7. 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 Apoftles Peter and Paul had been gone from thence, as Irenaeus fays.

But here I beg leave to observe, that, probably, Irenaeus does not speak of these two Apoftles removal from Rome, but of their decease. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reason to suppose, 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 Irenæus, fays, Mark's Gofpel 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 published, till after the year of Chrift 60. I readily aflent to them so far. And as I am difpofed to place the martyrdoms of thefe two great Apoftles at Rome, in the later part of the year 64. or in 65. it feems to me probable, that St. Mark's Gofpel was compofed in the year 64. or 65. and made public by him the firft fair cpportunity, 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. Wetstein 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 Gofpel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's Gospel could not be published before the year 64. or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel the fame learned writer expreffeth himself to this purpose. "According (g) to "fome

(b) Bib. Gr. l. 4. cap. v.

Tom. 3. p. 124. et 131.

(Poft Pauli ac Petri odov, 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 Irenæum, paullo poft horum duorum Apoftolorum difceffum à Roma, qui accidiffe videtur anno æræ vulgaris Lxiii. * Mill. Proleg. num. 101.

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

(e) Vid. 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. P. 55.

(g) Evangelium autem edidit xv, aut fecundum alios xxii. poft Chrifti adfcenfionem annis. . . . . Lucam multa ex Matthæo, ex Marco plura defcripfiffe, ex collatione patet. b. p. 643.

"fome ecclefiaftical writers Luke published 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 Christ's af-· cenfion, and transcribed a great deal from St. Mark; St. Mark's Gospel must have been first published, and very early. If St. Mark's Gofpel 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. Weftftein had any determined opinion concerning the date of these two Gofpels. Nor can I, as yet, perfuade myself, that any of the Evangelifts transcribed 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 Gospel 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. I . . 12. in the parable there recorded, of the Householder, who planted a vineyard, and let it out to hufbandmen: to whom after a while he sent servants, and then his fon, to receive from them the fruit of the vineyard. But they abused 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 eucharift 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 fhall 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 say, 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 Gospel. Obfervations upon VIII. I fhall conclude this chapter with fome obferthis Gospel. vations upon St. Mark's Gofpel.

1. It confirms the accounts given by the ancients, that it is the subftance 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, or according to informations and directions given by him to this Evangelift.

1.) in the first place I would here remind my readers of a long-paffage of Eufebius, the learned Bishop of Cefarea, formerly transcribed, of which I take here a very small part only.

Having obferved feveral things very honourable to Peter, related in the other Gofpels, he adds: "Though (i) 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 himself by relating what Jefus faid 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"courfes."

...

2.) And (k) Chryfoftom, reconciling Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's denying Chrift, fays: "These 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 quibus ea fero effe confcripta colligi poteft. Phrafis éxei tñs onμegov, ufque ad hunc diem. Mat. xxviii. 15. juftum fpatium inter Chrifti refurrectionem et Evangelium exaratum poftulare videtur. Ita quæ Marcus cap. xvi. 18. de ferpentibus 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. Ephef. Cap. v. num, iv、、、 (i) Vel. viii. p. 86. ... 88. (k) Vol. x. p. 318. (1) P. 319.

"hiftorie of his denial of Chrift. And perhaps his mafter forbid him to "infert fuch things, as tended to aggrandise him."

4.) No one has more largely treated this point, than Mr. Jones, who has (m) a catalogue of feveral places in the Gospels, containing things tending to Peter's honour, which are not mentioned in St. Mark's Gofpel.

(1.) The account of Chrift's pronouncing Peter bleffed, when he had confeffed him: Chrift's declaring, that he had his faith and knowledge from God: the promise of the keys, and of that large power, which is made to him: are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and the fucceding parts of this difcourfe are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16. .. 20. compared with Mark viii. 29. 30.

(2.) The relation of St. Peter's being commiffioned by Chrift to work the miracle, by getting money out of the fish's mouth, to pay the tributemoney, is told by St. Matthew. ch. xvii. 24... 28. but omitted by St. Mark: though the preceding and fubfequent stories are the very fame as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30... 33.

(3.) Chrift's particular expreffions of love and favour to St. Peter, in telling him of his danger, and that he prayed particularly for him, that his faith might not fail, is omitted by St. Mark, but related Luke xxii. 31. 32.

