ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Gospel, os Térpos ü@ngacaro aútų, as St. Peter directed or taught him. The same account we have from Jerome a several times, Theophylact, and several others of the antients. It was so far believed in the first ages, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel under the conduct and direction of St. Peter, that this Gospel was by a great many called The Gospel of St. Peter, and not St. Mark; so Tertullianc tells us, that “ the Gospel « which St. Mark published, was affirmed to be wrote by « St. Peter.” Such is the account, which we have from antiquity, of the writing of this Gospel. There is one remark which I have made in reading this Gospel, which (though it may seem to some to be too nice a speculation) yet perhaps, considering the very many testimonies of the antients, that St. Mark wrote what he heard from St. Peter, may have some weight in it, and be fome confirmation of the preceding relation. The remark I mean is this, viz. That there are in the Gospel history, several very remarkable circumstances, relating to St. Peter, which are told by the other Evangelifts, and not so much as mentioned or hinted at by St. Mark. The reason of which seems to be, that St. Peter's modesty would not permit them to be inserted, being generally such as were to his advantage, and would tend to advance his honour above the rest of the Apostles, a thing which no doubt the good Apostle would endeavour to prevent. For the manifesting of this, I will select a few out of the other instances, which might be produced, viz.

1. The account of Christ's pronouncing St. Peter blessed, when he had confessed him, the promise of the keys, and of that large power, '&c. made to him, are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and succeeding parts of the story, are both told by him. See Mark viii. 29, 30. and compare it with Matt. xvi. 16.-20.

2. The relation of St. Peter's working the miracle, by getting money out of the fish's mouth, to pay the tribute-money, told by St. Matt. ch. xvii. 24, &c. is omitted by St. Mark, though the preceding and subsequent stories are the same as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30-33.

· Marcus juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romæ a fratribus, breve scripsit Evange. lium. Catalog. Script. Eccl. in voce Marcus. Vid. Præfat. in Comment, in Matt.

6 Præfat. in Comment, in Marc.

' Evangelium, quod Marcus e. didit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Tertull. Adv. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 5.

ting

3. Christ's particular love and favour expressed to St. Peter, in telling him of his danger, and that he had prayed for him in particular, that his faith might not fail, Luke xxii. 31, 32. is omitted by St. Mark.

4. St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the Apostles, about Christ's washing his feet, &c. John xiii. 6-9. omitted by St. Mark.

5. The instance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting of the High-Priest's servant's ear. John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by St. Mark concerning St. Peter in particular, but only told in general of a certain person that stood by; Mark xiv. 47.

6. St. Peter's faith in leaping into the sea, to go to Chrift, John xxi. 7. not mentioned by St. Mark.

7. Christ's discourse with St. Peter concerning his love ta him, and his particular, repeated charge to him to feed his fheep, John xxi. 15. &c. omitted by St. Mark.

These are some instances of things tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, none of which are so much as hinted at by St. Mark. I add, that there is not any one single instance in all that Gospel, like unto any of those which have been mentioned. There is nothing in that Gospel, which does in the least tend to advance the honour and prerogative of St. Peter, above the rest of the Apostles. Now, why these and some other particulars of a like nature should be omitted by St. Mark, is somewhat strange, unless we account for it thus ; that St. Peter, who dictated this Gospel to St. Mark, through modesty and for fear of some bad consequences, caused him to leave out those things, which so particularly concerned himself. Had not St. Mark had his Gospel from St. Peter, I cannot conceive, why he should so studiously avoid the mention of all those remarkable things, which tended so much to his honour. Much to the fame purpose, is the arguing of a learned Popish divine on this heada, out of Eulebius. “Why (says he) St. Mark should leave out those great " and honourable promises made to St. Peter, which we read “ in St. Matthew (ch. xvi.), may be seen in Eusebius (De“monstr. Evang. 1. 3. c. 7.) St. Peter's humility would not so suffer him to tell these things to St. Mark, when he was

writing his Gospel. We may observe the three other Evan“ gelifts relating those things, which tend to advance the hoo nour and prerogative of St. Peter. Only St. Mark, who 6 wrote his Gospel from St. Peter's dictating to him, has o omitted them; which evidences the great modesty of St. “ Peter.” This reasoning is abundantly confirmed by a very common and well-known observation, that authors of modesty are seldom forward to mention those things, that tend to their own praise; so that we have at least a probable argument from the Gospel itself, to prove the account we have from antiquity, of the writing of it, true. The learned Dr. Hammond has another argument taken out of the Gospel it. self, by which he endeavours to prove the account, that has been given of its being dictated by St. Peter, to be true. After having cited the account, he adds b; “ Of this there be fome “ characters discernible in the writing itself; as that, setting “ down the story of Peter's denying of Christ, with the same “ enumeration of circumstances, and aggravations of the « fault, that Matthew doth; when he comes to mention his « repentance and tears consequent to it, he doth it (as became « the true penitent) more coldly than Matthew had done, only « έκλαιε he wept; whereas Matthew hath έκλαυσε πικρως, he wept « bitterly." How far this argument is conclusive, I shall not

