for letters, so that when he was afterwards put apprentice to a weaver, instead of attending to Ms business, his whole mind was bent on procuring books, which he read with great eagerness. Finding this disposition could not be conquered, his father took him from the loom, and sent him to the grammarschool at Dunse, where, under the tuition of Mr. Cruickshanks, he made such progress that he was soon regarded as a prodigy. He read all the Latin classics with the greatest facility, and was oo mean proficient in the knowledge of the Greek language. “His habits,” we are told, “were sober, he was of a religious turn, and was so strongly attached to the sect of Seceders, or Whigs as tlrey are called in Scotland, in which he had been bred, that he would have thought his salvation hazarded, if he had attended the meetings of the established church. He aspired to be a preacher of a purer religion.” An accident, however, disgusted him with this society, before he was of art age to be chosen a pastor, for which it appears he was intended. Having been prevailed on by some of his schoolfellows to attend divine service at the parish church of Dunse, he was summoned before the session of the seceding congregation to answer for this offence; but his high spirit not brooking to make an apology, to avoid the censures of his brethren, and the ignominy of being expelled their community, he abdicated his principles, and professed himself a member of the established church. As his talents for literature were well known, he was taken, at the age of twenty, to the house of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Dunse, as tutor to his son. Here he did not long reside, but went the same year, 1755, to Edinburgh, where he applied to the study of divinity, in which he proceeded so far as to deliver, in the public hall, a discourse upon a prescribed portion of scripture, the usual step preliminary to ordination. But here his theological studies appear to have ended, and he suddenly left Edinburgh, returned to Dunse, and officiated as an usher in the school where he had been educated. He now exhibited himself as a free-liver and free-thinker, his discourse and manners being equally licentious and irregular, which accounts for his dereliction of the study of theology. At Dunse he continued about a year. During this time, a vacancy happening in one of the classes in the high school at Edinburgh, Brown appeared as a candidate, but was not successful. Soon after he was applied to by a student in medicine, at Edinburgh, to put his inaugural thesis into, Latin. This he performed in so superior a manner, that it gained him great reputation; it opened to him a path which he had not probably before thought of, for turning his erudition to profit. On the strength of the character procured him by this performance, he returned to 'Edinburgh, and determined to apply to the study of medicine. “He had now,” he said, “discovered his strength, and was ambitious of riding in his carriage as a physician.” At the opening of the session he addressed Latin letters to each of the professors, who readily gave him tickets of admission to their lectures, which he attended diligently for several years; in the interim, teaching Latin to such of the pupils as applied, and assisting them in, writing their theses, or turning them into Latin. The price, when he composed the thesis, was ten guineas; when he translated their compositions into Latin, five. If he had been now prudent, or had not indulged in the most destructive excesses, he might, it is probable, in a few years, have attained the eminence he promised himself; but he marred all by his intemperance. In no long time after this, his constitution, which had been hardy and robust, became debilitated, and he had the face and appearance of a worn-out debauchee. His bad habits had not, however, prevented his getting the friendship or assistance of Dr. Cullen, who, desirous of availing himself of his talents, employed him as a tutor to his sons, and made use of him as an assistant in his lectures; Brown repeating to his pupils in the evening, the lecture they had heard in the morning, and explaining to them such parts as were abstruse and difficult. In 1765 he married, and took a house, which was soon filled with boarders; but, continuing his improvident course, he became a bankrupt at the nd of three or four years. He now became a candidate for one of the medical chairs, but failed; and as he attributed his missing this promotion to Dr. Cullen, he very unadvisedly broke off his connection with him, and became the declared enemy to him and his system; which he had always before strenuously defended. This probably determined him to form a new system of medicine, doubtless meaning to annihilate that of his former patron. As he had read but few medical books, and was but little versed in practice, his theory must have been rather the result of contemplation than of experience. That in forming it, he was influenced by his attachment to spirituous liquors, seems probable from internal evidence, and from the effects he attributed to them of diminishing the number as well as the severity of the fits of the gout, under which he suffered. He always found them more severe and frequent, he says, he lived abstemiously. One of his pupils informed Br; Beddoes, “that he was used, before he began to read his lecture, to take fifty drops of laudanum in a glass of whisky; repeating the dose four or five times during the lecture. Between the effects of these stimulants, and voluntary exertions, he soon waxed warm, and by degrees his imagination was exalted into phrenzy.” His intention seems to have been to simplify medicine, and to render the knowledge of it easily attainable, without the labour of studying other authors. All general or universal diseases were therefore reduced by him to two great families or classes, the sthenic and the asthenic; the former depending upon excess, the latter upon deficiency of exciting power. The former were to be removed by debilitating, the latter by stimulant medicines, of which the most valuable and powerful are wine, brandy, and opium. As asthenic diseases are more numerous y and occur much more frequently than those from an opposite cause, his opportunities of calling in the aid of these powerful stimuli were proportionately numerous. “Spasmodic and convulsive disorders, and even hemorrhages,” he says, “were found to proceed from debility; and wine, and brandy, which had been thought hurtful in these diseases, he found the most powerful of all remedies in removing them.” When he had completed his plan, 'he published his theory or system, under the title of “Elementa Medicinse,” from his preface to which the preceding quotations have been principally taken. Though he had been eleven or twelve years at Edinburgh, he had not taken his degree of doctor; and as he was now at variance with all the medical professors, not thinking it prudent to offer himself there, he went to St. Andrew’s, where he was readily admitted to that honour. He now commenced public teacher of medicine, making his “Elementa” his text book; and convinced, as it seems, of the soundness of his doctrine, he exultingly demands (preface to a new edition of the translation of his “Elementa,” by Dr. Beddoes), whether the medical art, hitherto conjectural, incoherent, and in the great body of its doctrines false, was not at last reduced to a science of demonstration, which might be called the science of life? His method in giving his lectures was, first to translate the text book, sentence by sentence, and then to expatiate upon the passage. The novelty of the docfeine procured him at first a pretty numerous class of pupilsj but as he was irregular in his attendance, and his habits of drinking increased upon him, they were soon. reduced in number, and he became so involved in his circumstances, that it became necessary for him to quit Edinburgh; he therefore came to London in the autumn of the year 1786. Here, for a time, he was received with favour, but his irregularities in living increasing upon him, he came to his lodgings, in the evening of the 8th of October, in 1788, intoxicated, and taking, as it was his custom, a large dose of laudanum, he died in the course of the night, before he had entered on his career of lecturing, for which he was making preparations. He had the preceding year published “Observations on the Old Systems of Physic,” as a prelude to the introduction of his own; but it was little noticed. His opinions have, however, ' met with patrons in Germany and Italy, as well as in this country, and several volumes have been Written on the subject of them; but they are now pretty generally, and deservedly, abandoned.

Those who are acquainted with the tenets and practices of some modern sects, will easily recognize in Brown their founder. The Brownists equally condemned episcopacy and presbytery, as to the jurisdiction of consistories, classes, and synods; and| would not join with any other reformed church, because they were not sufficiently assured of the sanctity and probity of its members, holding it an impiety to communicate with sinners. Their form of church-government was democratical. Such as desired to be members of their church made a confession of their faith, and signed a covenant obliging themselves to walk together in the order of the gospel. The whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the decision of all controversies, was lodged in the brotherhood. Their church officers for preaching the word, and taking care of the poor, were chosen from among themselves, and separated to their several offices by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands from some of the brethren. They did not allow the priesthood to be any distinct order, or to give any indelible character; but as the vote of the brotherhood made a man a minister, and gave authority to preach the word and administer the sacraments among them; so the same power could discharge him from his office, and reduce him to a mere layman again. As they maintained the bounds of a church to be no greater than what would contain as many as could meet together in one place, and join in one communion, so the power of their officers was prescribed within the same limits. The minister or pastor pf a church could not administer the eucharist or baptism to the children of any but those of his own society. A lay brother was allowed the liberty of giving a word of exhortation to the people; and it was usual for some of them, after sermon, to ask questions, and reason upon the doctrines that had been preached. Until the civil war, they were much discouraged in England; but upon the ruin of episcopacy, they quitted Holland, and came over to England, they began to form churches on their peculiar model. The Presbyterians cortiplained of this as an encroachment, and insisted that the Independents should come under the Scotch regulation; This the latter refused to comply with, and continued a distinct sect, or faction; and, during the civil wars, became the most powerful party; and getting to the bead of affairs, most of the other sects, which were averse to the Church. of England^ joined with them, and all of them yielded to lose theit former names, in the general one of Independents.

The chief of Brown’s works is a small thin quarto, printed at Middleburgh in 15 32, containing three pieces. The title of the first is, “A Treatise of Reformation without tarrying for any, and of the wickedness of those preachers who will not reform themselves and their charge, because they will tarry till the magistrate command and compel them. By me, Robert Brown.” “A Treatise upon the 23d chapter of St. Matthew, both for an order of studying and handling the scriptures, and also for avoiding the popish disorders, and ungodly communion of all false Christians, and especially of wicked preachers and hirelings.” The title of the third piece is, “A book which sheweth the life and manners of all true Christians, and how unlike they are unto Turks and papists, and heathen folk. Also the points and parts of all divinity, that is, of the revealed will and word of God, are declared by their several definitions and division s.”

, of facetious memory^ as Mr. Addison says of him, was the son of a considerable farmer of Shiffnal in Shropshire, and educated at Newport-school in. that county; from whence he was removed to Christchurch in Oxford^ where he soon distinguished himself by his uncommon attainments in literature. He had great parts and quickness of apprehension, nor does it appear that he was wanting in application; for we are told, that he was very well skilled in the Latin, Greek, French, Italian, and Spanish languages, even before he was sent to Oxford. The irregularities of his life did not suffer him however to continue long at the university; but when obliged to quit it, instead of returning home to his father, he formed a scheme of going to London, in hopes of making his fortune some way or other there. This scheme did not answer. He was very soon in danger of starving; upon, which he made interest to be schoolmaster of Kingston upon Thames, in which pursuit he succeeded. But this was a profession very unsuitable to a man of Mr. Brown’s turn, and a situation that must needs have been extremely disagreeable to him; and therefore we cannot wonder, that he soon quitted his school, and went again to London; where finding his old companions more delighted with his humour, than ready to relieve his necessities, he had recourse to his pen, and became an author, and partly a libeller, by profession. He published a great variety of pieces, under the names of dialogues, letters, poems, &c. in all which he discovered no small erudition, and a vast and exuberant vein of humour: for he was in his writings, as in his conversation, always lively and facetious. In the mean time he made no other advantage of these productions, than what he derived from the booksellers; for though they raised his reputation, and made his company sought after, yet as he possessed less of the gentleman than wits usually do, and more of the scholar, so he was not apt to choose his acquaintance by interest, but was more solicitous to be recommended to the ingenious who might admire, than to the great who might relieve him. An anonymous author, who has given the world some account of Mr. Brown, says, that though a good-natured man, he had one pernicious quality, which was, rather to lose his friend than his joke. He had a particular genius for satire, and dealt it out liberally whenever he could find occasion. He is famed for being the author of a libel, fixed one Sunday morning on the doors of Westminsterabbey; and of many others against the clergy and quality. He used to treat religion very lightly, and would often say, that he understood the world better, than to have the imputation of righteousness laid to his charge, yet, upon the approach of death, his heart misgave him, as if all was not right within, and he began to express sentiments of remorse for his past life.

Towards the latter end of Brown’s life, we are informed by Mr. Jacob, that he was in favour with the earl of Dorset, who invited him to dinner on a Christmas-day, with Dryden, and some other men of genius; when Brown, to his agreeable surprise, found a bank note of 50/, under his plate; and Dryden at the same time was presented with another of 100l. Brown died in 1704, and was interred in the cloister of Westminster-abbey, near the remains of Mrs. Behn, with whom he was intimate in his life-time. His whole works were printed in 1707, consisting of dialogues, essays, declamations, satires, letters from the dead to the living, translations, amusements, &c. in 4 vols. Much humour and not a little learning are, as we have already observed, scattered every where throughout them, but they are totally destitute of delicacy, and have not been reprinted for many years. Dr. Johnson, in his Life of Dryden, very justly says that “Brown was not a man deficient in literature, nor destitute of fancy; but he seems to have thought it the pinnacle of excellence to be a `merry fellow;' and therefore laid out his powers upon small jests or gross buffoonery, so that his performances have little intrinsic value, and were read only while they were recommended by the novelty of the event that occasioned them. What sense or knowledge his works contain is disgraced by the garb in which it is exhibited.”

, a celebrated general of the eighteenth century, was the son of Ulysses, baron de Brown, colonel of a regiment of cuirassiers in the service of the emperors Leopold and Joseph, created in 1716, by the emperor Charles VI. a count of the holy Roman empire, his younger brother George receiving the like dignity at the same time, who was general of foot, counsellor of war, and a colonel of a regiment of infantry, under Charles -VI. They were of an ancient and noble family in Ireland. The subject of the present memoir was born at Basle, Oct. 24, 1705-. After having passed through the lessons of a school at Limerick in Ireland, he was called to Hungary at ten years of age, by count George de Brown, his uncle, and was present at the famous siege of Belgrade in 1717; about the close of the year 1723, he became captain in his uncle’s regiment, and then lieutenant-colonel in 1725. He went to the island of Corsica in 1730, with a battalion of his regiment, and contributed greatly to the capture of Callansana, where he received a wound of some consequence in his thigh. He was appointed chamberlain to the emperor in 1732, and colonel in 1734. He distinguished himself in the war of, Italy, especially in the battles of Parma and Guastalla, and burnt, in presence of the French army, the bridge which the marechal de Noailles had thrown across the Adige. Being appointed general in 1736, he favoured, the year following, the retreat of the army, by a judicious manoeuvre, and saved all the baggage at the memorable day of Banjaluca in Bosnia, Aug. 3, 1737. This signal piece of service procured him a second regiment of infantry, vacant by the death of count Francis de Wallis. On his return to Vienna in 1739, the emperor Charles VI. raised him to the dignity of general-neld-marechal-lieute.^ nanr, and gave him a seat in the Aulic council of war. After the death of that prince, the king of Prussia having entered Silesia, count de Brown, with but a small body oi troops, disputed with him every foot of ground for the space of two months. He commanded in 1741 the infantry of the right wing of the Austrian army at the battle of Molvitz; and, though wounded, made a handsome retreat. He then went into Bavaria, where he commanded the van of the same army, made himself master of Deckendorf, an4 took much of the enemy’s baggage, and forced the French to quit the banks of the Danube, which the Austrian army afterwards passed in perfect safety; in commemoration of which, a marble pillar was erected on the spot, with the following inscription: “Theresise Austriacae Augustse Duce Exercitus Carolo Alexandro Lotharingico, septemdecirn superatis hostilibus VilHs, captoque Deckendorfio, renitentibus undis, resistentibus Gallis, Duce Exercitus Ludovico Borbonio Contio, transivit hie Danubium Ulysses Maximilianus, S. R. I. Comes de Brown, Locumtenens Campi Marashallusj Die 5 Junii, A. D. 1743.” The queen of Hungary sent him the s^me year to Worms, in quality of her plenipotentiary to the king of Great Britain: where he put the finishing Hand to the/ treaty of alliance between the courts of Vienna, London, and Turin, and she declared him her actual privy counsellor at her coronation qf Bohemia. The count de Brown, in 1744, followed prince Lobkovitz jnto Italy, took the city of Veletri the 4th of August, notwithstanding the great superiority of the enemy in numbers, penetrated into their camp, defeated several regiments, and took a great many prisoners. Being recalled to Bavaria, he performed several military exploits, and returned to Italy in 1746. He drove the Spaniards out of the Milanese; and, having joined the army of the prince de Lichtenstein, he commanded the left wing of the Austrian troops at the battle of Placentia, the 15th of June 1746; and routed the right wing of the enemy’s army, commanded by the marechal de Maillebois. After this famous battle, the gaining of which was due to him, he commanded in chief the army ordered against the Genoese, made himself master of the pass of la Bochetta, though defended by 4000 men, and took possession of the city of Genoa. Count Brown then went to join the troops of the king of Sardinia, and, in conjunction with him, took Montalbano and the territory of Nice. He passed the Var the 30th of November, in opposition to the French troops, entered Provence, and captured the isles of Saint-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat. He had nearly made himself master of all Provence, when the revolution at Genoa and the army of the marechal de Belleisle obliged him to make that fine retreat which acquired him the admiration of all good judges of. military tactics. He employed the rest of the year 1747 in defending the states of the house of Austria in Italy. The empress-queen of Hungary, in reward of his signal campaigns in Italy, made him governor of Transylvania in 1749. In 1752 he had the government of the city of Prague, with the general command of the troops of that kingdom; and the king of Poland, elector of Saxony, honoured him in 1755 with the order of the white eagle. The king of Prussia having invaded Saxony in 1756, and attacked Bohemia, count Brown marched against him; he repulsed that prince at the battle of Lobositz the 1st of October, although he had but 26,800 men, and the king of Prussia was at the head of at least 40,000. Within a week after this engagement, he undertook that celebrated march into Saxony, for delivering the Saxon troops shut up between Pirna and Konigstein: an action worthy of the greatest general whether ancient or modern. He afterwards obliged the Prussians to retreat from Bohemia; for which service he obtained the collar of the golden fleece, with which he was honoured by the empress March 6, 1757. Shortly after this count Brown went into Bohemia, where he raised troops with the utmost expedition, in order to make head against the king of Prussia, who had entered it afresh at the head of his whole army. On May 6th was fought the famous battle of Potshernitz, or of Prague, when count Brown was dangerously wounded. Obliged to retire to Prague, he there died of his wounds, the 26th of June 1757, at the age of 52. The count was not only a great general, he was an equally able negotiator, and well skilled in politics. He married, Aug. 15, 1726, Maria Philippina countess of Mar tinitz, of an illustrious and ancient family in Bohemia, by whom he had two sons. The life of this excellent commander was published in two separate volumes, one in German, the other in French, printed at Prague in 1757.

, the first bishop that embraced and promoted the Reformation in Ireland, was originally an Austin friar of London. He received his academical education in the house of his order, near Halywell, in Oxford, and becoming eminent for his learning and other good qualities, was made provincial of the Austin monks in England. In 1523 he supplicated the university for the degree of B. D. but it does not appear that he was then admitted. He took afterwards the degree of D. D. in some university beyond sea, and was incorporated in the same degree at Oxford, in 1534, and soon after at Cambridge. Before that time, having read some of Luther’s writings, he took a liking to his doctrine; and, among other things, was wont to inculcate into the people, “That they should make their applications solely to Christ, and not to the Virgin Mary, or the saints.” King Henry VIII. being informed of this, took him into his favour, and promoted him to the archbishopric of Dublin, to which he was consecrated March 19, 1534-5, by Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the bishops of Rochester and Salisbury. A few months after his arrival in Ireland, the lord privy-seal, Cromwell, signified to him that his majesty having renounced the Papal supremacy in England, it was his highness’ s pleasure that his subjects of Ireland should obey his commands in that respect as in England, and nominated him one of the commissioners for the execution thereof. On November 28, 1535, he acquainted the lord Cromwell with his success; telling him that he had “endeavoured, almost to the danger and hazard of his life, to procure the nobility and gentry of the Irish nation to due obedience, in owning the king their supreme head, as-well spiritual as temporal.” In the parliament which met at Dublin, May l, 1536, he was very instrumental in having the Act for the king’s supremacy over the church of Ireland passed; but he met with many obstacles in the execution of it; and the court of Rome used every effort to prevent any alterations in Ireland with regard to religious matters; for this purpose the pope sent over a bull of excommunication against all such as had ownedj or should own, the king’s supremacy within that kingdom, and the form of an oath of obedience to be taken to his holiness, at confessions. Endeavours were even used to raise a rebellion there; for one Thady é Birne, a Franciscan friar, being seized by archbishop Browne’s order, letters were found about him, from the pope and cardinals to O'Neal; in which, after commending his own and his father’s faithfulness to the church of Rome, he was exhorted “for the glory of the mother church, the honour of St. Peter, and his own security, to suppress heresie, and his holiness’s enemies.” And the council of cardinals thought fit to encourage his country, as a sacred island, being certain while mother church had a son of worth as himself, and those that should succour him and join therein, she would never fall, but have more or less a holding in Britain in spite of fate. In pursuance of this letter, O'Neal began to declare himself the champion of Popery; and having entered into a confederacy with others, they jointly invaded the Pale, and committed several ravages, but were soon after quelled. About the time that king Henry VIII. began to suppress the monasteries in England and Ireland, archbishop Browne completed his design of removing all superstitious reliques and images out of the two cathedrals of St. Patrick’s and the Holy Trinity, in Dublin, and out of the rest of the churches within his diocese, and in their room placed the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in gold letters. And in 1541, the king having converted the priory of the Holy Trinity into a cathedral church, consisting of a dean and chapter, our archbishop founded three prebends in the same in 1544, namely, St. Michael’s, St. John’s, and St. Michan’s, from which time it has generally been known by the name of Christ-church. King Edward VI. having caused the Liturgy to be published in English, sent an order to sir Anthony St. Leger, governor of Ireland, dated February 6, 1550-1, to notify to all the clergy of that kingdom, that they should use this book in all their churches, and the Bible in the vulgar tongue. When sir Anthony imparted this order to the clergy (on the 1st of March), it was vehemently opposed by the Popish party, especially by George Dowdall, primate of Armagh, but archbishop Browne received it with the utmost satisfaction; and on Easter-day following the Liturgy was read, for the first time within Ireland, in Christ -church, Dublin, in presence of the mayor and bailiffs of that city, the lord deputy St. Leger, archbishop Browne, &c. On this occasion the archbishop preached a sermon against keeping the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, and the worship of images, which is printed at the end of his life, and is the only part of his writings extant, except the letters mentioned above . But Dowdall, in consequence of his violent and unseasonable opposition to the king’s order, was deprived of the title of primate of all Ireland, which, by letters patent bearing date the 20th of October, 1551, was conferred on archbishop Browne, and his successors in the see of Dublin for ever. However, he did not long enjoy this dignity, for he was deprived both of it and his archbishopric in 1*554, the first of queen Mary I. under pretence that he was married, but in truth because he had zealously promoted the Reformation; and archbishop Dowdall, who had lived in exile during part of the reign of king Edward VI. recovered the title of primate, and also the archbishopric of Armagh, which had been given to Hugh Goodacre. While archbishop Browne enjoyed the see of Dublin, the cathedral of St. Patrick’s was suppressed for about the space of eight years; but queen Mary restored it to its ancient dignity, towards the end of the year 1554. The exact time of archbishop Browne’s death is not recorded; only we are told that he died about the year 1556. He was a man, says Usher, of a cheerful countenance; meek and peaceable: in his acts and deeds plain and downright; of good parts, and very stirring in what he judged to be for the interest of religion, or the service of his king; merciful and compassionate to the poor and miserable; and adorned with every good and valuable qualification.

, D.D. provost of Queen’s-college, Oxford, was born at a place called the Tongue, in Watermillock, Cumberland, in 1700, and was baptised Dec. 19, of that year. His father, George Browne, was a reputable yeoman, who was enabled to give his son a classical education at Barton school, and afterwards sent him to Queen’s-college, where he was admitted a member March 22, 1716-17. Here his good behaviour and rapid progress in knowledge, procured him many friends that were of great service to him. In due time he was elected taberdar upon the foundation; and having gone through that office with honour, he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 4th, 1724, and was chosen one of the chaplains of the college. In 1726 he published, from the university press, a most beautiful edition of cardinal Barberini’s Latin poems, with notes and a life of the author, (who was afterwards pope Urban VIII.) and a dedication to his friend Edward Hassel, esq. of Dalemain* his friend and patron. In April 1731, he was elected fellow, and became an eminent tutor, having several young noblemen of the first rank intrusted to his care. In this useful and important station he continued many years, exercising strict discipline, and assiduously studying to promote the prosperity of the college. He took the degree of D. D. July 9, 1743, and was presented by the provost and society to the rectory of Bramshot, in Hampshire, May 1, 1746, The university also conferred upon him the professorship of natural philosophy in 1747, which he held till his death. At his living at Bramshot, he resided more than ten years, during which time he was collated to the chancellorship of Hereford, and was made a canon-residentiary by the right rev. lord James Beauclerk, bishop of that diocese, who had formerly been his pupil.

Upon the death of Dr. Smith, provost of Queen’s, Nor. 23, 1756, Dr. Browne offered himself a candidate for the headship, and had for his formidable competitor, Dr. George Fothergill, principal of Edmund-hall, who had likewise been fellow of the college, an eminent tutor, and a person universally esteemed. The election lasted three days, and each candidate having upon every day’s scrutiny an equality of votes, both among the senior and junior fellows, Dr. Browne being the senior candidate, was, as the statute directs, declared duly elected. This contest, however, made no disagreement between the two competitors; they lived in the same harmony and friendship as before. In 1759, Dr, Browne was appointed vicechancellor, which arduous office, together with that of his headship, he managed with great prudence and ability, till March 25, 1765, when a stroke of the palsy rendered him utterly incapable of business. Under this calamity he languished till June 17, 1767, when he died, leaving the character of being a well-bred man, a polite as well as a profound scholar, an agreeable companion, and a steady friend. There was a gravity and authority in his looks and deportment, that reflected dignity upon the offices he sustained. He cbntinued vice-chancellor an unusual length of time, and presided at the memorable Enccenia when the earl of Litchfield was installed. It is said that his death prevented his being advanced to one of the first vacancies Oh the episcopal bench.

