J.P. 4756. there was
V. Æ. 43. of Peter.

Jerusalem.

no small stir among the soldiers, what was become And when Herod had sought for him, and found 19

the slightest allusion to the place where St. Peter secreted himself from his persecutors. The word in the original is of the most indefinite kind. Dr. Lardner is of opinion that it refers only to some one of the houses in Jerusalem, or an adjacent village or town, and that the apostle soon returned to the city upon the death of Herod Agrippa, which took place at the end of the year. Some commentators have been of opinion that he went to Antioch, others to Rome. Dr. Lardner observes, that there is no good foundation for either of these opinions. That there is any foundation for the former I am not prepared to say. The interview between St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch, which is mentioned Gal. ii. 11-16. occurred some time after this, and after the council at Jerusalem. That St. Peter took refuge at Rome appears to me the most probable.

The silence of Scripture leaves us to the evidence of the fathers. With respect to this conclusion, that St. Peter went to Rome; and the jealousy of Protestants on this point, because the Romanists would establish upon this fact, the alleged supremacy of St. Peter, Dr. Lardner justly remarks, it is not for our honour, or our interest, either as Christians or Protestants, to deny the truth of events, ascertained by early and well-attested tradition. If others make an ill use of facts, we are not accountable for it. While it appears to me not improbable that he took refuge from the Herodian persecution with some of the friends of Cornelius, there is no evidence that he founded the Church at Rome, nor even addressed himself to the Gentiles in that city. He would have considered himself guilty of a violation of the law of God if he had now done so. It was with the utmost difficulty St. Peter could be convinced, even by a vision from above, that the kingdom of heaven was to be open to the proselyted Gentiles; much less can it be believed that he would preach at this period to the idolatrous citizens of Rome.

"The Church of Rome," says a learned prelate of our own day, "was established as a Christian society during St. Paul's first visit, by the communication of the spiritual gift, which he intimates. It is evident that no other of the apostles had any share in this first establishment but St. Paul; whatever may be said of St. Peter's episcopacy of twenty-five years. For the epistle to the Romans appears to have been written not long before the apostle's first visit. And at that time his language to them certainly implies that no other apostle had been there before him: 'Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation (a).'" (chap. xv. 20.)

St. Peter had fulfilled the prediction of our Lord, that he should open the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, when he preached to Cornelius and his family. The Roman centurion had been now admitted into the Christian Church; he was probably one of those by whom prayer was made without ceasing for St. Peter's liberation, and we may justly conclude that he held this apostle in the highest veneration. Though Cornelius had not the power to release St. Peter from prison (the Jews being very jealous of the interference of the Romans in all matters connected with religion), it is not unlikely that more effectual protection could be afforded by a Roman in a case of persecution, than by any of the suffering Church. It is certain that the Romans had great influence at this time; for we read that when Herod was enraged with the people of Tyre, their embassy made Blastus, the king's chamberlain, their friend. Blastus was a Roman. The Romans did not hesitate to engage in the service of the tributary kings, and sovereigns dependent on the empire (b). It is not improbable, therefore, that the apostle, when he went to another place from the house of the mother of Mark, would take refuge among some of the Gentile converts; and, as the indignation of Herod was so great, that he condemned the soldiers to death from whom Peter had escaped, it was but natural to apprehend that the apostle would soon be condemned to a similar fate. None of the Jews would shelter him, as they took part with Herod, against the infant Church. Under these circumstances, it appears not unlikely that the Gentile converts would provide for his effectual safety, by sending him among some of their own friends at Rome, who were cognizant of the real history of the extraordinary events that had taken place in Judæa. The same evidence which induces me to come to this conclusion, compels me to believe also, that St. Peter took with him to Rome the writer of the second Gospel, which bears so much internal as well as external evidence, that it was addressed to Roman converts. We read (Acts xii. 12.) that when St. Peter went from prison he proceeded to the house of Mary the mother of Mark. He staid there but a short time, and it is not, I think, improbable that St. Mark accompanied him, to aid him in case of danger. It will, however, be necessary to examine the hypothesis of Dr. Lardner, on the other side of the question, that the apostles did not leave Judæa till after this apostolic council.

