very generally allowed, that it was either written under the direction, or subjected to the revision, of the apostle Peter. Clemens Alexandrinus asserts the latter; and Mr Jones, an eminent critic, in support of this opinion, has collected eight particulars from the other Gospels, all tending to the honour of Peter, which are entirely omitted by Mark, because Peter's humility, as he supposes, would not allow him to tell these things to that evangelist. Jerome has strangely enough asserted that Mark's Gospel is an abridgment of that by Matthew; and in this I perceive he has been followed by an old writer Chemnitius, the author of a Harmony of the Gospels, who says that Mark wrote after having read Matthew's Gospel, with the view of arranging his facts. This is easily disproved by a simple reference to Mark's Gospel, in which there are no less than seven instances in which he introduces circumstances at considerable length, which Matthew has omitted altogether, and many instances in which his accounts are more full and particular than those of either Matthew or Luke. From the last verse of his Gospel, in which he says the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following," it appears that Mark wrote his Gospel some time after the Gospel had been preached, and after Matthew and Luke; but there is no evidence of his having copied from them, or even been aided by having their accounts before him. The Divine authority of this Gospel is beyond all dispute. Though Mark was not an apostle, any more than Luke, it is evident that they wrote under the inspiration of the same Spirit, which probably descended on them, with the other disciples, on the day of Pentecost. Dr Macknight notices an unquestionable matter of fact, which, he says, "fully establishes the authority of the Gospels by Mark and Luke, namely, that they were written by the persons whose names they bear, and while most of the apostles were alive; for, in that case, they must have been perused by the apostles, and approved, as is certain from their being universally received in the earliest ages, and handed down to posterity as of undoubted authority. The apostolical approbation was the only thing, without the inspiration of the writers, which could give these books the reputation which they obtained; and had it been wanting in any degree, they must have shared the fate of the many accounts which Luke speaks of in his preface—that is, must have been neglected as imperfect or spurious, and so have quickly perished. But if the Gospels of Mark and Luke were approved by the apostles immediately upon their publication, and for that reason were received by all Christians, and handed down to posterity as of undoubted authority, it is the same as if they had been dictated by the apostles."* The Doctor seems to suppose, that unless the Gospels had been dictated by apostles, however authentic, they could not be called inspired writings. But of this they bear every internal evidence; in this sense were they received by them. We would go farther, and assert, that unless they had been considered by the apostles as inspired writings, they would not have been admitted into the canon of Scripture. But let us now come to the Gospel itself; and the first thing that strikes us as a general characteristic, is its brevity. It is by far the shortest Gospel, containing only 16 chapters, while John has 21, Luke 24, Macknight's Harmony 1.81. and Matthew 28. Calculating the length of some of Matthew's chapters, his Gospel amounts to nearly double the size of Mark's. This extreme brevity, which necessarily excludes a great many facts, parables, and discourses, recorded by the other evangelists, has no doubt contributed to that comparative neglect of Mark's Gospel, which we have noticed. Few preachers think of fixing upon it as the subject of lecture, having other three Gospels so much richer in matter, and comprehensive in design. Matthew Henry himself speaks of it as only useful "to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing Gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest they slip." And thus, while Matthew is admired for the copiousness of his details, Luke for the completeness and elegance of his narrative, and John for the rich extracts he has given from the discourses of our Lord, Mark is passed by with little notice; read, indeed, in the ordinary course, but regarded rather as a supplement, or an abridgment, the interest of which depends on materials which may be found much more attractively handled by the other evangelists. How far this is deserved we shall endeavour to show immediately; meanwhile, we may say a word regarding the style of Mark. In the opinion of eminent critics, his language is far removed from classic elegance and purity. Michaëlis says, "Of all the writers of the New Testament, Mark has written the worst Greek."* When we consider that he will hardly allow any of the writers of the New Testament to have written good Greek, we must suppose that Mark's Greek must be very bad indeed. It is but justice, however, to add, that this learned critic does not regard this as a blemish affecting the inspiration of the sacred writers. "It is affectation," he says, "and in some measure an affront to the reader, to seem ashamed of a language which he speaks in common with the writer; and it is highly probable, that if the New Testament had been written in Attic purity, it would have been unintelligible to many of its earliest readers, who had never read the doctrines of religion in any other than Jewish Greek." Again, "No inference can be thence deduced against Divine inspiration. A series of repeated miracles would have been necessary, if apostles born and educated in Judea had written