witches in Macbeth, however he might have fallen on some particular modes of expreifion, that were scarce avoidable on the same subject.

The scene of the witches with Macbeth, after their incantations, at the cauldron, is inexpresibly folemn: and the expedient of thewing a future race of Kings, wonderfully striking and sublime. Distance and obscurity aihift and increase that terror which is one capital source of sublimity. But as if that were not sufficient, others are thewn in a glass, as the descendents of Banquo, whose ruin he was contriving. To see them exalted to the height of power and authority, was an object to strike ambition to madness. We have made thcsc remarks, in order to evince how effentially different the gay witches of Middleton are from the awful fisters of Macbeth.

In a future Review, we will present our readers with some curious illustrations of difficult passages in the plays, which cannot fail of being acceptable to all the lovers of Shakipeare. B...k Art. III. Tivo Differtations. !. On the Preface to St. John's

Gospel. !I. On praying to lesus Christ. By Theophilus Lindsey,
A. M. With a short Pollicript by Dr. Jebb. 8vo. 2 s, 6d,
Johnson. 1779
N the preface to this work, Mr. Lindsey gives his reasons

for this addition to his former publications on the subject, in the following terms:

. I had resolved to have left my arguments to take their fate, as I had first put them down in the Apology * and Sequel t. But the friend (Mr. Temple) who had confuted Mr. Burgh and Mr. Randolph, had also, with the same disinterested regards to truth, published his disl.tisfacrion with the interpretation I had given of the prologue of Si. John's Gospel, the right underítanding whereof seems of grcat importance towards settling the true character of Jerus Chrit; and objections from such a pen demand respect. And a few months pait, an anonymous personll, in a “ Letier to Dr. Jebb, with relation to his declared Sentiments about the Unlawfulness of all religious Advireffes to Jesus Chrift," has laboured much to Mew, that I had not sufficiently proved that point. I have then judged it proper, and hope it may be of fome use, to review, and add farther support to what I had advanced on both these subjects, with an eye, as I went along, to fuch objections as I had met with, but without entering into a direct controversy with any one, to which I am much averse.'

[ocr errors]

* Vide Review, vol. L. p. 56. 100.
+ Ibid. vol. Iv. p. 195. 264. Vol. lvi. p. 14.
Ibid. vol. lvi. p. 367.

|| Ibid. vol. lx. p. 770


[ocr errors]

The Differtation on the Preface to St. John's Gospel is divided into four sections, the first of which more direcily confiders the passage John i. 1-14. and is intended to support the assertion, or conclusion, that " That the Lagos, the Iord, in this preface, is not Chrift, but the word, wisdom, power of God, communicated to him, and manifefted by him.'

The second section mentions the silence, as he apprehends, of the three other Evangelists on the subject of Christ's preexistence, and produces passages, from St. Luke's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, which he concludes express a very different idea.

• A brief account of certain forms of expresion in St. John's Gospel, which have been thought to favour the supposition of Christ being the Word, Logos, mentioned John i. 1.' constitutes the third section, and finihes what this writer has to offer on the immediate subject of the first differtation. For the fourth section treats · Of Socinianism and Socinus.'

• This section,' our Author informs us, " has been added, to give some little information concerning F. Socinus, who was nearly coëval with those great men, Luther and Calvin, and was one of the lights which Divine Providence raised up at that period, to recover the lost truths of the Gospel. And that section, it is added, together with the whole of this work, may, perhaps, contribute to soften, if not to remove, che prejudices of some perions against those to whom they give the name of Socinians, which name, as far as the author comprehends it, might be given to the Apoities of Jesus, as equally belonging to them.'

The second dissertation, On praying to Jesus Christ, consists of several sections, which, under different heads, repeat and farther illustrate those arguments that have been frequently employed against the practice.

However different Mr. Lindsey's sentiments on the above subjects may be from those of many of his fellow.christians, it Ihould be observed, and it is greatly to be withed that it might be attended to, that he has a high veneration for the Scriptures, that he diligently and modestly investigates fcrip-. ture truth, and appears sincerely desirous to embrace it; no perfon, who may consider himself as most 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 consideration which should awaken and increase mutual candour and benevolence.

The Postscript, written by Dr. Jebb, is addreiled 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 addresses to Chrift, farther adds, that Dr. Jebb ' re

fers his readers to Mr. Lindsey's Apology, for the proof thereof: Dr. Jebb thinks it requisite to observe, that all the assertions and conclusions, proceeding on the idea of his having actually referred his readers to Mr. Lindsey's publication, for a proof of his pofition, are absolutely deftitute of all foundation.'

Dr. Jebb remarks, that the design of his publication has been entirely misapprehended; since his intention was not to engage in controversy, but chiefly to assign the reasons which induced him to relinquish his station in the Church of England. • Had it been my intention,' says he, to enter into the principles, on which my opinion, respecting the point in question, is founded, it is not probable that I should have contented myself with referring to Mr. Lindsey's publication, however highly I approve his arguments, and respect bis authority. I should also have thought it my duty, to have endeavoured to establish the truth of lo important a position, by such deductions as at least would have convinced my readers, that I had not taken up my opinion without some reflection on the subject; and should unquestionably have referred, perhaps very largely, to those pallages in the sacred writings, which, in my apprehengon, would enable my readers to determine the question for themselves. It has long been my persuasion, that we pay too much deference to the opinions of men respecting religion, and too little to the word of God, from which alone all our ideas respecting the Gospel ought to be deduced.'

