2. Though fome have doubted who Mark was, many have been of opinion, that he was John Mark, fon of Marie, a pious Jewish woman, and an early believer, of Jerufalem, and nephew to Barnabas.

3. If Mark, the Evangelift, be John Mark, as feems to me very probable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other Apoftles, and difciples, eye-witneffes of Jefus, befide Peter.

4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, thought Mark to have been one of Chrift's feventy difciples. Which I apprehend cannot be either affirmed, or denied with certainty. But if he was not one of them, he was an early believer, and an early difciple and companion of Apoftles, and intimately converfant with them. Whereby, and by hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other places, and laftly at Rome, he was well qualified to write a Gospel.

S. Bafnage has fome obfervations upon this point, which deferve to be taken notice of. « Epiphanius (x) and the Author of the Dialogue "against the Marcionites, fuppofe Mark to have been one of Chriít's "feventy difciples. But that opinion, fays he, does not appear to me "well grounded. It feems incredible, that Peter fhould call Mark, his "fon, if he was one of the feventy, who had a commiffion from Christ "himfelf, and were almoft equal to Apoftles. That ancient writer, "Papias, excludes him from that number, faying, that Mark was not a "hearer or follower of the Lord.... And Tertullian calls Mark Peter's "interpreter, which office would be below the character of one of the feventy.... Nor does Origen make him one of the feventy, whofe au"thority must be of great weight... However, it feems to me very pro"bable, that Mark was one of the five hundred brethren, who faw "Chrift after his refurrection. And having been an eye-witnesse of "that, he was qualified to write a Gofpel."

Upon which I obferve: The fuppofition, that Mark might be one of the five hundred, fpoken of by St. Paul Cor. xv. 6. is a mere conjecture, without any authority, either in Scripture, or antiquity. But I would add a thought or two for ftrengthening the argument, that Mark was not one of the feventy difciples. Eufebe (y) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, has a chapter concerning the Difciples of our Saviour. But Mark is not there named, as one of them. Nor does Jerome fay any thing of it in his book of Illuftrious Men: nor elsewhere, that I remem ber. The filence of Origen, Eufebe, and Jerome, upon this head, must

amount

(x) Marcum de LXX difcipulis unum fuiffe, credidit Epiphanius... Nobis tamen non arridet ea fententia, cum incredibile fit, Petrum Marco filii nomen addidiffe, fi de feptuaginta difcipulis unus fuiffet, quos Chriftus ipfe legaverat, quique ab omni fere parte æquales erant Apoftolis. Papias quoque vetuftus ille auctor LXX difcipulis Marcum eximit. ... Ex Tertulliano quoque fcimus, Marcum interpretis officio functum fuiffe, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit.... Neque LXX difcipulis eum appofuit Origines, cujus non minimi ponderis eft teftimonium. . . Nobis tamen eft admodum probabile, Marcum unum fuiffe quingentorum fratrum, qui Chriftum a morte revocatum contemplati funt. Cuique, ut tefti oculato, commiffa eft fcribendi E. vangelii provincia. Bafn. Ann. 66. num. xvii.

(5) H. E. 1. 1. cap. xii.

amount to an argument of no small weight, that there was not in their times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was one of the feventy. It may be alfo reckoned an argument, that he was not of that number, in that he has not in his Gofpel taken any notice of them, or of the commiffion given to them. Which is in St. Luke only. ch. x. 1. . . 17.

I therefore conclude with faying, that Mark was an early believer, and an early difciple and fellow-laborer of Apoftles. But that he ever faw, or heard the Lord Jefus, is not certain.

5. The general account of the above named writers is, that Mark wrote his Gofpel at Rone. In this there is a remarkable agreement, with a very few exceptions. Chryfoftom indeed fpeaks of it's being writ in Egypt. But he is almoft fingular. That it was writ at Rome, or in Italie, is faid not only by Epiphanius, Jerome, Gregorie Nazianzen, Victor, and divers others: but the Egyptian writers likewife all along fay the fame thing that it was writ by Mark at Rome, in the companie of the Apostle Peter. So fay Clement of Alexandria, Athanafius, the fuppofed author of the Synopfis of Scripture, Cofmas, and Eutychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjefu likewife, in his catalogue of Syrian writings, fays, that Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin author of the commentarie upon St. Mark's Gofpel, quoted fome while ago, fays, that it was writ in Italie.

6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark's Gospel was not writ before the year 63. or 64. For we cannot perceive any good reafon to think, that St. Peter was at Rome, till about that time. And this date is fupported by the teftimonie of that ancient writer, Irenaeus, that Mark publifhed his Gospel after the deceafe of Peter and Paul.

VI. These are obfervations, which the above cited tefti- The Time of monies feem naturally to afford. But before we proceed this Gofpel any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the fenti

ments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark's writing his Gospel.

Cave fuppofes St. Mark to have published his Gofpel at Rome, in the year of Chrift 65. His argument for it I place (z) below.

Mr. Jones's opinion was, that (a) this Gospel was published between the year 64. and 67. or 68. when, according to his computation, Peter and Paul fuffered martyrdom.

