doctrines which the Archbishop

held.

After hearing the charge, to remove which these facts have been stated, we had the curiosity to inquire of very respectable gentlemen, men of undoubted integrity and veracity, and who have had good opportunities of knowing the truth, whether the statement in the Panoplist was accurate. In order to prevent all misconception, the occasion of the inquiry was stated, and the question put in the very words of the Panoplist; "Have the liberal party in Boston and the vicinity exerted themselves much to circulate the Improved Version?" This question, thus explicitly stated, was answered in the affirmative without the least hesitation. The gentlemen went on to mention facts to support their opinion; and among these facts the following remarkable one deserves to be noticed here. One of these gentlemen some time ago kept a school in Boston for the instruction of young Misses, and made a practice of giving them a weekly lecture upon a certain portion of the New Testament. While attending this exercise it was necessary that the learners should have their Bibles open before them; and for this purpose a considerable number, (how many cannot now be recollected,) brought with them copies of the Improved Version. In addition to the foregoing facts, let the following remarks

be considered.

The Improved Version was published in Boston by a gentleman, who is understood to be in habits of intimacy with most of the prominent individuals of the liberal party. Did he publish a

book of this magnitude without the knowledge of these gentlemen, or against their advice?

Some time after the Improved Version had been published, it was declared by the publisher, of whose candor and fairness we are happy to express a good opinion, that both the Improved Version and Griesbach's Greek Testament had been published and favorably received in this country.'* By whom was the first of these works favorably received, if not by the liberal party? And if a work of this impor tance be favorably received by any party, is it too much to infer that the same party exert themselves to circulate it?

It is sufficiently well known, that a majority of the clergy who compose the Boston Association belong to the liberal party, and that a minority are of a different description. This Association meets once a fortnight. The Improved Version has been published four years. We have been informed by three members of this Association, that they never heard a word said against the Improved Version, by any member of that body who is considered as belonging to the liberal party, till the assertion in the Panoplist of February last was under discussion. Nor had they heard a word said by these gen tlemen in its favor. A perfect silence had been observed respecting it.

We know it will be denied that this silence proves any thing. We submit the question without comment, whether such a silence concerning such

a work, in the present state of religious opinions, does not prove much?

But a more important consideration yet remains. The Anthology Reviewers, a number of gentlemen clearly belonging to the liberal party, and who often appeared to speak in the name of that party, formally took up the Improved Version as an article to be reviewed with Griesbach and the Review of the Improved version republished from the Eclectic Review. Their introductory paragraph is as follows: "We take up these three articles together, not because there is any indispensable necessity of considering them at the same time, but only because they are so intimately connected, that in our review of one we shall find it convenient to make frequent references to the others." Anthol. for Feb. 1811, p. 107.

Thus it appears, that, when the writer began, he expected to review the three works before him; but is not the reader sur prised to find, that scarcely a word is said of the Eclectic Review, and not a syllable of the Improved Version? What is the reason of this strange silence? Were not the whole tribe of Reviewers able to make up any opinion of the work? Or was it deemed safest not to give a public opinion?

The conductors of the Anthology had expressed great indig nation at some omissions in a work infinitely less important than the Scriptures. Were they unconcerned at the exclusion from the sacred canon of nearly two chapters in Matthew, and as much in Luke? How came it to pass, that one of the most imporVOL. V. New Series.

tant works, (if it should succeed as some of its friends have desired,) which has proceeded from the American press, or from any press indeed, should have been mentioned as an article to be reviewed, and then dropped in silence?

An earnest wish that our work may not rest a moment under the imputation of having slandered any man, or body of men, must be our apology for the foregoing remarks. Let it be kept in mind, that the question whether it is proper or improper, right or wrong, to circulate the Improved Version, has formed no part of the present discussion. That question must be settled by every man for himself, and with a higher responsibility than to any human tribunal.

At

We are extremely happy to find it to be a fact, (though a fact of which till lately we never had the slightest intimation,) that some of the clergy, who consider themselves as included in the liberal party, strongly disapprove of the Improved Version. the conversation, which has occasioned these remarks, one gentleman of that party declared, that he should not be willing to have this version circulated among his people. Another,however, of the same party, declared, that he should have no objection to its being circulated among his people. There was also a difference in opinion with respect to the learning displayed in the work, the former of these gentlemen not being disposed to allow that the editors of the Improved Version were completely learned, and the other inclining to stand up for their reputation on that score. A

64

third gentleman of the same party has since declared, that though he keeps a copy in his study, he should not by any means use it, or suffer it to be used, in his family. Now, in reference to this subject, we honor the judgment of any man, of whatever party, who thinks the Improved Version an unsuitable book to be put into the hands of common read

ers.

It appears to us, however, that those, who have charged us with being guilty of "a malignant slander," in asserting 'that the liberal party had exerted themselves much to circulate the Improved Version,' have borne rather hard upon those of their brethren who have incontrovert ibly thus exerted themselves. As we have been able, as we trust, to vindicate our work from the charge of slander, the blow which was aimed at us must, for ought we can see, fall upon the friends of those who aimed it. It would surely be no slander, though it might be a mistake, to say that any man had circulated a good book. To represent it as a malignant slander, therefore, to charge any party with circulating this version, is to condemn the version itself and all its friends, in terms sufficiently decided, and rather harsher than any which we had ventured to use.*

This reminds us of the manner in which the illustrious Burke treated the charge of being the author of the war between England and Revolutinary France. Though he did not admit the fact, he was far from calling the charge a malignant slander, "It would be a most arrogant pre. sumption in me," says he, "to assume to myself the glory of what belongs to his majesty, and to his ministers, and to his parliament, and to the far great

The foregoing remarks would not have been so long, had we not wished to lay before our readers the real state of the case; which could only be done by a copious induction of particulars.

