all of them in Devonshire-interesting excursions, and a sufficient degree of intellectual employment in reviewing Buckland to make the relaxation of visiting and travelling agreeable.' These, too, which follow, written after his return to college, should not be omitted. 'Nov. 8, 1823. M. Schlegel dined with me. He is a pro fessor of Sanscrit at Bonn, and has translated Shakespeare into German; lively, sensible, learned, and polite.' 'Nov. 12. Captain Franklyn dined with me.' A Sunday, Nov. 16. Philander Chase, bishop of Ohio, called on Mr. Spry at my house, and dined here. venerable primitive character (æt. forty-eight), not unlike the bust of Luther, and reminding us strongly, by the simplicity of dress and manner, of the earlier ages of the church. His object is to solicit in England support for the church in his diocese, the newly settled state of Ohio. For want of means to educate their clergy, the church is declining, and, he fears, expiring; but, not despairing, he resolved to come to England himself upon this mission, though against the advice of several of his brethren.' 'Dec. 21. Heard Irving at the Caledonian chapel. Ingenious and eloquent, but fanciful and unsound. In manner, studied and theatrical to excess. Wednesday, Dec. 24. To Althorp, and returned to Oxford the following Saturday. Lord Spencer's family is the very pattern of an ancient nobleman's house-dignified but affable, kind, hospitable, orderly, and religious.' Another and a different visit at six months' distance, put together with the above, illustrates well the great variety and interest of Dr. Copleston's acquaintance. 'July 8, 1824. Dined at Mongewell; a very interesting LETTER TO DR. WHATELY. 99 day. The bishop (Barrington) was ninety on the 26th of last May, yet he is cheerful, polite, and even active. Sat at the head of his table, was attentive to everybody; walked without a stick and without support, and after dinner read a letter without spectacles. The weather being fine we had tea in the greenhouse, and at eight took our leave.' From this point in the diary I do not find any notice of particular interest for a considerable space; nor can I occupy a portion of that space better than by inserting the following letter, written in 1824. My dear Whately, Oriel College, October 24. Whether I answered the letter I received from you in Devonshire, announcing the birth of your third child, I really do not know; but I had some qualms of conscience on that score, and was about to write at a venture, when your letter of the 20th arrived. The postscript serves to lessen the anxiety naturally excited in the breast of a friend by the general tone of this letter. Before many days are over, I trust you will be able to tell me that your alarm is at an end. A little change of air, and scene, and occupation, as soon as Mrs. W. is able to bear it, will, I dare say, re-establish her health. I can easily enter into the feelings you describe, which impel Mrs. W. to exertions beyond her strength; but after so severe a lesson, even the sense of duty must be satisfied in permitting many things to go unattended to, which, if the means were in our hands, we should be glad to regulate. It seems absurd to mount to metaphysical principles for a guide in the common familiar concerns of life. Yet I have frequently been led to reflect on the wide prevalence of evil in the world, as a proof that God cannot expect us to harass ourselves incessantly in resisting it. He doubtless permits it, as affording an arena for our energies, directed as they should be in obedience to his will. But it could never be meant that our own enjoyment is to be nullified by it. These reflections used to occur to my mind when engaged in active duties as a college officer; and it often appeared to me the most difficult question, with what degree of evil existing under one's eyes one might fairly indulge a feeling of complacency, and a desire for repose or enjoyment. No one will say that these feelings are not to be indulged at all, while any degree of evil exists around us which we may by possibility counteract. Our Saviour himself was not always teaching or relieving distress, and much both of moral and physical evil he must have witnessed without interfering to correct it. Whenever, therefore, a service of this kind exceeds the measure of our health or spirits, we ought to be satisfied that another duty withdraws us from it, and endeavour to forget, by diversion to other objects, the imperfections and blemishes which are inseparable from earthly things. It is seldom, indeed, that one has occasion to inculcate this sort of duty, but the best motives require a moderating hand; even benevolence itself may grow up into asceticism. Have you yet read Davison's volume on prophecy? It is an able and valuable work; yet I cannot conceive how a man of his powers can reject the solution proposed of the difficulty about prescience, &c., and adhere to the old clumsy expedient which he quotes with praise from Archbishop Bramhall. Indeed the whole of the seventh discourse is very inferior in ability to the rest. His note is very provoking for he quotes a passage from Bramhall about different nature, much more liable to the abuse he deprecates than anything Archbishop King has said. Bishop Mant is here on his way to London, where he means to pass the winter, being in parliament this session. He is quite happy in his new see. Ever sincerely yours, E. COPLESTON. NOTICE OF HIS FRIEND. 101 Writing in 1831 to the Rev. J. M. Traherne, the bishop speaks of Dr. Whately in the following terms: Dr. Whately accepted the arduous station proposed to him purely, I believe, from public spirit and a sense of duty. Wealth and honour, and title and power, have no charms for him. He has great energy and intrepidity; a hardihood which sustains him against obloquy when he knows he is discharging a duty, and he is generous and disinterested almost to a fault. His enlarged views, his sincerity, and his freedom from prejudice, are more than a compensation for his want of conciliating manner. When his character is understood, he will, I think, acquire more influence with the Irish than he would with the English.' In academical, and, to a great extent, in theological matters, the names of Whately and of Copleston have been long associated, not with equal approval, we know, nor with like feelings, by all. How justly their opinions upon important points have been set down for identical, or what exceptions ought to be made, I shall not here discuss; and I think it will be generally felt that this is neither the time nor the place for doing so. I would not say one word calculated to awaken the sleeping echoes of controversy, sounds so ill suited to the present occasion, and so dissonant from the tone of my own mind, as at present employed. Having enjoyed the privilege of reading much of a free and intimate correspondence between these two highly-gifted and generous-minded men, I have been convinced of the injustice with which the con troversial spirit is in many cases chargeable, condemning as it does, in the mass, often upon assumption, and without any regard to those qualifying considerations, upon which so frequently depends the just interpretation of things said or done.. If I may be permitted for one moment to refer to a matter so entirely insignificant, I would say that, being conscious of holding views not a little divergent from some held by the archbishop and the bishop, I have the greater satisfaction in recording whatever may tend in any degree to correct mistaken or to soften hostile impressions concerning them. Those of my readers who have not already seen the affectionate tribute which the archbishop has paid to the memory of his friend in the dedication of his last Charge (1850) will be pleased to have it now before them, and will read with additional interest the characteristic letter of acknowledgment, which I subjoin. DEDICATION. To the revered memory of late Bishop of Llandaff, the substance of which was principally derived is inscribed, with affectionate and sorrowing veneration, |