Page images
PDF
EPUB

And now, very probably, he converfed again with Peter, and the other Apoftles, and was prefent with them at their difcourfes, and their devotions. For, as I apprehend, all the Apoftles were ftill in Judea except James the fon of Zebedee, who had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa, in the beginning of the year 44.

Paul and Barnabas having finished their progreffe, returned to Antisch, and there abode. Whilft they were there, debates arofe about circumcifing Gentil converts. Which determined Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerufalem. That controverfie being decided, they returned to Antioch.

Some time afterwards Paul faid unto Barnabas: Let us go again, and visit our brethren, in every city, where we have preached the word, and fee how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whofe furname was Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, whe bad departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. Barnabas, however, perfifted in his refolution, and went with Mark to Cyprus. And Paul chofe Silas to accompany him. Acts xv. 36....41.

Hereby we perceive the good temper of Mark. He was now at Antisch, and was willing to attend Paul and Barnabas in their journeys, and actually went with Barnabas to Cyprus. And though Paul would not now accept of his attendance, he was afterwards fully reconciled to him. Mark is mentioned in feveral of his epiftles fent from Rome, during his confinement there. I fuppofe, I fhall hereafter fhew, that St. Paul's fecond epiftle to Timothie was writ in the fummer of the year 61. not long after Paul's arrival at Rome. In that epiftle he writes to Timathie, to come to him. And he defires him to bring Mark with him. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the miniftrie. Where Mark then was, does not clearly appear. It is probable, that he was either at Ephefus, or at fome other place, where Timothie would find him in his journey from Ephefus to Rome. And, unquestionably, Mark did come with Timothie. He is mentioned in two of the epiftles writ by the Apoftle at Rome. Philem. ver. 24. and Col. iv. 10. Ariftarchus falutes you, and Mark, fifter's fon to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments. If he come unto you, receive him. Mark is not mentioned in the epiftle to the Philippians. Perhaps he was not acquainted there, or upon fome occafion was abfent from the Apostle, when that epiftle was writ. Or rather, he is comprehended in thofe general expreffions. ch. iv. 21. The brethren that are with me, greet you. For in the epiftle to the Philippians St. Paul does not mention his fellow-laborers by name, as he does in the epiftles to the Coloffians, and to Philemon. Nor is he mentioned in the epistle to the Ephefians. To those who admit the true date of that epiftle the reafon will be obvious. It was writ, and fent away, before Mark came to be with St. Paul at Rome.

This is all we can fay concerning St. Mark from the New Testament. But from that we can collect his excellent character, and may conclude, that after this time he no longer attended on Paul. It is not improbable, that going now into Afia, he there met with St. Peter, and accompanied him, till that Apoftle came to Rome, where he fuffered mar

3

tyrdom.

tyrdom. Where likewife Mark wrote, and published the Gospel that goes by his name.

From other writers.

III. We will now inquire, whether there is any thing is other writers to illuftrate the hiftorie of this Evangelift. Cave fays, without hesitation, that (n) Mark was a Levite. But he does not fay, upon what authority. I do not remember, that it is in any of the writers, of which I have given a particular account, excepting (0) Bede. It is alfo in a commentarie upon St. Mark's Gospel, ufually joyned with Jerome's works, though (p) allowed not to be his.. That writer fays, that (9) Mark was a Levite, and a Prieft. It is not unlikely, that this was inferred from Mark's relation to Barnabas, who was a Levite of Cyprus. Comp. Acts. iv. 36. and Col. iv. 10. But then Cave fhould not have denied, as he does in the fame place, that Mark the Evangelift is the fame as John Mark, mentioned in the Acts. For that, as I apprehend, is to remove out of the way the fole ground of this opinion.

By Eufebe we are informed, it (r) was faid, that Mark going into Egypt, first preached there the Gofpel, which he had writ, and planted there many churches. And afterwards, in another chapter, he says, that (s) in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first Bishop of Alexandria after Mark, the Apostle and Evangelift, took upon him the care of that church. Of which Anianus he gives a great character, as beloved of God, and a wonderful man.

Epiphanius fays, that foon after Matthew, Mark, companion of Peter, compofed his Gofpel at Rome. And having (t) writ it, he was fent by Peter into the countrey of the Egyptians.

Jerome, in his article of St. Mark, as (u) before quoted, after other things, fays: "Taking (*) the Gospel, which himself had compofed, he

"went

(n) S. Marcus, Evangelifta, quem cum Johanne Marco, de quo Act. xii. 12. male nonnulli confundunt, erat Levites. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

(0) Tradunt autem hunc, natione Ifraelitica, et facerdotali ortum profapia, ac poft paffionem ac refurrectionem Domini Salvatoris, ad prædicationem Apoftolorum Evangelica fide a facramentis imbutum, atque ex corum fuiffe numero, de quibus fcribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba facerdotum obediebat fidei. Bed. Prol. in. Marc.

(p) Vid. Benedictin. Monitum, et Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. H. 21. num, vi. p. 88.

