fumptuous as to question what the united fuffrages of the beft judges have allowed him, yet, at leaft, to qualify it by a colder praife than hath been hitherto bestowed on him. It muft, indeed, be acknowledged by the moft enthufiaftic admirer of this immortal poet, that many of his plays, which owe their chief beauties to a boldness of invention, and a wildness of fancy, appear to have been in fome degree indebted, either for plot, management, or machinery, to other writers. This remark receives confirmation from the difcovery of Middleton's MS. play, above mentioned; in which, fomewhat of that imagery that hath equally aftonifhed, charmed, and terrified us, in the clofet and the theatre, in the tragedy of Macbeth, may be traced out by a curious and difcerning eye. How far Shakspeare was indebted to old English tranflations of the Greek and Latin claffics-to Stow, Hall, Holingfhed, and the tranflator of Hector Boethius's Hiftory of Scotland, hath been fufficiently noticed by preceding critics. It was, indeed, left to the indefatigable Mr. Steevens, to turn over a thousand dull and infignificant entries at Stationers Hall, in order to discover all the minutia of dates and titles which bore any reference to Shakspeare; and after a moft laborious refearch, with an eye (as Dr. Johnfon fays of the fagacious Mr. B's) that looked keenly an vacancy, he made a difcovery of feveral plays, on fimilar fubjects with many of Shakspeare's, which were prior to his, and even before his first entrance on the ftage. All this may be true: nay, we have not a doubt of the fact. But nothing that hath yet been produced of Shakspeare's plagiarism, can deprive him of one tittle of his almost prescriptive right to all the honours of a great and unequalled original. The moft captious critic, in the fulnefs of a defire to find fault, muft allow, that Shakspeare's borrowed ornaments fit on him with a more natural grace and elegance than on their original proprietors. They are fo exquifitely difpofed of-fo nicely blended with what is unqueftionably his own property, that we know not where the borrowed parts end, nor where the original ones begin. The whole appears to be the production of the fame mafter: fimplex duntaxat et unum. We may, perhaps, affert, that in the general and more difgraceful fenfe of the word, this great poet never appears to have borrowed at all. He had read indeed; and his capacious mind was stored with a vaft treasure of knowledge and obfervation. He had reflected on the great acquifitions he had made; had afranged them in his mind with much care and exactnefs. By thefe means, they became incorporated with his own natural, and in the trueft fenfe of the term, unborrowed reflections. Hence it is obvious to fuppofe, that when he addressed himself to compofition, he drew indifcriminately from the immenfe ftorehoufe of his mind, whatever was fit for his purpofe, whether of of native or acquired knowledge-indifferent, and perhaps unconscious, whole property any part of it might be. This is not an uncommon circumftance. The utmost circumfpection cannot always prevent its occurrence: for it is difficult to diftinguish the power of invention from that of reflection. Fancy may claim for its own what had been first only adopted by memory. Shakspeare hath the admirable art not only of applying his borrowed parts with propriety, but of embellishing and improving them. He adds to them a grace and dignity, which, at least, are his own. In the tragedy of Macbeth, his fpirits, though fimilar in name to thofe of Middleton [particularly the prefiding Deity hath in each the Grecian name of Hecate], yet they differ from Middleton's in almost every essential attribute of conduct and character. Middleton's fairies are light, frisky beings, who wreak their malice on fmall culprits, and revenge little mifchiefs. Shakspeare's are brought on the stage for purposes of higher account. They are to be the inftruments of dire events-revolutions that were worthy the council of the Gods. This great object was of fufficient importance to excufe the interpofition of fupernatural beings. Hence, what Middleton invented to amufe, Shakspeare's more daring genius improved into an inftrument of terror. This he hath accomplished with wonderful propriety and we admire that fkill and power which, on fo flight a bafis, could erect such a ftupendous fabric. Shakspeare's witches feem to be fully aware of the high importance of the fubject of their incantations, by the number of the ingredients which they