Hereby we perceive the good temper of Mark. He was now at Antioch, and was willing to attend Paul and Barnabas in their journies, 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 epistles sent from Rome, during his confinement there. I suppose, I shall hereafter show, that St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy was written in the summer of the year 61, not long after Paul's arrival at Rome. In that epistle he writes to Timothy, to come to him; and he desires him to bring Mark with him. 2 Tim. iv. 11. “ Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Where Mark then was, does not clearly appear. It is probable, that he was either at Ephesus, or at some other place, where Timothy would find him in his journey from Ephesus to Rome: and unquestionably Mark did come with Timothy. He is mentioned in two of the epistles written by the apostle at Rome. Philem. ver. 24. and Col. iv. 10. "Aristarchus salutes you, and Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him.” Mark is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians. Perhaps he was not acquainted there, or upon some occasion was absent from the apostle, when that epistle was written: or rather, he is comprehended in those general expressions. ch, iv. 21. "The brethren that are with me, greet you." For in the epistle to the Philippians St. Paul does not mention his fellow-labourers by name as he does in the epistles to the Colossians, and to Philemon. Nor is he mentioned in the epistle to the Ephesians. To those who admit the true date of that epistle the reason will be obvious: it was written and sent away, before Mark came to be with St. Paul at Rome.

This is all we can say concerning St. Mark from the New Testament. 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 Asia, he there met with St. Peter, and accompanied him, till that apostle came to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom: where likewise Mark wrote, and published the gospel that goes by his name.

III. We will now inquire, whether there is any thing in other writers to illustrate the history of this evangelist.

b

a

Cave says, without hesitation, that Mark was a Levite; but he does not say upon what authority. I do not remember that it is in any of the writers of which I have given a particular account, excepting Bede. It is also in a commentary upon St. Mark's gospel, usually joined with Jerom's works, though allowed not to be his. That writer says, that Mark was a Levite and a priest. 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 should not have denied, as he does in the same place, that Mark the evangelist is the same as John Mark mentioned in the Acts: for that, as I apprehend, is to remove out of the way the sole ground of this opinion.

e

By Eusebius we are informed, it was said, that Mark going into Egypt, first preached there the gospel, which he had written, and planted there many churches. And afterwards in another chapter, he says, that in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after. Mark, the apostle and evangelist, 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 says, that soon after Matthew, Mark, companion of Peter, composed his gospel at Rome. And having written it, he was sent by Peter into the country of the Egyptians. Jerom, in his article of St. Mark, as before quoted, after other things, says: Taking the

h

⚫ S. Marcus, Evangelista, quem cum Joanne Marco, de quo Act. xii. 12. male nonnulli confundunt, erat Levites. H. L. T. I. p. 24.

Tradunt autem hunc, natione Israëliticâ, et sacerdotali ortum prosapiâ, ac post passionem ac resurrectionem Domini Salvatoris, ad prædicationem Apostolorum evangelicâ fide a sacramentis imbutum, atque ex eorum fuisse numero, de quibus scribit Lucas, quia multa etiam turba sacerdotum obediebat fidei. Bed. Prol. in Marc.

• Vid. Benedictin. Monitum, et Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. H. 21. num. vi. p. 88.

Marcus, Evangelista Dei, Petri discipulus, Leviticus genere, et sacerdos, in Italiâ hoc scripsit evangelium. Præf. in Marc. ap. Hierom. T. V. p. 886.

• Τετον δε Μαρκον πρωτον φασιν επί της Αιγυπτο σειλάμενον,

το ευαγγέλιον ὁ δη και συνεγραψατο κηρύξαι, εκκλησίας τε πρωτον επ' αυτής Αλεξανδρειας συςησασθαι. κ. λ. H. E. 1. 2. cap. 16.

...

πρωτος μετά Μάρκον τον αποςολον και ευαγγελίην, της εν Αλεξανδρείᾳ παροικίας, Ανιανος την λειτεργίαν διαδέχε ται ανηρ θεοφιλης ων, και τα παντα θαυμάσιος. Ib. cap. 24. και γράψας αποςέλλεται ὑπὸ το άγιο Πετρε εις την των Αιγυπτίων χωραν. Η. 51, num. vi. h Vol. ii. p. 552.

i Assumpto itaque Evangelio, quod ipse confecerat, perrexit ad Ægyptum, et primus Alexandriæ Christum annuntians constituit ecclesiam .. Denique Philo... videns Alexandriæ primam ecclesiam adhuc judaïzantem, quasi in laudem gentis suæ, librum super eorum conversatione conscripsit. De V. L. cap. 8.