without Hebraisms; and these miracles would have produced a useless and even prejudicial effect. Had the New Testament been written with classic purity, it must have excited suspicion of a forgery; and I candidly confess, that I should be put to a severe trial, if I found in these writings the language of Xenophon and Plutarch, and were still bound to believe them genuine. In short, a classical or unclassical style has no more influence on the divinity of the New Testament, than the elegance or inelegance of the hand in which it is written, or the accuracy or inaccuracy of the pronunciation in which it is uttered." (i. 119.) How much more sensible, and worthy of a philosopher, are these remarks, than the impious scurrility of Cardinal Bembo, who declared he durst not read the Bible, for fear of spoiling his £ne Ciceronian style; though, as Blackwall save it would be easy to name two chapters in the New Testament, even considered as a comm book, that have more sense and genuine huty of language, than all Bembo's six hooks of Familiar Letters. I do not pretend to be a connoisseur in classical Greek, and in * Introduction to the New Testament, i. 168. Blackwall's Sacred Classics, p. 193. was this matter would bend to the opinion of those written his for the benefit of the Gentiles as well as who are better qualified to judge; but I can tell Jews. The former, he observes, when they happen when a writer succeeds in pleasing me-in inte- to speak of matters peculiar to their own country, resting my mind and affecting my heart. I do generally give no explanation of them; they are at no not think that Blackwall is always happy in vindi- pains to obviate objections which might occur to cating the sacred writers against the charge of barba- strangers; and they follow the Jewish form of comrisms and solecisms, nor do I think there was any putation in speaking of the hours of the day. John, need for doing so; but he has said a great many on the contrary, supposes his readers ignorant of sensible things on the general subject, and I would Jewish affairs, and for that reason never mentions advise all to read his Sacred Classics at the same time any thing peculiar to the Jews without giving an exwith Campbell's Dissertations, for Campbell has done plication of it-of which he gives several examples. him but scrimp justice in his severe animadversions. Besides, he always adopts the Roman mode of comBeza was an excellent Greek scholar (as good any puting the hours of the day. The truth of these reday as Erasmus); and yet, though he granted there marks, so far as they apply to John, may be readily were solecisms and inaccuracies of language (accord- granted; but I scruple to rank Mark among those ing to the standard of the Greek classics) in the writ- that wrote in Judea, and merely for the use of the ings of the apostles, he considered this, in their case, Jews. Mark is generally supposed by the fathers rather as a virtue than a vice-Sed illud virtutem non to have written his Gospel at Rome; for this reason, vitium appello. For, after severely reprehending that Paul orders Timothy to bring Mark with him to Erasmus for saying that the language of the apostles Rome, because he was profitable to him for the minisnot only rugged and unpolished, but imperfect, try (2 Tim. iv. 11): and there are various internal confused, and full of solecisms, so that the Greek evidences that this evangelist wrote under the iminterpreters sweat over these writers, while Demos- pression, at least, that his history would be perused by thenes and Plato are quite easy and perspicuous to foreigners unacquainted with Jewish customs. I them”—a circumstance which he explains by referring | might refer to a striking illustration of this in chap. to the nature of the topics treated by the sacred vii. 2: 66 When they saw some of his disciples eat writers he maintains that the simplicity, and even bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) the solecisms, of these writers were necessary for the hands, they found fault." And not content with this sake of those with whom they had principally to deal, explanation, which would have been quite superfluous and formed a part of the plan by which it pleased to a Jew, he adds, "For the Pharisees and all the God to confound the wise men of this world; that the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holdintermixture of Hebraisms (which he says the Holy ing the tradition of the elders. And when they come Spirit could easily have remedied had he chosen to from the market, except they wash, they eat not. do so) was in like manner necessary to express the And many other things there be, which they have mysteries of religion; which, had they been delivered received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, in a new set of vocables and phrases, would not have brazen vessels, and of tables." I may venture to say been understood by the Jews (who would have that without such an explanation as this, we would thought it was some new doctrine), and hardly by the hardly be able to understand even what John says of Gentiles. And speaking of the simplicity of the lan- the "six water-pots of stone set after the manner of guage, "I am so far," says he, "from blaming that, the purifying of the Jews," at the marriage of Cana. that I cannot sufficiently admire it. When Paul is in It may be noticed that Mark is fond of introducing his thundering mood, I can conceive nothing more Hebrew words, especially those used by Christ; but powerful. In his admonitory passages, what gentle- he always translates them. "It is corban, that is to ness, what alluring eloquence! Take for example his say, a gift." "Tabitha cumi, which is, being interparting speech to the Church