many more such might be cited,) we have in the original term a direct reference to a command given or arrangement made; and at best but a secondary allusion, if any at all, to the obedience rendered. Such then is the sum of the evidence I could collect from the New Testament itself in support of our rendering of hoav Terayμévot, "were ordained."

I next consulted the Septuagint, to see if its more ancient authors concurred with those of the New Testament in the application of this word. And I found that they too repeatedly employ it in reference to an act of authority or power, to a commandment or appointment. It is the frequent synonyme for the Hebrew, to put, set, place, draw up, appoint, constitute; which is always a transitive verb. For example, 2 Sam. xxiii. 23, "And David set (eragev) him over his guard.” 2 Kings x. 24, "Jehu appointed (eragev) fourscore men without." Job xxxi. 24; Jer. v. 22; Ezek. xix. 5; Hab. i. 12; Zech. vii. 12, &c. It is occasionally put in place of , which has precisely the same signification as the preceding. Thus Job xiv. 13, "Oh that thou wouldest appoint (rá§ŋ) me a set time." Also Jer. iii. 13, "But I said, How shall I put (rágw) thee among the children?" &c. And it is sometimes equivalent to 14, to give, put, place, set over, make, constitute; as in 1 Chron. xvi. 4: "And he appointed (erage) certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord." From all these, and numerous other passages which I examined, I concluded that the LXX. were followed in their use of the word by the evangelic and apostolic writers. And this strengthened my conviction that we rightly read, "were ordained."

I turned however for further confirmation to the classic Greek writers, to see whether the usage of the sacred writers was peculiar to them, or common to them with the profane. The latter I found to be the fact. Xenophon and Thucydides use it continually in reference to the drawing up, or marshalling an army. In Epictetus c. xxix. there is this passage: Τῶν δὲ βελτίστων σοὶ φαινομένων οὕτως ἔχον, ὡς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τεταγμένος εἰς ταύτην τὴν τάξιν " But so regard those things which appear to thee best, as appointed by God to that position." Marcus Antoninus (xi. 13) says that man is τεταγμένον πρὸς τὸ γίνεσθαι, δι ̓ ὅτου δὴ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον, " ordained to accomplish that which will prove of common advantage." Philostratus has the expression, táttew ảyéλny, "to order a flock." Plutarch, in his character of Pompey, represents him as σώφρονα καὶ τεταγμένον ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, “ wise and well regulated in his desires." Polyænus speaks of well disciplined troops as σuvτεταγμένοι, and of the disorderly as ἀσυντάκτοι. So Elian terms soldiers Terayμévot, when drawn up in their ranks, and ärakтol, when disbanded; and uses тáypa for a troop. And Philo, speaking of those who have devoted themselves to the service of God, says, Oi την Taρà τῷ ὄντι Θεῷ τεταγμένοι τάξιν, ἀθανάτον βίον ζῶσιν, “They being marshalled in the rank next to the true God, live an immortal life." These

few phrases from different authors seem to me to prove that the word Táσow does always refer to a submission to external authority, to a disposition from without, and not from within. And thus they harmonize with our version of the text under discussion.

Still further to establish our reading, I compared it with several standard versions. And these too support it. And these too support it. The venerable Syriac must be thus translated, "And those believed who were destined (literally, placed,) to the life which is eternal." The real participle used must be rendered passively; and accordingly Schaaf gives for it "positi" in his Testament; but "destinati" in his Lexicon, quoting this verse with the Syriac the Arabic exactly agrees. The Ethiopic, slightly altering the construction, gives the same sense yet more strongly, thus: "And when the Gentiles had heard this, they were glad, and glorified God, who had imparted to them eternal life." The Vulgate reads, "Et crediderunt quotquot erant præordinati ad vitam æternam ;" “And as many as were pre-ordained to eternal life, believed;" a clear proof how Jerome understood the passage; and with him the whole western church. Luther renders the whole verse; "Da es aber die heiden höreten, wurden sie froh, und priesen das wort des Herrn, und wurden gläubig, wie viel ihren zum ewigen leben verordnet waren;" "But when the Gentiles heard it, they rejoiced, and praised the word of the Lord, and believed, as many of them as were appointed to eternal life." The French versions of Ostervald and of Martin have, "Et tous ceux qui etaient destinés à la vie éternelle crurent ;" "And all those who were destined to eternal life, believed." That of Geneva has, "etaient ordonnés," "were ordained." And in Diodati's Italian the clause stands, “E tutti coloro ch'erano ordinati a vita eterna credettero;" "And all those who were ordained to eternal life, believed." These examples will be sufficient to show that the prevailing opinion of the best translators of the New Testament was in harmony with that of the authors of our version on this point.

