[PART II. Evangelist, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas, since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the work which he undertook by having heard for many years the public discourses and private conversation of that Apostle. This opinion is confirmed by the Gospel itself; for many things honourable to St. Peter are omitted in it, which are mentioned by the other Evangelists (h); and it is perfectly conformable to the character of St. Peter, that he should not, either in public or private, notice circumstances of that kind; but on the other hand, the failings of Peter are all recorded in this Gospel. Thus St. Mark does not add the benediction and promise which St. Peter received from our Saviour, upon his acknowledging him to be the Messiah; but he relates at large the severe reproof which he received soon after, for not bearing to hear that Christ must suffer (i).

Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to St. Peter (k); by which title they did not mean

to

(b) Vide Jones's New Method. (i) Vide Townson on. the Gospels, p. 155; and compare Mark, ch. 8. with Matt, ch. 16.

(k) Licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Tert. adv. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 5. Marcus,

to question St. Mark's right to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the sanction of Peter's name. The following passage in Eusebius appears to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that I think it right to transcribe it: "The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of Peter's hearers (at Rome) that they were not contented with the bare hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they earnestly requested Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant upon Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the writing of that Gospel, which is called according to Mark; and they say, that the Apostle, being informed of what was done, by the revelation of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorised the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this account in the sixth book of his Institutions and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, bears testimony to it (7)." Jerome

also

Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, quæ a Petro annunciata erant, edidit. Iren. lib. 3. cap. I.

(1) Eus. H. E. lib. 2. cap. 15.

also says, that "Mark wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard from Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which, when Peter knew, he approved, and published it in the churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority (m).”

III. DIFFERENT persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel: but there being almost an unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any antient authority for supposing that Peter was in that city till the year 64, I am inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about the year 65.

IV. ST. MARK having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons. Quotations from the antient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs, are as much as possible avoided; and such explanations are added, as might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome: thus, when Jordan is first mentioned in this Gospel, the word River is prefixed (n); the oriental word

(m) Lib. de Vir. Illust. cap. 8. (n) C. I. v. 5.

word Corban is said to mean a gift (o); the preparation is said to be the day before the sabbath (p); and defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands (q); and the superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large, than it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.

The Gospel of St. Mark is a simple and compendious narrative, and his style is clear and correct; he is in general much less circumstantial than St. Matthew, and usually follows his arrangement. Some authors represent St. Mark's Gospel as an abridgement of St. Matthew's (r), but this is surely a mistaken idea. St. Mark entirely omits several important things related by St. Matthew, such as the genealogy and birth of Christ, the massacre at Bethlehem, and the sermon upon the mount. He dilates upon some facts which are concisely mentioned by St. Matthew, such as the cure of the paralytic in the 2d chapter (s), and the miracle among the Gadarenes, in the fifth (t). He now and then departs from

1

(0) C. 7. v. II.

(P) C. 15. v. 42.

(9) C. 7. v. 2.

the

(r) The earliest author who mentions this idea is Augustine, Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus ejus et breviator videtur. De cons. Ev. lib. 1. сар. 2.

(s) Compare Matt. c. 9. v. 2. (t) Compare Matt. c. 8. v. 18.

the order of time, and arrangement of facts, observed by St. Matthew; and Lardner has enumerated above thirty circumstances noticed by St. Mark, which are not found in any other Gospel; many of these are trifling, but two of them are the miraculous cures recorded at the end of the 7th chapter, and in the middle of the 8th. If, however, we except slight additions made by St. Mark to the narrative common to the first three Evangelists, there are not more than 24 verses in his whole Gospel, which contain facts not recorded either by St. Matthew or by St. Luke.

Two learned men, Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson, from a collation of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels, have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so many instances, that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St. Matthew's Gospel before him; but I must own that the similarity does not appear to me strong enough to warrant such a conclusion; it seems no more than might have arisen from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the same events and discourses which Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who sought not after "excellency of speech," but whose minds retained the remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed

11