, esq. F. R. S. and a very ingenious and elegant poet of the last century, was born at Burton-upon-Trent, January 21, 1705-6; and was the son of the rev. William Browne, minister of that parish, where he chiefly resided, vicar of Winge, in Buckinghamshire, and a prebendary of Litchfield, which last preferment was given him by the excellent bishop Hough. He was possessed, also, of a small paternal inheritance, which he greatly increased by his marriage with Anne, daughter of Isaac Hawkins, esq. all whose estate, at length, came to his only grandson and heir-at-law, the subject of this article. Our author received his grammatical education, first at Litchfield, and then at Westminster, where he was much distinguished for the brilliancy of his parts^ and the steadiness of his application. The uncommon rapidity with which he passed through the several forms or classes of Westminster school, attracted the notice, and soon brought him under the direction of the head master, Dr. Freind, with whom he was a peculiar favourite. Mr. Browne stayed above a year in the sixth, or head form, with a view of confirming and improving his taste for classical learning and composition, under so polite and able a scholar. When he was little more than sixteen years of age, he was removed to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which college his father had been fellow. He remained at the university till he had taken his degree of M. A. and though during his residence there he continued his taste for classical literature, which through his whole life was his principal object and pursuit, he did not omit the peculiar studies of the place, but applied himself with vigour and success to all the branches of mathematical science, and the principles of the Newtonian philosophy. When in May 1724, king George the First established at both universities, a foundation for the study of modern history and languages, with the design of qualifying young men for employments at court, and foreign embassies, Mr. Browne was among the earliest of those who were selected to be scholars upon this foundation. On the death of that prince, he wrote an university copy of verses, which was the first of his poems that had been printed, and was much admired. About the year 1727, Mr. Browne, who had been always intended for the bar, settled at Lincoln’s-inn. Here he prosecuted, for several years, with great attention, the study of the law, and acquired in it a considerable degree of professional knowledge, though he never arrived to any eminence in the practice of it, and entirely gave it up long before his death. He was the less solicitous about the practice of his profession, and it was of the less consequence to him, as he was possessed of a fortune adequate to his desires; which, by preserving the happy mean between extravagance and avarice, he neither diminished nor increased.

Mr. Browne’s application to the law did not prevent his occasionally indulging himself in the exercise of his poetical talents. It was not long after his settlement at Lincoln’s-inn that he wrote his poem on “Design and Beauty,” addressed to Highmore the painter, for whom he had a great friendship. In this, one of the longest of his poems, he shews an extensive knowledge of the Platonic philosophy; and pursues, through the whole, the idea of beauty advanced by that philosophy. By design is here meant, in a large and extensive sense, that power of genius which enables the real artist to collect together his scattered ideas, to range them in proper order, and to form a regular plan before he attempts to exhibit any work in architecture, painting, or poetry. He wrote several other poetical pieces during the interval between his fixing at LincolnVinn and his marriage one of the mostpleasing and popular of which was his “Pipe of Tobacco,” an imitation of Gibber, Ambrose Philips, Thomson, Young, Pope, and Swift, who were then all living; the peculiar manner of these several writers is admirably hit off by our author, who evidently possessed an excellent imitative genius. Indeed, nothing but a nice spirit of discrimination, and a happy talent at various composition, could have enabled him to have succeeded so well as he hath done in the “Pipe of Tobacco.” The imitation of Ambrose Philips was not written by our poet, but by an ingenious friend, the late Dr. John Hoaclly, chancellor of the diocese of Winchester, and second son of -the bishop. Dr. Hoadlyy however, acknowledged that his little imitation was altered so much for the better by Mr. Browne, that he fairly made it his own.

On the 10th of February 1743-4, Mr. Browne married Jane, daughter of the rev. Dr. David Trimnell, archdeacon of Leicester, and precentor of Lincoln, and niece to the right rev. Dr. Charles Trimnell, bishop of Winchester, a woman of great merit, and of a very amiable temper. He was chosen twice to serve in parliament; first upon a vacancy in December 1744, and then at the general election in 1748, for the borough of Wenlock in Shropshire, near to which his estate lay. This was principally owing to the interest of William Forester, esq. a gentleman of great fortune and ancient family in Shropshire, who recommended Mr. Browne to the electors, from the opinion he entertained of his abilities, and the confidence he had in his integrity and principles. As Mr. Browne had obtained his seat in parliament without opposition or expence, and without laying himself under obligations to any party, he never made use of it to interested or ambitious purposes. The principles, indeed, in which he had been educated, and which were confirmed by reading and experience, and the good opinion he had conceived of Mr. Pelham’s administration, led him usually to support the measures of government; but he never received any favour, nor desired any employment. He saw with great concern the dangers arising from parliamentary influence, and was determined that no personal consideration should biass his public conduct. The love of his country, and an ardent zeal for its constitution and liberties, formed a distinguishing part of his character. In private conversation, Mr. Browne possessed so uncommon a degree of eloquence, that he was the admiration and delight of all who knew him. It must, therefore, have been expected that he should have shone in the house of commons, as a public speaker. But he had a modesty and delicacy about him, accompanied with a kind of nervous timidity, which prevented him from appearing in that character. His case, in this respect, was similar to that of the third earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. Addison, and other ingenious men. Dr. Johnson said of him, “I. H. Browne, one of the first witsof this country, got into parliament, and never opened hismouth.”

Though Mr. Browne was bred to a profession, and sat several years in parliament, he was not so shining or distinguished a character in public as in private life . His private life was chiefly divided between his books and his friends. His reading took in a large compass; but he had the greatest delight in the Greek and Roman writers. Few men formed so early and lasting a taste, and acquired so familiar a knowledge of the ancient poets, philosophers, orators, and historians, particularly those of the purest ages; and hence it was that he derived the happy art of transfusing into the more serious of his compositions, the graces of their diction, and the strength of their sentiments, without servile imitation. He was very conversant likewise with the best English and Italian authors. His memory enabled him to retain every thing which he had heard or read; and he could repeat, with the greatest facility and gracefulness, the fine passages he had treasured up in his mind. Having a perfect ear for harmony and rhythm, he was an admirable reader both of prose and verse, and without having ever applied himself to the practice of music, his natural taste rendered him a good judge in that delightful art. With these various accomplishments, to which were added, a remarkably happy talent of telling a story, a genuine flow of wit, as well as eloquence, a peculiar vein of humour, and, indeed, an excellence in every species of conversation, it is not surprising that his company was almost universally sought for and desired. His acquaintance was so courted, that, though his private inclination would have led him to have lived retired, in the society of a few old friends, he became, at different periods of his life, intimate with all the distinguished men of the age, and with those especially, who were most eminent for their learning and parliamentary abilities. His particular friends were persons of distinguished merit and virtue. By these he was held in the highest esteem and respect, and his union with them was never broken by any thing but death. His fine feelings, his enlarged and exalted sentiments, and the general excellence of his character, continued to render any social connections with him as lasting as they were desirable and delightful. One great object of Mr. Browne’s attention, during the latter part of his life, was the education of his only son, to whom he was an excellent father and instructor. Our author, after having laboured a considerable time under a weak and infirm state of health, died, of a lingering illness, at his house in Great Russel-street, Bloomsbury-square, London, on the 14th of February, 1760, in the fifty-fifth year of his age. In 1768, the present Mr. Hawkins Browne published an elegant edition, in large octavo, of his father’s poems; upon which occasion he had the satisfaction of receiving fresh testimonies to their merit from many eminent men then living. To this edition is prefixed a very fine head by Ravenet from a picture by Highmore.

, vicar of Olney in Buckinghamshire, and chaplain of Morden college, was born in 1703, and was originally a pen-cutter. Early in life he distinguished himself by his, poetical talents, and when only twenty years of age, published a tragedy called “Polidus,” and a farce called “All-bedevilled,” which were played together at a private theatre in St. Alban’s-street, neither of much merit. He became afterwards a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and carried off several of the prizes which Cave, the printer and proprietor of that Magazine, then offered for the best compositions. When, Cave published a translation of Du Halde’s China, he inscribed the different plates to his friends, and one to “Moses Browne,” with which familiar designation Browne thought proper to be offended, and Cave, to pacify him, directed the engraver to introduce Mr. with a caret under the line. In 1729, he published his “Piscatory Eclogues,” without his name, which were reprinted in 1739, among his “Poems on various subjects,” 8vo, and again in an extended form, with notes, in 1773. For along time, however, even after his abilities were known, he remained in poverty, and in 1745, when it appears he had a wife and seven children, we find him applying to Dr. Birch for the situation of messenger, or door-keeper, to the royal society. In 1750, he published an edition of Walton and Cotton’s Angler, with a preface, notes, and some valuable additions, which was republished in 1759 and 1772, and in the former year drew him into a controversy with sir John Hawkins, who happened to be then publishing an improved edition of the same work. From his poems, as well as from the scattered observations in the “Angler,” he appears to have been always of a religious turn; and in 1752 published in verse, a series of devout contemplations, entitled “Sunday Thoughts,” which went through a second edition in 1764, and a third in 1781. In 1753, having some prospect of encouragement in the church, he took orders, and soon after his ordination was presented by the earl of Dartmouth to the vicarage of Olney in Buckinghamshire, on the cession of Mr. Wolsey Johnson. In 1754 he published a sermon, preached at Olney, on Christmas day, entitled “The Nativity and Humiliation of Jesus Christ, practically considered.” In 1755, he published a small quarto poem, entitled “Percy Lodge,” a seat of the duke and duchess of Somerset, written by command of their late graces, in 1749. In what year he was presented to the vicarage of Sutton, in Lincolnshire, we are not informed; but in 1763, he was elected to the chaplainship of Morden college in Kent, and some time after appointed the late rev. John Newton for his curate at Olney. In 1765 he published a sermon “preached to the Society for the Reformation of Manners,” and a few years after, a “Visitation Sermon,” delivered at Stony Stratford. Besides these, Mr. Browne is said to have published one or two political tracts; and in 1772, a translation of a work of John Liborius Zimmerman, entitled “The Excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” London, 12mo. He died at Morden college, Sept. 13, 1787, aged eighty-four. His wife died in 1783. Mr. Browne was a man of some learning and piety, but as a poet, we fear he cannot be allowed to rank higher than among versifiers.

Whilst in Jamaica, his residence was chiefly in Kingston, and it was he who first pointed out the absurdity of continuing Spanish-town the port and capital, while reason plainly pointed out Kingston, or in his own words, “the defects of a port of clearance to leeward;” and by his writings the governor and council represented the matter so strikingly to earl Granville, president of the council 1756, that the measure was immediately adopted, and Kingston made the port of clearance, to the very great benefit of commerce in general, as before that, when ships were clearing out of Kingston, and ready to weigh anchor, they were obliged to send near seven miles to Spanish-town, by which they often suffered great inconvenience and delay.

, a native of Ireland, /was at first provost of Trinity college in Dublin, and afterwards bishop of Cork: in the palace of which see he died in 1735, after having distinguished himself by some writings. 1. “A refutation of Toland’s Christianity not mysterious.” This was the foundation of his preferment; which occasioned him to say to Toland himself, that it was he who had made him bishop of Cork. 2. “The progress, extent, and limits of the human understanding,” 1728, 8vo. This was meant as a supplemental work, displaying more at large the principles on which he had confuted Toland. 3. “Sermons,” levelled principally against the Socinians, written in a manly and easy style, and much admired. He published also, 4. A little volume in 12mo, against the “Custom of drinking to the memory of the dead.” It was a fashion among the Whigs of his time, to drink to the glorious and immortal memory of king William III. which greatly disgusted our bishop, and is supposed to have given rise to the piece in question. His notion was that drinking to the dead is tantamount to praying for the dead, and not, as is really meant, an approbation of certain conduct or principles. The only effect, however, was that the whigs added to their toast, “in spite of the bishop of Cork.”

, an able and learned minister and writer among the protestant dissenters, and who was remarkable for a mental disorder of a most extraordinary kind, was born at Shepton-Mallet, in Somersetshire, about 1680. He was instructed in grammar by the rev. Mr. Cumming, who was pastor of a congregation in that town; from whence he was removed to Bridgewater, and finished Jiis studies under the care of the rev. Mr. Moor. As he possessed uncommon parts, which had been improved by the most assiduous application, he was very early thought qualified for the ministry; so that he began to preach some time before he was twenty years of age. His talents soon rendered him so conspicuous among the dissenters, that he was chosen minister of a considerable congregation at Portsmouth, in which situation he continued some years. In 1706, he published a small treatise, entitled “A caveat against evil Company.” In 1709, he published, in one volume, 8vo, “The true character of the real Christian.” He discharged the duties of the pastoral office at Portsmouth with so much fidelity and diligence, as procured him universal esteem; but, in 1716, he removed to the great regret of his congregation, in consequence of his being invited to accept of the pastoral charge of the congregation of protestant dissenters in the Old Jewry, London, which was one of the most considerable in the kingdom. In 1720, he published, in one volume, 12mo, “Hymns and Spiritual Songs, in three books.” In 1722, he published a volume of “Sermons,” and about the same time a “Letter to the rev. Thomas Reynolds,” in which he censures that gentleman and other dissenters for requiring of their brethren explicit declarations of their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. At the Old Jewry he continued to preach for about seven years with the greatest reputation, mid was much beloved and esteemed by his congregation: but, in 1723, a complicated domestic affliction, the loss of his wife, and of an only son, so deeply affected him, that he was at first in a state little different from distraction; and the disorder which his imagination had sustained from the shock that he had received, at length settled into a melancholy of a very extraordinary nature. He desisted from the duties of his function, and could not be persuaded to join in any act of worship, either public or private. He imagined, " that Almighty God, by a singular instance of divine power, had, in a gradual manner, annihilated in him the thinking substance, and utterly divested him of consciousness: that though he retained the human shape, and the faculty of speaking, in a manner that appeared to others rational, he had all the while no more notion of what he said than a parrot. And, very consistently with this, he looked upon himself as no longer a moral agent, a subject of reward or punishment. 7 ' He continued in this persuasion to the end of his life, with very little variation. Nothing grieved him more, than that he could not persuade others to think of him as he thought of himself. He sometimes considered this as questioning his veracity, which affected him in the most sensible manner; and he often took pains, by the most solemn asseverations, to remove such an imputation. At other times, and in a more gloomy hour, he would represent the incredulity which was manifested towards him, as a judicial effect of the same divine power jhat had occasioned this strange alteration in him, as if God had determined to proceed against him in this way, and would have no application made in his behalf. Upon this account, for a long while, he was unwilling that any prayers should be made for him; which, he would say, could be warranted by nothing but a faith in miracles, and even refused to say grace at table, or if urged to it, appeared in the greatest distress. At the beginning of his disorder, he was so unhappy in himself, as to have frequent propensities to deprive himself of life; but he afterwards grew more serene, and appeared to have little or no terror upon his mind. He considered himself as one who, though he had little to hope, had no more to fear, and was therefore, for the most part, calm and composed; and when the conversation did not turn upon himself, as it was generally rational and very serious, so was it often cheerful and pleasant. But his opinion concerning himself occasionally led him into inconsistencies; and when these were pointed out to him, he sometimes appeared much puzzled.

Whilst he was under the influence of this strange frenzy, it was extremely remarkable, that his faculties appeared to be in every other respect in their full vigour. He continued to apply himself to his studies, and discovered the same force of understanding which had formerly distinguished him, both in his conversation and in his writings. Having, however, quitted the ministry, he retired into the country, to his native town of Shepton-Mallet. Here, for some time, he amused himself with translating several parts of the ancient Greek and Latin poets into English verse. He afterwards composed several little pieces for the use of children, an English grammar and spelling-book, an abstract of the scripture -history, and a collection of fables, the two last both in metre. With great labour he also amassed together, in a short compass, all the themes of the Greek and Latin tongues, and compiled likewise a dictionary to each of these works, in order to render the learning of both those languages more easy and compendious. But neither of these pieces, nor several others which were written by him during his retirement, were ever printed. During the last two years of his life, he employed himself in the defence of the truth of Christianity, against some of the attacks which were then made against it; and also in recommending mutual candour to Christians of different sentiments concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1732, he published, in 8vo, “A sober and charitable disquisition concerning the importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; particularly with regard to Worship, and the doctrine of Satisfaction: endeavouring to shew, that those in the different schemes should bear with each other in their different sentiments; nor separate communions, and cast one another out of Christian-fellowship on this account.” The same year he published, “A fit Rebuke to a ludicrous Infidel, in some remarks on Mr. Woolston’s fifth Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour. With a preface concerning the prosecution of such writers by the civil powers.” It was in the same year also that he published his “Defence of the Religion of Nature, and the Christian Revelation, against the defective account of the one, and the exceptions against the other, in a book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation.” In all these pieces, though written in his retirement, with little assistance from books, or learned conversation, he yet displayed considerable extent of knowledge, and of argumentative powers. But to the last of these performances, he prefixed a very singular dedication to queen Caroline, expressive of the unhappy delusion under which he laboured; and which his friends prudently suppressed, aU though it is too great a curiosity to be lost . After his retirement into the country, he could not be prevailed upon to use any kind of exercise or recreation; so that a complication of disorders, contracted by his sedentary mode of living, at length brought on a mortification in his leg, which put a period to his life, at the close of the year 1732, in the fifty-second year of his age. He had several daughters, who survived him. He was a man of extensive knowledge, and very considerable learning. He was well skilled in theology, his sentiments were liberal, and he was a zealous advocate for freedom of inquiry. He appears, from the general tenor of his life, and of his writings, to have been a man of distinguished virtue, and of the most fervent piety, and to have been animated by an ardent zeal for the interests of rational and practical religion. His abilities made him respected, and his virtues rendered him beloved: but such was the peculiarity of his case, that he lived a melancholy instance of the weakness of human nature.

, an eminent physician and antiquary, was born in London, in the parish of St. Michael, Cheapside, Oct. 19, 1605. His father was a merchant, of an ancient family at Upton in Cheshire. He lost his father very early, and was defrauded by one of his guardians, by whom, however, or by his mother, who soon after his father’s death married sir Thomas Dutton, he was placed at Winchester school. In 1623 he was removed from Winchester to Oxford, and entered a gentlemancommoner of Broadgate-hall. Here he was admitted to his bachelor’s degree, Jan. 31, 1626-27, being the first person of eminence graduated from Broadgate-hall, when endowed and known as Pembroke-college. After taking his master’s degree, he turned his studies to physic, and practised it for some time in Oxfordshire, but soon afterwards, either induced by curiosity, or invited by promises, he quitted his settlement, and accompanied his father-in-law, who had some employment in Ireland, in a visitation of the forts and castles, which the state of Ireland then made necessary. From Ireland he passed into France and Italy; made some stay at Montpelier and Padua, which were then the celebrated schools of physic; and, returning home through Holland, procured himself to be created M. D. at Leyden, but when he began these travels, or when he concluded them, there is no certain account. It is, however, supposed that he returned to London in 1634, and that the following year he wrote his celebrated treatise, the “Religio Medici,” which he declares himself never to have intended for the press, having composed it only for his own exercise and entertainment. He had, however, communicated it to his friends, and by some means a copy was given to a printer in 1642, and was no sooner published than it excited the attention of the public by the novelty of paradoxes, the dignity of sentiment, the quick succession of images, the multitude of abstruse allusions, the subtlety of disquisition, and the strength of language.

The earl of Dorset recommended this book to the perusal of sir Kenelm Digby, who returned his judgment upon it, not in a letter, but in a book; in which, though mingled with some positions fabulous and uncertain, there are acute remarks, just censures, and profound speculations, yet its principal claim to admiration is, that it was written in twenty-four hours, of which part was spent in procuring Browne’s book, and part in reading it. This induced sir Thomas to publish a more correct edition of his work, which had great success. A Mr. Merryweather of Cambridge, turned it, not inelegantly, into Latin, and from his version it was again translated into Italian, German, Dutch, and French, and at Strasburgh the Latin translation was published with large notes, by Lenuus Nicolaus Moltfarius. Of the English annotations, which, in all the editions from 1644, accompany the book, the author is unknown. Merryweather, we are told, had some difficulty in getting his translation printed in Holland. The first printer to whom he offered it carried it to Salmasius, “who laid it by (says he) in state for three months,” and then discouraged its publication: it was afterwards rejected by two other printers, and at last was received by Hackius. The peculiarities of the book raised the author, as is usual, many admirers and many enemies; but we know not of more than one professed answer, written under the title of “Medicus Ivledicatus,” by Alexander Ross, which was universally neglected by the world. Abroad it was animadverted upon as having an irreligious tendency, by Guy Patin, by Tobias Wagner, by Muller, Reiser, and Buddeus, and w&s put into the Index Expurgatorius. At present it will probably be thought that it was both too much applauded and too much censured, and that it would have been a more useful book had the author’s fancy been more guided by judgment.

At the time when this book was published, Dr. Browne resided at Norwich, where he had settled in 1636, by the persuasion of Dr. Lushington, his tutor, who was then rector of Barnham Westgate, in the neighbourhood. It is recorded by Wood, that his practice was very extensive. In 1637 he was incorporated M. D, at Oxford. He married in 1641 Mrs. Mileham, of a good family in Norfolk, a lady of very amiable character. Dr. Johnson says this marriage could not but draw the raillery of contemporary wits upon a man, who had been just wishing, in his new book, “that we might procreate, like trees, without conjunction;” and had lately declared, that “the whole world was made for man, but only the twelfth part of man for woman,” and that “man is the whole world, but woman only the rib or crooked part of man.” They lived happily, however, together for forty-one years, during which she bore him ten children, of whom one son and three daughters outlived their parents. She survived him two years.

In 1716 there appeared a book of his in 12mo, entitled “Christian Morals,” published from the original and correct manuscript of the author, by John Jeffery, D. D. archdeacon of Norwich. It was dedicated by our author’s daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Littleton, to David, earl of Buchan. Of this a second edition was published in 1756 by Mr. John Payne, bookseller, and one of Dr. Johnson’s early patrons, who solicited him to write a life of sir Thomas. This, of which we have availed ourselves in the preceding account, may be classed among Dr. Johnson’s best biographical performances, and the present article may be very properly concluded with his character of Browne’s works. After mentioning the various writers who have noticed Browne, he adds, “But it is not on the praises of others, but on his own writings, that he is to depend for the esteem of posterity; of which he will not easily be deprived, while learning shall have any reverence among men: for there is no science in which he does not discover some skill; and scarce any kind of knowledge, profane or sacred, abstruse or elegant, which he does not appear to have cultivated with success. His exuberance of knowledge, and plenitude of ideas, sometimes obstruct the tendency of his reasoning, and the clearness of his decisions: on whatever subject he employed his mind, there started up immediately so many images before him, that he lost one by grasping another. His memory supplied him with so many illustrations, parallel or dependent notions, that he was always starting into collateral considerations: but the spirit and vigour of his pursuit always gives delight; and the reader follows him, without reluctance, through his mazes, in themselves flowery and pleasing, and ending at the point originally in view. To have great excellencies, and great faults, ‘ magn<e virtutes nee minora vitia, is the poesy/ says our author, l of the best natures.’ This poesy may be properly applied to the style of Browne: it is vigorous, but rugged; it is learned, but pedantic; it is deep, but obscure; it strikes, but does not please; it commands, but does not allure; his tropes are harsh, and his combinations uncouth. He fell into an age, in which our language began to lose the stability which it had obtained in the time of Elizabeth; and was considered by every writer as a subject on which he might try his plastic skill, by moulding it according to his own fancy. Milton, in consequence of this encroaching licence, began to introduce the Latin idiom; and Browne, though he gave less disturbance to our structures and phraseology, yet poured in a multitude of exotic words; many, indeed, useful and significant, which, if rejected, must be supplied by circumlocution, such as commensality for the state of many living at the same table; but many superfluous, as a paralogical for an unreasonable doubt; and some so obscure, that they conceal his meaning rather than explain it, as arthriticai analogies for parts that serve some animals in the place of joints. His style is, indeed, a tissue of many languages; a mixture of heterogeneous words, brought together from distant regions, with terms originally appropriated to one art, and drawn by violence into the service of another. He must, however, be confessed to have augmented our philosophical diction; and in defence of his uncommon words and expressions, we must consider, that he had uncommon sentiments, and was not content to express in many words that idea for which any language could supply a single term. But his innovations are sometimes pleasing, and his temerities happy: he has many verba ardentia, forcible expressions, which he would never have found, but by venturing to the utmost verge of propriety; and flights which would never have been reached, but by one who had very little fear of the shame of falling.”

, an ingenious English poet, was the son of Thomas Browne of Tavistock in Devonshire, gent, who, according to Prince, in his Worthies of Devon, was most probably a descendant from the knightly family of Browne of Brownes-Ilash in the parish of Langtree near Great Torrington in Devonshire. His son was born in 1590, and became a student of Exeter college, Oxford, about the beginning of the reign of James I. After making a great progress in classical and polite literature, he removed to the Inner Temple, where his attention to the study of the law was frequently interrupted by his devotion to the muses. In his twenty -third year (1613) he published, in folio, the first part of his “Britannia’s Pastorals,” which, according to the custom of the time, was ushered into the world with so many poetical eulogies, that he appears to have secured, at a very early age, the friendship and favour of the most celebrated of his contemporaries, among whom we find the names of Selden and Drayton. To these he afterwards added Davies of Hereford, Ben Jonson, and others. That he wrote some of these pastorals before he had attained his twentieth year, has been conjectured from a passage in Book I. Song V.; but there is sufficient internal evidence, independent of these lines, that much of tham was the offspring of a juvenile fancy. In the following year, he published in 8vo, “The Shepherd’s Pipe,” in seven eclogues. In the fourth of these he laments the death of his friend Mr. Thomas Manwood, under the name of Philarete, the precursor, as some critics assert, of Milton’s Lycidas.

