ページの画像
PDF
ePub

named John, and the fifter's fon of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul.

[ocr errors]

I know indeed that Grotius a, and after him Cotelerius ", Dr. Cave, Du Pin, Mr. Eachard, and others, are of the contrary opinion, and fuppofe that Mark the Evangelist, and Mark mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epiftles, were two different perfons. The two former of these have offered some reasons for their opinion, which I shall briefly confider:

1.) They urge that they cannot be the fame, because the antients never call the Evangelifts by the name of John, but always Mark; whereas, fay they, John was the proper name of him who is mentioned in the Acts.

Nothing is more common than the mistakes of learned perfons; but I have seldom obferved one more grofs than this; for,

(1. Though it is certain the furname of him mentioned in the Acts was Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25. and xv. 37. yet even the very fame chapter, two verfes afterwards, demonftrates (ver. 39.) that the proper name of the person, i e. the name by which he was commonly called, was Mark, and not John. The words are, Barnabas took Mark, and failed to Cyprus. It had been ftrange therefore, if perfons in after ages fhould have called him John.

(2. It was the common practice among the Jews at that time, to call perfons by that which was their furname, and not the other. So, for inftance, Simon, whose surname was Peter (Matt. x. 2. Mar. iii. 16. Acts x. 5, 18, 32.), was most commonly called Peter. Lebbeus, whofe furname was Thaddeus (Matt. x. 3.), was always called Thaddeus. Jofes, who was furnamed Barnabas (Acts iv. 36.), was always called Barnabas. And fo I have observed above concerning St. Matthew, that he was commonly called by his furname, viz. Levi, and so is by Mark and Luke.

(3. In St. Paul's Epiftles (where Grotius and I think Du Pin acknowledge the fame perfon is spoken of) he is called al

[blocks in formation]

ways Mark, and not John; though our tranflators aukwardly enough tranflate fometimes Marcus, and fometimes Mark; which muft, as many other fuch things in our tranflation, confound a perfon unacquainted with the original.

2.) It is urged by Du Pin, that Mark the Evangelift kept clofe to Peter, at the time when the other (Mark) was with Paul and Barnabas. But this is not proving, but a plain begging of the question, or taking that for granted which is the thing to be proved.

I conclude therefore for the reafon above-mentioned, that Mark the Evangelift was the fame perfon, as he who is mentioned not only by Peter, but in the Acts and Epiftles of Paul; and this then will be all we can collect out of Scripture concerning him; viz. That he was an inhabitant of Jerufalem, and the fon of a pious convert, whose house was employed in those perfecuting times for a place of the Christian affemblies for religious worship, Acts xii. 12. That he was a perfon of fo much vifible zeal for, and knowledge in Christianity, as to be efteemed proper by Paul and Barnabas to be taken along with them, to be an affiftant to them in executing their ministry, Acts xii. 25. And though upon a difference between Barnabas and Paul, about taking him with them to vifit the churches, Paul declared against taking him, yet Barnabas judged his affistance neceffary, Acts xv. 37, 39. That notwithstanding this, the displeasure of Paul did not continue long, for he appears to be with him at Rome, recommended him to the kind regards of the Coloffians, in a letter which he wrote to them from Rome, Col. iv. 10. wanted his company another time at Rome, as a perfon whom he judged and found of fervice and great help to him in the miniftry, 2 Tim. iv. 11. and accordingly honcurs him with the character of his fellowlabourer, Philein. 24. Befides all which, St. Peter ftiles him his fon; i. e. one who, as a fon, ferved and helped him in the work of the Gospel, 1 Pet. v. 13.

II. I am next to confider the accounts we have from the antients, relating to Mark the Evangelift.

1. Thefe all agree, that Mark, the writer of the Gospel,

was a companion or interpreter of Peter. So Papias, Irenæus', the author of the Hypotopofes which went under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, and was fuppofed to be his by Eufebius, Origen, Eufebius, Jerome f, and many others of the Fathers. Several of thefe 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 Gofpel which he had written at Rome, and founded many churches in Alexandria, and made a vast number of converts to Chriftianity. This is related by Eufebius 8, Epiphanius, Jerome 1, and many fucceeding writers; fuch as Hippolytus *, Dorotheus', Ifidorus Hifpalenfis ", Theophylact ", &c. all which I fhall pass over, only obferving that the tradition of Mark's founding the church at Alexandria, which Du Pin° 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 afferted the fame, but given us the particular method by which the Evangelift 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 fuccessful in making numerous converts, but induced them to a more than common ftrictnefs in the profeffion and practice of their new religion; for which reafon Philo Judæus wrote a peculiar treatife concerning them and their manner of living, viz. that in¬ titled Igi Big SeapTin, i. e. Concerning a contemplative Life.

[blocks in formation]

I fhall not now enquire, how far these two Fathers and Epiphanius, who was of the fame opinion, were in the right, in suppofing that Philo's Effenes were Mark's Christian converts; but would refer the reader to the authors which I have elfewhere cited upon this queftion, and a conjecture of my own which I have in the fame place propofed, relating to this

matter.

с

с

3. Another thing delivered by the antients to us concerning St. Mark is, that he was one of the feventy Difciples whom Chrift fent forth, Luke x. 1, &c. and that he left Chrift an account 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 fo wrote his Gofpel.This is related by feveral of the old Chriftian writers; but it will be enough to mention the teftimony of Epiphanius, who relates the story with all the mentioned particulars. Grotius and Dr. Cave question the truth and genuineness of the tradition, because Papias affirms, that he neither heard nor followed Chrift. But to say nothing of what is objected against Papias as a witnefs in these cafes, it is eafy to answer to this argument; for Papias meant no more than that Mark was not such a disciple and follower of Chrift, as to be able to form his Gospel out of his own knowledge; and this is very confiftent with Epiphanius, whofe account is, that Mark, though he was fent out by Chrift, yet lefthim on occafion of his difcourfe, John vi. 53. i. e. almost two years before our Lord's afcenfion, and fo could not be capable to write a history of Chrift upon his own knowledge-I rather therefore incline to give credit to the tradition, and with the famous Jefuit Petavius f observe, that there is nothing in the circumftances of time, but what would incline a person to believe he might have seen Christ; and though Epiphanius fhould think differently in this matter from other Fathers (viz. Papias, and those who follow him),

[blocks in formation]

yet his tradition is not to be rejected, in which he declares that Mark was of the number of the feventy-two Difciples ".

Concerning the life of Mark in other inftances, as alfo concerning his death, I know nothing that can be faid with fufficient certainty. The later writers tell us, that he travelled weftward to the most defert 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 infert them. See Dorotheus, Eutychius Alexandrinus in his Arabick Annals, with Mr. Selden's tranflation and commentary 4, and Ifidorus Hifpalenfis, who faith that Mark died, and was placida quiete fepultus; and among the moderns Dr. Cave f, and Mr. Eachard, who has transcribed his words. I fhall only add here, that there is a conftant tradition received in the Roman Church, which is fet 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, "and he adopted as the tutelar faint and patron of that state, " and one of the richest and statelieft churches erected to his "memory, that the world can boaft of at this day." He who would fee a larger account of this fabulous tranflation, viz. when, and by what means, the Venetian merchants procured thefe reliques of Mark, may confult the learned Spanheim. Hift. Chrift. Secul. ix. §. 5. and the authors cited by Mr. Selden, Comment. in Eutych. p. 169.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« 前へ次へ »