תמונות בעמוד


And now, very probably, he conversed again with Peter, and the other A postles, and was present with them at their discourses, and their devotions. For, as I apprehend, all the Apostles were still in Judea except James the son of Zebedee, who had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa, in the beginning of the year 44.

Paul and Barnabas having finished their progresse, returned to Antisch, and there abode. Whilst they were there, debates arose about circumcising Gentil converts. Which determined Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem. That controversie being decided, they returned to Antioch.

Some time afterwards Paul said unto Barnabas : Let us go again, and visit our brethren, in every city, where we have preached the word, and fer how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose furname was Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, whe had departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. Barnabas, however, persisted in his resolution, and went with Mark to Cyprus. And Paul chose Silas to accompany him. Acts xv. 36....41.

Hereby we perceive the good temper of Mark. He was now at Antioch, and was willing to attend Paul and Barnabas in their journeys, and actually went with Barnabas to Cyprus. And though Paul would not now accept of his attendance, he was afterwards fully reconciled ta him. Mark is mentioned in several of his epiftles sent from Rome, during his confinement there. I suppose, I shall hereafter shew, that St. Paul's second epistle to Timothie was writ in the summer of the year 61. not long after Paul's arrival at Rome. In that epistle he writes to Timothie, to come to him. And he desires him to bring Mark with him. 2 Tim. iv. II. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministrie. Where Mark then was, does not clearly appear. It is probable, that he was either at Ephesus, or at some other place, where Timothie would find him in his journey from Ephesus to Rome. And, unquestionably, Mark did come with Timothie. He is mentioned in two of the epistles writ by the Apostle at Rome. Philem. ver. 24. and Col. iv. 10. Ariftarchus salutes you, and Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments. If he come unto you, receive him. Mark is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians. Perhaps he was not acquainted there, or upon some occasion was absent from the Apostle, when that epistle was writ. Or rather, he is comprehended in those general expressions. ch. iv. 21. The brethren that are with me, greet you. For in the epistle to the Philippians St. Paul does not mention his fellow-laborers by name, as he does in the epistles to the Colossians, and to Philemon. Nor is he mentioned in the epistle to the Ephesians. To those who admit the true date of that epistle the reason will be obvious. It was writ, and sent away, before Mark came to be with St. Paul at Rome,

This is all we can say concerning St. Mark from the New Testament. But from that we can collect his excellent character, and may conclude, that after this time he no longer attended on Paul. It is not improbable, that going now into Afia, he there met with St. Peter, and accompanied him, till that A poftle came to Rome, where he suffered mar. 3

tyrdom. tyrdom. Where likewise Mark wrote, and published the Gospel that goes by his name, From other III. We will now inquire, whether there is any thing in writers. other writers to illustrate the historie of this Evangelist.

Cave fays, without hesitation, that (n) Mark was a Levite. But he does not say, upon what authority, I do not remember, that it is in any of the writers, of which I have given a particular account, excepting (0) Bede. It is also in a commentarie upon St. Mark's Gospel, usually joyned with Jerome's works, though (D) allowed not to be his. That writer fays, that (9) Mark was a Levite, and a Priest. It is not unlikely, that this was inferred from Mark's relation to Barnabas, who was a Levite of Cyprus. Comp. Aets. iv. 36. and Col. iv. 10. But then Cave should not have denied, as he does in the same place, that Mark the Evangelist is the same as John Mark, mentioned in the Acts. For that, as I apprehend, is to remove out of the way the sole ground of this opinion.

By Eusebe we are informed, it (r) was said, that Mark going into Egypt, first preached there the Gospel, which he had writ, and planted there many churches. And afterwards, in another chapter, he says, that (s) in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first Bishop of Alexandria after Mark, the Apostle and Evangelist, took upon him the care of that church, Of which Anianus he gives a great character, as beloved of God, and a wonderful man.

Epiphanius says, that soon after Matthew, Mark, companion of Peter, composed his Gospel at Rome. And having (t) writ. it, he was sent by Peter into the countrey of the Egyptians.

Jerome, in his article of St. Mark, as (u) before quoted, after other things, says: “ Taking (x) the Gospel, which himself had composed, he

6 went

P. 88.

(n.) S. Marcus, Evangelista, quem cum Johanne Marco, de quo Act. xii. 12. male nonnulli confundunt, erat Levites. H. L. T.i. p. 24.

(6) Tradunt autem hunc, natione Ifraelitica, et sacerdotali ortum prosapia, ac poft passionem ac resurrectionem Domini Salvatoris, ad prædicationem Apoftolorum Evangelica fide a facramentis imbutum, atque ex corum fuisse numero, de quibus fcribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba sacerdotum obediebat fidei. Bed. Prol. in. Marc.

(P) Vid. Benedi&tin. Monitum, et Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. H. 21. num, vi.

