In common with many other persons of morbidly irritable temperament, Mr. Grinfield suffers himself, upon all occasions, to scatter the most injurious insinuations, and to speak in the most contemptuous and uncompromising tone of an opponent. And yet it is scarcely possible for the person whom he attacks to reply in language sufficiently temperate to disarm his resentment. Thus we find him overwhelming Archbishop King with rhetorical ornaments of this kind. At one time he is " mystic and sceptical *," at another "vague and vacillating +" at another" extravagant ‡," and at another, a "meagre metaphysician §." While Dr. Copleston, through the greater part of the second pamphlet is addressed in a tone of the most studied contempt, which is not unfrequently heightened by a sneering introduction of his academical and clerical titles. We have no wish to give additional currency to the unjustifiable expressions of an impetuous man, and therefore we abstain from producing any specimens of his talent for vituperation from the many instances which we have remarked as we perused his tracts. But we seriously beg Mr. Grinfield to ask himself, what was the object of his last pamphlet. If it was written to convince Dr. Copleston of the errors with which he thinks him chargeable; does he imagine that conviction will be rendered more certain by reproachful epithets and unbecoming sarcasm? If he wished to conciliate the favour of the public to what he may conceive" the better reason;" is he not aware, that the public will be no party to his violence? and that the tone which he has adopted is precisely that, which, as he would condemn it in another, others may be likely to censure in him. It is evident that he is angry, and no person expects clear reasoning or impartial judgment from an angry man. He must first learn to govern himself, before he can expect to influence any considerate reader: and he must guide his own words with discretion, or the world will not allow him to be a competent judge of the expressions of another. We will now take leave of Mr. Grinfield, not with any hostile feeling certainly, but with some concern for the situ ation in which he has unhappily placed himself. Of the good intentions which first induced him to take up his pen we have no doubt; and his zeal is sufficiently demonstrated even by those parts of his two pamphlets which seem to us most objectionable. We assure him that we are not actuated * Vind. Anal. Part II. p. 14. + Ibid. Part II. p. 46. by any desire to depreciate his character, or to under-rate his general abilities, when we express our opinion that, as a controversialist he will never do himself credit, or the cause which he may advocate, service. He is too hasty, too confident, and if he will allow us to use the expression without offence, too irritable for theological controversy. The days of the Warburtons are gone by; and the world is grown wiser and better natured than to allow of those unseemly freedoms, in which the greatest men have formerly indulged with impunity. It is not now sufficient that he who undertakes to discuss a theological question brings to it all necessary previous knowledge, together with a power of fully understanding and accurately dissecting his antagonist's reasoning, and of expressing his own opinions with clearness and precision. Besides all this, he must shew that he possesses patience, forbearance, and candour. It is expected that he will judge his antagonist charitably, that he will abstain from railing words, and seek not only to convince him by sound argument, but if possible to win him also by meekness and courtesy. Ignorant persons may yield to an arrogant and noisy disputant; the malevolent may riot in the sarcasms of an incensed combatant; and the enemies of all religion may rejoice when her advocates thus expose themselves. But wise and good men will grieve over such contests; and the quiet hour of sober reflection will bring nothing with it but painful suggestions to him, who cannot review his writings without finding in them proofs, that he has been careless of his neighbour's peace, and of his own reputation. We will now recall the attention of our readers to a more pleasing, and a more profitable subject, by placing before them one instance of the additional light which Dr. Copleston has thrown upon the argument from analogy, and its application to the question he is discussing. While exami ning the subject with a view to the objections urged against him by one of his opponents, he observed much confusion frequently arising from not distinguishing analogical reasoning from the mere use of analogical names. Men who employ these names, without considering that they will not. serve the same purpose in reasoning as if they were direct and proper appellations, do not reason from analogy; they expect demonstrative conclusions where they ought to draw analogical ones, and hence bewilder themselves with difficulties of their own creation. "It is of the essence" he observes, and the remark is important, "it is of the esssence of an argument from analogy to be probable only, and not demonstrative. The degrees of probability are infinite, depending upon the extent and the importance of that corres-pondence in the nature of the things treated of, which is the foundation of the comparison. The more points of correspondence we discover, the stronger is the ground of expectation that we shall yet discover more; and that the several unexamined cases, or cases hitherto partially examined, will exhibit a correspondence, if not precisely the same, yet agreeing in all material respects with that already ascertained." (Remarks, p. 53.) He appeals to comparative anatomy for an illustration of this fact and the example which he produces of the nature of reasoning from analogy in the grammatical structure of languages, recalls at once to our memory many instances in which, as he observes, children and illiterate persons have been led into mistakes by using this analogy improperly, and presuming upon it in cases where it fails them altogether. We shall conclude our review of this valuable tract by the following extract, in which the author first gives a clear account of the object and use of Bishop Butler's celebrated work; and then applies the argument from analogy to the subject more immediately under his own consideration, in a manner which, we think, can leave no doubt on the mind of any candid and discerning reader of the powers of his mind, and the utility of his labours. "One of the most illustrious examples of reasoning by analogy is the celebrated work of Bishop