And now, very probably, he converfed again with Peter, and the other Apostles, and was prefent with them at their difcourfes, and their devo tions. For, as I apprehend, all the Apoftles were ftill in Judea, except James the fon of Zebedee, who had been beheaded by Herod Agrippa, in the beginning of the year 44.

Paul and Barnabas having finished their progreffe, returned to An tioch, and there abode. Whilft they were there, debates arofe about cir cumcifing Gentil converts, Which determined Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerufalem. That controverfie being decided, they returned to Antioch.

Some time afterwards Paul faid unto Barnabas: Let us go again, and vifit our brethren, in every city, where we have preached the word, and fee how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whofe 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, perfifted in his resolution, and went with Mark to Cyprus; And Paul chofe Silas to accompany him, Acts xy. 36,... 41,

Hereby we perceive the good temper of Mark. He was now at Ang tioch, 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 to him. Mark is mentioned in several of his epiftles fent from Rome, dur jng his confinement there. I fuppofe, I fhall hereafter fhew, that St. Paul's fecond epiftle to Timothie was writ in the fummer of the year 61? not long after Paul's arrival at Rome, In that epiftle he writes to Timathie, to come to him, And he deftres him to bring Mark with him, 2 Tim. iv. 11, Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitabli to me for the miniftrie. Where Mark then was, does not clearly appear, It is probable, that he was either at Ephefus, or at fome other place, where Timothie would find him in his journey from Ephefus to Rome. And unqueftionably, Mark did come with Timothie. He is mentioned in two of the epiftles writ by the Apoftle at Rome. Philem, ver, 24, and Col, iv. 10. Ariftarchus falutes you, and Mark, fifter's fon to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments. If he come unto you, receive him. Mark is not mentioned in the epiftle to the Philippians. Perhaps he was not acquainted there, or upon fome occafion was abfent from the Apostle, when that epiftle was writ. Or rather, he is comprehended in those general expreffions. ch. iv. 21. The brethren that are with me, greet you. For in the epiftle to the Philippians St. Paul does not mention his fellow-laborers by name, as he does in the epiftles to the Coloffians, and to Philemon. Nor is he mentioned in the epiftle to the Ephefians, To those who admit the true date of that epistle the reason will be obvious. It was writ, and fent away, before Mark came to be with St. Paul at Rome:

This is all we can fay concerning St. Mark from the New Teftament. 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 Apoftle came to Rome, where he fuffered mar

tyrdom,

CH. VII. tyrdom. Where likewife 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 illuftrate the hiftorie of this Evangelift.

Cave fays, without hesitation, that (n) Mark was a Levite. But he does not fay, 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 alfo in a commentarie upon St. Mark's Gofpel, ufually joyned with Jerome's works, though (p) allowed not to be his. That writer fays, that (9) Mark was a Levite, and a Prieft. It is not unlikely, that this was inferred from Mark's relation to Barnabas, who was a Levite of Cyprus. Comp. Acts. iv. 36. and Col. iv. 10. But then Cave fhould not have denied, as he does in the fame place, that Mark the Evangelift is the fame as John Mark, mentioned in the Acts. For that, as I apprehend, is to remove out of the way the fole ground of this opinion.

By Eufebe we are informed, it (r) was faid, that Mark going into Egypt, firft preached there the Gofpel, which he had writ, and planted there many churches. And afterwards, in another chapter, he fays, that (s) in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first Bishop of Alexandria after Mark, the Apoftle and Evangelift, 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 fays, that soon after Matthew, Mark, companion of Peter; compofed his Gofpel at Rome. And having (t) writ it, he was fent by Peter into the countrey of the Egyptians.

Jerome, in his article of St. Mark, as (u) before quoted, after other things, fays: "Taking (x) the Gofpel, which himself had compofed, he

went

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

(0) Tradunt autem hunc, natione Ifraelitica, et facerdotali ortum profapia, ac poft paffionem ac refurrectionem Domini Salvatoris, ad prædicationem Apoftolorum Evangelica fide a facramentis imbutum, atque ex eorum fuiffe numero, de quibus fcribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba facerdotum obediebat fidei. Bed. Prol. in Marc.

p. 88.

