was a companion or interpreter of Peter. So Papias “, Irenæus', the author of the Hypotoposes which went under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, and was supposed to be bis by Eusebius, Origen“, Eufebius, Jerome, and many others of the Fathers. Several of these add, that he was with St. Peter at Rome.

2. Another account of the antients concerning Mark is, that he afterwards went down to Egypt, where he preached the Gospel which he had written at Rome, and founded many churches in Alexandria, and made a vast number of converts to Christianity. This is related by Eusebius 3, Epiphanius ", Jerome ', and many fucceeding writers; fuch as Hippolytusk, Dorotheus!, Ifidorus Hispalensis ", Theophylact", &c. all which I shall pass over, only observing that the tradition of Mark's founding the church at Alexandria, which Du Pino calls an antient and certain tradition, was always credited in Egypt, and that Eutychius, who was made patriarch of Alexandria, A.D. 933 ?, in his Arabick history of that church published by Mr. Selden, has not only asserted the fame, but given us the particular method by which the Evangelist made his first convert at Alexandria, and in which he established the government of the Church there. But to return to Eufebius and Jerome, they tell us that Mark was not only successful in making numerous converts, but induced them to a more than common strictness in the profession and practice of their new religion ; for which reason Philo Judæus wrote a peculiar treatise concerning them and their manner of living, viz. that in, titled Ilegi Bis Sawpatur , i. e, Concerning a contemplative Life,

2 Apud Eufeb. Hiftor. Ecclef. 1. 2. c. 13. et l. 3. c. 39.

Adv. Hæref. l. 3.c. 1. . Eufeb. Hilt. Ecclef. 1. 6.c. 14.

d In Matth. apud Eufeb. Hitt. Ecclef. 1. 6. C, 25.

e Hift. Eccl, lib. 2. c. 15.

f Catalog. Viror. illuftr. in Marco. & Hiftor. Ecclef. lib. 2.C.16.

Vid. Epiphan. Hær. 51. 5. 6. i Catalog. Viror, illuftr. in Marco

* MS. in Bibl. Bodleian. apud D. Millin Teftimon. Marco præfix,

In Synopti. m De vit. et obitu Sanctorum, verfus finem.

< Pretat, in Marc.

• Hift. of the Canon of the New Telt, vol. 2. ch. 2. $. 4.

P He was alio called Said Ibn Batrick. See Mr. Selden's Preface, and Account of the Author, and Prideaux's Life of Mahomet, p. 271, 272,

I shall I shall not now enquire, how far these two Fathers and Epipha, nius, who was of the same opinion, were in the right, in supposing that Philo's Essenes were Mark's Christian converts; but would refer the reader to the authors which I have ellewhere cited upon this question, and a conjecture of my own which I have in the same place proposed.", relating to this matter.

3. Another thing delivered by the antients to us concerning St. Mark is, that he was one of the seventy Disciples whom Christ sent forth, Luke x. 1, &c. and that he left Christ an aca count of those words of his, Unless a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me, John vi. 53, &c. but that he was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, filled with the Holy Ghoft, and so wrote his Gospel. This is related by several of the old Christian writers ; but it will be enough to mention the testimony of Epiphanius, who relates the story with all the mentioned particulars b. Grotius c and Dr. Caved question the truth and genuineness of the tradition, because e Papias affirós, that he neither heard nor followed Christ. But to say nothing of what is objected against Papias as a witness in these cases, it is easy to answer to this argument; for Papias meant no more than that Mark was not such a disciple and follower of Christ, as to be able to form his Gospel out of his own knowledge ; and this is very consistent with Epiphanius, whcfe account is, that Mark, though he was sent out by Christ, yet lefthim on occasion of his discourse, John vi. 53. i, e. almost two years before our Lord's ascension, and fo could not be capable to write a history of Christ upon his own knowledge-I rather therefore incline to give credit to the tradition, and with the famous Jesuit Petavius f observe, that there is nothing in the circumstances of time, but what would incline a person to believe he might have seen Chrift; and though Epiphanius should think differently in this matter from other Fathers (viz. Papias, and those who follow him),

* See above, Vol. 1. Part II. Ch. XVI. p. 211, &c.

• Hæref. 51. $. 6. ç Proleg. in Marc.

d Life of S. Mark, $. 1. p. 214.

e Apud Eufeb. Histor. Ecclef. 1. 3. C. 39.

in loc. Epiphan. jam cit.


yet his tradition is not to be rejected, in which he declares that Mark was of the number of the seventy-two Disciples a.

