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 fame in Matthew and Mark, though there is equal reason to fuppofe, 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 needlefs; only I would observe, that in his little tract, intitled, Quis Dives falvetur? he has cited a long paragraph out of this Gospel, viz. from ver. 17. of the tenth chapter to ver. 32. Tauta pèu iv tự natà Mágner says:iw yeyparтa; Thefe things, fays 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 inftances. St. MARK's Gofpel. Ch. i. 2. TERTULLIAN's Works. 1 Adv. Jud. c. 9. It is true Tertullian feems there to cite the Prophet Malachi iii. 1. but it is very evident he made use of Mark; for he has followed 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 fend my mesfenger, and he shall prepare the ways i, e. before me; and fo in the LXX. προ προσώπε με, i.e. before me, whereas Mark has it προ προσώπε σε, and ὁδόν σε ἐμπροσθέν os, 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 the very words of Mark, not only differing are St. TERTULLIAN's Works. from, but larger than ei- 2 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 26. 7 Lib. de Baptifm. c. 19. These are some places in which Tertullian made ufe of St. Mark's Gofpel, none of which are to be found in St. Matthew; fo that it is as probable he cited this Gospel in those places which are the fame in it and St. Matthew's, as that he cited St. Matthew's; and if fo, it would be easy to produce almost half a hundred inftances more. It would be a fuperfluous task and endless labour to go, in like manner as above, through all the writers of the first four centuries, and collect the citations which they have made of this Gofpel. Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Austin, &c. have made too many references to this Gofpel to require a collection of them; befides, feveral of the Fathers of these times have wrote Commentaries or Homilies upon this Gospel, as on the other parts of Scripture; which, with what is already said, is enough to evince its Canonical authority by Prop. V. Arg. III. The Gospel of St. Mark is of Canonical authority (by Prop. VI.), because it was read as Scripture among the other books of facred Scripture in the Affemblies or Churches of the primitive Chriftians. This will be evident to every one who who will confult Cyrill of Jerufalem, the fifty-ninth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, as above referred to Part I. Ch. X, and in this Part above, concerning St. Matthew, Chap. III. where it is also shewn, that in Juftin Martyr's time the Gofpels were wont to be read in the Churches; and as Juftin did efteem St. Mark's Gofpel to be a true one, and cited it as fuch, there can be no reason to queftion but he includes this among those other amountpara, or memoirs of the Apoftles, which were read in the Churches. Arg. IV. St. Mark's Gospel is Canonical, because it was efteemed fo by the Churches of Syria in or near the Apostles' time, and accordingly by them in those days tranflated, and inserted in their collection of facred books; Prop. XV. At the end of this Gospel in Syriack we accordingly read, i. e. The end of the Holy Gospel of the preaching of Mark, which he spake and preached in Latin at Rome. Having thus endeavoured to establish the Canonical authority of this Gospel of St. Mark, I shall now briefly confider that which has been or may be objected against it. 1. It may seem a very confiderable objection against this Gospel and it's authority, that it seems to be only an epitome, or abridgment of St. Matthew's Gospel. To this I answer, that were the fact certain, and it could-be made appear, that St. Mark did transcribe his Gospel out of St. Matthew's, it would very much weaken its authority, and leffen the credit of its infpiration. This I have elsewhere more largely obferved (viz. Vindicat. of St. Matthew's Gof pel, Ch. X.), and fhewn how abfurd it is to suppose a person under the conduct of infpiration, transcribing or stealing out of another's labours. The little neceffity there is for infpiration in such a case, is no mean argument that there was none at all. What need had a man of the guidance of the Holy Ghoft, to read and write out here and there a piece of a history, where where he had a mind? How odd is it to fay, The Holy Spirit inspired one person to write a hiftory, and then infpired another to abridge it! i. e. The Holy Spirit thought fit at first to have so much wrote, but then afterwards that it should not be quite so much, but the fuperfluities of his firft work should be left out. Farther, as the fuppofing St. Mark an epitomifer of St. Matthew leffens the credit of inspiration, so it detracts from the honour and usefulness of St. Mark's work. It is little better than to fay, this Gospel was ftolen, and the author a plagiary; and accordingly Ruffin in the fourth century, and some bigotted Papifts fince, have called it Religiofum Furtum, a religious theft, or pious fraud. Accordingly Spinozab and Father Simon have by this very means attempted to ruin the credit of the books of the Old Teftament, viz. by afferting them to be only extracts out of larger records now loft. All this and much more would follow, if we fuppofe St. Mark's Gospel an epitome of St. Matthew's ; but the truth is, the world hath been miftaken entirely in the fact; and though fome among the antients, and almost all later writers have afferted it, it is utterly falfe, and moft evident, that St. Mark did not abridge St. Matthew, as I have in another book proved, by fuch arguments as appear to me undeniably conclufive; which I fhall think it fufficient to refer the reader to, with what is above faid in this work, Part I.. Ch. XIII. Prop. XIV. II. It is objected, that Mark himself was not an Apostle and eye-witness of what he wrote, but only a companion of the Apofiles, and confequently his Gospel is, and ought to be of no more authority, than the writings of Barnabas, Clemens, or any other companion of the Apoftles. This is urged by Mr. Toland, Amynt. p. 47, 48. His words are," If they think them 66. (viz. the Epiftle of Barnabas, Clemens, &c.) genuine, why "do they not receive them into the Canon of Scriptures, "fince they were the companions and fellow-labourers of the |