"Let a religious man and an atheist try the fame experiment, and their friendship will terminate in the fame conclufion. The train of the religious man's contemplations and affections will lead him frequently, with deep admiration and gratitude, to converfe on the amia ble character of God, the bleffings he derives from the Divine Providence, the pleafures he enjoys in the practice of virtue, and the hope which he entertains of a bleffed immortality. The atheist, again, who regards all this as the floating bubble of an ignorant and fhallow brain, will be pepetually laughing at the chimerical notions of a God, and a Providence; and, in the drefs of ridicule, will be holding up the fiction of virtue, and the phantom of futurity. Surely, no man, who has any refpect to his own judgment, will fay, that between perfons of f ch oppofite principles a real friendship can ever take place; o, that these men can ever enjoy their favourite pleasures, till breaking a funder thofe external bands which kept them together, the one feels belf at liberty, without the infolent fcoffs of atheism, to pursue the paths and the pleasures of religion; and the other, without the grave rebukes of religion, to pursue the frolics and the follies of atheism.

"Upon the fame principle I am warranted to maintain, that, between a benevolent God and a malevolent man, no degree of fincere and folid friendship can exift. God, who made the world for no end but to make it happy, inceffantly employs his wisdom, his power, and all the glorious attributes which adorn his nature, to promote the hap pinefs of the world; and, in the contemplation of universal felicity, and of his own infinite and eternal goodness as the unceafing caufe of it, he takes infinite complacency in his works, and in himfelf. The malevolent man, on the contrary, who feels no inclination to promote the general good, but who enjoys a kind of malignant fatisfaction in beholding the misery of mankind--whofe envy makes him hate the Excellence he cannot reach-whofe refentment makes him thirst for the blood of his adversary-and whose severity of difpofition makes him a fee to the interefts of humanity-wantonly exerts his utmoft powers to cenfure the deferving, injure the innocent, infult the oppreffed, and fcatter the feeds of mifery into the hearts of those whom God had formed for the enjoyment of happinefs. Now, is it poffible to fuppofe, that between God and fuch a man any fhadow of love or friendship can fubfift? Is it not evident to every comprehenfion, that there is between them fuch an effential and eternal oppofition, that, in the law of nature, light may as foon have fellowship with darkness, as, in the law of religion, a benevolent God can have fellowship with a malevoleat man? God cannot dwell in the malevolent man, because, as far as his abilities enable him, he counteracts the plans of the Divine benevolence, and defaces the beauty of the rational creation. The malevolent man cannot dwell in God, because he feels not the influence of that mercy which is the darling attribute of the Creator, and he repines at the fight of that happinefs which every perfection of the Deity interefts itfelf to advance."

"This induction of obfervations and examples cannot fail, I should think, to convince us, that it is only a merciful and benevolent man that can enjoy a ferene and folid friendship with a merciful and bene

volent God; and a man of this defcription lives, and cannot but live, in the higheft and fublimeft friendship with God. In proportion to the inferior perfections of his nature, the benevolent man feels the fame fentiments, breathes the fame wishes, acts from the fame motives. purfues the fame plans, and labours to promote the fame ends that God himfelf does. He is ambitious, in his fphere, to destroy every fource of evil and pain, and is a worker together with God in advancing the good of the creation. To give bread to the hungry, and drink to him that is a-thirft-to pour the balm of comfort into the heart that is broken with forrow, and to wipe away the falling tear from the eye of grief to treat the ftranger with a generous hofpitality, and to direct the wandering traveller to the path of fafety-to protect the innocent from the arts of the seducer, and to draw unaffuming merit from the fhade of oblivion-to convert the finner from the error of his way, and to train up human fouls for glory, immortality, and God-are the fublime and important objects to which the affections of his heart are devoted, and from which he derives the chief fources of his joy. In one word, from motives of univerfal love he labours to promote univerfal happiness; and, in proportion as his labours are fuccefsful, and as he fees the world virtuous and happy, he taftes thofe pure and perfect pleasures which fpring from a happy mixture of the felfifh and fympathetic affections. He contemplates with pleasure the hap pinefs of the world around him, and feels a confcious delight within himfelf when he reflects, that, according to the beft of his abilities, he has ftudied, in conjunction with God, to promote the general happiBefs." P. 333

