duction of the term is fully accounted for, by considering the prevalence of the Valentinian and Marcionite heresies, against which it was particularly directed*. This circumstance, however, will effectually expose the vanity and folly of the objector, who discovers some opposition between this term, and the doctrine of the orthodox. The "observations" on the Athanasian Creed, which is most humorously denominated a "delectable farrago of nonsense, anathema, and antibiblism," p. 25, afford nothing which merits a reply. We shall, therefore, conclude our remarks, by considering the objections urged against the Litany. We record the objections to the first petition; as they merit attention, for the novelty of the discovery; and the solenm importance with which it is published. "That our blessed Lord intended to substitute for the ONE object of his nation's religious worship THREE several distinct objects of religious worship, there is not the shadow of evidence in Scripture. That he did not so intend is more obvious and certain than reasoning can make it, from his conversation with the woman of Samaria,” &c. P. 28. The observations to which the second petition gives rise, deserve to be put on record, from the knowledge which they exhibit of the Greek language. "This petition [to the Son] will be of course omitted by those who think themselves interdicted from direct prayer to the Son by his own express command, John xvi. 23.” -and those persons, we pronounce, will be precisely as many as happen not to know, that the phrase in Greek, John xvi. 25. què en égwinoɛte Hév literally means," ye shall interrogate me, inἐμὲ ἐκ ἐρωτήσετε ἐδέν quire of me, nothing;" this sense being not merely determined by the proper force of the verb igalaw †, but by the context, Ibid. 19, 30. We have here another attempt at critical accuracy, and of course, another exposure of ignorance. To the third petition we find the following potent objection. "That God the eternal Omnipresent Spirit must be a person distinct from his Spirit-that when God is said to pour out his Spirit upon Israel to put his Spirit upon his beloved, within * Vid. supr. p. 585. n. † + Labbe. Glossar. Antiq. p. 80. ed. 1679. iparáw. scrutor, interrogo." Thom. Magist. p. 75. ed. Franaq. 1690. ip. T améxico Calw Tivά. Vid. Steph. Thesaur. Ling. Græc. Tom. I. col, 901. g. us, &c. &c. it is meant that another person than HIMSELF is literally to come, and to inspire the particular object, or objects of HIS OWN immediate personal agency-is really!-but one forbears, from a respect towards those who hold so passing strange a conceit." P. 28. This objection will doubtless go home to the mark, when it strikes at the following passage, and its divine Author. John xiv. 26. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send [τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμπει ὁ Πατήρ] in my name, HE shall teach you [ixeïvos úμãs didažei] all things," &c. We feel but one difficulty in this passage which our adversaries, whom we know to be casuists, will probably solve; how ONE PERSON, at the instigation of a second, may be said to send himself from HIMSELF. Such are the objections to the Trinity, which Dr. Priestley has branded as a Platonic invention, but which the next observation informs us, is 66 a Popish name;" and of consequence to be erased from every Protestant's memory." The "mystery of Incarnation,” is, in conclusion, dispatched with the following remark: "But for the questionableness of this adjuration, [by the mystery of thy holy, &c.] See the Notes on the Authorized Version." P. 29. 66 Until we are informed where these "notes" may be found, we shall venture to transcribe the following very wise observation, by Mr. Jones, which we doubt not the author of the foregoing reference, had in view, when projecting a note on the passage before. us. Sequel to Eccl. Res. p. 258. "It is worthy of observation that John, in this place [ch. i. 14] sets aside as false the miraculous birth of Jesus, by saying the Logos became flesh, and not that he was born flesh :" and in a note we find added; “Zag ἐγένετο, and not σὰρξ ἐγεννήθη. This distinction between γίγνομαι and yɛvvaw is uniformly preserved by all writers." For a proof of the justness of the last observation we refer the reader to Rom. ix. 11. 1 John v. 1, 18. who doubtless will still have to enquire, with ourselves, how the Apostle would have asserted "the miraculous birth of Jesus," had he affirmed what no man but a Gnostic has ever denied, that "he was born flesh." This, however, though, an exquisite specimen, as must be confessed, of the ingenuity of the objector, is but a small part of the sagacity which his objection displays; in which he undertakes to refute the orthodoxby disproving "a miraculous birth," while it is notorious, that they maintain a miraculous conception, and a na tural tural birth. This, however, is not the whole, for the acme of his ingenuity lies in the circumstance of his refuting them, by the very text which establishes the doctrine; "the Word was made flesh," says the Apostle, and "the Word was God;" of course, God was made flesh, and was, of consequence, incarnate. On dismissing the consideration of such objectors, and their objections, who can avoid reflecting with Boileau; what fools God hath for his enemies! it Having thus gone through the weary and disgusting task, which has been imposed upon us, by the author or authors of the production before us, a very few words will express the sum of our sentiments on its contents. To enable the reader to form an opinion of the justice of the sentence which we pronounce; we have only to inform him, respecting the exposé which we have made, that we have endeavoured to render it as plenary, as it is faithful, by a specific statement of every objection urged by them, which seemed worthy of the smallest attention. He may of course form a judgment for himself. So disgraceful is the exposure which we have made of their qualifications to sustain the part, to which they so confidently pretend; that we could almost feel pity for them in the contemptible