1.) In the first place I would here remind my readers of a long passage of Eusebius, the learned bishop of Cæsarea, formerly transcribed, of which I take here a very small part only.

Having observed several things very honourable to Peter related in the other gospels, he adds : 6 Though such things were said to Peter by Jesus, Mark has taken no notice of them: • because, as is probable, Peter did not relate them in his sermons. For he did not think fit to • bear testimony to himself by relating what Jesus said to him, or of him ; therefore Mark has • omitted them. But what concerned his denial of Jesus, he preached to all men, because he wept bitterly....For all things in Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses.'

2.) And Chrysostom, reconciling Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's denying Christ, says: “These things Mark had from his master; for he was a disciple of Peter. And · what is very remarkable, though he was a disciple of Peter, he relates his fall more particularly • than any of the rest.'

3.) The same great preacher explaining the history of our Lord's paying the didrachm or tribute-money to the temple, which is in Matt. xvii. 24—27, and particularly those words : “ That take, and give unto them for me and thee,” says, “ Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, • omits this, because it was honourable to that apostle. But he relates the history of his denial . of Christ. And perhaps his master forbid him to insert such things, as tended to aggran• dize him.'

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

(1.) The account of Christ's pronouncing Peter blessed, when he had confessed him : Christ'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 succeeding parts of this discourse are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16-20, compared with Mark viii. 29, 30.

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

(3.) Christ's particular expressions 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 expressed in an unwillingness, that Christ should wash his feet, which none of the rest did express, with Christ's particular discourse to him; John xiii. 6, &c. is omitted by Mark.

(5.) The instance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting off the high-priest's servant'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 casting himself into the sea, to go to Christ. John xxi. 7, is not mentioned by St. Mark.'

(7.) Christ's discourse with Peter concerning his love to him, and his particular repeated eharge to him, to feed his sheep: 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.

These, adds that diligent author, are some instances of things, tending to St. Peter's • honour, recorded by the other evangelists, none of which are so much as hinted by St. Mark. .......All which cannot be accounted for any way more probable, than supposing that this apostle did not publish those circumstances, which were so much to his honour.'

Indeed, I think, they do confirm the accounts given of this gospel by the ancients. For these omissions cannot be so well ascribed to any thing, as to St. Peter's modesty and reservedness, who had not mentioned such things in his preaching, and discouraged the putting them • Vol. ii. p. 367. P. 603.

€ There is a like thing, and more extraordinary, related by

Matthew only, ch, xiy. 28–31. I do not know, why: Mr. d See New and full Method, part 3. p. 79-81,

c Ibid.

Jones omitted it.


down in writing: insomuch, that'as Tertullian says, the gospel published by Mark, may be said to be Peter's.

5.) Nevertheless I must acknowledge, that there are some things in St. Mark's gospel honourable to Peter, which are not in any other: I shall 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 company of the apostles, that way of describing them is very honourable to Peter. But some may suppose, none to be intended, beside 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 apostles to whom our Lord addressed himself, when he foretold the destruction of the temple, "and the calamities attending it: which is a passage peculiar to St. Mark.

And ch. xvi. 7. The message, which the angels sent to the disciples by the women at the sepulchre, is thus expressed: " But go your way. Tell his disciples, and Peter, that he before you into Galilee." Peter is not mentioned, upon this occasion, by Matthew xxviii. 7, nor by any other of the evangelists.

Upon this text Whitby says very well:· Peter is here named, not as prince of the apostles, .but, as the fathers say, for his consolation, and to take off the scruple, which might be upon • his spirit: whether by his three-fold denial of his master, he had not forfeited his right to be * one of Christ's disciples.'

I now proceed to another observation.

2. St. Mark's gospel, as is evident to all, is the shortest of the four. Jerom, as before cited, says, Mark wrote a short gospel. And Chrysostom observed, that • Mark had the conciseness of Peter, following his Master.

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

I shall here put down several such things, and not those which are omitted by Matthew, but such things as are in Mark, and in no other of the evangelists.

1.) In the account of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness, St. Mark says, ch. i. 13, “ and was with the wild beasts:" not mentioned by any other evangelist, and yet. very proper to show the hardships which our Lord underwent at that season.

