écrivains phrasiérs, in direct or indirect application to Dr. Robertson and Mr. Roscoe. We are afraid that this, or some similar phrase, has infused somewhat of acerbity into the mind of our accomplished countryman, and prompted him to an attack which will assuredly do no injury to his antagonist. We have no inclination to enter on the investigations necessary to enable us to pronounce on all the points at issue between them; but, judging from the materials before us, we can have no hesitation in assigning the superiority in learning, acuteness, and philosophical impartiality, to the foreign historian. Mr. Roscoe is not always a fair critic; he has not, for instance, done courteously or wisely in representing the unbiassed concessions of M. de Sismondi as reluctantly made. When the latter, having affirmed that the title of the Magnificent, now universally attributed to Lorenzo, was given to him by his contemporaries, only in common with other men of elevated rank, finishes his explanation by emphatically stating, that he merited the sur' name of which an error has put him in possession;' Mr. R. permits himself to assert, that he is compelled' to the admission. And when M. de S. applies to a proposal made by Lorenzo the term 'generous,' it is qualified as a compelled' deference to right feeling. This is a childish species of warfare, and Mr. Roscoe should not have descended to it.

6

• On the authority of Joh. Mic. Brutus, a writer of the sixteenth century, M. de Sismondi has informed us that the two brothers (Lorenzo and Giuliano) did not perfectly agree in their system of administration; Giuliano being of a mild and conciliatory disposition, and having felt himself disquieted by the impatience, the pride, and the violence of his brother. To the evidence of this Venetian writer of a later period, who is remarkable only for his inaccuracy and his animosity to the Medici, M. de Sismondi has added that of Alfieri, in his Congiura de' Pazzi, where the author has availed himself of this supposed disagreement in order to heighten the dramatic effect."

Without dwelling on the obvious circumstance, that'his animosity to the Medici' has not prevented Brutus from speaking favourably of Giuliano, we are compelled' to accuse Mr. Roscoe of decided misrepresentation in the latter part of this extract. Sismondi has no where cited Alfieri as an evidence;' he has simply observed, not in the regular page, but in a brief foot-note, that the poet had tiré parti- made ' use' or 'taken advantage' of this opposition of character in his tragedy. But we are quite indisposed to proceed with this petite guerre, and shall only add, that, after a careful com parison of the passages referred to, with the objections made by Mr. R., we cannot find that he has made any substantial impression on the statements of his rival. We have much VOL. XIX. N.S.

C

greater pleasure in expressing the interest which we have felt in the illustrative documents collected by Mr. Roscoe, and in citing the following beautiful translation of a poem written by Lorenzo.

The other morn I took my round

Amidst my garden's sweet retreat,

What time the sunbeam touch'd the ground,
With its first soft reviving heat:
There on my favourite flowery bed
I cast my scarcely waken'd eye,
Where mingling roses, white and red,
In all the bloom of beauty vie.
Some leaf by leaf their filmy fold
I saw expanding to the sun;

First close compress'd, then half unroll'd,
Till all the tender task was done.
Some younger still, could scarcely burst
There cruder buds; and some there were
That veiled their softer charms, nor durst
Intrust them to the early air.
And some had drank the morning sky,
And fell to earth a vernal shower:
And thus I saw them rise and die

In the brief limits of an hour.
And when, their faded glory past,
All strewn abroad they met my eyes,
A tender thought my mind o'ercast,

How youth departs, and beauty flies.' p. 63.

It is impossible to contemplate the past glories of this interesting country, without feeling a severe pang in the comparison of its actual condition with its latent energies; without sympathizing with the noble race whose intellectual powers and civil rights are alike oppressed by the iron hand of military despotism.

Art. II. Remarks upon the Objections made to certain Passages in the Enquiry concerning Necessity and Predestination. By Edward Copleston, D.D. Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, and Prebendary of Rochester. 8vo. pp. 62. Price 2s. London. 1822.

THE objections against his statements and arguments, which

Dr. Copleston here steps forward to meet, are those which have been urged by an able anonymous Writer in a Letter subscribed, Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, and by the Rev. Mr. Grinfield in the first part of his "Vindicia Analogica." Notice is taken also of an elaborate article on Stewart's Dissertation,

which appeared in No. lxxi of the Edinburgh Review. Neither of these Writers, however, appears as a respondent to the Provost of Oriel on the main argument. Mr. Grinfield says: I

⚫ have, Sir, as strong a dislike to Calvinism as you or any man can feel.' And Philalethes confines himself to pointing out certain inaccuracies in Dr. Copleston's reasoning. Some of the most important objections which lie against the doctrines maintained in the Enquiry, these Writers have not brought forward; and we are thus deprived of the advantage of the learned Author's remarks on those points to which, in our review of his work, we directed the especial attention of our readers. But the concessions he makes in this pamphlet, are very material. Without appearing to give up an inch of ground, he, with ineffable dignity, to a certain extent backs out; and though very, very angry with Mr. Grinfield, he pays that involuntary homage to the weight and acuteness of his objections, which his opponent would not, on any personal grounds, have stood the least chance of obtaining.

In the first place, Dr. Copleston retracts his commendation of Archbishop King, whose very dangerous and exceptionable work has lately been reprinted, under his sanction, for the benefit of the Oxford students. No circumstance, we must confess, tended to awaken our doubts as to the depth and extent of Dr. C.'s theological attainments, so much as his venturing his reputation on the revival of the Archbishop's refuted, and, we had hoped, exploded theory. The real design of the present pamphlet is, we suspect, no other than to qualify his eulogy on that Writer. Mr. Grinfield rather unceremoniously charges Mr. Provost' with eating up his own words.

