275 
I do not see how they are to have two wills. At all events, the assertion is 
a dangerous one, and I did not like to pass it over without calling attention 
to it. I agree altogether with the general principle, that we should endeavour 
to ascertain the precise meaning of the words of the Bible as far as possible, 
and I only regret that Dr. Bay lee has not always stuck to his text. There is 
one passage near the end of the paper which I cordially agree with, and that 
is where Dr. Baylee says, “ Protestant and Eomish writers have almost 
unanimously accepted the meaning of 1 the gates of hell ’ to be the power of 
the devil and his agents. It is utterly impossible to assign such a meaning 
to the phrase on any true exegesis.” I only regret that Dr. Baylee has 
not gone further, and demanded the correction of numerous other errors in 
the English version ; and I think the sooner we get rid of some of the 
notorious ones among them the better 
Mr. Reddie. — Perhaps you would tell us whether you would substitute, 
for “ the gates of hell,” Dr. Baylee’s interpretation, “ the gates of hades,” and 
then explain the meaning. 
Rev. C. A. Row. — I should substitute “the gates of the grave.” In the 
well-known text I should put it, “ The gates of the grave shall not hold My 
Church down ; ” and that, 1 1 apprehend, is a positive proof of the resur- 
rection. 
Rev. Mr. Wainwright. — I share in the disappointment which has been 
expressed by previous speakers with regard to the merits of this paper ; but 
still I think scant justice has been done to the author in some of the remarks 
which have been made. I think the paper would have been more valuable if 
we had had something more distinct and definite instead of an assumption 
with regard to the origin of language. The two conflicting and opposite 
theories — the one of Professor Max Muller, and the other opposed to it by 
Mr. Farrar — Dr. Baylee quietly passes by, siding with neither of them, and 
not showing any reason why we should not adopt the one or the other. I go 
some way with Mr. Warington in his criticisms on proper names, but I 
scarcely think his premises would sustain the conclusions he wishes to draw 
from them. Perhaps the first woman was named Eve or Zoe, because she 
was 'C&ov, a living creature ; so called because she was the created spring of 
life to her descendants. But we cannot make the Scriptures fairly respon- 
sible for many of the statements contained in this paper, which assumes, 
that if the Scriptures be correct, Moses intended to tell us that Hebrew 
was the language spoken by our first parents. I do not understand that to 
be stated in the Bible at all. But let me note one circumstance. We know 
that the founder of the Hebrew people migrated from his fatherland, crossed 
Mesopotamia and the Euphrates, and settled in that country called Palestine. 
A short time after that emigration from Mesopotamia we find Jacob going 
to his unkind father-in-law, and coming back speaking the language of his 
own family. He designated a certain heap of stones by one name, and his 
father-in-law called it by another. The one calls it Galeecl ; the other, J egar 
sakadutha, and the language of the father-in-law is precisely the language of 
Abraham’s father. I do not think sufficient notice has been taken of the 