2.) Ch. i. 20. In the account of the call of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, he says, they left their father in the ship, with the hired servants:” a circumstance not mentioned by

3.) Ch. i. 29. “ And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon, and Andrew, with James and John.” In Matt. viii. 14, it is only, « come into Peter's house." In Luke iv. 38, « and entered into Simon's house."

4.) Ch. i. 83. “ And all the city was gathered together at the door." Not in any other evangelist. Compare Matt. viii. 16. Luke iv. 40, 41.

5.) Ch. i. 35. “ And in the morning rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.' Ver. 36. “ And Simon, and they that were with hiin, followed after him.” Ver. 37. « And when they had found him, they said unto him: All men seek thee.” This is not at all in Matthew, and is here much fuller, and with more particulars, than in Luke iv. 42.

6.) Ch. i. 45. Of the leper, cured by our Saviour, he says: “ But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter.” Not particularly mentioned by the other evangelists. Compare Matth. viii. 4. Luke v. 14, 15.

7.) In the cure of the paralytic. ch. ii. 2. “ And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, not so much as about the door. 3. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4. And....they un. covered the roof”.... No other evangelist has so particularly described the crowd. In Mark only is it said, that this sick man was borne of four. He likewise more particularly describes the uncovering the roof. Compare Matt. ix. 1, 2. Luke v. 18, 19.

8.) In the history of the man with “a withered hand,” cured in the synagogue, on a sabbath; ch. iii. 5. • And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved

any other.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man: Stretch forth thy hand.” Not so full in any other evangelist. Compare Matt. xii. 9—13. Luke vi. 6-11.

9.). Ch. iii. ver. 6..“ And the pharisees went forth, and sraightway took counsel with the Herodians against him.” Matt. xii. 14, mentions pharisees only. Luke vi. 11. mentions no persons by name.

10.) Ch. iii. 17. “ And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges.” Not in any other evangelist.

11.) Ch. iii. 19......" And they went into the house. 20. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold of him. For they said: He is beside himself.”. Whether that expression “ he is beside himself,” is to be understood of Christ, or of the multitude, this passage is peculiar to St. Mark.

12.) Ch. iv. 26. “ And he said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast his seed into the ground, 27. And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of itself, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. 29. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.' This parable is peculiar to St. Mark. See Whitby upon the place, and likewise · Grotius.

13.) After the parable of the grain of mustard-seed, beside other things common to him and Matthew, he adds, ch. iv. 34, “ And when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” Compare Matt. xiii. 31–34. This particular leads us mightily to think, that either Mark was an eye-witness, or had the best and fullest information of things.

14.) Mark iv. 36. “ And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship.” This circumstance, peculiar to St. Mark, enables us to account for our Lord's fast sleep in his passage to the country of the Gadarenes.' We perceive from St. Mark, that this voyage was undertaken in the evening, after the fatigue of long discourses in public, and without any refreshment. Our Lord's sleep in the midst of a storm is mentioned by all - three evangelists. Matt. viii. 24–26. Mark iv. 37, 38. Luke viii. 23, 24. But this evangelist alone leads us to discern the occasion of it.

15.) Farther, in the same ver. 36, of ch. iv. “ And there were also with him several other little ships.” A particular peculiar to St. Mark.

16.) And in the account of this voyage across the sea, he says, ver. 38, that our Lord was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow:” two circumstances, wanting in the other evangelists.

17.) Certainly, these and other things are sufficient to assure us, that either Mark was an eye-witness: or, that he wrote things as related to him by an eye-witness, even Peter himself, as all the ancients say.

18.) In Matt. viii. 2834. Mark v. 1–19. Luke viii. 26–39, are the several accounts of our Lord's healing the dæmoniac, or dæmoniacs, in the country of the Gadarenes; for Matthew speaks of two, Mark and Luke of one only. In St. Mark's history are divers things not in the other gospels. In him alone it is said, that “ the man was always night and day in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones." And he only mentions the number of swine that perished in the sea, saying, “ they were about two thousand.”

