lavishly endowed the Church as in Ireland, and in no country with so little result in gaining over the Romanist to the truth.

At three o'clock the Synod adjourned, with the announcement that the evening was reserved for us. We dined with the brethren at what our excellent landlady called the "Covenanters' Table," for such is the name given to Reformed Presbyterians in Ireland. The members of Synod had one public room for themselves, while those of the Assembly had a large one on the flat above. To see some of our number the members of Assembly occasionally came into the Covenanters' room. The conversation, in almost every case, soon turned to the Regium Donum-the theme of discussion in the Assembly, and the chief subject of present debate between the two Churches; but it never got leave to wax hot, for just when it was about kindling, the landlady was sure to appear, and quietly remind the gentlemen of the Assembly that the Assembly ministers were up stairs. In every sense of the word, we found that her tact and vigorous superintendence made her abode a temperance hotel.

In the evening the Synod met interloquitur at five o'clock, to discuss a new plan for ministerial support; and at half-past six we were received as a deputation from the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland. The senior deputy then addressed the Synod:

Moderator, You may perhaps remember that a number of years ago the southern part of your island was invaded by a band of ministers from England and Scotland, who went thither with the purpose-the serious purpose-of doing good by evangelistic labours. The strange and exciting scenes through which I passed on that occasion-for I was one of that company,-I can never forget. There was something humiliating, and also not a little that was ludicrous, in the reports we had to bring back of how it had fared with us on that memorable occasion, and of the failure that had attended our mission, although we had still some idea that it was not wholly in vain. We were sometimes induced to retreat from the presence of our audiences with greater expedition than was consistent with comfort or with dignity. My friend Mr M'Dermid of Glasgow, then of Dumfries, accompanied me on that occasion, and he intended to have been here to-day. The recollection of his experience among the wild Irish of Kerry has, I am sure, nothing to do with his absence. Here we knew we would be among brethren, to whom we might speak without trepidation. Mr M'Dermid regrets that important duties required his presence elsewhere. While I am sorry that I have not the advantage of his being here to take the lead in this deputation, I am glad that my young brother, Mr Thomson of Eaglesham, has accompanied me across the Channel, and will also have the opportunity of addressing you.

It devolves upon me, as deputed by the Scottish Synod, to say to you a few words. In sending the deputation that has now the honour of appearing before your court, the Synod we represent meant only to convey to you their fraternal salutation, and to assure you of their hearty sympathy with you in the great work in which you are engaged as ministers of the gospel, in seeking to win souls to Christ; and sympathy with you also as a Church, in upholding the grand old principles of the Covenanted Reformation, for which our fathers and yours so nobly contended. Beyond this, sir, I have no commission, and you will hold me as personally responsible for any remarks I may now make.

"In Scotland the Reformed Presbyterian was always, till now, a united Church. Brotherly harmony prevailed in our midst. It is true there were differences of opinion amongst us on minor points, as might have been expected among men accustomed to exercise independent thought, but we bore with each other, knowing well that all were loyal to the truth as it is in Jesus, and had made, or were ready still to make, sacrifices in behalf of the great principles for which, as a Church, we have been honoured specially to contend. And it was hoped that nothing would ever sever us, but that we would continue to labour together in unbroken union, making our influence more and more widely felt, both at home and abroad, in carrying out the great ends of the existence of a Christian Church. But, sir, that hope has been sadly disappointed. I lament

to have to say to you, that events have occurred which have led to division. I do not appear before you to bespeak your sympathy, or to ask your approval of the course adopted by the Scottish Synod. We did what we thought, and still think, was right. We were not careful to inquire whether our legislation would be approved of by the Irish or the American Synod. We were in a position, we thought, to judge of the matter for ourselves, and it was after very careful and lengthened deliberation that we decided as we did. It may not be out of place, perhaps, that I should now briefly, with your leave, set before you the facts of the case as they appear to my mind.