In 1616, he published the second part of his “Britannia’s Pastorals,” recommended as before, by his poetical friends, whose praises he repaid with liberality in the body of the work. The two parts were reprinted in 8vo in 1625, and procured him, as is too frequently the case, more fame than profit. About a year before this, he appears to have taken leave of the muses, and returned to< Exeter college, in the capacity of tutor to Robert Dormer, earl of Caernarvon, a nobleman who fell at the battle of Newbury in 1643, while fighting gallantly for his king, at the head of a regiment of horse, and of whom lord Clarendon has given us a character drawn with his usual discrimination and fidelity. While guiding the studies of this nobleman, Browne was created master of arts, with this honourable notice in the public register, “Vir omni huinana literatura et bonarum artium cognitione instructus.”

After leaving the university with, lord Caernarvon, hefound a liberal patron in William earl of Pembroke, of whom likewise we have a most elaborate character in Clarendon, some part of which reflects honour on our poet.­“He was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice, which he believed could only support it: and his friendships were only it ith men of those principles. And as his conversation was most with men of the most pregnant parts and understanding; so towards any such, who needed support, or encouragement, though unknown, if fairly recommended to him, he was very liberal.” This nobleman, who had a respect for Browne probably founded on the circumstances intimated in the above character, took him into his family, and employed him in such a manner, according to Wood, that he was enabled to purchase an estate. Little more, however, is known of his history, nor is the exact time of his death ascertained. Wood finds that one of both his names, of Ottery St. Mary in Devonshire, died in the winter of 1645, but knows not whether this be the same. He hints at his person in these words, “as he had a little body, so a great mind;” a high character from this biographer who had no indulgence for poetical failings.

Browne has experienced the fate of many of his contemporaries whose fame died with them, and whose writings have been left to be revived, under many disadvantages, by an age of refined taste and curiosity. The civil wars which raged about the time of his death, and whose consequences continued to operate for many years after, diverted the public mind from the concerns of poetry. The lives of the poets were forgotten, and their works perished through neglect or wantonness. We have no edition of Browne’s poems from 1625 to 1772, when Mr. Thomas Davies, the bookseller, was assisted by some of his learned friends in publishing them, in three small volumes. The advertisement, prefixed to the first volume, informs us that the gentlemen of the king’s library procured the use of the first edition of “Britannia’s Pastorals,” which had several manuscript notes on the margin, written by the rev. William Thomson, one of the few scholars of his time who studied the antiquities of English poetry. Mr. Thomas Warton contributed his copy of the “Shepherd’s Pipe,” which was at that time so scarce that no other could be procured. Mr. Price, the librarian of the Bodleian library, sent a correct copy of the Elegy upon the death of Henry prince of Wales, from a manuscript in that repository; and Dr. Farmer furnished a transcript of the “Inner Temple Mask” from the library of Emanuel college, which had nevr before been printed. With such helps, a correct edition might have been expected, but the truth is, that the few editions of ancient poets, (Suckling, Marvel!, Carew, &c.) which Davies undertook to print, are extremely deficient in correctness. Of this assertion, which the comparison of a few pages with any of the originals will amply confirm, we have a very striking instance in the present work, in which two entire pages of the Book I. of Britannia’s Pastorals were omitted.

His works exhibit abundant specimens of true inspiration; and had his judgment been equal to his powers of invention, or had he yielded less to the bad taste of his age, or occasionally met with a critic instead of a flatterer, he would have been entitled to a much higher rank in the class of genuine poets. His Pastorals form a vast storehouse of rural imagery and description, and in personifying the passions and affections, he exhibits pictures that are not only faithful, but striking, just to nature and to feeling, and frequently heightened by original touches of the pathetic and sublime, and by many of those wild graces which true genius only can exhibit. It is not improbable that he studied Spenser, as well as the Italian poets. To the latter he owes something of elegance and something of extravagance. From the former he appears to have caught the idea of a story like the Faery Queene, although it wants regularity of plan; and he follows his great model in a profusion of allegorical description and romantic landscape. His versification, which is so generally harmonious, that where he fails it may be imputed to carelessness, is at the same time so various as to relax the imagination with specimens of every kind, and he seems to pass from the one to the other with an ease that we do not often find among the writers of lengthened poems. Those, however, who are in search of faulty rhimes, of foolish conceits, of vulgar ideas, and of degrading imagery, will not lose their pains. He was, among other qualities, a man of humour, and his humour is often exceedingly extravagant. So mixed, indeed, is his style, and so whimsical his flights, that we are sometimes reminded of Swift in all his grossness, and sometimes of Milton in the plenitude of his inspiration. Mr. Warton has remarked that the morning landscape of the L* Allegro is an assemblage of the same objects which Browne had before collected in his Britannia’s Pastorals, B. IV. Song IV. beginning

Prince informs us, that “as he had honoured his country with his sweet and elegant Pastorals, 90 it was expected, and he also entreated, a little farther to grace it by his drawing out the line of his poetic ancestors, beginning in Joseph Iscanus, and ending in himself: a noble design, if it had been effected.” Josephus Iscanus was Joseph of Exeter, who flourished in the thirteenth century, and wrote two epic poems in Latin heroics. Had Browne begun much later, he would have conferred a very high obligation on posterity. Collections of poetry are of very ancient date, but very little is known with certainty of the lives of English poets, and that little, must now be recovered with great difficulty.

On a controversy for a raker in the parish where he lived in London, carried on so warmly as to open taverns for men, and coffee-house breakfasts for ladies, he exerted himself greatly; wondering a man bred at two universities should be so little regarded. (He had been expelled one, and therefore taken degrees at another.) A parishioner answered: “he had a calf that sucked two cows, and a prodigious great one it was.” He used to frequent the annual ball at the ladies’ boarding-school, Queen-square, merely as a neighbour, a good-natured man, and fond of the company of sprightly young folks. A dignitary of the church being there one day to see his daughter dance, and finding this upright figure stationed there, told him he believed he was Hermippus redivivus, who lived anhelitu puellarum. At the age of eighty, on St. Luke’s day, 1771, he came to BaU son’s coffee-house in hisjaced coat and band, and fringed white gloves, to shew himself to Mr. Crosby, then lord-mayor. A gentleman present observing that he looked very well, he replied, “he had neither wife nor debts.” He next published, “Fragmentum I. Hawkins completum,” 1769, 4to. 7. “Appendix ad Opuscula;” six Odes, 1770, 4to, comprising: I. De senectute. Ad amicum D. Roger um Long, apud Cantabrigienses, aulse custodem Pembrokianae, theologum, astronomum, doctissimum, jucundissimum, annum nonagesimum agentem, scripta. Adjecta versione Anglica. Ab amico D. Gulielmo Browne, annum agente fere octogesimum. IL De choreis, et festivitate. Ad nobilissimum ducem Leodensem, diem Walliae principis natalem acidulis Tunbrigiensibus celebrantem, scripta. A theologo festivo, D. Georgio Lewis. Adjecta versione Anglica ab amico, D. Gulielmo Browne. III. De ingenio, et jucunditate. Ad Lodoicum amicum, sacerdotem Cantianum, ingeniosissimum, jucundissimum, scripta. Adjecta versione Anglica. A. D. Gulielmo Browne, E. A. O. M. L. P. S. R. S. IV. De Wilkesio, et libertate. Ad doctorem Thomarn Wilson, theologum doctissimum, liberrimum, tarn mutui amici, Wilkesii, amicum, quam suum, scripta. V. De otio medentibus debito. Ad Moysseum amicum, medicum Bathoniac doctissimum, humanissimum, scripta. VI. De potiore metallis libertate: et omnia vincente fortitudine. Ad eorum utriusque patronum, Gulielmum ilium Pittium, omni et titulo et laude majorem, scripta. 8. Three more Odes, 1771, 4to. 9. “A Proposal on our Coin, to remedy all present, and prevent all future disorders. To which are prefixed, preceding proposals of sir John Barnard, and of William Shirley, esq. on the same subject. With remarks,” 1774, 4to, dedicated “To the most revered memory of the right honourable Arthur Onslow, speaker of the house of commons during thirty-three years; for ability, judgement, eloquence, integrity, impartiality, never to be forgotten or excelled; who sitting in the gallery, on a committee of the house, the day of publishing this proposal, and seeing the author there, sent to speak with him, by the chaplain; and, after applauding his performance, desired a frequent correspondence, and honoured him with particular respect, all the rest of his life, this was, with most profound veneration, inscribed.” 10. A New-Y.ear’s Gift. A problem, and demonstration on the XXXIX Articles,“1772, 4to.” This problem and demonstration,“he informs us,” though now first published, on account of the present controversy concerning these articles, owe their birth to my being called upon to subscribe them, at an early period of life. For in my soph’s year, 1711, being a student at Peter-house, in the university of Cambridge, just nineteen years of age, and having performed all my exercises in the schools (and also a first opponency extraordinary to an ingenious pupil of his, afterwards Dr. Barnard, prebendary of Norwich) on mathematical qusestions, at the particular request of Mr. proctor Laughton, of Clare-hall, who drew me into it by a promise of the senior optime of the year), I was then first informed that subscribing these articles was a necessary step to taking my degree of B. A. as well as all other degrees. I had considered long before at school, and on my admission in 1707, that the universal profession of religion must much more concern me through life, to provide for rny happiness hereafter, than the particular profession of physic, which I proposed to pursue, to provide for my more convenient existence here: and therefore had selected out of the library left by my father (who had himself been a regular physician, educated under the tuition of sir J. Ellis, M. D. afterwards master of Caius college), Chiilingworth’s Religion of a Protestant; the whole famous Protestant and Popish controversy; Commentaries on Scripture; and such other books as suited my purpose. I particularly pitched upon three for perpetual pocket-companions; Bleau’s Greek Testament; Hippocratis Aphoristica, and Elzevir Horace; expecting from the first to draw divinity, from the second physic, and from the last good sense and vivacity. Here I cannot forbear recollecting my partiality for St. Luke, because he was a physician; by the particular pleasure I took in perceiving the superior purity of his Greek, over that of the other Evangelists. But I did not then know, what I was afterwards taught by Dr. Freind’s learned History of Physic, that this purity was owing to his being a physician, and consequently conversant with our Greek fathers of physic. Being thus fortified, I thought myself as well prepared for an encounter with these articles, as so young a person could reasonably be expected. I therefore determined to read them over as carefully and critically as I could; and upon this, met with so many difficulties, utterly irreconcileable by me to the divine original, that I almost despaired of ever being able to subscribe them. But, not to be totally discouraged, I resolved to re-consider them with redoubled diligence; and then at last had the pleasure to discover, in article VI. and XX. what appeared to my best private judgement and understanding a clear solution of all the difficulties, and an absolute defeazance of that exceptionable authority, which inconsistently with scripture they seem to assume. I subscribe my name to whatever I offer to the public, that I may be answerable for its being my sincere sentiment: ever open, however, to conviction, by superior reason and argument.

The author repeated these verses to Dr. Cadogan himself, who censured their want of rhyme; he answered, that “the gout had a fourth cause, study, which was never his case: if he did not understand law and gavelkind, he would not talk to him; for there were two sorts of gout, freehold and copyhold; the first where it was hereditary, the other where a person by debauchery took it up.” 13. “Speech to the Royal Society,” 1772, 4to. 14. “Elogy and address,” 1773, 4to. 15. A Latin version of Job, unfinished, 4to.

Sir William Browne’s will, an attested copy of which is now before us, is not the least singular of his compositions, and may be said to be written in Greek, Latin, and English. From many of the legacies, however, and particularly his mode of introducing them, we perceive the kindness and benevolence of his heart, which, in the circle of his more immediate friends, probably atoned for his many oddities. The above account of his works sufficiently shows that he was a very weak man, and with all the conceit which usually accompanies defective judgment. With the periodical critics, he was long an object of ridicule, and conquered them only by writing faster than they had patience to read. Unsuccessful, however, as he was himself, he determined that better writers should not be without encouragement, and therefore by his will, directed three gold medals, of five guineas each, to be given yearly to three undergraduates of Cambridge on the Commencement day, when the exercises are publicly read, and copies of them sent, by the successful candidates, to sir Martin Folkes, his grandson by his only daughter. The first, to him who writes the best Greek ode in imitation of Sappho; the second for the best ode in imitation of Horace; the third for the best Greek and Latin epigrams, the former after the manner of Anthologia, the latter after the model of Martial. These have been adjudged since 1775. He also left a perpetual rent charge of 2 1/, per annum, upon sundry estates, for founding a scholarship, which is tenable for seven years; but the possessor, if of another college, must remove to the founder’s college, Peter-house, and reside there every entire term during his under-graduatesbip.

, bishop of Exeter, was born at Ipswich in Suffolk, in 1592. His father, who was a merchant of that place, dying when he was but a few weeks old, his mother took due care of his education, in which he made a very considerable progress. At the age of fourteen, he was sent to Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, of which he successively became scholar and fellow; and there he distinguished himself by his facetious and inoffensive wit, his eloquence, and his great skill and knowledge in philosophy, history, poetry, &c. He took his master’s degree in 1617, B. D. in 1621, and D. D. in 1626. He was appointed prevaricator when James I. visited the university, and discharged that employment to the universal aUmiration of the whole audience. His first preferments were, the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire, and a prebend of Ely in 1621, to both which he was collated by Dr. Nicholas Felton, bishop of Ely. July 15, 1628, he was incorporated doctor of divinity at Oxford. On the 2 1st of September, 16-29, he was collated to the prebend of Tachbrook, in the cathedral church of Lichfield, which he quitted September 19, 1631, when he was admitted to the archdeaconry of Coventry. He was likewise master of Catherine-hall in Cambridge, and proved a great benefit and ornament both to that college and the whole university. In 1637, 1638, 1643, and 1644, he executed the office of vice-chancellor, to the universal satisfaction of all people, and to his own great credit. In 1641, he was presented to the eleventh stall or prebend in the church of Durham, by Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of that diocese, to whom he was chaplain. Upon the translation of Dr. Joseph Hall to the bishopric of Norwich, Dr. Brown rig was nominated to succeed him in the see of Exeter, in 1641. Accordingly he was elected March 3 1, 1642; confirmed May 14; consecrated the day following; and installed the 1st of June. But the troubles that soon after followed, did not permit him long to enjoy that dignity. Before the beginning of them, he was much esteemed, and highly commended, by his relation John Pym, and others of the presbyterian stamp: but they forsook him, only because he was a bishop; and suffered him to be deprived of his revenues, so that he was almost reduced to want. Nay, once he was assaulted, and like to have been stoned by the rabble, his episcopal character being his only crime. About 1645, he was deprived of his mastership of Catherine-hall> on account of a sermon preached by him before the university, on the king’s inauguration, at some passages of which, offence was taken by the parliament party; and neither his piety, gravity, or learning, were sufficient to preserve him in his station. Being thus robbed of all, he retired to the house of Thomas Rich, of Sunning, esq. in Berkshire, by whom he was generously entertained: and there, and sometimes at London, at Highgate, and St. Edmundsbury, spent several years. During this time, he had the courage to advise Oliver Cromwell to restore king Charles II. to his just rights, but yet he suffered in his reputation, as not being zealous enough for the church. About a year before his decease, he was invited to be a preacher at the Temple, in London, with a handsome allowance; and accordingly he went and settled there, in good lodgings furnished for him. But his old distemper, the stone, coming upon him with greater violence than usual, and being attended with the dropsy and the infirmities of age, they all together put an end to his life, on the 7th of December, 1659: he was buried the 17th following in the Temple church, where there is an epitaph over him. He was once married, but never had a child. Though he was very elaborate and exact in his compositions, and completely wrote his sermons, yet he could not be persuaded to print any thing in his life-time. Bishop Brownrig, as to his person, was tall and comely. The majesty of his presence was so allayed with meekness, candour, and humility, that no man was farther from any thing morose or supercilious. He had a great deal of wit, as well as wisdom; and was an excellent scholar, an admirable orator, an acute disputant, a pathetic preacher, and a prudent governor, full of judgment, courage, constancy, and impartiality. He was, likewise, a person of that soundness of judgment, of that conspicuity for an unspotted life, and of that unsuspected integrity, that he was a complete pattern to all. Dr. Gauden, who had known him above thirty years, declares that he never heard of any thinor said or done by him, which a wise and good man would have wished unsaid or undone. Some other parts of Dr. Gauden’s character of him may be supposed to proceed from the, warmth of friendship. Echard says of him, that “he was a great man for the Anti-Arminian cause (for he was a rigid Calvinist), yet a mighty champion for the liturgy and ordination by bishops: and his death was highly lamented by men of all parties.' 7 Baxter, Neal, and other writers of the nonconformist party, are no less warm in his praises. He was one of those excellent men with whom archbishop Tillotson cultivated an acquaintance at his first coming to London, and by whose preaching and example he formed himself. After his death some of his sermons were published, under the title” Forty Sermons, &c." 1662, fol. and reprinted with the addition of twenty-five, making a second volume, 1674, fol. His style is rather better than that of many of his contemporaries.

, an eminent physician, a native of Cumberland, was born in 1711, and educated in medical science at Leyden, under Albinus, Euler, and Boerhaave. Having taken his medical degree in 1737, he returned to his native country, and settled at Whitehaven, where his practice became very extensive. About twenty years before his death, he retired to Ormathwaite, where he died, Jan. 7, 1800, in his eighty-ninth year, regretted as a man of amiable and endearing virtues, and a most skilful physician. His principal publications were, 1. His inaugural thesis, “De Praxi medica ineunda,” Leyden, 1737, 4to. 2. “A treatise on the art of making common Salt,” Lond. 1748, 8vo, which procured him the honour of being chosen a fellow of the royal society. This work, which has long been out of print, was praised by Chaptal and bishop Watson for the profound knowledge of the subject displayed in it. 3. “An enquiry concerning the mineral elastic spirit contained in the water of Spa in Germany,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. LV. 4. A treatise, “On the means of preventing the communication of pestilent contagion.” A trip to the Spas of Germany suggested to him the idea of analizing the properties of the Pyrmont springs, and of some others, and led him into that train of nice and deep disquisition, which terminated in the de-elementizing one of our elements, and fixing its invisible fluid form into a palpable and visible substance. All this he effected by producing the various combinations of gases and vapours which constitute atmospheric air, and separating into many forms this long-supposed one and indivisible, whilst he solidified its fluid essence into a hard substance. That Dr. Brownrigg was the legitimate father of these discoveries was not only known at the time to his intimate and domestic circle, but also to the then president of the royal society, sir John Pringle; who, when called upon to bestow upon Dr. Priestley the gold medal for his paper of “Discoveries of the Nature and Properties of Air,” thus observes, “And it is no disparagement to the learned Dr. Priestley, that the vein of these discoveries was hit upon, and its course successfully followed up, some years ago, by my very learned, very penetrating, very industrious, but too modest friend, Dr. Brownrigg.” To habits, indeed, of too much diffidence, and to too nice a scrupulosity of taste, the world has to attribute the fewness of his publications. One of his literary projects was a general history of the county of Cumberland, but it does not appear that he had made much progress. He assisted Mr. West, however, in his entertaining.“Tour to the Lakes,” forming the plan of that popular work.

By this melancholy event, Mr. Bruce lost the principal tie that connected him with business, and although he did not think it prudent to relinquish a flourishing trade with-? out some equivalent object, relaxed his personal efforts very considerably, and added to his stock of languages, the Spanish and Portuguese. He also improved his skill in drawing, under a master of the name of Bonneau, recommended to him by Mr. (afterwards sir) Robert Strange. Before this time he had chiefly cultivated that part of drawing which relates to the science of fortification, in hopes that he might, on some emergency, find it of use in military service. But views of a more extensive kind now induced him to study drawing in general, and to obtain a correct taste in painting, so as to be able to visit with advantage those countries which possess the finest specimens of skill and genius in that department of the arts. This notice of Mr. Bruce' s application to the study of drawing we have given in the words of his biographer, because it was long and confidently reported by those who wished to lessen Mr. Bruce’s reputation, that he was totally and incorrigibly ignorant of the art.

His “Travels,” after many years of eager expectation on the part of the public, were published in 1790, at London, in 5 vols. 4to, under the title “Travels to discover the Source of the Nile, in the years 1768 1773.” Thereception they met with was exceeding -flattering, yet numerous attacks were made on the author’s character and veracity in the periodical journals, to which it is unnecessary now to refer . It seems agreed that the general credit of the work has survived. We cannot perhaps quote a higher authority than that of Dr. Vincent, who observes that “Bruce may have offended from the warmth of his temper; he may have been misled by aspiring to knowledge and science which he had not sufficiently examined; but his work throughout bears internal marks of veracity, in all instances where he was not deceived himself; and his observations were the best which a man, furnished with such instruments, and struggling for his life, could obtain.”

, a laborious Italian writer, was born at Florence towards the conclusion of the fifteenth century. Having meddled in 1522 in the plot formed by some Florentine citizens against cardinal Julius de Medicis, afterwards pope Ciement VII. he was obliged to expatriate himself, and withdrew into France. The Medici being driven out of Florence in 1527, this revolution brought him back to his country, where the liberty with which he chose to speak against the monks and priests, raised a suspicion of his being attached to the opinions of Luther. He was put into prison, and would not have escaped an ignominious death but for the kind offices of his friends; who procured a mitigation of his punishment to an exile of two years. He then retired to Venice with his brothers, who were printers and booksellers, and employed their presses in printing the greater part of his works, of which the most known and the most in request, is the, whole Bible translated into Italian, with annotations and remarks, which was put by the papists in the number of heretical books of the first class; but the protestants held it in such high esteem that it passed through several editions. The most ample and the most scarce is that of Venice, 1546 and 1548, 3 vols. folio. Brucioli pretends to have made his translation from the Hebrew text: but the truth is, that, being but moderately versed in that language, he made use of the Latin version of Pagnini. His other works are, 1. Italian translations of the natural history of Pliny, and several pieces of Aristotle and Cicero. 2. Editions of Petrarch and Bocace, with notes. 3. “Dialogues,” Venice, 1526, folio. The year of his death is not known; but it is certain that he was still alive in 1554.

, a Lutheran divine, settled in England, was born in the small island of Cadsand, near the Belgic frontier, Dec. 31, 1726, and was educated with a view to the theological profession, chiefly at the university of Franeker, whence he passed to Leyden, There he obtained a pastorship, and profited by the society of Hemsterhuis, of Valkenäer, and especially of the elder Schultens. His literary acquirements were eminent; he read the Hebrew and the Greek; he composed correctly; and has preached with applause in four languages, Latin, Butch, French, and English. In 1752, Mr. Columbine, of a French refugee family, which had contributed to found, and habitually attended, the Walloon church at Norwich, was intrusted by that congregation, when he was on a journey into Holland, to seek out a fit successor to their late pastor, Mr. Valloton, and applied, after due inquiry, to Mr. Bruckner, who accepted the invitation, and early in 1753 settled as French preacher at Norwich, where he officiated during fifty-one years, with undiminished approbation. About the year 1766, Mr. Bruckner succeeded also to Dr. Van Sarn, as minister of the Dutch church, of which the duties gradually became rather nominal than real, in proportion as the Dutch families died oft', and as the cultivation of their language was neglected by the trading world for the French. The French tongue Mr. Bruckner was assiduous to diffuse, and gave public and private lessons of it for many years. His income was now convenient and progressive. He kept a horse and a pointer, for he took great pleasure in shooting. He drew occasionally, and has left a good portrait of his favourite dog. He cultivated music, and practised much on the organ. In 1767 was printed at Leyden his “Theorie du Systme Animal,” in the seventh and tenth chapters of which there is much anticipation of the sentiments lately evolved in the writings of Mr. Mai thus. This work was well translated into English, under the title “A Philosophical Survey of the Animal Creation,” published for Johnson and Payne in 1768. Mr. Bruckner was married in 1782, to Miss Cooper, of Guist, formerly his pupil. In 1790, he published under the name Cassander, from his birth-place, those “Criticisms on the Diversions of Purley,” which attracted some hostile flashes from Mr. Home Tooke, in his subsequent quarto edition. This pamphlet displays a profound and extensive knowledge of the various Gothic dialects, and states that the same theory of prepositions and conjunctions, so convincingly applied in the “Epea pteroenta” to the northern languages, had also been taught concerning the Hebrew and other dead languages by Schultens. Mr. Wakefield’s pamphlet against Social Worship drew from Mr. Bruckner, in 1792, a learned reply. In the preface to these “Thoughts on Public Worship,” hopes are given of a continuation still desiderated by the friends of religion. Mr. Bruckner began a didactic poem in French verse, which had for its object to popularize in another form, the principles laid down in. his Theory of the Aoimal System. A gradual failure rather of spirits than of health, seems often to have suspended or delayed the enterprise; to have brought on a restless and fastidious vigilance; and to have prepared that termination of his life, which took place on the morning of Saturday, May 12, 1804. He was buried, according to his own desire, at Guist, near the kindred of his respected widow. His society was courted to the last; as his conversation was always distinguished for good sense, for argument, and for humour. He was beloved for his attentions and affability; esteemed for his probity and prudence; and admired for his understanding and learning.

, professor of natural philosophy and mathematics at Utrecht, was born at Gorcum in 1620. He went through a course of philosophy at Leyden; and then pursued his studies at Bois-le-duc, where he was very much esteemed by Samuel des Marets, who taught philosophy and divinity, in that place. He went from thence to Utrecht, where he learnt the mathematics, and then removed to Leyden, where he obtained leave to teach them. He was afterwards made professor at Utrecht; and because the professors had agreed among themselves that every one might teach at home such a part of philosophy as he should think fit, de Bruin, not contented with teaching what his public professorship required, made also dissections, and explained Grotius’s book “De jure belli et pacis.” He had uncommon skill in dissecting animals, and was a. great lover of experiments. He^made also observations in astronomy. He published dissertations “De vi altrice,” “De corporum gravitate et levitate,” “De cognitione Dei naturali,” “De iucis causa et origine,” &c. He had a dispute with Isaac Vossius, to whom he wrote a letter, printed at Amsterdam in 1663; wherein he cites Vossius’s book De natura et propnetate Iucis, and strenuously maintains the hypothesis of Descartes. He wrote also an apology for the Cartesian philosophy against a divine, named Vogelsang. In 1655, he married the daughter of a merchant of Utrecht, sister to the wife of Daniel Elzevir, the famous bookseller of Amsterdam, by whom he had two children who lived but a few days. He died in 1675, and his funeral oration was pronounced by Graevius.

