We would suggest the following brief explanation, which seems to us to meet all the difficulties of the case very simply:

These disciples had been baptized not by John (otherwise the act would not have been repeated), but by some disciple or disciples of John, and that too, subsequent to the putting forth of the new formula of baptism, with its new significations. And this was the invalidating element in the transaction. Up to the time of the issuing of that formula requiring the act thenceforth to be solemnized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, John's baptism, that is, baptism on a profession of repentance and of faith in a Messiah to come, or a Messiah as come in Jesus of Nazareth, this baptism, whether administered by John or his disciples, was valid, and was never repeated. But after the issuing of that new formula, no person was suitably baptized, no person, in fact, was really baptized, except he was immersed on a profession of his faith in Christ, unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now, these Ephesian disciples had probably been immersed subsequently to the giving of this new formula significant of new facts, without the use of the formula, and without reference to the facts. Their immersion was, therefore, no baptism, any more than the same act would now be. It was an anachronism in the use of an ordinance.

As soon as these disciples heard from Paul all the facts of history connected with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and the inauguration of the dispensation of the Spirit amid Pentecostal scenes, and heard, moreover, that all this, for which they had been waiting, had taken place long before their supposed baptism, they perceived that they had never been baptized at all, and then and there they submitted themselves really to the ordinance.*

As an instance of what seems to us an error in criticism, we would call attention to a remark on page 414, where we

* In these remarks it has been assumed that John's disciples were authorized baptizers, a point questioned by some, but generally held by writers on this subject.

find a statement and an application of the law of the present participle (Greek), the accuracy of which we cannot but question. The original passage concerning which the statement is made, is as follows: Κἀκεῖ εὑρὼν ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος πλοῖον ̓Αλεξανδρῖνον πλέον εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν, &c. The remark of Prof. Hackett, to which we wish to call attention, is this, "The participle (πλéov), describes a proximate future, as in xxi. 2, 3, etc." Consequently, he would translate "a ship about to sail, or, on the point of sailing.”

Now, we think that in this particular passage, whatever may be established in other instances, the present participle is not used for a proximate future. Mr. Blunt, in the very quotation that Prof. Hackett has given from him on v. 38, and to which he here refers us, renders it, and as we think correctly, "The ship was sailing into Italy." The ship may, indeed, have been about to sail from the port of Myra, where Paul and his companions embarked on it, but this was not the fact in the mind of Luke, and intended to be stated by him in the choice of the present participle. He merely advertises his readers that the ship was in voyage from Alexandria to Italy. On this voyage she touched at the port of Myra.

In support of the rendering which makes πéov a proximate future, Prof. Hackett, and De Wette, whom Hackett seems in this instance to follow, quote Acts xxi. 2, 3. De Wette, however, quotes only v. 2. But this is by no means a satisfactory proof-passage. Verse 2 reads as follows: Καὶ εὑρόντες πλοῖον διαπερῶν εἰς Φοινίκην, ἐπιβάντες ἀνήχθημεν. The simple question before us is, does διαπερῶν εἰς Φοινίκην mean about to go into Phoenicia, or sailing over unto Phoenicia, or, more nautically expressed, bound for Phoenicia, implying thus that the ship was in voyage ? Evidently, this was a merchant ship making her customary voyage from the West to the East, of whose accommodations Paul and his companions availed themselves as she touched at the port of Patara. And it was, doubtless, the fact of the whole voyage from the West to the East, that Luke had in mind when he wrote διαπερῶν. We should, therefore, adhere decidedly to the present in rendering this participle, as we should in all cases when an imperative necessity did not require a modified rendering.

The expression in the next verse, quoted by Prof. Hackett, ἐκεῖσε γὰρ ἦν τὸ πλοῖον ἀποφορτιζόμενον τὸν γόμον, is just as unsatisfactory a proof-passage as the other, since De Wette, Meyer, and others render it, "For thither (after the arrival), was the ship unlading her cargo."

As for the passages quoted from Matthew xxvi. 28, and Luke xxii. 19, we think that much would be lost from the glorious significancy of the Saviour's words, by rendering έkyvvóμevov and didóμevov as proximate futures, "about to be shed," "about to be given." We greatly prefer the present, "is shed," "is given," as indicating that the passion was a fact then in progress and hastening to its consummation, or, at least, that it was present in the thoughts of the Divine speaker. The agony of Christ was life-long. The whole phenomenon of his self-sacrificing humiliation was signified, as Alford somewhere well says, by the "pouring and breaking."

The foregoing passages are all that our author refers to, and none of them are clear and satisfactory examples of the present participle used as a proximate future. And had they all been indisputably in point as illustrations of the law as stated by Prof. Hackett, they would not have proved that in Acts xxvii. 6, the present is used for the future.

We do well, then, to adhere to the common version, viz. : "The centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy."

