my

Marmorica, Pentapolis, and other countries; where his preaching and miracles were the means of converting many to the faith, with whom he stayed till he had confirmed them in the profession of the truth. Returning to Alexandria he preached freely for some time, regulated the newly formed church, and wisely provided for a succession by constituting governors and pastors therein. But the restless eneof the souls of men would not suffer him to be long quiet. For, at the time of Easter, when the great solemnities of Serapis were celebrated, and the minds of the people were excited to a passionate vindication of their idol's honour, they broke in upon St. Mark, who was then engaged in the solemn celebration of Divine worship. They seized him, bound his feet with cords, dragged him through the streets, and the most craggy places, to the Bucelus, a precipice near the sea, and for that night thrust him into prison, where his soul was encouraged by a Divine, vision under the tortures of his shattered body. On the following morning the tragedy recommenced, and he was dragged about in the same manner, till through bruises and loss of blood he expired. He outlived St. Peter and St. Paul, and is supposed to have suffered about the end of the reign of Nero.

His Gospel, the only book which he left behind him, was written at the intreaty of the converts at Rome, who, not contented to have heard the Gospel from the lips of St. Peter, requested his Disciple St. Mark to commit to writing an historical account of what the Apostle had delivered to them. This our Evanvelist performed in the gospel which bears his e, with faithfulness and brevity. St. Peter

is said to have perused the narrative, to have ratified it by his authority, and to have commanded it to be read in the public assemblies of the Roman church. It was frequently styled St. Peter's gospel; not so much because dictated by him to St. Mark, as because the evangelist composed it chiefly from those discourses which St. Peter usually delivered to the people. St. Chrysostom has observed, that St. Mark delights, in his style and manner of expression, to imitate St. Peter, representing much in a few words. Though he commonly reduces the story of our Saviour's acts into a narrower compass than St. Matthew, yet there are passages in which he is more diffuse. The impartiality of his narrative appears from hence, that, so far from concealing the shameful lapse of St. Peter, his beloved tutor and master, he mentions some particular circumstances and aggravations which the other Evangelists have omitted.

"So far as may be judged by comparing the gospels of Mark and Matthew, the first is an abridgment of the second. Mark often uses the same terms, relates the same facts, and notices the same circumstances. He sometimes adds particulars, which give great light to St. Matthew's text. There are also two or three miracles in Mark, which are not in Matthew. (See Mark i. 23, and chap. i. v. ix. xvi.) What is most remarkable is, that, though he follows Matthew in almost every thing else, yet he forsakes him in the order of his narration, from chap. iv. 12, to chap. xiv. 13, of Matthew. In these places he follows the order of time as noted by Luke and John. This has induced chronologers to follow Luke, Mark and John, rather

preaching of John the Baptist, and omits several parables related by St. Matthew, chap. xx. xxi, and xxv.; and several discourses of our Saviour to His disciples and to the pharisees. (Chap. v. vi, vii. xvi. xviii.")*

The collect, appointed for St. Mark's day, contains a preface and a prayer. The preface records the Divine mercy which hath been shewn to the church by the instrumentality of this Evangelist; -And the prayer implores grace that we may duly improve it.

The Alexandrian Christians, and those of many other countries, were deeply indebted to Divine goodness for the personal ministry of this eminent man. But not only had they a cause for thankfulness in the recollection of St. Mark, for his memorial is justly blessed among us also: and that not merely on their account whom his oral testimony was the means of turning from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God; but also on our own, since we also are “en"lightened with his heavenly doctrine," to whom "he, being dead, yet speaketh."

Who can sufficiently admire the wisdom and goodness of God in raising up different men, in different places and on different occasions, to commit to writing those facts on which our salvation depends; in qualifying them for the important work by the inspiration of His Spirit; and in preserving their narratives for our use on whom the ends of the world are come? Had one historian only been employed, the narrative would have been more liable to suspicion. But "in

*Calmet's Dictionary. See a lively description of St. Mark's style and character of writing in Blackwell's Sacred Classics, vol. i. p. 291, &c.

"the mouth of two or three witnesses every word "is established;" and we have more than the number required for legitimate evidence. Had there been a perfect accordance in style, in chronology, in the facts and sayings recited, it might have been said (for what will not infidelity allege to discredit the word of God?) that the witnesses had consulted together, or that their testimonies were verbal copies of each other. But the varieties that prevail in the several Evangelists plainly evince that there was no plot to deceive formed among them; the evidence of each is thereby marked with credibility; and the whole narrative is a fourfold cord which cannot be broken,-a cable, held by which the vessel of the church will ride out every storm which may be raised against her.

The doctrine of St. Mark is justly characterized in our collect as heavenly doctrine; for it is the history of Him, and a record of His instructions both by word and deed, who came down from heaven and who is the only guide that can conduct us thither. It is a stream of light issuing from the throne of God, and opening a vist through the darkness that envelopes our nether world, which attracts and directs the pilgrim's feet towards the source of its derivation.

That the doctrine of St. Mark and of the other Evangelists is "heavenly," or given by inspiration of God," appears clearly both by its external and internal evidences.

The external evidence is such as can never be overthrown. That the books of the New Testament were written soon after our Lord's ascension, and by the persons whose names they bear, is unquestionable. For they are all mentioned by

writers of the facts therein recorded shew that they could not be deceived themselves: because they relate what they had seen with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. This, however, was the case with respect only to two of the Evangelists; but the other two have recited what they heard immediately from eye and ear witnesses. They proved their veracity, and shewed incontestably that they did not invent the story which they related, by their patient submission to every species of torment in its defence, "not loving their lives "unto the death." The facts recorded in the New Testament being thus established, afford an attestation to the Divine authority of the doctrines which they were wrought to confirm; many of them being such miraculous acts as no man could do unless God were with him. (See Mark xvi. 30. John iii. 2. x. 25.)

The internal evidence which attests the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures consists of proofs, derivable from themselves, that none but God could have been their author. They arise-From the tendency of the whole-From the harmony of the different parts-And from that luminous display of excellency which arrests the attention of every humble inquirer after truth.

The general tendency of the doctrines of the Scriptures indicates their Divine original. They exhibit to us the state in which man was at first created, as crowned with purity and perfection both natural and moral. They teach us that he is now a sinful, helpless, and miserable creature; and shew how his deplorable fall was originally occasioned. They reveal to us what he must become in order to be happy, even pardoned and sanctified. They likewise explain how this change must be produced: that it must be the effect of