« 前へ次へ »
quently, that the Gospel of St. Mark was not written before this time, but between this and the martyrdom of this Apoftle and St. Paul at Rome, i. e. the year of Christ 67, or 68, which happened at the same time. See the testimonies of Caius in his book against Proculus, and Dionyfius, Bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Romans to this purpose, both of whom lived in the second century. , I shall only add, that in the small tract of Lactantius, concerning the death of perfecutors, we read, that Peter came to Rome during Nero's reign, and made a great many converts there, and so formed a church in this place of the empire; which account (fays Bishop Burnet in the preface to his English translation of this tract b), cuts off the fable of Peter's having been there for five and twenty years; i. e. from the second year of Claudius, or the forty fourth year of Christ; and that in the Arabick Annals of Eutychius Alexandrinus, published by Mr. Selden, the time of writing this Gospel is said to have been in Nero's reign: his words are in English thus, In the time of Nero Cæfar, Peter, the chief of the Apostles, wrote the Gospel of Mark together with Mark, in the Latin (Greek) tongue, in the city of Rome, but he gave the title of it to Mark..
* Apud Eufeb. Hift. Ecclefiaft. lib. 2. c. 25.
o Pag. 4. Le Clerc, Secul. 1. ad Ann. 68. p. 448.(though I confess I know not upon what grounds)
tells us this book was not wrote (as its editor Baluzius, and Trans. lator Bishop Burnet supposed) by Lactantius, but L. Cæcilius,
CHAP. CHA P. IX.
St. Mark's Gospel proved to be Canonical. It is in all the an.
tient Catalogues of sacred Books. It is cited as Scripture by the primitive Fathers. It was read in their Churches. It is in the Syriack Collection, or Verfion. Objections against its. Authority answered. The last Chapter of this Gospel proved to be genuine and authentick.
I COME now to establish the Canonical authority of this I Gospel, which I shall endeavour by the following arguments.
Arg. I. The Gospel of St. Mark is of Canonical authority by Prop. IV. because it is in all the catalogues of Canonical books, which we have among the writings of the primitive Christians. These catalogues I have collected and referred to Vol. I. Part I. Ch. VIII. viz. the catalogue of Origen, Eusebius, Athanafius, Cyrill, the Council of Laodicea, Epipha. nius, Gregory Nazianzen, Philastrius, Jerome, Ruffin, Auftin, the third Council of Carthage, and the author of the books under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. To which I add the general proof I have above made in this part, that the four Gospels only, which we now receive, were received by the first Churches of Christians, and approved aš Scripture, viz. the three first by St. John the Evangelist, and the four together by Polycarp, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, &c. Şee above in this Part the previous Dissertation.
Arg. II. The Gospel of St. Mark is of Canonical authority, because it is cited as Scripture in the writings of the primitive Christians, by Prop. V. How largely and frequently St. Matthew's Gospel was appealed to by them, we have alo ready seen; and if we do not find St. Mark as often cited, it cannot be thought strange, because the far greatest part of St.
Mark's Gospel, and what is related in it, is also related by St.
1. In the writings (as they are called) of the Apoftolick Fathers, I have not observed any places of this Gospel referred to, which are not also in St. Matthew, and accordingly fet down above, as being taken out of that Gospel, though perhaps feveral of them were taken out of St. Mark. I shall therefore refer the reader to the collection or catalogue of the citations made by these Fathers out of St. Matthew.
2. In Justin Martyr's works the case is the fame as in the Apoftolick Fathers; only one place I have observed, in which he cites something which is in St. Mark's Gospel, and not in St. Matthew's. The place I mean is (Dialog. cum Tryph. Jud. p. 333 ) where he faith ; Kai và ti ET A4Talog.xyzs auràn vào léτρον ένα των αποστόλων, και γεγράφθαι εν τους απομνημονεύμασιν αύτε γεgernuérov: i. e. It is said that he changed the name of one of his Apostles into Peter ; and the fact is related in his Commentaries or Gospel. This is not in Matthew, but in Mark iii. 16. we read, Kai tnéInxs tū Eigens ovou ce flétpor: i. e. And Simon he fur. named Peter. It is plain therefore that Justin had seen St. Mark's Gospel; and though indeed this be also related by Luke (vi. 14.), yet it is to me evident he cited Mark, and not Luke, because he says it was written év atrouinporsúpaow aút ; i. e. in his Commentaries, viz. the Commentaries or Gospel of Peter, whom he had just named, and to whom the word aito is undoubtedly to be referred, and not to Christ.
(1.) Because Justin Martyr, though he very often mentions the amounpoveópata, or Commentaries of the Apostles, never once mentions the atropenportbuata of Christ.
. (2.) Because it is certain the Gospel of Mark went at that time under the name of Peter. This I have above proved out of Tertullian. ..
(3.) Because (if I mistake not) it would not be very elegant Greek to write an juancoreópata Xpıså; this would be just the fame as to call the Gospels in Latin, Libri or Commentarii Chrifti, instead of Libri or Commentarii de Chrifle.
1 Lib. 3. adv. Hæres. c. 11.
18. 2 -24.
2 Lib. 4. adv. Hæres. c. 14. 3 Chế ix. 23
3 C. 72.
5 C. 48.
7 Lib. 3. c. 11.
1. That in the first and last of these places Mark is cited by name.
2. That in every one else what is cited is in his Gospel, and not in the others, except one place which is in Luke.
3. That I have omitted all those places where there is the same in Matthew and Mark, though there is equal reason to suppose, that Irenæus referred to Mark, as to Matthew.
IV. Clemens AlexandRINUS. He has undoubtedly in several places of his Pædagogus and Stromata (viz. the works which are usually bound together under his name), cited St. Mark's Gospel ; but inasmuch as he has not, that I have found, cited it by name, nor produced any places but what are in St. Matthew's Gospel too, I thought a collection of them would be needless ; only I would observe, that in his little tract, intitled, Quis Dives salvetur ? he has cited a long paragraph out of this Gospel, viz. from ver. 17. of the tenth chapter to ver. 32. Tæūra Mè šv tū Mate Máqxov evazbeniw yérpantas; These things, says he, are written in the Gospel according to Mark (Vid. cap. 4, 5.)
V. TERTULLIAN Appears plainly to have made use of St. Mark's Gospel, and has many times cited out of it that which is not in any other, and sometimes that which is. I have collected the following instances. ***St. MARK's Gospel. TERTULLIAN's Works. Ch. i. 2.
1 Adv. Jud. c. 9. It is true
Tertullian seems there to cite the Prophet Malachi iii. 1. but it is very evident he made use of Mark; for he has fol. lowed Mark's words, which are different both from the Hebrew and all the Greek copies of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is, I will send my mesa senger, and he shall pre
לפני pare the way .i
before me; and so in the LXX. meo apogune hits i. e. before me, whereas Mark has it προ προσώπε σε, and oδόν σε έμπροσθεν 08, i. e. before thy face, and before thee ; and in this Tertullian follows him, ante faciem tuam, qui præparabit viam tuam ante te ; i. e. before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee; which are the very words of Mark, not only differing