* gospel, which himself had composed, he 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 succeeded, 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 written his gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul at Rome. Nevertheless, when presently afterwards Eusebius, and Jerom likewise, speak of Mark's converts, and Philo's Therapeuts, as all one, they seem to have imagined, that Mark had very early preached in Egypt. But what they say upon that head is exceedingly strange and unaccountable. For they both suppose, that Mark had written his gospel at Rome, before he went into Egypt: and that his gospel was not written before the reign of Nero. If therefore Mark went at all to Alexandria, it was later, in the same reign and Philo's Therapeuts could not be Christians, nor Mark's converts: but were a sort of people, who had a being, and had formed their institution, before the gospel could be published in Egypt, and before the rise of the christian religion.

с

d

By Baronius and many others, it is said, that St. Mark, died a Martyr. This is admitted by Čave, and the late Mr. Wetstein: but it is disputed by S. Basnage; and as seems to me, with good reason. For St. Mark is not spoken of as a Martyr by Eusebius, or other more ancient writers and Jerom, as before quoted, says, St. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria. He does not say, that he was crowned with martyrdom: as he would have done, if he had known of it: and his expressions seem to imply a natural death, Fabricius in his account of St. Mark, says nothing of his having been a martyr.

IV. Having thus written the history of St. Mark, I shall now recollect the testimonies to his gospel, which we have seen in ancient writers, particularly, with a view of ascertaining the time of it: observing likewise whatever may farther lead us into the knowledge of his station and. character, and whether he was one of Christ's seventy disciples or not.

6

The first writer to be here taken notice of is Papias, about A. D. 116. He says, That' the elder, from whom he had divers informations, said, Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote what he remembered: but not in the order in which things were spoken and done by Christ. For he was not a hearer of the Lord, but afterwards followed Peter."

h

i

Irenæus, as before cited, about 178, says: After the death of Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter.' In another place he calls Mark the interpreter and follower of Peter.' Clement, of Alexandria, about the year of Christ 194, says: That Peter's hearers at Rome, ⚫ not content with a single hearing, nor with an unwritten instruction in the divine doctrine, entreated Mark, the follower of Peter, that he would leave with them in writing a memorial of the doctrine, which had been delivered to them by word of mouth: nor did they desist, until they had prevailed with him. Thus they were the means of writing the gospel, which is called according to Mark. It is said, that when the apostle knew what had been done, he was pleased ⚫ with the zeal of the men, and authorised that scripture to be read in the churches.' That passage is cited from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.

Again, Eusebius says: Clement informs us, that the occasion of writing the gospel according to Mark was this. Peter, having publicly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the gospel by the Spirit, many who were there, entreated Mark to write the things that had been spoken, he having long accompanied Peter, and retaining what he had said: and that when he had composed the gospel, he delivered it to them, who had asked it of him: which when Peter knew, he neither forbade it, nor encouraged it.'

Many remarks were' formerly made upon these accounts of Clement, which cannot now be repeated. But it may be needful to say something here for reconciling Irenæus and him. Irenæus said, that Mark published his gospel after the death of Peter and Paul : whereas Clement supposes Peter to have been still living, and that this gospel was shown to Peter, who did not

+

disapprove of it; but the difference is not great. Clement says, that Mark's gospel was written at Rome at the request of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter. If so, it could not be composed long before Peter's death. For I take it to be certain, that Peter did not come to Rome, until 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 gospel was not published, or did not become generally known, till after the death of Peter and Paul, as Irenæus says.

Tertullian, about the year 200, speaks of Mark as an apostolical man, or companion of apostles and says, That the gospel, published by Mark, may be reckoned Peter's, whose inter'preter he was.'

Says Origen, about 230. • The second gospel is that according to Mark, who wrote it as • Peter dictated it to him: who therefore calls him his son in his catholic epistle.' See 1 Peter

V. 13.

Eusebius, about 315, may be supposed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenæus, whose passages he has transcribed, and inserted in his Ecclesiastical History. And in a long passage of his evangelical demonstration, formerly transcribed by us, he says: Peter out of abundance of modesty thought not himself worthy to write a gospel. But Mark, who was his 'friend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's relations of the acts of Jesus.' At the end of which passage he says: And Peter testifies these things of himself: for all things in Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses.' He likewise says, that Mark was not present to hear what Jesus said.' Nor does it appear, that he thought the writer of the gospel to be John, surnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he supposed him to be the same that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13.

