we are not condemned for committing it. We could not help being born descendants of Adam, and we are not condemned for not helping it. But if we sustain or possess a disposition of heart which gives rise to sinful emotions and affections, who can say we have no agency in sin? These emotions and affections are our own acts. Even the very state of heart from which these spring, is, itself, a moral defect, which cannot be viewed with complacency by the eye of Infinite Purity. A holy God will adjust his displeasure, in each particular case, to our real deserts. Into his merciful hands we are willing to commit the destinies of our race; but let us not be wilfully blind to our real moral condition.

Again, we would ask, Does it correspond with the teachings of Revelation to say, that, let the heart be totally opposed to some duty enjoined by religion, so that the duty, when contemplated, awakens only a strong dislike, the will can in this case, of itself, perform the duty? Most assuredly not. How can a pure and holy God accept such a service? He will be satisfied with no obedience which springs not from the heart. True, we may go forward in obedience to some divine command, while we are conscious of many opposing inclinations; but we may be prompted by a still stronger feeling of love to God; so that, on the whole, we do not dislike, but really approve the duty. Yet, even in this case, our duty is defective; while a single opposing feeling remains, the divine law is not completely fulfilled. It requires not merely the consent of the will, but of every feeling of the heart. According to the above doctrine, we see not why depravity should be regarded as so great an evil. It is not itself sin, nor need it prevent the discharge of any duty. Indeed, according to Prof. T., it cannot be called an evil at all; for he tells us there is no evil but moral evil, and that this consists in wrong volitions. The Holy Spirit, it is acknowledged, in regeneration, changes the sensitivity; but why is this so necessary, if this philosophy be true? Why may we not go through life, discharging our duties, without any change in the sensitivity?

But we forbear, for the present, farther remarks. may, in a future number, inquire how far the system we have been considering has enabled its author to succeed in the refutation of Edwards.

ARTICLE V.

THE AGE OF LORENZO DE' MEDICI.

The Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, called the Magnificent. By WILLIAM ROSCOE. In two volumes, pp. 448, 453, 8vo. Philadelphia, Carey & Hart.

1842.

THE history of Florence (Ital. Firenze), the capital of the grand-duchy of Tuscany, can be traced back, according to popular tradition, to the times of the dictatorship of Sylla, or, according to Politiano, to the triumvirate of Octavius, Anthony, and Lepidus. It originated from the ancient city Fiesole, whose walls still remain, at the distance of about three miles from Florence. When the Roman state was overrun by the northern barbarians, Florence followed the fate of the rest of Italy. But, as early as A. D. 1010, it had recovered some degree of strength and independence, which it exerted against the place from which it sprung. The government of Florence was directed by a council of the citizens, and a chief executive officer called the Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer, who was chosen every two months. But the discord and animosity that arose from the instability of an administration, fluctuating as it did, from an early period, between the aristocratic and the popular form, may easily be conceived. When either of the contending factions gained the ascendancy, the leaders of it soon disagreed in the exercise of their power, and the weaker party, attaching themselves to the body of the people, effected a revolution. Alternations of this sort were continually going on; and the frequency of electing their magistrates fomented a spirit of continual opposition. But these disadvantages were amply compensated by the great degree of freedom enjoyed by the citizens of Florence, which had the most favorable effect on their character, and gave them a decided superiority over the rest of the inhabitants of Italy. There was nothing in the form of their government, to prevent even the poorest member of the body politic from attaining wealth and influence, and gradually rising to the highest honors of the state. Hence, it was im

possible that there should be an indolence and a stagnation of talent in ancient families, relying, as is too often the case, in an aristocratic government, on ancestral dignity, and unwieldy accumulations of wealth. The rivalship created by the industry and talent of the people at large, made them feel the uncertainty of any such reliance. It promoted a spirit of untiring and meritorious exertion to deserve well of their fellow-citizens, in the families of the high and low, rich and poor, ancient and recent. Their faculties were cultivated by the necessities of their mercantile pursuits. The careful examination and free discussion of the measures of the government, and of the character and ability of the citizens who administered it, contributed also to the discrimination and general education of the common people. Intercourse with foreign nations produced mental enlargement. Deep as was the darkness, whose pall enshrouded the countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, during the middle ages, the merchants of Florence could not go abroad without receiving some intellectual benefit. "The fatigues of public life, and the cares of mercantile avocations," says Mr. Roscoe, "were alleviated at times, by the study of literature, or the speculations of philosophy." It is possible, that, in the beginning of the revival of letters in Europe, this was true of a very few persons only; honorable exceptions to the general mass; lights, shining with an incipient and pale radiance, whose brilliancy was noticeable, chiefly on account of the gloom of the surrounding darkness. But they were enough to awaken a spirit of literary enthusiasm among the various ranks of society. They were enough to create a setting of the tide in favor of learning. They were enough to convince the community, that a people devoted to the cultivation of a polished literature, and warmly attached to the pure taste exhibited by the ancient models, have, in every respect, the advantage of men who, though they have intelligent souls, are delivered up to sottish ignorance and imbecility. But a very few persons, in an elevated station, could give direction to many. They could communicate their own life and inspiration to the mass about them. They could encourage the collection of manuscripts, and specimens of architecture. They could interpret parchments and coins, and explain their value to the less enlightened of their countrymen. The popular character of the government, which opened the highest stations to the ambi