His first argument is derived from the fact that all the apostles were present at the council of

(a) Bishop Burgess's Inquiry into the Origin of the Christian Church; reprinted in the "Churchman armed against the Errors of the Times," vol. i. p. 319. (6) Wetstein in loc. and Kuinoel in lib. N. T. Hist. Comment.

vol. iv. p. 419.

x.]

AN ANGEL DELIVERS ST. PETER.

91

16

V. Æ. 43.

him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they J.P. 4756. should be put to death.

Jerusalem.

Jerusalem: and he concludes that they could not have been to other countries before that time, from the total want of evidence on the subject.

It may however be answered, that no argument can be derived from the silence of the inspired or heathen writers. We acknowledge the apostles to have been present, in all probability, at the council of Jerusalem; the question is, whether they did not leave Jerusalem between the years 44, when the Herodian persecution was raging, and the year 49 or 50, when the council was held. Peter was well acquainted with the persecuting and cruel spirit of Herod-he had seen James the brother of John killed with the sword-he was himself apprehended and imprisoned, and while he remained in the city he continued exposed to the most imminent danger. Was it not, under these circumstances, more probable that he should absent himself from Jerusalem during the reign of this monarch, and that he did not return to his own country till his death, when Judæa was governed by the Roman procurators? Biscoe has well shown, that the Heathens protected the Christians in the exercise of their religion, against the fury of the Jews; and we read many things in the Acts of the Apostles which prove the same point.

Dr. Lardner then proceeds to observe, 1. "That it was fit and proper, and even expedient, that the apostles should stay a good while in Judæa, to assert and confirm the truth of Christ's resurrection, by teaching, and by miraculous works, and do their utmost to bring the Jewish people to faith in Jesus as the Christ.

2. “As this was fit, it is likely that they had received some command from Christ himself, or some direction from the Holy Ghost, to stay thus long in Judæa.

3. "There were considerations that would incline them to it, and induce them to do what was fit to be done, and was agreeable to the mind of Christ. One was the difficulty of preaching the Gospel in foreign countries. This would induce them to stay in Judæa, till the circumstances of things facilitated their farther progress, or called them to it. Another thing was their affection for

the Jewish people, their countrymen, especially those of Judæa, with whom they had been brought up, and among whom they dwelt, together with a persuasion of the great value of the blessing of the Gospel.

"This last consideration, I apprehend, would induce them to labour in Judæa, with earnest desires, and some hopes, of bringing all, or however many, to faith in Jesus. This influenced Paul also to a great degree, and for a good while. Nor was he without hopes of persuading his brethren and countrymen to what appeared to himself very certain and very evident. So he says in his speech to the people at Jerusalem, Acts xxii. 17-20. He assures them, that whilst he was worshipping at Jerusalem, in the temple, he had a trance, or ecstasy; that he there saw Christ, who said to him, 'Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.' Paul pleaded, that they must needs pay a regard to his testimony, who was well known to have been for some while very zealous in opposing his followers, and was now convinced and persuaded. But the Lord said unto him, 'Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.' This trance, or vision, seems to have happened in the year 44, after that Paul had preached at Antioch with great success among the Gentiles. Nevertheless, he had an earnest desire to make one attempt more among the Jews of Judæa, where was the body of that people; and if they could have been persuaded, many abroad would follow their example. And it required an express and repeated order from Jesus Christ, in vision, to induce him to lay aside that design, and to proceed to preach to the Gentiles in remote parts."

To all which it may be replied, 1st. That the apostles had now continued in Jerusalem till a Christian Church was established-the Gospel had been preached to the Jews, and confirmed by miracle, and the most undeniable evidence; but the Jews persisted in the rejection of their Messiah.