с

h

f

i

Mark is mentioned among the other evangelists by Athanasius, without other particularities. But in the Synopsis, ascribed to him, and by many supposed to be written by another Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, near the end of the fifth century, it is said, That 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.'

k

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, about 330, says, that Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples.

1

m

Epiphanius, about 368, says: Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome. Afterwards he Afterwards he says, That Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples, and likewise one of those who were offended at the words of Christ, recorded John 'vi. 44, and then forsook him: but he was afterwards recovered by Peter, and being filled with the spirit wrote a gospel.'

Upon the last passage of Epiphanius, Petavius says: Mark" might, possibly, have seen Christ, and have been one of the seventy: but it is said by very few ancient writers of the • church."

In the Constitutions, Mark is reckoned with Luke a fellow-labourer with Paul: which may induce us to think, that the author supposed Mark the evangelist to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and some of St. Paul's epistles.

Gregory Nazianzen says, that Mark wrote his gospel for the Italians,' or in Italy. Ebedjesu says, the second evangelist is Mark, who preached [or wrote] in Latin, in the famous city of Rome.'

Jerom's article of this evangelist, in his book of illustrious men, is to this purpose:

disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the desire of the brethren, at Rome, wrote a short gospel, according to what he had heard related by Peter: which when Peter knew, he approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the churches: as Clement writes in the sixth book of his Institutions, and also Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. Peter also makes mention of this Mark in his epistle written at Rome, which he figuratively calls Babylon.... Taking the gospel which himself had composed, he 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 succeeded as bishop by Anianus.'

a

In the prologue to his commentary upon St. Matthew, Jerom says: The second evangelist is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and the first bishop of Alexandria: who never saw the Lord himself, but related things as he had them from his master very truly, but not exactly in the order in which they were done.'

In his commentary upon Philem. ver. 24, he says, He thinks that Mark there mentioned is the writer of the gospel.' That Mark may be well supposed to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and in Col. iv. 10, where he is styled nephew to Barnabas. Whether that Mark was the evangelist was doubted of by some; nor was Jerom positive: but he was inclined to think him the same.

C

Augustine calls Mark and Luke disciples of apòstles; and says, that Mark follows Matthew as his abridger: upon which some remarks were made.

f

*

By Chrysostom Mark is said to have written his gospel in Egypt, at the request of the believers there. However, at the end of that passage he says: In what place each one of the evangelists wrote, cannot be said with certainty.' He likewise calls Mark disciple of Peter, and Peter his master. He must have supposed him the same that is mentioned 1 Peter v. 13. But I do not recollect him to have any where said that he was the same as John Mark.

Victor, writer of a commentary upon St. Mark's gospel, about the year 401, says: . He i was also called John: that he wrote a gospel after Matthew, and was the son of Mary, men'tioned Acts xii. For a while he accompanied Paul, and his relation Barnabas: but when he came to Rome, he joined Peter, and accompanied him. For which reason he is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13. Mark is also mentioned by Paul, Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11....When he was obliged 'to go from Rome, and was earnestly desired by the believers there to write a history of the preaching of the heavenly doctrine, he readily complied. This, as he adds, is said to have been the occasion of writing the gospel according to Mark.'

k

Cosmas of Alexandria, about 535, says: Mark, the second evangelist, wrote a gospel at Rome, by the direction of Peter.'

מן

By Isidore of Seville, about 596, Mark' is said to have written his gospel in Italy. Afterwards he seems to say, it was written at Alexandria: but perhaps no more is meant than that Mark preached at Alexandria the gospel which he had written.

Ecumenius, about 950, upon Acts xiii. 13, says: This." John who is also called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the gospel according to him, and was also disciple of Peter, of whom he says in his first epistle, Mark, my son, saluteth you.'

Theophylact flourished about 1070. His preface to St. Mark is to this purpose: The " gospel according to Mark was written at Rome ten years after Christ's ascension, at the request of the believers there. For this Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom he calls his son spiritually. His name was John. He was nephew to Barnabas, and was also a companion of Paul.'

Euthymius, about 1110, says: The gospel of Mark was written about ten years after our Lord's ascension, at Rome, as some say, or in Egypt, according to others. He says, that at first Mark was much with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul. Afterwards he was with Peter at Rome, as the first epistle of the apostle shows, whom he there calls his son: from whom also he received the whole history of the gospel.'