throw into the cauldron. Hecate is anxious for its fuccefs; and enquires into the particulars of the infernal mixture. They folemnly caft in their respective share of the compofition: but instead of the grifle of a man hang'd after fun-fet [i. e. a murderer, according to Middleton's play] they throw in the grease that's fweaten from a murderer's gibbet: and inftead of Middleton's fat of an unbaptijed child, they mix with the other ingredients of the cauldron, the finger of birth-firangled babe. Perhaps it may be impoffible to defcribe the precife difference in the energy of thefe expreffions. It must be felt from their several effects on the imagination. Confidered in that view, the difference is very great: at least, it is felt to be fuch by us; and from a variety of circumftances of this kind, we are perfuaded, that Shakspeare never fat down to write from another's copy. His language was the natural expreffion of a mind fraught with the boldeft conceptions, and the moft lively ideas: and when the whole of Middleton's play is publifhed, perhaps our convictions will be ftill farther corroborated, of Shakspeare's having never confidered it as a model for his fcene of the witches witches in Macbeth, however he might have fallen on fome particular modes of expreffion, that were scarce avoidable on the fame fubject. The fcene of the witches with Macbeth, after their incantations at the cauldron, is inexpreffibly folemn: and the expedient of fhewing a future race of Kings, wonderfully ftriking and fublime. Distance and obfcurity affift and increase that terror which is one capital fource of fublimity. But as if that were not fufficient, others are fhewn in a glafs, as the defcendents of Banquo, whofe ruin he was contriving. To fee them exalted to the height of power and authority, was an object to strike ambition to madneís.-We have made these remarks, in order to evince how effentially different the gay witches of Middleton are from the awful fifters of Macbeth. In a future Review, we will prefent our readers with fome curious illuftrations of difficult paffages in the plays, which cannot fail of being acceptable to all the lovers of Shakspeare. ART. III. Two Differtations. I. On the Preface to St. John's Gofpel. II. On praying to Jefus Chrift. By Theophilus Lindsey, A. M. With a fhort Polifcript by Dr. Jebb. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Johnton. 1779 I N the preface to this work, Mr. Lindsey gives his reafons for this addition to his former publications on the subject, in the following terms: I had refolved to have left my arguments to take their fate, as I had first put them down in the Apology and Sequel †. But the friend (Mr. Temple) who bad confuted Mr. Burgh and Mr. Randolph, had alfo, with the fame difinterested regards to truth, published his diffatisfac-. tion with the interpretation I had given of the prologue of St. John's Gofpel, the right understanding whereof feems of. great importance towards fettling the true character of Jefus, Christ; and objections from fuch a pen demand refpect. And a few months pait, an anonymous perfon, in a "Letter to Dr. Jebb, with relation to his declared Sentiments about the Unlawfulness of all religious Addreffes to Jefus Chrift," has laboured much to fhew, that I had not fufficiently proved that point. I have then judged it proper, and hope it may be of fome ufe, to review, and add farther fupport to what I had advanced on both thefe fubje&is, with an eye, as I went along, to fuch objections as I had met with, but without entering into a direct controverfy with any one, to which I am much averfe.' * Vide Review, vol. L. p. 56. 100. Ibid. vol. Iv. p. 195. 264. Vol. Ivi. p. 14. The The Differtation on the Preface to St. John's Gofpel is divided into four sections, the first of which more directly confiders the paffage John i. 1-14. and is intended to fupport the affertion, or conclufion, that That the Logos, the Word, in this preface, is not Chrift, but the word, wifdom, power of God, communicated to him, and manifested by him.' The fecond fection mentions the filence, as he apprehends, of the three other Evangelifts on the fubject of Chrift's preexistence, and produces paffages, from St. Luke's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apoftles, which he concludes exprefs a very different idea. A brief account of certain forms of expreffion in St. John's Gofpel, which have been thought to favour the fuppofition of Chrift being the Word, Logos, mentioned John i. 1.' conftitutes the