2. To the second, the command of Christ to his apostles to continue at Jerusalem is not recorded and even had it been given, it would prove only that the appointed time had expired. 3. The Herodian persecution prevented the apostles from following their own plans; and the Jews themselves, by their unrelenting bitterness, took away from them the power of accomplishing their first great object, that of offering salvation to, and converting, their own countrymen, and their very lives depended upon flight. They could find no difficulty in preaching the Gospel in other countries, because they were endued with the gift of tongues for this express purpose; in addition to which, they would have been admitted into the Jewish synagogues in every country.

The conversion of Cornelius proves that the predicted time for the admission of the Gentiles had arrived; the Church was established, and the Jews had beheld the apostolic miracles; they had been appealed to in vain, and there was now no necessity for the longer continuance of the apostles

at Jerusalem, who were consequently instructed by a vision, that the time had come when they were to preach to the Gentiles.

Dr. Lardner's last argument is quite extraordinary. He believes that the apostles were under no necessity of leaving Jerusalem during the Herodian persecution, because they were under miraculous protection. He forgets that James, one of the twelve, had been killed already; and it seems to me, that St. Peter was miraculously released from prison, that he might escape the same fate, by following the example of the rest of his brethren, and seeking safety in flight.

This opinion is confirmed by the little evidence remaining to us in ecclesiastical history. The general conclusion to which we are led by the fathers, is, that the apostles left Jerusalem twelve years after the ascension of our Lord. He ascended A.D. 29. The twelfth year therefore brings us to the beginning of the reign of Claudius; the very period when Herod Agrippa took possession of the kingdom of Judæa. He lost no time in giving proofs of his zealous Judaism, and we believe that he would lose no time in demonstrating his sincerity, by renewing the persecution; in the course of which the apostles were obliged to leave Jerusalem.

Clement of Alexandria (c), about 194, quotes a work, entitled the Preaching of St. Peter. "The Lord said to his apostles, If any Israelite will repent, and believe in God through my name, his sins shall be forgiven. After twelve years go ye out into all the world, that none may say, We have not heard (d)."

Eusebius mentions that Apollonius (undoubtedly in part contemporary with Clement, and placed by Cave at the year 192-by Lardner at 211, as near the time of his writing against the Montanists) relates, as from tradition, that our Saviour commanded his apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for the space of twelve years. The same historian, in his Ecclesiatical history, writes, "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 second year of Claudius, i. e. the year of Christ 44. Those who espouse this opinion, suppose the Gospel of St. Mark to be written about this time. The same opinion also is maintained at the end of the Arabic version, and of many ancient manuscripts of this Gospel, particularly one mentioned by Dr. Hammond, two referred to by Father Simon, and thirteen cited by Dr. Mill, by Theophylact also, and others of the Greek scholiasts.

Considering this supposition as correct, it by no means implies that St. Peter continued long at Rome, as the Romish Church assert. There is internal evidence to the contrary; for we find St. Paul does not salute him in his Epistle to the Romans-neither did he meet him on his first coming to Rome, in the beginning of the reign of Nero. St. Paul does not mention St. Peter in any of the epistles he wrote from Rome; and in his Epistle to the Colossians, St. Peter's name is not mentioned among his coadjutors. In the work of Lactantius (or of L. Cæcilius, according to L. Clerc), it is said Peter came to Rome in the time of Nero, and made many converts, and formed a Church --an account which at once confutes the fable that he had been there twenty five years as Bishop of Rome, on which assertion the supremacy of the Pope is founded.

The probable conclusion therefore is, that St. Peter took refuge at Rome, during the Herodian persecution, to which place he was accompanied by St. Mark, and after staying there some short time, Peter, like the rest of the apostles, superintended the Hebrew Christian, and not the Gentile Churches; travelling from place to place, till he returned to Jerusalem, to be present at the apostolic council.