"The leading general principle of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as regards its relation to the civil government, is, as you are aware, an acknowledgment of the duty of abstaining from all acts that imply an approbation of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the country, in so far as it is unscriptural. This the whole history of our Church, and the controversies in which it has been engaged, abundantly prove. Our fathers held, that not every civil act implied such an approbation of the constitution of our country; and hence various acts were allowed to our people at different times, which implied a certain recognition of the government, as the payment of taxes, holding property, trading under licences, sitting on juries, &c. These acts were not regarded as implying a recognition of the evils of the British Constitution. That our fathers did recognise the government of the country is farther manifest from the opposition they made (1740) to the "active testimony-bearing party," as they were called, who wished to set up civil governors of their own, and to erect a regular imperium in imperio--that recognition they did not regard as implying an approbation of those things which they looked upon as immoral and unchristian in the constitution. There was one thing, however, which they did not doubt implied an approbation of all these evils, viz., swearing the oath of allegiance; and in that opinion they were certainly right. It is well known that before the Revolution they who took that oath were regarded as deliberately avowing their approval of both the civil and ecclesiastical constitution; and, indeed, till the abolition of the Test and Corporation Act,' the oath bore that meaning. The abolition of that Act at once altered the import of the oath. Much of the subsequent legislation of the country might be regarded as a commentary on the oath, shewing in what sense it was plainly intended it should be taken. That oath, moreover, as you are aware, underwent a material change in the form of it not many years ago.

"Now the question began to be discussed among us, 'Does the oath mean precisely what it meant in the days of our fathers, and in the days of persecution?' The Synod was forced to re-examine the whole matter. And just as in seeking to know the meaning of an obscure passage of Scripture, we consult the writings of divines and of men learned in Bible interpretation, so, in seeking to discover the true meaning of the civil oath, we naturally had recourse to men learned in the law. They, and not divines,-not ministers, however zealous and devoted, were surely the persons most likely to be acquainted with the constitutional history of our country, and with the meaning and intent of the different Acts of the Imperial Parliament, as they had a bearing on each other. Well, the answer uniformly returned to our inquiry by men of the highest eminence in the law-men having no connection with each other, and of all different shades of politics, was, that the oath did not now mean what our fathers regarded it as meaning, that the jurant was not bound by the oath to recognise any one of the evils of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of our country; in a word, that any one might take the oath of allegiance, and yet honestly, consistently protest against all these evils.

(To be concluded in our next.)

HORE EVANGELICÆ.

NO. IV.

HOW JOHN-MARK WROTE THE GOSPEL STORY.

By what peculiarities is "the Gospel according to Mark" characterised, accounting for a place having been given to it in the New Testament?

The representation of the Person of Christ given by Mark must be different in certain respects from that given by Matthew, by Luke, by John, otherwise why should the Holy Spirit have given to us a separate Evangel bearing his name? Let us examine it a little and try to ascertain in what the view of the great Christian Facts furnished by the son of Mary, the nephew of Barnabas, the pupil of Peter, the minister of Paul, the companion of Timothy, is distinct from those furnished by the other Evangelists. I. The Time at which John-Mark wrote and the Place where, are uncertain. We have no safe guide to follow as to these points except what we already know of his history and the indications of the Book itself. From these we may gather that Mark wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem and after the Gospel had made considerable progress among the Gentiles; and as to place, the whole style and method will be found to point to a large Gentile city such as Rome or Antioch, with both of which we have seen that he was very closely connected and for long periods together.

II. There is ground for a much more certain opinion as to the class of persons whose benefit was specially sought by this Evangelist: it is quite as evident that Mark wrote for Gentiles as that Matthew wrote for Jews.