Concerning the life of Mark in other instances, as also concerning his death, I know nothing that can be said with sufficient certainty. The later writers tell us, that he travelled westward to the most desert parts of Africa, and, upon his return to Alexandria, was by the idolaters there barbarously murdered. But I choose rather to refer to the authors of those relations, than to insert them. See Dorotheus \, Eutychius Alexandrinus in his Arabick Annals, with Mr. Selden's translation and commentary d, and Isidorus Hispalensis, who faith that Mark died, and was placida quiete fepultus; and among the moderns Dr. Cave', and Mr. Eachards, who has transcribed his words. I shall only add here, that there is a constant tradition received in the Roman Church, which is set down as fact by Dr. Cave, “ That St. Mark's body, at least “ the remains of it, were with great pomp removed from « Alexandria to Venice, where they are religiously honoured, w and he adopted as the tutelar faint and patron of that state, « and one of the richest and stateliest churches erected to his ~ memory, that the world can boast of at this day.” He who would see a larger account of this fabulous translation, viz. when, and by what means, the Venetian merchants procured these reliques of Mark, may consult the learned Spanheim, Hist. Christ. Secul. ix. §. 5. and the authors cited by Mr. Selden, Comment. in Eutych. p. 169.

* So he read in his copies of Luke X. I. as it is also in many others, viz. sllorenxorta do, though in the present Greek copies made use of, it is only adouhxorta. Vid. Mill. in Luk. x. 1.

b In Synopsi,

P. 38.
o P. 166-169.

. De vit. et obit. Prophet. &c. in fine.

f Life of S. Mark, p. 217.
& Ecclef. Hift. b. 2. c. 6. 9. 2.


The Occasion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel, viz. the Re

quest of the Church at Rome. That it was wrote under the Direction of St. Peter. The Places of the Antients produced, in which this is asserted. The Tradition supported by Several Observations

I TITHERTO concerning St. Mark. I proceed now to Il discourse concerning his Gospel, and to produce the several accounts which we have from antiquity relating to iti which I shall consider under the three following heads, viz.

I. The occasion of its being wrote.

· II. The language in which it was wrote,

III. The time of its writing.

I. As to the occasion or cause, for which the Gospel of St. Mark was written. This I have had occafion to observe largely elsewhere 4, but shall nevertheless particularly set down here what the antients have delivered to us upon this head. Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, the author of the Synopsis under the name of Athanasius, and Jerome, are the persons whom I mean. · Eusebius out of Papias, and the book which went under the name of The Hypotoposes of Clemens Alexandrinus, relates b, That when Peter, in the reign of Claudius, came to Rome, and had defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied with the hear. ing of them, unless they also had them written down. That accordingly they with earnest intreaties applied themselves to Mark,

Vindic. of St. Matth. Gospel, Ch. VI. p. 67,

Hift. Ecclef. lib. 2. c. 15.

a companion a companion of Peter's, and whose Gospel we now have, praying him that he would write down for them, and leave with them an account of the doctrines which had been preached to them : that they did not defift in their requeft, till they had prevailed upon him, and procured his writing of that which is now called

The Gospel of Mark. That when Peter came to know this, he was, by the direction of a the Holy Spirit, pleased with the request of the people, and confirmed the Gospel which was written for the use of the Churches. This, says Eusebius, is related by Clemens Alexandrinus in the fixth book of his Hypotopolis, and confirmed by the testimony of Papias, Bishop of Hiera, polis.

The same Eusebius, in two other places of his works, relates particularly what Papias and Clemens have wrote concerning Mark's Gospel ; viz.

The former says to this purpose, that Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, exactly wrote down whatsoever he remembered, though not in the same order of time, in which the several things were said or done by Chrift; for he neither heard nor followed Chrift, but was a companion of Peter, and composed his Gospel rather with the intent of the people's profit, than writing a regular history. So that he is in no fault, if he in some things wrote according to his memory, he designing no more than to omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing falfe b.

The latter, viz, the Hypotoposes ascribed to Clemens Alexandrinus“, relate, that, according to a tradition of the former presbyters, the Gospel of Mark was wrote on the following occasion, viz. When Peter was publickly preaching the Gospel in Rome, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts there desired Mark, as having been a long companion of Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, to write down his discourses; that upon this he composed his Gospel, and

* This passage is very ill tranflated by Valefius, the words útoκαλύψαντος αυτο το πνεύματος, being to be referred, not to Peter's knowing the fact, which needed no divine revelation, but to his approy

ing the boyk.
7 Apud Euleb. Hist. Ecclef.

Apud ejusdem Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. c. 14.

« 前へ次へ »