ior declared himself to work miracles in consequence of derived power. On the contrary, the whole narration strongly implies, that He healed the sick, and cast out evil spirits, by his own independent control over all natural causes.

On our Savior's temptation it may be observed, that He shewed himself perfectly superior to the undue influence of the human passions to which he was subject. The passion of hunger, for instance, which he doubtless experienced to an excessive degree, is perhaps the most uncontrollable of all the passions. Yet he remained unmoved by its highest paroxysm, nor would seek its alleviation in any method suggested by the subtle tempPHILALETHES.

ter.

EDITORIAL REMARKS.

We are informed that several clerical gentlemen, who consider themselves as included in the liberal party, have manifested extreme displeasure at a pas sage in the second number of Plain Scripture Readings, which was published in the Panoplist for February last. The pas sage referred to contains the assertion, 'that the liberal party in England, and the liberal party in Boston and the Vicinity, have obtruded the Improved Version upon the world, and have exert ed themselves much to obtain for it a circulation.' p. 397. This assertion was declared to be "a malignant slander" by a member of the Boston Association, at a regular meeting of that body; and other opprobrious epithets were called forth of a character

not less indicative of strong feeling. Now it is evident, that the assertion above quoted can be no slander if it is strictly true. We hold ourselves religiously bound not only not to assert ourselves, but also not to suffer any correspondent to assert, through the medium of our pages, any fact which we have not good reason to believe to be true; especially a fact, which may affect, in any manner, the reputation of an individual or a body of men. Should we, notwithstanding, be unintentionally drawn into error, and be so unhappy as to convey an injurious imputation on the character of any man, or any body of men, we should consider it our duty to make all the reparation in our power, however ungraciously the error might be pointed out, or whatever unmerited bitterness of reproach we might have experienced. Under the charge in question we feel at perfect ease, and are satisfied, as we have no doubt every impartial reader will be satisfied also, that the assertion complained of is strictly and literally true. But before we proceed to adduce any proof, it may be well to describe "the liberal party," as we understand that designation.

And, first, we do not mean to convey either praise or dispraise by the epithet liberal. We mean not to admit, by the use of this word, that the party are, what the word naturally imports, candid, ingenuous, free from bigotry and prejudice; nor do we mean to imply, by way of irony, that they are the reverse of all this, uncandid, disingenuous, slaves to bigotry and prejudice. We utterly abhor every attempt to set

tle a dispute by fixing an opprobrious epithet upon an adversary. While there is a difference of opinion among men, however, and while we are obliged to use human language, we must have some words to designate the different classes of men, who hold different opinions. The least exceptionable words for this purpose of which we can conceive, are appellatives derived from proper names, such as Calvinists, Arminians, &c. President Edwards has shewn,* with his usual candor, good sense, and clearness of reasoning, that no just objection can be made to the use of such appellatives. But new parties are perpetually forming, which cannot be designated in this manner: what is to be done in these cases? The best that can be done, in our opinion, is, to yield to these parties some epithet of which they seem fond, without admitting its justice or converting it into a sarcasm. Let the words, which are used to point out different classes of men, be used for the mere purpose of designating the persons who belong to a class, and not at all for the purpose of describing their character. Let the estimation, in which any class of persons ought to be held, be formed, not from the meaning of the name which they have chosen, or which has been fixed upon them by their opponents, but from more infallible sources.

The persons composing the party, which we now have in view, are often described, in publications under their own patronage, as liberal men: it

See the preface to his Treatise on the Will.

cannot surely give them just offence if we use the same epithet, after the explanation already offered. And, to exhibit our meaning more fully, we take the liberty of saying, that should we ever apply the word orthodox to the class of persons with whom we agree on theological subjects, it will be far from our intention to imply, from the meaning of the term, that these persons are of course right and all others wrong. This word, if used at all, will be used from necessity, and for the want of some other word which would be equally well understood to designate the persons intended.

But, secondly, we will endea vor to state, as briefly as possible, several particulars, which will show the acceptation in which we use the designation of "the liberal party."

It will easily be conceived to be a difficult matter to define any party, which embraces a considerable number of individuals, so as to include every individual of the party, and exclude all others. Yet it is by no means difficult to make a definition sufficiently accurate for ordinary purposes, and one which, with suitable qualifications, will do injustice to no one. For the sake of illustration, let us refer to the two great political parties in this country. Either of these parties can be so designated in a few words, as that every candid man will admit the general accuracy of the designation; and yet every individual member of each party might not come strictly within the designation of the party to which he in reality belongs, and to which he gives his influence. The same remark will apply to

the different classes of men who hold different religious opinions; and we are confident in saying, that the liberal party in New England is as well defined, as political parties usually are, and that the members who compose it are recognized with little danger of mistake. Their manner of preaching, of praying, of conversing, of writing, is perfectly well known and understood. It may not be amiss, however, to particularize some of the characteristics by which the members of this party are, and have been, distinguished.

1. The clergy of this party, generally, either omit, or oppose, both in their prayers and preaching, all the principal religious doctrines which are commonly called the doctrines of the Reformation. These doctrines are clearly defined in the Assembly's Catechism, and are, as we believe, among the fundamental truths of the Christian religion. It is hardly necessary to add, that the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the native and total depravity of man, regeneration by the su pernatural agency of the Spirit, justification by faith alone, election, the divine decrees, the a tonement, the perseverance of the saints, the endless punishment of the impenitently wicked, and other doctrines closely connected with these, are thus omitted, or opposed.

