bishoprick of Cloyne, to which he immediately repaired, and afterwards almost constantly resided, faithful in the discharge of every episcopal duty. His zeal for religion prompted him, about this time, to write "The Analyst," against the scepticism of Dr. HALLEY. In this work he demonstrated that mysteries in faith were unjustly objected to by mathematicians, who admitted much greater mysteries, and even falschoods in science; of which he endeavoured to prove that the doctrine of fluxions furnished an eminent example. This produced a controversy of some length.*

From this time his publications were chiefly upon occasional subjects, except his celebrated "Treatise on Tar-Water," a medicine from which he had experienced relief in a case of nervous colic, and which he wished to recommend to more general use, in a pamphlet written with all his peculiarities of manner, and depth of research, entitled "Siris, a chain of philosophical Reflections and Inquiries concerning the Virtues of TarWater," 1744. It is indeed a chain, says his biographer, which like that of the poet, reaches

This part of Dr. BERKELEY'S life is related by all his Biographers with an unpardonable inattention to dates. It is stated, that our author wrote the Analyst in consequence of a communication of ADDISON respecting Dr. GARTH'S last illness. Now GARTH and ADDISON died within six months of each other, in 1719, about fifteen years before Dr. BERKELEY is said to have written the Analyst, in consequence of ADDISON'S information respecting Dr. GARTH's dying words. The Biographer's expression is, "ADDISON had given the bishop," &c. who was not Bishop until 1734. But what is of more importance, it is not clear from Dr. BERKELEY'S Life, that ke was in England in 1719, when GARTH died, nor afterwards, before ADDISON's death.

from earth to heaven, conducting the reader, by an almost imperceptible gradation, from the phenomena of Tar-Water, through the depths of the ancient philosophy, to the sublimest mystery of the Christian religion. It was printed a second time in 1747, and he added "Farther Thoughts on Tar-Water," in 1752. The medicine became exceedingly popular, and continued so for a considerable time, but farther experience has not confirmed its virtues, and it is now fallen into disuse.

In July 1752 our aged prelate removed with his family to Oxford, in order to superintend the education of one of his sons (the late Dr. GEORGE BERKELEY, Prebendary of Canterbury, &c.) and wished to pass the remainder of his life in a place so well suited to his passion for learned retirement; but sensible at the same time of the impropriety of a bishop's non-residence, he endeavoured to exchange his high preferment for a canonry at Oxford. Failing of success in this, he requested permission to resign his bishoprick, but when the KING heard who it was that had presented so extraordinary a petition, he declared that "he should die a bishop in spite of himself," and gave him full liberty to reside where he pleased.

Of this indulgence, however, he was not long permitted to avail himself. On Sunday evening, Jan. 14, 1753, as he was sitting in the midst of his family, listening to the lesson in the Burial Service (1 Cor. chap. xv.) which his Lady was reading, and on which he was commenting,* he

Biog. Brit. vol. iii. Corrigenda prefixed to that vol. art. BERKELEY.

was seized with what the physicians termed a palsy of the heart, and instantly expired. The characters of few men have been handed down with so many testimonies of beauty and excellence: whatever may be thought of some of his writings, his intentions were unquestionably good, and the actions of his whole life were eminently liberal, virtuous, and disinterested. Bishop ATTERBURY declared on one occasion, that he did not think so much understanding, so much knowledge, so much innocence, and such humility, had been the portion of any but Angels, until he saw Mr. BERKELEY. It would not be easy to add so high a panegyric, nor, if the whole of his character be considered, to take from it.

Dr. BERKELEY'S share in the GUARDIAN has been ascertained, partly on the authority of his son, who claims Nos. 3, 27, 35, 39, 49, 55, 62, 70, 77, and 126, and partly on that of the Annotators, who add to these Nos. 83, 88, and 89.* The principal design of these papers is to explain and defend some branch of the evidences of Christianity against the freethinkers of the age, as they were somewhat improperly called, or to elucidate its peculiar doctrines in a popular manner. The style is therefore plain and perspicuous, and the arguments such as are easily comprehended and remembered. In Nos. 35 and 39 an humourous turn is given to the subject of free thinking, by a very ingenious device. With respect to No. 3, which was the first publication in opposition

* No. 69 has been claimed for Dr. BERKELEY, Gent, Mag、 1780, p. 125. c 2

to COLLINS's superficial and illiberal "Discourse on Freethinking," there appears some difficulty in the assignment. It is positively claimed by the Bi shop's son, as one of the ten papers his father wrote, but in STEELE'S Apology an extract is given from this paper, and it is said in the margin that STEELE was the author. I know not how to reconcile these accounts; there is certainly nothing in it that STEELE might not have written, and the express evidence of his Apology may be allowed to preponderate; on the other hand, the sentiments and manner of this paper seem connected by strong resemblance with BERKELEY'S general mode of treating the subject.

It is asserted by the Annotators, upon unquestionable authority, that Mr. BERKELEY had a guinea and a dinner with STEELE for every paper he furnished. This is the only circumstance that has come to light respecting the pay of the assistants in any of these works. In the SPECTATOR, it is probable that ADDISON and STEELE were joint sharers or proprietors. In the case of the GUARDIAN, as already noticed, there was a contract between STEELE and TONSON, the nature of which has not been clearly explained.

It has already been observed that no inquiry in to POPE's share in the SPECTATOR has been successful; and we cannot certainly prove that he contributed any original article to that work; in the GUARDIAN, however, we can with confidence assign to him eight papers which entitle him to very high praise as an Essayist. These are Nos.

4, 11, 40, 61, 78, 91, 92, and 173. No. 4 is a very ingenious attack on the flattery of dedications, which at this time were most absurdly fulsome, nor can the best of POPE'S contemporaries be excused from the blame of the meanest adulation, which degrades the client without raising the patron. STEELE had treated this subject in No. 177 of the TATLER, but if we examine his dedications we shall find here another instance of his principles being more correct than his practice. Dr. JOHNSON appears to have been the first who gave dignity to this species of composition.

Nos. 11, 91, and 92, are specimens of such, elegant humour as we might expect from the author of the inimitable "Rape of the Lock;" and perhaps there are few satires in the language superior to the receipt for an Epic poem, in No. 78. In that part of the receipt which directs the making of a tempest, the technicals of the poet and the apothecary are blended together with uncommon felicity. This paper was incorporated afterwards in the "Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus." No. 61, on cruelty to the brute creation, is one of those pleas for humanity which cannot be too highly praised, or too often read; the same subject has been ably and variously handled by succeeding Essayists, and it is hoped not without effect.-POPE's last paper, No. 173, on gardening, concludes with a list of evergreens, very much in the manner of ADDISON. This paper will be found somewhat altered in our Author's works, for what reason does not appear, for the alteration is by no means an improvement.