of men; the atonement made for sin by the Divine Redeemer, and the necessity of that atonement; the deep, radical, and universal depravity of man; his natural hatred of truth, of holiness, and of God; the odiousness of sin; the need of a change of heart; the inseparable connexion between sin and misery; the impossibility of being happy, even in heaven, without conformity to God; the solemnities of the judgment-day, and its inconceivable consequences in the final states of the righteous and the wicked. These doctrines, and others conpected with them, took deep hold of the conscience, and produced a correspondent anxiety with respect to the salvation of the soul. As the revival increased, the attachment to the momentous truths above enumerated became stronger and more deeply fixed. Their intimate connexion with each other, and their agreement with the state of man and the plain declarations of the Bible, were clearly seen. Those who had their own hearts opened to their inspection, saw that depravity, the existence of which is so often denied by carnal men. They felt the need of that renovating power, which the Holy Spirit applies to the heart. They were convinced from their own experience, that without the restraining, preventing, converting, and sanctifying grace of God, they should be lost forever. Their own wants, sins, and miseries; their weakness and utter helplessness, caused them to value that system of religious truth which most exalts God and humbles the sinner. Any other sys came infinitely short of 1 bringing a remedy suited to their case, and of affording a rational ground of hope. In the conferences, religion was conversed about as a solemn subject interesting to all; the requirements of the Bible were represented as infinitely reasonable, proper, and glorious; sin was exhibited as the enemy of all enjoyment; and the necessity of attending immediately to the salvation of the soul was pressed upon the mind. These meetings were conducted with the utmost regularity and solemnity. Any disorder would have been as unexpected, and as heartily condemned, by those who attended them, as it would have been in any meeting that can be named. At the beginning of the revival a few persons found it in their hearts to make bitter speeches on the subject; but their predictions of evil fell to the ground: and it is believed, on good reasons, that no event for many years has excited greater joy in the breasts of the religious community generally in New-Haven, and among the pious through a large vicinity. The fruits of this revival have been such as to prove its character to be genuine. They may, without presumption, be described as the same fruits, to a very great and desirable extent, which the Apostle mentions, Gal. v, 22, 23. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. To be more particular, those who had been for a long time professors of religion in this town, felt much warmed, animated, and invigorated, by what was passing before their eyes. They became more fervent in prayer, more watchful in their conduct, more deeply impressed with the value of the soul, more desirous of heaven. Their love for each other and for all Christians was surprisingly increased, as was perfectly evident to themselves, and to all around them. The members of the same church be: came more acquainted with each other, and took a much livelier interest in each other's welfare, than they had ever before done. They appeared, and felt, like brethren of the same family. They heartily congratulated each other on the enlivening prospect, and as heartily condemned and lamented their previouslukewarmness and negligence. It may, also, be said with truth, that a beneficent spirit was very greatly increased in consequence of this revival. Two female charitable societies were formed in the winter and spring of 1808, both of which contained not less than 300 members. To these a third has since been added. The objects of these societies are to relieve the wants of distres sed females, especially of female children, and to provide for the regular instruction of such of these children as have no other means of obtaining it. They were so happy as to obtain a piaus and excellent woman for an instructor, by whose assiduous care a school containing twentyfour girls has been kept from the time when the societies were instituted. Here destitute female children have been formed to habits of neatness, and industry, and prepared so far as human caution can prepare, for lives of usefulness and virtue. There is reason to believe, that parents have, in some instances, been led to reflection and some amendment, by the circumstance that their children are indebted to the benevolence of others for those benefits, which improvidence and vice had disabled themselves from affording.* On the whole, I can say no less, than that the cause of religion has gained much strength by this gracious visitation. During the years 1808, and 1809, one hundred and forty persons made a public profession of religion and joined the First Church; more than one hundred and seventy, I think, joined the United Church after a similar profession; and twenty-five were aded to the church in YaleCollege. Beside these, many were awakened, and induced to inquire earnestly what they should do to be saved; a large proportion of whom, it is to be hoped, will have occasion to praise God through eternity for the impressions then received. The converts were of all ages, and of all the variety of characters which the town contained. Old and young, the moral and the profane, the enlightened and the ignorant, those who were favorably inclined towards revivals of religion and those who were vehemently opposed to them, speculative believers and determined Infidels, the regular and the vicious, were among the Another female association has since been formed by young ladies in the instruction of the female children New.Haven, the object of which is of the blacks. For a brief notice of this, see the Panoplist for Oct. 1810, p. 222, in our Review of Dr. Dwight's Charity Sermon, WE are averse to disputation; and should not again occupy the attention of our readers, on the subject of those texts, the authenticity of which we have so lately examined, did we not suppose, that their importance will constitute a sufficient apology. The Anthology for June last contains a defence of the Review of Griesbach, which had appeared in a previous number of that publication, and an attack on several things which we advanced in reviewing that Review. The importance of the subject has induced us to revise our own labors, and to consider what these critics have done to defend themselves, and to correct us. In that part of the Review of Griesbach, which appeared in the Anthology for February last, we found the following senten ces: "To what is it to be attributed, that even at the present day, 1 John v, 7, is quoted in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, and even taken as a text of discourses; when it ought to be known, that is has not more authority in its favor, than the famous reading of the 7th commandment, in one of the editions of King James' Bible; thou shalt commit adultery. The same may be said of Acts xx, 28, and 1 Tim. iii, 16; which ought to be no more quoted in their present form as proof passages, by any honest and well instructed theologian." In our number for April