How then did first defilement enter'in ?
Ambition, thou first vital seed of sin!
Thou life of death, how cam'st thou there?
In what bright form didst thou appear?
In what seraphic orb didst thou arise?
Surely that place admits of no disguise:
Eternal sight must know thee there,
And, being known, thou soon must disappear.
But since the fatal truth we know,
Without the matter thence, or manner how :
Thou bighest superlative of sin,

Tell us thy nature, where thou didst begin?
The first decree of thy increase
Debauch'd the regions of eternal peace;
And fill'd the breasts of loyal angels there
With the first treasou, and infernal war.
Thou art the high extreme of pride,
And dost o'er lesser crimes preside;
Not for the mean attempt of vice design'd,
But to embroil the world, and damn mankind.
Transforming mischief! how hast thou procur'd,
That loss that's ne'er to be restored,

And made the bright seraphic morning star
In horrid monstrous shapes appear?
Satan, that, while he dwelt in glorious light,
Was always then as pure as he was bright,
That in effulgent rays of glory shore,
Excell'd by eternal light, by him alone,
Distorted now, and stript of innocence,

And banish'd with thee from the high pre-eminence.
How has the splendid seraph chang'd his face,
Transform'd by thee, and like thy monstrous race?
Ugly as is the crime, for which he fell;

Fitted by thee to make a local hell;

For such must be the place where either of you dwell.

EPIGRAM.

Said Tom to Jack, "Can'st thou denote
Why Lawyers have from time remote
Bedeck'd themselves in sable coat?"

"A Lawyer is sincere," quoth Jack,
"He'll wear no colour on his back
Save that which like his heart is—black.”

CHRIST CONSIDERED IN A POLITICAL VIEW.

Extracted from a Work intitled "Some Doubts respecting the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ," published in New-York.

CHRIST never appears in so interesting a point of view, as when deprived of those canonical, false, and superstitious robes, of those prophecies and miracles which have been attributed to him as a Messiah, and when his real character is represented in its true light, that of a good man and a war patriot, desirous of restoring the liberty of his country, which had fallen under the Roman yoke. In this he was unfortunate; yet how pleasing and pathetic are those times with which, after foreseeing his labours to be in vain, be gently reproves Jerusalem for not listening to his voice: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not," (Luke xlii. 34). He then beheld the city and wept over it. With respect to the education of Jesus, we know very little about it; it would seem, however, he had very early in life paid great attention to the writings of the ancient prophets, for at the age of twelve years, after he had been missed by his father and mother on returning from Jerusalem to Nazareth, they found him amidst the doctors in the temple, hearing and asking them questions; and so great was the proficiency he had made, that all who heard him were astonished at his understanding, and his answers, (Luke ii. 46, 47). He then went back with his parents to Nazareth, and all that can be collected from the apostles is, that " he increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man," (ver. 52.) What became of him afterward, until he arose as a teacher, is not known; very probably he continued to work with his father at his own trade, occasionally making himself acquainted with the Scriptures; for he seems to have known them so well, as to be able to quote any of the prophecies at pleasure, whenever he found them to agree with the accidents of his life, (Luke xxiv. 27, 44, 45, 46). At the age of thirty he appeared as a teacher. It always seemed to me, there was something of design in the first appearance of Christ. He was

a man of an excellent understanding; he knew very well the ignorance, the depravity, and the oppression under which his countrymen lay, and had conceived a design the most laudable and humane, which any human being can ever aspire to, that of freeing his country from its bondage. To accomplish this great undertaking, it was necessary to call in the people to his assistance, whom he expected to gain by satisfying in some measure the reigning opinions of the times, (John v. 39) The Jews had long been in great expectation of a Messiah to restore the throne of David and their prophets. Isaiah and Malachi, &c. had foretold, that a messenger should precede him in order to prepare his way, (Malachi . 1. Isaiah. xl. 3.) This is one advantage which Jesus made use of. John was previously sent to find out, as it were, how the land lay; i. e. how the minds of the people Were inclined, and in what manner they were to be acted upon. This is the more probable, because their mothers were cousins, and very intimate, (Luke i. 36, 56.) Although John pretended not to know Christ but by means of the Holy Ghost, yet I have no doubt but that the plan had been settled before-hand, (vide Mark i.) John was very proper for this mission; he was very active, had a great deal of fanaticism, and gained over to his party great numbers of the people; for we are informed, that all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem went to be baptized by him in the river Jordan." His dress and manners were likewise very well adapted to strike the people with the wonderful, "his raiment was of camel's hair, he had a leatheru girdle about his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey:" besides, he came as was foretold, preaching in the wilderness (of Judea). After they had flocked to him in such numbers, and John had made way for his reception, appeared Jesus himself, (John i.) It was the intention of Jesus to bring about a revolution. This is one reason why be adhered only to the lowest class, and chose them for his companions. Whether he had any idea of an earthly kingdom; whether be thought of restoring the throne of David upon himself, as being a descendant, is impossible to determine with certainty; nor by the account of the apostles, did Christ even sufficiently explain himself upon that matter. If such was his intention, he did not use the proper method. The Jews expected a great king, a mighty ruler, to come in great pomp and magnificence; whereas Christ appeared in a manner quite contrary. He despised riches, he avoided the (To be continued.)