, an illustrious French painter, was of Scottish extraction, and born in 1619. His father was a statuary by profession. At three years of age it is reported that he drew figures with charcoal; and at twelve he drew the picture of his uncle so well, that it still passes for a fine piece. His father being employed in the gardens at Seguier, and having brought his son along with him, the chancellor of that name took a liking to him, and placed him with Simon Vouet, an eminent painter, who was greatly surprised at young Le Brun’s amazing proficiency. He was afterwards sent to Fontainbleau, to take copies of some of Raphael’s pieces. The chancellor sent him next to Italy, and supported him there for six years. Le Brun, on his return, met with the celebrated Poussin, by whose conversation he greatly improved himself in his art, and contracted a friendship with him which lasted as long as their lives. Cardinal Mazarin, a good judge of painting, took great notice of Le Brun, and often sat by him while he was at work. A painting of St. Stephen, which he finished in 1651, raised his reputation to the highest pitch. Soon after this, the king, upon the representation of M. Colbert, made him his first painter, and conferred on him the order of St. Michael. His majesty employed two hours every day in looking over him, whilst he was painting the family of Darius at Fontainbleau. About 1662, be began his five large pieces of the history of Alexander the Great, in which he is said to have set the actions of that conqueror in a more glorious light than Quintus Curtius in his history. He procured several advantages for the royal academy of painting and sculpture at Paris, and formed the plan of another for the students of his own nation at Rome. There was scarce any thing done for the advancement of the fine arts in which he was not consulted. It was through the interest of M. Colbert that the king gave him the direction of all his works? and particularly of his royal manufactory at the Gobelins, where he had a handsome house, with a genteel salary assigned to him. He was also made director and chancellor of the royal academy, and shewed the greatest zeal to encourage the fine arts in France. He possessed in a great degree that enthusiasm which animates the efforts, and increases the raptures of the artist. Some one said before him of his fine picture of the Magdalen, “that the contrite penitent was really weeping.” “That, 7 * said he,” is perhaps all that you can see; I hear her sigh.“He was endowed with a vast inventive genius, which extended itself to arts of every kind. He was well acquainted with the history and manners of all nations. Besides his extraordinary talents, his behaviour was so genteel, and his address Sq pleasing, that he attracted the regard and affection of the whole court of France: where, by the places and pensions conferred on him by the king, he made a very considerable figure. He died at his house in. the Gobelins in 1690, leaving a wife, but no children. He was author of a curious treatise of” Physiognomy“and of another of the” Characters of the Passions."

The paintings which gained him greatest reputation were, besides what we have already mentioned, those which he finished at Fontainbleau, the great stair-case at Versailles, but especially the grand gallery there, which was the last of his works, and is said to have taken him up fourteen years. A more particular account of these, and a general character of his other performances, may be found in the writings of his countrymen, who have been rery lavish in his praises, and very full in their accounts of his works.

, known also by the name of Desmarettes, a learned Frenchman, who died at Orleans in 1731, advanced in age, was author or editor of many pieces of ecclesiastical history, lives of the saints, &c. but deserves notice chiefly for being the editor of an excellent edition of Lactantius, collated with valuable mamiscripts, and enriched with learned notes, which was published in 1748, 2 vols. 4to, by Lenglet du Fresnoy.

, a French priest of the oratory, who made considerable approaches to liberality and good sense in his writings, was born at Brignolle, in the diocese of Aix in Provence, in 1661, and became celebrated for his knowledge of ecclesiastical history and antiquities; on which subjects he lectured in the seminary of St. Magloire, at Paris, for thirteen years. His first publication appears to have been against the illusion of the divining rod; “Lettres pour prouver l'illusion des philosophes sur la baguette,” Paris, 1693, reprinted in 1702, with many additions, under the title of “Histoire critique des pratiques superstitieuses, &c.” Of this there was a new edition in 3 vols. 12mo, 1732, with a life of the author by M. Bellon, his nephew, and in 1737 the abbe Granet printed a collection of pieces intended as a fourth volume. He also wrote against the theatre, as an amusement improper for Christians; but his more elaborate work was that on “Liturgies,” published in 4 vols. 8vd, containing a history of liturgies, prayers, ceremonies, &c. including those of the church of England. This, owing to some liberal opinions, involved him in a controversy, in which he defended himself with great ability, but before the contest was over he died, Jan. 6, 1729.

, an eminent Italian architect, was born at Florence in 1377. His father was a notary, and his sou for some time was apprenticed to a goldsmith, but afterwards discovered a turn for geometry, in which he was instructed by Paul Toscanelli. A journey which he happened to take to Rome gave him a taste for architecture, which he hftproved by the study of the edifices in that city, and had a very early opportunity of trying his skill. A dome was wanted for the church of St. Maria del Fiore at Florence; the ablest architects had been requested to send in their plans, and that of Brunelleschi was adopted, and carried into execution with an effect which astonished Michael Angelo himself. He was next employed by Cosmo the Great in building the abbey of Fesoli, and was afterwards solicited for the plan of a palace for Cosmo. Brunelleschi accordingly gave in a design of great magnificence, but Cosmo thought proper to prefer one more suited to the prudent economy which was then necessary for him, and Brunelleschi was so irritated that he destroyed his design. Brunelleschi afterwards built the Pitti palace, in part, and the church of St. Lorenzo in Florence almost entirely. He also gave some designs in military architecture. He is said to have been the first who attempted to restore the Grecian orders of architecture, and under his control this branch of the art attained a degree of perfection which it had not known from the time of the ancients. Brunelieschi died in 1446, greatly lamented, and was interred with sumptuous funeral honours, and Cosmo erected a monument to his memory. He is said to have employed his leisure hours in cultivating Italian poetry, and some of his burlesque verses have been printed along with those of Burchieiio: there is a separate poem, “Geta e Birna,” ascribed to him and to Domenico dal Prato, Venice, 1516, 8vo, but this seems doubtful. It is more certain that he wrote architectural descriptions of all his works, some of which are, or lately were, in Cosmo’s palace at Florence, now the residence of the noble family of Riccardi.

, a very eminent scholar and historian, derived his name of Aretine, or Aretino, from Arezzo, in which city he was born in the year 1370, of parents sufficiently wealthy to bestow on him a good education. In his early youth he was incited to a love of letters by an extraordinary accident. A body of French troops, who were marching to Naples to assist Louis of Anjou in maintaining his claim to trie sovereignty of that kingdom, at the solicitation of the partizans of a faction which had been banished from Arezzo, made an unexpected attack upon that city; and, after committing a great slaughter, carried away many of the inhabitants into captivity; and, among the rest, the family of Bruni. Leonardo being confined in a chamber in which hung a portrait of Petrarch, by daily contemplating the lineaments of that illustrious scholar, conceived so strong a desire to signalize himself by literary acquirements, that immediately upon his enlargement he repaired to Florence, where he prosecuted his studies with unremitting diligence, under the direction of John of Ravenna, and Manuel Chrysoloras. During his residence at Florence, he contracted a strict intimacy with the celebrated Poggio Bracciolini, and the latter being afterwards informed by Leonardo that he wished to procure a presentation to some place of honour or emolument in the Roman chancery, took every opportunity of recommending him. In consequence of this, pope Innocent VII. invited him to Rome, where he arrived March 24, 1405, but was at first disappointed in his hopes, the place at which he aspired being intended for another candidate, Jacopo d'Angelo. Fortunately, however, the pope having received certain letters from the duke of Berry, determined to assign to each of the competitors the task of drawing up an answer to them, and the compositions being compared, the prize was unanimously adjudged to Leonardo, who was instantly advanced to the dignity of apostolic secretary, and by this victory considerably increased his reputation, as his competitor was a man of very considerable talents. (See Angelo, James.) In 1410 Leonardo was elected chancellor of the city of Florence, but finding it attended with more labour than profit, resigned it in 1411, and entered into the service of pope John XXII. and soon after went to Arezzo, where he married a young lady of considerable distinction in that city. He was thought by his contemporaries rather too attentive to the minutiae of economy, and having married a lady who loved dress and ornaments, was somewhat disappointed. In a letter to his friend Poggio, after giving an account of his marriage expences, he adds, “In short, I have in one night consummated my marriage, and consumed my patrimony.” In 1415 he accompanied pope John XXIII. to the council of Constance, and this pope having been there deposed, Leonardo returned to Florence, where he was chosen secretary to the republic, and was employed in several political affairs of importance. He died in thebeginning of 1444, and was interred with the most solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce, with the following inscription, which is still legible, but not worthy of the object:

Leonardo Bruni was not only one of the most learned men of his age, but one of the most amiable in character and manners, nor was his fame confined to Italy. The learned of France and Spain travelled to Florence to have the honour of seeing him, and it is said that a Spaniard who was ordered by the king to pay him a visit, knelt down in his presence, and could with difficulty be persuaded to quit that humble and admiring posture. These honours, however, excited no pride in Leonardo, The only failing of which he has been accused is that of avarice; but, as one of his biographers remarks, that name is sometimes given to prudence and economy. His friendships were lasting and sincere, and he was never known to resent ill-usage with much asperity, unless in the case of Niccolo Niccoli, who appears to have given him sufficient provocation. The case, indeed, on the part of Niccoli appears abundantly ridiculous; a termagant mistress whom he kept had been publicly disgraced; and Niccoli expected that his friends should condole with him on the occasion. Leonardo staid away, for which Niccoli reproached him, and when Leonardo offered him such advice as morality as well as friendship dictated, irritated Leonardo by his reiterated reproaches and insultinrg language. The consequence was a satire Leonardo wrote, a manuscript copy of which is in the catalogue, although not now in the library, of New college, Oxford. The title of it was “Leonardi Florentini oratio in nebulonem maledicum.” It appears by Menus’ s catalogue of his works to be in the Laurentian library. Poggio, however, at last succeeded in reconciling the parties.

If, according to some, Leonardo was occasionally impatient in his temper, and too apt to take offence, his late biographer has given an anecdote which shews that he had the good sense to be soon convinced of his error, and the ingenuousness of spirit to confess it. Having engaged in a literary discussion with Gianozzo Manetti, he was so exasperated by observing that the bye-standers thought him worsted in argument, that he vented his spleen in outrageous expressions against Jiis antagonist. On the x following morning, however, by break of day, he went to the house of Gianozzo, who expressed his surprize that a person of Leonardo’s dignity should condescend to honour him so far as to pay him an unsolicited visit. On this, Leonardo requested that Gianozzo would favour him with a private conference, and thus apologized for the wajrmth of his temper: “Yesterday I did you great injustice ~; but I soon began to suffer punishment for my offence, for I have not closed my eyes during the whole night, and I could not rest till I had made to you a confession of my fault.” Mr. Shepherd justly observes, that the man who by the voluntary acknowledgment of an error could thus frankly throw himself upon the generosity of one whom he had offended, must have possessed in his own mind a fund of probity and honour. The failings of Leonardo were indeed amply counterbalanced by his strict integrity, his guarded temperance, his faithful discharge of his public duties, and his zeal in the cause of literature.

, or Robert Mannyng, the first English poet who occurs in the fourteenth century, was born probably before 1270, as he was received into the order of black canons at Brunne, about 1288. Malton appears to have been his birth-place, but what Malton is doubtful. He was, as far as can be discovered, merely a translator. His first work, says Warton, was a metrical paraphrase of a French book, written by Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, called “Manuel Pecche” (Manuel des Péchés), being a treatise on the decalogue, and on the seven deadly sins, which are illustrated with many legendary stories. It was never printed, but is preserved in the Bodleian library, Mss. No. 415, and in the Harleian Mss. No. 1701. His second and more important work is a metrical chronicle of England, in two parts, the former of which (from Æneas to the death of Cadwallader) is translated from Wace’s “Brut d'Angleterre,” and the latter (from Cadwallader to the end of the reign of Edward I.) from a French chronicle written by Peter de Langtoft, an Augustine canon of Bridlington in Yorkshire, who is supposed to have died in the reign of Edward II. and was therefore contemporary with his translator. Hearne has edited Robert de Brunne, but has suppressed the whole of his translation from Wace, excepting the prologue, and a few extracts which he found necessary to illustrate his glossary. Mr. Ellis, to whom we are indebted for this article, has given some specimens of de Brunne’s work.

, a Swiss physician and anatomist of eminence, was born at Diessenhofen, the 16th of January, 1653. After passing through the usual school education, he was sent, at the age of sixteen, to Strasburgh, where, applying assiduously to the study of physic and anatomy, he was created doctor in medicine in 1672. For his thesis, he gave the anatomy of a child with two heads, which he met with. He now went to Paris, and attended the schools and hospitals there with such assiduity, as to attract the notice, and gain him the intimacy of Dionis and du Verny, who were present while he made the experiments on the pancreas, which enabled him, some years after, to publish a more accurate description of that viscus, than had been before given, under the title of “Experimenta nova circa Pancreas. Accedit Diatribe de Lympha et genuine Pancreatis usu,” Leidse, 1682, 8vo. He proved that the fluid secreted by the pancreas is not necessary to digestion, and that an animal may live after that viscus is taken out of the body, having tried the experiment upon a dog, which perfectly recovered from the operation. On quitting Paris, he came to London, and was introduced to Dr. Willis, Lower, and Henry Oldenburg, secretary to the royal society. From England he passed to Holland, and studied for some months at Leyden. At Amsterdam he visited Swammerdam and Ruysch, with whom he afterwards corresponded. Returning home he was made professor of medicine at Heidelberg, and first physician to the elector palatine, who conferred on him the title of baron de Brunn in Hamerstein. About the same time, he niarried one of the daughters of the celebrated Wepfer, and was elected honorary member of the academia naturae curios, in return for some ingenious dissertations which he had communicated to them. In 1688 he publised “Dissertatio Anatomica de Glandula pituitaria,” Heidelb. 4to. From this time he became in such great request for his knowledge and success in practice, that he was, in succession, consulted by most of the princes in Germany. Among others, in 1720, he was sent for to Hanover, to attend the prince of Wales, afterwards king George II. In 1715 he published at Heidelberg, “Glandula Duodeni sen Pancreas secundum detectum,” 4to, which was only an improved edition of his “De Glandulis in Duodeno Intestino detectis,” which had been before twice printed. There are some other lesser works, the titles and accounts of which are given by Haller, in his Bib. Anat. In the latter edition of Wepfer’s works are given dissections by our author, of the heads of some persons who died of apoplexy, of whom he had had the care. Though early afflicted with gravel, and in the latter part of his life with gout, he continued to attend to the calls of his patients, though living a great distance from his residence. When in his 74th year, he went in great haste to Munich, to attend the elector Maximilian Emanuel; on his return, he was seized with a fever, which, in a few days, put an end to his life, October 2, 1727.

, founder of the Carthusian monks, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, and born at Cologn about the year 1030. He was educated first among the clergy of St. Cunibert’s church at Cologn, and afterwards at Rheims, where he attracted so much notice by his learning and piety, that on a vacancy occurring, he was promoted to the office or rank of Scholasticus, to which dignity then belonged the direction of the studies, and all the great schools of the diocese. In this office, which he filled with great reputation, he continued until 1077, when the scandalous conduct of Manasses, archbishop of Rheims, who, by open simony had got possession of that church, induced him to join with some others in accusing Manasses in a council held by the pope’s legate at Autun. Manasses accordingly was deposed, and the church of Rheims was about to choose Bruno for his successor in the archbishopric, when he resigned his office, and persuaded some of his friends to accompany him into solitude. After searching for some time to discover a proper place, they arrived at Grenoble in 1084, and requested the bishop to allot them some place where they might serve God, remote from worldly affairs. The bishop having assigned them the desert of Chartreuse, and promised them his assistance, Bruno and his companions, six in number, built an oratory there, and small cells at a little distance one from the other like the ancient Lauras of Palestine, in which they passed the six days of the week, but assembled together on Sundays. Their austerities were rigid, generally following those of St. Benedict; and, among other rules, perpetual silence was enjoined, and all their original observances, it is said, were longer preserved unchanged than those of any other order. Before the late revolution in France, they had 172 convents divided into sixteen provinces, of which five only are said to have been nunneries, all situated in the catholic Netherlands, and where the injunction of silence was dispensed with. There were nine monasteries of this order in England at the dissolution under Henry VIII.

After St. Bruno had governed this infant society for six years, he was invited to Rome by pope Urban II. who had formerly been his scholar at Rheims, and now received him with every mark of respect and confidence, and pressed him to accept the archbishopric of Reggio. This however he declined, and the pope consented that he should withdraw into some wilderness on the mountains of Calabria. Bruno found a convenient solitude in the diocese of Squiiiaci, where he settled in 1090, with some new disciples, until his death, Oct. 6. 1101. There are only two letters of his remaining, one to Raoul le Verd, and the other to his monks, which are printed in a folio volume, entitled “S. Brunonis Qpera et Vita,” 1524, but the other contents of the volume belong to another St. Bruno, first a monk of Soieria in the diocese of Ast, and hence called Astiensis. He distinguished himself at the council of Rome in 1079 against Berenger, and was consecrated bishop of Segni by Gregory VII. He died in 1125, and is reckoned among the fathers of the church. He is reputed to have written with more elegance, clearness, and erudition, than most authors of his time, and there are several editions of his works. The Carthusian Bruno wrote on the Psalms and on some of St. Paul’s epistles. He followed the system of Augustine concerning grace, but it seems doubtful if any genuine works of his remain, unless what we have mentioned.

, an Italian writer to whom atheism has been generally, but unjustly, imputed, was born atNola in the kingdom of Naples, about the middle of the sixteenth century. His talents are said to have been considerable, but this is hardly discoverable from his works: he early, however, set up for an inquirer and innovator, and very naturally found many things in the philosophy and theology then taught in Italy, which he could not comprehend. Being fond of retirement and study, he entered into a monastery of Dominicans, but the freedom of his opinions, and particularly of his censures on the irregularities of the fraternity, rendered it soon necessary to leave his order and his country. In 1582, he withdrew to Geneva, where his heretical opinions gave offence to Calvin and Beza, and he was soon obliged to provide for his safety by flight. After a short stay at Lyons he came to Paris, and his innovating spirit recommended him to the notice of multitudes, who at this time declared open hostilities against the authority of Aristotle. In a public disputation, held in the royal academy, in 1586, he defended, three days successively, certain propositions concerning nature and the world, which, together with brief heads of the arguments, he afterwards published in Saxony, under the title of “Acrotismus,” or “Reasons of the physical articles proposed against the Peripatetics at Paris.” The contempt with which Bruno, in the course of these debates, treated Aristotle, exposed him to the resentment of the academic professors, who were zealous advocates for the old system; and he found it expedientto leave thekingdom of France. According to some writers, he now visited England, in the train of the French ambassador Castelneau, wherehe was hospitably received by sir Philip Sydney and sir Fulke Gre.ville, and was introduced to queen Elizabeth. But though it is certain from his writings that he was in England, he probably made this visit in some other part of his life, and we should suppose before this, in 1583 or 1584. For, about the middle of the same year in which he was at Paris, we find him, at Wittenburg, a zealous adherent of Luther. In this city he met with a liberal reception, and full permission to propagate his doctrines: but the severity with which he inveighed against Aristotle, the latitude of his opinions in religion as well as philosophy, and the contempt with which he treated the masters of the public schools, excited new jealousies; and complaints were lodged against him before the senate of the university. To escape the disgrace which threatened him, Bruno, after two years residence in Wittenburg, left that place, and took refuge in Helmstadt, where the known liberality of the duke of Brunswick encouraged him to hope for a secure asylum. But either through the restlessness of his disposition, or through unexpected opposition, he went next year to Francfort, to superintend an edition of his works, but before it was completed was obliged again, probably from fear of persecution, to quit that city. His next residence was at Padua; where the boldness with which h.e taught his new doctrines, and inveighed against the court of Rome, caused him to be apprehended and brought before the inquisition at Venice. There he was tried, and convicted of his errors. Forty days being allowed him to deliberate, he promised to retract them, and as at the expiration of that term, he still maintained his errors, he obtained a further respite for forty days. At last, it appearing that he imposed upon the pope in order to prolong his life, sentence was finally passed upon him on the 9th of February 1600. He made no offer to retract during the week that was allowed him afterwards for that purpose, but underwent his punishment on the 17th, by being burnt at a stake.

Many modern writers have very successfully wiped off the aspersion of Bruno’s being an atheist; but, whatever he was with respect to religion, his character appears never to have risen much higher than that of a dealer in paradoxes. Brucker, who seems to have examined his works, and whose history we have chiefly followed in the preceding account, says, that a luxuriant imagination supplied him with wonderful conceptions, intelligible only to a few, which were never formed into a system. Not possessing that cool and solid judgment, and that habit of patient attention, which are necessary to a thorough investigation of subjects, he frequently embraced trifling and doubtful propositions as certain truths. His ideas are for the most part wild and fantastic, and he indulged himself in a most unbounded liberty of speech. Some of his original conceptions are indeed more luminous and satisfactory, and nearly coincide with the principles of philosophy afterwards received by Des Cartes, Leibnitz, and others. But these sparks of truth are buried in a confused mass of extravagant and trifling dogmas, expressed in a metaphorical and intricate style, and immethodically arranged. Brucker thinks that his doctrine was not founded, as Bayle and La Croze maintain, on the principles of Spinozism, but on the ancient and absurd doctrine of emanation.

His most celebrated philosophical pieces are the following: l. De Umbris Idearum, “On Shadows of Ideas.” 2. De rinfmito, Universe, et Mondi, “Of Infinity, the Universe, and World.” 3. Spaccio della Bestia triomfante, “Dispatches from the Triumphant Beast.” 4. Oratio valedictoria habita in Academia Wittebergensi, “A farewell Oration delivered in the University of Wittenberg.” 5. De Monade, Numero, et Figura, “Of Monad, Number, and Figure.” 6. Summa Terminorum Metaphysicorum, “Summary of Metaphysical Terms.” Of these the satirical work, “Dispatches from the Beast triumphant,” is the mot celebrated. Dr. Warton, in a note upon Pope’s Works, asserts on the authority of Toland, that sir Philip Sidney was “the intimate friend and patron of the famous atheist Giordano Bruno, who was in a secret club with him and sir Fulk Greville, held in London in 1587, and that the” Spaccio“was at that time composed and printed in London, and dedicated to sir Philip.” But, besides that this date must be wrong, sir Philip Sidney having died the preceding year, it appears evidently from the account of the “Spaccio” given in the Spectator, No. 389*, that it was a very harmless production, founded upon a poetical fiction, and little adapted to make any man a convert to atheism. We refer, however, to Dr. Zouch’s Memoirs of Sir Philip Sidney for an ample defence both of sir Philip, and Bruno, whose greatest crime, in the eyes of the inquisition, was rather Lutheranism than atheism.

, a physician of the sixteenth century, and one of the first modern restorers of botany, was born at Mentz, and originally brought up to the church. After his theological studies he took the habit of the Carthusians of Mentz, but was one of the earliest converts to Lutheranism, and having made his escape from his monastery, became a zealous preacher of the reformed religion. This appears to have involved him with Erasmus, who, in Brunsfeis’ opinion, was rather a time-server. Having lost his voice, however, by a disorder, he was obliged to give over preaching, and went to Strasburgh, where the government of the college was committed to his care. During a residence of nine years in this city he studied medicine, and was created doctor at Basil in 1530. He was soon after invited to Berne in Swisserland, where be died six months after, Nov. 23, 1534. Whilst at Strasburgh, he published two small tracts to facilitate the study of grammar to children, annotations on the gospels, and on the acts of the apostles, and an answer to Erasmus’s “Spongia,” in defence of Hutten. The following are the principal of his botanical and medical works “Catalogus illustrium Medicorum,” 1530, 4to. “Herbarum vivae icones, ad naturae imitationem, summa cum diligentia *et artificioefficiatae, cum effectibus earundem,” 1530, 1531, 1536, 3 vols. fol. The plates are much commended by Haller, who, on account of this work, ranks the author among the restorers of botany. “Theses, seu comounes loci totius Medicinae, etiam de usu Pharmacorum, Argentinae,” 1522, 8vo. " Onomasticon Medicinae, noaiina continens omnium stirpium, &c. Argent, 1534, folio.

, one of the most learned English scholars of the eighteenth century, who adds a very illustrious name to the “Worthies of Devon,” was born at Plymouth in that county in 1715. His father held an office in the custom-house, but before his son arrived at his seventh year, was removed thence into Kent, a circumstance which may be mentioned as a proof of Mr. Bryant’s extraordinary memory; for, in a conversation with the late admiral Barrington, not long before his death, when some local circumstances in respect to Plymouth were accidentally mentioned, Mr. Bryant discovered so perfect a recollection of them, that his friend could scarcely be persuaded he had not been very recently on the spot, though he had never visited the place of his nativity after the removal of his father. Mr. Bryant received his grammatical education first under the rev. Sam. Thornton of Ludsdown in Kent, and afterwards at Eton, and undoubtedly was one of the brightest luminaries of that institution. The traditions of his extraordinary attainments still remain, and particularly of some verses which he then wrote. From Eton he proceeded to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1740, and A. M. in 1744, obtained 3 fellowship, and was equally distinguished by his love of learning, and his proficiency in every branch of the academic course. He was afterwards first tutor to sir Thomas Stapylton, and then to the marquis of Blandford, now duke of Marlborough, and to his brother lord Charles Spencer, when at Eton school, which office, on account of an inflammation in his eyes, he quitted in 1744, and his place was supplied by Dr. Erasmus Saunders; but Mr. Bryant, after his recovery in 1746, again returned to his office, and in 1756 was appointed secretary to the late duke of Marlborough, when master-general of the ordnance, and ac-< companied him into Germany. His grace also promoted him to a lucrative appointment in the ordnance-office.

