« 前へ次へ »
guing of a learned Popish divine on this head1, out of Eusebius. "Why (fays 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 "suffer him to tell these things to St. Mark, when he was "writing his Gospel. We may observe the three other Evan<e gelists relating those things, which tend to advance the ho«* nour and prerogative of St. Peter. Only St. Mark, who "wrote his Gospel from St. Peter's dictating to him, has "omitted them; which evidences the great modesty of St. "Peter." This reasoning is abundantly consirmed 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 itself, 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 addsb > "Of this there be some characters discernible in the writing itself; as that, setting "down the story of Peter's denying of Christ, with the fame "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 "txAatt be wept; whereas Matthew hath j'xXai/crt wtxpif, be wept "Utterly." How far this argument is conclusive, I shall not
Luc. c. z*. Ego rogain fro te, &c. Et apud Joan. n. Pasce o-ves meas. Solum Marcum, qui Evangeliutn scripsit, iicut Petro reference audierat, de his tacuisse. Qua; res insignem B. Petri modestiam iiobis insinuat et commendat. Estius in Dissicilior. Script, loc. ad Marc. 2. 29.
* Introduc. to Matt.
* Cur Marcus oraittit ilia magnifica promissa Petro facta a Cln isto, quæ leguntur apud Matth. vid. apud Euieb. lib. 3. Demonstr. Evang. c. 7. Petrus ex humilitate noluit hoc referre Marco scripturo Evangelmm; ubi nota reliquos tres Evangelistas ea commemorasse, quæ ad Petii exce,lltntiam et prærogativam pertinent. Matt. ch. 16. Status es, Simon Bar-Jart a, &c.
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 ist Epistlea makes mention of St. Mark, as being along with him, and calls him bis son: The Church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. There can be no just reason to question, whether the fame Mark is here intended, who wrote the Gospel ; and if the word Babylon be here taken for Rome, as the Fathers, the papists in general, and many other among the Protestantsb do take it, then the foregoing account receives a very great consirmation, from St. Peter and St. Mark's having been at Rome together. So Jeromec and Eusebius * 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 fay 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 fay, he took his Gospel from St. Peter's mouth, and transcribed it from St. Matthew's writing, is somewhat like a contradiction. But besides this, if St. Mark had had St. Matthew's Gospel along
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. Matthew's Gospel at Rome, there would have been no need of St. Mark's writing. "If (fays the famous Cardinal Bellarmine*) "the Gospel of St. Matthew had been then at Rome in the "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 faid. Besides, those 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 desire an account of all that our Lord faid, and did. They would hardly desire, and be contented wjth a less full, when they Could have a more full and perfect account. I conclude therefore, that St. Matthew's Gospel was not then at Rome, and consequently that St. Mark did not epitomize, or make any use of it, when he composed his Gospel.
1 Immo si tune (sell, quando Marcus Romæ sertpsit) Evangelium Matthsei in manibus ti4elium
Romæ fuisset, credibile est Marcum scripturum non f'uilse. Bellarm. dt Matrimoii. Sacr. lib. i. c. 16.
CHAP. CHAP. VII.
The Second Argument, to prove St. Mari'i Gospel not to be an Epitome os St. Matthew's, because his Accounts are generally larger, and contain many more particular Circumstances, than St. Matthew's do. This evidenced by several Instances.
Arg. II. i^T. Mark's Gospel is not an abridgement or epitome of St. Matthew's, because for the most part his accounts are much more large and full, and related with many more particular circumstances, than the same accounts are by St, Matthew. There is scarce any one story related by both these Evangelists, in which St. Mark does not add some considerable circumstances, which St. Matthew has not ; and if this be so, I think there can be no more convincing evidence, that St. Mark did not design to epitomize St. Matthew: but if we were to conclude any thing of this nature from comparing them together, the conclusion must be, that St. Matthew in all these parts did design to abridge St. Mark.
The matter of fact, which I have here asserted, will easily appear to be true to any one, who reads these two Gospels with this view, and compares them together. To save the reader the pains. , I have collected some instances, and set them down in such a manner, that by a bare casting the eye upon them, the truth of that which I contend for, will sussiciently appear, viz. that St. Mark is generally larger in his accounts than St.Matthew.
A Table of several Instances, in which St. Mark relates his stories more fully and with more particular circumstances. , than St. Matthew.
The story of the devils cast into the swine.
St. Matthew. Chap. VIII. Ver. a8. And when he was come to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possefled with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29, And behold they cried out, faying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou
St. Mark. Chap. V. Ver. 1. And they came 0ver unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
2. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs, a man with an unclean spirit;
3. Who had his dwelling among the tombs, and no man could bind him, no not with chains.
4. Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces; neither could any man tame him.
5. And always night and day he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.
6. But when he faw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him;
7. And cried with a loud voice, and faid, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou