In ftating what appears a proper ground for forming a confeffion of faith, for drawing the line of feparation between one Chriftian fociety and another, the author thinks, that the church fhould felect for public ufe only the leading and most important doctrines; or what fhe judges effential to true Chriftianity. This, it will be obferved, is very reafonable; but the misfortune is, there have been, and perhaps always will be, irreconcileable controverfies about essentials or fundamentals; and it will be utterly impoffible to fatisfy all parties in thefe points, by any fcheme that human ingenuity can invent.

The third letter contains obfervations on the tolerating fpirit of the church of England. In fpeaking of the diffenters, he fays, he apprehends, That it could do no harm to allow them that by law, which they have long enjoyed in fact, and of which no body ever thought of depriving them.'

There feems to be a proper mixture of benevolence and policy in the following reflection on the cafe of the Papifts in this country.

• However popular it may be to hold up Popery as an object of abhorrence, it furely is not reasonable to fuppofe, that it can never be entitled to any degree of toleration. It may be thought, as a matter of fpeculation only, that, provided the profeffors of it no longer breathe the fame fpirit of independence and hoftility, provided by their folemn declarations and conduct they give us affurance of their being good fubjects, reliques, and images, and tranfubftantiation have little to do with the ftate; that men's follies and abfurdities, if they are harmless to others, are not proper objects of legal restraint; and that it is having a very contracted notion of toleration itself, to extend it in the ampleft form to one set of men, and to withold it entirely from another, fuppofing that both might partake of it confiftently with public fecurity. It might be thought, that Popery might live as amicably with Proteftantifm in this country, as it does in many parts of Germany and in Holland.

But although all this may be true in fpeculation, the prac tical ftatefman muft take in other confiderations. The reafon of the thing is not always enough for him to act upon. Before fuch alterations are made, opinions and prejudices must be confulted; which last are abated only by time and experience. We may fee how ready people are to take the alarm in fuch matters by what has paffed in Scotland on this very fubject; the last century could fcarce have produced any thing more violent.Without proceeding further, it may be prudent and neceffary to wait and fee the effect of a partial relief, both on the opinions of the people at large and the conduct of the party relieved for it certainly requires fome experience to be perfectly affured that Popery will not make an ill ufe of any liberty which fhould

be granted to her, confidering her old reftless fpirit, and the indefatigable zeal fhe has always fhewn for making profelytes.

The penal laws against Popery, which difgrace our statutebook, have indeed been rendered almoft harmless by the humane and tolerant fpirit of this country. The most severe and oppreffive have been suffered to lie dormant and to grow obsolete ; they have hardly ever been called forth of late years, except now and then to fatisfy the mean and vindictive purpofes of private malice; and the magiftrate either finds fome evasion not to execute them at all, or does it with reluctance. Unreasonable laws, where the punishment is out of all proportion to the of fence, for the most part, in free countries efpecially, defeat themselves; the general good fenfe and humanity of a people are revolted at them, and by preventing their effects almost repeal them."

The fubjects, upon which this learned writer offers his fentiments in the remaining letters, are, Ecclefiaftical Jurifdietion, Freedom of Enquiry, Public Forms, the Provifion, the Learning, the Duties, and the Manners of the Clergy.

At the conclufion he thus expreffes his general fentiments of our civil and ecclefiaftical conftitution.

Notwithfanding the many defects and corruptione in the former, which candid men will allow, and the uncandid will exaggerate; yet when I fee, that in this country we are more free, more fecure in our perfons and property, than the inhabitants of any country have been, whofe history is tranfmitted to us: that juftice is adminiftered in our courts of law with a purity, of which there is no example ;. that this conftitution has in fact produced for near a century, more public and private happiness, than any government which has ever yet fubfifted; I muft conclude, that it is on the whole excellent, however improveable in fome of its parts; that it deferves the warmest affection and moft faithful fupport of all its members. So likewife, however injariously our whole church-establishment may be fometimes treated by paffionate men; though reasonable and moderate men may think, that in fome of its parts it wants correction, and is capa ble of amendment; yet when I confider its spirit of toleration towards other fects of Chrißians, the freedom with which religious inquiry is purfued under it, the learning and abilities of its clergy, their literary productions in the support of Christianity and for instruction in it, with the.general decorum and propriety of their manners, I cannot help concluding, that the prefent church of England on the whole deferves the effeem and veneration of our own age, and that it will hereafter be confidered by pofterity as a worthy and illuftrious branch of Chrift's Univerfal Church.

The Dramatic Works of Philip Maflinger, complete in four Vo. lumes; revifed and corrected, with Notes critical and explana Bory, by John Monk Mason, Esq. To which are added, Remarks and Obfervations of various Authors; critical Reflections on the old English dramatic Writers, and a short Effay on the Life and Writings of Maflinger, inscribed to Dr. S. Johnson, 8vo. 1. 1. in boards. T. Davies.

TILL

ILL we had feen the title page of the work now before us, we were unacquainted with the name of the editor. We have fince learned, that he is one of the commiffioners of the revenue in Ireland; and we fincerely hope that he has more knowlege of his Majesty's customs than those of the drama. To be plain, and to use the mildeft terms we can think of, we do not remember, fince the commencement of our literary labours, to have had any work pafs through our hands, in which we have found fuch abfolute infufficiency in an editor, joined with fuch perfect confidence and felf-complacency.