As Mr. Bryant had long outlived his contemporaries, few particulars, except what we have just related, are known of his early life and habits. He appears, even while connected with the late duke of Marlborough, whose family remained his kind patrons during the whole of his life, to have devoted himself to study, and to that particular branch which respects the ancient history of nations. Whatever his fortune might be, he appears to have been satisfied if it supplied the means of extending his studies in retirement, and we do not find that he ever inclined to pursue any of the learned professions. One of his contemporaries, the late rev. William Cole of Milton, informs us, in his ms Athenae Cantab, (in Brit. Mus.) that he had twice refused the mastership of the Charter-house, which one time was actually granted to him by a majority of the governors; and notice of his nomination was sent to him by Mr. Hetherington, a gentleman who afterwards left him his executor and 3,000l. as a legacy; but at what time these offers were made, Mr. Cole has not specified. It is certain, however, that he early formed his plan of life, a long life spent entirely in literary pursuits, and persevered in it with uncommon assiduity and steadiness, consecrating his talents to the best purposes of learning and religion.

His first publication was “Observations and Inquiries relating to various parts of Ancient History: containing Dissertations on the wind Euroclydon, and on the Island Melite, together with an account of Egypt in its most early state, and of the Shepherd Kings; wherein the time of their coming, the province which they particularly possessed, and to which the Israelites afterwards succeeded, is endeavoured to be stated. The whole calculated to throw light on the history of that ancient kingdom, as well as on the histories of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Babylonians, Edomites, and other nations,” 1767, 4to. In this volume, with great modesty, and yet with well-grounded resolution, he attacks Bochart, Grotius, and Bentley, who supposed that Euroclydon, the name of a wind mentioned in Acts xxvii. 14th verse, is a misnomer, and ought to be read Euroaquilo, and very ably supports the present reading. In proving that the island Melite, mentioned in the last chapter of the Acts, is not Malta, he has to contend with Grotius, Cluverius, Beza, Bentley, and Bochart, and his arguments on this question are upon the whole conclusive. It happened that the hypothesis he suggested was brought forward about the same time by an ingenious Frenchman, and neither of them was acquainted with the opinion of the other. The remainder of this volume evinces uncommon research and acuteness, but not unmixed with that inclination to bold conjecture and fanciful speculation which more or less influenced the composition of all Mr. Bryant’s works. His next communication to the public, and the work on which his character as a scholar must ultimately rest, was his “New System or Analysis of Ancient Mythology; wherein an Attempt is made to divest Tradition of Fable, and to reduce Truth to its original Purity.” Of this publication the first and second volumes came forth together, in 1774, and the third followed two years after. It being his professed design to present a history of the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Canaanites, Helladians, lonians, Leleges, Dorians, Pelasgi, and other ancient nations, his researches for this purpose were not only of necessity recondite, but in many instances uncertain; but to facilitate his passage through the mighty labyrinth which led to his primary object, he not only availed himself of the scattered fragments of ancient history wherever he could find them, but also of a variety of etymological aids; for being persuaded that the human race were the offspring of one stock, and conceiving thence that their language in the beginning was one, this favourite notion was exemplified by him in the investigation of radical terms, and application of these as collateral aids. As his knowledge of the oriental dialects was very confined, upon some occasions he has indulged too freely to fancy; yet his defects in this kind of learning form a strong plea in his favour; for if, without fully understanding these languages, he has succeeded in tracing out so many radicals as his table of them exhibits, and more especially if he has been right in explaining them, it will follow that his explanations must be founded on truth, and therefore are not chimerical. In opposition, however, to them, Mr. Bryant experienced some severe and petulant attacks: first, from a learned Dutchman, in a Latin review of his work; and shortly after from the late Mr. Richardson, who was privately assisted by sir William Jones; a circumstance which there is reason to think Mr. Bryant never knew. Mr. Richardson, in the preface to his Persian Dictionary, has no doubt successfully exposed some of Mr. Bryant’s etymological mistakes with regard to words of eastern origin. Bryant had a favoyrite theory with regard to the Amonians, the original inhabitants of Kgypt^ whose name, as well as descent, he derives from Ham, but Richardson has stated an insuperable objection to the derivation of the name, for though the Greeks and Latins used Ammon and Hammou indifferently, yet the Heth in Ham is a radical, not mutable or omissible; and had the Greeks or Latins formed a word from it, it would have been Chammon, and not Ammon, even with the aspirate. To these and other strictures, Mr. Bryant replied in an anonymous pamphlet, of which he printed only a few copies for the perusal of his friends; and that part of his work which relates to the Apamean. medal having been particularly attacked, especially in the Gentleman’s Magazine, he defended himself in “A Vindication of the Apamean Medal, and of the inscription NilE, together with an illustration of another coin struck at the same place in honour of the emperor Severus.” This was first published in the Archaeologia, and afterwards separately, 1775, 4to, and although what he offered on the subject was lightly treated by some, whose knowledge in inedallic history is allowed to be great, yet the opinion of professor Eckhel, the first medallist of his age, is decidedly in favour of Mr. Bryant. And whatever may be the merit, in the opinion of the learned, of Mr. Bryant’s “New System” at large, no person can possibly dispute, that a very uncommon store of learning is perceptible through the whole; that it abounds with great originality of conception, much perspicacious elucidation, and the most happy explanations on topics of the highest importance: in a word, that it stands forward amongst the first works of its age.

About this time was published Mr. Wood’s “Essay on. the original genius and writings of Homer.” Of this posthumous work, Mr. Bryant was the editor, the author having left his Mss. to his care; and in the same year, the “Vindiciae Flavians),” a tract on the much disputed testimony of Josephus to Christ, was printed, and a few copies sent to a bookseller in either university; but as the pamphlet appeared without the name of its author, and no attention was shewed it, Mr. Bryant recalled them, and satisfied himself with distributing the copies thus returned amongst a few particular friends. The new light, however, which Mr. Bryant threw upon the subject, and the acuteness with which the difficulties attending it were discussed, soon brought the work into notice, and Mr. Bryant published it with his name in 1780, and has effectually vindicated the authenticity of the passage in question. It is no mean testimony of his success in this undertaking, that Dr. Priestley confessed that Mr. Bryant had made a complete convert of him. That his conversion, however, extended no farther than the present subject, appeared in the same year, when Mr. Bryant published “An Address to Dr. Priestley, upon his doctrine of Philosophical Necessity illustrated,” 8vo, which the doctor with his usual rapidity, answered in “A Letter to Jacob Bryant, esq.” Dr. Priestley, indeed, was not likely to be persuaded by a writer who insinuated that his “necessity” of philosophers was no other than the “predestination” of Calvinists. With respect to the “Vindiciae Flavians,” it yet remains to be mentioned that there is a great affinity between this publication, and the observations on the same subject of a learned Frenchman. See a letter to Dr. Kippis, at the end of his life of Dr. Lardner, by Dr. Henley, where the arguments for and against the authenticity of the passage are distinctly stated.

Professor Dalzel having communicated to the royal society of Edinburgh, and afterwards published in a separate volume, M. le Chevalier’s “Description of the Plain of Troy,” Mr. Bryant, who many years before had not only considered, but written his sentiments on the Trojan war, first published, in 1795, his Observations on M. le Chevalier’s treatise, and, in 1796, a Dissertation concerning the war itself, and the expedition of the Grecians as described by Homer; with the view of shewing that no such expedition was ever undertaken, and that no such city in Phrygia existed. Of this singular publication we shall only notice, that on the one side it has been remarked that “for the repose” of Mr. Bryant’s well-earned fame, it probably would have been better had this dissertation never been written. Even the high authority with which he is armed could not warrant him in controverting opinions so long maintained and established among historians, and in disproving facts so well attested by the most extensive evidence. Great and natural was the surprize of the literary world on the appearance of this publication; and very few, if any, were the proselytes to the new doctrine which it inculcates. It was answered by Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, in a very indecent letter to Mr. Bryant; and in a style more worthy of the subject by J. B. S. Morrit, esq. of Rokeby park, near Greta bridge;“and by Dr. Vincent. On the other hand, it has been suggested, that” the testimony of antiquity goes for nothing in this case, as the whole depends on the authority of Homer; and unless authors can be cited anterior to him, or coeval with him, or who did not derive their information from him, or some of his transcribers, the whole history of the warm ust rest on his authority; and if his authority were equal to his genius, the transactions which he records would stand in need of no other support. But, certainly, as the subject stands at present, were the alternative proposed to us, we would rather reject the whole as a fable, than receive the half as authentic history."

, a man of abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex, in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for his name appears on the list of prisoners confined in the Fleet on that account, Feb. 1600. He was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles duke of York, Jan. 1604, and in August 1605 was created M. A. at Oxford, the king being present. He was an associate of that active and romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears to have volunteered his services in the Low Countries, when the prince of Orange besieged the city of Juliers in 1610, and the Low Country army was assisted by four thousand English soldiers, under the command of sir Edward Cecil. From the great influence which his hospitality and popular manners afterwards obtained in Gloucestershire, and his numerous attendants when he visited the court, he was styled king of Cotswould, the tract of country on the edge of which his castle of Sudeley was situated. On November 18, 1617, he was appointed to receive and introduce the Muscovite ambassadors, who had brought costly presents from their master to the king. He died August 20, 1621. There is no doubt, says sir Egerton JBrydges (by whom the preceding notices were drawn together) that lord Chandos was a man of abilities as well as splendid habits of life, and by no means a literary recluse, although he is supposed to have been the author of “Horae subsecivas, Observations and Discourses,” Lond. 1620, 8vo, a work containing a fund of good sense and shrewd remark. In sir John Beaumont’s poems are some lines on his death, highly expressive of an excellent character.

, an eminent engraver, was born in 1528, at Leige, but resided chiefly at Francfort, where he carried on a considerable commerce in prints. It does not appear to what master he owed his instructions in the art, but the works of Sebast Beham were certainly of great service to him. He copied many of the plates engraved by that artist, and seems to have principally formed his taste from them. He worked almost entirely with the graver, and seldom called in the assistance of the point. He acquired a neat, free style of engraving, well adapted to small subjects in which many figures were to be represented, as funeral parades, processions, &c. which he executed in a charming manner. He also drew very correctly. His heads, in general, are spirited and expressive, and the other extremities of his figures well-marked. His backgrounds, though frequently very slight, are touched with a masterly hand. He died, as his sons inform us (in the third part of Boissard’s collection of portraits), March 27, 1598. The two first parts of that collection were engraved by De Brye, assisted by his sons, who afterwards continued it.

, was a native of Orestia, in Macedonia, and married the princess Anna Comnena, daughter of Alexius Comnenus, who raised him to the rank of Caesar, but declined announcing him as his successor in prejudice of his own son. After the death of Alexius, the empress Irene and her daughter Anna attempted to elevate Bryennius to the empire, but he refused to concur in the plot. Having been sent in 1137 to besiege Antiocb, he fell sick, and returning to Constantinople, died in that city. His history of the reigns of Isaac Comnenus and of the three succeeding emperors, was comprised in four books, and published with a Latin translation, by the Jesuit Poussines, at Paris, in 1661, to which the annotations of Du Cange were annexed in 1670.

, 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 foundress of a set of modern fanatics, and the daughter of John Simpson, the keeper of an inn at Fitmy-Can, the half-way house between Banff and Portsoy, in the north of Scotland, was born in 1738; and, when she had completed her one-andtwentieth year, was sent to Glasgow, where she entered into the service of Mr. Martin, one of the principal proprietors of the Delft-work there. In this situation she had remained but a short time, when she accepted proposals of marriage from Robert Buchan, one of the workmen in the service of the same Mr. Martin. For some years, Robert and Elspeth Buchan lived happily together, having many children, whom they educated in a manner suitable to their station in life. At the time of her marriage, Mrs. Buchan was of the episcopal persuasion, but the husband being a burgher-seceder, she adopted his principles, and entered into communion with that sect. She had always been a constant reader of the scriptures; and taking a number of passages in a strictly literal sense, she changed her opinions about the year 1776, became the promulgator of many singular doctrines, and soon brought over to her notions Mr. Hugh Whyte, a dissenting minister at Irvine, and connected with Mr. Bell in Glasgow, and Mr. Bain in Edinburgh; and who, upon Mr. Whyte’s abdication of his charge, settled Mr. Robertson in his place at Irvine. She went on continually making new converts till April 1790, at which time the populace in Irvine rose, assembled round Mr. Whyte’s house, and broke all the windows; when Mrs. Buchan and the whole of her converts, of whom the above-mentioned were a part, to the number of fortysix persons, left Irvine. The Buchanites (for so they were immediately called) went through Mauchlin, Cumnock old and new, halted three days at Kirconnel, passed through Sanquhar and Thornhill, and then settled at a farm-house, the out-houses of which they had all along possessed, paying for them, as well as for whatever they wanted.

“Her husband is still in the burgher-secession communion; and when I asked Mrs. Buchan, and others of the Buchanites who knew me, if they had any word to any of their acquaintances in Glasgow? they all declared they minded not former things and former connections; but that the whole of their attention was devoted to their fellow-saints, the living a holy life, and thereby hastening the second coming of their Lord Jesus Christ.”

, a medical writer of great popularity, descended of a respectable family in Roxburghshire, was born at Ancram in the year 1729. Having passed through the usual school education, he was sent to the university at Edinburgh. His inclination leading him to mathematics, he became so considerable a proficient in that branch of science, as to be enabled to give private lessons to many of the pupils. Having made choice of medicine for his profession, he attended the lectures of the several professors, necessary to qualify him for practice;, and as he was of a studious turn of mind, his progress ia knowledge may be supposed to have been equal to his application. After having passed a period of not less than nine years at the university, he first settled in practice at Sheffield, in Yorkshire. He was soon afterwards elected physician to a large branch of the Foundling hospital then established at Ackworth. In the course of two years he reduced the annual number of deaths among the children from one half to one in fifteen; and by the establishment of due regulations for the preservation of health, greatly diminished the previously burthensome expense of medical attendance. In this situation, he derived from experience that knowledge of. the complaints, and of the general treatment of children, which was afterwards published in “The Domestic Medicine,” and in the “Advice to Mothers;” works which, considering their very general diffusion, have no doubt tended to ameliorate the treatment of children, and consequently to improve the constitutions of the present generation of the inhabitants of this country. When that institution was dissolved, in consequence of parliament withdrawing their support from it, Dr Buchan returned to Edinburgh, where he became a fellow of the royal college of physicians, and settled in the practice of his profession, relying in some measure on the countenance and support of the relations of the lady he married, who was of a respectable family in that city. On the death of one of the professors, the doctor offered himself as a candidate for the vacant chair, but did not succeed.

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.

On the death of Fergusson, the celebrated lecturer on natural philosophy, which took place about the year 1775, he bequeathed to the doctor the whole of his apparatus. Unwilling that this collection, which at that period was perhaps the best this country could boast of, should remain shut up and useless, the doctor, with the assistance of his son, who conducted the experimental part, delivered several courses of lectures, during three years, at Edinburgh, with great success, the theatre being always crowded with auditors. On removing to London, he disposed of this apparatus to Dr. Lettsom. Of natural philosophy, the part which particularly attracted the doctor’s attention was astronomy. Nothing delighted him more than to point out the celestial phenomena on a fine starlight evening to any young person who appeared willing to receive information; and the friendship of the late highly respectable astronomer royal, Dr. Maskelyne, afforded him every facility of renovating his acquaintance with the planetary bodies, whenever so inclined.

, 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.

In the year 1561, he returned to Scotland, and finding the reformation in a manner established there, he openly renounced the Romish religion, and declared himself a Protestant, but attended the court of queen Mary, and even superintended her studies. In 1563 the parliament appointed him, with others, to inspect the revenues of the universities, and to report a model of instruction. He was also appointed by the assembly of the church, to revise the “Book of Discipline.” In 1564 the queen gave him a pension of five hundred pounds Scotch, which has been, not very reasonably, made the foundation of a charge of ingratitude against him, because he afterwards could not defend the queen’s conduct with respect to the murder of her husband, and her subsequent marriage with Bothwell. About 1566 he was made principal of St. Leonard’s college, in the university of St. Andrew’s, where he taught philosophy for some time; and he employed his leisure hours in collecting all his poems, such of them excepted as were in the hands of his friends, and of which he had no copies. In 1567, on account of his uncommon abilities and learning, he was appointed moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland. He joined himself to the party that acted against queen Mary, and appears to have been particularly connected with the earl of Murray, who had been educated by him, and for whom he had a great regard. He attended that nobleman to the conference at York, and afterwards at Hampton -court, being nominated one of the assistants to the commissioners who were sent to England against queen Mary. He had been previously appointed, in an assembly of the Scottish nobility, preceptor to the young king James VI.

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.”

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.”

Dr. Robertson, speaking of Buchanan’s History of Scotland, says, that “if his accuracy and impartiality had been, in any degree, equal to the elegance of his taste, and to the purity and vigour of his style, his history might be placed on a level with the most admired compositions of the ancients. But, instead of rejecting the improbable tales of chronicle writers, he was at the utmost pains to adorn them; and hath clothed with all the beauties and graces of fiction, those legends which formerly had only its wildness and extravagance.” In another place, the same celebrated historian observes, that *' the happy genius of Buchanan, equally formed to excel in prose and in verse, more various, more original, and more elegant, than that of almost any other modern who writes in Latin, reflects, with regard to this particular, the greatest lustre on his country."

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.

, usually ranked among the German reformers, was born Sept. 28, 1529, at Schonaw near Wittemberg, at which university he was educated, and where he contracted an acquaintance with Melancthon, and while he was studying the scriptures in their original languages, imbibed the principles of the reformation. In 1555 he went into Silesia, where the senate of Grunbergue invited him to superintend a school newly erected in that city. This offer, by Melancthon' s advice, he accepted in the following year, and raised the school to a very high degree of reputation. Melancthon had so good an opinion of him as to declare that no young man could be supposed unfit for a university, who had been educated under Bucholtzer. Nor was he less celebrated as a preacher; and upon account of his services in promoting the reformation, enjoyed the favour and patronage of Catherine, widow of Henry duke of Brunswick, Ernest prince of Anhalt, and other persons of rank. He died at Freistad in Silesia, Oct. 14, 1584. He composed a chronology from the beginning of the world to the year 1580, under the title of “Isagoge chronologica,” which was often reprinted.

was an ingenious English engraver, who, assisted by his brother Nathaniel, drew and engraved a large number of plates of various sizes, consisting of views of churches, monasteries, abbies, castles, and other ruins. They executed also views of the principal cities and towns in England and Wales, and among them a very large one of the cities of London and Westminster. They are all done in the same style, the back-grounds being slightly etched, and the buildings finished with the graver, in a stiff manner. Their drawings, especially those of the ruins, &c. appear to have been too hastily made, and are frequently inaccurate; but, in many instances, they are the only views we have of the places represented; and in some, the only views we can have, as several of the ruins engraved by them, have since that time been totally destroyed. Their prints amount in the whole to about 500, and still bear a great price. Samuel Buck died at his apartments in the Temple, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, August 1779. A few months before his death a liberal subscription was raised for his support. His brother had been dead many years before.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of William Buckeridge, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Keblewhyte of Basilden in Berks, son of John Keblewhyte, uncle to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, and thence sent to St. John’s college, Oxon, in 1578, where he was chosen fellow, and proceeded, through other degrees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of North Kiiworth in Leicestershire, and was afterwards one of archbishop Whitgii't’s chaplains, and made prebendary of Hereford, and of Rochester. In 1604, he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Northampton; and the same year, Nov. 5, was presented by king James to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in which he succeeded Dr. Andrews, then made bishop of Chichester. About the same time he was chaplain to the king; was elected president of St. John’s college, 1605, and installed canon of Windsor, April 15, 1606. His eminent abilities in the pulpit were greatly esteemed at court; insomuch that he was chosen to be one of the four (Dr. Andrews, bishop of Chichester, Dr. Barlow of Rochester, and Dr. John King, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, being the other three) who were appointed to preach before the king at Hampton-court in September 1606, in order to bring the two Melvins and other presbyterians of Scotland to a right understanding of the church of England. He took his text out of Romans xiii. 1. and managed the discourse (as archbishop Spotswood, who was present, relates), both soundly and learnedly, to the satisfaction of all the hearers, only it grieved the Scotch ministers to hear the pope and presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to sovereign princes.

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.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born June 25, 1667, at Anclam, a town in Pomerania, where his father was a clergyman, who bestowed great pains on his education, with a view to the same profession. Before he went to the university, he was taught Greek and Latin, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac, and had several times read the scriptures in their original tongues. In 1685, at the age of eighteen, he was sent to Wittemberg, where he studied history, oriental learning, and the canon law, under the ablest professors, and with a success proportioned to the stock of knowledge he had previously accumulated. In 1687 he received the degree of M. A. and printed on that occasion his thesis on the symbols of the Eucharist. In 1689 he was assistant professor of philosophy; and some time after, having removed to Jena, gave lessons to the students there with the approbation and esteem of the professors. In 1692 he was invited to Cobourg, as professor of Greek and Latin, In 1693, when Frederick, elector of Brandenburgh, afterwards king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle, Buddeus was appointed professor of moral and political philosophy, and after filling that office for about twelve years, he was recalled to Jena in 1705, to be professor of theology. The king of Prussia parted with him very reluctantly on this occasion, but Buddeus conceived his new office so much better calculated for his talents and inclination, that he retained it for the remainder of his life, refusing many advantageous offers in other universities; and the dukes of Saxony of the Ernestine branch, to whom the university of Jena belongs, looking upon Buddeus as its greatest ornament, procured him every comfort, and bestowed their confidence on him in. the case of various important affairs. In 1714, he was made ecclesiastical counsellor to the duke of Hildburghausen; and afterwards was appointed inspector of the students of Gotha and Altenburgh; assessor of the Concilium arctius, which had the care of the university of Jena; and he was several times pro-rector, the dukes of Saxony always reserving to themselves the rectorate of that university. Under his care the university flourished in an uncommon degree, and being an enemy to the scholastic mode of teaching, he introduced that more rational and philosophical system which leads to useful knowledge. Amidst all these employments, he was a frequent and popular preacher, carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and yet found leisure for the composition of his numerous works. He died Nov. 19, 1729. A very long list of his works is given in our authority; the principal are: 1. “Elementa Philosophic prarticæ, instrumentalis ct theoreticæ,” 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “Institutiones Theologiæ Moralis,” 1711, 4to, often reprinted. 3. “Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti,” 1715, 1718, 2 vols, 4to. 4. “Institutiones Theologicse, Dogmaticae, variis observationibus iilustratse,” 1723, 3 vols. 4to. 5. “Miscellanea Sacra,” 1727, 3 vols. 4to. 6. The Great German Historical Dictionary," 2 vols. folio, and often reprinted, was principally drawn up by our author, and published with his name.

, 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.

Budé was a student of incessant application, and when we consider him as beginning his studies late, and being afterwards involTed in public business, and the cares of a numerous family, it becomes astonishing that he found leisure for the works he gave to the public. He appears in general to have been taken with the utmost reluctance from his studies. He even complains in the preface to his book “De Asse,” that he had not more than six hours study on his wedding-day. He married, however, a lady who assisted him in his library, reaching him what books he requested, and looking out particular passages which he might want. In one of his letters he represents himself as married to two wives, by one of whom he had sons and daughters; and by the othsr named Philologia, he had books, which contributed to the maintenance of his natural issue. In another he remarks, that, for the first twelve years of his marriage, he had produced more children than books, but hopes soon to bring his publications on a par with his children. It is of him a story is told, which, if we mistake not, has been applied to another: One day a servant entered his study, in a great fright, and exclaimed that the house was on fire. Budé said calmly, “Why don't you inform your mistress? you know I never concern myself about the house!”—What affords some probability that Budé had imbibed the sentiments of the reformers in his latter days, is the circumstance of his widow retiring to Geneva, with some of her family, and making an open profession of the protestant religion. It appears by the collections in Baillet, Blount, and Jortin in his “Life of Erasmus,” that the eulogies which Budé received from the learned men of his time are exceedingly numerous. His works were printed at Basil in 1557, 4 vols. folio. The most important of them is his “Commentarii Greece Liuguse,” which is still highly valued by Greek scholars. The best edition is that of Basil, 1356, fol.

, esq. a very ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born at St. Thomas, near Exeter, about 1685, and educated at Christ-church, Oxford. His father, Gilbert Budgell, D. D. descended of an ancient family in Devonshire; his mother, Mary, was only daughter of Dr. William Gulston, bishop of Bristol, whose sister Jane married dean Addison, and was mother to the famous Addison. After some years stay in the university, Mr. Budgell went to London, and was entered of the Inner Temple, in order to study law, for which his father always intended him; but his inclinations led him more to study polite literature, and keep company with the genteelest persons in town. During his stay at the Temple, he contracted a strict intimacy and friendship with Addison, who was first cousin to his mother; and when Addison was appointed secretary to lord Wharton, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he offered to make his friend Eustace one of the clerks of his office, which Mr. Budgell readily accepted. This was in April 1710, when he was about twenty-five years of age. He had by this time read the classics, the most reputed historian^ and the best French, English, and Italian writers, and became concerned with Steele and Addison, not in writing the Tatler, as has been asserted, but the Spectator, which was begun in 1711. Ail the papers marked with an X were written by him, and the whole eighth volume is attributed to Addison and himself, without the assistance of Steele. Several little epigrams and songs, which have a good deal of wit in them, together with the epilogue to the “Distressed Mother,” which had a greater run than any thing of the kind before, were also written by Mr. Budgell near this time; all which, together with the known affection of Addison for him, raised his character so much as to give him considerable consequence in the literary and political world. Upon the laying down of the Spectator, the Guardian was set up; and to this work our author contributed, along with Addison and Steele. In the preface it is said, that those papers marked with an asterisk were written by Mr. Budgell.

