led the Son of God. If the alter ation in question be admitted, the passage in Matthew expressly teaches the same thing as its barallel in Luke; if it be not admitted, the passage teaches nothing contrary to the doctrine just mentioned. It is worthy of remark, that he editors of the Improved Version do not even hint at Griesbach's change of the word translated birth for that which would probably be translated generation, in this passage; a pretty decisive proof, that they did not consider the change as favoring any of their dogmas. MATTHEW II. Various Readings. Ver. 9. The word translated stood is altered by Griesbach; but as to its tense only, and in such a manner that both the meaning and the English translation must be the same. This is put under the 8th class of various readings. V. 11. Griesbach here proposes an alteration of the first class; but as in this instance our translators exactly agree with him, not having followed the Elzevir edition, it can produce no change in the English Bible. Many readers, however, may wish to know what it is; I therefore state it. Instead of they saw, the Elzevir edition, and our common Greek Testaments, read they found. It is very obvious, that the meaning is not affected by the Elzevir reading. V. 15. The Greek article before the word translated Lord is marked as less probably to be o mitted; i. e. as an alteration of the 4th class. This cannot possibly affect the meaning or the English translation. V. 18. p. o. lamentation, and. V. 22. The Greek preposi tion before the word Judea is marked as less probably to be omitted. This alteration cannot affect the sense. Proposed emendations of our ver sion. The last clause of v. 4, he demanded of them where Christ should be born, would probably have been more accurately ren dered thus; he inquired of them, Where is Christ born? The principal change is that of the tense in translating the word rendered in our version should be born, and which, literally translated, is as I have expressed it. This rendering is not only literal, but agrees with the context perfectly. The wise men inquire, v. 2, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? Herod, inferring that this king of the Jews was the promised Messiah, inquired earnestly of the chief priest and scribes, Where is Christ born? The passage thus understood conveys the precise impression on Herod's mind, viz. that Christ was already born; and, at the same time, is a general question to the Jewish rulers amounting to this, Where is the birth-place of your Messiah? This question they answered by a recurrence to prophecy. Ver 22. Over Judea is a better translation than in Judea, whether the Greek preposition is omitted or not. In this chapter there are several instances in which the Im proved Version is decidedly inferior to our translation. As one instance the following is selected. Instead of bring me word again, v. 8, the editors of that version say, inform me. Whoever looks at the Greek will at once see, that this passage is altered from our version much for the worse. Doctrines. We are taught, in this chapter, that soon after the birth of Jesus, which took place at Bethlehem in the reign of Herod, wise men came from the east, led by a miraculous star, to find the infant king of the Jews; v. 1, 2; that they made public inquiry for him, stating the supernatural guidance under which they came; that Herod and all Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this inquiry; v. 3; that Herod, fin consequence, solemnly convened the Jewish rulers, in order to find where the wonderful child was; v. 4; that these rulers solemnly decided the birthplace of Christ to be Bethlehem of Judea, in accordance with prophecy; v. 5, 6; that Herod critically examined the wise men apart, and sent them to discover the child and report their success to him, professing a desire to unite with them in offering reverence, or worship; v.7, 8; that the wise men, led still by the supernatural star, found the child, were overjoyed at the event, worshipped the child by falling down before him, and offered costly presents to him; v. 9-11; that they returned to their own country by a different way, in consequence of a divine monition; v. 12; that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and commanded him to flee to Egypt, which he did; v. (3—15; that this event was a fulfilment of prophecy; that when Herod saw his plan frustrated he was angry, and perpetrated a most horrible slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem and all the vicinity; v. 16; that the lamentation on this account was a fulfilment of prophecy; v. 17, 18; that after the death of Herod, an angel ap peared to Joseph in a dream, and commanded his return to the land of Israel; v. 19, 20; that he returned with his family, but being afraid of Archelaus, and receiving a divine monition, he went and dwelt at Nazareth, a city of Galilee; 21-93; and that this event was a fulfilment of prophecy. We are also implicitly taught the existence of angels; v. 13, 19; and that though events have been divinely predicted for hundreds of years, and therefore rendered infallibly certain, yet men are voluntary agents in accomplishing these very events; v. 16-18. Thus the very idea of prophecy is liable to all the objections, which have ever been offered to the Calvinistic doctrine of the de crees. And no man will ever oppose that doctrine consistently, until he rejects prophecy ut terly, and denies that any future actions of moral agents are cer tain, even to the mind of God himself. All the objections which Arminians make to the doctrine of the decrees can be opposed in all their force, and precisely in the same manner, to the scheme of the Arminians themselves; as President Edwards has unanswerably shown. Bishop Pretty man, after endeav~ oring to explain away the Calvinistic sense of the 17th article of the Church of England, acknowledges, in effect, that all the objections, which he had brought forward against the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject, lie also against his own views respecting prophecy. Marvellous inconsistency! Miscellaneous Remarks. The word translated Lord, v. 13, 15, and 19, undoubtedly means the self-existent God; and is used in Greek for Jehovah in Hebrew. All the alterations proposed by Griesbach in this chapter have not the slightest influence upon any fact or doctrine. I am unwilling to leave this chapter without taking some notice of the manner in which the editors of the Improved Version dispose of it. Readers of preceding volumes of the Panoplist are aware that the editors alluded to have condemned as spurious two large, and exceedingly important, passages of Scripture, viz. from Mat. i, 17, to the end of chapter ii, inclusive; and from Luke i, 5, to the end of chapter ii, inclusive. For an examination of the reasoning, or rather the string of bold and revolting assumptions, by which this decision is attempted to be supported, the reader is referred to the critique of the Improved Version inserted in the Panoplist for Nov. and Dec. 1810, pp. 264, 310, from the Quarterly Review for May, 1809. Without going into any discussion here, I venture to assert, that these editors have expunged from the word of God the pas