at Ephesus; who can preted, Damsel, arise." He calls the hall into which read it without tears? What gravity is there in John! the soldiers led Christ the prætorium. And it has What freedom and majesty appear in Peter! I must been remarked by Michaëlis, as one of Mark's pecudeclare what I feel-that there are no writers extant liarities, that he has more Latinisms, or Latin words who, in virtue of their simplicity, exert such an in- in Greek letters, than all the other evangelists or fluence over the pious mind, as the writers of the apostles. (i. 163.) It may be a mere fancy on my New Testament." part, but if we can suppose that the evangelists formed their Gospels on separate plans, primarily adapted to different classes or nations, I would be disposed to say that Matthew, being a Levite and a native of Judea, wrote his Gospel expressly for the Jews of Judea; that Luke, being the fellow-labourer of the apostle Paul in his journeyings through the early Churches, wrote his principally for the Jews and proselytes of the dispersion; that John, living chiefly in Greece and Asia Minor, wrote his Gospel for the Greeks; and that Mark, having been at Rome, wrote his Gospel with an eye to the Romans. These, however, are little better than conjectures. To apply these rambling observations to the subject before us, I may venture to say, that if we except our literary pedants, our modern Bembos and Erasmuses, it requires only an unprejudiced mind to admire the simplicity, the homeliness, and heartiness of the style of the evangelist Mark. Who is there, that, in reading Shakspeare, would think less of his genius on account of his solecisms? or who complains of inelegance of style in perusing the Pilgrim's Progres? Simplicity, however, differs from vulgarity; and there is no reason for asserting that Mark spoke the vulgar dialect of the lower classes of Judea; the best Greek spoken there must, no doubt, have offended the polite ear of Athenian. Macknight has remarked that Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to have composed their histories in Judea, for the use of the Jews, and to forward their conversion; whereas John seems evidently to have * Beza on New Testament. Acts x. 46. Let us proceed to point out the peculiar uses of Mark's Gospel, as distinguished from the rest. And here I need not dwell on the additional confirmation given to the sacred history by having a fourth witness to the same truths recorded by the other evangelists. Viewing them as witnesses, deponing to the truth of the facts of our Lord's history, the advantage of their combined and harmonious testimony, as an argument of the credibility of that history, is very apparent. The attestation of two witnesses agreeing in the most minute particulars, affords a high presumption of the truth of their depositions; the addition of a third, telling the same story, in other words but without contradiction, renders the proof still stronger; but if a fourth witness comes forward, equally credible, deponing to the same facts, telling his story in the most simple and natural manner to the same purpose, and at the same time with such variations in details and circumstances as clearly show no copying from or connivance with the rest, no intelligent jury would refuse a verdict in their favour, no candid inquirer would scruple to yield credence to their narrative. It is needless to dwell on this. The harmony of the four Gospels, has, in all ages of the Church, formed a favourite study of the friends of truth: much has been written on it. Calvin's, Lardner's, Doddridge's, and Macknight's, are standard works on this subject; but after all, there is room left for others, if qualified and inclined, to improve upon all their predecessors. A popular work on the subject, in the style of Paley's Hora Paulinæ, seems still to be required. But Mark is not merely to be considered as an additional witness, corroborating the testimony of the other evangelists; he has considerably added to the stock of our information regarding our Saviour, by recording facts and sayings, which are altogether omitted by the other evangelists. To Mark we are indebted for the beautiful parable of the seed which sprang up silently (chap. iv. 26), "bringing forth the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear"-a parable which may be said to father itself, though it had appeared in the writings of a heathen moralist. The miracle wrought on the deaf stam merer of Decapolis (chap. vii. 31.), to whom our Lord said, "Eph-phatha, Be opened, when straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain" (the only example of the literal fulfilment of the prophecy, "The tongue of the stammerer shall speak plainly")and the miracle on the blind man of Bethsaida, who looked up and said, "I see men, as trees, walking "—would have been lost had not Mark recorded them. To him we owe, likewise, the interesting anecdote of the young man who followed Christ after his apprehension, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. It is not, however, in bringing out new facts not adverted to by his brother historians, that the useful. ness of Mark's Gospel chiefly appears, so much as in the additional circumstances with which he reports those which they had introduced. There is hardly a single incident in the history of our Lord, but what has received from the simple handling of Mark some touch or turn of his own which sets off its beauty, enhances its wonder, or enforces its moral lesson. As an instance of this, I might refer to the account of the scribe who came with the question, " Which is the first commandment of all?" (xii. 28) which differs so materially from the analogous passage in Matt. xxii. 35, that we might suppose (were it