ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

"all men? For my part, I can never be perfuaded to entertain "fo mean an opinion of the prudence of men under the con"duct of the Holy Ghoft. Befides, Matthew has delivered to us "not only the actions, but the difcourfes of Chrift; and this he "must needs be able to do with greater certainty, while they "were fresh in his memory, than when through length of time "he began to lose the impreffions of them. It is true, the Holy Ghost was with the Apoftles, to bring all things to "their remembrance, which they had received of Christ, ac"cording to the promife, John xiv. 26: but the Holy Ghost "in this matter did not only infpire, but deal with them ac"cording to their natural powers, as the variety of the expreffions in the Gospel fhews." Thus far he; from whence it appears very improbable, that no Gospel, which was authentick, was written before the time which Irenæus mentions, viz. the of Chrift LIX. or LX. year I am fenfible this argument fuppofes, that St. Matthew's was the first true Gospel which was wrote; and that it was fo, is generally afferted by all the antients.

[ocr errors]

2. Many of the most antient manuscripts of this Gospel do agree with Eufebius, that St. Matthew's Gospel was wrote in the eighth year after our Saviour's afcenfion. Thus, for inftance, Beza tells us, it was in his famous Clermont manufcript, which he gave to the Univerfity of Cambridge, and which is generally efteemed the oldest manuscript of the Gofpels, which is now in the world. Thus alfo it is at the end of feveral very antient Greek MSS. which Father Simon faw", and more which are cited and referred to by Dr. Mill, among the manuscripts of the Gofpels in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. See Mill on Matt. xxviii. 20.

[ocr errors]

3. The old Arabick Verfion joins in the fame account; viz. that he, St. Matthew, wrote his Gospel in Palestine, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, in Hebrew, eight years after our Lord Jefus Chrift afcended in his fiefh to heaven, and the first year of the Roman Emperor Claudius. This differs but very

* Annot. in Matt. xxviii. ult. Critic. Hift. of the New Telt.

part i. c. 10.

Vid. Ludov. de Dieu ad Matt. xxviii. ult.

little from Eufebius; for though he fays it was written in the third year of Caligula, and the Arabick Verfion in the first year of Claudius, yet this will prove only half a year's difference; feeing Caligula reigned but three years and a few months, and Claudius immediately fucceeded him

4. Theophylact and Euthymius do alfo affert this Gospel to have been written in the eighth year after Chrift's afcenfion; the former in his preface to his Expofition on Matthew; the latter in his Commentaries on the Gospels, which are in a manu̟script in the Bodleian Library at Oxford: and though these were late writers, yet their teftimony is for this reason confiderable, as it coincides with the teftimonies of others; which cannot be faid of the opinion of Nicephorus above-mentioned.

5. It may not perhaps be foreign to the purpose to observe, how diligent and careful Eufebius was in collecting his accounts of this fort; and that though there are some mistakes in his works (which in so vast undertakings could hardly be avoided) yet for the most part he is very accurate and exact, as a Chronologer and Historian.

6. What gives force to all the preceding remarks is, that Irenæus is moft certainly mistaken in the very next words to thefe; viz. as to the time of St. Mark's writing his Gospel : he faith, that St. Mark wrote his Gofpel pera The TéTwv teodor: i. e. after the death of Peter and Paul, as thofe words undoubtedly mean, and are well expreffed by the old Latin Verfion, poft borum exceffum. But this, I say, is false, and contrary to the express affertions of many of the most antient primitive writers, as will appear hereafter in my account of Mark. I know indeed that there have been fome, who have otherwise tranflated these words; but this has been obferved (by Valefius in Eufeb. lib. 5. c. 8. Father Simon's Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Part I. c. x. p. 87, 88.) to be a mistake, made by them with defign to fave Irenæus from the charge of contradicting the other Fathers.

I will conclude the whole with adding, that whereas it was by fome made an objection against this Gospel, that ec

a It is cited by Dr. Mill among the Greek teftimonies prefixed to

E 2

St. Matthew's Gospel, in his edition of the Greek Teftament.

clefiaftical

clefiaftical writers differed as to the time of its being wrote, Eufebius fixing one time, and Irenæus another, it is answered by Sixtus Senenfis in a method, which that learned man thought would reconcile Irenæus and Eufebius together; viz. That St. Matthew first published his Gofpel in Judea for the ufe of his countrymen, eight years after Christ's afcenfion, in the third year of Caligula; and that this was what Eufebius meant; but that the fame Evangelift a long time after, when he went among the Gentiles, published it more univerfally for the benefit of all Chriftians; and that this was what Irenæus meant b. But I leave this conjecture to the examination of the learned in these things.