(9) Marcus Evangelista Dei, Petri difcipulus, Leviticus genere, et facerdos, in Italia hoc fcripfit Evangelium. Præf. in Marc. ap. Hierom. T. v. p. 886.

(η) Τατον δε μάρκον πρώτον φασιν επί της αιγύπτα τειλάμενον, το ευαγγέλιον και δη και συνεγράψατο κηρύξαι, εκκλησίας τε πρωτων επ' αυτής αλεξανδρείας συρήσασ· wan. X. 2. H. E. l. 2. cap. 16. (s)..

πρώτος μετά μάγκον τον απόςολος και ευαγγέλιςήν, της έν αλεξανδρεία τατοικίας ανανός την λειτορίαν διαδέχεται» ανής θεόφιλος και πάντα θαυμασιος. Το. cap. 24. (t) και γράψας αποστέλλεται υπό τα αγία πέτρα εις την τών αιγυπτίων χώ

H. 51. num. vi. (11) Vol

. x. p. 92. 93: (x) Assumto itaque Evangelio, quod ipse con fecerat, perrexit ad Ægyptum, et primus Alexandrix Christum annuntians constituit ecclefiam ...

Denique Philo . , videns Alexandriæ primam eccletiain adhuc judaizantem, quafi in


« went to Egypt, and at Alexandria founded a church of great note. .. “ He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria, « where he was succeeded, as Bishop, by Anianus,"

From all these accounts, I think, it must appear to be probable, that if indeed Mark preached at all in Egypt, and founded a church at Alexandria; it must have been after he had writ his Gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul at Rome. Nevertheless, when presently afterwards Eusebe, and Jerome likewise, speak of Mark's converts, and Pbilo's Therapeuts, as all one, they seem to have imagined, that Mark had very early preached in Egypt. But what they say upon that head is exceed ing strange and unaccountable. For they both suppose, that Mark had writ his gospel at Rome, before he went into Egypt : and that his Gofpel was not writ before the reign of Nero. If therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria, it was later, in the same reign: and Philo's Therapeuts could not be Christians, nor Mark's converts : but were a sort of people, who had a being, and had formed their inftitution, before the gospel could be published in Egypt, and before the rise of the Christian Religion.

By Baronius (y) and many others, it is said, that St. Mark died a Martyr. This is admitted by (z) Cave, and the (a) late Mr. Wetstein. But it is disputed by (6) S. Basnage: and, as seems to me, with good reason. For St. Mark is not spoken of as a Martyr by Eusebe, or other more ancient writers. And Jerome, as before quoted, says, St. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria. He does not fay, that he was crowned with martyrdom: as he would have done, if he had known of it. And his expressions seem to imply a natural death. Fabricius (c) in his account of St. Mark, says nothing of his having been a Martyr.

IV. Having thus writ the historie of St. Mark, I shall now recollect the testimonies to his Gospel, which we have Testimonies to

his Gospel. feen in ancient writers, particularly, with a view of ascertaining the time of it: observing likewise whatever may farther lead us into the knowledge of his station and character, and whether he was one of Christ's seventy disciples, or not.

The first writer to be here taken notice of is Papias, about A. D. 116. He says, “ That (d) the Elder, from whom he had divers infor“mations, said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote what he reu membred: but not in the order, in which things were spoken and done

u by

laudem gentis fuæ, librum fuper eorum converfatione confcripfit. De V. L. cap. 8. (y) An. 64. § i, ii.

(2) Alexandriæ primus Episcopus factus Martyrium ibi subiit : quo vero anno, mihị hactenus incompertum. H. L. p. 24.

(a) Tandem vero in Ægyptum concefliffe, atque Alexandriæ fanguine sue doctrinam Christi confirmalle, hiltoria ecclefiaftica teltatur. 7. y. Wetflein. N.T. Tom. iP: 55I.

(6) Ann. 66. num, xix. «xx.
(c) Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. l. 4. cap. v. fi. iii. Tom. 3. p. 130... : 132,
(d) Vol.i. p. 245.

« by Christ. For he was not a hearer of the Lord, but afterwards fol"lowed Peter."

Irenaeus, as before (e) cited, about 178. says: “ After the death of « Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered « to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter." In another place (7) he calls Mark “ the interpreter and follower of « Peter,"

Clement, of Alexandria, about the year of Christ 194. says: “ That (8) “ Peter's hearers at Rome, not content with a single hearing, nor with « an unwritten instruction in the divine doctrine, entreated Mark, the « follower of Peter, that he would leave with them in writing a memo«rial of the doctrine, which had been delivered to them by word of “ mouth. Nor did they defift, untill they had prevailed with him. Thus “they were the means of writing the Gospel, which is called according « to Mark. It is said, that when the Apostle knew what had been « done, he was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorised that « fcripture to be read in the churches.” That paslage is cited from Eusebe's Ecclesiastical Historie.

