think, injure the established religion. By taking out of this noble edifice, the fandy and mouldering ftones of error, and by replacing them with the adamant of truth, they may infure its perpetuity.

The hints, therefore, that Mr. Knox, the author of these Obfervations, (with thofe of many other writers) has here thrown out, refpecting a review and reform of the common prayer, deserve serious attention. He writes on this fubject, not with the afperity of a fetary, but with the mildness of a friend to the national church; and has pointed out, in a difpaffionate and agreeable manner, many defects in the Liturgy, which evidently require amendment. Anxious for its profperity and reputation, he longs to have its public fervice rendered lefs objectionable.

Unlike his name fake, John Knox, of reforming memory, he is not for any violent alterations. He propofes no change in the conftitution or difcipline of the church; he merely fuggefts the propriety of removing a few expreffions from the Liturgy, which he thinks it can very well fpare. He would however expunge, without hesitation, that opprobrium of orthodoxy, the Athanafian creed, and, though profeffing himself a trinitarian, he would reject the Nicene creed likewife; becaufe neither are drawn in terms of fcripture, nor can be proved to have been used in the primitive church. In the apoftles' creed, he feems diffatisfied with the holy catholic church, the communion of faints; would leave out, he defcended into hell; and alter the phrase fitting at the RIGHT HAND of God, for, fays he, hereby we exprefs a belief that God has hands.' But many will think this laft objection frivolous. Who, poffeffed of the leaft reflection, ever underftood thefe words literally? Of the Deity, we muft, for the most part, Speak figuratively.

With more reafon, he intimates the impropriety of the petitions in the litany being addre fed to Chrift rather than to the Father; for in no one place in the New Teftament has he held himself forth as the great object of prayer; but exprefsly commands his difciples to pray to THE FATHER, in his name, and is represented by his apoftles as our Mediator and Advocate WITH the Father. He should boldly, therefore, have recommended the removal of every thing from this admired compofition which militates against this idea, and not have contented himself with propofing, in the 2d and 3d petition, the change of the word God for Eternal, and in the 4th, to read, O holy and glorious Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, one God bleffed for ever more: for thefe are alterations without amendments. Eternal Son and eternal Holy Ghost are phrafes equally unfcriptural with the word

* Mr. Knox thinks that this creed has made more deifts than all the oppofers of Christianity.

perfon

perfon; and to the use of the word trinity even Calvin 'objected, on this ground.

On fome other particulars, Mr. Knox very properly animadverts; but after thus employing himself in the serious business of reformation, he dashes away into the regions of conjecture and hypothefis, We have endeavoured to follow him; but we cannot fay that his airy flight has given us much pleasure. The fubjects which be here difcuffes, are, from their very nature and the fcanty information about them in fcripture, so preffed with difficulties, that every attempt at explanation is open to fome objections. Concerning the FALLEN ANGELS, we have fcarcely any thing; and of the FALL OF MAN, very little. Mr. Knox laughs, not improperly, at the vulgar notion conveyed by fcripture prints, of a large fnake twined round an apple-tree, and prefenting Eve with an apple: but it is eafier, in this matter, to laugh at erroneous conceptions, than to unveil the truth. We with the late Mr. Farmer (the author of a Differtation on Christ's Temptation, and other ingenious and learned works) had favoured the public with a Differtation likewife, on the Temptation of our general mother by the ferpent. The learned world is in great want

of fomething ably written on the kading chapters of the book of first three

Genefis. Great learning is requifite for this undertaking; we' cannot therefore fubfcribe to the compliment which this gentleman pays himself, p. 57.

That that acquaintance with human policy which his fituation (as under fecretary of state) gave him, may have led him into a train of thinking which may enable him better to develope the mazes of celestial and infernal polity, than the moft ftudious and contemplative way of life could have done.'

