where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder, one from the other; and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed towards Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." (Acts xv. 36-41.)

It would not be difficult with the aid of the ingenuity sometimes displayed in the interpretation, as it is called, of Holy Scripture, and perhaps without any very preposterous distortion of the words of this passage, to deduce from it a meaning widely different from its usual acceptation. It would be easy to begin by shewing how the determinations of these Apostles originated in principles that need no vindication. The interest felt by Barnabas for Mark, who was his sister's son, was a natural affection, arising out of near relationship and habitual intercourse, probably heightened by his nephew's destitution of a father's care; and stimulated to anxiety by a knowledge of his fickle disposition, and consequent peculiar liability to the dangers which surrounded a youth

2

2 Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, saluteth you. Col. iv. 10.

ful convert. It was natural also for him to indulge an amiable confidence that a relative (who in the sequel received an honorable testimony from St. Paul') would not again be guilty of an unbecoming irresolution, of which, it seems, he had already repented; but, that on the contrary, his character would acquire under their mutual guidance that measure of consistency, which his profession demanded. Paul, on the other hand, uninfluenced by that regard to relative claims and sympathies, which was in his companion a virtuous instinct, and under the workings of that more universal anxiety, which "came upon him daily" in his "care of all the churches," thought it not good, deemed it inconsistent with the general welfare, to take with them a man notorious for impotent resolution, and an unsettled mind, who had incurred their censures on a former occasion, and whose frivolity might prejudice the solemn undertaking in which they were then about to engage.

So far there can be no difficulty in explaining the conduct of Paul and Barnabas, whatever be our opinion as to the comparative soundness of their views. We have only to give them that permission, which to them at

1 Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 2 Tim. iv. 11.

least can scarcely be denied, of acting on the convictions of their own judgment, and allow them to "contend earnestly" for the pursuance of those convictions, on an occasion which both believed deserving of contention. We have only to assume that inference which may not unfairly be deduced from the injunction, "be ye angry, and sin not;" and we have gone far towards the exculpation of a transaction, which has been charged with a degree of guilt in every age since its occurrence. And what further may be necessary to this special defence, may be supplied from the considerations, that their partnership in duty was now no longer needful to their cause-that they were themselves every way prepared to estimate the effects derivable either from united or divided laboursthat whatever warmth of expression may have been elicited during the discussion, the "charity" that "hopeth all things" would reject the supposition, that their subsequent pursuit of different paths originated in the animosity of petulant feeling-that it is but an act of justice to their acknowledged zeal and integrity to believe that, finding how conscientiously they differed on the propriety of a measure, which admitted of no alternative but agreement or separation, they arranged between themselves their respective spheres of duty, "and so Bar

nabas took Mark, and sailed towards Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God."

Unworthy of regard as we might otherwise consider a construction at variance with the natural tenor of expression, and drawing around it a miserable substitute for consistency, made up of a partial quotation of one text, and a violent and undiscriminating abuse of another—a construction, moreover, which interpolates between two members of a sentence, united by the connection of proximate cause and effect, a series of qualifying suppositions inconsistent with the implied sense of the writer-the utter inconclusiveness of any arguments deduced from a passage admitting of more than one character, renders it necessary that its import be first established, and that a false but specious interpretation be formally exposed before it is rejected.

There are undoubtedly expressions in Scripture, which we cannot receive in their most literal sense. Some qualifications are at once required and furnished by an attentive comparison of Scripture with Scripture; and some are justly warranted by the laws of language. Of the first kind is the explanation of those words of St. John, "Whosoever is born of

God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.' Of the other may be that of St. Paul's exclamation, so eloquently expressive of impassioned sympathy, "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”2 And other instances might be adduced, where a prudent qualification is manifestly just. But, when the terms of a sentence are simple and perspicuous-when they include no obvious ambiguity of phrase-when they involve no contradiction intrinsic or collateral-when their most natural tenor harmonizes with the circumstances with which they stand connected-when it accords with principles admitting of no dispute, whether relative to human character or divine truth-it is then something more than imprudent or uncandid—it is criminal to pervert them from their simple meaning. It is to commit a sin against the Spirit, who prompted them, and a sacrilege on that sanctuary of our own conscience, where truth and candour should remain inviolate.

Let any one examine attentively the words of St. Luke, taking into account the feelings which would be naturally suggested to both parties by their respective situations, and the

1 1 John iii. 9.

B

2 Romans ix. 3.