1. The omissions in the narrative are very significant in regard to this. You will look in vain here for any genealogy of Our Lord or for references to the Jewish law. Mark says nothing about the limitation which Jesus imposed on the Twelve when He first sent them forth, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not;" but he gives all emphasis to the later and wider commission, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." There are almost no quotations made from the Old Testament by the Evangelist himself. What quotations occur are in the speeches of Jesus which he records; with only one exception at the beginning (the references to what Isaiah and Malachi foretold regarding John the Baptist, i. 2, 3) and another at the end (the fulfilment of the words, "He was numbered among the transgressors," xv. 28). All this was most suitable in one who had it for his first aim to instruct men only recently brought out of paganism and to whom Jewish history and the elder Scriptures were as yet sealed books. The difference from Matthew in this respect is very striking.

2. What Mark inserts is even more significant of the class for whom he wrote than what he omits. When he employs an Aramaic word he is careful to add the interpretation of it: e. g., "Talitha cumi, which is being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee arise" (v. 41; vii. 11; vii. 34). He explains Jewish customs, e. g., that of the Pharisees washing their hands before meat (vii. 1-7); and he tells his readers what only strangers would need to be told, that the position of the mount of Olives was over against the Temple (xiii. 3). The fact which we discover by looking to such hints is of considerable importance. Matthew has told the Gospel story and connected it with God's dealings towards the seed of Abraham, with all the past of God's Revelation; Mark now tells the same story, but connects it with the broader future and with the will of God toward those who had hitherto been "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." And both narratives are given to us by the Holy Spirit that we may be savingly instructed on the one hand by their agreement, which is in all the facts, and on the other hand by their marked diversity, which is in the bearing and application of these facts, that we may learn the infinite greatness of the Lord Christ, the Alpha and the Omega of the world's history, of God's Word, of man's salvation.

III. Another peculiarity of this Evangel is that it reflects the character and influence of Simon Peter. An old and uniform tradition tells us that

Mark was the secretary (interpres) of the great Apostle and points to his influence as distinctly connected with this narrative. But the tradition is not decisive as to the extent to which this influence was exerted. On the one hand, some of the fathers speak of this as Peter's Evangel, and one modern writer has gone so far as to affirm that Mark merely translated into Greek a MS. which Peter had written in Hebrew. On the other hand, however, the greater number of those most competent to judge look on the influence of the Apostle as having been, though very considerable, not such as to interfere with the independence of the Evangelist. You will find, on carefully examining the book, that this latter opinion is highly probable. In going over the historical traces of John-Mark we have found enough to suggest a striking likeness between him and Peter both in natural temperament and in the gracious training which each enjoyed. The great warmth and impulsiveness, the falling, the rising again, the becoming at length steadfast as a rock among the billows,-all these features so strongly marked in the Apostle have their counterparts in the Evangelist. And not only is there this resemblance, which might have existed although the two had never met in the course of their lives, but it is quite certain also that the example, the direct teaching, the whole force of the character of the one must have been brought to bear on the other at that time when his habits of thought and feeling were assuming the form and tone which they were to bear more or less to the end. And yet more, after moving in another sphere and being ripened under other precious influences for years, Mark was again in close filial communion with the aged Apostle about the time when his Evangel was probably written. It was inevitable therefore that there should be imparted to the conception which Mark formed of the Gospel more of the spirit and tone of Peter than of any other Apostle. At the same time, the remarkable vividness of word-painting which distinguishes the writings of Mark cannot be explained without supposing that, besides having often heard the story from the burning lips and keen memory of Peter, he was also himself a witness of much which he records; and everything we know of his history goes to render this probable. True, he must have been young, perhaps under twenty years of age, when the transcendent events were taking place, and it would not have been well to have trusted one who knew them only by the observation of youth to set forth an authoritative record of these events: yet how sharply would they cut their image in the virgin memory and imagination and feeling! And of how great service would such impressions become when enlarged and rectified by the teaching of Peter!