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:

It was thought he had some hand in publishing Dr. Tindal’s “Christianity as old as the Creation,” for he often talked of another additional volume on the same subject, but never published it. However, he used to inquire very frequently after Dr. Conybeare’s health, who had been employed by queen Anne to answer the first volume, and rewarded with the deanery of Christ-church for his pains; saying, “he hoped Mr. Dean would live a little longer, that he might have the pleasure of making him a bishop; for he intended very soon to publish the pther volume of Tindal, which would certainly do the business.”

After the cessation of “The Bee,” he became so involved in law-suits, that he was reduced to a very unhappy situation. He now returned to his original destination of the bar, and attended for some time in the courts of law; but finding himself incapable of making any progress, and being distressed to the utmost, he determined at length on suicide. Accordingly, in 1736, betook a boat At Somerset stairs, after filling his pockets with stones, and ordered the waterman to shoot the bridge; and, while the boat was going under, threw himself into the river, wiiere he perished immediately. Several days before, he had been visibly distracted in his mind, but no care was taken of him. He was never married, but left one natural daughter behind him, who afterwards took his name, and was some time an actress at Drury-lane. The morning before he committed this act upon himself, he endeavoured to persuade this lady, who was then only eleven years old, to accompany him, which she very wisely refused. Upon his bureau was found a slip of paper, on which were written these words:

, an eminent Italian painter, was born at Florence in 1262, and was for some years a disciple of Andrea Tassi. He was pleasant in his conversation, and somewhat ingenious in his compositions. A friend, whose name was Bruno, consulting him one day how he might give more expression to his subject, Buffalmacco answered, that he had nothing to do, but to make the words come out of the mouths of his figures by labels, on which they might be written, which had been before practised by Cimnbue. Bruno, thinking him in earnest, did so, as several German painters did after him; who, improving upon Bruno, added answers to questions, and made their figures enter into a kind of conversation. Buffalmacco died in 1340.

, 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 .

Of his infidelity, his works afford ample evidence; but in his contempt for religion, he contrived to add hypocrisy to impiety, attending with regularity the external observances of religion, under pretence that, as there mustrbe a religion for the multitude, we should avoid giving offence. “I have always,” he said, “named the Creator; but it is only putting, mentally in its place, the energy 'of nature, which results from the two great laws of attraction and impulse. When the Sorbonne plagued me, I gave all the satisfaction which they solicited: it was a form that I despised, but men are silly enough to be so satisfied. For the same reason, when I fall dangerously ill, I shall not hesitate to send for the sacraments. This is due to the public religion. Those who act otherwise are madmen.” Yet, gross as this hypocrisy was as to externals, it was not permitted to interfere with his personal vices. These he practised to the last with a zest of unfeeling profligacy that has, perhaps, never been exceeded; the debauching of female children forming his constant and his last delight. He never fails to allude to sensual gratifications in his works, and never lost sight of the object in practice. Yet this is the man to whom one of his countrymen, Herault de Sechelles, applied the epithets “great and good,” an encomium which has been translated in some of the English journals without remark.

After the completion of his history of quadrupeds in 1767, Buffon was interrupted in the progress of his labours by a severe and tedious indisposition; and therefore the two first volumes of his “History of Birds” did not appear till 1771. In the composition of the greatest part of these he was indebted to the labours of M. Gueneau de Montbeillard, who adhered so closely to Buffon’s mode of thinking and of expression, that the public could not perceive any difference. The four subsequent volumes were the joint production of both writers: and each author prefixed his name to his own articles. The three remaining volumes were written by Buffon himself, with the assistance of the abbe Bexon, who formed the nomenclature, drew up most of the descriptions, and communicated several important hints. The work was completed in 1783, but on account of the much greater number of species of birds than of quadrupeds, the want of systematic arrangement is more to be regretted in this than in the other history. A translation of Buffon’s “Natural History,” by Mr. Smellie of Edinburgh, comprised in 3 vols. 8vo, was published in 1781; to which a 9th volume was added in 1786 r containing a translation of a supplementary volume of Buffon, consisting chiefly of curious and interesting facts with regard to the history of the earth. The translator has omitted the anatomical dissections and mensurations of M. D‘Aubenton, which greatly enhanced the bulk, as well as the price of the original, and which the author himself had omitted in the last Paris edition of his performance. There are likewise some other omissions, which are not very important, ’respecting the method of studying natural history, methodical distributions, and the mode of describing animals. These omissions have been amply compensated by the translator’s addition of short distinctive descriptions to each species of quadrupeds, of the figures of several new animals, and of the synonyms, as well as the generic and specific characters given by Linnæus, Klein, Brisson, and other naturalists, together with occasional notes. Buffon’s “History of Birds,” in 9 vols. 8vo, with notes and additions, translated by Mr. Leslie, was also published in 1793.

, an English divine, wa<s born at Woodhill, in Bedfordshire, 1582, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he obtained a fellowship. He had an estate left to him by his father, whom he succeeded in the living of Woodhill. Here he remained for twenty-one years, until he was silenced for non-conformity by archbishop Laud. On this he converted his estate into money, and went to New England in 1635, and carrying with him some planters, they settled at a place which they called Concord, and where they succeeded better than Mr. Bulkley did, who sunk his property in improvements. He died there March 9, 1658—9. His only publication was entitled “The Gospel Covenant opened,” 1651, 4to, which passed through several editions, and was one of the first books published in that country.

He was entered a commoner of Exeter-college, in Oxford, the 10th of July, 1648, under the tuition of Mr. Baldwin Ackland, and though he lost much time in the pursuit of pleasures and diversions, yet, by the help of logic, which he mastered with little labour, and a close way of reasoning, which was natural to. him, he soon gained the reputation of a smart disputant, and as, such was taken notice of and encouraged by his superiors, particularly Dr. Conant, rector of the college, and Dr. Prideaux, bishop of Worcester, who at that time resided in Oxford. He continued in Exeter-college till January, 1649, at which time having refused to take the oath to the Commonwealth of England, he retired with his tutor, Mr. Ackland, who had set him the example, to North-Cadbury, in Somersetshire, where he continued under the care of that good and able man, till he was about nineteen years of age. This retreat gave him an opportunity of frequent converse with one of his sisters, whose good sense, and pious admonitions, weaned him entirely from all youthful vanities, and influenced him to a serious prosecution of his studies. And now, by the advice of his friends and guardians, he put himself under the care of Mr. William Thomas, rector of Ubley, in Somersetshire, a puritan divine, in whose house he boarded, with some of his sisters, for the space of two years. To this gentleman’s principles, however, he had no lasting attachment, and as he advanced in reading, he beg'an to study Hooker, Hammond, Taylor, Episcopius, &c. with which his friend Mr. Samuel Thomas, the son of his host, supplied him, much against the old gentleman’s will, who told his son that he would “corrupt Mr. Bull.” Soon after he had left Mr. Thomas, he entertained thoughts of entering into holy orders, and for that purpose applied himself to Dr. Skinner, the ejected bishop of Oxford, by whom he was ordained deacon and priest in the same day, being at that time but twenty-one years of age, and consequently under the age prescribed by the canons, with which, however, in times of such difficulty and distress, it was thought fit to dispense. Not long after, he accepted the small benefice of St. George’s, near Bristol, where, by his constant preaching twice every Sunday, the method he took in governing his parish, his manner of performing divine service, his exemplary life and great charities, he entirely gained the affections of his flock, and was very instrumental in reforming his parish, which he found overrun with quakers and other sectarists.

A little occurrence, soon after his coining to this living, contributed greatly to establish his reputation as a preacher. One Sunday, when he had begun his sermon, as he was turning over his Bible to explain some texts of scripUm which he had quoted, his notes, which were wrote on several small pieces of paper, flew out of his Bible into the middle of the church: many of the congregation fell into laughter, concluding that their young preacher would be non-plussed for want of materials; but some of the more sober and better-natured sort, gathered up the scattered notes, and carried them to him in the pulpit. Mr. Bull took them; and perceiving that most of the audience, consisting chiefly of sea-faring persons, were rather inclined to triumph over him under that surprize, he clapped them into his book again, and shut it, and then, without referring any more to them, went on with the subject he had begun. Another time, while he was preaching, a quaker came into the church, and in the middle of the sermon, cried out “George, come down, thou art a false prophet, and a hireling;” whereupon the parishioners, who loved their minister exceedingly, fell upon the poor quaker with such fury, as obliged Mr. Bull to come down out of the pulpit to quiet them, and to save him from the effects of their resentment; after which he went up again, and finished his sermon. The prevailing spirit of those times would not admit of the public and regular use of the book of common-prayer; but Mr. Bull formed all his public devotions out of the book of common prayer, and was commended as a person who prayed by the spirit, by many who condemned the common-prayer as a beggarly element and carnal performance. A particular instance of. this v happened to him upon his being sent for to baptize the child of a dissenter in his parish. Upon this occasion, he made use of the office of baptism as prescribed by the church of England, which he had got entirely by heart, and which he went through with so much readiness, gravity, and devotion, that the whole company were extremely affected. After the ceremony, the father of the child returned him a great many thanks, intimating at the same time, with how much greater edification those prayed, who entirely depended upon the spirit of God for his assistance in their extempore effusions, than they did who tied themselves up to premeditated forms; and that, if he had not made the sign of the cross, the badge of popery, as he called it, nobody could have formed the least objection to his excellent prayers. Upon which Mr. Bull shewed him the office of baptism in the liturgy, wherein was contained every prayer he had used on that occasion; which, with other arguments offered by Mr. Bull in favour of the common prayer, wrought so effectually upon the good old man, and his whole family, that from that time they became constant attendants on the public service of the church.

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.

Ward has given a long list of his compositions in manuscript; but the only works in print are his lessons in the collection entitled “Parthenia,” the first music that ever was printed for the virginals. He appears from some lessons in this work, to have possessed a power of execution on the harpsichord far beyond what is generally conceived of the masters of that time. But Dr. Burney, who has entered very largely into the character of his music, seems to think that it evinces more labour than genius, and that the great difficulty of performing it is poorly recompensed by the effect produced.

, 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.

, a learned English physician and botanist, was descended from an ancient family, and born in the isle of Ely, about the beginning of Henry the Eighth’s reign. He was bred up at Cambridge, as some say, at Oxford according to others; but probably both those nurseries of learning had a share in his education. We know, however, but little of his personal history, though he was famous in his profession, and a member of the college of physicians in London, except what we are able to collect from his works. Tanner says, that he was a divine, as well as a physician; that he wrote a book against transubstantiation; and that in June 1550 he was inducted into the rectory of Blaxhall, in Suffolk, which he resigned in November 1554. From his works we learn that he had been a traveller over several parts of Germany, Scotland, and especially England; and he seems to have made it his business to acquaint himself with the natural history of each place, and with the products of its soil. It appears, however, that he was more permanently settled at Durham, where he, practised physic with great reputation; and, among others of the most eminent inhabitants, was in great favour with sir Thomas Hilton, knight, baron of Hilton, to whom he dedicated a book in the last year of queen Mary’s reign. In 1560, he went to London, where, to his infinite surprise, he found himself accused by Mr. William Hilton of Biddick, of having murdered his brother, the baron aforesaid; who really died among his own friends of a malignant fever. The innocent doctor was easily cleared, yet his enemy hired some ruffians to assassinate him, and when disappointed in this, arrested Dr. Bulleyn in an action, and confined him in prison a long time; where he wrote some of his medical treatises. He was a very learned, experienced, and able physician. He was very intimate with the works of the ancient physicians and naturalists, both Greek, Roman, and Arabian. He was also a man of probity and piety, and though he Jived in the times of popery, does not appear to have been tainted with its principles. He died Jan. 7, 1576, and was buried in the same grave with his brother Richard Bulleyn, a divine, who died thirteen years before, in the church of St. Giles, Cripplegate. There is an inscription on their tomb, with some Latin verses, in which they are celebrated as men famous for their learning and piety. Of Dr. Bulleyn particularly it is said, that he was always as ready to accommodate the poor as the rich, with medicines for the relief of their distempers. There is a profile of Bulleyn, with a long beard, before his “Government of Health,” and a whole-length of him in wood, prefixed to his “Bulwarke of defence.” He was an ancestor of the late Dr. Stukeley, who, in 1722, was at the expence of having a small head of him engraved.

, 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 man of learning in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the friend of Erasmus, who corresponded with him by the name of Bovillus, was a native of Berkshire, according to Fuller. He was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1504, and his master’s in 1507, and was chosen fellow in the last mentioned year. He commenced D. D. in 1520, and was vice-chancellor in 1524—5. He was esteemed a man of abilities, and chosen by cardinal Wolsey to answer Luther. The cardinal also made him his chaplain, but we do not find that he raised him to any higher dignity, yet the oration he spoke in favour of the cardinal, now printed in Fiddes’s life of that great churchman, seems to have merited a higher reward. By his letters to Erasmus, it appears that he was an able Grecian at a time when that language was little known. In 1513, in conjunction with Mr. Walden, he read a mathematical lecture, and had a salary from the university for it. He was also one of the twelve preachers sent out by that university in 1515. The biographers of Erasmus profess their ignorance of the time of his death. Tanner fixes it in 1526, but Dodd says he was living in 1530. He wrote, 1. “De Captivitate Babylonica contra Lutherum.” 2. “Epistolse et Orationes.” 3. “De Serpentibus siticulosis,” a translation from the Greek of Lucian, printed at Cambridge, 1521, 4to. 4. “Oratio coram Archiepiscopo Eboracensi,” ibid. 1521, s 4to.

At eighty he is said to have composed, 1. 185 elegies and epigrams, all on religious subjects; and before that, in early life, a poem on the birth of the duke of York, 1721. 2. “Letters to the Earl of Arlington,” 1712, 8vo. 3. “Essays” on subjects of manners and morals, 1715, 8vo. 4. “Memoirs and Reflections upon the reigns and governments of Charles I. and II.” He appears to have been a man of talents and considerable learning, and in his political course, able and consistent. His son Whitlocke Buistrode, who published his “Essays,” enjoyed the office of prothonotary of the marshal’s court, and published a treatise on the transmigration of souls, which went through two editions, 1692, 1693, 8vo, and was translated into Latin by Oswald Dyke, 1725. 2. “Essays, ecclesiastical and civil,” 1706, 8vo. 3. “Letters between him and Dr. Wood,” physician to the pretender. 4. “Compendium of the crown laws, in three charges to the grand jury at Westminster,” 1723, 8vo. He died Nov. 27, 1724, in his seventy-fourth year, and was buried in Heston church, Middlesex, where there is a monument and inscription on the north wall of the chancel.

, 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.

, an elegant Latin scholar, was born at Toulouse in 1499, and studied at Paris, where he was distinguished by his quick progress and promising talents. On his return to Toulouse, finding his family unable to maintain him, he went to Padua, where he was supported by Emilius Perrot. He was afterwards taken into the family of Lazarus de Baif, the French ambassador at Venice, by whose generosity he was not only maintained, but enabled to study the Greek tongue, and he afterwards studied Hebrew. George de Selve, bishop of Lavaur, who succeeded de Baif as ambassador, retained Bunel in his service, and when his embassy was finished, carried him with him to Levaur. Upon the death of that prelate, which happened in 1541, Bunel returned to Toulouse^ where he would have been reduced to the greatest indigence, had not messieurs de Faur, the patrons of virtue and science, extended their liberality to him unasked. One of these gentlemen appointed him tutor to his sons; but whilst he was making the tour of Italy with them, he was cut off at Turin by a fever, in 1546. Mr. Bayle says, that he was one of the politest writers of the Latin tongue in the sixteenth century; but though he was advantageously distinguished by the eloquence of his Ciceronian style, he was still more so by the strictness of his morals. The magistrates of his native town of Toulouse set up a marble statue to his memory in their town-house. He left som'e Latin epistles written with the utmost purity, which were first published by Charles Stevens in 1551, and afterwards by Henry Stevens in 1581. Another, but a more incorrect edition, was printed at Toulouse in 1687, with notes by Mr. Gravero, advocate of Nimes.

, 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.”

The rev. Mr. Granger, in his Biographical History of England, is yet more decided in his admiration of* Bunyan’s talents. “Bunyan, who has been mentioned among the least and lowest of our writers, and even ridiculed as a driveller by those who have never read him, deserves a much higher rank than is commonly imagined. His ' Pilgrim’s Progress’ gives us a clear and distinct idea of Calvinisftcal divinity. The allegory is admirably carried on, and the characters justly drawn and uniformly supported. The author’s original and poetic genius shines through the coarseness and vulgarity of his language, and intimates that if he had been a master of numbers, he might have composed a poem worthy of Spenser himself. As this opinion may be deemed paradoxical, I shall venture to name two persons of eminence of the same sentiments; one, the late Mr. Merrick of Reading (who has been heard to say in conversation, that Bunyan’s invention was like that of Homer); the other, Dr. Roberts, now (late) fellow of Eton college.”

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.

It may be proper here to remark, that there is a small book, which has been often printed with it under the title of a Third Part of the Pilgrim’s Progress; but the purpose of our making the remark is to guard our readers against it as a very gross imposition. The late rev. John Newton, by a very happy figure, asserts that “a common hedgestake deserves as much to be compared with Aaron’s rod, which yielded blossoms and almonds, as this poor performance to be obtruded upon the world under the title of the” Third Part of the Pilgrim’s Progress." Besides that this forgery contradicts Bunyan’s doctrines, it is evident that his plan was completed in his Second Part, and that no addition could have been made even by his own ingenious pen, that would not have partaken of the nature of a repetition. It remains to be noticed, that they who have read no other production of Bunyan, have yet to learn the extent of the wonderful powers displayed in his various works. Considering his narrow and confined education, we have been almost equally struck with the perspicuous an^ clear views of his various theological and practical treatises, as the works of a man gifted in a most uncommon degree.

, an Italian historian, was born at Lucca in 1710, of a reputable family, and first embraced the ecclesiastical state. His studies being finished, he went to Rome, and during a stay of some years in that city, attracted the notice of the cardinal de Polignac, who was desirous of gaining his attachment, but whom he refused, to accompany into France. Not meeting iif the church with the advantages he had promised himself, he gave it up, in order to bear arms in the service of the king of the Two Sicilies, which, however, did not prevent his devoting himself to the study of the belles-lettres. He wrote in Latin the history of the war of Velletri in 1745, between the Austrians and Neapolitans, in which he was employed, under the title of “De rebus ad Velitras gestis commentarius,” 1746, 4to. This obtained him a pension from the king of Naples, and the rank of commissary general of artillery. But his most considerable work is the history of the war in Italy, which appeared in 1750 and 1751, under this title, “Debello Italico commentarii,” 4to, in three books, for which he got the title of count to himself and his descendants. These two histories are much esteemed for the correctness of the narration and the purity of the Latinity, and have been several times reprinted. The count de Buonamici also composed a treatise “De scientia militari,” but which has not hitherto been published. He died in 1761, at Lucca, the place of his nativity, whither he was come for the benefit of his health. The name of Castruccio being very famous in the history of Lucca, he adopted it on his going into the Neapolitan service, instead of his baptismal name, which was FrancisJoseph-Mary. His work on the war in Italy was translated into English, and published in 1753 at London by A. Wishart, M. A. under the title of “Commentaries of the late war in Italy,” 8vo.

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.

To this little circumstance Michel Angelo, who was now between fifteen and sixteen years old, owed the patronage of Lorenzo, who adopted him into his. family, provided him with a room, and eVery accommodation in the palace, treated him as his own son, and introduced him to men of rank and genius. Among others he formed an intimacy with Politiano, who resided under the same roof, and soon became warmly attached to his interests. At his recommendation he executed a basso-relievo in marble, the subject of which was the battle of the Centaurs, of which it is sufficient praise, that it stood approved in the riper judgment of Michel Angelo himself, who, although not indulgent to his own productions, did not hesitate on seeing it, even in the decline of life, to express his regret that he had not entirely devoted himself to sculpture. In 1492, death deprived him of the patronage of Lorenzo, which, however, was in some measure continued to him by Lorenzo’s successor, a man of corrupt and vitiated taste, of whose discrimination in merit we have this notable proof that he boasted of two extraordinary persons in his house, Michel Angelo, and a Spanish footman who could out -run u horse. Michel Angelo, however, prosecuted his studies, and produced some fine specimens of art, until the tranquillity of Florence was disturbed by the haughty and pusillanimous conduct of his patron, Piero de Medici, when he thought proper to retire to Bologna to avoid the impending evils. Here he was invited into the house of Aldovrandi, a Bolognese gentleman, and one of the sixteen constituting the government, and during his stay executed two statues in marble for the church of St. Domenico. After remaining with this hospitable friend somewhat more than a year, the affairs of Florence being tranquillized, he returned home to his father’s house, pursued his profession, and produced a statue of a sleeping Cupid, that advanced his reputation, but not without the aid of some trick. He was advised by a friend to stain the marble so as to give it the appearance of an antique, and in this state it was sent to Rome to an agent who pretended to have dug it up in a vineyard, and sold to cardinal St. Giorgio for two hundred ducats. What rendered this imposition unnecessary to Michel Angelo' s fame, was, that on the discovery of the real artist, he received the most flattering praises, and was invited to Rome, as the proper theatre for the exercise of his talents. At Rome he made several statues, which placed him in an enviable rank among his contemporaries, and a cartoon of St. Francis receiving the stigmata, painted in distemper for St. Pietro in Montorio; and while he executed these commissions both with credit and profit to himself, he was also indefatigable by observation and study to improve and elevate his style.

That Michel Angelo might have an opportunity of adding to his lame as a painter, the gonfaloniere commissioned him to paint a large historical subject, to ornament the hall of the ducal palace; and as it was the honourable ambition of Soderini to employ the talents of his country in the establishment of its fame, he engaged the abilities of Leonardo da Vinci, at the same time, to execute a corresponding picture to occupy the opposite side of the hall. An event in the war between the Florentines and Pisans, was the subject Michel Angelo chose, and that of Leonardo da Vinci was a battle of cavalry. Michel Angelo’s cartoon was the most extraordinary work that had appeared since the revival of the arts in Italy, but as no part of it now remains, an idea of it can be formed only from Vasari’s account and description. Such was the excellence of this work, that some thought it absolute perfection; not to be rivalled, and hopeless to be approached; and certainly some credit is due to this opinion, as from the time it was placed in the papal hall, it was for many years constantly visited by foreigners as well as natives, who, by studying and drawing from it, became eminent masters. It requires to be added, however, that the cartoon was all that was finished; from various causes, the picture itself was never begun, and the cartoon, which was exhibited to students for their improvement, was by degrees mutilated and destroyed, an irreparable injury to posterity.

On the accession of pope Julius II. a patron of genius and learning, Michel Angelo was among the first invited to his court, and after some time the pope, gave him an unlimited commission to make a mausoleum. Having received full powers, he commenced a design worthy of himself and his patron. The plan was a parallelogram, and the superstructure to consist of forty statues, many of which were to be colossal, interspersed with ornamental figures and bronze basso-relievos, besides the necessary architecture, with appropriate decorations, to unite the composition into one stupendous whole. When this magnificent design was completed, it met with the pope’s entire approbation, and Michel Angelo was desired to go into St. Peter’s to see where it could be conveniently placed. Michel Angelo fixed upon a particular spot, but the church itself, now old, being considered as ill-adapted, for so superb a mausoleum, the pope, after many consultations with architects, determined to rebuild St. Peter’s; and this is the origin of that edifice which took a hundred and fifty years to complete, and is now the grandest display of architectural splendour that ornaments the Christian world. To those, says his late excellent biographer, who are curious in tracing the remote causes of great events to their source, Michel Angelo perhaps may be found, though very unexpectedly, to have thus laid the first stone of the reformation. His monument demanded a building of corresponding magnificence; to prosecute the undertaking money was wanting, and indulgences were sold to supply the deficiency of the treasury. A monk of Saxony (Luther) opposed the authority of the church, and this singular fatality attended the event, that whilst the most splendid edifice which the world had ever seen was building for the catholic faith, the religion to which it was consecrated was shaken to the foundation.

The work was begun, but before it had proceeded far, Michel Angelo met with some affront from the servants of the papal palace, who were jealous of his favour with the pope, and not being admitted to his holiness when he came on business, set off from Rome for Florence. As soon as this was known, couriers were dispatched after him, but, as he had got beyond the pope’s territories, they could not use force, and only obtained of Michel Angelo a letter to the pope explaining the cause of his departure. But after some time, and the intercession of friends, Michel Angelo consented to return to Rome, where, to his great disappointment, he found that the pope had changed his mind, and instead of completing the monument, had determined to decorate with pictures the ceilings and walls of the Sistine chapel, in honour of the memory of his uncle Sixtus IV. The walls of this chapel were already ornamented with historical paintings by various masters, but these were now to be effaced, and the entire chapel to be painted by Michel Angelo, so as to correspond in its parts, and make one uniform whole. Michel Angelo was diffident of his powers in fresco-painting, and recommended Raffaello, but the pope was peremptory, and our artist obliged to yield. He accordingly prepared the cartoons, and endeavoured to engage persons experienced in frescopainting, but being disappointed in the first specimen of their abilities, he determined himself to try how far he could overcome the difficulties which made it necessary for him to seek their aid, and succeeded in painting the ceiling to the astonishment and admiration even of his enemies. For the description of this stupendous monument of human genius, we must refer to our authority, but the circumstance not the least remarkable, was, that the whole was completed in twenty months, and on AllSaints-Day, 1512, the chapel was opened, and the pope officiated at high mass to a crowded and admiring audience. Michel Angelo next applied himself to make designs for other pictures for the sides of the chapel, to complete the original plan: but on Feb. 21, 1513, the pope died, and to ^Michel Angelo his loss was not supplied. The old paintings still remain on the walls of this chapel.