2. All those who conducted, fostered, or encouraged the Anthology, after its character was developed, and especially those who approved of the theological part of that work, must be classed with the liberal party. We

do not mean to include every subscriber; for there are proba bly, at least a few subscribers to every periodical work, who dis approve of its character and tendency, but who take it from curiosity or some other motive. When the devotedness of the Anthology to party purposes is considered; when the unbounded and indiscreet profusion of praise, which it was accustomed to pour forth so lavishly upon a certain class of persons, and the snarling, contemptuous manner in which it generally spoke of others of an opposite stamp, are called to mind; no one but a partisan, it will be admitted, could approve of that publication: and certainly no party but the one in question could expect to be profited by it.

3.

The patrons and supporters of the General Repository belong to the liberal party, except a few subscribers on the principles above stated.

4. To the same party must be referred all who represent their opponents as denying the Scriptures to be the only independent rule of faith, when in fact no man can be found who makes this denial; all who raise a vehement clamor against creeds, confessions, and catechisms, and yet have no objection to deluging the country with catechisms of their own; all who are opposed to ecclesiastical discipline of every kind, in cases where doctrines only are concerned; all who admit members into their churches without requiring any evidence of personal religion, or even of seriousness, on the general confession that Jesus was the Messiah; and all who oppose examining candi

dates for ordination to the ministry of the Gospel.

5. To this party must like wise be referred, all those who have been conspicuous and violent in their opposition to the Theological Seminary at Andover, on the pretence that this in stitution was founded in illiberal and intolerant principles; and all who speak very gently and mildly of the character and state of open and avowed infidels, while they inveigh with intemperate zeal against Calvinists, and all who resemble them;-while they exhibit, in short, more animation, more spirit, more determined and persevering hostility against the very religious doctrines, which were esteemed the glory of our forefathers, than against all other objects put together.

There are individuals who come under each of the foregoing descriptions, though we do not wish to have it understood, that every member of the liberal party possesses all these characteristics.

We have for some time past intended to give a description of the persons whom we suppose to belong to the party in question. Our only design was to prevent being misunderstood by any one, and to obviate any imputation of using general phrases without assigning a definite meaning to them. Had we fulfilled our design before hearing of the charge, which has called forth these remarks, we should have mentioned the patronage of the Improved Version, and its extensive circulation, as among the most distinguishing marks of the liberal party. We cannot, on this occasion, avail

ourselves of this part of our intended definition; but in future we shall consider an approbation of that version, as furnishing to the person who expresses such approbation preeminent claims to be admitted into the party, which we designate by the epithet liberal.

All general descriptions are liable to exempt cases; if, therefore, a few individuals, not included in the foregoing description, should claim to be ranked with the liberal party, and a few, who are thus included, should plead that they belong to no party, the validity of such claims is perfectly consistent with the accuracy of the general description.

We now proceed to prove the truth of the assertion, that 'the liberal party in Boston and the Vicinity have exerted themselves much to circulate the Improved Version; and, for this purpose, beg leave to state the following facts, the most important of which have fallen under our own observation, and all of which have been communicated to us in a manner which we deem authentic.

Soon after the Improved Ver. sion was published in this country, a clergyman of the liberal party, in Boston, happening to converse with another gentleman on the meaning of a text of Scripture, said, "Come, let me see what my Bible says on this passage;" and then consulted his copy of the Improved Version.

A distinguished clergyman of the liberal party, not in Boston, was so engaged in circulating the Improved Version, that, as we are credibly informed, he imported a dozen copies from

London before the American edition was published.

A gentleman imported a hundred copies of the small edition from London for distribution. As e know not who the gentleman is, we cannot say positively that he belongs to the liberal party; but from the nature of the fact itself, as well as from another fact to be stated presently, we have no very serious doubts on the subject. If, however, it shall appear that we are mistaken, and the importer of the hundred copies shall be proved not to belong to the liberal party, this fact will of course stand for nothing in the present inquiry,

Two clergymen of the liberal party, in different districts of the country, solicited subscriptions for the Improved Version, and thus circulated a considerable number of copies among their people. It ought to be stated, that one of these gentlemen is now, as we are informed, thoroughly sick of his book, since he has become more acquainted with it.

Within a moderate space of time, (not more than two or three weeks, we think,) several instances of a copy of the Improved Version being given away by members of the liberal party were mentioned to us. One was given to a clergyman, for the purpose of confirming him, as he supposed, in the liberal faith, though the gift had a contrary effect; one to a young gentleman in another profession; one to a bookseller; and we think there was a fourth, but if there was it is forgotten. As these instances were entirely distinct from each other, and were com

municated without any inquiries on our part; and as, in this kind of charity as well as in others, the left hand would not be likely to know what the right hand did, we concluded, whether justly or unjustly others will decide, that the whole number of copies given away by the liberal party must be considerable.

At the sale of a library belonging to the estate of a clergyman who was considered as a leading member of the liberal party in Boston, fifteen copies of the Improved Version were sold. Thirteen of these were of the small London edition; and were kept on hand, as was naturally supposed, for gratuitous distribution. We are lately informed, that these copies were probably a part of the hundred mentioned above, and that if so, they were probably left, by the gentleman who imported them, to be given away by this clergyman as his almoner.

When these books were put up at auction, a clergyman of the liberal party, who lives in the vicinity of Boston, said repeatedly, addressing himself to different gentlemen who sat around the counter, "Buy one copy for yourself, and one to give away." A respectable literary gentleman present replied, that he would buy one if he had not a copy already in his library, but would never give one away. On being asked the reason, he added, that the work was a fraud, and, we think he said, "a gross fraud." On being further asked how it was a fraud, he observed, that the work professed to be a version on the basis of ArchbishopNewcome's translation, whereas it in fact rejected many of the