He fuppofes that the fall of the angels was fubfequent to the creation of man, and that the cause of their fall was their endeavours to excite this new creature to difobey the divine commands. He imagines that Lucifer's reafon for undertaking the feduction of our firft parents, was the prefcience which he and the other angels were permitted to acquire of man's deftination and future exaltation above them; whereby his pride (he being of the firft order) was fo alarmed, and his indignation fo excited, that he formed in his mind the ftratagem of misleading man to offend against his Maker, in order to prevent his exaltation. With this intention, he came to Eden, in the shape of

His reafons for this fuppofition are curious:

If angels had fallen before man was made, it could not have been faid with truth by David and St. Paul that man was made a little lower than them ;-befides, St. Paul afferts in his Epiftle to the Corinthians, man's fuperiority to the fallen angels; Do ye not know that the faints fhall judge the world?-Do ye not know that we shall judge angels ?

those

thofe angels who were the meffengers of God to our first parents, which was that of a flying dragon, furrounded with luminous rays, (How is this to be proved?) and thus beguiled them. Setting the matter in this light, he finds an excufe for their violation of God's commands, removes the charge of disbelief, and voluntary difobedience, and leaves them the objects of compaffion and mercy; while the infolent prefumption and base treachery of Lucifer and his affociates render them, for ever, fubjected to the Divine difpleasure, and exclude them from all title to his favour and forgiveness.

Here, however, we must remark, without taking notice of other objections to which this hypothefis is liable, that, if the crime of the first pair was in itfelf fo inconfiderable as Mr. Knox makes it, their punishment feems to have been too great. According to this account, they could fcarcely be faid to have difobeyed. They might have concluded, if Lucifer was not to be diftinguished from one of thofe angels who bore the Divine commands, that the prohibition was withdrawn, and that now they had a permiffion to eat; and does it comport with our ideas of Divine juftice to punish new inexperienced creatures, by banishment from Paradife, by making them inhabitants of a curfed world, and by death itself, for a mere mistake? or does this account of the fall of man accord with the hiftory of Redemption?

As one end of man's creation was to put the virtue of angels to the proof, fo Mr. Knox confiders the redemption by Chrift as defigned to fill up the void in the celeftial choirs, which the apoftacy of Lucifer and his affociates had occafioned. Are we bence to infer that heaven will admit only a certain number; and that the multitude of the fallen angels was fo great, that all the fouls of men who are to be faved by Chrift, will only fill this void? Where do those books, which Chriftians receive as the bafis of faith, lay down, or even intimate, fuch a doctrine?

Mr. Knox's explanation of the phrafe, in the image of God, tending to fhew (to ufe his own words, p. 79.) that every man appears to be a TRINITY within himself, that hence he might deduce a Trinity in the Divine nature, will, we believe, give little fatisfaction to any judicious and intelligent reader.

In fhort, however laudable his intention may be, Mr. Knox feems to have undertaken the difcuffion of topics to which he is unequal, and on which we have thus been prompted to dwell, in hopes that fome able biblical fcholar (not an enthufiaft, or myftic, for fuch would foon give us enough of it) will oblige us with the hiftory of the ferpent.

The Journals of the American Convention, which are added as an Appendix, contain the hiftory of the toleration and fettlement of the Epifcopal church in the United States; and the correfpondence

correfpondence with our Prelates refpecting the ordination of American Bishops. To this we fhall have occafion to refer in a fubfequent article.

Moo-y.

ART. IV. The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies, as revised and propofed to the Ufe of the Proteftant Epifcopal Church, at a Convention of the faid Church in the States of New York, New Jerfey, Pennfylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, held in Philadelphia, from September 27th to October 7th 1785. 8vo. 4s. Boards. Philadelphia printed; London, reprinted for Debrett. 1789.