t. sages in question without the least authority. They confess, that these passages are found in all the manuscripts and versions extant. The pretended authority, on which they have the hardihood to rely, would be deemed utterly contemptible by every body, if brought forward to invalidate a passage in Tacitus, Livy, or any Greek or Latin historian. Yet they are not afraid to lay sacrilegious hands on the word of God, which all competent judg es allow to have been incomparably better preserved than any other writing of any thing like the same antiquity. After all, it is evident that these editors themselves place their principal confidence in the internal evidence against the passages in question; in other words, these passages are totally at war with the Socinian scheme, and the easiest way to escape their force was by a bold use of the knife to cut from the Bible the leaves which contain them. The editors, therefore,after hobbling along for some time very lamely, jump at once to the conclusion, that "the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile convert, who hoped by elevating the dignity of the Founder, to abate the popular prejudice against the sect." Probably, say the editors. If the question of probability were to be always settled in this manner, and totally without evidence, there would be no such thing as authenticity attached to any ancient writing, nor to any fact beyond the memory of man. There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament against which an infidel might not sug gest objections quite as plausible, as those which are stated in the note on these chapters. And there are few passages, which contain stronger internal marks of authenticity; particularly that wonderful dignity, beauty, and simplicity of narration, in which the Scriptures infinitely surpass all other writings. Notwithstanding the emendations here proposed are altogether unsupported by Griesbach, or any other critic, yet the liberal party in England, and the liberal party in Boston and the vicinity, have obtruded this version upon the world, and have exert ed themselves much to obtain for it a circulation. This single fact, that the liberal party engage with such zeal in extending the influence of the Improved Version, a version which takes large portions from the word of God totally without evidence, is sufficient to fix the degree of credit which is due to this party, in regard to their critical powers and their reverence for the ScripPHILALETHES. tures. Mr. Editor, The lady to whom the following letter was sent, is a person possessed of excellent natural abilities, of an open generous heart, and of a city education suited to her sta tion in life, but has never appeared to pay much attention to religion. Her uncle had dropped some bints in the family, of his opinion, that she had imbibed deistical princi. ples. These hints soon reached her; upon which she wrote him a letter in vindication of herself, and explanatory of her sentiments. In reply to this, the following letter was written. If you think it worthy of a place in the Panoplist, it is at your service. For special reasons the lady is named Matilda. Yours, respectfully, Jos. UPON reflection, I had well nigh In your letter I find a fresh embarrassment in my way. You are above instruction-altogether self-sufficient. Your reason, natural affections, and passions are a positive and decisive rule of judging in all cases. You seem to stand in no need of a revelation from God. The appointed means of salvation, the administration of the word and ordinances, the instruction, discipline,and fellowship of Christ's ministers and people, are, you say, not necessary for you. No; you have nothing social in your religion; nothing to give and nothing to receive: you stand upon your own merits, before a God of infinite holiness, and inflexible justice! Besides, in your account of a conversation with a Rev. parson, you appear very tender, quite sore, on these points. Will it not be impossible for me to write any thing, in answer to your letter, without wounding you? Yet, duty both to God and you, compels me to proceed. You have no other near kinsman who can, certainly none who will, faithfully discharge this duty. Whatever you may think of me, 1 am no enthusiast, nor bigot, in religion; and, to avoid such appearance, I have too of ten given occasion to be suspect ed of levity But I am, I trust, a firm believer in the Gospel of Christ: by that I feel bound to live, and on that I expect to be judged; but I hope in God; and do not expect to be saved according to my deserts, as you say you expect to be by yours. Be not offended, Matilda, I am really your friend, in every good sense of the word. The children of my youngest sister are near and dear to me. And though I could not converse and write to any of you, as to some others, I have done perhaps that which was better. Frequently have I borne you to the throne of grace, in my secret prayers. I have pleaded that you may be brought to a saving knowledge of Christ and of the Scriptures; that you be convinced of sin, and see may and feel your need of a Savior; that you may be excited to receive the Gospel testimony of Christ, and to embrace the mercy offered in him, and so obtain pardon and eternal life For this you may think me, perhaps call me, a superstitious old man. Be it so, yet I have done it; and, if my life be spared, shall do it again, and again. Oh! Matilda, had I credible evidence that you and your sisters were reconciled to God in the temper of your minds; and that, by unfeigned repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ you cordially embraced the salvation of the Gospel, my joy would be full. I should be ready to cry out with good old Si meon, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for i have seen thy salvation. But You seem anxious to know whence arose my conjectures of your opinions. Suffice it to say, my information has been deriv ed principally from yourself. Your habitual neglect of the public instituted means of salvation; and your occasional declar ations of belief in this, and disbelief in that, &c. respecting some of the fundamental articles of religion, convinced me that you did not believe the Bible to be a revelation from God. this letter of yours puts the matter beyond all doubt. Not one word have you advanced in proof of your belief in revealed religion, as distinguished from Deism; perhaps, more correctly, Socinianism; that is," natural religion varnished with a few Christian morals. Every sentiment you have advanced is admitted byprofessed Deists, in general; both in their conversation and writings. True, some sentiments you mention they consider as merely indifferent; but, in a manner similar to yours, they inculcate some moral duties as pure natural religion, which they first learned from the Bible. Thus they deceive themselves, in first stealing fire from heaven, and then denying the theft. many pretend to Christianity, who reject the essentials, which distinguish revealed from natural religion. Against this class of Deists Dr. Fuller wrote his letters on Socinianism, which I wish you to read. Too But previous to taking a direct view of your creed, I must, for the sake of perspicuity, |