Julius II. was succeeded by the celebrated Leo X. who professed the same warmth of attachment, and the same zeal to promote the talents of Michel Angelo. But we have already seen that the attachment of this great artist’s patrons was mixed with a degree of caprice which reduced him often to a state of servitude. Michel Angelo had received instructions to construct a monument for Julius II. on a lesser scale than the mausoleum which we have already mentioned. This Leo X. immediately interrupted, by insisting on his going to Florence to build the fagade of the church of S. Lorenzo, which remained unfinished from the time of his grandfather Cosmo de Medici, and Michel Angelo, after in vain pleading the engagement he was under, was obliged to comply. Nor was this all. While at Carrara, ordering the necessary marble, he received a letter from Leo desiring him to go to Pietra Santa, where his holiness had been told there was marble equal to that of Carrara. Michel Angelo obeyed, and reported that the marble was of an inferior quality, and that there was no means of conveying it to Fldrence without making a road of many miles to the sea, through mountains, and over marshes, &c. The pope, however, flattered with the prospect of procuring marble* from a territory which he could at any time call his own, ordered him to proceed, the result of which was that the talents of this great man were buried in those mountains, and his time consumed during the whole reign of Leo X. (above eight years) in little other than raising stone out of a quarry, and making a road to convey it to the sea. At the death of Leo the fagade of S. Lorenzo was not advanced beyond its foundation, and the time of Michel Angelo had been consumed in making a road, in seeing that five columns were made at the quarry of Pietra Santa, in conducting them to the sea-side, and in transporting one of them to Florence this employment, with occasionally making some models in wax, and some trifling designs for the interior of a room in the Medici palace, appears to have been all the benefit. that was derived from his talents during the whole of this pontificate.

During the pontificate of Adrian VI. who succeeded Leo, the facade of S. Lorenzo was altogether laid aside, and Michel Angelo endeavoured to resume his labours on the monument of Julius II. for which the heirs of Julius were impatient, and threatened to make the artist accounjt for the monies received in the pontificate of Julius. He found a friend, however, in the cardinal Giuliano de Medici, who commissioned him to build a library and new sacristy to the church of S. Lorenzo, to serve as a mausoleum for the Medici family; and also to execute monuments to the memory of the dukes Giuliano and Lorenzo, to be placed in it; and these works took up the whole Of Michel Angelo’s attention during the short pontificate of Adrian VI. which lasted only twenty months, ending Sept. 14, 1523. During the first part of the pontificate of his successor Clement VII. formerly Giuliano de Medici, Michel Angelo went on with the chapel and library of S. Lorenzo, which Giuliano had ordered, and executed a statue of Christ, of the size of nature, to be placed on an altar in the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, at Rome, and which is still in that church, but on a pedestal at the entrance of the choir. During the wars which succeeded, we find him employing his talents on works of fortification at Florence, when besieged by the prince of Orange, but hearing of some treacherous plans to undermine the republic, he withdrew secretly to Ferrara, and thence to Venice. Being, however, solicited by persons high in office not to abandon the post committed to his charge, he returned, and resumed his situation, until the city surrendered to the pope, when he was obliged to secrete himself in an obscure retreat. The pope having by a public manifesto given him assurances, that if he would discover himself he should not be molested, qn condition that he would furnish the two monuments in St. Lorenzo, already begun, Michel Angelo, on this, with little respect for the persons his genius was to commemorate, and with less affection for his employer, hastened to complete his labour; not with any ardour of sentiment, but as a task which was the price of his liberty.

Tranquillity being restored in Italy, Michel Angelo was again called upon by the duke of Urbino, to complete the monument of Julius II, agreeable to the last design, and was again interrupted by the pope, who wished to employ him at Florence, and Afterwards ordered him to paint the two end walls of the Sistine chapel. Our artist being unable openly to oppose the will of the pope, procrastinated the work as much as possible, and while he was engaged in making a cartoon for the chapel, secretly employed as much of his time as circumstances would allow, in forwarding the monument to Julius II. But this was again interrupted by the next pope, Paul III. although at length, after much riegociation, and after changing the design three times, he was permitted to complete, his task, which was placed, not in St. Peter’s, as originally intended, but in the church of S. Pietro, in Vincoli.

As there now remained no objection to Michel Angelo’s devoting his time to the service of the pope, he commenced painting the great work of the Last Judgment, in the Sistine chapel, which was finished in 1541, and the chapel opened on Christmas day. Persons are described to have come from the most distant parts of Italy to see it, and the public and the court were rivals in admiration, which must have been peculiarly grateful to Michel Angelo, not only from that pleasure common to all men who are conscious of deserving well, and having those claims allowed, but in succeeding to give the pope Paul III. entire satisfaction, who, in the first year of his pontificate, liberally provided him with a pension for his life of six hundred pounds a year, to enable him to prosecute the undertaking to his own satisfaction.

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.

After this discussion, the time left to Michel Angelo for the enjoyment of his uncontrolled authority was short, for in the month of February 1563, he was attacked by a slow fever, which exhibited symptoms of his approaching death, and he desired Daniello da Volterra to write to his nephew Leonardo Buonarroti to come to Rome; his fever, however, increased, and his nephew not arriving, in the presence of his physician and others who were in his house, whom he ordered into his bed-room, he made this short nuncupative will: “My soul I resign to God, my body to the earth, and my worldly possessions to my nearest of kin;” then admonished his attendants: “In your passage through this life, remember the sufferings of Jesus Christ,” and soon after delivering this charge, he died, Feb. 17, 1563, aged eighty-eight years, eleven months, and fifteen days, which yet was not the life of his father, who attained the age of ninety-two. Three days after his death, his remains were deposited with great funeral pomp in the church of S. Apostoli, in Rome, but afterwards, at the request of the Florentine academy, were removed to the church of Santa Croce at Florence, and again with great solemnity finally deposited in the vault by the side of the altar, called the Altare de Cavalcanti.

The love of wealth made no part of Michel Angelo’s character; he was in no instance covetous of money, nor attentive to its accumulation. When he was offered commissions from the rich with large sums, he rarely accepted them, being more stimulated by friendship and benevolence than the desire of gain. He was also liberal, and freely assisted literary men as well as those of his own profession, who stood in need of his aid. He had a great love for his art, and a laudable desire to perpetuate his name. A friend of his regretted that he had no children to bequeath the profits acquired by his profession, to which he answered, “My works must supply their place; and if they are good for any thing, they must live hereafter.” He established it as a principle, that to live in credit was enough, if life was virtuously and honourably employed for the good of others and the benefit of posterity; and thus he laid up the most profitable treasure for his old age, and calculated upon its best resources.

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.

, a native of Verona, who flourished in the sixteenth century, was disciple to Bagolinus, who explained Aristotle’s Logic in the university of Bologna. Burana shewed great subtlety in his disputations, which made the scholars very desirous of hearing him read public lectures on this part of philosophy, which he did, illustrating his subject from the Greek and Arabian interpreters. He had studied Hebrew with great success. Having quitted his profession, he applied himself to the practice of physic. He also undertook to translate some treatises of Aristotle and of Averroes, and to write commentaries on them; but death hindered him from finishing this work. He desired however that it might be printed, and charged his heirs to publish it, after his manuscript had been corrected by some learned man. Bagolinus undertook that task, and published the work under the title of “Aristotelis Priora resolutoria, &c.” Paris, 1539, folio. Bayle seems to think there was a prior edition printed at Venice; but by Moreri we find that the Paris edition, was of 1533, and that of Venice of the date above mentioned.

, an Italian poet, was better known under this name than by that of Dominico, which was his true one. Authors differ concerning his country and the time of his birth. The opinion most followed is that he was born at Florence about 1380. As to the epocha of his death, it seems more certain: he died at Rome in 1448. This poet was a barber at Florence, and his shop the common rendezvous of all the literati of that town. His poems, which mostly consist of sonnets, and often very freely written, are of the comic and burlesque species; but so truly original, that some poets who came after him have endeavoured to imitate him by composing verses alia Burcbiellesca. They are however full of obscurities and aenigmas. Some writers have taken the pains to make comments on them, and, among others, le Doni; but the commentary is scarcely less obscure than the text. Burchiello nevertheless holds a distinguished place among the Italian poets of the satirical class. He may be censurable for not having had sufficient respect for good manners; but the licence of this poetical barber was much in the general taste of the times. The best editions of his poems are those of Florence, 1552 and 1568, 3vo. His sonnets were printed for the first time at Venice, 1475, 4to.

, an eminent bookseller at Paris, is well known to the learned throughout Europe for the able assistance he has afforded to the study of bibliography. Of his personal history very little is related by his countrymen, unless that he was a man of high character in trade; and, as appears from his works, more intimately acquainted with the history of books and editions than perhaps any man of his time in any country. He died July 15, 1782. He first published his “Museum Typographicum,” Paris, 1755, 12mo, a small edition of only twelve copies, which he gave away among his friends. It was published under the name of G. F. Rebude, and according to the Dict. Hist, was reprinted in 1775. Afterwards appeared the “Bibliographic Instructive,” 1763 68, 7 vols. 8vo, succeeded by a small volume of a catalogue of the anonymous publications, and an “Essay upon Bibliography.” The merits of this work are universally acknowledged. The abbe Rive having attacked this work with considerable asperity, De Bure replied in “Appel aux Savans,” 1763, 8vo, and “Reponse a une Critique de la Bibliographic Instructive,” 1763, 8vo. In 1769 he published the catalogue of Gaignat’s library, 2 vols. 8vo, which completely established his reputation as a bibliographer. He was succeeded in these labours by his cousin William, who, with Mons. Van Praet, ^prepared the catalogue of the duke de la Valliere’s library in 1783, and published other valuable catalogues as late as the year 1801.

, 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.

He resided seven years in Ireland, at the end of which he returned, at the request of his infirm father, and notwithstanding the strictness of the laws against nonconformity, preached frequently in Marlborough in Wiltshire, and other places in the neighbourhood. For this he was imprisoned for some time, but was released upon bail, and in 1685 came to London; and the dissenters now having more liberty, his numerous admirers hired a meeting for him in Brydges-street, Covent-garden. “Being situated,” says one of his biographers, “in the neighbourhood of the theatre, and surrounded by many who are fools enough to mock at sin and religion, he frequently had among his hearers those who came only to make themselvesmerry at the ex pence of religion, dissenters, and Daniel Burgess. This his undaunted courage, his pointed wit, and ready elocution, turned to great advantage: for he frequently fixed his eye on those scoffers, and addressing them personally in a lively, piercing, and serious manner, was blessed to the conversion of many who came only to mock.” Much of this may be true, but it cannot, on the other hand, be denied that Daniel provoked the mirth of his hearers by a species of buffoonery in language, to laugh at which was not necessarily connected with any contempt for religion.

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.

, a moral and political writer, was born at Madderty, in Perthshire, Scotland, in the latter end of the year 1714. His father was minister of that parish, and his mother was aunt to the celebrated historian Dr. Robertson. His grammatical education he received at the school of the place which gave him birth, where he discovered such a quickness and facility in imbibing literary instruction, that his master used to say, that his scholar would soon acquire all the knowledge that it was in his power to communicate. In due time young Burgh was removed to the University of St. Andrew’s, with a view of becoming a clergyman in the church of Scotland; but he did not continue long at the college, on account of a bad state of health, which induced him to lay aside the thoughts of the clerical profession, and enter into trade, in the linen, way; which he was enabled to do with the greater prospect of advantage, as he had lately obtained a handsome fortune by the death of his eldest brother. In business, however, he was not at all successful; for, by giving injudicious credit, he was soon deprived of his property. Not long after this misfortune, he came to London, where his first employment was to correct the press for the celebrated Mr. Bowyer; and at his leisure hours he made indexes. After being engaged about a year in this way, during which, he became acquainted with some friends who were highly serviceable to him in his future plans of life, he removed to Great Marlow, in Buckinghamshire, as an assistant at the free grammar-school of that town; and whilst he continued in this situation, the school is said to have been considerably increased. During his residence at Marlow, he met with only one gentleman who was suited to his own turn of mind. With that gentleman, who was a man of piety, and of extensive reading in divinity, though no classicai scholar, he contracted a particular friendship. At Marlow it was that Mr. Burgh first commenced author, by writing a pamphlet, entitled Britain’s Remembrancer," and which was published, if we mistake not, a little after the beginning of the rebellion, in 1745. This tract contained an enumeration of the national blessings and deliverances which Great Britain had received; with pathetic exhortations to a right improvement of them, by a suitable course of piety and virtue. It appeared without Mr. Burgh’s name, as was the case with his works in general, and was so much read and applauded by persons of a religious temper, that it went through five editions in little more than two years, was reprinted in Scotland, Ireland, and America, and again in London 1766. Mr. Barker, at that time one of the most eminent ministers among the protestant dissenters in London, spoke highly of it, in a sermon preaghed at Salters’-hall and publicly thanked the unknown author, for so seasonable and useful a performance.

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.”

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,

It is certain, however, that about 1753 he came to London, and entered himself, as already noticed, as a student of the Middle Temple, where he is said to have studied, as in every other situation, with unremitting diligence. Many of his habits and conversations were long remembered at the Grecian coffee-house (then the great rendezvous of the students of the Middle Temple), and they were such as were highly creditable to his morals and his talents. With the former, indeed, we should not know jhow to reconcile a connection imputed to him at this time with Mrs. Woffington, the actress, if we gave credit to the report; but it is not very likely, that one in Mr. Burke’s narrow circumstances would have been admitted to more than a slight acquaintance with a lady of that description. Though by the death of his elder brother, he was to have succeeded to a very comfortable patrimony, yet as his. father was living, and had other children, it could not be supposed that his allowance was very ample. This urged him to draw upon his genius for the deficiency of fortune, and we are told that he became a frequent contributor to the periodical publications. His first publication is said to have been a poem, which did not succeed. There is no certain information, however, concerning these early productions, unless that he found it necessary to apply with so much assiduity as to injure his health. A dangerous illness ensued, and he resorted for medical advice to Dr. Nugent, a physician whose skill in his profession was equalled only by the benevolence of his heart. He was, if we are not mistaken, a countryman of Burke’s, a Roman catholic, and at one time an author by profession. This benevolent friend, considering that the noise and various disturbances incidental to chambers, must retard the recovery of his patient, furnished him with apartments in his own house, where the attention of every member of the family contributed more than medicine to the recovery of his health. It was during this period that the amiable manners of miss Nugent, the doctor’s daughter, made a deep impression on the heart of Burke; and as she could not be insensible to such merit as his, they felt for each, other a mutual attachment, and were married soon after his recovery. With this lady he appears to have enjoyed uninterrupted felicity. He often declared to his intimate friends, “That, in all the anxious moments of his public life, every care vanished when he entered his own house.” Mr. Burke' s first known publication, although not immediately known, was his very happy imitation of Bolingbroke, entitled “A Vindication of Natural Society,” 1756, 8vo. To assume the style and character of such a writer, who had passed through all the high gradations of official knowledge for near half a century, a fine scholar, a most ready and eloquent speaker, and one of the best writers of his time, was, perhaps, one of the boldest attempts ever undertaken, especially by a young man, a stranger to the manners, habits, and connections of the literati of this country, who could have no near view of the great character he imitated, and whose time of life would not permit of those long and gradual experiments by which excellence of any kind is to be obtained. Burke, however, was not without success in his great object, which was to expose the dangerous tendency of lord Bolingbroke’s philosophy. When this publication first appeared, we are told that almost every body received it as the posthumous work of lord Bolingbroke, and it was praised up to the standard of his best writings. “The critics knew the turn of his periods; his style; his phrases; and above all, the matchless dexterity of his nietaphysical pen: and amongst these, nobody distinguished himself more than the lately departed veteran of the stage, Charles Macklin; who, with the pamphlet in his hand, used frequently to exclaim at the Grecian coffee-house (where he gave a kind of literary law to the young Templars at that time),” Oh! sir, this must be Harry Bolingbroke: I know him by his cloven foot." But much of this account is mere assumption. Macklin, and such readers as Macklin, might be deceived; but no man was deceived whose opinion deserved attention. The public critics certainly immediately discovered the imitation, and one at least of them was not very well pleased with it. We are told, indeed, that lord Chesterfield and bishop Warburton were at first deceived; but this proves only the exactness of the imitation; a more attentive perusal discovered the writer’s real intention.

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.

The celebrity of such works soon made Mr. Burke known to the literati; amongst whom were the late George lord Lyttelton, the right honourable William Gerard Hamilton, the late Dr. Markham, archbishop of York, Dr. Johnson, sir Joshua Reynolds, and many other eminent characters, who were proud to patronize a young man of such good private character, and such very distinguished talents. It was in consequence of these connections that we soon after find Mr. Burke in the suite of the earl of Halifax, appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, October 1761. Here, by his talents, as well as by his convivial and agreeable manners, he made himself not only useful at the castle, but renewed and formed several valuable acquaintances.

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.

In July 1766, Mr. Burke, finding himself disengaged from political business, visited Ireland after an absence of many years; and here he renewed many of those pleasing friendships and connections which engaged the attention of his younger days, always rendered still more pleasing by the prospect of a rising fortune, and a capacity of doing good to those we love and esteem. He returned to England towards the close of the year; and, finding a strong opposition formed against the duke of Grafton, who was tapping the spirit and force of those resolutions passed under the late administration, he threw himself into the foremost ranks, and there soon shewed what a formidable adversary he was likely to be. The opinion which Mr. Burke had of the Grafton administration is thus humorously described by himself. After paying many merited eulogiums on the character of lord Chatham, he claims the freedom of history to speak of the administration he formed, and thus proceeds: “He made an administration so chequered and speckled; he put together a piece of joining so crossly indented and whimsically dove-tailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified Mosaic; such a tessellated pavement without cement; here a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers; king’s friends and republicans; whigs and tories; treacherous friends and open enemies; that it was indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch, and unsure to stand upon. The colleagues, whom he had assorted at the same boards, stared at each other, and were obliged to ask, ‘Sir, your name? Sir, you have the advantage of me Mr. Such-a-one Sir, I beg a thousand pardons.’ I venture to say, it did so happen that persons had a single office divided between them who had never spoken to each other in their lives, until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging together, heads and points, in the same truckle-bed.”

The session of 1768 opened with a perturbed prospect. The distresses occasioned by the high price of provisions, the restraining act relative to the East India company, the nullum tempus bill, and other matters, afforded great room for discussion, in which Mr. Burke took a part which not only shewed the powers of his eloquence, but the great resources of his information. He was soon considered as the head of the Rockingham party in the house of commons; and his great assiduity in preparing business for discussion, joined to his powers for speaking and writing, fully qualified him for this character. It is true, there were other persons of great name on the same side; such as the late right honourable W. Dowdeswell-r-the gravity of whose deportment, whose practical knowledge of business, and great integrity of character, made him always well hearJt and respected; Mr. Dunning (late lord Ashburtoh), whose legal knowledge and powers of elocution will be long remembered; and colonel Barre, whose political observation, and pointed replies, were always formidable to administration. But, notwithstanding the acknowleged merit of these gentlemen and others, Burke stood foremost for uniting the powers of fancy with the details of political information. In his speeches there was something for every mind to be gratified, which we have often seen occasionally exemplified even by those who disliked his general politics.

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.

Besides Burke’s speeches on the Middlesex election, he drew up a petition to the king from the freeholders of Buckinghamshire, where he had now purchased his house and lands at Beacon sfi eld, complaining of the conduct of the house of commons, in the matter of the expulsion, and praying for a dissolution of parliament. This petition was more temperate and decorous than some others addressed to the throne on that subject. About the same time he published “Thoughts on the public Discontents,” a pamphlet from which they who wish to establish a “consistent whole” in Mr. Burke’s conduct, derive some of their proofs. In this he proposed to place the government in the hands of an open aristocracy of talents, virtue, property, and rank, combined together on avowed principles, and supported by the approbation and confidence of the people; and the aristocracy which he thought fittest for this great trust, was a combination of those whig families which had most powerfully supported the revolution and consequent establishments. He expressed also, in strong terms, his disapprobation of any change in the constitution and duration of parliament; and declared himself as averse from, an administration which should have no other support than popular favour, as from one brought forward merely by the influence of the court. In all Mr. Burke' s publications there is a fascination of style and manner, which carries the reader with him to a certain distance; but to this scheme there were so many obvious objections that it made few converts, and courtiers and whigs equally opposed it, thinking it perhaps too comprehensive for the selfishness of party.

In 1772, he took a trip to France, and while he remained in that country his literary and political eminence made him courted by all the anti-monarchical and infidel philosophers of the time. That he saw in the religious scepticism and political theories of Voltaire, Helvetius, Rousseau, and D'Alembert, even at that period, the probable overthrow of religion and government, is not surprising, for these consequences were foreseen, about the same time, by a man of much less discernment, and of no religion, the late Horace Walpole, lord Orford, Burke, however, was so impressed with the subject, that on his return he could not avoid introducing his sentiments in the house of commons, and pointing out the conspiracy of atheism to the watchful jealousy of government. He professed he was not over-fond of calling in the aid of the secular arm to suppress doctrines and opinions; but if ever it were to be raised, it should be against those enemies of their kind who would take from us the noblest prerogative of our nature, that of being a religious animal. About the same time he supported a motion for the relief of dissenters, and in the course of his speech* called the toleration which they enjoyed by connivance “a temporary relaxation of slavery,” a sort of liberty “not calculated for the meridian of England.”

The Spring of 1782 opened a new scene of great political importance. The American war had continued seven years, and having been unsuccessful, not only the people, but very nearly a majority of the parliament, became tired of it. The minister was now attacked with great force, and the several motions which the opposition introduced, relative to the extinction of the war, were lost only by a very small minority. Finding the prospect of success brightening, the opposition determined to put the subject at issue. Accordingly on the 8th of March, lord John Cavendish moved certain resolutions, recapitulating the failures, the misconduct, and the expences of ‘the war, the debate on which lasted till two o’clock in the morning, when the house divided on the order of the day. which had been moved by the secretary at war, and which was carried only by a majority often. This defection on the side of administration gave heart to the minority, and they rallied with redoubled force and spirits on the 15th of March, when a motion of sir John Rous, “That the house could have no further confidence in the ministers who had the direction of public affairs,” was negatived only by a majority of nine. The minority followed their fortune, and on the 20th of the same month (the house being uncommonly crowded) the earl of Surrey (now duke of Norfolk) rose to make his promised motion, when lord North spoke to order, by saying, “he meant no disrespect to the noble earl; but as notice had been given that the object of the intended motion was the removal of his majesty’s ministers, he meant to have acquainted the house, that such a motion was become unnecessary, as he could assure the house, on authority, that the present administration was no more! and that his majesty had come to a full determination of changing his ministers; and for the purpose of giving the necessary time for new arrangements, he moved an adjournment,” which was instantly adopted. During this adjournment a new administration was formed under the auspices of the marquis of Rockingham, on whose public principles and private virtues the nation seemed to repose, after the violent struggle by which it had been agitated, with the securest and most implicit confidence. The arrangements were as follow: The marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury, the earl of Shelburne and Mr. Fox joint secretaries of state, lord Camden president of the council, duke of Grafton privy seal, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Burke (who was at the same time made a privy counsellor) paymaster-general of the forces.

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.

By this change Mr. Burke fell once more into the ranks of opposition, and continued in that situation until after the general peace of 1783, when Mr. Fox, joining his parliamentary interest with that of lord North, gained a majority in the house of commons, which after some ineffectual struggles on the part of Mr. Pitt, terminated in what was called the coalition administration, composed of the duke of Portland first lord of the treasury, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Burke, as before, paymaster of the forces, and Mr. Fox and lord North joint secretaries of state. As this union of political interest was the most unpopular measure adopted in the present reign, and that which it has, above all others, been found most difficult to reconcile with purity and consistency of principle, it may be necessary to state what has been offered in apology, at least as far as Mr. Burke is concerned. It is well known to those in the least, conversant in the politics which immediately preceded this period, how uniformly lord North was upbraided for his conduct throughout the whole course of the American war: every thing that could attach to a bad ministry was laid to his charge, except perhaps the solitary exception of corruption in his own person, which was not much, while he was continually accused of being the mover of a mass of corruption in others; and as Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke were the two leading champions of the house of commons, in their several speeches will be found invectives of such a nature, as to men judging of others in the ordinary habits of life, perhaps would be thought insurmountable barriers to their coalition. But we are told, that forming an administration upon a broad bottom of political interest is quite a different thing from contracting a private friendship; in the former many things are to be conceded, in regard to times and circumstances, and the opinions of others; in the latter the question of right and wrong lies in a narrower compass, and is more readily judged of by the parties and their friends. Mr. Burke, therefore, may say, “that in his several attacks on lord North, he considered him as a principal promoter and encourager of the American war, a war which he held destructive of the interests and constitutional rights of this country. As a minister, therefore, he reprobated his conduct; but the American contest being over, and other measures about to be pursued, which, in his opinion, might heal the bruises of this war, he coalesced with him as a man, who (benefiting himself by his former mistakes) might still render important services to his country.”