Again, Eusebe says: “ Clement (h) informs us, that the occasion of « writing the Gospel according to Mark was this. Peter, having pub« licly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the Gospel by the « Spirit, many who were there, entreated Mark to write the things that “had been spoken, he having long accompanied Peter, and retaining « what he had said: and that when he had composed the Gospel, he de« livered it to them, who had asked it of him. Which when Peter knew, "he neither forbid it, nor encouraged it."

Many remarks were (i) formerly made upon these accounts of Clement, which cannot now be repeated. But it may be- needful to say something here for reconciling Irenaeus and him. Irenaeus said, that Mark published his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul: whereas Clement fupposes Peter to have been still living, and that this Gospel was shewn to Peter, who did not disapprove of it. But the difference is not great. Clement says, that Mark's Gospel was writ at Rome at the request of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter. If so, it could not be composed long before Peter's death. For I take it to be certain, that Peter did not come to Rome, untill the reign of Nero was far advanced, nor very long before his own death. So that it may be reckoned not improbable, that Mark's Gospel was not published, or did not become generally known, till after the death of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus says.

Tertullian, about the year 200. speaks of Mark as (k) an apoftolical man, or companion of Apostles: and says, “ That (2) the Gospel, pub“lished by Mark, may be reckoned' Peter's, whose interpreter he 6 was.”

Says Origen, about 230. “The (m) second Gospel is that according “ to Mark, who wrote it as Peter dictated it to him. Who therefore “calls him his son in his catholic epistle.” See 1 Peter v. 13.


[ocr errors]

(e) Vol. i. p. 354

(6) P. 357

(3) Vol. ii. 472. (5) P. 475

(i) Vol. i.p: 245... 249. Vol. ii. p. 476... 493• (k) See Vol. ii. p. 576. ..588.

(1) P. 581. (m) Vol. viii. p. 235,

Eufebe, about 315. may be supposed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus, whose passages he has transcribed, and inserted in his Ecclefiaitical Historie. And in a long paffage of his Evangelical Demonftration, formerly (n) transcribed by us, he says : Peter out of abun“ dance of modestie thought not himself worthie to write a Gospel. But “ Mark, who was his friend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's s relations of the acts of Jesus.” At the end of which passage he says : « And (0) Peter testifies these things of himfelf. For all things in Mark « are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses.” He likewise says, “that () Mark was not present to hear what Jefus faid." Nor () does it appear, that he thought the writer of the Gospel to be John, furnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he supposed him to be the same that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13.

Mark is mentioned among ihe other Evangelists by (r) Athanasius, without other particularities. But in the Synoptis, ascribed to hiin, and by many supposed to be writ by another Athanafius, Bishop of Alexandria, near the end of the fifth centurie, it is faid, “That (s) the Gospel ac« cording to Mark was dictated by Peter at Rome, and published by “ Mark, and preached by him in Alexandria, and Egypt, and Pentapolis, « and Lybia."

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, about 330. says, that (t) Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples.

Epiphanius, about 368. says : “ Matthew (u) wrote first, and Mark « soon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome.Afterwards he says, “ That (x) Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples, and like. « wise one of those who were offended at the words of Christ, recorded « John vi. 44. and then forfook him : but he was afterwards recovered w by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit wrote a Gospel.”

Upon the last paflage of Epiphanius Petavius says: “ Mark (y) might, « possibly, have seen Christ, and have been one of the seventy : but it is “ laid by very few ancient writers of the Church."

In the Constitutions Mark (z) is reckoned with Luke a fellow-laborer of Paul. Which may induce us to think, that the author supposed Mark, the Evangelist, to bé John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and some of St. Paul's epiftles.

Gregorie Nazianzen says, “ That (a) Mark wrote his Gospel for the “ Italians,'' or in Italie.

Ebedjefu says, “ The (6) second Evangelift is Mark, who preached " (or wrote) in Latin, in the famous city of Rome."

Jerome's (n) Vol. viii. 86 ... 88.

(9) P. 88.

W P. 86. P. 143

Tri Vol. viii. p. 227. (5) Vol. viii. p. 250.

() P. 255; (w) P. 305

(x) P. 306. bí Disentit Papias apud Eusebium. ... Quod autem afferunt nonnulli, Marcum non vidille Dominum, viderit necne non affirmo. Videre ruidem potuisse, temporum ipsa ratio persuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii sententia, dum illum e Lxxu discipulorum numero fuiffe tradat, etli cons trarium alii patres tradant. Petav. ad loc. Animadi. p. 88,

(2) Vol. viii. p. 393. (a) Vol. ix. p. 133•

(6) P.216. VOL. II.


« הקודםהמשך »