1803.] 
Governor, Vidoifan, being killed in the 
breach. Ardres was alfo taken. But thefe 
difafters greatly contributed to the con- 
clufion of a treaty, offenfive and defenfive, 
between England and France againft 
Spain. The Englifh armament, com- 
manded by the Ear] of Effex, though not 
in time to prevent the lofs of Calais and 
Ardres, at leaft ferved to take Cadiz from 
the Spaniards ; and thus, while that power 
acquired in France a fortrefs which had 
been fo long in poffeffion of the Englifh, 
the Jatter obtained in Spain one, to them 
ftill more important. 
The next article we have to nofice in 
this volume is, A Leiter from Pope Inno- 
cent the Third to King Fodn, in which the 
Pope complains moft bitterly of the ob- 
ftinacy with which John refuted to ac- 
knowledge Stephen Langton, Cardinal- 
prieft of St. Chryfogone, as Archbifhop 
of Canterbury, and whom the Pontiff had, 
of his own authority, raifed to the pri- 
macy of England; in oppofition to two 
elections which had been made by the 
monks of St. Auguftine, who were di- 
vided amongit them{élves, one party having 
chofen Reginald, their fub-prior; the 
other, the Bifhop of Norwich, for that fi- 
tuation, Innocent concludes his com- 
plaints and remonftrances by a formal 
menace, which he afterwards too well ex- 
ecuted, to excommunicate the King, and 
put the whole kingdom under his inter- 
diétion, in cafe he did not within three 
months receive Langton, and put bim in 
poffeffion of the archbifhopric. 
The only remaining paper in this fe- 
cond volume is, a copy ot A Letter from 
Edward the Third, King of England, to 
Pope Benediéi the Twelfth, in which the 
King excutes himfeif for having taken the 
title of King and the arms of France. 
This letcer is dated in the year 1340, and 
is mentioned both in Walfmgham and 
Rymer. 
(Further notices on thefe highly interefiing 
fubjects will be given in the future num- 
bers.) 
eae 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
1S CAPEL LOFFT’s DEFENCE OF BERKE- 
LEY SATISFACTORY? 
R. LOFFT beckons to the jouft, 
as if it were the round-table; he 
waves the ipear of defiance, like the 
wand of a gentleman-ufher; and enters 
the lifts with as many bows as Giraw le 
Courtois. Is his feat asfirm? Or, is he, like 
the Black Knight in Schiller’s Joan of Arc, 
MONTHLY Mac. 1004, 
.efe&t refulting from a fingle caufe. 
Ts Capel Lofft’s Defence of Berkeley fatisfadiory? 322 
a phantom, an unreal mockéry, an imma- 
terial antagonift, an errant idea? By 
his own account he is nothing more. 
To the doétrire, that (7) either all is 
fpirit, (2) or all is matter, (3) or fome- 
thing is f{pirit and fomething matter—no 
objection is offered. 
Mr. Lofft’s fir pofition is, that, in 
theorizing, all unneceflary complexity is. 
to be avoided. Why fo? Isa theory of 
the univerfe lefs probable, becaufe it pre- 
fuppofes two fubftances, than becaule it 
pre fuppofes only one? his may bea 
Newtonian, but it is furely not a Ba- 
conian, rule of philofophizing. There is 
perhaps no one inftance in all nature of an 
The 
analogy of experience, therefore, favours 
the fupericr probability of thofe folutions 
which call in the aid of more than one 
principle. The fimplicity of a theory, 
fo far from being a teft of its truth, is 
rather a ground for hefitation and icep- 
ticifin. 
Taking for granted, on this queftion- 
able principle, the abfurdity of the mixt 
hypothefis of matter ana fpirit, Mr. Lofft 
proceeds to queftion the evidence of the 
exiftence of matter. If the mixt hypo- 
thefis and then the material hyvothefis be 
fet afide, nothing would remain tenable, 
he thinks, but the ivftem of the idealifts. 
What are his arguments againf the exilt- 
ence of matter?—-~The Enquirer may 
have been inattentive; but after reading 
more than once the fecand column of page 
121, where thele arguments ought to 
occur, not even the fembiance of a fo- 
phifm feems attempted, though the anni- 
hilation of the univerfe is at ftake.—He 
finds only thefe words : If there is 20 evi- 
dence of the exifience of matter, bath the 
Simply material and mixt hypothefs muft be 
rejected :.and ‘hele, If the juppofed exift- 
ence of matter is contradictory to iis beimg 
pujefjed of the properties of mind, the fim- 
ple material fyftem cannt be true It-—— 
Next comes the pefitive: evidence for 
the exciufive exiftence of fpint, or mind. 
Here itis. (1.) Méiad and matter have no 
commen principle of adtion. Vhis affvrtion 
is cont.adidted by hourly experience; yet 
Mr. Loft’s inference is, that the bypcthejis 
which afames the reciprocal action of mind 
cr matier cannot be admitied. (2.) Minds 
of the exiftence of which we cannot doubt, 
(if mind be fynonymous wth jpirit, why 
not ?) witl account for all ideqs and fes- 
fations; therefore, very boidiy indeeo in- 
fers Mr. Lofft, xo other folution can phito- 
fopbically be adopted. ‘Lo lay that. mind 
pm: 
wilt 
