Page images

throughout all the coast of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God," ch. xxvi. 19, 20. Moreover we know from the history of Paul's preaching recorded in the Acts, that he always first addressed himself to Jews, in all the places where he came, if there were any, and if they had there a synagogue.

It should be observed likewise, that Peter had actually preached to Gentiles in Judea, and was the first disciple of Jesus that did so. There is a particular account of it in the book of the Acts, cb. x. and xi. And himself takes notice of it in his speech at the council of Jerusalem, ch. XV 7.

The reason therefore why the gospel of the circumcision is said to have been committed unto Peter, and the other apostles with him, is, that for a good while their ministry was solely, or however very much, and chiefly employed among Jews in Judea: though afterwards they preached very freely to Gentiles in several parts of the world. And Paul is called the apostle of the Gentiles, and the gospel of the uncircumcision is said to have been committed unto him, because he got the start of all the rest in preaching to Gentiles, and had laboured among them for a good while in divers countries with great success, and had formed many churches in divers places: wbilst they were still in Judea teaching Jews, and had made no addresses to Gentiles abroad in other countries.

It may be also implied in what St. Paul says in the epistle to the Galatians, that i several of the first twelve apostles intended to stay still somewhat longer in Judea. This they were the more willing to do, being fully satisfied with the preaching of Paul in foreign countries : insomuch that they encouraged him to proceed as he had begun.

8. Once more, we may now be reconciled to the supposition of the late date of the gospels. For they were not to be published till the doctrine concerning Jesus bad been preached in divers parts, and many converts had been made, to whom they would be useful, for whom they would be needful, by whom they would be received with joy, be highly valued, frequently read, and often copied,

Written Alterum, quod ex dicto Pauli ad Galatas colligimus, illud est, Joannem etiam post discessum Pauli cum duobus collegis per aliquod temporis intervallum Hierosolymis, et in Judæà substitisse. Gentium enim conversione Paulo et Barnabæ demandatà, ipsi inter Judæos se operam porrolocaturos declarant. Quæ etiam causa est, cur Joannis et sociorum in Actis Apostolicis vix mentio occurrat, quia, postquam primordia ecclesiæ christianæ inter Judæos memorata erant, nihil amplius videbatur addendum, nisi ut narretur, quomodo primitiæ Gentium essent introductæ. Lamp. Proleg. in Jo. I. 1. cap. 3. sect. vii




[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

histories of Jesus could be little wanted by the Jewish believers in Judea, whilst all the apostles were still in that country, and there were also still living among them many sincere followers of Jesus, and eye-witnesses of his person and ministry. Very probably, therefore, there was written gospel till after the council at Jerusalem.

Still there may be objections which should be stated and considered.

Obj. 1. It may be said : Was not the progress of the gospel by this means much retarded ? I answer: No. And this objection, metbinks, should be of little moment now, after all that has been said of the many advantages of the apostles' stay in Judea.

However, some considerations shall be here added to what has been already said. Though the apostles did not leave Judea themselves, they encouraged those who did, who preached the gospel abroad, whether to Jews or Gentiles. Of this there is an instance with regard to the church of Antioch, related, Acts xi. 19–22. And there

And there may bave been some other like instances. Moreover the apostles were very useful by their stay in Judea, as has been already shown. They made many converts among the Jews. During their stay in that country, if there was any measure of public liberty for the believers, the apostles would all, or most of them, be at Jerusalem, at the great feasts, to which there was a general resort of Jews from all countries. Here the inquisitive of that people would have an opportunity of conversing with the apostles: and if they were convinced, and persuaded by them, they would carry the doctrine of the gospel into the places of their usual residence, and propagate it there.