(4.) St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the Apostles ex preffed in an unwillingneffe, that Chrift fhould wash his feet, which none of the reft did exprefs, with Chrift's particular discourse to him. John xiii. 6. &c. is omitted by Mark.

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

(6.) St. Peter's faith in cafting himself into the fea, to go to Chrift. John xxi. 7. is not mentioned by St. Mark. (A)

(7.) Chrift's difcourfe with Peter concerning his love to him, and his particular repeated charge to him, to feed his fheep. John xxi. 15. is omitted by St. Mark.

(8.) Our Saviour's predicting to Peter his martyrdom, and the manner of it. John xxi. 18. 19. is not related by St. Mark.

"Thefe, adds that diligent author, are fome inftances of things, tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, none of which are so much as hinted by St. Mark. . . . All which cannot be accounted for any way more probable, than fuppofing, that this Apostle did not publifh thofe circumftances, which were fo much to his honour."

Indeed, I think, they do confirm the accounts given of this Gospel by the ancients. For these omiffions cannot be fo well afcribed to any thing, as to St. Peter's modeftie and reservedneffe, who had not mentioned fuch things in his preaching, and difcouraged the putting them down

81.

(m) See new and full Method. Part 3. p. 79. (A) There is a like thing, and more extraordinarie, related by Matthew only, ch. xiv. 28. 31. I do not know, why Mr. Jones omitted it.

down in writing: infomuch, that as Tertullian fays, the (n) Gospel publifhed by Mark, may be faid to be Peter's.

5.) Nevertheless I must acknowledge, that there are fome things in St. Mark's Gospel honourable to Pater, which are not in any other. I fhall mention two or three.

Says St. Mark ch. i. 36. And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him. If thereby be intended the whole companie of the Apoftles, that way of defcribing them is very honourable to Peter. But fome may fuppofe, none to be intended, befide those mentioned ver. 29. If so, it resembles Luke ix. 32. But Peter, and they that were with him: meaning John and James, and referring to ver. 28.

In Mark xiv. 3. Peter is mentioned, as one of the four Apoftles, to whom our Lord addrefled himself, when he foretold the deftruction of the temple, and the calamities attending it. Which is a paffage peculiar to St. Mark.

And Ch. xvi. 7. The meffage, which the angels fent to the difciples by the women at the fepulchre, is thus expreffed: But go your way. Tell bis difciples, and Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee. Peter is not mentioned, upon this occafion, by Matthew xxviii. 7. nor by any other of the Evangelifts.

Upon this text Whitby fays very well: "Peter is here named, not as "Prince of the Apoftles, but, as the Fathers fay, for his confolation, and "to take off the fcruple, which might be upon his fpirit: whether by "his threefold denial of his master, he had not forfeited his right to be "one of Chrift's difciples."

I now proceed to another obfervation.

2. St. Mark's Gospel, as is evident to all, is the fhorteft of the four. Jerome, as before cited, fays, Mark () wrote a fhort Gospel. And Chryfoftom observed, that (p) Mark had the concifencfle of Peter, following his master.

3. Nevertheless there are in St. Mark many things peculiar to himself, not mentioned by any other Evangelist.

I fhall here put down feveral fuch things, and not thofe, which are omitted by Matthew only, but fuch things, as are in Mark, and in no other of the Evangelifts.

1.) In the account of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderneffe, St. Mark fays, ch. i. 13. and was with the wild beafts: not mentioned by any other Evangelift, and yet very proper to fhew the hardships, which our Lord underwent at that feafon.

2.) Ch. i. 20. In the account of the call of James and John, the fons of Zebedee, he fays, they left their father in the ship, with the hired fervants. A circumftance not mentioned by any other.

3. Ch. i. 29. And forthwith, when they were come out of the fynagogue, they entred into the houfe of Simon, and Andrew, with James and John. In Matth. viii. 14. it is only, come into Peter's houfe. In Luke iv. 38. and entered into Simon's houfe.

4. Ch. i. 33. And all the city was gathered together at the door. Not in any other Evangelift. Compare Matt. viii. 16. Luke iv. 40. 41.

(") See Vol. ii. p. 58s.

5.) Ch.

(0) See here. p. 175. (p) See Volume x. p. 322.