Since the preceding was written, the following remark of Winer has fallen under our notice. It is found in the 45th section of the last edition of his N. T. Grammar, where he is speaking of the frequency with which the present participle, in different relations, was formerly taken for a future, a practice which he characterizes as "ungebühr," improper. Quoting Acts xxi. 2, he translates, "welches furh, auf der fahrt begriffen war," "which was sailing, was on the voyage."

Further on in the same section, he calls attention to Acts xxi. 3, and says, "It cannot, with Grotius, Volkenaer, and others, "be translated, 'thither the ship about to unlade,' but it means, 'thither the ship was unlading its freight,' 'dorthin lud das Fohrzeug seine Fracht ab.'"

We have dwelt the longer on this point, because great liberties have been taken with the present participle in the New Testament by various translators and interpreters, and much erroneous interpretation has been the result. It has been somewhat common to take the present participle as standing for a proximate future not only, but for a remote future. Thus, for example, in 2 Pet. ii. 9, our version gives the future rendering to the present, and thereby abates the testimony of Scripture to an important truth, viz.: the consciousness of the wicked dead in their present disembodied state. Thus we have, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished," (koλašoμévovs.) Here, as in almost all other examples, we extract a better sense, because the true one, by adhering to the present signification and reading, "The Lord knoweth how to keep the unjust under punishment unto the day of judgment."* So Beza, Piscator, and others, as quoted by Poole. The ordinary but unsatisfactory expedient is to say that κολαζομένους is for κολασθησομένους.

Again, in 2 Pet. iii. 11, we have Tоúrov ovv TáνTWV Avouévov, which our version gives, "Seeing then that all these λυομένων, things shall be dissolved," with which, as Maurice remarks, no scholar can be satisfied. Winer gives as the proper translation, "da dieses alles aufgelöst wird," is dissolved, and remarks, "according to its nature dissolution is appointed to it" (the present system of things); "the fate of dissolution even now inheres, as it were, in these things." By saying, "all these things are dissolving," Peter meant to startle the antinomianism of his day from its perilous slumbers to the moral preparations demanded. How much is the force of the apostle's admonition abated by throwing into the far future the whole process of the world's dissolution, and drawing off the attention from its present transitoriness.

We have marked some other points in this most admirable commentary which we intended to subject to a brief and friendly discussion. But the unexpected length to which we have been led already, prevents even a reference to them. We unite with many others in expressing the wish that the author may contribute many more volumes from his ripe scholarship to the treasures of New Testament exegesis and interpretation.

*Here the Geneva version is admirable, "The Lord knoweth to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment under punishment.

ARTICLE VIII.-SHORTER BOOK NOTICES.

I.

NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL, BY DR. BUSHNELL.*

THE object of this volume, as stated by its author, is, "to find a legitimate place for the supernatural in the system of God, and show it as a necessary part of the Divine system." It aims to defend Christianity against the assaults of such writers as Theodore Parker and F. W. Newman. It is strongly marked with its author's peculiarities of thought and style-vigorous and glowing in imagery, but inconsequent in reasoning, and deficient in compactness and force. It is vastly superior to a similar attempt by the "author of the Plan of Salvation;" but, in learning, logic, method and style, is decidedly inferior to Theodore Parker's "Discourse of Religion," to which it is chiefly intended to be a reply. It will undoubtedly prove both attractive and instructive to a certain class of readers; but it is very far from being a refutation of Mr. Parker's theory. Indeed, he makes no attempt to cope with the fundamental principles of that theory. We question if his philosophy would have enabled him to dispose of them if he had made the attempt. So, leaving Mr. Parker's foundation untouched, he builds over against him "an hypothesis for the matters in question ;" an hypothesis which he thinks "gathers in, accommodates and assimilates all the facts of the subject." And a most curious discussion is his attempted construction of a basis for his hypothesis. It is simply a new theodicy, which, adopting "the doctrine of the Manichees with sufficient modifications," makes evil to be "only a condition privative that environs God from eternity, waiting to become a fact, and certain to become a fact whenever the opportunity is given;" a theodicy that ignores the existence of unfallen angels, and, exploding the personality of Satan, resolves him into "a bad possibility," that, "eternally existing," has, in the "world's creation," emerged into a bad actuality-which it is the problem of Jehovah's government to master! But we have not the space for an examination of the hypothesis itself. Suffice it to say, that the chapters containing it seem to be strung upon a thread not easily discoverable, suggesting to the curious reader certain questions about the author's logical processes, not strictly in keeping with the subject in hand.

To Dr. Bushnel,1 as a writer of sermons, we would accord the highest praise; but as a Christian philosopher and apologist, we would rather not speak of him. A man who denies the existence of unfallen angels, virtually admits the eternity and omnipotence of moral evil, and advocates belief in the continuance of miraculous power in the church, cannot, to our mind, be safely intrusted with the superintendence and management of the defence of our common faith.

* NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL, AS TOGETHER CONSTITUTING THE ONE SYSTEM OF GOD. By Horace Bushnell. Second Edition. New-York: Charles Scribner. 1858.