(q) Marcus Evangelifta Dei, Petri difcipulus, Leviticus genere, et facerdos, in Italia hoc fcripfit Evangelium. Praf. in Marc. ap. Hierom. T. v. p. 886. (*) Τῶτον δὲ μάρκον πρῶτον φασιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀιγύπτε τειλάμενον, τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ὃ δὴ καὶ συνεγράψατο κηρύξαι, ἐκκλησίας τε πρῶτον ἐπ' αὐτῆς αλεξανδρείας συζήσασε εθαι. κ. λο H. E. 1. 2. cap. 16.

(s)... πρῶτος μετὰ μάρκον τὸν ἀπόςολον καὶ ἐυαγγέλισην, τῆς ἐν αλεξανδρεία παροικίας ἀννιανὸς τὴν λειτεργίαν διαδέχεται ανής θεόφιλος καὶ πάντα θαυμάσιος. Ib. cap. 24.

...

καὶ γράψας ἀποςέλλεται ὑπὸ τὰ ἀγία πέτρα εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀιγυπτίων χώρ H. 51. num. vi.

(u) Vol. x. p. 92. 93.

(x) Affumto itaque Evangelio, quod ipfe confecerat, perrexit ad Ægyptum, et primus Alexandriæ Chriftum annuntians conftituit ecclefiam... Denique Philo. videns Alexandriæ primam ecclefiam adhuc judaizantem, quafi in

laudem

"went to Egypt, and at Alexandria founded a church of great note... "He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria, "where he was fucceeded, as Bishop, by Anianus,”

From all these accounts, I think, it must appear to be probable, that if indeed Mark preached at all in Egypt, and founded a church at Alexandria; it muft have been after he had writ his Gofpel, and after the death of Peter and Paul at Rome. Nevertheless, when presently afterwards Eufebe, and Jerome likewife, fpeak of Mark's converts, and Philo's Therapeuts, as all one, they feem to have imagined, that Mark had very early preached in Egypt. But what they fay upon that head is exceeding ftrange and unaccountable. For they both fuppofe, that Mark had writ his gospel at Rome, before he went into Egypt: and that his Gofpel was not writ before the reign of Nero. If therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria, it was later, in the fame reign: and Philo's Therapeuts could not be Chriftians, nor Mark's converts: but were a fort of people, who had a being, and had formed their inftitution, before the gospel could be published in Egypt, and before the rife of the Chriftian Religion.

By Baronius (y) and many others, it is faid, that St. Mark died a Martyr. This is admitted by (z) Cave, and the (a) late Mr. Wetstein. But it is difputed by (b) S. Bafnage: and, as feems to me, with good reafon. For St. Mark is not spoken of as a Martyr by Eufebe, or other more ancient writers. And Jerome, as before quoted, fays, St. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria. He does not fay, that he was crowned with martyrdom: as he would have done, if he had known of it. And his expreffions feem to imply a natural death. Fabricius (c) in his account of St. Mark, fays nothing of his having been a Martyr.

IV. Having thus writ the hiftorie of St. Mark, I fhall now recollect the teftimonies to his Gofpel, which we have Teftimonies to his Gafpel. feen in ancient writers, particularly, with a view of afcertaining the time of it: obferving likewise whatever may farther lead us into the knowledge of his station and character, and whether he was one of Christ's seventy difciples, or not.

The firft writer to be here taken notice of is Papias, about A. D. 116. He says, "That (d) the Elder, from whom he had divers infor"mations, faid: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote what he re" membred: but not in the order, in which things were spoken and done

66 by

laudem gentis fuæ, librum fuper eorum converfatione confcripfit. De V. L. (y) An. 64. § i. ii.

cap. 8.

(z) Alexandriæ primus Epifcopus factus Martyrium ibi fubiit: quo vero anno, mihi hactenus incompettum. H. L. p. 24.

(a) Tandem vero in Egyptum conceffiffe, atque Alexandriæ fanguine fu doctrinam Chrifti confirmaffe, hiftoria ecclefiaftica teftatur. 7. 7. Wetstein. N. T. Tom. I. p. 551.

(b) Ann. 66. num, xix. xx.

(c) Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. l. 4. cap. v. n. iii. Tom. 3, p. 130...

(d) Vol. i. p. 241

: 132+

"by Chrift. For he was not a hearer of the Lord, but afterwards fol"lowed Peter."

Irenaeus, as before (e) cited, about 178. fays: " After the death of "Peter and Paul, Mark, the difciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered "to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter." In another place (f) he calls Mark "the interpreter and follower of "Peter"

Clement, of Alexandria, about the year of Chrift 194. fays: " That (g) "Peter's hearers at Rome, not content with a fingle hearing, nor with an unwritten inftruction in the divine doctrine, entreated Mark, the "follower of Peter, that he would leave with them in writing a memo"rial of the doctrine, which had been delivered to them by word of "mouth. Nor did they defift, untill they had prevailed with him. Thus "they were the means of writing the Gofpel, which is called according "to Mark. It is faid, that when the Apostle knew what had been "done, he was pleafed with the zeal of the men, and authorifed that "fcripture to be read in the churches." That paflage is cited from Eufebe's Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie.

