quent ftories are the very fame as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30-33.

III. Chrift'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.

IV. St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the Apoftles, expreffed in an unwillingness that Chrift should wash his feet, which none of the reft did exprefs, with Chrift's particular difcourfe to him, &c. John xiii. 6, &c. is omitted by Mark.

V. The inflance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting off the High-Prieft's fervant's ear, John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by St. Mark in particular, but only told in general of a certain person that stood by, Mark xiv. 47.

VI. St. Peter's faith, in leaping into the fea to go to Christ, John xxi. 7. is not mentioned by St. Mark.

VII. Chrift's difcourfe 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.

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

These are fome inftances of things tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, none of which are fo much as hinted at by St. Mark. I add alfo, that there is not any one fingle instance in all his Gospel, like to those mentioned, or which tends to advance the honour and prerogative of Peter above the rest of the Apostles; all which cannot be accounted for by any way more probable, than fuppofing that the Apoftle did not publish thofe circumstances which were fo much in his favour. In this remark I have the pleasure

VOL. III.

F

pleasure to join with Eufebius, and the learned Doway profeffor, Eftius, whose words are to this purpofe; "Why, fays "he, St. Mark fhould omit in his Gospel thofe great and ho"nourable promifes made to St. Peter, which we read Matt. "xvi. may be feen in Eufebius, Demonftr. Evang. lib. 3. c. "7. St. Peter's humility would not fuffer him to tell these "things to St. Mark, when he was writing his Gofpel. It is "remarkable that the three other Evangelifts relate those "things, which tend to advance the honour and prerogative "of St. Peter: only St. Mark, who wrote his Gospel accord"ing to what he heard from St. Peter, hath omitted them; "which evidences the great modefty of the Apoftle"."

Dr. Hammond has another argument, by which he endeavours to prove the truth of the account, given by the antients, of St. Mark's writing under the direction of Peter". After he has produced the account, he adds; " And of this "there be fome characters difcernible in the writing itself; "as that, fetting down the ftory of Peter's denying Christ · "with the fame enumeration of circumftances, and aggrava❝tions of the fault, that Matthew doth, when he comes to " mention his repentance, and tears confequent to it, he doth "it, as became the true penitent, more coldly than Matthew had “ done, only inλais, he wept; whereas Matthew hath λaie minews, he wept bitterly."

7. It is no fmall proof that the antients' account of St. Mark's writing his Gospel under the direction of, or from, Peter is true, that the Gospel went under the name of Peter, and was styled the Gospel of Peter, being thought to be wrote by him. This we are expressly told by Tertullian, and not, obfcurely by Juftin Martyr, as I fhall fhew hereafter.

8. If the word Babylon, 1 Pet. v. 13. be put for Rome, as is generally thought by the antients, all the Popish writers.

a In Difficil. Script, loca, in Marc. viii. 29.

b Annot. on the title of Matthew.

Evangelium, quod Marcus edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Adv. Marcion. 1. 4.

c. 5.

333

Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud, p.

e Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib.z. c. 15. Hieron, Catalog. Vir, Illuftr. in Marco, et alii paffim

and

and many Proteftants; we have then hence a farther confirmation of the truth of the antients' account of the occafion of St. Mark's writing, viz. his writing from Peter's direction at Rome; viz. it will hence appear, that St. Mark was with Peter at Rome, and that he made use of him in the service of the Gospel, because he calls him his fon-The words are, The Church which is at Babylon [at Rome], elected together with you, faluteth you, and fo doth Mark my fon (or affiftant in the Gofpel-work.)

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the Language in which St. Mark wrote his Gospel. The Arguments of Baronius and Bellarmine, to prove that he wrote in Latin, refuted. Concerning the Time of St. Mark's writing. Two different Opinions propofed. St. Peter was at Rome. When he came first thither; viz. not till the ninth or tenth of Nero, or the Year of Chrift, LXIII. or LXIV.