not for the connexion) it refers to a totally different person and occasion. Matthew says a lawyer asked him the question, tempting him; but Mark gives another turn to the anecdote, by telling us that after the answer which the scribe gave him, which he gives at length, "When Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." The scribe, it appears, began by tempting him, but was compelled at length to answer discreetly; and after that no man durst ask Jesus any more questions. Besides this, the relation of the storm at sea (iv. 35)--the cure of the demoniac at Gadara (v. 1)-the healing of the woman that had the bloody flux, and the resurrection of Jairus* daughter (v. 21)-the Baptist's death (vi. 14)-the cure of the epileptic boy, with the manner in which the devil tore him (ix., 14)—the miracle wrought on the blind beggars at Jericho (x. 46), and the cursing of the fig tree (xi. 12), are all related more distinctly, and with more circumstances, than by either Matthew, Luke, or John. Instead of quoting these passages at length, it may prove more interesting, perhaps, if I should point out what appear to me to be the leading characteristics of Mark as a sacred historian. 1. We have already noticed simplicity as distinguishing the evangelists from all other writers; but Mark may be considered as of all, the most simple. In all the three kinds of simplicity enumerated by Dr Campbell in his Third Dissertation-the simplicity of composition, of sentiment, and of design-this evangelist certainly excels. There is a childlike and charming náireté about all he says, and his manner of saying it, which must be felt rather than described. The frequent repetition of the particle, and which has been held as a blemish, tends only, in our view, to enhance this quality. Take the following at random for an example: "And again he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door; and he preached the word to them." (ii. 1.) He delights in noticing the popularity of the Saviour, and never omits mentioning the great crowds that followed him, while at the same time he commends his modesty and humility in charging those he healed to tell no man: "And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion." 2. Mark is characterized by extraordinary minuteness of observation. He notices a great many little things which seem not to have struck the other evangelists. This appears in his mentioning some curious and interesting facts omitted by the rest; such as, that "Herod did many things, and heard John gladly;" that "the common people heard Jesus gladly;" that the friends of Jesus thought he was "beside himself;" that the testimony of the false witnesses against Christ did not agree together; that Simon the Syrenian was the father of Alexander and Rufus; and other particulars of the same nature. He appears to have had a turn for observing minute circumstances, gestures, tones, looks, and words-incidents trifling in themselves, but interesting from the occasion with which they were connected. Luke tell us that "Men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy?"-Mark informs us that he was "borne of four." Dees Matthew say that during the storm, Christ was asleep?-Mark says "He was in the hind part of the ship, asleep on a pillow." Do the est tell us that "when the disciples come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread?"---Mark adds, Neither had they in the ship with them more than me loaf." (viik 14.) Matthew tells us simply that a woman was diseased with an Does issue of blood twelve years; Luke adds that she spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any; but Mark satisfies our curiosity still further by informing us that she had "suffered many things of many physicians, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse." How vividly does he bring the scene before us, when after the woman had touched the hem of Christ's garment, and felt in her body that she was healed of that plague, we are told by our historian, that "Jesus, immediately knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? and the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth." This is evidently the testimony of an eye-witness; for what historian who was not on the spot, or at least wrote from the immediate dictation of one who had been on the spot, would ever have thought of noticing such circumstances as these? Another peculiarity which gives a very graphic, I might almost say dramatic effect to the story of our evangelist is, that he generally reports the very words of the personages he introduces. Thus, while Matthew and Luke merely say, "He arose and rebuked the winds and the waves, and there was a calm," Mark says, "He arose and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still! And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm." (iv. 39.) 3. In connexion with this, I may observe that Mark is distinguished by a sententious brevity of expression. To him we are indebted for some of the most striking remarks in the Gospels--several precious apothegms, which dwell on the memory, and, like mottoes, comprise within the narrowest possible compass and concisest phraseology, a world of meaning. Such are the following, among others: "Be not afraid; only believe."-"He hath done all things well; he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak ""But he could not be hid." I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch."—"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."