Thus, then, my investigations, to their full extent, prove that the New Testament writers, the Seventy, classic authors, and editors of the authorized versions, all support our reading, "ordained."

I must, however, now admit that, while no one pretends to prove that this is not a proper rendering, some modern translators contend that here it is not the proper, and give us different renderings. According to Mede, "Those who had given their names to eternal life, believed;" or, "Those who stood in readiness for eternal life, believed." But it is unnecessary here to prove the doctrinal or the critical error involved in these, since they are explanations, not translations, paraphrases, not proofs; as is also his suggestion that the rerayuevos were "proselytes of the gate!" which, though pronounced by Hammond a "not unhappy conjecture," fails entirely from want of any foundation. The "Improved Version (!)" has, after Hammond, "And as many as were

Mr. Wakefield ascribes to

disposed to everlasting life, believed." the pen of the chaste chronicler of the Apostles' Acts this vapid sentiment; "And as many as were so disposed, believed unto eternal life." Yet surely he ought to have known "the beloved physician" better.

Archbishop Newcome gives the text as since adopted into the Improved Version, and says in a note, "Another import of the words is, As many of the Gentiles believed as were inwardly disposed to receive the doctrine of everlasting life; as had an orderly and well prepared mind for that purpose; as had disposed themselves to it." And Schmidius, Calovius, &c. render it, "And those who had followed the appointment of God (ráğı →coû) believed." But where are the proofs of these various hypotheses? With those who rest their objection to the word "ordained" on their direct denial of the doctrine of election, I hold now no controversy. They are in this case consistent; and must be converted from that error before they can be convinced of this. Some, however, who believe that doctrine, yet deny that it is involved in the text. The word Terayμévot, it is said, cannot refer to this, for the Scripture is wont to express election and predestination by other terms, such as ὡρισμένοι and προωρισμένοι and here moreover it does not mention them as προτεταγμένοι, but simply τεταγμένοι. Now the first of these assertions is no argument, since the New Testament writers may and do use different words to express the same general idea. And the second is answered by the first, for if poμévoi does not need the #pò, no more does Teтayμévo. And to "ordain" is obviously the same thing in fact as to "pre-ordain." But it is said again, Suppose the term "ordained" is admitted, the question comes, by whom were they ordained? by themselves or another? No other is mentioned, therefore it must be themselves. And then to prove that this passive form may have an active reciprocal sense, a few such passages as these are adduced; from Xenophon, 'Yo' éavtŵv tattoμévoi, “drawn up by themselves;" and Tárro éμavròv eis dovλeíar, “I subject myself to slavery;" and the passage already quoted from the First Epistle to the Corinthians; "They had addicted themselves (eragav éavroùs) to the ministry of the saints." These, however, seem directly to disprove the conclusion for which they contend. For what makes these sentences reflexive but the introduction of the reflexive pronouns, éavrov, éμavròv, and éavrous? Where these are found, I admit, I adopt their translation. But if they cannot, when seeking, find a single sentence with a similar meaning, yet without any such pronoun, I must conclude that it modifies the sense. Chrysostom renders Terayμévo in this place apoptoμévoi Te,"separated to God;" which certainly is equivalent to "ordained," according to New Testament usage. Hammond, however, considers it as equivalent to the phrase, "Those who had betaken themselves to his only service." But if this were the right interpretation, the same rule must be applied to the assertion of St. Paul, that he was

Yet who will declare testimony of the in

ȧpwpioμévos eis evayyéλiov →eoû, Romans, i. 1. That must mean that he "separated himself to the Gospel of God." this, despite his own repeated testimony, and the spired historian to the contrary?