(p) Vid. Benedictin Monitum, et Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. H. 21. num. vi. (9). Marcus Evangelifta Dei, Petri difcipulus, Leviticus genere, et facerdos, in Italia hoc fcripfit Evangelium. Præf. in Marc. ap. Hierom. T. v. p. 886. (r) Τῦτον δὲ μάρκον πρῶτον φασιν ἐπὶ τῆς αιγύπτε Γειλάμενον. τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον δὴ καὶ συνεγράψατο κηρύξαι, ἐκκλησίας το πρῶτον ἐπ ̓ αυτῆς αλεξανδρείας συςήσασε Jar. x. x. H. E. l. 2. cap. 16.

(s) . . . πρῶτος μετὰ μάρκον τὸν ἀπόςολον καὶ ἐυαγγέλισὴν, τῆς ἐν ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Παροικίας ἀννιανὸς τὴν λειτεργίαν διαδέχεται ανὸς θεόφιλος και πάντα θαυμάσιος. cap. 24.

Ib.

(1)

...

καὶ γράψας αποςέλλεται ὑπὸ τὸ ἀγία πέτρα εἰς τὴν τῶν αιγυπτίων χών gar. H. 51. num. vi.

(u) Vol. x. p. 92. 93.

(x) Affumto itaque Evangelio, quod ipfe confecerat, perrexit ad Ægyptum, et primus Alexandriæ Chriftum annuntians conftituit ecclefiam... Denique Philo. . videns Alexandriæ primam ecclefiam adhuc judaizantem, quafi in

laudem

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 fucceeded, 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 Eufebe, and Jerome likewife, fpeak of Mark's converts, and Philo's Therapeuts, as all one, they feem to have imagined, that Mark had very early preached in Egypt. But what they fay upon that head is exceeding strange and unaccountable. For they both fuppofe, that Mark had writ his gospel at Rome, before he went into Egypt: and that his Gof.. pel was not writ before the reign of Nero. If therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria, it was later, in the fame reign: and Philo's Therapeuts could not be Chriftians, nor Mark's converts: but were a fort of people, who had a being, and had formed their inftitution, before the gofpel could be published in Egypt, and before the rife of the Chriftian Religion.

By Baronius (y) and many others, it is faid, that St. Mark died a Martyr. This is admitted by (z) Cave, and the (a) late Mr. Wetstein. But it is difputed by (b) S. Bafnage: and as feems to me, with good reason. For St. Mark is not spoken of as a Martyr by Eufebe, or other more ancient writers. And Jerome, as before quoted, fays, 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 expreffions feem to imply a natural death. Fabricius (c) in his account of St. Mark, fays nothing of his having been a Martyr.

IV. Having thus writ the hiftorie of St. Mark, I shall now recollect the teftimonies to his Gospel, which we have Testimonies to his Gospel. feen in ancient writers, particularly, with a view of afcertaining the time of it: observing likewise whatever may farther lead us into the knowledge of his ftation and character, and whether he was one of Christ's seventy difciples, or not.

The firft writer to be here taken notice of is Papias, about A. D. 116. He fays, "That (d) the Elder, from whom he had divers inforແ mations, faid: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote what he re"membred: but not in the order, in which things were spoken and done

"by

laudem gentis fuæ, librum fuper eorum converfatione confcripfit. De V. L. cap. 8.

(y) An. 64. §. i. ii.

(z) Alexandriæ primus Epifcopus factus Martyrium ibi fubiit: qua vero anno, mihi hactenus incompertum. H. L. p. 24.

(a) Tandem vero in Egyptum conceffiffe, atque Alexandriæ fanguine fuo doctrinam Chrifti confirmaffe, hiftoria ecclefiaftica teftatur. 7. J. Wetstein. N. T. Tom. i. p. 551.

(b) Ann. 66. num. xix. xx.

(c) Vid. Fabr. Bib. Gr. l. 4. cap. v. n. iii. Tom. 3. p. 130, ....... 132. (d) Vol. i. p. 241.

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

Irenaeus, as before (e) cited, about 178. fays: "After the death of * Peter and Paul, Mark, the difciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter.” In another place (f) he calls Mark "the interpreter and follower of "Peter."