19.) All the first three evangelists have given a history of our Lord's raising the daughter of Jairus, and healing the woman with an issue of blood, both in connection. Matt. ix, 18-28. Mark v. 22–43. Luke viii. 41-56. St. Mark has several things which are in neither of the other. Of the woman he says, ver. 26, “ she had suffered much of many physicians....and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse. At ver. 29, “ And she felt in her body, that she was healed of that plague.” At ver. 41, he inserts the very words which Jesus spake when he raised the daughter of Jairus: “ Talitha Kumi.". I have omitted some other things peculiar to St. Mark in the account of these miracles.

20.) Ch. vi. 13. In the account of the commission given to the twelve by Christ in his life-time, he says, “ they anointed many with oil, and healed them:” which is mentioned by no other evangelist, as was observed of old by - Victor.

a Hæc parabola, aliis omissa, cum suam hic explicationem non habeat, explicari debet ex simili comparatione, quæ est apud Matt. xiii. 24. Grot. ad Marc. iv. 26.

See Vol. ii, p. 027.

2 B

21.) Mark vii. 2, 3, 4. What is there said of the Jews' washing themselves, when they come from the market, before they eat: and of their “ cleansing cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables," is peculiar to St. Mark. Comp. Matt. xv. 1, 2.

22.) Ch, vii. 21, 22. Are the things that defile men. St. Matthew, ch. xv. 19, mentions seven things only. St. Mark has thirteen; and two of them, “ an evil eye,” and foolishness," are very singular.

23.) Ch. vii. 31–37. Our Lord bestows hearing and speech upon a deaf and dumb man. 24.) Ch. viü. 22-26. Our Lord cures a blind man at Bethsaida. These two miracles are peculiar to St. Mark, being related by no other evangelist.

25.) Ch. x. 46–52, is the account of the miracle on the blind man near Jericho. St. Mark, ver. 46, calls him blind Bartimeus, son of Timæus: not mentioned by the other evangelists. See Matt. xx. 29–34. Luke xviii. 35–43. And at ver. 50, “he casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus:” a circumstance peculiar to St. Mark. Which shews his exact knowledge of the history, as did likewise his calling the man by his name.

26.) Ch. xi. 13. “ For the time of figs was not yet: that is, the time of gathering was not yet come. A most useful observation peculiar to this evangelist, showing, that as there were leaves, it was reasonable to expect fruit on this fig-tree, if it was not barren. Upon this text might be consulted bishop Kidder, and Mr. Hallet.

27.) Ch. xiii. 3, 4. “ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, asked him privately.... When shall these things be?" No other evangelist has mentioned the names of the disciples, who put this question to our Saviour. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 1-3. Luke xxi. 5.

28.) In Mark xii. 41-44, and Luke xxi. 1-4, is the account of the people casting their gifts into the chests of the treasury in the temple. St. Mark says: “And Jesus sat over against the treasury.” In which expression there is great propriety. And he alone mentions the value of the poor widow's two mites, saying, “ which make a farthing."

29.) Ch. xiv. 51. “ And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. And the young men [the guards) laid hold on him. Ver. 52. " And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” A particular in no other evangelist, yet very fitly taken notice of, as intimating the usual noise and disturbance, when a man is taken

up in the night-time as a malefactor, and is carried before a magistrate. By the noise of the people passing along that young person was excited to come hastily out of the house where he was, to inquire what was the matter. Mr. Le Clerc, in his French Testament, has an useful note upon this place. He observes the natural simplicity of the evangelist's narration; which as he justly says, confirms the truth of their history.

30.) Ch. xv. 21. “ And they compel one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. That particular, “ the father of Alexander and Rufus," is in no other evangelist. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 82, and Luke xxiii. 26.

31.) Ch. xvi. 3, 4. “ And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre: for it was very great.". In no other evangelist.

32.) Ch. xvi. 7. “ But go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee.” The mention of Peter is peculiar to St. Mark. For in Matt. xxviii. 7, it is, “ Go quickly, and tell his disciples.” St. Luke has not recorded that message.

83.) I add nothing more of this kind. I have omitted many things, which are in this gospel, and no other, being apprehensive, that if I enlarged farther, I should be charged with prolixity.