third fection, and finishes what this writer has to offer on the immediate fubject of the firft differtation. For the fourth fection treats Of Socinianifm and Socinus.' • This fection,' our Author informs us, has been added, to give fome little information concerning F. Socinus, who was nearly coeval with thofe great men, Luther and Calvin, and was one of the lights which Divine Providence raised up at that period, to recover the loft truths of the Gofpel. And that fection, it is added, together with the whole of this work, may, perhaps, contribute to foften, if not to remove, the prejudices of fome perfons against those to whom they give the name of Socinians, which name, as far as the author comprehends it, might be given to the Apoftles of Jefus, as equally belonging to them.' The fecond differtation, On praying to Jefus Christ, confifts of several fections, which, under different heads, repeat and farther illuftrate thofe arguments that have been frequently employed against the practice. However different Mr. Lindfey's fentiments on the above fubjects may be from thofe of many of his fellow-chriftians, it should be obferved, and it is greatly to be wifhed that it might be attended to, that he has a high veneration for the Scriptures, that he diligently and modeftly inveftigates fcripture truth, and appears fincerely defirous to embrace it; no perfon, who may confider himself as moft orthodox, or may be what is far better, really humble and pious, can be more truly and properly zealous for what he apprehends to be the truths of the Gospel, than this worthy divine: a confideration which fhould awaken and increase mutual candour and benevolence. The Poftfcript, written by Dr. Jebb, is addreffed to the author of A Letter to him, with relation to his declared Sentiments, &c,' as mentioned above. The writer of that letter, after having mentioned the Doctor's denial of the lawfulness of religious religious addreffes to Chrift, farther adds, that Dr. Jebb refers his readers to Mr. Lindley's Apology, for the proof thereof." Dr. Jebb thinks it requifite to obferve, that all the affertions and conclufions, proceeding on the idea of his having actually referred his readers to Mr. Lindfey's publication, for a proof of his pofition, are abfolutely deftitute of all foundation." Dr. Jebb remarks, that the defign of his publication has been entirely misapprehended; fince his intention was not to engage in controverfy, but chiefly to affign the reafons which induced him to relinquifh his ftation in the Church of England. Had it been my intention,' fays he, to enter into the prin ciples, on which my opinion, refpecting the point in question, is founded, it is not probable that I fhould have contented myself with referring to Mr. Lindfey's publication, however highly I approve his arguments, and refpect his authority. I fhould alfo have thought it my duty, to have endeavoured to eftablish the truth of fo important a pofition, by fuch deductions as at leaft would have convinced my readers, that I had not taken up my opinion without fome reflection on the subject;' and fhould unquestionably have referred, perhaps very largely, to thofe paffages in the facred writings, which, in my apprehenfion, would enable my readers to determine the question for themselves. It has long been my perfuafion, that we pay too much deference to the opinions of men refpecting religion, and too little to the word of God, from which alone all our ideas refpecting the Gospel ought to be deduced.' The Doctor's letter, though fhort, is very fenfible, manifefting a candid and ingenuous mind, warm in the interests of religious liberty and truth. At the fame time that he endeavours to correct the falfe conception entertained of the defign of his pamphlet, he expreffes the highest respect for Mr. Lindley's abilities, and approbation of his argument, There are fome marks of negligence in the pamphlet, one inftance of which feems to be in a paffage we have quoted, where the Author obferves, that the name of Socinians might have been applied to the Apostles of Chrift: His meaning is obvious; but is there not a little Iricifm in fuppofing those to be followers of Socinus who lived ages before him? ART. IV. Obfervations in Defence of the Liberty of Man, as a Moral ART. V. A Letter to the Rev. Mr, John Palmer, in Defence of the Refpectable opponent, as well as an old acquaintance, of Dr. Priestley's (as we learn from the fecond of these articles), attacks the doctrine of Philofophical Neceffity, in the first |