--" She hath done what she could." "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to ecery creature," &c. "What I 4. I might here take occasion to observe, that if we may suppose Peter to have either dictated any of the facts of Mark's Gospel or revised it, there are some curious allusions to him, indicative of his gratitude as well as his humility. One critic, as we have seen, has remarked several instances of the latter grace, in the omission by Mark of several incidents redounding to the credit of that apostle. There is no mention made, for example, of the high encomium our Lord passed on Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas," &c. We may notice in addition to this, that there is hardly an instance in which Peter was to be blamed that is omitted by Mark. have observed, too, that on the occasion of Peter rebuking Jesus, and saying, "This be far from thee, Lord," Mark distinctly tells us that, when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, "he rebuked Peter." Peter may have thought on the words of the psalmist, "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness;" but it is to be observed that Mark in forms us, before this, as the reason why Peter rebuked his Master, that " he spake that saying openly" -namely, about his sufferings and death. Peter could not bear to hear his Master, after straitly charging them not to speak of his transfiguration, openly speaking to his enemies about his crucifixion. It is curious, too, to find that Mark is the only one who tells us that the cock crew thrice before Peter remembered the words of his Master--a fact which certainly goes to enhance his guilt, for he may thus be said to have had double warning--the first crowing of the cock, as well as Christ's prediction. There is a beautiful instance, too, of Peter's grateful reminiscence of his Master's forgiveness and tender mercy, implied in the particular mention of his name (peculiar to Mark) in the message of the angel after the resurrection: "Go tell my disciples, and Peter.” 5. I shall only notice another trait, which I consider the most striking in the character of this evangelist, viz., his frequent allusions to the human affections and emotions of Jesus. From the other evangelists, indeed, we may easily conclude how Jesus felt, from the manner in which he expressed himself; but Mark tells us how he felt. In the case of the man with the withered hand, when the Pharisees were watching whether he would heal him on the Sabbath-day, Luke merely tells us that "Jesus knew their thoughts;" Mark says, "He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." On the occasion when they brought little children to him, and the disciples rebuked them, while the other evangelists merely relate what Jesus said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not;" Mark takes care to inform us, that "when Jesus saw it he was much displeased" with his disciples. And beautiful as the account is in any of the Gospels, it becomes more so in Mark's, by his appending the touching circumstance, that he took up the little children in his arms," and that "he blessed them." The others mention that Christ sometimes marvelled, or expressed his admiration at the faith of some who came to him; but it was reserved for Mark to apprize us of the fact, that he marvelled at the unbelief of others which laid as it were an embargo on his saving power, (vi. 5) :—" And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hand upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief." The rest tell us how the Pharisees provoked our Lord, by asking of him a sign; but how much further are we let, as it were, into the very breast of "the Man of sorrows," when we are told by our historian, that "he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, Why doth this generation seek after a sign?" (viii. 12.) The others frequently speak of Jesus being moved with compassion for the multitude; how much pathetic meaning is there in the addition of Mark: "Because they were as sheep not having a shepherd." And what a flood of light is thrown on the character of the man Christ Jesus, when he informs us, with regard to the amiable young ruler who came to him, that "Jesus beholding him, loved him.” With this I shall close my observations on the character of Mark and his Gospel. It will not be imagined that it has been my intention to extol his Gospel above all the rest. If comparisons are admissible at all in this matter, there can be no doubt that his is in many respects inferior to those of Matthew, Luke, or John. Those evangelists are much fuller, more interesting, and more edifying than Mark, who confines himself almost entirely to the description of facts. My object has been to rescue this portion of the New Testament from a species of obscurity, if not of contempt, into which it has undeservedly, in The review my opinion, been permitted to fall. which I have given, while it may allure the reader into the study of Biblical criticism, will, I trust, inspire him with increasing respect for the Scripture, and admiration of the Divine wisdom in every portion of its contents. And it may be useful to explain to him in some degree, the reason why even enlightened men, and men of letters, who it might be supposed would, by the prejudices of education, be shocked with the inelegancies and vulgarisms (as they would account them) of the sacred writers, have yet (to use the words of Dr Campbell) "found a secret and irresistible attraction, which overcame all their prepossessions, and compelled them to acknowledge, that no writers could so effectually convey conviction to the understanding, and reformation to the heart, as these poor, homely, artless, and unlettered Galileans.” II. YOUR FATHERS, WHERE ARE THEY? OR, MEMORIALS OF THE DISRUPTION MINISTERS. "THE memory of the just is blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot."