CHAP. VII. The Occafion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel, viz. the Requeft 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 afferted. The Tradition fupported by feveral Obfervations. ITHERTO concerning St. Mark. I proceed now to difcourfe concerning his Gospel, and to produce the several accounts which we have from antiquity relating to it; which I fhall confider under the three following heads, viz. 1. As to the occafion or caufe, for which the Gospel of St. Mark was written. This I have had occafion to obferve largely elsewhere, but shall nevertheless particularly fet down here what the antients have delivered to us upon this head. Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, the author of the Synopfis under the name of Athanafius, and Jerome, are the perfons whom I mean. Eufebius out of Papias, and the book which went under the name of The Hypotopofes of Clemens Alexandrinus, relates, That when Peter, in the reign of Claudius, came to Rome, and had defeated Simon Magus, the people were fo inflamed with love for the Christian truths, as not to be fatisfied with the hearing of them, unless they also had them written down. That accordingly they with earnest intreaties applied themselves to Mark, Vindic. of St. Matth. Gofpel, Ch.Vi. P.47 b Hift. Ecclef. lib. 2. c. 15. a companion a companion of Peter's, and whofe 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 request, till they had prevailed upon him, and procured his writing of that which is now called The Gofpel of MARK. That when Peter came to know this, he was, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, pleafed with the request of the people, and confirmed the Gospel which was written for the ufe of the Churches. This, fays Eufebius, is related by Clemens Alexandrinus in the fixth book of his Hypotopofes, and confirmed by the testimony of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. The fame Eufebius, in two other places of his works, relates particularly what Papias and Clemens have wrote concerning Mark's Gofpel; viz. The former fays to this purpose, that Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, exactly wrote down whatsoever he remembered, though not in the fame order of time, in which the several things were faid or done by Chrift; for he neither heard nor followed Chrift, but was a companion of Peter, and compofed his Gofpel rather with the intent of the people's profit, than writing a regular hiftory. So that he is in no fault, if he in fome things wrote according to his memory, he defigning no more than to omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing false ». The latter, viz. the Hypotoposes afcribed to Clemens Alexandrinus, relate, that, according to a tradition of the former prefbyters, the Gospel of Mark was wrote on the following occafion, viz. When Peter was publickly preaching the Gospel in Rome, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts there defired Mark, as having been a long companion of Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, to write down his difcourfes; that upon this he composed his Gofpel, and gave it to thofe who made this request, which when Peter knew, be neither obftructed nor encouraged the work. a Irenæus only fays, that after the death of Peter and Paul, who had been preaching at Rome, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he had heard him preach. Origen adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel according to the dictates or directions of Peter. b The author of the Synopfis under the name of Athanafius, faith the fame as the laft. C Jerome tells us, that Mark, the difciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, be approved and published it in the churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority. These are the relations of the antients, concerning the occafion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel; as to which I would offer the following remarks. 1. That they all agree, that St. Mark wrote what he heard or learnt from St. Peter. 2. That Eufebius makes Clemens Alexandrinus directly to contradict himself in this matter: for whereas he in one place (viz. lib. 2. c. 15.) faith, that Clemens teftifies Peter's approbation of the Church of Rome's request to Mark to write, as alfo of the Gospel written: in another he faith, (viz. lib. 6. c. 14.) that Peter neither obftructed nor encouraged Mark in his undertaking. This is fo plain a contradiction, that I know not how it can be reconciled. Valefius has indeed attempted a reconciliation, viz. That Peter privately approved it, but not publickly; but no one, who confiders the words, can be fatisfied with this. I doubt not but the former place is the true one, and that St. Peter did approve the writing of Mark, becaufe fo many of the primitive writers affert it; and if we will fuppofe Jerome to have looked into this book of Clemens, which he cites, the matter will be paft doubt; for he faith,, a Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. 1. Expofit. in Matt. apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 6. c. 25. с Catalog. Vir. Illuftr. in Marco. d Annot. in Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 6. c. 14. See Father Simon. Crit. Hift. New Teft. part 1. c. 10. that that there it was faid, that this Gospel was approved and delivered to the churches to be read by Peter. Catalog. Vir. IIluftr. in Marco. 3. It seems more probable that Mark wrote his Gospel from what he could remember of Peter's difcourfes concerning Chrift, than from the immediate dictatings of that Apostle; for most of the accounts above fuppofe Peter ignorant of his writing, till after he had wrote. See Cotelerius's conjecture to the fame purpose; Not. in Conftit. Apoftolic. lib. 2. c. 57. and Valef. in Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3. c. 39. 4. That which is by all writers on this subject cited as the teftimony of Papias, ought not to be looked upon so much to be his, as the testimony of John the Elder; for it is not only declared by Papias, that he had all traditions of this fort from Ariftion and John the Elder, but he introduces this very testimony thus, καὶ τῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε : i. e. and this the Elder (John) faid, viz. that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, &c. 5. St. Mark's character, as interpreter of St. Peter, does not imply that Apostle to have been deftitute of the gift of tongues. The word ipμnvers denotes an expofitor, not only of an unknown language, but of any thing elfe unknown; and in this fenfe, Mark was properly Peter's interpreter, as he was made use of particularly to explain to the people, what the Apostle had more largely preached. Dr. Cave has another way of accounting for the matter; viz. "That though the Apostles "were divinely infpired, and among other miraculous powers "had the gift of languages conferred upon them, yet was the "interpretation of tongues a gift more peculiar to fome than "others. This, fays he, might probably be St. Mark's talent "in expounding St. Peter's difcourfes, whether by word or writing, to those who understood not the language wherein they were delivered "." 66 6. There are fome evidences in the Gospels now received, that St. Mark's Gofpel was written according to the preaching or difcourfes of Peter, or that the accounts, which we have from the entients, are true. This I gather from a remark, which I have elsewhere made, and endeavoured to fupport by proper arguments, viz. That there are in the Gospel history, Several very remarkable circumstances relating to, and in favour of, St. Peter, which are related by the other Evangelifts, and not so much as mentioned, or hinted at, by St. Mark. The reason of which feems to be, that as St. Peter's modefty would not allow him to publish and preach them, fo neither would he fuffer them to be inferted in a Gofpel, which was to go into the world with his approbation, and even under his name. The paffages in the Gospel, to which I refer, are several, that seem very much to St. Peter's advantage, and tend to his fuperiority or advancement above the reft of the Apostles; which as that Apostle would decline from in preaching, fo would he not encourage to be written, and consequently as they are in the other Gofpels, and not in St. Mark, feem clearly to intimate to us, that St. Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter. I have in the book laft cited, collected feveral of thefe inftances, which, for the fake of the curious in these studies, I fhall here set down, viz. A Catalogue of several places in the Gospel history, which relate things tending to St. Peter's honour, which are not mentioned by St. Mark in his Gospel. I. The account of Chrift's pronouncing Peter blessed, when he had confeffed him; his declaring that he had his faith and knowledge from God; his promife of the keys and of that large power, which is made to him, &c. are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and fucceeding parts of this difcourse are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16-20. compared with Mark viii. 29, 30. II. The relation of St. Peter's being commiffioned by Chrift to work the miracle, by getting money out of the fifh's mouth, to pay the tribute money, is told by St. Matthew, Ch. xvii. 24, &c. but omitted by St. Mark, though the preceding and fubfe a Vindication of St. Matthew's Gofpel, ch. vi. p. 48, &c. quent |