At the clofe of the volume are alfo fome Difcourfes upon Scripture Characters, in which the author delivers himfeif with much foundnefs of obfervation, though not with uniform propriety of expreffion. "An internal inflammation is deftroying peace of mind;" though applied to Haman, is turgid, without either force or beauty. But we forbear to select any further inftances of fimilar faults. The author's general powers entitle him to our refpect; and when he is led aftray, it is manifeftly not by defect of understanding, but by an inju dicious ambition, into which perhaps he might be led by having it fuggefted, on former occafions, that his difcourfes were too plain. The mind to which luxuriant ornament is not natural, will ufually attempt it awkwardly. The first volume of thefe Sermons appeared in 1780; the fecond in 1787. Both long before our undertaking commenced,

ART.

ART. XIV. Comments on the Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, with an Appendix, containing fome further Obfervations on Shakspeare, extended to the late Editions of Malme and Steevens. By the Right Honourable 7. Monck Mafun. 8vo. 467 pp. 8s. Rivingtons. 1798.

IT

T is undoubtedly, as the present annotator afferts, rather furprifing, that amidst all the attention fo justly paid to Shakfpeare, these poets fhould have fuffered fnch neglect, that of the laft edition in 8vo. published near twenty years ago, many copies yet remain unfold. We fhall be glad to co-operate with Mr. Malon in the endeavour to bring them into better notice. Mr. Monck Mason has long been known as a commentator on Shakspeare. His obfervations here alluded to in the title-page, were published in 1785, and many of them have been fince admitted into fubfequent editions of that poet.

As this annotator profeffes to have "no industry," it will hardly be fair to object to him, that he appears to fet out without the proper apparatus for his bufinefs; fince if he had more tools, perhaps, he would not below the pains of ufing them.→→ "The only ancient copy in my poffeffion," he fays, "is the fecond folio." This, however, is fair and laudable dealing. It informs the reader at once, that he is not to expect an elaborate collation and comparison of various editions; but only the conjectures of a critic, and the elucidations of a gentleman, long verfed in the study of our ancient dramatic writers. By what he undertakes, therefore, we muft in juftice eftimate his work, and not by what he might have done.

On the fubject of conjectural criticism upon authors who wrote fince the invention of printing, it is proper to remark generally, that the latitude allowed must be even smaller than in the cafe of the ancient writers. Of the few MSS. that remain of the claffics, the authority can feldom be very highly rated, fince they are all coinparatively of late production, and every new tranfcriber might have introduced new errors. But a book printed and reprinted in the life of the author, can seldom be fuppofed to contain many very grofs miftakes, that materially affect the fenfe, and are not of a nature that marks them at once for the blunders of a compofitor, or the accidents of the prefs. In abatement of the force of this canon, it must be allowed, that our early poets were careless about their works, and did not very often fuperintend the printing of them. But, with all due allowance for this fact, it will always be advisable to try

every effort at explanation, before we attempt to change a reading, in which all the early editions coincide.

Of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays, the first folio edition appeared in 1647; twenty-two years after the death of Fletcher, the longett furvivor of the two poets. But many particular plays had been printed in quarto during his life, and fome of them more than once. Several of thefe quartos are extant, and to be found in a few collections. Fletcher died in 1625. Philafter was printed in 1622, in a quarto now before us, which is called the fecond impreffion. The Maid's Tragedy was printed in the fame year. The Woman Hater in 1607. The Scornful Lady in 1619. Thierry and Theodoret in 1621. The first folio contains thirty-five pieces. The fecond folio was published in 1676, and contains eighteen plays that were not in the former, which the editors printed carefully, as they tell us, from the quartos ; or rather, to use their own words, took "the pains and care to collect and print out of 4to." The editors of this fecond edition, lay great claim to the praife of corre&nefs. Their address to the reader begins thus:

