author of the Synopsis of scripture, Cosmas, and Eutychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjesu likewise, in his catalogue of Syrian writings, says, that Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin author of the commentary upon St. Mark's gospel, quoted some while ago, says, that it was written in Italy.

6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark's gospel was not written before the year 63, or 64. For we cannot perceive any good reason to think, that St. Peter was at Rome, till about that time. And this date is supported by the testimony of that ancient writer Irenæus, that Mark published his gospel after the decease of Peter and Paul.

VI. These are observations which the above cited testimonies seem naturally to afford. But before we proceed any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the sentiments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark's writing his gospel.

Cave supposes St. Mark to have published his gospel at Rome, in the year of Christ 65. His argument for it I place below.

a

b

Mr. Jones's opinion was, that this gospel was published between the year 64 and 67, or 68: when, according to his computation, Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom.

J. A. Fabricius was for the year of Christ 63, the ninth of Nero.

Mill says, that St. Mark published his gospel at Rome, in the year of Christ 63, after that the apostles Peter and Paul had been gone from thence, as Irenæus says.

But here I beg leave to observe, that, probably, Irenæus does not speak of these two apostles removal from Rome, but of their decease. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reason to suppose that Peter was at Rome during the time of Paul's two years' imprisonment there, especially at the period of it; but there is a great deal of reason to think otherwise: for we have several epistles of St. Paul, written near the end of that confinement, in which no notice is taken of Peter.

e

Basnage closely following Irenæus, says, Mark's gospel was published in the year 66, after the decease of Peter and Paul: whose martyrdoms, according to him, happened in the year 65. So that it has been of late the opinion of many learned men of the best judgment in these matters, that St. Mark's gospel was not published till after the year of Christ 60. I readily assent to them so far. And as I am disposed to place the martyrdoms of these two great apostles at Rome, in the latter part of the year 64, or in 65, it seems to me probable, that St. Mark's gospel was composed in the year 64, or 65, and made public by him the first fair opportunity, soon afterwards, before the end of the year 65. That I mention as the latest date. I do not presume to say the time exactly; for it might be finished and published in the year 64.

g

I hoped to have had assistance from Mr. Wetstein in this disquisition, but have been somewhat disappointed. In his preface to St. Mark's gospel he concludes from Col. iv. 10, and Philem. ver. 24, that St. Mark had been with the apostle Paul at Rome, in the time of his confinement there: that from thence he went to Colosse, and afterwards returned to Rome, wherè he is said to have written his gospel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's gospel could not be published before the year 64, or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's gospel the same learned writer expresseth himself to this purpose: According to some ecclesiastical writers • Luke published his gospel fifteen, according to others two and twenty years after Christ's

Rogatus Romæ a fratribus, scripsit evangelium, a Petro approbatum, idque Græco sermone Romanis satis familiari. Factum id circa ann. 65, Petro et Paulo jam morte sublatis. Cum enim illum epistolâ secundâ ad Timotheum, non longe ante martyrium scriptâ, Romam accersiverat Paulus probabile est, Marcum vel eodem, vel saltem sequenti anno illuc venisse, ibique evangelium vel primum condidisse, vel prius conditum in publicum edidisse. Certe Irenæus, 1. 3. cap. i. et apud Eusebium, 1. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum uɛla Ty THTWY εodov evangelium suum conscripsisse diserte tradit. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

Mr. Jones's words are these: These with some other 'reasons, make it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at Rome, till the year of Christ 63 or 64, and consequently, that the gospel of St. Mark was not written before this time, but between that and the martyrdom of this apostle ⚫ and St. Paul, in the year of Christ 67 or 68.' New and full Method, vol. iii. p. 88.

Bib. Gr. 1. 4. cap. v. tom. iii. p. 124 et 131.

1

h

'ascension......That he transcribed many things from Matthew, and yet more from Mark, is 'manifest.'

But if St. Luke wrote within two and twenty years after Christ's ascension, and transcribed a great deal from St. Mark; St. Mark's gospel must have been first published, and very early. If St. Mark's gospel was not published till the year 64, and St. Luke transcribed from him; St. Luke could not write till a good while after two and twenty years from Christ's ascension. I do not perceive therefore that Mr. Wetstein had any determined opinion concerning the date of these two gospels. Nor can I, as yet, persuade myself, that any of the evangelists transcribed each other.