FORMS of Prayer for public worship appear to be attended

with fo many advantages, that we wonder at thofe Chriftian churches, who altogether exclude, rather than at those who admit them. A well-compofed Liturgy ferves to facilitate Divine worship, gives the laity a mere immediate part in prayer, and fecures, in all places, as far as this goes, a decent fervice. We mention thefe particulars with no view of depreciating extemporary or free-prayer, for which, we are perfuaded, much may be faid; and which, when conducted by men of real fenfe and piety, cannot fail of exciting true devotion: but when we recollect what abilities and felf-poffeffion it requires in the officiating minifter, how many circumftances may contribute to derange the ideas and introduce confufion; and moreover when we recollect what rhapsodies and incoherencies we have fometimes heard, inftead of PRAYER, we have been difpofed to think that it would be prudent in all churches to admit at least a few fixed forms, though there may be reafons for not having the whole fervice entirely to confift of them.

We were, therefore, not difpleafed at the fight of an American Common-Prayer Book; and we think this tranf-atlantic Proteftant Epifcopal Church could not have adopted a better model than the Liturgy of the Church of England. On this, however, the American Epifcopalians have confiderably improved, by retrenching fuperfluities, and expunging many paffages which have long appeared to the reflecting part of mankind objectionable; and we cannot but be of opinion that they would have carried their reformation ftill further than they have done, had they not been afraid of offending our right reverend Prelates, from whom their Bishops were to receive ordination; and who gave the Americans to underftand that their prayer to this purpofe could not be granted, uniefs the new church agreed with the old in doctrine and difcipline. The great doctrines are indeed retained; and, in fum and fubftance, it is the fame with our Liturgy. Wherein it differs, it may gratify our readers to

be

be informed. It will not be expected of us to point out every little variation; but we will mention what may be fufficient to give a general idea of the whole.

To begin with the Articles of Religion, though placed at the end of the prayers: thefe are reduced from thirty-nine to twenty in number; the doctrines, however, are of the fame caft with thofe of the church of England, but rather lefs exceptionably expreffed. Their firft article (which includes the fubftance of our first five), though it afferts a Trinity, does not declare, as ours do, the three perfons of one fubftance, power, and eternity. There are other alterations which we have not room to specify.

In going through the book, we obferved that the commination or curfing Afb-Wednesday fervice, the Athanafian and Nicene Creeds, were altogether omitted; and the words, he defcended into hell, expunged from the Apoftles' Creed. In the Te Deum for, thou did not abhor the virgin's womb, the American Epifcopalians read, thou didst humble thyself to be born of a pure virgin. From the Miniftration of Infant Baptifm, they have expunged that claufe which obliges the fponfors to engage that the child who is to be baptised should renounce the devil and all his works, &c. from the Form of Matrimony they have ftruck out, with my body I thee worship; from the Burial Service, the fure and certain hope;

;

They are fo in the book before us, but we fear, nevertheless, that the American church has not got rid of both of them. This, as the title fhews, is the Book of Common Prayer as fettled in 1785; but at the Convention in the following year, it appears by the Journals annexed to Mr. Knox's Obfervations, &c. of which we have given fome account in the former article, that in confequence of the remonftrances of the Prelates of England, the Convention debated thefe points afresh, and re-admitted the Nicene Creed, and the expunged article refpecting Chrift's defcent into hell into the Apoftles' Creed. The Archbishops plead for the two difcarded Creeds, as reSpectable for their antiquity; and obferve of the defcent into hell, that it was an article which was thought neceffary to be inferted with a view to a particular herefy in a very early age of the church, and has ever fince had the venerable fanction of univerfal reception.' But here it might be asked, are we, in our fearch after truth, and in forming our religious fentiments, to overlook reafon and fcripture, from a fuperftitious refpect for antiquity? Might not the Papift fay of the doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, and the Pagan of Polytheifm, that they are venerable for their antiquity? and if our Bishops could fay nothing more in behalf of the Athanafian and Nicene Creeds, had they not much better have faid nothing? How, likewise, we beg leave to afk, can an article, fo long and fo often objected to, be faid to have had the venerable fanction of universal reception? We cannot likewise avoid noticing the difference between our prefent right reverend Prelates and Archbishop Tillotson, who, refpecting the Athanafian Creed, wished that the church was fairly rid of it.

and