the universal teftimony of antiquity: there is fcarce any fact which is more generally attested; so that for my part, I know not how to deny St. Peter's having been at Rome, without afferting at the fame time, that the most universal concurrence of the primitive Christians in relating a fact, is not to be depended upon. The queftion therefore before us now is, When St. Peter was at Rome? I fhall briefly lay down the differing opinions, and then, what appears more probable.

b

1. The Popish writers generally affert, that St. Peter came to Rome in the fecond year of Claudius, or the year of Christ XLIV, This is well known: the foundation of their opinion is, that Eufebius in his Ecclefiaftical History faith; Peter, by the direction of Providence, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, to contend with, and overcome Simon Magus; and in his Chronicon, that after he had been at Antioch, he went to Rome, in the fecond year of Claudius, i. e. the year of Chrift XLIV. Those who are of this opinion, fuppofe the Gospel of St. Mark to be written at this time, as Eufebius feems alfo to have thought; and so it is afferted at the end of the Arabick Verfion, and of many antient manufcripts of this Gospel, particularly one mentioned by Dr. Hammond, two referred to by Father Simon, and thirteen cited by Dr. Mill, as it is alfo by Theophylact %, and others of the Greek Scholiafts.

2. Moft Proteftants, and fome learned writers among the Papifts, fuppofe Peter's coming to Rome, not to have been till many years after, viz. not till Nero's reign, and the ninth or tenth year of that reign, i. e. about the year of Chrift 63, or 64. The foundations of this opinion are,

(1.) That St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Romans, does not falute Peter, though he spends almost a whole chapter in fa→ luting particular persons at Rome, and this Epiftle is supposed

a Vid. inter alios Dionyf. Petav. Rationar. Tempor. Par. I. lib. v. c. 3. & Achill. Primin. Gaffar. Epit. Hift. & Chronic. Mundi, p. 93.

b Lib. 2. c. 14.

Vid. Lud. de Dieu in Marci

cap. ult.

d Annot. in Titul. Matth.
e Crit. Hift. of the New Teft,
Part I. c. 10.

f In Marc. сар. ult.
Præfat. in Marc.

to

to be wrote about the year 53, or after, viz. in the end of

Claudius's reign".

(2.) That upon St. Paul's coming to Rome first, which was about the year of Chrift 58, or 59, viz. in the beginning of Nero, be neither met with Peter there, nor any figns of his having been there; but on the contrary, found the people there ignorant of, and much unacquainted with, Chriftianity". See Acts xxviii. 21, 22, &c. 28.

For my own part, I cannot but fufpect the validity of this argument in part; for it is certain, that, before St. Paul's coming to Rome, there were many converts made there to the Christian religion. The Epiftle to the Roman converts, was wrote four or five years before Paul was at Rome; and when he came there, the brethren met him, fome at Appii Forum, some at the Three Taverns; Acts xxviii. 15. yet, on the other hand, all this may be supposed, without any Apostle's having been there to preach to them; for the Gospel having been now preached five or fix and twenty years, it is no way unreasonable to fuppofe it should in this time reach Rome, where there was a general conflux of all forts of people. See Dr. Whitby on Acts xxviii. 15.

(3.) That Paul makes no mention of Peter in any one of thofe Epiftles, which he wrote from Rome to the churches; which in all probability he would have done, had Peter been there < any part of that time.

(4.) That on the contrary, in his Epiftle from Rome to the Coloffians, St. Paul tells them, that (of the Jews) Mark, fifter's fon to Barnabas, and Jesus, called Juftus, were the only fellow-labourers which he had in promoting the kingdom of God, Col. iv. 10, 11. This evidently excludes Peter ".

of

Thefe, with fome other reasons, make it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at Rome till the ninth or tenth year Nero; i. e. till the year of Chrift 63, or 64. and confe

a See Dr. Cave's Life of Peter, Sect. 11.

b Cleric. Hift. Ecclef. Secul. I. ad Ann. 61. p. 412. and Dr. Cave loc. cit.

Cleric. Hift. Ecclef. Secul. 1.

ad Ann. 62. p. 422. et ad Ann. 68. p. 447. Cave, ubi fupra. Eachard's Ecclef. Hift. b. 2. c. 6.

Cave & Cleric. loc. cit.

F 4

quently,

quently, that the Gofpel of St. Mark was not written before this time, but between this and the martyrdom of this Apostle and St. Paul at Rome, i. e. the year of Chrift 67, or 68, which happened at the fame time. See the teftimonies 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 fhall 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 fo formed a church in this place of the empire; which account (says 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 fecond year of Claudius, or the forty fourth year of Chrift; and that in the Arabick Annals of Eutychius Alexandrinus, published by Mr. Selden, the time of writing this Gospel is faid to have been in Nero's reign: his words are in English thus, In the time of Nero Cafar, 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.

CHA P. IX.

St. Mark's Gofpel proved to be Canonical. It is in all the antient Catalogues of facred 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 laft Chapter of this Gofpel proved to be genuine and authentick.

I

COME now to establish the Canonical authority of this Gospel, which I shall endeavour by the following argu

ments.

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 Chriftians. These catalogues I have collected and referred to Vol. I. Part I. Ch. VIII. viz. the catalogue of Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, Cyrill, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Philastrius, Jerome, Ruffin, Auftin, the third Council of Carthage, and the author of the books under the name of Dionyfius 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 Chriftians, and approved as Scripture, viz. the three first by St. John the Evangelist, and the four together by Polycarp, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, Ambrofe, Jerome, &c. See above in this Part the previous Differtation.

Arg. II. The Gospel of St. Mark is of Canonical authority, because it is cited as Scripture in the writings of the primitive Chriftians, by Prop. V. How largely and frequently St. Matthew's Gospel was appealed to by them, we have already feen; 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

Mark's Gospel, and what is related in it, is also related by St. Matthew. I fhall however produce the feveral places which I have obferved.

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 alfo 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 fhall 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 cafe is the fame as in the Apoftolick Fathers; only one place I have observed, in which he cites fomething 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 ; Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν τὸν Πέν τρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποςόλων, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτῷ γεyenérov: i. e. It is faid that he changed the name of one of his Apofiles into Peter; and the fact is related in his Commentaries or Gospel. This is not in Matthew, but in Mark iii. 16. we read, Καὶ ἐπέθηκε τῷ Σίμωνι ὄνομα Πέτρον : i. e. And Simon he furnamed Peter. It is plain therefore that Juftin had feen St. Mark's Gofpel; and though indeed this be alfo related by Luke (vi. 14.), yet it is to me evident he cited Mark, and not Luke, becaufe he fays it was written ἐν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτῷ : i. e. in his Commentaries, viz. the Commentaries or Gospel of Peter, whom he had just named, and to whom the word aire is undoubtedly to be referred, and not to Chrift.

(1.) Because Juftin Martyr, though he very often mentions the añoμmμovsúμata, or Commentaries of the Apostles, never once mentions the απομνημονεύματα of Chrift.

(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 απομνημονεύματα Χριςε; this would be juft the fame as to call the Gospels in Latin, Libri or Commentarii Chrifti, instead of Libri or Commentarii de Chriflo.