-Such is the verdict of the wisest of the sons of men, and all experience confirms it. For a season, the wicked may be exalted, and the just put down. Persecution may threaten to annihilate, and the persecutor appear to get success in his iniquity. But there is a God that judgeth in the earth, and sooner or later the day of righteous retribution comes. The victim of oppression is exalted, and his memory is embalmed as that of a martyr, while the oppressor is laden with the ignominy that should ever attach to guilt. Premonitions these of the results that will follow the last grand assize, when all that is disordered and distempered here will be put right by Him who ruleth over all, and doeth all well. Dives on the one hand, and Lazarus on the other, are the exponents of that righteous retribution. It is known to those who are versant in the history of the worthies of other days, that ample memorials have been prepared and preserved of the two thousand ministers who were ejected from their churches in England, chiefly by the Act of Uniformity, on the 24th of August, in the year 1662, soon after the restoration of Charles II. Dr Edmund Calamy wrote or compiled the biographies of very many of those persecuted men. Cotton Mather, in his History of New England, has had occasion to advert at length to the same subjects, and the religious literature of that eventful period is deeply imbued with the spirit of those devoted men-men who abandoned their all on earth, and faced poverty or exile rather than submit to a tyrant's interference with the rights of conscience, or suffer men to do what God alone can appoint and guide. The memory of such men was not permitted to die, and record after record embodied the history of their steadfastness, their sacrifices, and their sufferings. As far as could be ascertained, the exact number who seceded, or were forcibly driven from the English Establishment, amounted to two thousand two hundred and fiftyseven, comprehending all orders of the working clergy, the actual ministers of the body, rectors, vicars, lecturers, aud curates. And the copious collections of Dr Calamy regarding them were subsequently abridged by Samuel Palmer of Hackney. The Nonconformists of England continue to point to their high lineage as the descendants or representa tives of the men whom Calamy and Palmer thus rescued, in many cases, from oblivion. The pilgrim fathers, who carried religion to America, and planted it so deeply in the land of their exile, are now as much honoured as they were of old persecuted and maligned. Even men who have swerved from their principles and tenets, yet boast of their descent from those men; so that, after years or centuries of obloquy, they have emerged into the place and prominence which Providence had assigned to them as the benefactors of mankind, the guardians or the heroes of religious liberty, and therefore of civil freedom. When Calamy, and subsequently Palmer, prepared their compilations, much difficulty was encountered, and many errors were committed, owing to the lapse of years. The names of some of the sufferers were omitted, while others who had for a time appeared zealous and steadfast, but who afterwards yielded to considerations of interest, or were allured by the love of man's smile, to abandon their principles or make shipwreck of a good conscience, were enrolled among the ejected and the honoured. It cost no little inquiry, research, and labour, to secure a perfectly accurate account of those who endured so much for truth and conscience' sake. Now, we also have had our Bartholomew day-the 18th of May 1843; and its corresponding act-Lord Aberdeen's. Men, in hundreds, have been compelled by these to sacrifice all that is commonly reckoned important or precious on earth, that they might be faithful to the Lord of conscience. As in the days of Charles II. and the Nonconformists, efforts have been made, and language employed, calculated to ensnare and perplex the minds of those who were otherwise abundantly tried by the difficulty, in some cases, of discovering the path of duty. It cannot be told what havoc was wrought upon principle, on the one hand, when men were successfully bribed to trample on duty and conscience, nor the pain inflicted, on the other, upon those who were surrounded with difficulties, and seemed to have no prospect or resort but penury. Would it not be a cause of regret to suffer the memorial of such men to perish? Would it not be a token that their decision was not prized, nor their sufferings sympathized in as they ought, did we allow the effacing touch of time to obliterate the remembrance of what the ministers of the Scottish Disruption were enabled to do and to endure. We would be far from heaping eulogy on man. Even among the class to whom we now refer, events have happened which should hide pride from all, as they show that all are not Israel that are called Israel. whom the glory alone pertains, has in many ways signally rebuked our glorying in men; and we would beware lest we repeat that transgression. But, on the other hand, seeing that Omniscience has been pleased to instruct us in Scripture mainly by biographies, as the lessons of God's Word are not announced in cold abstractions, but in the acts of living agents, the lessons of his providence are conveyed by the same instrumentality; and these we would endeavour succinctly to deduce and to perpetuate. We would take up and re-echo the sentiments of Noel"The act they have performe, he said, speaking of the ministers of the Free Church, " is imperishable; the men themselves will live in future history; and next to the honour of having had the vigour to do and to dare as they have done, is the satisfaction of honouring them. We do but anticipate the verdict of posterity, when all passion shall have been hushed, He, to |