The Doctor's letter, though short, is very sensible, manifesting a candid and ingenuous mind, warm in the interests of religious liberty and truth. At the same time that he endeavours to correct the false conception entertained of the design of his pamphlet, he exprefles the highest respect for Mr. Lindsey's abilities, and approbation of his argument.

There are some marks of negligence in the pamphlet, one instance of which seems to be in a paflage we have quoted, where the Author observes, that the name of Socinians might have been applied to the Apostles of Christ: His meaning is obvious; but is there not a little Iricism in fuppofing thofe to be followers of Socinus who lived ages before him ? H. ART. IV. Obfervations in Defence of the Liberty of Man, as a Moral

Agent ; ix Answer to Dr. Prieltley's Illustrations of Philofophical Neceffiry. By John Palmer, Minister of New Broad Street, 8vo.

35. sewed. Johnson. 1779. ART. V. A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Palmer, in Defence of the

Illustrations of Philosophical Necesity. By Joseph Prietley, LL. D. F. R. S.

is. 6. d Johnson. 1779. Respectable opponent, as well as an old acquaintance, of

Dr. Priestley's (as we learn from the fecond of these articles), attacks the doctrine of Philosophical Neceflity, in the


I 2mo.


firft of these two publications, which (says Dr. Priestley in his letter to the Author of it) has been submitted to the perusal of persons of great learning and worth, who, I am informed, think highly of it, and have recommended the publication, not only as excellent in itself, but as very proper to follow that of Dr. Price; who was thought by them to have been too tender of me, in our amicable discussion, and to have made some imprudent conceffions. Your work, it is thought, will supply the deficiency in histe'

Though Mr. Palmer does not, in this publication, particuJarly discuss the question concerning the materiality or immateriality of the soul; one of his principal arguments, in favour of human liberty, or agency, is founded on the immateriality of that substance. If the fentient principle in man be of a material nature, it must, as we have observed in the former stages of this dispute, be subject to the laws of matter or mechanism; and be necessarily determined by the motives or external causes operating upon it: but, on the other hand, if the foul of man be immaterial, or a substance perfectly distinct from matter; it may be said that the fame neceflity may not take place. The foul, thus conftituted, may be conceived endowed with a self-determining power, imparted to it by the Creator. Motives, or external causes, will indeed have weight or influence over it; but that influence will not be a mechanical, and may not be a neceffitating influence. Motives may occasionally induce, but cannot compel to action, a spiritual substance, which is a selfmover, or which has a power imparted to it of beginning motion :- a power, which, the Author observes, as it exists in the Supreme Being, may by him be communicated to created beings; as all other powers may, which do not imply felfexistence or independency.

Accordingly, as Dr. Priestley has inferred, that if man be wholly a material, he must be a mechanical being; so the Author, on the other hand, draws an opposite conclusion from the contrary supposition; and further concludes, that if man be frer, or por ffed of the power of moral agency (as he endeavours to prove in the course of this work), there must be something in the constitution of his nature, to which this power belongs, that is intirely diftinct from matter, and not subject to its laws; or that the spirit in man is properly immaterial.' In short, the tenour of this part of his argument consists in thewing that the necessity, which must attend the operation of physical causes, is not applicable to, nor can take place with respect to, a substance of a totally different nature from matter. -But to represent this argument in another light - or rather perhaps only in other words:


The Neceffarians, in their arguments drawn from the confideration of cause and effett, suppose, or rather take for granted, a fimilarity in the nature of matter and spirit; and accordingly apply the same general maxims to effects mechanically produced, and to effects depending upon the will and choice of a human mind: whereas the Author, as an advocate for human liberty, does not admit what is thus assumed by the Necessarians. The advocate for liberty allows indeed that every effect must have a cause; and that every cause must be adequate to the eff at: he adınits too that bodies must produce the same effects. precisely on other bodies, under the same precile circumstances : but the mind, according to his hypothesis, not being subjected to the laws of matter, though liable to be influenced by it, and porfelling a felf-moving or determining power, may will or determine differently, on different occasions, even though the circumstances are the same. Or, nearly in the words of the Author, the mind not being under the controul of matter, a variety of volition or determination, in the same situation or circumstances, may be admitted as possible, at least, without any contradiction, or even leeming difficulty.

In reply to this last observation, Dr. Priestley, in the second of these publications, observes that the contradition is not at all the less glaring, or the difficulty in any degree diminished, by ascribing immateriality to the mind. It does indeed follow,' says he, that the mind, being immaterial, is not subject to the laws of matter; but ic does not therefore follow, that it is subject to no laws at all, and consequently has a self-determining power, independent of all laws, or rule of its determinations. In fact, there is the very same reason to conclude that the mind is subject to laws as the body.'-He instances in certain affections and passions of the mind. Thus, perception invariably follows the presentation of a proper object : the judgment follows, as certainly, the perceived agreement or disagreement of two ideas. These affections belong to the mind as much as the will; they are invariably determined by à view of the objects presented to them, and have nothing of selfdetermination belonging to them. The decisions of the will as invariably follow the motives, which are its objects; and it would be strange if the will could be ascribed to some other substance, intirely different from that in which perception and judgment in here--whether that substance be material or immaterial.

It is impossible for us to follow Mr. Palmer through the various questions into which this dispute has been branched out by Dr. Priestley and his answerer: We shall however take particular notice of that part of his work, in which he treats of the moral influence of the doctrine of neceffity, and confiders


« ElőzőTovább »