Obj. 2. But, if the apostles had attempted to make a long stay in Judea, it seems that they must have been all destroyed. I answer, that doubtless they met with many and great difficulties. What they were from the time of our Lord's ascension to the year 44, was briefly rehearsed just now. After that, for several years, as I apprehend, their difficulties would not be so great as they had been. Yea, during that space would be the best opportunity that ever they had to promote the interests of the gospel, as I said before. For the Jewish people had not the power of

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

* Contra persuasum habeo, hoc emblema supponere, ecclesiam jam longo admodum tempore fuisse afflictam,ne jam dicam, non constare ex historiâ ecclesiæ, quinam illi sint Martyres, quorum sanguis, præter eum Stephani, et utriusque Jacobi de quorum altero ex Lucà, altero ex Josepho liquet et Hegesippo, a Judæis fusus fuerit. Judæi enim, excepto brevi intervallo regni

life and death in their own hands. And the Roman procurators were not disposed to give any men disturbance upon account of difference of opinion in religious matters. Finally, the apostles of Jesus Christ, we have reason to think, had an especial direction, and an especial protection. They, who were employed in teaching so important a doctrine, and were enabled to work miracles upon others for confirming it, may be reasonably supposed to have been the subjects of some wonderful interpositions of Providence. And it must be reckoned very probable, that affairs would be so overruled and influenced, as that these chosen men should be upheld and enabled to fulfil their ministry, and bear such a testimony to Jesus, as should be sufficient to lay a good foundation for the establishment of his church in the world, and leave all those of the Jewish people, who did not receive him as the Messiah, absolutely inexcusable.



I. That the evangelist is the same as John Mark, and ne

phew to Barnabas. II. His history from the New Testament. III. From other writers. IV. T'estimonies to his gospel, in ancient writers. V. Remarks upon them. VI. The time of writing his gospel, according to these ancient writers, and the sentiments of learned moderns. VII. Characters of time in the gospel itself. VIII. Ob

servations upon this gospel. 1. IT is generally, or even universally, allowed, that Mark, mentioned, 1 Pet. v. 133, is the evangelist. But it has been doubted, whether he be the same as John Mark mentioned in the Acts, and some of St. Paul's epistles; and it appears from our collections out of ancient authors, that there were doubts about this in the minds of some in former times. Agrippæ, rerum suarum non erant domini : et, licet in christianos pessime affecti fuerint, a præsidibus tamen Romanis prohibebantur pro lubitu in innocuos Jesu Christi discipulos sævire. Quæ enim junior Ananus tentavit in Jacobum fratrem Domini, et tivaç tepec, quosdam alios,' christianæ professionis homines, ut constat ex Josepho, Festo mortuo, et Albino adhuc in itinere agente, peracta sunt. Campeg. Vitring. in Apoc. cap. vi. ver. 12. sect. XXX. p. 303.


Divers learned moderns are persuaded, that they are different persons. Of this number are a Cave, (who nevertheless think bim the same Mark, that is mentioned by St. Paul in his second epistle to Timothy,] Grotius, Du Pin, and e Tillemont. Which last, in his Ecclesiastical Memoirs, makes two different articles for this name: one entitled St. Mark the evangelist, apostle of Egypt, and martyr: the other, St. John Mark, disciple and cousin of St. Barnabas. On the other band they are reckoned one and the same by' Jer. Jones, & Lightfoot, and Wetstein.

I shall now without delay consider the reasons of those, who think there are two Marks mentioned in the New Testament.

1. They say, that Mark the evangelist was converted and baptized by Peter, because he calls him his son, 1. Pet. v. 13. But there is no reason to suppose this of Jobn Mark.

To which I answer. That needs not to be reckoned the constant meaning of the expression. It may denote only great affection and tenderness, and a respect to faithful services : in like manner as Paul says of Timothy, Philip. ii.

that as a son with the father he had served with him in the gospel.” Grotius i and Du Pin," who mention this reason, seem not to bave judged it conclusive. Moreover, if Mark was a convert of Peter, it does not follow, that he was not an early believer; for he might be one of that

• Marcus evangelista, quem cum Joanne Marco, de quo Act. xii. 12, male nonnulli confundunt. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

6 Cum enim illum epistolâ secundâ ad Timotheum - Romam accersiverat Paulus.- Id. ib.

c Gr. Pr. in Marc. a Diss. Prelim. 1. 2. ch. ï. sect. iv.