• You commenced the note to your third discourse,' he says, by recommending" that valuable Sermon on Predestination and Foreknowledge, to all students who have been conscious to themselves of any confusion or perplexity, upon these subjects," and the name of "Copleston," has, accordingly, appeared in the public newspapers, subscribed to this unlimited sanction. Encouraged by your 66 gene. ral approbation of the design of reprinting Dr. King's discourse," Mr. Whately has lately re-introduced it to the public, as "calculated to afford useful hints, even to the most learned Divine, to furnish the younger student with principles on which to build his whole system of theology, and to supply even the unlearned with the most valuable instruction." Preface, page 2. The discourse (according to his opinion)" might justly have borne the title, of a rule for interpreting rightly the Scripture accounts of God, and of his dealings with mankind;" and Dr. King's notions might be esteemed "the proper basis of all sound theology." pp. 9, 10. Allow me, Sir, whilst calling these things to your recollection, to partake of your sympathy, whilst I am

suffering under the load of those" egregious mistatements" which you have laid at my door. You have since discovered that "his language is not sufficiently precise and guarded, to be secure from con. troversial cavils." And you add, " of its occasional laxity and vagueness I had myself complained." p. 41. I beg your pardon, Sir, I can find no complaint of this kind in your former note, with reference to any theological error of the Archbishop. You said, indeed, p. 122, that he has not sufficiently distinguished between the words analogy and resemblance;" (a fault which, of course, I am very willing to overlook, and which he labours under in common with Bishop Butler, and every writer on the subject ;) but there is not a single hint given, either by Mr. Whately or yourself, to caution us against any of his theological blunders. Now you can discover the error which I pointed out, (Vindiciæ, p. 47, note,)" that wisdom in us may be as different from what we call wisdom in God, as light is, in our conception, different from the motion of the air that causes it." And though you add, "this is the only material error in which he seems to have fallen, and which must be regarded rather as a slip than a deliberate opinion," yet you immediately supply us with another, because" he has also unwarily and unnecessarily to his own argument, used the phrase different nature, when speaking of the Divine Attributes." Remarks, p. 40. I sincerely congratulate you, Sir, even on these partial discoveries; but if you would allow an acute Deist to point out a few others of a similar kind, you may find them stated by Mr. Anthony Collins, in my Appendix;" and I heartily wish that his whole pamphlet could have been reprinted. For though it is an affecting sight to behold a Deistical writer triumphing over a Christian prelate, yet it presents an admirable caution to men of rank and authority amongst us, not to bestow their praises at random, but consider themselves amenable to God and their country for the distribution of their eulogies..

Let me put it to you, then, Sir, as a scholar and a Christian, whether you are exemplifying "the candour and moderation" which we both acknowledge may be found in the Archbishop's Discourse, when you insinuate that no "man of candid mind" (p. 41,) could have made the objections which I have urged against it? Are you prepared to shew, that Bishop Berkeley, "who had every virtue under heaven," was not a man of a "candid mind?" Are you prepared to make good this charge against Bishop Brown, against Dr. Fiddes, and the other learned and respectable writers whose authorities are to be found in my appendix? Even if I could have produced no such authorities, it would have been very harsh, and severe, and inconsistent in you to have charged me with neglecting "the rule of candour and common sense," (p. 43) because, whilst I allowed the excellence of your own and the Archbishop's motives, I had argued against the consequences of such opinions. However, as the case now stands between us, you may be assured, that I am not likely to be put down either by your sarcasms, or your apologies. At the end of this pamphlet, you will find authorities sufficient to bear me out in all my charges against the Archbishop's dis

course, and to these authorities I appeal as quite sufficient to shield me from your insinuations.'*

A second concession-if it does not amount to a direct retractation of what he had advanced-respects the moral influence of Predestinarian notions. Dr. Copleston had, on this subject, expressly appealed to historic testimony' as to the ⚫ natural tendency of Calvinistic opinions to breed a carelessness with regard to moral conduct.' When hard pushed with the reply, that experience decides the other way; when historic testimony is turned against him, by the remark, that, in the Church of Rome, the Jansenists were austere moralists, while the Jesuits were notorious for loose morals and compromising casuistry; and that, wherever Calvinism has been the prevailing faith, as in Protestant Switzerland, in Holland, in Scotland, religious communities have been remarkable for rigid discipline and virtuous lives'; to this,' says Dr. Copleston, I • can only reply,

that these communities have in general been remarkable also for diligent and zealous study of the holy Scriptures, whose spirit they have imbibed, and have carried it into the regulation of their lives. And, as was observed in the case of human ethics, that a belief in Necessity would probably never prevail long over moral principle, nor prevail at all where that principle is deeply seated and well exercised; so, in considering the influence of the Gospel, if the mind be care. fully trained in religious instruction, if the precepts, the promises, the exhortations, the examples of Scripture be early and habitually impressed upon it, and above all, if the lesson of divine love and mercy exhibited in the scheme of redemption be duly considered and received into the heart, the doctrine of absolute decrees will have little or no injurious effect; but a hatred of sin will be superadded to the ordinary moral principles of our nature, and will act as a powerful preservative against the evil effects which might otherwise arise from such a persuasion when operating singly, or when possessing a strong ascendancy over other motives. pp. 27, 8.

Admitting the justness of this observation, what becomes of Dr. Copleston's appeal to historic testimony? He shall himself furnish the answer. Speaking of the natural connexion' which he had pointed out between the opinions he assails, and the consequences charged upon them, he says:

And although this connexion might not be extensively supported by facts, (which it is readily admitted not to be,) a reason was assigned for the failure, viz. that the belief of Fatalism is rather nomi'nal than real; and that where it is real, and yet unattended with its

Vindicia Analogica. Part II. pp. 6-11.