* Cur Marcus omittit illa magnifica promissa Petro facta a Christo, quæ leguntur apud Matth. vid. apud Eufeb. lib. 3. Demonstr. Evang. c.7. Petrus ex humilitate noluit hoc referre Marco scripturo Evangelium ; ubi nota reliquos tres Evangelistas ea commemorasse, quæ ad Petri excellentiam et præroga. tivam pertinent. Matt. ch. 16. Beatus es, Simon Bar-Jona, &c.

Luc. c. 22. Ego rogavi pro te, &c. Et apud Joan. 21. Pafce oves meas. Solum Marcum, qui Evangelium (cripfit, ficut Petro referente audierat, de his tacuifle. Quæ res infignem B, Petri modeftiam nobis infinuat et commendat. Eftius in Difficilior. Script. loc. ad Marc. 8. 29.

Introduc. to Matt.

now

now enquire ; if this be not, perhaps there may be several of the like nature, that are. I would only add, that St. Peter himself in his ift Epistle a makes mention of St. Mark, as being along with him, and calls him his fon : The Church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, faluteth you, and so doth Marcus my fon: There can be no just reason to question, whether the fame Mark is here intended; who wrote the Gofpel; and if the word Babylon be here taken for Rome, as the Fathers, the papists in general, and many other among the Protestants do take it, then the foregoing account receives a very great confirmation, from St. Peter and St. Mark's having been at Rome together. So Jerome and Eufebius & make use of this argument for this very purpose. The words of the latter are these; “ But Peter makes mention of Mark in “ his first Epistle, which they say was wrote at Rome, and it « was that which Peter himself meant, when by a strong fi“ gure he makes use of the word Babylon to denote that “ city, viz. Rome, in these words, The Church which is at “ Babylon, chosen together with you, faluteth you, and Mark “ my son."

If then upon the whole it be reasonable to conclude, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, at the request of the brethren there, from the things which he had heard of St. Peter; we have, I think, an undeniable argument, that this Gospel is not an abstract, or epitome of St. Matthew's. If his Gospel be a collection of what St. Peter had told him, then it is not a bare transcript of St. Matthew: for to say, he took his Gospel from St. Peter's mouth, and transcribed it from St. Matthew's writing, is fomewhat like a contradiction. But besides this, if St. Mark had had St. Matthew's Gospel along

a 1 Pet. v. 13.

b See Dr. Hammond on 1 Pet. V. 13. and on Rey. xviii. 2.

s Petrus in Epiftola prima fub nomine Babylonis figuraliter Romam fignificans. Hieron. De Vir.

ron. De Vir. Illustr. in voc. Marc.

d Tš di Mápxs nenuoreúeir tón Tímpor én ting apotácu 'Enigonna io

xaiovrtáčao Paolu ta' airās pám μης" σημαίνειν τε τετ' αυτόν την σόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλώνα προσειπόντα, διά τέτων: 'Ασπάζεται υNão iv BabuaWre ouveXheXth, xai Máqxos o viós ue. Hift. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. Vid. etiain Vales. ad h. loc. ,

with him at Rome, why should the Romans have pressed him so very earnestly to make an epitome of it? Was it too long, and did it contain any things that were tedious or superfluous ? The truth is, if St. Mark, or any one else, had had St. Mat. thew's Gospel at Rome, there would have been no need of St. Mark's writing. " If (says the famous Cardinal Bellarmine a) " the Gospel of Șt. Matthew had been then at Rome in the 6 hands of any of the Christians, when St. Mark wrote there, "he would not have wrote.” And one would think they should rather have desired St. Matthew's Gospel, being wrote by one that was an eye and ear-witness of what he said. Bee sides, thofe for whom he wrote, wanted much of the zeal of the primitive Christians; nay, and of that zeal, which Eusebius fays they had for the Gospel history, if they did not defire an account of all that our Lord faid, and did. They would hardly desire, and be contented with a less full, when they could have a more full and perfect account. I conclude therefore, that St. Matthew's Gofpel was not then at Rome, and consequently that St. Mark did not epitomize, or make any use of it, when he composed his Gospel.

* Immo fi tunc (fcil. quando Marcus Romæ fcriplit) Evange. fium Matthæi in manibus fidelium

Romæ fuisset, credibile eft Marcum (cripturum non fuifle. Bellarm. de Matrimon. Sacr. lib. 1. c. 16.

СНАР.

« 前へ次へ »