VII. I will now observe some characters of time in the gospel itself, like those before taken notice of in St. Matthew.

1. From chap. vii. 14-23, it appears, that St. Mark fully understood the spirituality of the doctrine of Christ, recommending righteousness and true holiness, without an obligation to Jewish ritual ordinances and appointments.

2. His history of the Greek or Gentile woman, in the same chap. vii. 24-30, who besought Jesus to heal her daughter, and obtained her request, deserves notice here.

3. The call of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, as a people, are intimated in ch. xii. 1-12, in the parable there recorded of the householder, who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: to whom after a while he sent servants, and then his son, to receive from them the fruit of the vineyard. But they abused the servants, and killed the son. It is added, "What therefore will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will destroy the husbandmen, and will let out the vineyard unto others." And what follows.

4. In ch. xiii. are predictions concerning the destruction of the temple, and the desolations of the Jewish people. And, particularly, at ver. 14-16, are remarkable expressions, intimating the near approach of those calamities, and suited to excite the attention of such as were in danger of being involved in them.

5. In his account of the institution of the eucharist, our Lord says, ch. xiv. 24, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many:" that is, for all men, not for Jews only, but for Gentiles also.

6. In ch. iv. 30-32, is the parable of the "grain of mustard seed, the least of all seeds, which becometh greater than all herbs:" representing the swift and wonderful progress of the gospel in the world: of which, it is very likely, St. Mark, at the time of writing, had some knowledge.

7. It is manifest, that he well understood the extent of our Saviour's commission to the twelve apostles: for he has recorded it in these words, ch. xvi. 15. "Go ye therefore into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature:" or the whole creation, that is, Jews and Gentiles, all mankind of every denomination.

8. Yea, it appears from the conclusion of his history, that before he wrote, the apostles (at least divers of them) had left Judea, and had preached in many places. Ver. 20, "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

9. Ch. xvi. 18," They shall take up serpents." Some may think, that here is a reference to the history, which we have in Acts xxviii. 3-6. I do not say there is. But allowing it, I should not reckon it an objection to the genuineness of this part of that chapter: it would only be an argument for the late date of this gospel; and it has been so understood by some. my own part, I cannot say, that St. Mark has referred to it. But I make no question, that he was acquainted with the event there related, when he wrote his gospel.

a

VIII. I shall conclude this chapter with some observations upon St. Mark's gospel.

For

1. It confirms the accounts given by the ancients, that it is the substance of Peter's preaching. This was taken notice of just now in our recollection; but I choose to enlarge upon it here, and show, that the gospel itself affords evidences of its being written according to that apostle's discourses, or according to informations and directions given by him to this evangelist.

a

1.) In the first place I would here remind my readers of a long passage of Eusebius, the learned bishop of Cæsarea, formerly transcribed, of which I take here a very small part only. Having observed several things very honourable to Peter related in the other gospels, he adds: Though such things were said to Peter by Jesus, Mark has taken no notice of them: because, as is probable, Peter did not relate them in his sermons. For he did not think fit to bear testimony to himself by relating what Jesus said to him, or of him; therefore Mark has ' omitted them. But what concerned his denial of Jesus, he preached to all men, because he wept bitterly....For all things in Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses.' 2.) And b Chrysostom, reconciling Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's denying Christ, says: These things Mark had from his master; for he was a disciple of Peter. And what is very remarkable, though he was a disciple of Peter, he relates his fall more particularly than any of the rest.'

3.) The same great preacher explaining the history of our Lord's paying the didrachm or tribute-money to the temple, which is in Matt. xvii. 24-27, and particularly those words: "That take, and give unto them for me and thee," says, Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, omits this, because it was honourable to that apostle. But he relates the history of his denial of Christ. And perhaps his master forbid him to insert such things, as tended to aggran

• dize him.'

d

4.) No one has more largely treated this point than Mr. Jones, who has a catalogue of several places in the gospels, containing things tending to Peter's honour, which are not mentioned in St. Mark's gospel.

(1.) The account of Christ's pronouncing Peter blessed, when he had confessed him: Christ's declaring, that he had his faith and knowledge from God: the promise of the keys, and of that large power, which is made to him: are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and the succeeding parts of this discourse are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16-20, compared with Mark viii. 29, 30.

(2.) The relation of St. Peter's being commissioned by Christ to work the miracle, by getting money out of the fish's mouth to pay the tribute-money, is told by St. Matthew, ch. xvii. 24-28, but omitted by St. Mark: though the preceding and subsequent stories are the very same as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30-33.