Again, Eufebe fays: "Clement (b) informs us, that the occafion of "writing the Gospel according to Mark was this. Peter, having pub"licly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the Gospel by the "Spirit, many who were there, entreated Mark to write the things that "had been fpoken, he having long accompanied Peter, and retaining "what he had said: and that when he had compofed the Gofpel, he de"livered it to them, who had asked it of him. Which when Peter knew, "he neither forbid it, nor encouraged it."

Many remarks were (i) formerly made upon these accounts of Clement, which cannot now be repeated. But it may be needful to fay fomething here for reconciling Irenaeus and him. Irenaeus faid, that Mark pubfifhed his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul: whereas Clement suppofes Peter to have been ftill, living, and that this Gospel was fhewn to Peter, who did not difapprove of it. But the difference is not great. Clement fays, that Mark's Gospel was writ at Rome at the request of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter. If fo, it could not be compofed long before Peter's death. For I take it to be certain, that Peter did not come to Rome, untill the reign of Nero was far advanced, nor very long before his own death. So that it may be reckoned not improbable, that Mark's Gofpel was not published, or did not become generally known, till after the death of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus lays.

Tertullian, about the year 200. fpeaks of Mark as (k) an apoftolical man, or companion of Apoftles: and fays, "That (1) the Gofpel, pub"lifhed by Mark, may be reckoned Peter's, whofe interpreter he

[merged small][ocr errors]

Says Origen, about 230. "The (m) fecond Gofpel is that according "to Mark, who wrote it as Peter dictated it to him. Who therefore "calls him his fon in his catholic epiftle." See 1 Peter v. 13.

(f) P. 357.
(i) Vol. i.p. 245... 249.

(e) Vol. i. p. 354.
(h) P. 475.
(k) See Vol. ii. p. 576... 588.
(m) Vol. viii. p. 235.

(8) Vol. ii. 472.

Eufebe,

Vol. ii. p. 476... 493.

(1) P. 581..

Eufebe, about 315. may be fuppofed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus, whofe paffages he has tranfcribed, and inferted in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. And in a long paffage of his Evangelical Demonftration, formerly (n) transcribed by us, he fays: "Peter out of abun"dance of modeftie thought not himself worthie to write a Gofpel. But "Mark, who was his friend and difciple, is faid to have recorded Peter's "relations of the acts of Jefus." At the end of which paffage he fays: "At "And (0) Peter teftifies these things of himfelf. For all things in Mark "are faid to be memoirs of Peter's difcourfes." He likewife fays, "that "(p) Mark was not prefent to hear what Jefus faid." Nor (4) does it appear, that he thought the writer of the Gospel to be John, furnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he supposed him to be the fame that is mentioned Pet. v. 13.

Mark is mentioned among the other Evangelifts by (r) Athanafius, without other particularities. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, and by many fuppofed to be writ by another Athanafius, Bishop of Alexandria, near the end of the fifth centurie, it is faid, "That (s) the Gospel ac "cording to Mark was dictated by Peter at Rome, and published by "Mark, and preached by him in Álexandria, and Egypt, and Pentapolis, " and Lybia."

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, about 330. says, that (t) Mark was one of Chrift's feventy difciples.

Epiphanius, about 368. fays: "Matthew (u) wrote firft, and Mark "foon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome." Afterwards he fays, "That (x) Mark was one of Chrift's seventy difciples, and like"wife one of those who were offended at the words of Christ, recorded "John vi. 44. and then forfook him: but he was afterwards recovered "by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit wrote a Gospel."

Upon the last paflage of Epiphanius Petavius says: “ Mark (y) might, "poffibly, have feen Chrift, and have been one of the feventy: but it is "faid by very few ancient writers of the Church."

In the Conftitutions Mark (z) is reckoned with Luke a fellow-laborer of Paul. Which may induce us to think, that the author fuppofed Mark, the Evangelift, to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and some of St. Paul's epiftles.

Gregorie Nazianzen fays, " That (a) Mark wrote his Gospel for the "Italians," or in Italie.

Ebedjefu fays, "The (b) fecond Evangelift is Mark, who preached [or wrote] in Latin, in the famous city of Rome."

Jerome's

[blocks in formation]

(u) P. 305:

() Vol. viii. p. 250.

[blocks in formation]

(t) P.255.
(x) P. 306.

) Diffentit Papias apud Eufebium.... Quod autem afferunt nonnulli, Marcum non vidiffe Dominum, viderit necne non affirmo. Videre uidem potuiffe, temporum ipfa ratio perfuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii fententia, dum illum e LXXII difcipulorum numero fuiffe tradat, etti contrarium alii patres tradant. Petav, ad loc. Animadv. p. 88,

(z) Vol. viii. p. 393.

(a) Vol. ix. p. 133.

VOL. II.

(b) P.216.

E

« PreviousContinue »