That St. Peter was martyred at Rome (a circumstance which many Protestant writers have discredited, from the fear of giving countenance to the unfounded, and therefore absurd, doctrine of the pope's supremacy), has been asserted by Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian, Caius, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraim, Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and many others (e). The quotations from the works of each of whom may be seen in Lardner. It is impossible to resist evidence to this extent. Nor does the fact of St. Peter's martyrdom at Rome enforce upon us the doctrine attached to it by one division of the Christian Church.

We are now to inquire into the probability of St. Mark's accompanying the Apostle to Rome, and what evidence there is for his having written his Gospel about this time, at the request, and for the use, of the converts in that city. It will appear, I think, that the internal evidence arising from the Gospel itself, and from the concurrent testimony of the fathers of the Church, unite in affirming this to be the origin and object of his Gospel; although, as it will appear, it was not officially committed (c) Wetstein in loc. and Kuinoel in lib. N. T. Hist. Comment. vol. iv. p. 419. (d) Clem, Strom. lib. vi. p. 636Cave's Historia Literaria, tom. i. p. 5. Grabe's Spic. tom. i. p. 67. Ap. Lardner, vol. iii. p. 167 8.

(e) That St. Peter was certainly at Rome, is fully proved by the learned Pearson, in his Dissertation, de Serie et Successione Primorum Romæ Episcoporum, Diss. i. cap. vii. Romæ fuisse S. Petrum probatur veterum Testi moniis, p. 33. Cave, however, remarks upon the theory of his going to that metropolis upon the present occasion -Quod vero de hoc Romam adventu somniant, gratis omnino dictum est. Altum de eo apud veteres silentium. Silet imprimis historia apostolica, quæ de hoc aliove adventu ne verbulum habet, &c. &c.-See Cave, Historia Literaria, vol. i. p. 8. Bishop Burgess quotes with approbation the opinion of Bishop Stillingfleet, which is founded on a passage in Lanctantius, that St. Peter was never at Rome till the period of his martyrdom. Stillingfleet's Origines Britannicæ, fol. edit. p. 48.-Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, folio edit. p. 83.

x.]

ST. PETER LEAVES JERUSALEM.

93

to the Churches in general, till he was settled at Alexandria, as the bishop of the Church in that city.

Michaelis has collected, in a very perspicuous manner, the different circumstances related of St. Mark in the New Testament. He observes, "It appears, from Acts xii. 11. that St. Mark's original name was John; the surname of Mark having probably been adopted by him when he left Judæa to go into foreign countries,—a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who frequently assumed a name more familiar to the nations which they visited, than that by which they had been distinguished in their own country. That St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, with the assistance and under the direction of St. Peter, agrees extremely well with the contents of the Gospel itself, and may serve likewise to explain several particulars, which at first sight appear extraordinary. For instance, where St. Peter is concerned in the narration, mention is sometimes made of circumstances which are not related by the other Evangelists, as at chap. i. 29—33. ix. 34. xi. 21. xiv. 30. And on the contrary, the high commendations which Christ bestowed on St. Peter, as appears from Matt. xvi. 17—19. but which the Apostle, through modesty, would hardly have repeated, are wanting in St. Mark's Gospel. At chap. xiv. 47. St. Mark mentions neither the name of the Apostle, who cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant, nor the circumstance of Christ's healing it. We know that this Apostle was St. Peter, for his name is expressly mentioned by St. John; but an Evangelist, who wrote his Gospel at Rome during the life of St. Peter, would have exposed him to the danger of being accused by his adversaries, if he had openly related the fact. Had St. Mark written after the death of St. Peter, there would have been no necessity for this caution.