(3.) Christ's particular expressions of love and favour to St. Peter, in telling him of his danger, and that he prayed particularly for him, that his faith might not fail, is omitted by St. Mark, but related Luke xxii. 31, 32. .

(4.) St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the apostles expressed in an unwillingness, that Christ should wash his feet, which none of the rest did express, with Christ's particular discourse to him; John xiii. 6, &c. is omitted by Mark.

(5.) The instance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting off the high-priest's servant's ear, John xviii. 10, is not mentioned by Mark in particular, but only told in general, of a certain person that stood by. Mark xiv. 47.

(6.) St. Peter's faith in casting himself into the sea, to go to Christ. John xxi. 7, is not mentioned by St. Mark.

(7.) Christ's discourse with Peter concerning his love to him, and his particular repeated charge to him, to feed his sheep: John xxi. 15, is omitted by St. Mark.

(8.) Our Saviour's predicting to Peter his martyrdom, and the manner of it: John xxi. 18, 19, is not related by St. Mark.

These, adds that diligent author, are some instances of things, tending to St. Peter's ⚫ honour, recorded by the other evangelists, none of which are so much as hinted by St. Mark. .......All which cannot be accounted for any way more probable, than supposing that this ⚫ apostle did not publish those circumstances, which were so much to his honour.'

Indeed, I think, they do confirm the accounts given of this gospel by the ancients. For these omissions cannot be so well ascribed to any thing, as to St. Peter's modesty and reservedness, who had not mentioned such things in his preaching, and discouraged the putting them

a Vol. ii. p. 367. < Ibid,

> P. 603.

d See New and full Method, part 3. p. 79–81.

There is a like thing, and more extraordinary, related by Matthew only, ch. xiv. 28-31. I do not know, why Mr. Jones omitted it.

a

down in writing: insomuch, that as Tertullian says, the gospel published by Mark, may be said to be Peter's.

5.) Nevertheless I must acknowledge, that there are some things in St. Mark's gospel honourable to Peter, which are not in any other: I shall mention two or three.

Says St. Mark, ch. i. 36. " And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him.” If thereby be intended the whole company of the apostles, that way of describing them is very honourable to Peter. But some may suppose, none to be intended, beside those mentioned, ver. 29. If so, it resembles Luke ix. 32. "But Peter, and they that were with him:" meaning John and James, and referring to ver. 28.

In Mark xiv. 3. Peter is mentioned as one of the four apostles to whom our Lord addressed himself, when he foretold the destruction of the temple, and the calamities attending it: which is a passage peculiar to St. Mark.

And ch. xvi. 7. The message, which the angels sent to the disciples by the women at the sepulchre, is thus expressed: "But go your way. Tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goes. before you into Galilee." Peter is not mentioned, upon this occasion, by Matthew xxviii. 7, nor by any other of the evangelists.

Upon this text Whitby says very well: Peter is here named, not as prince of the apostles,' but, as the fathers say, for his consolation, and to take off the scruple, which might be upon his spirit: whether by his three-fold denial of his master, he had not forfeited his right to be one of Christ's disciples.'

I now proceed to another observation.

2. St. Mark's gospel, as is evident to all, is the shortest of the four. Jerom, as before cited, says, Mark wrote a short gospel. And Chrysostom observed, that Mark had the conciseness of Peter, following his Master.

3. Nevertheless there are in St. Mark many things peculiar to himself, not mentioned by any other evangelist.

I shall here put down several such things, and not those which are omitted by Matthew, but such things as are in Mark, and in no other of the evangelists.

1.) In the account of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness, St. Mark says, ch. i. 13, "and was with the wild beasts:" not mentioned by any other evangelist, and yet very proper to show the hardships which our Lord underwent at that season.

2.) Ch. i. 20. In the account of the call of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, he says, they left their father in the ship, with the hired servants:" a circumstance not mentioned by any other.

66

3.) Ch. i. 29. " And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon, and Andrew, with James and John." In Matt. viii. 14, it is only, "come into Peter's house." In Luke iv. 38," and entered into Simon's house."

4.) Ch. i. 83." And all the city was gathered together at the door." Not in any other evangelist. Compare Matt. viii. 16. Luke iv. 40, 41.

