i. e. till the year of Christ 59. or 60. i. e. for the space of twenty-six or twenty-seven years, it would seem somewhat favourable to the popish scheme, viz. that religion might be propagated by mere tradition without any writing. Chemnitius, though he well refutes the Jesuit's reasonings, yet agrees with him, that Irenæus was in the right as to the time of St. Matthew's writing; because, says he, it is fit we should rather credit the more ancient, than later fathers. Dr. Mill also credits Irenæus, but without assigning the least shadow of a reason, why that father is to be credited rather. For my part, though I freely own it is difficult to come to any certainty in the point, yet I cannot but rather subscribe to Eusebius than Irenæus; i. e. I rather think St. Matthew's Gospel was written in the third year of Caligula, eight years after Christ's ascension, A. D. 41. than in the third year of Nero, six or seven and twenty years after Christ's ascension, A. D. 59. or 60. And for this opinion I shall offer the following reasons; viz.

1. Because it is altogether improbable that the Christian churches should for so long a space as twenty-six or twentyseven years after Christ's ascension, be left destitute of any genuine and authentic history of the life and actions, of the miracles and doctrines of Jesus Christ. To suppose this, is plainly to suppose the apostles either defective in their zeal for the interest of Christianity, or else ignorant of one of the most likely means to promote it. But I find Mr. Le Clerc has prevented me on this head; I shall therefore omit saying any more on it, and give the reader a translation of his words: "They "who think that the Gospels were written as late as Irenæus "saith, and suppose that for the space of about thirty years "after our Lord's ascension, there were many spurious Gos"pels in the hands of the Christians, and not one that was "genuine and authentic, do unwarily cast a very great reflec❝tion upon the wisdom of the apostles; for what could have "been more imprudence in them, than tamely to have suffered "the idle stories concerning Christ to be read by the Chris❝tians, and not to contradict them by some authentic history "wrote by some credible persons, which might reach the knowledge of all men? For my part, I can never be persuaded to

66

f Hist. Eccl. Sæcul. 1. A. D. 62. §. 9. p. 414.

"entertain so mean an opinion of the prudence of men under "the conduct of the Holy Ghost. Besides, Matthew has de"livered to us, not only the actions, but the discourses of "Christ; and this he must needs be able to do with greater certainty, while they were fresh in his memory, than when

66

66

through length of time he began to lose the impressions of "them. It is true, the Holy Ghost was with the apostles, to "bring all things to their remembrance, which they had re❝ceived of Christ, according to the promise, John xiv. 26: "but the Holy Ghost in this matter did not only inspire, but "deal with them according to their natural powers, as the va"riety of the expressions in the Gospel shews." Thus far he; from whence it appears very improbable, that no Gospel, which was authentic, was written before the time which Irenæus mentions, viz. the year of Christ 59. or 60. I am sensible this argument supposes, that St. Matthew's was the first true Gospel which was wrote; and that it was so, is generally asserted by all the ancients.

2. Many of the most ancient manuscripts of this Gospel do agree with Eusebius, that St. Matthew's Gospel was wrote in the eighth year after our Saviour's ascension. Thus, for instance, Bezas tells us, it was in his famous Clermont manuscript, which he gave to the university of Cambridge, and which is generally esteemed the oldest manuscript of the Gospels, which is now in the world. Thus also it is at the end of several very ancient Greek MSS. which Father Simon saw h, and more which are cited and referred to by Dr. Mill, among the manuscripts of the Gospels in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. See Mill on Matt. xxviii. 20.

3. The old Arabic version joins in the same account; viz. that he, St. Matthew, wrote his Gospel in Palestine, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, in Hebrew, eight years after our Lord Jesus Christ ascended in his flesh to heaven, and the first year of the Roman emperor Claudius. This differs but very little from Eusebius; for though he says it was written in the third year of Caligula, and the Arabic version in the first year

8 Annot. in Matt. xxviii. ult.

h Critic. Hist. of the New Test. part

I. C. IO.

i Vid. Ludov. de Dieu ad Matt. xxviii. ult.

of Claudius, yet this will prove only half a year's difference; seeing Caligula reigned but three years and a few months, and Claudius immediately succeeded him.

4. Theophylact and Euthymius do also assert this Gospel to have been written in the eighth year after Christ's ascension; the former in his Preface to his Exposition on Matthew; the latter in his Commentaries on the Gospels, which are in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxfordk: and though these were late writers, yet their testimony is for this reason considerable, as it coincides with the testimonies of others; which cannot be said of the opinion of Nicephorus above mentioned.

