and in the course of that journey something else took place.

In the present tense, so called, it is very often important to remark the idea of incipiency, of volition, of conatus, &c. as distinguished from that of event and actuality.

Thus, GALAT. vi. 12., ȧvaynáčovo, which our Version rather ambiguously renders, "constrain you to be circumcised," only means, "would fain compel you, do

all they can to compel," &c.

Thus again, in LUKE xi. 19. oi vioì iμæv èv tlvi Èxbáλλovσ; as it stands in our Version, "by whom do your sons cast them out?" conveys the meaning ambiguously at least for it can never be taken for granted, that those persons actually did cast out demons. They attempted to do so and that is all that is warranted in the word, ex¤áλ2006. Accordingly, we see the drift of our Lord's question to be this: If your sons, those among you who pretend to the faculty of exorcism, proceed (as we know they did) by solemn adjuration of the name of the Almighty; am I, think you, so void of understanding, as to employ inferior at once and unnatural means for producing that effect? Let the whole passage be read, from v. 14. to v. 22.

Another remark on distinctive usages; and I have done.

Where the notion suggested is one of inclination thought, desire, &c. yet more delicacy is required in the translation, while the necessity of rendering it precisely becomes the more apparent on that account.

Thus, GALAT. iii. 3. TITEλeios...having begun in the spirit, do you think to be made perfect by the flesh?

δικαιούσθε.

ibid. v. 4. dinaιõvσde. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you seek to be justified by the law.

After all, however, as on the one hand the English language cannot without periphrasis express such proprieties of sense, so on the other it would be heavy and pedantic in all such cases to develope the signification. Only when something important is involved which else might escape notice, does precision like that here pointed out need to be exacted: the vis directrix of the context, generally, serves well enough to guard the mind from any aberration.

ARTICLES OF APPENDIX

FOR

THE ELUCIDATION OF SEVERAL MATTERS

IN

THE CONTINUOUS HISTORY.

APPENDIX A. p. 23.

The posteriority of the council of Jerusalem in Acts, ch. xv., to the journey related in the Epistle to the Galatians, ii. 1. 10., shown by the total discrepancy of the two narratives.

On the strong suggestion given in H. P. 100, 101., and on the ground of those leading objections of incongruity there started, I have myself with great care pursued the argument in several of its principal views: and to my mind the entire difference is now irrefragably established between the transaction recorded by the apostle and the journey to Jerusalem, which produced the decree of the council held there.

The two missions, then, must appear irreconcileable with each other, whether we consider the manner and circumstances of each, or the leading persons in either case concerned, or the objects in each directly proposed and incidentally arising.

1. In the epistle, ii. 2., St. Paul tells us, that he went up by revelation, and that he addressed himself privately, and with much caution, to them of the greatest authority, and to them only.

In the ACTS, xv. 2. 4. 6. 12. 22., we read, that he was sent by the church of Antioch, and received publickly by the whole church at Jerusalem, that is, by the apostles and elders, and all the multitude.

2. In the epistle, Barnabas and Titus are both mentioned as the companions of Paul, ii. 1.: and those are his only companions.

In the ACTS, Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others (more than three), are sent on that mission, xv. 2. No Titus is mentioned.

But what is yet more decisive, the apostles with whom Paul had his conference, were expressly James the Less, Cephas or Peter, and John, ii. 9.

In the Acts, St. John most certainly does not appear an omission perfectly unaccountable, supposing him (in the early part of the ACTS) the constant associate of Peter, to have been in Jerusalem at so critical a time.

3. Nor again were the objects of the journey in the two cases less dissimilar.

In the epistle, the direct object was to have Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles as a peculiar and separate commission duely recognised and that end, as we read in vv. 7...12. was accomplished.

In the ACTs, the question to be settled was this : whether it should be accounted essential to the profession of Christianity, that Gentile converts must conform themselves to the law of Moses. A wise and temperate arrangement was the result. vv. 20. 29.

4. In the epistle, the single question about the Gentile Titus, as the acknowledged companion of Paul,

arose incidentally, and was rather overcome in itself for the time, than productive of any ultimate decision.

In the Acts, it was the general question, clearly so, which came in form to be determined. And if we suppose the quarrel on the particular case of Titus to have then arisen, and by the firmness of St. Paul to have been then settled against the rite of circumcision being obligatory; is it credible, that an affair so directly decisive of one principal point on which the council was held, could have been passed over in utter silence by the historian? Surely not.

These proofs of discrepancy, if taken alone, might establish the irreconcileable difference betwixt the one transaction and the other; even if no narrative had existed of the rebuke given by Paul to Peter, GAL. ii. 11...14. in the affair of Antioch.

But when that dispute betwixt the two apostles is taken into the account, which, on the supposition of the journies being identical, must have taken place after the council of Jerusalem; then the hypothesis of such identity assumes an aspect of more glaring awkwardness. For on the occasion at Antioch, not only did the question entirely turn upon the lawfulness of Jewish believers eating with Gentile Christians, the very point which Peter had been a principal party in deciding, viz. that such communion of the table might, on certain easy conditions, without offence, be allowed. But what is hardly, perhaps, less remarkable, Barnabas also, one of the very persons delegated to carry the decree of the council to Antioch, would be represented (v. 13.) in that very city either as not understanding the decree or as absolutely in his conduct running counter to it. The rationality of making the rebuke precede the