Clement, of Alexandria, about the year of Chrift 194. fays: "That (g) "Peter's hearers at Rome, not content with a fingle hearing, nor with "an unwritten inftruction 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 Gofpel, which is called according to Mark. It is faid, 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 paffage is cited from "Eufebe's Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie.

Again, Eufebe fays: "Clement (b) informs us, that the occafion of writing the Gospel according to Mark was this. Peter, having pub "licly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the Gofpel by the ἐξ Spirit, many who were there, entreated Mark to write the things that had been spoken, he having long accompanied Peter, and retaining ἐσ what he had faid: and that when he had compofed the Gofpel, he de"livered it to them, who had afked it of him. Which when Peter knew, ❝he neither forbid it, nor encouraged it."

ἐσ

Many remarks were (i) formerly made upon thefe accounts of Clement, which cannot now be repeated. But it may be needful to say something here for reconciling Irenaeus and him. Irenaeus faid, that Mark publifhed his Gofpel after the death of Peter and Paul: whereas Clement fuppoles Peter to have been ftill living, and that this Gospel was fhewn to Peter, who did not difapprove of it. But the difference is not great. Clement fays, that Mark's Gospel was writ at Rome at the request of the Chriftians there, who were hearers of Peter. If fo, it could not be compofed 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 Golpel was not publifhed, or did not become generally known, till after the death of Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus fays.

Tertullian, about the year 200. fpeaks of Mark as (k) an apoftolical man, or companion of Apostles: and fays, “That (1) the Gospel, pub "lifhed by Mark, may be reckoned Peter's, whofe interpreter he "was."

Says Origen, about 230. "The (m) fecond Gofpel is that according to Mark, who wrote it as Peter dictated it to him. Who therefore "calls him his fon in his catholic epiftle," See 1 Peter v. 13.

I

(e) Vol. ii. 472.

Eufebe

Vol. ii. p. 476.1.493.

P. 581.

(f) P. 357.
(i) Vol. i. p. 245... 249.

(e) Vol. i. p. 354.
(b) P. 475.
(k) See Vol. ii. p. 576... 588.
(m) Vol. viii. p. 235.

Eufebe, about 315. may be supposed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus, whofe paffages he has transcribed, and inferted in his Ecclefiaftical Historie. And in a long paffage of his Evangelical Demonftration, formerly (n) transcribed by us, he fays: "Peter out of abun"dance of modeftie thought not himself worthie to write a Gofpel. But "Mark, who was his friend and difciple, is faid to have recorded Peter's "relations of the acts of Jefus." At the end of which paffage he says: "And (0) Peter teftifies these things of himself. For all things in Mark are faid to be memoirs of Peter's difcourfes." He likewife fays, " that “(p) Mark was not present to hear what Jefus faid." Nor (q) does it appear, that he thought the writer of the Gofpel to be John, furnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he supposed him to be the fame that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13.

Mark is mentioned among the other Evangelifts by (r) Athanafius, without other particularities. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, 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 according 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. fays, that (t) Mark was one of Chrift's feventy difciples..

Epiphanius, about 368. fays: " Matthew (u) wrote firft, and Mark "foon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome." Afterwards he fays, "That (x) Mark was one of Christ's seventy difciples, and like"wife one of those who were offended at the words of Chrift, recorded "John vi. 44. and then forfook him: but he was afterwards recovered "by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit wrote a Gospel."

Úpon the laft paffage of Epiphanius Petavius fays: " Mark (y) might, poffibly, have feen Chrift, and have been one of the seventy: but it is "faid 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 Evangelift, to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and fome of St. Paul's epiftles.

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

Ebedjefu fays, "The (b) fecond Evangelift is Mark, who preached "[or wrote] in Latin, in the famous city of Rome."

(y) Diffentit Papias apud Eufebium. . . Quod autem afferunt nonnulli, Marcum non vidiffe Dominum, viderit necne non affirmo. Videre quidem potuiffe, temporum ipfa ratio perfuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii fententia, dum illum e LXXII difcipulorum numero fuiffe tradat, etfi contrarium alii patres tradant. Petas. ad loc. Animadv. p. 88.

(z) Vol. viii. p. 393.

(a) Vol. ix. p. 133, VOL. II.