Such a defence as this may very well be admitted in favour of Mr. Burke and others; but Mr. Fox stood pledged upon different ground. He not only inveighed against the minister in the grossest terms of abuse, but against the man; whom, he said, “he would not trust himself in a room with, and from the moment that he ever acted with him, he would rest satisfied to be termed the most infamous of men.” After such a particular declaration as this, emphatically and deliberately announced in a full house of commons, scarce nine months had elapsed when Mr. Fox cordially united with lord North, and brought a suspicion on his character, with regard to consistency, which all the exertions of his future life were not able to remove. In the mean time, however, a new administration bade fair for permanence. It was strong in talents, in rank, and in the weight of landed interest. It seemed nearly such a combination of great families as Mr. Burke had wished in his “Thoughts on the Causes of the present Discontents,” but it wanted what was necessary to complete his plan, “the approbation and confidence of the people,” Suspicion attached to all their measures, and seemed, in the opinion of the people, to be confirmed when they introduced the famous East India bill. This is not the place for discussing the merits of this important bill; it may suffice, as matter of fact, to state that it was considered as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible; and that the vast powers which it gave the house of commons might render the administration too strong for the crown. Had these objections been confined to the ex-ministers and their friends, the coalesced ministers might have repelled them, at least by force of numbers, but it was peculiarly unfortunate for Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and the whig part of administration, that they were opposed without doors by the voice of the people, and in the writings of all those authors who had the credit of being constitutional authorities. The East India bill, accordingly, although carried in the house of commons, was lost in thai of the lords, and a new administration was arranged, in December 1783, at the head of which was Mr. Pitt.

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.

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.

, a celebrated commentator on the New Testament, the son of the rev. Miles Burkitt, who was ejected for nonconformity, was born at Hitcharn, in Northamptonshire, July 25, 1650. He was sent first to a school at Stow Market, and from thence to another at Cambridge. After his recovery from the small pox, which he caught there a he was admitted of Pembroke-hall, at the age of no more than fourteen years; and upon his removal from the university, when he had taken his degree, he became a chaplain in a private gentleman’s family, where he continued some years. He entered young upon the ministry, being ordained by bishop Reynolds; and the first employment which he had was at Milden, in Suffolk, where he continued twenty-one years a constant preacher (in a plain, practical, and affectionate manner), first as curate, and afterwards as rector of that church. In 1692 he was promoted to the vicarage of Dedham, in Essex, where he continued to the time of his death, which happened in the latter end of October, 1703. He was a pious ancT charitable man. He made great collections for the French Protestants in the years 1687, &c. and by his great care, pains, and charges, procured a worthy minister to go and settle in Carolina. Among other charities, he bequeathed by his last will and testament the house wherein he lived, with the lands thereunto belonging, to be an habitation for the lecturer that should be chosen from time to time to preach the lecture at Dedham. He wrote some books, and among the rest a Commentary upon the New Testament, in the same plain, practical, and affectionate manner in which he preached. This has often been reprinted in folio, and lately with some alterations and improvements, by the rev. Dr. Glasse. Mr. Burkitt’s other works are small pious tracts for the use of his parishioners.

, an eminent civilian, descended from one of those noble families of Lucca, which, upon their embracing the Protestant religion, were obliged, about two centuries and a half since, to take refuge in Geneva, was born at Geneva in 1694, where he became honorary professor of jurisprudence in 1720. After travelling into France, Holland, and England, he commenced the exercise of his -functions, and rendered his school famous and flourishing. One of his pupils was prince Frederic of Hesse-Cassel, who, in 1734, took him to his residence, and detained him there for some time. Upon his return to Geneva, he surrendered his professorship; and in 1740 entered into the grand council, and, as a member of this illustrious body, he continued to serve his fellow-citizens till his death, in 1750. As a writer, he was distinguished less by his originality than by his clear and accurate method of detailing and illustrating the principles of others; among whom, are Grotius, PufTendorf, and Barbeyrac. His works are: “Principles of Natural Law, 77 Geneva, 1747, 4to, often reprinted, translated into various languages, and long used as a text-book in the university of Cambridge; and” Political Law,“Geneva, 1751, 4to, a posthumous work, compiled from the notes of his pupils, which was translated into English by Dr. Nugent, 1752, 8vo. His” Principles of Natural Law“were re-published in the original by Professor de Felice, Yverdun, 1766, 2 vols. with additions and improvements. Another posthumous work of our author, was his” Elemens du Droit Naturel," being his text-book on the Law of Nature, and admirable for perspicuity and happy arrangement. Burlamaqui was much esteemed in private life, and respected as a lover of the fine arts, and a patron of artists. He had a valuable collection of pictures and prints; and a medal of him was executed by Dassier, in a style of superior excellency.

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.

, 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.

, the celebrated bishop of Salisbury, was born at Edinburgh, Sept. 18, 1643. His father was the younger brother of an ancient family in the county of Aberdeen, and was bred to the civil law, which he studied for seven years in France. His excessive modesty so far depressed his abilities, that he never made a shining figure at the bar, though he was universally esteemed to be a man of judgment and knowledge in his profession. He was remarkably generous in his practice, never taking a fee from the poor, nor from a clergyman, when he sued in the right of his church; and bestowing great part of his profits in acts of charity and friendship. In 1637, when the troubles in Scotland were breaking out, he was so disgusted at the conduct of the governing bishops there, whom he censured with great freedom, and was, at the same time, so remarkable for his strict and exemplary life, that he was generally called a Puritan. But when he saw, that instead of reforming abuses in the episcopal order, the order itself was struck at, he adhered to it with great zeal and constancy, as he did to the rights of the crown, not once complying with that party which afterwards prevailed in both nations. For though he agreed with Barclay and Grotius (with the latter of whom he had been intimately acquainted) as to their notions of resistance where the laws are broken through by a limited sovereign, yet he did not think that was then the case in Scotland. He married the sister of the famous sir Archibald Johnstoun, called lord Warristoun; who, during the civil wars, was at the head of the presbyterian party, and so zealously attached to that interest, that neither friendship nor alliance could dispose him to shew favour to those who refused the solemn Jeague and covenant. Our author’s father, persisting in this refusal, was obliged, at three several times, to quit the kingdom; and, when his return was afterwards connived at, as his principles would not permit him to renew the practice of the law, much less to accept the preferments in it offered him by Oliver Cromwell, he retired to his own estate in the country, where he lived till the restoration, when he was made one of the lords of the session by the title of lord Cramond. His wife, our author’s mother, was very eminent for her piety and virtue, and a warm zealot for the presbyterian discipline, in which way she had been very strictly educated.

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.

Although our author at this time had no parochial cure, he did not refuse his attendance to any sick person who desired it, and was sent for, amongst others, to one wha had been engaged in a criminal amour with Wilmot, earl of Rochester. The manner he treated her, during her illness, gave that lord a great curiosity of being acquainted with him, and for a whole winter, in a conversation of at least one evening in a week, Burnet went over all those topics with him, upon which sceptics, and men of loose morals, are wont to attack the Christian religion. The effect of these conferences, in convincing the earl’s judgment, and leading him to a sincere repentance, became the subject of a well-known and interesting narrative which he published in 1680, entitled “An Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.” This work has lately been reprinted more than once, perhaps owing to the character Dr. Johnson gave of it in his Life of Rochester: he there pronounces it a book “which the critic ought to read for its elegance, the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint for its piety.”

During the affair of the popish plot, Dr. Burnet was often consulted by king Charles, upon the state of the nation; and, about the same time, refused the vacant bishopric of Chichester, which his majesty offered him, “provided he vvould entirely come into his interest.” But, though his free access to that monarch did not procure him preferment, it gave him an opportunity of sending his majesty a most remarkable letter , in which, with great freedom, he reprehends the vices and errors both of his private life and his government The unprejudiced part he acted during the time the nation was inflamed with the discovery of the popish plot; his candid endeavours to save the lives of Staley and the lord Stafford, both zealous papists; his temperate conduct in regard to the exclusion of the duke of York; and the scheme of a prince regent, proposed by him, in lieu of that exclusion; are sufficiently related in his “History of his own Time.” In 1682, when the administration was wholly changed in favour of the duke of York, he continued steady in his adherence to his friends, and chose to sacrifice all his views at court, particularly a promise of the mastership of the Temple, rather than break off his correspondence with them. This year our author published his “Life of sir Matthew Hale,” and his “History of the Rights of Princes, in disposing of ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands;” which being attacked bv an anonymous writer, Dr. Burnet published, the same year, “An answer to the Animadversions on the History of the Rights of Princes.” As he was about this time much resorted to by persons of all ranks and parties, as a pretence to avoid the returning of so many visits, he built a laboratory, and, for above a year, went through a course of chemical experiments. Upon the execution of the lord Russel, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, he was examined before the house of commons, with respect to that lord’s speech upon the scaffold, in the penning of which he was suspected to have had a hand. Not long after, he refused the offer of a living of three hundred pounds a year, in the gift of the earl of Halifax, who would have presented him, on condition of his residing *till in London. In 1683, he went over to Paris, where he was well received by the court, and became acquainted with the most eminent persons, both popish and protestant. This year appeared his “Translation and Examination of a Letter, writ by the last General Assembly of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion, &c.;” also his “Translation of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia,” with a “Preface concerning the Nature of Translations.” The year following, the resentment of the court against our author was so great, that he was discharged from his lecture at St, Clement’s, by virtue of the king’s mandate to Dr. Hascard, rector of that parish; and in December the same year, bv an order from the lord-keeper North to sir Harbottle Grimstone, he was forbidden preaching any more at the Rolls chapel. In 1685 came out our author’s “Life of Dr. William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland.” Upon the death of king Charles, and accesion of king James, having obtained leave to go out of the kingdom, he went first to Paris, where he lived in great retirement, to avoid being involved in the conspiracies then forming in favour of the difke of Monmbuth. But, having contracted an acquaintance with brigadier Stouppe, a protestant officer in the French service, he was prevailed upon to take a journey with him into Italy, and met with an agreeable reception at Rome and Geneva. After a tour through the southern parts of France, Italy, Switzerland, and many places of Germany, of which he has given an account, with reflections on their several ojovernments, &c. in his “Travels,” published in 1687, he came to Utrecht, and intended to have settled in some quiet retreat within the Seven Provinces; but, being invited to the Hague by the prince and princess of Orange, he repaired thither, and had a great share in the councils then carrying on, concerning the affairs of England. In 1687, our author published a “Translation of Lactantius, concerning the Death of the Persecutors.” The high favour shewn him at the Hague disgusting the English court, king James wrote two severe letters against him to the princess of Orange, and insisted, by his ambassador, on his being forbidden the court; which, at the king’s importunity, was done; though our author continued to be employed and trusted as before. Soon after, a prosecution for high-treason was commenced against him, both in Scotland and England; but the States refusing, at the demand of the English court, to deliver him up, designs were laid of seizing his person, and even destroying him, if he could be taken. About this time Dr. Burnet married Mrs. Mary Scott, a Dutch lady of large fortune and noble extraction. He had a very important share in the whole conduct of the revolution in 1688; the project of which he gave early notice of to the court of Hanover, intimating, that the success of this enterprise must naturally end in an entail of the British crown upon that illustrious house. He wrote also several pamphlets in support of the prince of Orange’s designs, which were reprinted at London in 1689, in 8vo, under the title of “A Collection of eighteen Papers relating to the affairs of Church and State during the Reign of King James II. &c.” And when his highness undertook the expedition to England, our author accompanied him as his chaplain, notwithstanding the particular circumstances of danger to which he was thereby exposed. At Exeter, after the prince’s landing, he drew up the association for pursuing the ends of his highness’s declaration. During these transactions, Dr. Crew, bishop of Durham, who had rendered himself obnoxious by the part he had acted in the high-commission court, having proposed to the prince of Orange to resign his bishopric in favour of Dr. Burnet, on condition of an allowance of 1000l. per annum out of the revenue, our author refused to accept it on those terms. But king William had not been many days on the throne before Dr. Burnet was advanced to the see of Salisbury, and consecrated March 31, 1689 . Our prelate had scarcely taken his seat in the house of lords, when he distinguished himself by declaring for moderate measures with regard to the clergy who scrupled to take the oaths, and for a toleration of the protestant dissenters; and when the bill for declaring the rights and privileges of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, was brought into parliament, he was the person appointed by king William to propose naming the duchess (afterwards electress) of Brunswick, next in succession after the princess of Denmark and her issue; and when this succession afterwards took place, he had the honour of being chairman of the committee to whom the hill was referred. This made him considered by the house of Hanover as one firmly attached to their interests, and engaged him in an epistolary correspondence with the princess Sophia, which lasted to her death. This year bishop Buruet addressed a “Pastoral Letter” to the clergy of his diocese, concerning the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king Wiliiam and queen Mary; in which having grounded their majesties title to the crown upon the right of conquest, some members of both houses took such offence at it, that about three years after, they procured an order for burning the book by the hands of the common executioner. After the session of parliament was over, the bishop went down to his diocese, where, by his pious, prudent, and vigilant discharge of the episcopal functions, he gained universal esteem.

In 1692, he published a treatise, entitled “The Pastoral Care,” in which the duties of the clergy are laid down with great strictness, and enforced with no less zeal and warmth. The next year came out his “Four Discourses to the Clergy of his Diocese.” In 1694, our author preached the funeral sermon of archbishop Tillotson, with whom he had long kept up an intimate acquaintance and friendship, and whose memory he defended in “A Vindication of Abp. Tillotson,” 1696. The death of queen Mary, which happened the year following, drew from our author’s pen that “Essay on her character,” which her uncommon talents merited at the hands of a person who enjoyed so high a degree of her favour and confidence. After the decease of that princess, through whose hands the affairs and promotions of the church had wholly passed, our prelate was one of the ecclesiastical commission appointed by the king to recommend to all bishoprics, deanries, and other vacant benefices in his majesty’s gift.

, 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 bishop’s second son, had the same advantages of education with his elder brother, having a distinct tutor both at home and the university. He pursued his studies, likewise, for two years at Leyden. At Oxford he was admitted a commoner of Merton college; but how long he studied there we are not informed, nor what degree he took. Having entered into holy orders, we find him a chaplain in ordinary to his majesty so early as in 1718, when he could not be thirty years of age. He is said to have been a contributor to Hibernicus’s Letters, a periodical paper carried on at Dublin in the years 1725, 1726, and 1727: and we believe there is no doubt of his having been one of the writers of another valuable paper, entitled “The Free-thinker,” which was afterwards collected into three volumes, 12mo. In the Hoadlian controversy he was an able assistant to the eminent prelate from whom that controversy received its denomination. Three pieces were published by Mr. Burnet on this occasion, the first of which was, “A Letter to the rev. Mr. Trapp, occasioned by his Sermon on the real Nature of the Church and Kingdom of Christ;” the second, “An Answer to Mr. Law’s Letter to the Lord Bishop of Bangor;” and the third, “A full and free examination of several important points relating to Church-Authority, the Christian Priesthood, the positive Institutions of the Christian Religion, and Church-Communion, in answer to the notions and principles contained in Mr. Law’s second Letter to the lord bishop of Bangor.” Dr. Hoadly considered our author as one of his best defenders. In 1719 Mr. Burnet published an abridgment of the third volume of his father’s History of the Reformation. If he had not been cut off in early life, there is no doubt but that he would have made a distinguished figure in the literary world; and it is probable that he would have risen to a high rank in the church. The Gilbert Burnet who abridged the Boylean Lectures was another person.

, 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.

It is related of him, that he would himself have published his verses, if he had not thought that some of them were too light and sportive for the gravity of the judicial character, and would derogate, in a certain degree, from the dignity of the tribunal to which he had ascended. With regard to the poems themselves, which are for the most part very short, and chiefly upon amorous subjects, and among which are several songs, and translations from the Odes of Horace, their characteristic excellence is an easy negligence and elegant simplicity. They are such productions as might be expected from a young man of lively parts and classical taste; but who, at the same time, was not endued with any extraordinary vigour of poetical imagination.

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.

In addition to his office as a judge in the supreme civil court, in Scotland, an offer was made to him of a seat in the court of justiciary, the supreme criminal court. But though the emoluments of this place would have made a convenient addition to his income, he refused to accept it, lest its business should too much detach him from the pursuit of his favourite studies. His patrimonial estate was small, not affording a revenue of more than 300l. a year. Yet he would not raise the rents, would never dismiss a poor old tenant, for the sake of any augmentation of emolument offered by a richer stranger; and, indeed, shewed no particular solicitude to accomplish any improvement upon his lands, save that of having the number of persons who should reside upon them as tenants, and be there sustained by their produce, to be, if possible, superior to the population of any equal portion of the lands of his neighbours.

The confirmation of his theory of language, his lordship finds in the condition of savage nations, in those few examples of human creatures discovered in an insulated state, in deserts, and in the rude and defective nature of some languages, and the highly artificial and philosophical structure of others, as the Greek, the Sanscreet, &c. Lord Monboddo carried his admiration of the ancients to such a pitch, as to maintain their superiority over the moderns, not only in philosophical attainments, recondite science, the arts of painting, sculpture, architecture, music, poetry, oratory, and all the various species of literary composition; but even in bodily strength, stature, and longevity; esteeming the present race of mortals a degenerate breed, both with respect to mental and corporeal endowments. Yet, with all these eccentricities of opinion, his writings display great erudition, an uncommon acquaintance with Greek philosophy and literature, and a just and excellent spirit of criticism, both on the authors of antiquity, and on the English classical writers of the last and preceding ages. amidst a select party of literary friends, whom he invited to an early supper. The entertainment itself partook of the costume of the ancients; it had all the variety and abundance of a principal meal; and the master of the feast crowned his wine, like Anacreon, with a garland of roses. His conversation, too, had a race and flavour peculiarly its own; it was nervous, sententious, and tinctured with genuine wit. His apothegms were singularly terse and forcible; and the grave manner in which he often conveyed the keenest irony, and the eloquence with which he supported his paradoxical theories, afforded the highest amusement of those truly attic banquets, which will be longremembered by all who had the pleasure of partaking in them."

, D. D. rector of West Kington, Wiltshire, and prebendary of Sarum, was educated in New-college, Oxford, where he became M. A. and on the 8th of July, 1720, he accumulated the degrees of B. D. and D.D. for which he went out grand compounder. His four principal works are, an “Answer to Tindal’s Christianity as old as the Creation,” a “Treatise on Scripture Politics,” a course of Sermons preached at Mr. Boyle’s Lecture,“and an” Essay on the Trinity,“in which last performance he endeavours, with great ingenuity and plausibility, to unite the rationality claimed by the Unitarians, with the orthodox language of those who admit the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity. This curious tract is now so little known, as not to have been noticed in any of the late Trinitarian controversies, excepting in a pamphlet entitled” Orthodoxy and Chanty united." Dr. Burnet died in May 1750.

, a most ingenious and learned writer, was born at Croft, in Yorkshire, about the year 1635. His first education was at the free-school of North-­Alverton, in that county, from whence he was removed in June 1651, to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he had Dr. Tillotson for his tutor. Dr. Cud worth was at that time master of Clare-hall, but removed from it to the mastership of Christ’s college, in 1654; and thither our author followed him. Under his patronage he was chosen fellow in 1657, commenced M. A. in 1658, and became senior proctor of the university in 1661; but it is uncertain how long after ward she continued his residence there. He was afterwards governor to the young earl of Wiltshire, son of the marquis of Winchester, with whom he travelled abroad ^ and gave such satisfaction, that, soon after his return to England, he was invited and prevailed on by the first duke of Ormond, to travel in the same capacity with the young earl of Ossory, his grace’s grandson and heir-apparent. These honourable connections introduced him into what may properly be called the world: in which he afterwards confirmed the reputation he already had for talents ad learning, by the publication of his “Telluris theoria sacra, orbis nostri originem & mutationes generales, quas olim subiit et subiturus est, complectens.” This Sacred Theory of the Earth was originally published in Latin, in 2 vols. 4to, the two first books concerning the deluge, and paradise, 1681; the two last, concerning the burning of the world, and the new heavens and new earth, in 1689. The uncommon approbation this work met with, and the particular encouragement of Charles II. who relished its beauties, induced the author to translate it into English. Of this translation he published the two first books in 1684, folio, with an elegant dedication to the king; and the two last in 1689, with a no less elegant dedication to queen Mary. “The English edition,” he tells us, “is the same in substance with the Latin, though, he confesses, not so properly a translation, as a new composition upon the same ground, there being several additional chapters in it, and several new moulded.”

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.

In 1727, two other learned and elegant Latin works of our author were published in 8vo; one, “De fide et officiis Christianorum,” the other, “De statu mortuorum et resurgentium.” Burnet had himself caused to be struck off at the press a few, copies of each of these works, for the use of himself and some private friends; but did not intend them for the public, there being some points discussed in them against the scripture account of future punishment, which he thought not so proper to be communicated openly. Yet, surreptitious copies from proofsheets getting into the world, and the works being mangled and full of faults, Mr. Wilkinson, of Lincoln’s-inn, Burnet’s particular friend, and who was in possession of all his papers, thought it proper to publish a copy of them corrected by the doctor himself; as he did in 1727. To the second edition, in 1733, of “De statu mortuorum et resurgentium,” is added an appendix, “De futura Judaeorum restauratione:” it appearing to the editor from Burnet’s papers, that it was designed tq be placed there. He is said also to have been the author of three small pieces without his name, under the title of “Remarks upon an Essay concerning human understanding;” the two first published in 1697, the last in 1699; which “Remarks” were answered by Mrs. Catherine Trotter, afterwards Mrs. Cockburn, then but twenty-three years of age, in her Defence of Mr. Locke’s Essay, printed in May, 1702. These pieces, however, were not among the acknowledged works of Dr. Burnet.

Of the Sacred Theory of the Earth, which is the principal of all his productions, the substance is this: between the beginning and end of the world, he supposes several intermediate periods, in which he conceives that nature undergoes various changes. Those which resp'ect this terraqueous globe, he believes to have been recorded in the sacred Scriptures. From these compared with profane history, he attempts to prove, that the primaeval earth as it rose out of chaos, was of a different form and structure from the present, and was such, that from its dissolution would naturally arise an universal deluge. Such a change in the state of the globe, he infers from the general aspect of its surface in the present day; and he argues, that since it is the nature of fluids to form a smooth surface, the earth, which was at first a chaotic mass in a fluid state, as it gradually became solid by the exhalation of the lighter particles of air and water, would still retain its regular superficies, so that the new earth would resemble an egg. The earth, in this paradisaical state, he supposes to be capable of sending forth its vegetable productions without rain, and to enjoy a perpetual serene and cloudless atmosphere. In process of time, he conceived that the surface of the earth, by the continual action of the rays of the sun, would become so parched, as to occasion vast fissures, through which the waters of the great abyss, contained within the bowels of the earth, would be sent forth by means of elastic vapours, expanded by heat, and acting with irresistible force upon their surface; whence a universal deluge would ensue, and in the violent concussion, lofty mountains, craggy rocks, and other varieties in the external form of the earth, would appear. Our theorist also conjectures, that the earth, in its original state, owed its universal spring to th*e coincidence of the plane of the ecliptic with that of the equator; and supposes that, at the deluge, the pole of the ecliptic changed its position, and became oblique to the plane of the equator. From similar causes he conceives that the final conflagration will be produced. This theory is well imagined, supported with much erudition, and described with great elegance of diction; but it can only be considered as an ingenious fiction, which rests upon no other foundation than mere conjecture. Yet it would be endless to transcribe all the encomiums passed on it. Mr. Addison, in 1699, wrote a Latin ode in its praise, which has been prefixed to many editions of it. An able writer, Dr. Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” has not scrupled, from this single work, to rank Dn Burnet with the very few, in whom the three great faculties of the understanding, viz. judgment, imagination, and memory, have been found united. According to him, there have existed but few transcendant geniuses, who have been singularly blessed with this rare assemblage of different talents; and Burnet, in his Theory, he thinks has displayed an imagination very nearly equal to that of Milton.

Many, perhaps, may wonder that a nook fundamentally wrong, should run through so many editions, and be so much read; but the reason is plain. No man reads Homer’s Iliad for history, any more than he reads Milton’s Paradise Lost for divinity; though it is possible there may be true history in the one, as it is certain there is some true divinity in the other. Such works are read, purely to entertain and amuse the fancy; and it is not the story that is sought after, but the greatness of imagery, and nobleness of sentiments, with which they abound. Why may not Burnet’s Theory of the Earth be read with the same view? It is not true in philosophy; but it is full of vast and sublime conceptions, presents to the imagination new and astonishing scenes, and will therefore always furnish a high entertainment to the reader, who is capable of being pleased as well as instructed. This even Keill himself allows: “For, as 1 believe (says he) never any book was fuller of errors and mistakes in philosophy, so none ever abounded with more beautiful scenes and surprising images of nature. But I write only to those who might perhaps expect to find a true philosophy in it; they who read it as an ingenious romance, will still be pleased with their entertainment.”

, 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.

It was between the fifteenth and sixteenth year of his age, that Robert, as he himself informs us, first “committed the sin of rhyme.” Having formed a boyish affection for a female who was his companion in the toils of the field, he composed a song, which is inserted in his works; but which, however extraordinary from one at his age, and in his circumstances, is far inferior to any of his subsequent performances. He was at this time “an ungainly, awkward boy,” unacquainted with the world, but who occasionally had picked up some notions of history, literature, and criticism, from the few books within his reach. These, he informs us, were Salmon’s and Guthrie’s Geographical Grammars, the Spectator, Pope’s Works, some plays of Shakspeare, Tull and Dickson on Agriculture, the Pantheon, Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, Stackhouse’s History of the Bible, Justice’s British Gardener’s Directory, Boyle’s Lectures, Allan Ramsay’s Works, Taylor’s Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, a Select Collection of English Songs, and Hervey’s Meditations. Of this motley assemblage, it may readily be supposed, that some would be studied, and some read superficially. There is reason to think> however, that he perused the works of the poets with such attention, as, assisted by his naturally vigorous capacity, soon directed his taste, and enabled him to discriminate tenderness and sublimity from affectation and bombast.