ally taken place, cannot disbelieve them without doing violence to common sense. To us an exact knowledge of particular facts, so far from overcharging, supports our faith; for every circumstance recorded of Christ adds, either as a fulfilment of prophecy or an evidence of Divine Power, or Wisdom, or Goodness, to the accumulated proofs of his Divine Mission, on the truth of which every article of our faith depends; but to those who lived before his coming, the prediction of such circumstances, so far from tending to add credibility to the simple declaration, that the Messiah should be sent from God, would manifestly have produced the very contrary effect.

(P) P. 79.-" Repent and be baptised every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST."

In Acts, xiv. 20, 21, we read that Paul " departed with Barnabas to Derbe: and when they had preached the Gospel TO THAT CITY and had taught MANY, they returned, &c." Here an obvious distinction is made between preaching the Gospel and teaching. They are said to have taught many, in a manner which obviously implies, that they did not teach all in that city, to whom they preached the Gospel. Those only who profited by their preaching, and consequently embraced the Christian Religion, are here said to have been taught by the two Apostles. The distinction is intelligible even as it is expressed in the English Bible; but it is much clearer in the original, where the word answering to taught has indeed all the meanings of the English verb teach, but would be more literally rendered (as it is in the margin

of the very useful Edinburgh 8vo Bible,s) by made disciples. The true meaning and most literal translation of Acts, xiv. 21, therefore is, " And when they had preached the Gospel to that city, and made many Disciples, they returned, &c."

The same verb, which signifies to teach, but more literally to make disciples, is used in Matt. xxviii. 19; and is different from the verb used in the next verse, which could only be adequately rendered, as it there is, by the word teaching. The most close and expressive translation of Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, is, therefore, that supplied by the Scotch Margin Bible, "Go ye and (anTEVOATE) make Disciples (or Christians) of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; (didaoxovtes) teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

In pursuance of these instructions, St. Peter tells those who were pricked to the heart at his preaching on the great day of Pentecost, that they must "repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ;" and in two of the places where the same expression occurs, viz. Acts, viii. 16, and xix. 5, it might be rendered, "baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus." Hence it appears, that to be baptised in the name of Christ, is to be made his Disciples, to assume the name, enter into the engagements, and obtain admission to the privileges of Christ's followers, by his appointed ordinance of Baptism, ADMINISTERED IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY HIMSELF, in Matt. xxviii. 19.

This interpretation of the phrase, baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, is confirmed by 1 Cor. i. 12, 13; where St.

8 Vulgarly known in Scotland by the name of the MARGIN BIBLE.

Paul reproves the Corinthians for saying," I am of Paul," &c., by asking, "Were ye baptised in the name of Paul?" Did ye in baptism profess yourselves disciples, followers, or servants of Paul? It is farther confirmed, by Acts, xxii. 16, where the more usual expression, baptised in the name of the Lord, is replaced by the equivalent expression, baptised, calling on the name of the Lord: for to call on the name of the Lord, means, in Acts, ii. 21, sincerely to profess, and in Acts, ix. 14, openly to profess the Christian Religion, which includes the worshipping of Christ, or calling upon his name in prayer.

(9) P. 81.—“ Unto what then were ye baptised?”

This is an incidental confirmation of the fact of baptism having been administered in the apostolic age exactly according to the form prescribed by our Lord in Matt. xxviii. 19. St. Paul manifestly took it for granted that these disciples had received Christian Baptism, which they might have done without having received those sensible gifts of the Holy Ghost which were wont to be conferred after baptism, by the imposition of the Apostles' hands. But when they said that they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost, he immediately saw that they could not have received Christian Baptism; for if they had, they must at least have heard that there was a Holy Ghost, that baptism being administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

(R) P. 82.-The circumstances of the Conversion of St. Paul, as stated in the ninth and twenty-second chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.

One of the most daring of the modern blasphemers of God's word, in a publication entitled, NOT PAUL, BUT JESUS; the avowed object of which is to destroy the authority of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, by representing him as an IMPOSTOR, and, consequently, the accounts of his conversion as deliberate falsehoods; pretends to have discovered various disagreements in those accounts as given in Acts, ix. xxii. and xxvi. The most plausible of the instances he points out, and the most likely to effect his diabolical purpose of perplexing the minds and unsettling the faith of unlearned men, is the apparent contradiction between Acts, ix. 7, and xxii. 9.

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but seeing no man.”Acts, ix. 7.

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SPOKE TO ME." Acts, xxii. 9.

Now, to grant the ADVERSARY all that he can possibly demand in this argument, I will admit that these two verses do contradict each other, IF there be no sense in which the same voice can be truly said to be heard, and yet not heard by the same persons at the same time. But that there is some such sense, familiar to the writers of the New Testament, is evident from Matt. xiii. 13. "They seeing, see not; and HEARING, THEY HEAR NOT, neither do they understand." No one has any difficulty

in giving to this verse a perfectly consistent meaning, viz. that though they see and hear, they are no wiser or better for either; their outward senses are affected, but no impression is made upon their minds, which remain exactly in the same state as if they had neither seen nor heard.

A person addressed in an unknown tongue, or in his own language by one whose articulation is indistinct and unintelligible, or a person whose hearing is imperfect, or who, from any other cause, does not make out the meaning of what is said, though he hears the sound of the voice, may very truly, and properly say, I do not hear, or I hear, but do not hear what is said. And, with exactly the same propriety, it may be said of them who journeyed with St. Paul, that hearing the voice, they still did not hear the voice of him that spake. Had the two accounts been compressed into one, and thus expressed, every person would have understood its meaning as readily as that of " hearing, they hear not," in Matt. xiii. 13, or of Dryden's " And sure he heard me, but he would not hear."

The consistency of the two accounts is, however, much more apparent in the original language, axovortes της φωνης ..... την φωνην ουκ ήκουσαν ; for the verb ακουω, governing, as in the first place, a genitive case, merely implies that the sense of hearing is acted upon by the voice; but the same verb governing, as in the second place, an accusative case, implies something in the person that acts upon the voice, viz. the understanding. If farther proof be required that this verb does sometimes signify to understand, as well as simply to hear, turn to 1 Cor. xiv. 2, where it is translated, and properly