In his Preface, which is written with the most eafy non-chalance, he begins with informing us, that he has an enthufiaftic veneration for our old poets; and at the same time acquaints us, that till within these two years he had never heard the name of Maflinger, though Langbaine, or any common Playhouse Dictionary would have furnished him with a full account both of the author and his works. He then proceeds to lament, that, notwithstanding the great abilities of Dr. Johnson, we have yet had no tolerably perfect edition of Shakespeare; none of the editors of that poet having been fufficiently acquainted with our old dramatists, and the other ancient English writers, whofe works, he truly obferves, will ever afford the beft commentaries on that immortal bard.

Mr. Steevens, about thirteen years ago, firft fuggefted the idea of illuftrating that author, by a diligent perufal of the contemporary writers. Soon afterwards Dr. Farmer, in his ingenious Efay on the Learning of Shakespeare very fuccefsfully followed the course that had been pointed out. In our review of the second edition of Dr. Johnson's Shakespeare, publifhed in 1774, and also in our examination of the new and augmented edition by Dr. Johnfon and Mr. Steevens, which appeared a few months Gince, having had frequent occafion to obferve how happily this new mode of illuftration had been purfued by these gentlemen, we were fomewhat furprised at this affertion of Mr. Monk Mafon. We do not think, indeed, that fince the first ufe of types, fo many authors have been examined for the fingle purpose of illuftrating a contemporary writer, as have

been quoted in the late editions of Shakespeare; there being, we believe, fcarce an old play in the English language, or a fingle book of the age of Queen Elizabeth, that has any relation to the customs of the stage or the manners of our anceftors, that has not been used to explain the obscurities, and afcertain the text of that writer. But perhaps Mr. Monk Mafon will fay, that he has never heard of either of these editions, and the performance now before us does not induce us to question his want of curiofity or information on this or any other fubject.

After these pathetic lamentations on account of the infufficiency of the editors of our other dramatic poets, and their negligence in not examining the ftores of ancient English literature, we expected to fee the pages of the new edition of Maflinger filled with extracts from our old poets; but, to our great aftonishment, on perufing the few notes that are thinly fcattered through these volumes, we did not find that the editor had fupported any one conjecture which his imagination had fupplied, or any explanation that his learning had fuggefted, by a fingle quotation from our old comedies, or from any author contemporary with him whofe works he has undertaken to publish. What is ftill more extraordinary, he does not appear (as we shall prove presently) to have been poffeffed even of the writings which he has attempted to revife; we mean, of Maflinger's plays, as they were originally published; but has been content to take them as they were exhibited to him in a very corrupt modern edition by Mr. Coxeter, or rather by the late Mr. Dell, book feller in Holborn.

- This editor next proceeds to inform us, that the corrections which he has made are as obvious as the errors they amend ; that therefore he has not infulted the reader's understanding by long notes, or paffages from ancient authors, to justify his alterations; but that he has made short work of it, and for the cafe of those who fhall perufe his book, has inferted all his own amendments in the text.

After the outcry that juftly arofe againft Sir Thomas Hanmer and Dr. Warburton, on account of their having in part followed this course, we did not expect that any editor would at this day be hardy enough to avow fuch a proceeding. But in the prefent editor it is the most extraordinary inftance of difregard for the opinion of the public, that we ever remember to have met with; nor can we imagine what end he had in view by making this affertion, (unlefs he wifhed to damn his own work); for on examining his propofed alterations, we find that the printer has been more modeft as well as more wife than his employer; and that the new readings which he has propofed, have feldom been admitted into the text, but

have in general, with great propriety, been degraded to their proper place, the bottom of the page.

Having now laid before our readers a view of the manner in which this edition has been conducted, we fhall for the prefent take leave of the modest editor, and proceed to fome short ftri&tures on his notes.

The first remark that folicits our attention, is on these lines, in the Picture, vol. I. p. 25.

Blow luftily, my lads, and drawing nigh,

Afk for a lady which is clep'd Sphy?

This emendation (the editor obferves) is evidently right; as almost all the rest of this ridiculous fpeech is in rhyme, we fhould without doubt read Sophy, instead of Sophia. —And accordingly it is fo printed.

But if Mr. Monk Mafon had been pleafed to look into the original edition of the Picture, printed in 1630, he would have found that it reads,

• Blow luftily, my lads, and drawing nigh-a,

Afk for a lady which is clep'd Sophia

which is infinitely more humourous, and renders his alteration of the text impertinent and unnecessary.

The next note that we shall advert to, is in the Virgin Martyr, vol. I. p. 110.

On this line

The chief joys of creation, marriage rights,'

the editor obferves, that the rights which marriage gives may be confidered as the chief joys of creation, but the mere ceremonies of marriage cannot.'

Here again the old copy varies from the modern for the former reads-marriage rites-which by an easy figure the author uses for the enjoyments derived from marriage; as Shakespeare had done before him:

The rites for which I love him are bereft me.'

In the fame play (p. 124.) we are informed, that angels formed no part of the pagan theology, and therefore instead of the Roman angel's wings fhall melt,'-we are defired to read the Roman augel's wings,' &c. i. e. the Roman bird, from augello, Ital."

If the editor had been at all converfant with our ancient dramatic writers, he would have known that they perpetually introduce the customs of one country in another; and frequently make their perfonages talk of fyftems that were not known in the world till after the era of their ftory. By the Roman angel, in the paffage now before us, is meant, the tutelary deity of Rome. Shakespeare ufes the word as licentiously

For Brutus, as you know, was Cæfar's angel.”