2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous assumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from the correct one. Of S. Mark’s practice of making “_extracts_,” I know nothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ “larger accounts” which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence, nor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some of the chiefest things which took place after our LORD’S Resurrection,—is simply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the Evangelist is in consequence either “abrupt” or “sententious,”(252) I yet recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon should _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the Evangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing? 3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to call “sententious” and “abrupt.” Take twelve verses in his first chapter, as an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess myself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the twelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark’s _first_ chapter, which are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from his _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as in Greek:— (_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.)