"Further, as St. Mark wrote for the immediate use of the Romans, he sometimes gives explanations which were necessary for foreigners, though not for the inhabitants of Palestine. For instance, chap. vii. 2. he explains the meaning of koivaïç xepơi: and ver. 11. of Kopßav. In the same chapter, ver. 3, 4. he gives a description of some Jewish customs; and chap. xv. 42. he explains the meaning of "apaokεvý. At chap. xvi. 21. he mentions that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, a circumstance not mentioned by the other Evangelists; but to St. Mark's readers the circumstance was interesting, because Rufus was at that time in Rome, as appears from Romans xvi. 13. See also Wetstein's notes to chap. vii. 26. xi. 22.”

St. Mark has more Latin words than the other Evangelists: and these numerous Latinisms not only show that his Gospel was composed by a person who had lived among the Latins, but also that it was written beyond the confines of Judæa. That this Gospel was designed principally for Gentile believers (though we know that there were some Jewish converts in the Church at Rome), is further evident from the explanations introduced by the Evangelist, which would have been unnecessary, if he had written for Hebrew Christians exclusively. Thus, the first time the Jordan is mentioned, the appellation "river," is added to the name (Mark i. 5.), and instead of the word mammon, be uses the common term xphμara, "riches." Again, the word Gehenna, which in our version is translated "hell," (ix. 43.) originally signified the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been sacrificed by fire to Moloch, and where a continual fire was afterwards maintained to consume the filth of Jerusalem. As this word could not have been understood by a foreigner, the Evangelist adds the words" unquenchable fire," by way of explanation. These particularities corroborate the historical evidence above cited, that St. Mark designed his Gospel for the use of Gentile Christians.

Lastly, the manner in which St. Mark relates the life of our Saviour, is an additional evidence that he wrote for Gentile Christians. His narrative is clear, exact, and concise, and his exordium is singular; for while the other Evangelists style our Saviour "the Son of man," St. Mark announces him at once as "the Son of God," (i. 1.) an august title, the more likely to engage the attention of the Romans; omitting the genealogy of Christ, his miraculous conception, the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, and other particulars, which could not be essentially important in the eyes of foreigners.

Many things seem to prove that St. Mark's Gospel was written, or dictated, by a spectator of the actions recorded.

Chap. i. 20. They left their father in the ship with the hired servants.

i. 29. The names of James and John, omitted by Matt. viii. 14. are mentioned.

i. 33. The crowd at the door. Compare Matt. viii. 16. and Luke iv. 40, 41.

i. 35. His disciples seeking him, when Christ had retired to pray. See Luke iv. 42.

i. 45. The conduct of the leper after his cure. See Matt. viii. 4. and Luke v. 14, 15. ii. 2. The cure of the paralytic. See Matt. ix. 1. Luke v. 18, 19.

Mr. Jones, in his work on the Canon, notices many circumstances omitted by St. Mark, which reflected honour on St. Peter. Compare Matt. xvi. 16–20. with Mark viii. 29, 30. Matt. xvii. 2428. and Mark ix. 30-33. Luke xxii. 31, 32. John xiii. 6. and xviii. 10. compared with Mark xiv. 47. See also John xxi. 7. 15. 18. and 19.

Dr. Townson, too, has fully proved, from a variety of minute incidents not noticed by the other Evangelists, that St. Mark's Gospel must have been either written, or dictated by an eye-witness. Chap. iii. 5. Christ's looking round on the people. See Matt. xii. 9—13. Luke vi. 6—11. iii. 17. The names omitted by the other Evangelists are mentioned.

iii. 21. This is peculiar to St. Mark.

iv. 26. Parable of the growing corn, so applicable to the call of the Gentiles, peculiar to

St. Mark.

iv. 34. Compared with Matt. xiii. 31-34.

iv. 36. St. Mark relates the cause of our Lord's sleep in the ship; that it was after This is omitted Matt. viii. 24-26. Luke viii.

the fatigue of the day.

23, 24.

iv. 36. "Other little ships" with them.

iv. 38. "He was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow," are omitted by the

others.