१

Nicephorus Callisti, about 1325, says: Two only of the twelve, Matthew and John, have left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth: and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke.' And somewhat lower: After this Mark and Luke, published their gospels by the direction of Peter ' and Paul.'

I add here one author more, not particularly mentioned in the preceding part of this work, Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, in the tenth century: who says, that in the time of the

By the

emperor Nero, Peter, the prince of the apostles, making use of the pen of Mark, wrote a gospel at Rome, in the Roman language; and he published it under Mark's name.' Roman, probably, meaning the Greek language, which then very much prevailed in the Roman empire, as Selden bas observed.

V. Let us now briefly recollect what has passed before us, in several articles.

1. All the ancient writers in general suppose, the evangelist Mark to have been a companion of Peter in the latter part of his life, and to have had great advantages from that apostle's preaching, for composing a gospel.

2. Though some have doubted, who Mark was, many have been of opinion, that he was John Mark, son of Mary, a pious Jewish woman, and an early believer, of Jerusalem, and nephew to Barnabas.

3. If Mark the evangelist be John Mark, as seems to me very probable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other apostles, and disciples, eye-witnesses of Jesus, beside Peter.

4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, thought Mark to have been one of Christ's seventy disciples: which, I apprehend, cannot be either affirmed, or denied with certainty. But, if he was not one of them, he was an early believer, and an early disciple and companion of apostles, and intimately conversant with them: whereby, and by hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other places, and lastly at Rome, he was well qualified to write a gospel.

S. Basnage has some observations upon this point, which deserve to be taken notice of. Epiphanius and the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, suppose Mark to have been one of Christ's seventy disciples. But that opinion, says he, does not appear to me well grounded. It seems incredible, that Peter should call Mark his son, if he was one of the seventy, who had a commission from Christ himself, and were almost equal to apostles. That ancient writer, Papias, excludes him from that number, saying, that Mark was not a hearer or follower of the Lord......And Tertullian calls Mark Peter's interpreter, which office would be below the character of one of the seventy......Nor does Origen make him one of the seventy, whose authority must be of great weight......However, it seems to me very probable, that Mark was one of the five hundred brethren, who saw Christ after his resurrection: and having been an ⚫ eye-witness of that, he was qualified to write a gospel.'

с

Upon which I observe: the supposition, that Mark might be one of the five hundred, spoken. of by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 6, is a mere conjecture, without any authority, either in scripture, or antiquity. But I would add a thought or two for strengthening the argument, that Mark was not one of the seventy disciples. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, has a chapter concerning the disciples of our Saviour; but Mark is not there named as one of them: nor does Jerom say any thing of it in his book of Illustrious Men; nor elsewhere, that I remember. The silence of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom, upon this head, must amount to an argument of no small weight, that there was not in their times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was one of the seventy. It may be also reckoned an argument, that he was not of that number, in that he has not in his gospel taken any notice of them, or of the commission given to them: which is in St. Luke only, ch. x. 1-17.

I therefore conclude with saying, that Mark was an early believer, and an early disciple and fellow-labourer of apostles. But that he ever saw, or heard the Lord Jesus is not certain.

5. The general account of the above-named writer is, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome. In this there is a remarkable agreement, with a very few exceptions. Chrysostom indeed speaks of its being written in Egypt; but he is almost singular. That it was written at Rome, or in Italy, is said not only by Epiphanius, Jerom, Gregory Nazianzen, Victor, and divers others; but the Egyptian writers likewise all along say the same thing: that it was written by Mark at Rome, in the company of the apostle Peter. So say Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, the supposed

• Vid. Selden in Eutych. Origin. not. 28. p. 152.

Marcum de LXX discipulis unum fuisse, credidit Epiphanius.... Nobis tamen non arridet ea sententia; cum in'credibile sit, Petrum Marco filii nomen addidisse, si de septuaginta discipulis unus fuisset, quos Christus ipse legaverat, quique ab omni fere parte æquales erant Apostolis. Papias quoque, vetustus ille auctor, LXX discipulis Marcum eximit .... Ex Tertulliano quoque scimus, Marcum interpretis officio

functum fuisse, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit.... Neque LXX discipulis eum apposuit Origenes, cujus non minimi ponderis est testimonium.... Nobis tamen est admodum probabile, Marcum unum fuisse quingentorum fratrum, qui Christum a morte revocatum contemplati sunt; cuique, ut testi oculato, commissa est scribendi evangelii provincia. Basn. Ann. 66. num. xvii.

C H. E. 1. 1. cap. xii.