If, however, any clergyman of the liberal party still feels in any manner aggrieved by what has been said in our pages respecting the Improved Version, and will furnish us with his opinion of that version, briefly and categorically expressed, we engage to print it with his name.

When publishing the offensive paragraph we had not the least suspicion that its truth would be controverted; any more than we now have that it will be denied, that the liberal party countenance the General Repository. And should this latter fact be denied, we should feel the reputation of our work for veracity to be in quite as much danger, as in the case before us. No person ever supposed that the liberal party approved of the book in question, or of any other book, by vote, or in a general meeting. Some individuals of the party may have never seen the book; others may condemn it. But we did suppose, and do still, that so large a number of the leading and subordinate members of the party, countenanced, approved, commended, and circulated it, with so little opposition, or with no opposition at all, from other members of the same party, as that the language used by Philalethes was perfectly justifiable.

er majority of his faithful people: But had I stood alone to counsel, and that all were determined to be guided by my advice, and to follow it implicitly -then I should have been the sole author of the war."

EXTRACT FROM SAURIN. "We do not understand our own religion: we are most of us incapable of perceiving the admirable order, the beautiful symmetry of its component parts. Why? It is because we have so little zeal for our salvation; it is because we form such languid desires to be saved. Indeed I know, that, except some few unnatural creatures, except some monsters, to whom this discourse is not addressed, every body professes to desire to be saved, yea, to prefer salvation before whatever is most pompous in the universe, and most pleasant in this life. But when the attainment of it in God's way is in question, in the only way that agrees with the holiness of his nature to direct, and with our happiness to obey, what a number of people do we meet with whose desires vanish? I desire to be saved, says each to himself, I desire to be saved, but not by such a religion as the Gospel prescribes, such as Jesus Christ preached, such as the apostles and ministers of the Gospel preach after him; but I desire to be saved by such a religion as I have conceived; such an one as gratifies my passions and caprices. I desire to be saved, but it is on condition, that, while I obey some of the precepts of Jesus Christ, he will dispense with my obedience of others. I desire to be saved; not on condition of my correcting my prejudices, and submitting them to the precepts of Jesus Christ; but on condition that the precepts of Jesus Christ yield to my prejudices. I desire to be saved: but on condition of retaining my prepossessions, the system I have arranged, the way

of life I pursue, and intend to pursue till I die. To desire salvation in this manner is too common a disposition among Christians.* But to desire salvation in saying to God, with a sincere intention to obey his voice, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Acts ix, 6. Lord, what wilt thou have me to believe? Lord, what wilt thou have me to love? Lord, what inclinations wilt thou have me to oppose, to mortify,to sacrifice? To be willing to be saved in receiving, without exception, all the practical truths, which compose an essential part of that religion, which God hath given us. Ah! my brethren, how rare is this disposition among Christians!

Without this disposition, however, (and let us not be ingenious to deceive ourselves,) without this disposition there is no sal. vation. It implies a contradiction to say God will save us in any other way: for as it is contradictory to say that he will give to an equal number the qualities of an unequal number, or to bodies the properties of spirits, or to spirits the properties of bodies; so also it is a contradiction to say that vice shall reap the rewards of virtue, that the highway to hell is the path to paradise." Sermons, vol. i, pp. 82,83, Am. ed.

ON PRAYING FOR THE HOLY
SPIRIT.

CHRISTIANS universally acknowledge the duty of praying for the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, and for his indwelling and sanctifying influence. Yet how backward are they to perform the

By Christians the preacher means the inhabitants of a Christian country.

duty which they so universally acknowledge; and how often is the duty performed, when performed at all, in a cold, unbe lieving state of mind. Our blessed Savior exhorted and commanded his disciples to pray for all things which they needed, es pecially for the Holy Spirit. The following words ought to be deeply engraven on the memory of every Christian, and to have a daily influences on his prayers: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke xi, 13.

Whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the encouragement here offered to the unregenerate, (while continuing in that state,) to pray for the Holy Spirit, all the pious have united in admiring the gracious and express promise which the passage presents to all true believers, as an incitement to ask for this divine blessing. Why are not Christians more awake on this subject? The promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, in answer to their prayers, might well keep alive an unquenchable flame of zeal in their hearts, and animate their whole lives with one continued exercise of vigorous piety. It is the design of this paper to lay before Christians some arguments, which ought to prevail on them to pray unceasingly for the Holy Spirit. 1. Christians should pray for the Holy Spirit because they continually need the influence of this Divine Agent. They need

this influence for their own peace, and as the evidence of their own picty. They

need it to subdue their internal corruptions, to rescue them from the power of the tempter, and to establish them in all necessary truth. They need it to prevent their becoming barren and unfruitful, and to preserve them from utterly falling away: for let it be remembered, that the doctrine of perseverance is perfectly consistent with the dependence of believers upon the Holy Spirit, and with its being their indispensable du. ty to ask for divine assistance as the grand mean of their preservation. As Christians value peace of conscience, therefore; as they value a title to the heavenly inheritance; as they regard their usefulness to their families, to the church of Christ, and to the human race; as they prize the salvation of their souls, they are bound to ask for the Spirit of all grace.

2. Christians have friends, members of the same families, children of the same parents, or at least intimate acquaintances and connexions, whose salvation is dear to them. What shall they do for the conversion of their kindred? They must pray for the Holy Spirit to convince, con. vert, sanctify, and save their friends; not neglecting other means indeed; but relying on earnest prayer for the Spirit, as incomparably the greatest and best mean in their power. They may have friends, who are amiabie, modest, and disposed to listen to the calls of Christ. The Holy Spirit can communicate real holiness where there was only the semblance of virtue. They may have friends, who despise and revile religion, scoffers, gainsayers, infidels. The