thou hast anointed to do, whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.* According to

It may be observed that Пanai, is in the infinitive mood, 1. Aorist, and therefore, being indefinite as to person and number, may very properly be construed with Τον αγιο παιδα σου Inoovy, thy holy child Jesus, without any violation of the rules of grammar. In Luke i. 72. the same verb Пonoa occurs, and the only antecedent to this verb is in verse 68-Blessed be the Lord God of Israel. That our translators understood the verb in both places in this indefinite sense, is evident from their having rendered it so in their English translation to do, to perform, The observations of the Rev. John Fletcher on the above passage, are worthy of notice. He remarks in vol. iv. p. 69. note-" With Episcopius, and some other learned critics, I doubt it is not" rightly translated. "Why should it not read thus-Acts iv. 26-28. The rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed [both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together] for to do whatsoever thy hand and counsel determined before to be done." By putting the clause "Both Herod," &c. in a parenthesis, we have this evangelical sense, which gives no handle to the pleaders for sin, Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, &c. were gathered together against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. I prefer this reading to the common one for the following reasons: (1) It is perfectly agreeable to the Greek; and the peculiar construction of the sentence is expressive of the peculiar earnestness with which the Apostle prayed. (2) It is attended with no Manichean inconveniency. (3) It is more agreeable to the context. For if the Sanhedrim were gathered together by God's directions and decree, in order to threaten the Apostles, with what propriety could they say, v. 29, "Now Lord behold their threatnings"? And (4), It is strongly supported by v. 30. where Peter [after having observed, v. 27, 28, according to our reading, that God had anointed his holy child Jesus, To Do all the miracles which

this construction all the words are retained, but by a different arrangement of the members of the sentence, we have this scriptural doctrine taught us, viz. That both Herod and Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together against the Lord Jesus, whom God had anointed to do whatsoever his hand and counsel determined before to be done. This is perfectly agreeable to the saying of Isaiah, Ixi. 1. Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord

The

he did on earth] prays that now Christ is gone to heaven, the effects of this powerful anointing may continue, and signs and wonders may still BE DONE, by the name of his holy child Jesus"

This interpretation is moreover "strongly supported” by what follows in verse 31-" And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; and they spake the word of God with boldness." Here was another instance of the fulfilment of the promise of Christ, to give them the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, in answer to their earnest prayer. So that Christ continued to do what the hand and counsel of God determined to be done, and thereby accomplish the end for which he was anointed.

Compare also the text under consideration, with the second Psalm. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, &c. This prediction was a prospective narration of the illegal and wicked conduct of those rulers and people, who were gathered together against him whom God had anointed to make atonement for sin, and to do those miracles which were calculated to convince the Gentiles of his power and authority over all things-So that, notwithstanding their combined opposition, the heathen should be given to him for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.

hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captive, &c. Compare this with the text in question, and with the 30th verse"By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that. signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus," and then say if there be not very strong reasons for believing, that the verb to do refers to the Lord Jesus, and not to Herod, &c. But consult the note.

It should furthermore be noticed that the text says, Herod and Pontius Pilate, &c. were gathered together against the Lord. If they were fulfilling the determinate counsel, and doing what the hand and counsel of the Lord determined before to be done, how could they be acting against the Lord? Do people act against the Lord, when they go perfectly according to his counsel? This consideration itself is sufficient to convince any man who is not blinded by partial attachment to a favourite creed, that your interpretation cannot be correct.

5. You proceed" It is a most unnatural evasion of the force of this passage, to explain it so as to make it mean, that the wicked murderers of our Lord came together to do their duty, even all whatsoever God had commanded them should be done," p. 14. In this I heartily join with you. But pray sir, who gave it this explanation? Have you not been labouring with all your might to prove that every circumstance "in the tragical" sufferings, and death of our Lord were perfectly according to the

determinate counsel of God? And when men fulfil the counsel of God, do they not do their duty? Or must they act contrary to that counsel in order to do their duty? Or will you here say also that God's commands and counsels are opposite? If so, when do we do our duty, when we obey the command, or when we fulfil his counsel? And how am I to know what the counsel is, but by the command? Has God revealed the secret counsel to you? But were you to resort to this poor evasion, it would not help the matter any; for according to your doctrine, even this opposition and contrariety, is all according to the counsel of his will, which you say, "includes every event," so that God "brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass"-consequently, let a man do what he will, however wicked, believe what he may, however absurd, it is all according to the counsel of God's will! "How, indeed, must the omniscient God look upon such explanations of his word?” "Let an expositor take such liberties with the whole Bible, and he might as well make a new Bible at once, and then he would be no longer troubled with the old one, but might believe what he pleased," p. 14, 15. True enough; for what good does the Bible do us, if there be a decree which is contrary to the commands recorded in the Bible; and if we are governed by a secret, irresistible influence? When a man can persuade himself, That God ordains sin, and yet forbids it,—that all things are according to the counsel of his will, and yet that many things are opposed to this counsel, (see. p. 11.) that all things are according to God's good pleasure, and

yet, that many things are displeasing to him, and "abhorrent to his holy nature," that a man acts against the Lord, while doing according to the determinate counsel of his will.—I say, when a man can persuade himself to believe in such obvious contradictions, he may not only give up the Bible, which contains a consistent system. of truth, but he may also give up reason and common sense.*

"But since such a comment has been given, &c." p. 15. Here you have, perhaps undesignedly, misrepresented my arguments by intimating that I asserted, the Jews, when cruci fying Christ, were doing their duty-Whereas nothing could be farther from my thoughts. "The disputant on the Arminian side" it is true said, "that the counsel of the Lord meant his revealed will," and also that it was revealed, impostors should die, and that consequently the Jews were assembled together to put Christ to death as an impostor-And he is of the same opinion still. They certainly never put him to death as the Son of God. They said he was a Samaritan, and had a devil, John viii. 48. So careful were they not to have him crucified as the promised Messiah, nor as the real King of the Jews, that they requested Pilate to alter the inscription on the cross. Write not, said they, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews, John xix. 21. From these passages, and indeed from the whole affair, it is evident, that they believed, or pretended to believe, Christ was an impostor; and therefore, as such, they crucified him. Is it just then for you to represent me as saying that they did do their duty? They pretended to do this, I grant, and so must you. If he were not a malefactor, said they, we would not have deliver. ed him unto thee, John xviii. 30. Who can avoid seeing from these words, that they considered him a malefactor, and as this was directly the reverse from the character he claimed, they accused him of imposture. And that they plead a legal sentence against him is evident from these words, We have a taw, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the