5. It may not perhaps be foreign to the purpose to observe, how diligent and careful Eusebius was in collecting his accounts of this sort; and that though there are some mistakes in his works, (which in so vast undertakings could hardly be avoided,) yet for the most part he is very accurate and exact, as a chronologer and historian.

6. What gives force to all the preceding remarks is, that Irenæus is most certainly mistaken in the very next words to these; viz. as to the time of St. Mark's writing his Gospel: he saith, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel μeτà TηY TOÚTшv odov: i. e. "after the death of Peter and Paul," as those words undoubtedly mean, and are well expressed by the old Latin Version, post horum excessum. But this, I say, is false, and contrary to the express assertions of many of the most ancient primitive writers, as will appear hereafter in my account of Mark. I know indeed that there have been some, who have otherwise translated these words; but this has been observed (by Valesius in Euseb. lib. 5. c. 8. Father Simon's Crit. Hist. of the New Test. part 1. c. 10. p. 87, 88.) to be a mistake, made by them with design to save Irenæus from the charge of contradicting the other fathers.

I will conclude the whole with adding, that whereas it was by some made an objection against this Gospel, that ecclesiastical writers differed as to the time of its being wrote, Eusebius

* It is cited by Dr. Mill among the Greek testimonies prefixed to St. Mat

thew's Gospel, in his edition of the Greek Testament.

fixing one time, and Irenæus another1, it is answered by Sixtus Senensis in a method which that learned man thought would reconcile Irenæus and Eusebius together; viz. That St. Matthew first published his Gospel in Judæa for the use of his countrymen, eight years after Christ's ascension, in the third year of Caligula; and that this was what Eusebius meant; but that the same evangelist a long time after, when he went among the Gentiles, published it more universally for the benefit of all Christians; and that this was what Irenæus meant m. But I leave this conjecture to the examination of the learned in these things.

CHAP. VI.

The scripture account of St. Mark. There is no other of this name mentioned in the New Testament, but the evangelist. Objections to this answered. He was assistant to Peter and Paul in the ministry of the Gospel. The credible relations, which we have of St. Mark from the ancients, produced. Peter used him as an interpreter. Afterwards he preached in Egypt, planted many churches at Alexandria, and was one of Christ's seventy disciples.

CONCERNING St. Mark, the author of this Gospel, there is scarce any thing left us in ecclesiastical history, which can be depended upon with that certainty, which one would wish for, and have expected in such a matter.

In the writings of the New Testament we have frequent mention of one named Mark; and in the writings of the following ages there are also some few things concerning him, which may appear credible and material. I shall consider each distinctly.

I. As to the accounts which the writings of the New Testament give of Mark. The name is mentioned four times in the Acts of the Apostles, viz. xii. 12, 25. xv. 37, 39. thrice in St. Paul's Epistles, viz. Coloss. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24.

1 Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 7. De Evang. Matth. Hæres. Object. §. 3. m Ibid. Dissolut. Object. §. 3.

once by St. Peter, 1 Epist. v. 13. Relating to which places I observe,

1. That it is generally agreed, that Mark the evangelist is that Mark which is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13. The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. So Origen n, Eusebius °, and Jerome P among the ancients; Grotius 9, Maldonate, Dr. Lightfoots, Du Pint, and many other of the moderns. This is exceedingly probable for this reason; viz. that it is the universal voice of antiquity, that Mark was Peter's companion and assistant in preaching the Gospel, and for that reason called by him his son, as Paul for the same reason calls Timothy his son ч, and particularly says of him, that as a son with a father he served with him in the Gospel.

2. It is very probable that Mark, mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles, (see the places above cited,) was the same person as Mark the evangelist, or author of this Gospel. The reasons I assign for this, are,

(1.) That the office of Mark the evangelist, and this Mark mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's Epistles, was the very same, viz. to be an assistant to the apostles (Paul and Peter) in the ministry of the Word. Concerning the former, we find Barnabas and Paul made use of him for that purpose, Acts xii. 25. And though Paul and Barnabas differed upon the point, yet the latter was for taking him to be an assistant and companion in visiting the churches, and did take him. In like manner Paul, who (as is generally agreed) was soon reconciled again to Mark, desired Timothy to bring him to Rome to him, for (says he) he is useful to me (or assisting to me) in the work of the ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 11. And accordingly we find he was afterwards with Paul, Coloss. iv. 10. and is there called sister's son (or nephew) to Barnabas; which is, by the way, no mean proof that he was the same person mentioned Acts xv. 37. it seeming probable, that Barnabas's affec