e Mem. Ec. Tom. ii. New and full Method, vol. iii. ch. vi. p. 65–70. & Lightfoot is making observations upon the first epistle of St. Peter. • He sends this epistle, says he, by Silvanus, Paul's old attendant, but now with Peter—His naming of Mark with him calls our thoughts back to what has been mentioned of Mark heretofore: his being with Paul at Rome, and his coming from him into the east. To suppose two Marks, one with Peter, and another with Paul, is to breed confusion where there needeth not. It is easily seen how John Mark came into familiarity with Paul and Peter. And other Mark we can find none in the New Testament, unless of our own invention. He it was that wrote the gospel.' Lightfoot, Harm. of the N. T. vol. i, p. 336.

Nihil vetat, quo minus simpliciter cum Victore et Theophylacto hunc eundem Marcum intelligamus, quoties illius nomen in Actis et epistolis reperimus. Wetst. Pr. in Marc. tom. i. p. 551.

Adde quod Joannes Marcus inter primos christianos: Marcus hic, ut videtur, Petri operâ conversus. 1 Pet. v. 13. Nam tales peculiariter filios suos' apostoli vocabant. 1 Cor. iv. 15. Gal. iv, 19. Gr. Pr. in Marc.

* Il y a plus d'apparence, qu'il a reçû l'evangile de S. Pierre, qui l'appelle fils, peutêtre parcequ'il l'avoit engendre en J.C. Diss. Prel. 1. 2. ch. 2. sect. iv. apostle's converts at his first preaching the gospel at Jerusalem. Mark the evangelist, upon that supposition, could not be one of the seventy: but he might be among the first believers, and the son of Mary. However, I choose not to insist upon this, but chiefly upon what was before mentioned that the appellation, my son, needs not to be understood rigorously as meaning a convert begotten to the faith of the gospel.

2. It is said, that · Mark, the companion of Paul, was called John : but the evangelist is never so called by the ancients, who mention him. To which I answer. It is true, that Paul's

companiori is sometimes called John, as Acts xiii, 5, and 13. But we are also informed that he was surnamed Mark. So Acts xii. 12, “ And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark.” And ver. 25,—" and took with them John, whose surname was Mark." And he is several times mentioned by the surname, Mark, only. Acts xv. 39; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Col. iv. 10; Pbilem. ver. 24. Secondly, such of the ancients, as supposed Mark, the evangelist, to have been the same with him mentioned in the Acts, must also have supposed that he was called John as well as Mark, though they have generally mentioned him by his surname.

3. It is said m that John Mark was much with Paul, Mark the evangelist, with Peter; so say the ancients in general.

I answer: it is not at all impossible but that Mark might be sometimes with Paul, at other times with Peter; as may appear by and by

As these reasons therefore do not appear to me conclusive, I rather think that there is but one Mark in the New Testament, John Mark, the evangelist, and fellow-labourer of Paul, and Barnabas, and Peter.

II. I now proceed to write the history of John Mark from the New Testament, mentioning, as they offer, some

Joannes quoque ille Mariæ filius, Barnabæ consanguineus, Marcus vocabatur : quem multi hunc nostrum scriptorem putant. Quibus quo minus assentiar, moveor veterum auctoritate, qui hunc scriptorem Joannem nunquam, Marcum semper vocant.-Grot. Pr. in Marc.

L'evangeliste n'est appellé nulle part du nom de Jean, qui etoit le nom propre de celui-ci

. Du Pin, ubi supra. ṁ Et ita Petro addunt (veteres] comitem, ac discipulum, ut non tantum de Barnabâ, sed et de Paulo, quem Joannes Marcus post illud frigusculum sectatus est-nihil meminerint. Grot. ibid.

Il étoit disciple de S. Pierre, et attaché à lui, dans le tems que l'autre étoit avec S. Paul, et S. Barnabe Du Pin, Ibid.

« PreviousContinue »