J. A.

(-) Rogatus Romæ a fratribus, fcripfit Evangelium, a Petro approbatum, idque Græco fermone Romanis fatis familiari. Factum id circa ann. 65. Petro et Paulo jam morte fublatis. Cum enim illum epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum non longe ante martyrium fcripta, Romam accerfiverat Paulus, probabile eft, Marcum vel eodem, vel faltem fequenti anno illuc veniffe, ibique Evangelium vel primum condidiffe, vel prius conditum in publicum edidiffe. Certe Irenæus, 1. 3. cap. i. et apud Eufebium, 1. 5. c. viii, S. Marcum μετὰ τὴν τέτων ἔξοδον Evangelium fuum confcripfiffe diferte tradit. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

(a) Mr. Jones's words are thefe : "Thefe, with fome other reafons, make "it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at Rome, till the year of Chrift 63. "or 64. and confequently, that the Gofpel of St. Mark was not written be"fore this time, but between that and the martyrdom of this Apoftle and "St. Paul, in the year of Chrift 67. or 68." New and full Method. Vol. 3. 2.88.

J. A. Fabricius (b) was for the year of Chrift 63. the ninth of Nero

Mill fays, that (c) St. Mark published his Gofpel at Rome in the year of Chrift 63. after that the Apostles Peter and Paul had been gone from thence, as Irenaeus fays.

But here I beg leave to obferve, that, probably, Irenaeus does not speak of thefe two Apoftles removal from Rome, but of their decease. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reafon to fuppofe, that Peter was at Rome, during the time of Paul's two years imprisonment there, especially at the period of it. But there is a great deal of reason to think otherwife. For we have feveral epiftles of St. Paul, writ near the end of that confinement, in which no notice is taken of Peter.

Bafnage (d) clofely following Irenaeus, fays, Mark's Gospel was publifhed in the year 66. after the decease of Peter and Paul: whofe martyrdoms, according to him, happened in (e) the year 65.

So that it has been of late the opinion of many learned men, of the beft judgement in these matters, that St. Mark's Gospel was not publifhed, till after the year of Chrift 60. I readily affent to them fo far. And as I am difpofed to place the martyrdoms of these two great Apofles at Rome, in the later part of the year 64. or in 65. it feems to me probable, that St. Mark's Gefpel was compofed in the year 64. or 65. and made public by him the first fair opportunity, foon afterwards, before the end of the year 65. That I mention as the latest date. I do not prefume to fay the time exactly. For it might be finished, and publifhed in the year 64.

I hoped to have had affiftance from Mr. Wetftein in this difquifition, But have been fomewhat difappointed. In his preface to St. Mark's Gospel he concludes from Col. iv. 10. and Philem. ver. 23. that (f) St. Mark had been with the Apostle Paul at Rome, in the time of his confinement there: that from thence he went to Coloffe, and afterwards returned to Rome, where he is faid to have writ his Gospel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's Gospel could not be published before year 64. or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's Gospel the fame learned writer expreffeth himfelf to this purpofe. " According (g) to

the

(Bib. Gr. 1. 4. cap. v. Tom. 3. p. 124. et 131.

"fome

(c) Poft Pauli ac Petri odor, feu difceffum ab urbe Roma.... Marcus difcipulus et interpres Petri, et ipfe que a Petro annuntiata erant, perfcripta nobis tradidit. Inquit Irenæus... Scripfit igitur Marcus Evangelium, juxta Ires næum, paullo poft horum duorum Apoftolorum difceffum a Roma, qui accidiffe videtur anno æræ vulgaris L. Mill. Proleg. num. 101.

(d) De Marci Evangelio legimus apud Irenæum. Poft vero horum exceffum.... Qua traditio magis apud nos valet, quam alia quælibet de tem pore editi a Marco Evangelii chronologia, Bafn. ann. 66. n. xii,

(e) Kid. ann. 65. num. ix.:

(f) Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum invifit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23. Inde ad Coloffenfes abiit, a quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2 Tim. iv. 11. ubi Evangelium confcripfiffe . . . dicitur, Wetflein, N. T. Tom. i. 2. 531.

(Evangelium autem edidit xv. aut fecundum alios xxii. poft Chrifti ad fcentionem annis. ...Lucam multa ex Matthæo ex Marco plura defe ip: Affe, ex collatione patet. Ib. p. 643.

6

"fome ecclefiaftical writers Luke publifhed his Gofpel fifteen, according: " to others two and twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion . . . . That "he transcribed many things from Matthew, and yet more from Mark, " is manifeft."

But if St. Luke wrote within two and twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion, and transcribed a great deal from St. Mark; St. Mark's Gofpel muft have been first published, and very early. If St. Mark's Gospel was not published till the year 64. and St. Luke tranfcribed from him; St. Luke could not write, till a good while after two and twenty years from Chrift's afcenfion. I do not perceive therefore, that Mr. Witfein had any determined opinion concerning the date of these two Gof-* pels. Nor can I, as yet, perfuade myself, that any of the Evangelifts

tranfcribed each other.