last, after having quoted the foregoing words from the Anthology, we made the following state ment: "That a preponderating weight of evidence may at present exist against the genuineness of some of these texts, is what we do not intend to deny. That they, or any of them, have not more authority in their fa vor than the famous reading of the 7th commandment, in one of the editions of King James' Bible, Thou shalt commit adultery,' is an assertion which, we expect to shew, is neither well supported, nor very decorous." p. 507. When we wrote our comments, we certainly did understand the Reviewers to mean as they said, although they now solemnly aver, that they meant no such thing. "Now, our meaning was not," say they, "that the same might be said of the degree of authority of the received readings in Acts and Timothy, which could be said of the well-known interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses; this would have been too gross a misrepresentation of facts to have been swallowed even by our friends; and, as we should have hoped, too gross, to be imputed to us even by enemies. Our meaning certainly was, that the texts in Acts and Timo. thy, were, like that in John, STILL QUOTED in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, and, as we thought, with great impropriety; and this was the only circumstance, in which we intended to represent them as in the same case. However; our words have appeared to convey another meaning, the very falsehood and rashness of which we hope will rescue us from the suspicion of having intended it. In the mean while, the sentence would have expressed the whole of our meaning, if it had read thus the same may be asked (i. e. to what is it to be attributed that they are still quoted) with respect to Acts xx, 28, and 1 Tim. iii, 16; which ought to be no more quoted in their present form as proof passages, by any honest and well instructed theologian.'" p. 404. On this amendment we observe, in the first place, that it alters the very nature of the sentence which was the subject of our remarks. We have not, to be sure, been so deeply impressed with the erudition and accuracy of the writers in the Anthology, from any specimens of sacred criticism exhibited by them, as to feel it a duty not to admit that they could err, in these matters. If we understand their defence, however, it rests on this point; that the opinion conveyed by the language in their critique is so palpably erroneous, that it would be very uncivil and captious to attribute it to them. Yet, at the close of their defence, they say; "The unfortunate ambiguity of a passage in our review gave so fair an opportunity for the attack and the mode of attack in the Panoplist, that we have forborne to re taliate reproaches; and have neglected to notice all the occasions of censure and cavil, with which their attempt at criticism would have furnished us." p.421. Themselves being judges, it is not, after all, a very strange thing, that we should have understood them as we did. When we undertake to review any work, we review what is already published, and not what may be hereafter published by way of emendation. Whether these critics would have corrected their error, had it not been exposed, is a question which we are not called upon to determine. Of this we are sure, that there are great errors to be found in their pages, still unexplained and uncorrected; and if they are desirous of purging even their last volume of all misrepresentation, it will afford them no moderate employment. It is enough for us, however, that the part of their critique under consideration will bear no other sense than the one we gave it; that it is absolutely free from any ambiguity whatever; and that they themselves have confessed this, by awkwardly changing the very nature of the exceptionable sentence, in order to make it speak what they now say they meant. As these gentlemen have been so civil as to give us an amended passage, it is no more than civil in us to consider it attentively. We assert, therefore, in the second place, that the only effect of their emendation is to change a very plain passage into one a little ambiguous; not so ambiguous, however, but that most persons, in reading the amended passage, would give it the same meaning which we gave to the original passage. To prove this assertion, let us analyse the sentence. The Reviewers ask, "To what is it to be attributed, that, even at the present day, 1 John v, 7, is quoted in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, and even taken as a text of discourses?" They then proceed to give a reason why their question is proposed, (a good reason, indeed, if it were true,) in the following words: "When it ought to be known, that it [the text referred to] has not more authority, than the famous reading, &c." They next ask a second question, in the amended passage, thus: "The same may be asked with respect to Acts xx, 28, and 1 Tim. iii, 16." But for this question they give no reason, though they follow it up with a very strong conclusion in these words: "Which [the two latter texts] ought to be no more quoted in their present form, &c." Now, we ask whether an intelligent reader would not naturally apply the same reason to both questions? The questions are exactly the same; one of them is followed by a reason amply sufficient to account for proposing it; the other is followed by no reason, but instead of a reason there comes a conclusion as strong as the one intended to be drawn from the first question, and the reason which is appended to it. To make our meaning more clear, if possible, we will construct a sentence on another subject, as nearly as practicable like the one we are examining. Suppose the following passage were found in a political paper: "To what is it to be attributed, that A. B. is still appointed to high offices, and occupies stations of great responsibility; when it ought to be known, that he is as utterly destitute of any qualification for public employment, as the most ignorant and unprincipled felon, who is confined within the walls of our prisons. The same may be asked with respect to C. D. and E. F. who ought not hereafter to be considered as candidates for office, by any honest and well instructed citizen." We only inquire whether C. D. and E. F. would not have occasion to complain, especially if they were good and honest men, of being compared to "an ignorant and unprincipled felon." Unless we are greatly mistaken, we have known at least one case of a libel in this country, in which the connexion between the libellous matter and the injured party was less intimate, than that between the reason subjoined to the first question, and the parties implicated in the second; and yet two juries, under the direction of a very enlightened court, did not hesitate to give exemplary damages. After what has been said, should any of our readers disagree with us, as to the intimacy of this connexion, we presume all will admit, that the passage, even as amended, is either plainly contrary to what the Reviewers declare to have been their meaning, or, at the best, only ambiguous. But on the supposition, that the original passage had been at first clearly understood as its authors have since explained it, in the long paragraph cited from page 404; still it would do them no honor as critics. In that case, they place themselves in the |