tion of the citizens generally, created an inducement for the poor to emulate the rich in industry and intelligence, and for the unlettered to strive after the cultivation of the learned. The superiority of the citizens of Florence was universally acknowledged; and they became the historians, poets, orators, and preceptors of Europe. There collections were made from the antiquities that belonged to the best periods of Grecian and Roman civilization. There were gardens, and palaces, and paintings. There were libraries and the classics in them. And there were scholars, who could appreciate them, and be moulded by them. Few they may have been, and immature, when compared with the scholars of a later age, and living under more favorable auspices. But the influence of an individual, whose earnest sincerity of spirit pleads his cause for him, cannot be over-rated. One reproduces his thousands. The good seed yields, in some, an hundred fold. The sun shining upon a mirror, cut with a thousand facets, gives a thousand images of itself. The thousand facets of human society all reflect the image of a mind, capable of shedding around it light and heat. And while the orb of day sheds his beams upon the mirror, every facet, according to its position, both receives its modicum of light from every other, and communicates to every other something of its own light. It was thus that Florence became the cradle of the arts in Europe, at the period of their regeneration.

It is an interesting fact, in the history of Italy, that the light of literature was not wholly quenched there, even in the darkest period of the middle ages. The Latin language, it is true, degenerated very much from its original elegance. It was corrupted by the admixture of foreign words, introduced through the influence of the northern barbarians. The dialect of the common people, if it was ever equal to the literary language of Cicero and Horace, had lost its eloquence and beauty. The cultivated Italian did not arise until the period of Boccaccio, who is commonly regarded as the father of Italian prose. But there was still a succession of learned men, in the clerical and other professions, some of whose works remain to us. From the period of Charlemagne, early in the ninth century, it is easy to trace, by literary monuments in the form of treatises on dialectics, theology, medicine, jurisprudence, lexicography and history, the condition of literature in its stationary periods, and in its occasional

seasons of more successful development, together with the influences which gave it these occasional impulses; and in its seasons of retrogradation, with the causes of such retrogradation, even down to the present time. During some portions of the middle ages, literature and the arts could boast little advancement. The breath of life remained in the system; but there was neither spirit nor progress. In other portions, the world of letters seemed reviving on every side. Influences were at work, which gave a fresh spring to the energies of cultivated minds, and opened new sources of information. Lothaire, who was king of Italy, A. D. 823, founded the first public schools in many cities; and Eugene II followed his example in the states of the church. But on account of the want of competent teachers, these schools gradually fell into decay. The popes, Gregory II and Alexander III, were friends of learning, and took measures to improve the schools. During their incumbency, the copies of ancient classic works were multiplied, and individuals took pains to collect books. Petrarch was a very zealous laborer in this department. In all his journeys, he made it one of his chief aims to gather together valuable manuscripts; and when he could not purchase and carry them away with him, he transcribed them. A copy of Virgil in his hand-writing, is still in the Ambrosian library at Milan. He complains, in a letter from Flanders, that in the rich city of Liege, he could hardly find a little yellow ink to copy a few orations of Cicero. Notwithstanding a prevailing deficiency of good taste, the Greek and Latin languages were studied by a few persons, who thus opened the way to the knowledge of the ancients; and, by imitating the style of such models, contributed to the literary elevation and advancement of their country. The crusades, whose influence at first was injurious, ultimately proved the means of great benefit to the cause of letters. They led to new sources of knowledge, and thus gave a new impulse to literary advancement. From about the close of the twelfth to the end of the thirteenth century, princes and states in Italy vied with each other in encouraging scholars, and in founding institutions for education. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the university of Bologna contained 13,000 students. The writings of Aristotle became known to the Italians, and Thomas Aquinas, by command of the pope, wrote a commentary on them. Mathematics and grammar, including