CHAP. VI.

The Scripture Account of St. Mark. There is no other of this Name mentioned in the New Teftament, but the Evangelift. Objections to this anfwered. He was Affiftant to Peter and Paul in the Miniftry of the Gospel. The credible Relations, which we have of St. Mark from the Antients, produced. Peter ufed him as an Interpreter. Afterwards he preached in Egypt, planted many Churches at Alexandria, and was one of Christ's feventy Disciples.

YONCERNING St. Mark, the author of this Gospel,

there is fcarce any thing left us in Ecclefiaftical History, which can be depended upon with that certainty, which one would wish for, and have expected in fuch a matter.

In the writings of the New Teftament we have frequent mention of one named Mark; and in the writings of the following ages there are alfo fome few things concerning him,

a Sixt. Senenf. Biblioth. San&t. lib. 7. De Evang. Matth. Hære..

Object. §. 3.

Ibid. Diffolut. Object. §. 3.

which may appear credible and material. I fhall confider each diftinctly.

I. As to the accounts which the writings of the New Testament give of Mark. The name is mentioned four times in

the Acts of the Apostles, viz. xii. 12, 25. xv. 37, 39. thrice in St. Paul's Epiftles, viz. Coloff. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24. once by St. Peter, 1 Epift. v. 13. Relating to which places I observe;

I

C

1. That it is generally agreed, that Mark the Evangelift is that Mark, which is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13. The Church that is at Babylon elected together with you, faluteth you, and so doth Marcus my fon. So Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome among the antients; Grotius, Maldonate, Dr. Lightfoot, Du Pin, and many other of the moderns. This is exceedingly probable for this reason; viz. that it is the univerfal voice of antiquity, that Mark was Peter's companion and affiftant in preaching the Gospel, and for that reafon called by him his fon, as Paul for the fame reafon calls Timothy his fon ", and particularly fays of him, that as a jon with a father he ferved with him in the Gospel.

2. It is very probable that Mark, mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epifles (fee the places above cited) was the fame perfon as Mark the Evangelift, or author of this Gospel. The reafons I affign for this, are,

(1.) That the office of Mark the Evangelift, and this Mark mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's Epiftles, was the very fame, viz. to be an affiftant to the Apostles (Paul and Peter) in the miniftry of the Word. Concerning the former, we find Barnabas and Paul made ufe of him for that purpose, Acts xii. 25. And though Paul and Barnabas differed upon the point, yet the latter was for taking him to be

[blocks in formation]

an affiftant and companion in vifiting the churches, and did take him. In like manner Paul, who (as is generally agreed) was foon reconciled again to Mark, defired Timothy to bring him to Rome to him, for (fays he) he is ufeful to me (or affifting to me) in the work of the miniftry, 2 Tim. iv. 11. And accordingly we find he was afterwards with Paul, Colof. iv. 10. and is there called fifter's fon (or nephew) to Barnabas ; which is, by the way, no mean proof, that he was the fame person mentioned Acts xv. 37. it seeming probable, that Barnabas's affection to Mark, as a relation, was, one reafon why he perfifted in his refolution to take him along with him. But to fay no more of this, it is plain Mark, mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epiftles, was an affiftant to the Apoftles; and the fame is certain as to Mark the Evangelift, viz. that he was affiftant, companion, or interpreter of Peter, as will undeniably appear from the places, which will presently be cited from the Fathers. Unless therefore we will fuppofe, that St. Paul's affiftant and St. Peter's were both of the fame name, we must conclude that the Mark, mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epiftles, was one and the same person, who at different times was with Paul and Peter engaged in the fame work.

(2.) To fuppofe two Marks, one with Peter, and another with Paul, is to breed confusion where there needeth none, and to conceive that for which the Scripture giveth not only no ground, but is plain enough to the contrary. It is eafily feen how John Mark came into familiarity both with Paul and Peter; and other Mark we can find none in the New Teftament, unless of our own invention. These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, and seem to me to contain an argument fufficiently juft, till fome good proof be made that the contrary opinion is true.

(3.) The author of the Conftitutions of the Apostles (Lib. 2. C. 57.) makes Mark the Evangelift an assistant of St. Paul; i. e. the fame who is mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epiftles; and the latter Fathers, as Œcumenius, TheophyJact (Præf. in Marc.), tell us the Evangelift Mark was fur

a Loc. jam cit.

[ocr errors]

named

« 前へ次へ »