THE

BRITISH CRITIC,

FOR JULY, 1822.

ART. I. A Letter to Edward Copleston, D.D. Provost of

Oriel College, Oxford, &c. &c. &c. Occasioned by his In-

quiry into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination,

by Philalethes Cantabrigiensis. 8vo. pp. 28. Hatchard.

1822.

ART. II. Vindicia Analogica. A Letter to the Rev. Ed-

ward Copleston, D.D. Provost of Oriel College, Oxford,

&c. &c. &c. on his Enquiry into the Doctrines of Necessity

and Predestination. By the Rev. E. W. Grinfield, M.A.

Minister of Laura Chapel, Bath. 8vo. pp. 66. Cadell.

1822.

ART. III. A Defence of some Passages in Dr. Copleston's
Enquiry into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestina-
tion, in Reply to a Letter, addressed to that Author by
the Rev. E. W. Grinfield, M.A. Minister of Laura Cha-
pel, Bath. With an Abstract of the leading Argument of
the "Enquiry." By the Rev. W. Dalby, M.A. Fellow
and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. 8vo. pp. 80.
Rivingtons. 1822.

ART. IV. Remarks upon the Objections made to certain

Passages in the Enquiry concerning Necessity and Predes-

tination. By Edward Copleston, D.D. Provost of

Oriel College, and Prebendary of Rochester. 8vo. pp. 62.

Murray. 1822.

ART. V. Vindicia Analogica, Part the Second. Being
a Reply to the third Section of the Rev. Dr. Copleston's
"Remarks on the Objections made to certain Passages in
the Enquiry concerning Necessity and Predestination."
To which is added, an Appendix, containing the Opinions

VOL. XVIII. JULY, 1822.

B

of some eminent Writers on Analogy, &c. By the Rev. Ě. W. Grinfield, M.A. Minister of Laura Chapel, Bath. 8vo. pp. 176. Cadell. 1822.

IN our review of the able work which has occasioned the controversy now before us, we expressed our opinion, that some would be found, to whom that clue to the Calvinistic labyrinth which it has provided, would not be very acceptable*. We then referred to the advocates of Calvinism. For we certainly did not anticipate a very violent attack upon the author's positions, from any other quarter. But in this we were mistaken: for, whatever may have been the sentiments of avowed Calvinists, no predilection for their opinions has urged Mr. Grinfield to the contest; nor can Philalethes Cantabrigiensis be considered as their defender. The main argument of Dr. Copleston's "Enquiry" remains however untouched: for the objections of Philalethes cannot be said to affect it; and Mr. Grinfield expressly declares, that he approves of the general train of the Enquirer's argument," and his exceptions are taken altogether against certain statements respecting the doctrine of Analogy, to be found in a note subjoined to the third discourse. Still it is desirable to examine the controversy which has been thus raised: for all the questions which are agitated are important; and if any errors of consequence have been detected, in such a work as Dr. Copleston's, the cause of truth will be essentially served, by giving additional circulation to the exposure. If, on the contrary, his opponents have not succeeded, their failure should be shewn; lest any persons should be deterred from availing themselves of the information which his Enquiry will afford them, by the prejudices which these objections may produce. With this design, we shall proceed to examine the several particulars in which Dr. Copleston's positions have been questioned, or his arguments combated; and shall bring forward his answers to the charges alleged against him, with a view of enabling our readers to form their own judgment; stating at the same time, as we proceed, the effect which has been produced upon our own minds, by the reasoning and language of the contending parties.

In his third discourse, Dr. Copleston has observed a material difference between the Philosophical and Scriptural disputants, who have agitated the question under his consideration.

* British Critic, Vol. XV. June, 1821.