34.) The particulars that have been alleged, are sufficient to assure us, that St. Mark is not an epitomiser of another author: and that he was well acquainted with the things of which he undertook to write a history. He writes as an eye-witness, or as one who had full and authentic information at first hand. In a word, St. Mark's gospel, though short, is a very valuable and masterly performance. 4. It may


proper for me to add one thing more: that I suppose the twelve verses at the end of the sixteenth chapter to be a genuine part of this gospel. If any doubt of it, I would refer them for their satisfaction to Dr. Mill, and to the observations of Grotius, at the beginning of that chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verse. And for explaining those twelve verses, and reconciling them with the other evangelists, I refer to Grotius, and other commentators.

a Demonstration of the Messiah, Part ii. ch. ii. p. 38, 39.

Notes and Discourses, Vol. ii. p. 114-125.
Non de Apostolorum grege... sed ex villa aliquâ horto

proxima, strepitu militum excitatus, et subito accurrens, ut
conspiceret, quid ageretur. Grot. ad Marc. xi. 51.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

I. His History from the N. T. II. Testimonies of ancient Christian Writers to St. Luke, and his two
Books, his Gospel

, and the Acts. III. Remarks upon those Testimonies. IV. The Time of writing his Gospel and the Acts. V. Internal Characters of time in the Gospel. VI. The place where it was written. VII. A general recollection of St. Luke's Character. VIII. Observations upon his gospel. IX. Observations upon the book of the Acts.

1. The first time that we find any mention of St. Luke in the books of the New Testament is in his own history. Acts xvi. 10, 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's company at Troas, before the apostle took shipping to go into Macedonia : in which voyage St. Luke was one of the company. ver. 8. “ And they passing by Mysia, came to Troas.” Ver. 9. “ And a vision appeared to Paul in the night : There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” ver. 10. “ And when he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.” ver. 11, “ Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia.”

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. 11–17. So far St. Luke speaks in the first person plural. But having finished his account of the transactions at Philippi, which reaches to ver. 10, the last of that chapter: at the beginning of the next ch. xvii. 1. he changeth the person, and says: “ Now when they had passed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews."

Nor does he any more expressly speak of himself, until Paul was a second time in Greece, and was setting out for Jerusalem with the collections, which had been made for the poor 'saints in Judea, Acts xx. 1–6. “ And after the uproar” [at Ephesus,] “ was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there

k From some words in the Cambridge manuscript, Bp. by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue that he is the Pearson has argued, that Luke was in Paul's company from same as Lucius, mentioned Acts xii. 1. But I should think the year 43. Dein peragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, it best for neither side to form an argument from this reading. et per Mysiam venit Troadem, ubi se illi comitem adjunxisse Mr. Wetstein has referred us to a place of St. Augustine, indicat Lucas, xvi. 10, qui antea etiam Antiochiæ cum Paulo where this text, is quoted very agreeably to the Cambridge fuit, et jam eum Troade assecutus est: ut colligere licet ex manuscript. In illis autem diebus descenderunt ab JerosoAct. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, GUVES pau Jaywy ds lymis Prophetæ Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, surgens juwy. Ab anno igitur 43, per octennium discipulus fuerat unus ex illis, nomine Agabus, &c. De Serm. Dom. I. 2. c. 17. Antiocbiæ. Annal. Paulin. p. 10. But it is not safe to rely But it is observable, that Irenæus l. 3. c. 14. init. a more upon one manuscript only, different from all others, and of ancient writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's no great authority. As Mr. Tillemont took notice of this

company, begins at Troas. Acts xvi. 8—10. I presume, it observation of Pearson, I transcribe his thoughts about it. must be best to rely upon him, and the general consent of all Selon le manuscrit de Cambridge, S. Luc dit qu'il étoit avec manuscripts, except one, in the common reading, S. Paul à Antioche, dès l'an 43 : ce que Pearson a reçu. Mais • Nevertheless it is supposed by many, that Luke continued il ne seroit pas sûr de se fier à un manuscrit différent de tous with Paul. Irenæus calls him Paul's inseparable companion, les autres. Et quand cela se pourroit en quelques occasions, after his coming to be with the Apostle at Troas. Adv. H.l. ce ne seroit pas à l'égard du manuscrit de Cambridge, qui 3. c. 14. So likewise Cave. Cujus perinde sectator erat, et est plein d'additions et altérations contraires au véritable texte omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L. T. i. p. 23. See also de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may Tillem. St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. argue from these words, that Luke was a Gentile, converted

« VorigeDoorgaan »