Butler. It is directed not against the atheist but the deist, taking for granted that the world was made and is governed by an infinitely wise and good Being. The points then which the deist objects to in the scheme of Revelation he proves to correspond in character with those which are undeniable in the constitution of nature: but if the one do not interfere with his belief in the agency of a wise, omnipotent, and benevolent Deity, why should the other? Thus much is sufficient to refute the objections of a deistical unbeliever. But he presses the argument still farther: for he demonstrates, that the peculiar difficulties objected to Christianity are just those which we might a priori expect from a contemplation of God's providence in the natural world. Thus instead of being difficulties and objections, they become proofs and confirmations of our faith. For if called upon to conjecture what would be the nature of God's dealings with man. kind in a new dispensation, we could have no better guide than the knowledge of what they have been heretofore. And again, if dispensation were offered to our acceptance professing to come to God, in which there are certain peculiar and in some respects even unaccountable marks, corresponding with those of a dispensation acknowledged to be his, the natural conclusion would be, that this also is probably the work of the same author. a "This kind of argument admits, as was before observed, of infinitely various degrees of probability; its force depending not only on the number of those points of coincidence which are disco vered, but on their peculiarity and their importance. Still in its most perfect form it amounts only to the evidence of probability. The mind however, when thus prepared by the removal of groundless prejudices, is disposed to listen favourably to that body of positive proof upon which Christianity rests, to study it with docility and attention, and to admit the truth of things so attested, without any scruple arising from their supposed antecedent improbability. "In pursuing the argument of my own discourses, the work of this excellent author was always present to my mind: and if that argument be well founded, it serves to strengthen the conclusion for which Bishop Butler all along contends, by adding one more point of coincidence, and that one of no mean importance, to those which he has demonstrated to exist between the constitution of nature and the scheme of Revelation. For if the doctrine of predestination, as revealed in Scripture, be found to contain the same difficulty (and no other) which the doctrine of Necessity presents to our natural reason, the correspondence in so remarkable a particular makes it credible at least, that the systems to which they respectively belong are derived from a common origin. And if, as upon a full examination appeared to be the case, the doctrine of an omniscient Creator and over-ruling Governor does not exclude the free agency of man, if the voice of reason pleads with equal force for each of these propositions in our visible and temporal concerns, we need not be surprised that the analogous truths should both be found inseparably combined in that revelation of God's word, which makes known to us the invisible things of his kingdom, and is the guide to our spiritual and eternal interests." (Remarks, p. 55.) If we have at all succeeded in carrying into effect the intentions with which we commenced this article, we shall have no apology to make to our readers for its length. It seems to us, that we are discharging a very useful part of our duty, when we endeavour to lay before them a summary of those theological controversies which derive importance either from the subject of which they treat, or the ability they display. This attempt becomes more beneficial when, as in the present case, a valuable work is the object of attack and a question on which all are anxious to obtain additional information is obscured and perplexed by ill managed discussion, and unprofitable contention. It is also very desirable, that every author who has devoted eminent talent to enquiries of considerable interest and common advantage, should have the benefit of some cool and impartial comparison of his arguments with the objections which have been urged against them, by which the relative merits of the contending parties may be fairly laid before the public. In undertaking this delicate and perilous office, we have been swayed by no private motives. Our judgment of Dr. Copleston's Enquiry is already upon record: but this did not prevent our giving full and careful attention to the exceptions which have been taken against it. The result of the inves-tigation has certainly been so far satisfactory to our own minds, as it has confirmed us in the propriety of our first opinions. It has also been agreeable, as it has afforded us an opportunity of expressing our favourable sentiments of the candour and courtesy of one of Dr. Copleston's opponents; of retracing in company with him and his enlightened adversary Philalethes, an argument which had afforded us much delight and information; and of finding that argument re-stated by Dr. C. with additional strength, and aided by new and useful illustrations. And, as we proceeded in our labours, we derived valuable assistance from Mr. Dalby, whose intelligence and liberality render him a worthy defender of the Provost of Oriel. Of the rest of the controversy we will not say more than we have already expressed; for we do not like to revert to an unpleasant topic. We will only add, that we hope we shall yet have occasion to meet Mr. Grinfield as an author, when his attention is directed to subjects better suited to the turn of his mind; and these powers are not diverted from their proper course by the exeitements of controversy. ART. VI. Napoleon in Exile; or, a Voice from St. Helena. The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon on the most important Events of his Life and Government, in his own Words. By Barry E. O'Meara, Esq. his late Surgeon. 8vo. 2 Vols. Il. 8s. Simpkin and Co. 1822. MR. O'MEARA accompanied Bonaparte to St. Helena, as his surgeon, in 1815; and was dismissed from that office by the British Government on the 25th of July, 1818. The present volumes contain notes of his conversations and intercourse with the distinguished exile upon whom he attended during that period: and of course the whole interest of them will depend upon their authenticity. In proof of the opportunities which he enjoyed, Mr. O'Meara refers to a fac-simile of Bonaparte's hand-writing (the original of which he offers to |