THE

HUS I have given the best account I can of the original of St. Mark's Gofpel, and added fuch remarks, as appear to me illuftrating and confirming of it. I proceed now to confider,

II. In what language this Gospel of St. Mark was written.

Befides Baronius and Bellarmine, and a few zealous Papifts who have followed them, I know no one but subscribes to the common report of antiquity, that St. Mark wrote in Greek. Thefe Cardinals pretend he wrote in Latin; but nothing can be pretended upon more weak arguments: all their reasoning may be reduced to the three following heads, which I fhall briefly refute;

1. They urge, that St. Mark, writing his Gospel at Rome,

must be fuppofed to write it in the language, which was most in use there at that time; i. e. in Latin. But it is easy to reply;

(1.) That the Greek language was very much known and in ufe at Rome, when St. Mark wrote. This was the univerfal language, as Cicero, Seneca, and other writers of that time, affure us; and even the very women at Rome spake in that language.

(2.) The converts at Rome were, for the most part, of the Jews (as they also were in other countries ), and these generally understood Greek, and made use of the Greek Bibles. Grotius's words are as remarkable as true; "The Jews, "who dwelt at Rome, were for the most part ignorant of the "Latin tongue, but by means of their long abode in Afia and "Greece, had learnt the Greek; and of which language "there were scarce any of the Romans ignorant."

(3) Hence St. Paul, writing an Epiftle to the Romans, wrote it in Greek, and not in Latin.

2. It is urged, that there are feveral Latin words made Greek in St. Mark's Gospel, and thence concluded, that the whole Gospel was wrote in Latin.

What can be more abfurd? The argument proves nothing, unless it be the directly contrary to what it is brought for. He who was tranflating out of Latin into Greek, can never be supposed to put Latin words for Latin words. Accordingly Dr. Mill has juftly made this an argument to prove St. Mark wrote first in Greek; and there are Latin words in each of the Evangelifts, as well as Mark.

3. It is urged, that the Syriack, Arabick, and Perfick Verfions affirm St. Mark to have wrote in Latin. To which I anfwer,

(1.) That thefe epigraphs, or poftfcripts, at the end of thefe Verfions, are of very uncertain authority.

(2.) That the Arabick and Perfick Verfions are generally agreed, by those who have examined them, to be made out of the Syriack Verfion; and Lud. de Dieu has, by a very ingenious and folid criticism on the Epigraph at the end of the Arabick Verfion of Mark, proved that Verfion to be very late.

(3.) That the Epigraph of the Syriack Verfion, does not affirm Mark to have wrote in Latin, as is generally taken for granted, but only faith, that he spoke and preached in Latin at Rome; the words are, He fpake his Gofpel, and

preached it.

As to the teftimony of Eutychius Alexandrinus, urged by Baronius, to prove St. Mark to have wrote in Latin, I think there is nothing needful to be faid, he being fo late a writer; and befides, Mr. Selden has largely fhewn that the Arabick word, Romana, may be very well taken to denote the Greek language, and then Eutychius's teftimony will be, that Mark wrote in Greek. Concerning this whole matter, fee Father Simon's Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Part I. ch. 11.

رومية

III. It remains, that some enquiry be made into the time when St. Mark wrote his Gofpel. In this matter it is exceeding difficult to come to any clear determination. That which occafions the difficulty, is the uncertainty we are under as to the time when St. Peter came to Rome. Some have abfolutely denied that he ever was there; and as they endeavour from Scripture to fhew, that during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, he was either at Jerufalem, Samaria, or Antioch; fo from St. Paul's Epiftles, which were written. from Rome, and that which was written to Rome, all of them in the reign of Nero, they finding no falutations fent to Peter, nor from Peter, they conclude, that he never was at Rome ». But these seem to be arguments too weak to counterbalance

a Comment. in Eutych. Orig. Alex. p. 152.

F 3

b See Bunting's Itinerar. tot. Script. in English, p. 496.

the