202 
The fourth article, Copleston’s “ In- 
guiru into the Doctrines of Predcstina- 
tion,” is an unsatisfactory attempt— 
and, indeed, all attempts on such sub- 
jects must be unsatisfactory—to recon- 
cile the Divine perfection with man’s 
actual condition. ‘T'o human reason, at 
least, the fore-knowledge of God, and 
the free-will of man must always appear 
irreconcileable dogmas. And if man 
is not free, how ean he be justly an ac- 
countable being? And again, if the 
Supreme Being be of infinite power as 
well as goodness—how reconcile them 
with the existence of evil, which at 
least shews a deficiency in attribute? 
These ave awful questions, which we 
presume not to decide, or even to dis- 
cuss; and it does not appear to us that 
either Dr. Copleston or -his reviewer 
have dispelled the darkness with which 
they were previously obscured. 
In the nezt article, * Hazlitt’s Table 
Talk,” the reviewer modestly informs 
us, that he ordinarily follows Apollo’s 
* favourite amusement, the sacrifice of 
asses—Hone, Hunt, Hazlitt, and other 
* beasts.’ *? If such be his occupation, 
one cannot help thinking he might be 
better employed, and the “ asses” left 
to browse undisturbed, or at least to 
“ sacrifice ’’ themselves, as they assur- 
edly would, did they belong to the long- 
eared genus he intimates. But we 
suspect he considers them a higher 
order of quadrupeds, and we have cer- 
tainly heard that one of the alliterative 
“ tread’? might have been * Apollo's” 
colleague in the Quarterly, had not 
conscientious scruples about its princi- 
ples deterred him from the engagement. 
To come, however, to the critique: 
“ Mr. Hazlitt (says the reviewer) hav- 
ing already undergone the wholesome 
discipline of our castigation, without 
any apparent benefit, a repetition of it 
would be useless as far as regards him- 
self :?°—so we think, but we cannot help 
demurring to the ** wholesomeness”’ 
of that discipline, which neither bene- 
fits the auther nor convinces his read- 
ers. Indeed, the Quarterly lately has 
been sadly out in its * castigation,” and 
instead of destreying its victims, has 
raised them higher in public estimation, 
and only exposed its own want of prin- 
eiple and literary justice. Mr. Hazlitt 
possesses too much falent to be put 
down by vulgar abuse, and were his 
writings more condensed and less de- 
based by affectation, (a sin as odious, in 
our opinion, as the hypocrisy of his op- 
ponents, and somewhat the same in 
The Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism.No, XIX. |April 1, 
principle) he would be generally read 
and admired. ‘To be sure, a man may 
not think it worth while to give up the 
“ career of his humour” for the sake of 
popularity, and if such be Mr. Hazlitt’s 
opimion, we may expect him going on 
publishing paradoxes and confessions 
without benefiting from eur observa- 
tions. 
The sixth article, though set out, 
“ Novels, by the Author of Waverley,” 
is duller thau any sermon we remein- 
ber; and, indeed, what could be expect- 
ed about the “ divine Rebecea,” and 
the ** blossom of the Border,” from a 
reviewer who tells us he is now * grey- 
headed,” and never “ were in love ?’’ 
Mr. Jeffrey does these things better 5 
he always dishes them up in honey or 
gali, in cither case providing exquisite 
entertainment. 
“ Godwin and Malihus on Popula- 
tion,” is the title of the next subject. 
Naturalists were long divided on the 
viviparous and oviparous mode of ge- 
neration, till, pushing their enquiries 
aborigine, they discovered the two pro- 
cesses were the same; and we begin 
to suspect a similar fate attends the 
disputes on the arithmetic and geome- 
tric increase of food and population. 
Already we observe the Malthusians 
begin to qualify their first proposition, 
and we are told by the reviewer, (who 
concurs in Myr. Malthus’s doctrines,) 
“ that the term geometrical ratio, could 
never have been intended to be em- 
ployed in its rigidly mathematical 
sense.”? Now we are quite sure Mr. 
Malthus meant the term to be so “ em- 
ployed,” and that he meant us to un- 
derstand that mankind multiply at the 
appalling rate of 1, 2,4, 8, while food 
increases only at the rate of 1, 2, 3, 4. 
But theugh we are sure this was his 
original meaning, we are equally certain 
he was entirely mistaken, and that no 
such frightful disproportion exists be- 
tween the increase of food and consum- 
ers, and that the law which regulates 
the augmentation of both is the same. 
If you sow a grain of corn it produces 
perhaps twenty grains; each of which 
being sown produces twenty more; so 
that corn multiplies in a geometric se- 
ries, the first sum being one, and the 
ratio of the series twenty. Jn like man- 
ner if yon put a couple together, male 
and female, they multiply geometri- 
cally, the first couple producing proba- 
bly six, each of which being paired off, 
producing six more. So that the same 
Jaw which regulates the supply of food, 
regulates 