IV. We may now look into some of the more special characteristics of this second Evangel.

1. It is the shortest of the four by an amount too considerable to escape the notice of any. Luke's is longer by nearly 500 verses; Matthew's by 400; John's by 200. This was certainly not caused by Mark's knowledge being more scanty than that of the others; nor does it arise from his giving a mere outline or abridgment of what they detail more fully, as was first said by Augustin, and as you may find said by some still who are not careful what they repeat. So far is this from being the case that whenever he narrates anything which the others also narrate you will find as a rule that Mark's account is more full and complete, gives more details, than Matthew's or even than Luke's. Take for examples, the stilling of the storm (iv. 35); the demoniac of Gadara, the woman who touched Jesus' garment, and the Raising of Jairus' daughter (v. 1-43); the Epileptic boy (ix. 14); the Blind beggar (x. 46); the fig tree (xi. 12). Many similar examples might be added.

Mr Smith of Jordanhill. Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul, p. 45. †The exact figures are-Luke 1151: Matthew 1073; John 870; Mark 678.

2. Whence then does this brevity arise? Mark treats almost exclusively of the public life of Christ. For the end he had in view it was not needful to dwell on the genealogy of Jesus, on the ministry of the Baptist, nor on the temptation; accordingly he disposes of these subjects in thirteen verses, while they occupy seventy-six verses of Matthew and one hundred and eighty-three of Luke. He plunges at once into the events that occurred after the public ministry of Christ had begun the thirty silent years at Nazareth are all passed over: his first sentence is "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" and before the end of the first chapter he has told us of four miracles in particular and made general reference to many more.

3. In entire harmony with this is another reason why Mark's Evangel is so short: he gives much greater prominence to the acts of our Lord than to His words. What words he does record were spoken either in some short and striking dialogue or in close connection with a miracle: such a thing as a long connected address finds no place here. Mark gives us single memorable utterances of Him who spake as never man spake, rather than His sermons and parables. There are in all some thirty Parables; and while Luke has nineteen of these and Matthew fifteen, only four are to be found in Mark.* Again, there are thirty-three Miracles in all, and Mark gives eighteen of these, that is, as many as Matthew, only one fewer than Luke, and ten more than John. It is therefore with the utmost propriety that this is distinguished as the Evangel of Action rather than of Thought or Doctrine.

4. It follows that the amount of original matter to be found in Mark is comparatively very small. Matthew, Luke, above all John, have many of the most precious portions of the Gospel peculiar to themselves, and one readily perceives why each of these penmen should have been employed seeing that such has been the result: but it is quite different with Mark. The following is, I think, all that he alone tells us,-the parable of the Seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29); the miracles wrought on the Dumb man at Decapolis (vii. 31), and on the Blind man at Bethsaida (viii. 22), neither of whom sought the mercy of Christ for themselves but were both brought to Him by friends; and the story of the young man who followed Jesus in Gethsemane (xiv. 51, 52). These convey lessons of great value which we will not find in the other narratives: yet they scarcely explain the separate existence of this one. But another circumstance does so fully. I refer to the singular freshness, vividness and force which distinguish every page. every sentence, of Mark's writing. His representation of the Gospel facts is graphic and picturesque beyond that of any of the others; and his brevity both arises from and goes far to create these qualities. The ability so to exhibit the truth is a singular gift, not belonging to every one who even fully understands that of which he writes, but to the man who in addition to clear knowledge possesses the faculty of observing sharply, taking in details with one keen glance, of feeling with warm sympathy, and of retaining what has been once seen or felt in that rare grasp of vigorous memory and quick imagination which makes it always present even when long past. The Holy Spirit did not take men wanting such natural gifts, but He selected those who already had them and constrained them by His supreme grace to employ them in His service. As our Lord made Peter one of His Apostles so did He make Mark one of His Evangelists. And the result is that if you find here few facts entirely new you find nevertheless an entirely distinct portraiture of "Jesus Christ, the Son of God," a portraiture as distinct from the others as even that of John is, abounding in words, phrases, brief utterances, glimpses of the scenes and of the actors in them, which no other furnishes, and wanting which we should have lost much.

* The Sower; The Seed growing secretly; The Mustard seed; and the Husbandmen.