VII. I will now observe some characters of time in the Gospel itself, like thofe before taken notice of in St. Matthew.

Marks of Time in the Gofpel itself.

1. From ch. vii. 14.. 23. it appears, that St. Mark fully understood the fpirituality of the doctrine of Chrift, recommending righteousneffe and true holineffe, without an obligation to Jewish ritual ordinances and appointments.

2. His hiftorie of the Greek or Gentil woman, in the fame chap. vii. 24. 30. who befought Jefus to heal her daughter, and obtained her request, deferves notice here.

3. The call of the Gentils, and the rejection of the Jews, as a People, are intimated in ch. xii. 1... 12. in the parable there recorded, of the Householder, who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: to whom after a while he fent fervants, and then his fon, to receive from them the fruit of the vineyard. But they abufed the fervants, and killed' the fon. It is added: What therefore will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will deftroy the husbandmen, and will let out the vineyard unto others. And what follows.

4. In ch. xiii. are predictions concerning the deftruction of the temple, and the defolations of the Jewish People. And, particularly, at ver. 14. 16. are remarkable expreffions, intimating the near approach of thofe calamities, and fuited to excite the attention of fuch as were in' danger of being involved in them.

5. In his account of the inftitution of the eucharist our Lord fays: ch." xiv. 24. This is my blood of the New Teftament, which is fhed for many: that is, for all men, not for Jews only, but for Gentils alfo."

6. In ch. iv. 30. 32. is the parable of the grain of mustard feed, the left of all feeds, which becometh greater than all herbs: reprefenting the swift and wonderful progreffe of the Gofpel in the world. Of which it is very likely St. Mark, at the time of writing, had fome knowledge.

7. It is manifeft, that he well understood the extent of our Saviour's commiffion to the twelve Apoftles. For he has recorded it in these words, ch. xvi. 15. Go ye therefore into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: or the whole creation, that is, Jews and Gentils, all mankind of every denomination.

8. Yea, it appears from the conclufion of his hiftorie, that before he wrote, the Apostles (at left divers of them) had left Judea, and had

E 4

preached

preached in many places. ver. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with figns following.

9. Ch. xvi. 18. They shall take up ferpents. Some may think, that here is a reference to the hiftorie, which we have in Acts xxviii. 3..6. I do not fay, there is. But allowing it, I fhould not reckon it an objection to the genuinneffe of this part of that chapter. It would only be an argument for the late date of this Gofpel. And it has been fo underftood by (b) fome. For my own part, I cannot fay, that St. Mark has referred to it. But I make no queftion, that he was acquainted with the event there related, when he wrote his Gofpel.

Obfervations upon VIII. I fhall conclude this chapter with fome obferthis Gospel. vations upon St. Mark's Gospel.

1. It confirms the accounts given by the ancients, that it is the fubftance of Peter's preaching.

This was taken notice of juft now in our recollection. But I choose to enlarge upon it here, and fhew, that the Gospel itself affords evidences of it's being writ according to that Apoftle's difcourfes,. of according to informations and directions given by him to this Evangelift.

1.) In the firft place I would here remind my readers of a long paffage of Eufebius, the learned Bishop of Cefarea, formerly tranfcribed, of which I take here a very fmall part only.

Having obferved feveral things very honourable to Peter, related in the other Gofpels, he adds: "Though (1) fuch things were faid to Peter by "Jefus, Mark has taken no notice of them: because, as is probable, "Peter did not relate them in his fermons. For he did not think fit to "bear teftimonie to himfelf by relating what Jefus said to him, or of him. Therefore Mark has omitted them. But what concerned his « denial of Jefus, he preached to all men, because he wept bitterly. ... "For all things in Mark are faid to be memoirs of Peter's dif" courses,"

2.) And () Chryfoftom, reconciling Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's denying Chritt, fays: "Thefe things Mark had from his master. "For he was a difciple of Peter. And what is very remarkable, though "he was a difciple of Peter, he relates his fall more particularly, than any "of the reft."

3.) The () fame great preacher explaining the hiftorie of our Lord's paying the didrachm or tribute-money to the temple, which is in Matth. xvii. 24. 27. and particularly thofe words: That take and give unto them for me and thee, fays, " Mark, who was a difciple of Peter, omits "this, because it was honourable to that Apoftle. But he relates the "hiftorie

(b) Poftremo, in ipfis Evangeliis quædam exftare videntur criteria, ex qui bus ea fero effe confcripta colligi poteft. Phrafis uixes the onusson, ufque ad μέχρι της σήμερον, hunc diem.Mat. xxviii. 15. juitum fpatium inter Chrifti refurrectionem et Evangelium exaratum poftulare videtur. Ita quæ Marcus cap. xvi. 18. de jerpentibus a Chrifti difcipulis fine damno tollendis habet, ad Paulum, Romam tendentem, et quod ei in itinere in infula Mileto contigit, refpicere videntur. Herman, Venema Diff. fecund. de titulo ep. ad Ephef. Cap. v. num. iv. (1) Poli. viii. f. 86,.... 88. (4) Pol, x. p. 318.

(1) P. 3190