PART II.

CHAPTER THE THIRD.

OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.

I. History of St. Mark.-II. Genuineness of his Gospel.-III. Its Date.-IV. Observations.

I. DOUBTS have been entertained, both in antient and modern times, whether Mark the Evangelist be the same as John, whose surname was Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and in some of St. Paul's Epistles. This appears a very uncertain point; but as even Dr. Campbell, who thinks that they were different persons, admits that there is no inconsistency in the contrary supposition, I shall, with Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, and Michaelis (a), consider them as the same. It is known to have been a common thing among the Jews for the same person to have different

names.

We shall therefore consider Mark, the author of this Gospel, as the son of Mary, who was an early convert to the religion of Christ. St. Peter, when he was delivered out of prison by an angel, went immediately to her house, where he found “ many gathered together praying (b)." Thence it is inferred, that the Christians were accustomed to meet at Mary's house,

(a) Cave, Grotius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, were of a contrary opinion.

(b) Acts, c. 12. v. 12.

even in these times of persecution, and that there was an early acquaintance between St. Peter and St. Mark. Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister's son; and he is supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his son (c); but no circumstances of his conversion are recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New Testament is, that he went in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different countries; but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem (d). Afterwards, when Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterwards reconciled to St. Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his Epistles written subsequent to this dispute, and particularly from the direction which he gives to Timothy; "Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry (e)." No farther circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is believed, upon the authority of antient writers, that soon after his journey with Barnabas he met (c) 1 Pet. c. 5. v. 13. (d) Acts, c. 13.

Peter in Asia, and that he continued with him for some time, perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerome, all assert that Mark preached the Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him Bishop of Alexandria. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other learned moderns, have thought that Mark died a martyr; but I find no authority for that opinion in any antient writer; and it seems to be contradicted by Jerome, who says, that he died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria (ƒ), which expression appears to imply that he died a natural death. Papias (g), and several other antient fathers, say, that Mark was not a hearer of Christ himself; but on the contrary, Epiphanius, and the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, written in the fourth century, assert that he was one of the seventy disciples to whom our Saviour gave a temporary commission to preach the Gospel; this, however, does not seem probable, as there is reason to believe that he was converted to the belief of the Gospel by St. Peter.

II. DR. LARDNER thinks that this Gospel is alluded to by Clement of Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record, who expressly mentions it, is Papias. It is mentioned also by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous quotations from this Gospel; and as their testimony is not contradicted by any antient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St. Mark is genuine.

The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the question concerning the identity of Mark the Evan(f) De Vir. Ill. cap. 8.

(g) Eus. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 39.

gelist, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas, since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the work which he undertook by having heard for many years the public discourses and private conversation of that Apostle. This opinion is confirmed by the Gospel itself; for many things honourable to St. Peter are omitted in it, which are mentioned by the other Evangelists (h); and it is perfectly conformable to the character of St. Peter, that he should not, either in public or private, notice circumstances of that kind; but on the other hand, the failings of Peter are all recorded in this Gospel. Thus St. Mark does not add the benediction and promise which St. Peter received from our Saviour, upon his acknowledging him to be the Messiah; but he relates at large the severe reproof which he received soon after, for not bearing to hear that Christ must suffer (i).

Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to St. Peter (k); by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark's right to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the sanction of Peter's name. The following passage in Eusebius appears to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that I think it right to transcribe it: "The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of Peter's hearers (at (h) Vide Jones's New Method.

(i) Vide Townson on the Gospels, p. 155; and compare Mark, c. 8, with Matt. c. 16.

(k) Licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Tert. adv. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 5. Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, quæ a Petro annunciata erant, edidit,

Rome), that they were not contented with the bare hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they earnestly requested Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant upon Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the writing of that Gospel, which is called according to Mark: and they say, that the Apostle, being informed of what was done, by the revelation of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorised the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, bears testimony to it (1)." Jerome also says, that "Mark wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard from Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which, when Peter knew, he approved and published it in the churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority (m).”

III. Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel: but there being almost an unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any antient authority for supposing that Peter was in that city till the year 64, I am inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about the year 65.

IV. ST. MARK having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons. Quotations from the antient prophets, and (1) Eus. H. E. lib. 2. cap. 15. (m) Lib. de Vir. Illust. сар. 8.