Others contend that τεταγμένοι is here used as equivalent to εὔθετοι. But, if it were allowed that in some cases they may be expressive of a similar idea, it remains for those who assert that they are ever perfectly synonymous to adduce passages as proofs, which they have failed to do. And here it cannot be so. For how can men be "fit for eternal life," before they have believed in Christ? Sir Norton Knatchbull, with yet greater boldness, has endeavoured to prove that rerayμévo is here put for σyμévo. But there are three insuperable objections to this supposition. 1st, No proof is adduced, or can be, that ráσow ever has such a signification. 2d, The Terayμévoi is immediately, is inseparably connected with eis Conv alávov. And 3d, this clause, as rendered by him, would convert the whole verse into confusion, thus: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were met together (that is, all the Gentiles,) believed to (or in) eternal life." It is obvious, that if this had been the meaning of the sacred historian, he must, he would naturally, have altogether omitted the words, ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι. These words clearly make a comparison between the multitude of the Gentiles and certain persons among them. And if we take the former part of this verse to refer to those "who, when they heard, received the word with joy, but having no root, fell away;" and the latter to those "who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, kept it, and brought forth fruit with patience;" the parts are consistent with each other, and are consistent with Scripture generally. Aye, it may be said, this is just the point that proves the practical nature of this text. The Jews had "an evil heart of unbelief," and so rejected the truth; but the Gentiles, having "an honest and good heart," received it-listened to the Gospel, and lived thereby. “And who,” I ask, “made them to differ; and what had the Gentiles that they had not received?" Not they themselves— not this right disposition of heart. "Make you a new heart and a new spirit," is indeed the command of God to man. But how? Surely by seeking it from Him who has promised, "A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." If then this gift is, as every gift must be, "by grace," what can they mean, (apart from the sophistical substitution of different expressions,) who render the words under discussion, "were disposed, that is, disposed themselves?" Who can 66 dispose to eternal life?" Surely God alone. This is allowed even by Hammond, when contending most strongly against our version here. "Meanwhile it must be remembered," he says at the close of his argument, "that these qualifications are not pretended to have been originally from themselves, but from the preventing grace of

God, to which it is to oe acknowledged due, that they ever are pliable or willing to follow Christ, though not to his absolute decree of destining them, whatsoever they do, unto salvation."

Now this is all the concession I care for; although it might have been as candid to have omitted the phrase, "whatsoever they do," as involving another question. I will dispense with the "absolute decree," since the absolute necessity for "preventing grace" is admitted. And what is the natural inference from this admission? Certainly that if this "preventing grace" must precede, and can alone produce the "disposition to eternal life," then that disposition itself must be due to God, not man himself. And if God grants this to some and not to others, as he unquestionably does, he must choose, (on what ground is another question,)-he must choose those to whom he will grant it; since he cannot do what he does not first determine. And those whom he chooses to be the subjects of his saving grace, he must ordain to be the inheritors of his glory. Our text then says rightly, "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

But I must hasten to a conclusion; first, however, quoting the opinion of Doddridge, since his name has been brought into the question. This is his paraphrase of the latter clause of the verse; "And as many of those who were present, as were, through the operation of Divine grace upon their hearts, in good earnest determined for eternal life, and brought to a resolution of courageously facing all opposition in the way to it, believed, and openly embraced the Gospel." And this, I think, clearly shows that he was not among the number of those who contend that the Gentiles of Antioch "disposed themselves to eternal life." Now, I ask, where is the practicalness of this text? I allow that every part of revealed truth may be made practical; but contend that this, in common with many other doctrinal statements, is so in its inferences only, and not in its expression. The original words do but express that which our version literally renders, " And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." What lessons can be legitimately drawn from this declaration, or profitably connected with it, remains for the consideration of each interpreter of the sacred Volume; only let them not affix the seal of inspiration to the products of their own imagination.

If, sir, you deem this vindication of a passage which lies at the basis of a great doctrine of Christianity worthy of your readers' attention, you will, by its insertion in your Magazine of truth, give satisfaction to your

UNKNOWN CORRESPONDENT.