The particularities mentioned by St. Mark in his account of the Gadarene dæmoniacs, see Matt. viii. 28-34. Mark v. 1-19. Luke viii, 26–39. The number of the swine-the mentioning of the very words which our Lord spake to the daughter of Jairus, Talitha cumi, (chap. v. 31.)—the blind man casting away his garment, (chap. x. 50.) the mentioning of the names of those who came to him privately, (chap. xiii. 3, 4.) all of which minutiæ could have been known only to a spectator and hearer of our Lord's words and actions.

The Gospel of St. Mark contains much internal evidence that it was written at the time when the devout Gentiles were first admitted into the Church. In chap. vii. 14–23. the spirituality of the

law is compared with St. Peter's address to Cornelius.

Chap. vii. 24-30. The Syrophenician woman received; a Greek having faith in Christ—so Cornelius was not a Jew, but accepted.

Chap. xii. 1-12. The parable of the vineyard, descriptive of the calling of the Gentiles; the event which had now taken place.

Chap. xiii. Prediction of the fate of the temple—the result of the rejection of the Jews.

In chap. xiv. 24. is the expression, "My blood, which is shed for many;" which Dr. Lardner refers to the calling of the Gentiles.

Chap. iv. 30-32. The grain of mustard-seed, descriptive of the rapid progress of the Gospel which St. Mark had witnessed.

Chap. xvi. 15. "St. Mark," says Dr. Lardner, "evidently understood the extent of the apostolic mission."

Dr. Townson observes further, in confirmation of the opinion that St. Mark wrote for the Christians at Rome. "St. Mark having followed St. Matthew in saying øpayeλXwσaç (Mark xv. 15.), then speaks of the prætorium: And the soldiers led him away into the hall, that is, the prætorium. Abλy, and prætorium, as here used, are synonymous terms in Greek and Latin, and denoted the palace of a governor or great man. This is certainly a better proof that he composed his Gospel at Rome, than that he composed it in Latin. For what translator, as Dr. Mills justly asks, would have rendered the Latin word 'spiculator,' (or speculator,) by Σπeкovλarwp, which would so easily have been expressed in proper Greek? St. Mark attends to the Roman division of the day in relating our Lord's prophecy to St. Peter, (xiv. 30.) Verily, I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.'"

St. Mark, to explain the meaning of this day, adds, "even in this night;" as the prediction was delivered before midnight, but fulfilled probably between two or three in the morning, these being parts of one and the same day in Judæa, but not at Rome (e).

The testimony of the fathers confirms the internal evidence, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, under the inspection of St. Peter; and that it was even dictated by that apostle, and might with great justice have been called, as it has actually been, the Gospel of St. Peter.

Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 15, asserts that the Gospel of St. Mark was composed at Rome, in the reign of Claudius, at the request of the people in that city. He refers to Clemens, 6th book of Institutions, as his authority.

Clement of Alexandria (194,) says, that Peter's hearers at Rome intreated Mark, the follower of Peter, to leave a memorial with them of the doctrine which had been delivered to them by word of mouth, nor did they desist till they had prevailed with him (ƒ).

Clement states that Mark's Gospel was written at Rome, at the request of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter.

Tertullian observes (200,) the Gospel of St. Mark may be considered as that of St. Peter, whose interpreter he was.

Origen, Peter dictated his Gospel to him.

Eusebius (315,) Mark is said to have recorded Peter's relation of the acts of Jesus. And al! things in Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses.

The synopsis attributed to Athanasius, fifth century, says, the Gospel of St. Mark was dictated by St. Peter at Rome.

(e) See Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. p. 212; and vol. i. chap. iv. sect. x. p. 163.-Dr. Campbell's preface to Mark, vol. ii. p. 82, 83.-Horne's Critical Introduction on Mark.-Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 151, 163. (f) Ap Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 177. vol. ii. p. 552, and vol. iii. p. 179.