"Courteous Reader,

"The first edition of thefe plays in this volume having found that acceptance as to give us encouragement to make a second impreffion, we were very defirous they might come forth as correct as might be. and we were very opportunely informed of a copy which an ingenious and worthy gentleman had taken the pains (or rather the pleafure) to read over; wherein he had all along corrected feveral faults (fome very grofs) which had crept in by the frequent imprinting of them. His corrections were the more to be valued, becaufe he had an intimacy with both our authors, and had been a fpectator of most of them, when they were afted in their life-time. This therefore we refolved to purchafe at any rate; and accordingly with no fmall coft obtain'd it. From the fame hand alfo we received feveral Prologues and Epilogues, with the fongs appertaining to each play, which were not in the former edition, but are now inferted in their proper places."

Here then we have a kind of teft to eftimate the readings of thefe two folios. Where the second materially differs from the first, we may prefume the alteration to have been made by the unknown intimate of the authors. The perfons who vouch for this fact; are three bookfellers; John Martyn, Henry Herringman, Richard Mariot. A proprietor of the first folio, on the other hand, Humphrey Mofeley, profeffes to have had original manufcripts... His object was to print only fuch plays as had not been published before; and of thefe he says, "I had the originalls, from fuch as received them from the authours themfelves; by thofe and none other I publish this edition." Many other curious circumftances are mentioned in this address of Humphrey Mofeley, who feems to have been an intelligent

intelligent man, and to have taken due pains to have his edition. correct. Among other things, he tells us this anecdote of Fletcher's autographs.

"Whatever I have feene of Mr. Fletcher's owne hand, is free from interlining, and his friends affirme he never writ any one thing twice: it feemes he had that rare felicity to prepare and perfect all firft in his owne braine; to fhape and attire his Notions, to adde or loppe off, before he committed one word to writing, and never touched pen till all was able to ftand as firme and immutable as if engraven in braffe or marble."

Of errors of the prefs, Mosely fpeaks as a man who was confident of having done his beft to avoid them. "For literall errours committed by the printer, 'tis the fashion to afke pardon, and as much in fashion to take no notice of him that asks it; but in this alfo I have done my endeavour." He profeffes alfo to have inferted every thing written by his authors, which had not been printed before, except the Wildgoofe Chafe.

"One Play I muft except (for I meane to deale openly) 'tis a Comedy called the Wild-grofe Chafe, which hath beene long loft, and I feare irrecoverable; for a perfon of Quality borrowed it from the actours many yeares fince, and (by the negligence of a servant) it was never returned; therefore I now put up this fi quis, that whofoever hereafter happily meetes with it, fhall be thankfully fatisfied if he please to fend it home."

It does not augur very well for the accuracy of the second editors, that this very comedy appears in their volume, and is not marked with an afterifk, as they profeffed to do refpecting those which had been wanting in the former collection. Nor is any notice given when or how it was recovered. It should feem then that the firft folio, as far as it goes, is of better authority than the fecond: nor fhould we omit to remark, that the Dedication to the Earl of Pembroke is figned by ten actors, among whom are John Lowin and William Allen; and to that is fubjoined an Addrefs to the Reader, figned by James Shirley, himself an eminent dramatic writer..

We have been led infenfibly into more detail than we intended, for the fake of eftimating the comparative value of these two early folios. But it will all tend, we truft, to our aim, first mentioned, that of exciting attention to these poets. Among other matters, collectors may fee that it is vain to look for any early quartos of the 35 pieces contained in the first folio*; fince the editor pofitively affirms, that none there inferted

The plays in the fecond folio, and not in the first, are, 1. The Maid's Tragedy. 2. Philafter. 3. King or no King. 4. The

Scornful