5.) Ch. i. 35." And in the morning rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." Ver. 36. "And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him." Ver. 37. And when they had found him, they said unto him: All men seek thee." This is not at all in Matthew, and is here much fuller, and with more particulars, than in Luke iv. 42.

6.) Ch. i. 45. Of the leper, cured by our Saviour, he says: "But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter." Not particularly mentioned by the other evangelists. Compare Matth. viii. 4. Luke v. 14, 15.

7.) In the cure of the paralytic. ch. ii. 2. " And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, not so much as about the door. 3. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4. And....they uncovered the roof"....No other evangelist has so particularly described the crowd. In Mark only is it said, that this sick man was borne of four. He likewise more particularly describes the uncovering the roof. Compare Matt. ix. 1, 2. Luke v. 18, 19.

8.) In the history of the man with "a withered hand," cured in the synagogue, on a sabbath; ch. iii. 5. "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved

for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man: Stretch forth thy hand." Not so full in any other evangelist. Compare Matt. xii. 9-13. Luke vi. 6-11.

9.) Ch. iii. ver. 6. " And the pharisees went forth, and sraightway took counsel with the Herodians against him." Matt. xii. 14, mentions pharisees only. Luke vi. 11. mentions no persons by name.

10.) Ch. iii. 17. "And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges." Not in any other evangelist.

11.) Ch. iii. 19......" And they went into the house. 20. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold of him. For they said: He is beside himself." Whether that expression "he is beside himself," is to be understood of Christ, or of the multitude, this passage is peculiar to St. Mark.

12.) Ch. iv. 26. "And he said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast his seed into the ground, 27. And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of itself, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. 29. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.' This parable is peculiar to St. Mark. See Whitby upon the place, and likewise Grotius.

a

13.) After the parable of the grain of mustard-seed, beside other things common to him and Matthew, he adds, ch. iv. 34, "And when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." Compare Matt. xiii. 31-34. This particular leads us mightily to think, that either Mark was an eye-witness, or had the best and fullest information of things.

14.) Mark iv. 36. "And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship." This circumstance, peculiar to St. Mark, enables us to account for our Lord's fast sleep in his passage to the country of the Gadarenes. We perceive from St. Mark, that this voyage was undertaken in the evening, after the fatigue of long discourses in public, and without any refreshment. Our Lord's sleep in the midst of a storm is mentioned by all three evangelists. Matt. viii. 24-26. Mark iv. 37, 38. Luke viii. 23, 24. But this evangelist alone leads us to discern the occasion of it.

15.) Farther, in the same ver. 36, of ch. iv. "And there were also with him several other little ships." A particular peculiar to St. Mark.

16.) And in the account of this voyage across the sea, he says, ver. 38, that our Lord was "in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow:" two circumstances, wanting in the other evangelists.

17.) Certainly, these and other things are sufficient to assure us, that either Mark was an eye-witness: or, that he wrote things as related to him by an eye-witness, even Peter himself, as all the ancients say.

18.) In Matt. viii. 28-34. Mark v. 1–19. Luke viii. 26-39, are the several accounts of our Lord's healing the dæmoniac, or dæmoniacs, in the country of the Gadarenes; for Matthew speaks of two, Mark and Luke of one only. In St. Mark's history are divers things not in the other gospels. In him alone it is said, that "the man was always night and day in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones." And he only mentions the number of swine that perished in the sea, saying, they were about two thousand."

19.) All the first three evangelists have given a history of our Lord's raising the daughter of Jairus, and healing the woman with an issue of blood, both in connection. Matt. ix. 18-26. Mark v. 22-43. Luke viii. 41-56. St. Mark has several things which are in neither of the other. Of the woman he says, ver. 26, “she had suffered much of many physicians....and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse." At ver. 29, "And she felt in her body, that she was healed of that plague." At ver. 41, he inserts the very words which Jesus spake when he raised the daughter of Jairus: "Talitha Kumi." I have omitted some other things peculiar to St. Mark in the account of these miracles.

66

20.) Ch. vi. 13. In the account of the commission given to the twelve by Christ in his life-time, he says, they anointed many with oil, and healed them:" which is mentioned by no other evangelist, as was observed of old by Victor.

b

Hæc parabola, aliis omissa, cum suam hic explicationem non habeat, explicari debet ex simili comparatione, quæ est apud Matt. xiii. 24. Grot. ad Marc. iv. 26.

VOL. III.

See Vol. ii, p. 027.

2 B