TO ALL THE KING'S ADDRESSERS,

And more particularly to Mr. Wilson, of the Ward of Cripplegate Within, who signed the private Address to the King from that Ward, and subsequently published a Letter in the Times of the 6th instant, wherein he avowed his disapprobation of the conduct of Ministers in having done more to demoralize and debauch the minds of the People of this Country, than Cartile, Wooler, or Cobbet:

Half-Royal, Half-Loyal, Half-Foolish, and less than HalfHonest Gentlemen,

To give you credit for good intentions I am not disposedto believe that you act according to the best of your knowledge I cannot-to admit that you really deprecate disloyalty and immorality I will not-but I will assert that your avowed adherance to all the corruptions of the Government of this Island, proves you to be equally corrupt in principle. I do not for a moment believe that you act under honest delusion or mistaken notions, but I do believe that you are all wilfully corrupt and immoral, and that had you lived under the Roman Nero instead of the British Nero, your adulations and addresses would have been the same in every respect. You comprise that class of men who are always to be found in all societies, but who can best display themselves where the Government is notoriously wicked and corrupt; I mean the base and grovelling, who alone prosper and feel content under that system. You have been most appropriately called alarmists, that is, you are a class of men who feel no alarm yourselves, but you are the mere rams-horn of the Ministers, when they feel alarm, and through you make a loud, harsh, and hideous noise to frighten the timid part of the community. You do not cry heresy or schism, or nonconformity, or no Popery, but you do cry sedition and blasphemy, which words have the same meaning and intent, and are used for the very same purpose: which is no more or less than a desire to check the propagation of wholesome truths and useful knowledge, and to encourage falsehood and delusion; thereby hoping to support the existing order of things, whether right or wrong, or beneficial or injurious to the whole community. Yours can only be considered a Vol. IV. No. 16.

new tune upon the old instrument, or the newest tune, for if I mistake not, this same tune has been played for thirty years! It is almost time to get it changed!

Gentlemen, (for you hardly deserve to be called fellow citizens) the ground on which you profess to proceed, is that your King is but a state bauble, or what you call a Constitutional King; you do not for a moment look at him as the Chief Magistrate of the Realm; you make him an evanescent being, (a sort of metaphysical popery in politics) and then run away with the notion that he can do no wrong in his official character. This is a grand mistake, and the infamous doctrine will not bear the test of examination, as it is not founded upon truth or honesty, and is nothing more than the corrupt idea of some corrupt lawyers. On this head, Lord Somers has written, in his pamphlet entitled "The Judgments of whole Kingdoms and Nations, &c.," and he is a lawyer cailed constitutional, which is but an idle word to make the most of it-it has no honest meaning. Lord Somers says a King can do no wrong; and why? Because, as he holds an office of trust, the moment he does wrong, he forfeits that office, legally deprives himself of the kingship, and should be immediately deposed. He quotes the following maxim from Bracton, to support his assertion :— Qui si facit injuriam, non est Rex. If the King does' injustice, he is not king. This is very different to the maxim lately held forth by the Bishop of London, that the King can do no wrong, either morally or politically. The former is a rational maxim, the latter is altogether priestly delusion, and not unlike the Catholic, transubstantiation of bread and I ord Somers happened to be advocating the propriety of expelling James and setting up William, or he never would have written such sentiments. For my part, I would go further than Lord Somers, and recommend, as the best method of preventing kings from doing wrong, that we should not keep such anomalous or amphibious creatures, but like rational beings, govern ourselves by Representatives of our own choice, and banish all hereditary or divine right.

However, as we are now living under the monarchical form of Government, I would oppose the opinion of Lord Somers and Bracton to that of the present Bishop of London and others, who pretend that the King can do no wrong, but that his Ministers must be responsible. I again repeat, and I will never relinquish the point, that no set of men as Ministers, would have harassed the Queen, as has been the case with the present, unless the King had given them the al