light in which they exhibit themselves: but that the tone of insolent defiance, in which they have provoked a castigation, has shut up every avenue to our compunction. Strong as this language may appear, conveys but one half of our sentiments of the authors of a libel which is as unjustifiable as it is daring. Independent of the hostility which it manifests to the established mode of worship, that which it frontlessly avows to every species of creed, is deserving of remark; as revealing a little more of the true character of its authors, than in meet prudence, they deem politic openly to acknowledge. When with this consideration we take into account, their impious rejection of the written word; their blasphemous mockery of its inspired authority; their profane derision of all religious mysteries,-that sentence will not be surely condemned as severe, in which we express our conviction, that they are masked infidels who merely pretend to as much of Christianity as will shelter them in subverting the whole; and that they are consequently deserving of the execration of every friend of civil society. *S. Ambros. ad Syric. Ep. xlii. §. 4. col. 967. a. ART. ART. II. Armageddon. A Poem; in Twelve Books. By the Rev. George Townsend, B.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge. The first Eight Books. pp. 314. 11. lis. 6d. Hatchard. 1815. THE pleasure derived from Poetry is increased to every reader of true taste, not only in proportion as the plan of a Poem may satisfy his judgment, the sentiments excite his interest, or the manner win his attention, but also as the general effect of the whole is to enlarge his understanding and improve his heart. To the pages of Sacred Poetry, therefore, every well-disposed mind turns with feelings of unalloyed pleasure; satisfied that the subject, even though it be not clothed in verse of the highest order, is one which the mind can dwell upon without fear of danger, and with such feelings we should hope every reader will open the Poem of Armageddon. If he find now and then parts of the work which his judgment and taste cannot approve, he will not, therefore, lay it aside, but reading with delight what may be excellent, and with attention even the less striking passages, he will proceed with pleasure, because he cannot read without improvement. The scenes into which he is introduced-the characters presented to his view-the awful period of time chosen for the action of the Poem-all are calculated either to warn from evil, or animate to good. The interpretations of the word chosen for the title of this Poem have been various, and few scholars are agreed as to its precise meaning. Those who have hitherto treated on the subject have referred the term either with Grotius and others to a point of time past, or with Newton have applied it to some great event in future history; such as a tremendous conflict in the last days between the Roman Catholic and Protestant armies— others have supposed Armageddon to be the name of a place, where the infidel power of Frauce shall be utterly broken and destroyed. Mr. Townsend uses the word in one of these significations. Indeed he leads us to another sphere of action, and carries us into scenes of far higher interest: rising from an earthly to a heavenly contest: he presents to us the powers of heaven and hell, set in array against each other on a plain, called Armageddon-au imaginary space, placed between the abodes of eternal happiness on the one hand, and of eternal misery on the other. On On this scene of action, previous to the battle, are assembled mankind to receive their final doom. The quick and the dead are summoned to judgment. Thus we find ourselves in the midst of scenes more awful than those even which Milton's nius has painted to our imagination. ge How far Mr. T. has been successful in the execution of this difficult task we have now to consider; and if we appear fastidious in some of our remarks, it will proceed partly from the real value we set on the Poem, and partly because, from the youth of the Poet, we cannot help indulging an hope that he may have both willingness and opportunity to profit by our well-intentioned suggestions. As the foundation for the machinery of his Poem, Mr. T. has adopted a theory of the universe, scarcely at all different from that which Milton built on the foundation of Holy Writ.-Eternity being an attribute of God only, he is of course stated to have existed alone from all eternity; but to accomplish his own wise though inscrutable purposes, it pleased him to form other beings, and to prepare for them appropriate places of abode; having first, as the primary act of Omnipotence, created heaven, the residence of the more peculiar manifestation of his glory. Perfection and Omniscience being also attributes of God only, and his Omniscience perceiving that no being but himself could be absolutely perfect, a place of punishment, called Hell, was next prefaced for those of his creatures, who, by imperfect obedience, should fall short of that standard of excellence which alone could allow them a hope of Heaven: between these op posite worlds of happiness and misery, a space, called Chaos, was commanded to roll, partly occupying that portion of infinity in which the stars now move. After the creation of heaven, hell, and chaos, that disobedience among the inhabitants of heaven which had been foreseen, took place; part of them sinned against heaven's King; followers, therefore, of evil, they were consigned to the darkness prepared for them in the region of hell. Upon their defection God determined to form new worlds? accordingly, at his word order arose out of confusion; suns and their systems were formed out of part of chaos, and filled with beings, to be received after sufficient probation, into the presence of their maker, in the room of offending angels. That part of chaos which was removed to make room for the new creation was called by the attendant ministers of the Deity"Armageddon." "Wondering the host of heaven survey, and call, All the suns are supposed to have been inhabited; but this earth, |