tion to Mark, as a relation, was one reason why he persisted in his resolution to take him along with him. But to say no more of this, it is plain Mark, mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles, was an assistant to the apostles; and the same is certain as to Mark the evangelist, viz. that he was assistant, companion, or interpreter of Peter, as will undeniably appear from the places which will presently be cited from the fathers. Unless therefore we will suppose that St. Paul's assistant and St. Peter's were both of the same name, we must conclude that the Mark mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles was one and the same person, who at different times was with Paul and Peter engaged in the same work.

(2.) To suppose two Marks, one with Peter and another with Paul, is to breed confusion where there needeth none, and to conceive that for which the scripture giveth not only no ground, but is plain enough to the contrary. It is easily seen how John Mark came into familiarity both with Paul and Peter; and other Mark we can find none in the New Testament, unless of our own invention. These are the words of Dr. Lightfooty, and seem to me to contain an argument suffi→ ciently just, till some good proof be made that the contrary opinion is true.

(3.) The author of the Constitutions of the Apostles, (lib. 2. c. 57.) makes Mark the evangelist an assistant of St. Paul; i. e. the same who is mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles; and the latter fathers, as Ecumenius, Theophylact (Præf. in Marc.), tell us the evangelist Mark was surnamed John, and the sister's son of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul.

I know indeed that Grotius, and after him Cotelerius a, Dr. Caveb, Du Pin, Mr. Eachardd, and others, are of the contrary opinion, and suppose that Mark the evangelist, and Mark mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles, were two different persons. The two former of these have offered some reasons for their opinion, which I shall briefly consider:

1.) They urge that they cannot be the same," because the

y Loc. jam cit.

2 Prolegom. in Marc.

a In Constitut. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57.

b Lives of the Apostles, p. 214.

c Loc. jam cit.

d Ecclesiast. Hist. b. 2. c. 3. §. 4.

"ancients never call the evangelists by the name of John, but “always Mark; whereas," say they, "John was the proper "name of him who is mentioned in the Acts."

Nothing is more common than the mistakes of learned persons; but I have seldom observed one more gross than this; for,

(1. Though it is certain the surname of him mentioned in the Acts was Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25. and xv. 37. yet even the very same chapter, two verses afterwards, demonstrates (ver. 39.) that the proper name of the person, i. e. the name by which he was commonly called, was Mark, and not John. The words are, Barnabas took Mark, and sailed to Cyprus. It had been strange therefore, if persons in after-ages should have called him John.

(2. It was the common practice among the Jews at that time, to call persons by that which was their surname, and not the other. So, for instance, Simon, whose surname was Peter, (Matt. x. 2. Mark iii. 16. Acts x. 5, 18, 32.) was most commonly called Peter. Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, (Matt. x. 3.) was always called Thaddeus. Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas, (Acts iv. 36.) was always called Barnabas. And so I have observed above concerning St. Matthew, that he was commonly called by his surname, viz. Levi, and so is by Mark and Luke.

(3. In St. Paul's Epistles (where Grotius and, I think, Du Pin acknowledge the same person is spoken of) he is called always Mark, and not John; though our translators awkwardly enough translate sometimes Marcus, and sometimes Mark; which must, as many other such things in our translation, confound a person unacquainted with the original.

2.) It is urged by Du Pin, that Mark the evangelist kept close to Peter, at the time when the other [Mark] was with Paul and Barnabas. But this is not proving, but a plain begging of the question, or taking that for granted which is the thing to be proved.

I conclude therefore for the reason above mentioned, that Mark the evangelist was the same person, as he who is mentioned not only by Peter, but in the Acts and Epistles of Paul; and this then will be all we can collect out of scripture concern

ing him; viz. That he was an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and the son of a pious convert, whose house was employed in those persecuting times for a place of the Christian assemblies for religious worship, Acts xii. 12; that he was a person of so much visible zeal for, and knowledge in Christianity, as to be esteemed proper by Paul and Barnabas to be taken along with them, to be an assistant to them in executing their ministry, Acts xii. 25. And though upon a difference between Barnabas and Paul, about taking him with them to visit the churches, Paul declared against taking him, yet Barnabas judged his assistance necessary, Acts xv. 37, 39. That notwithstanding this, the displeasure of Paul did not continue long, for he appears to be with him at Rome, recommended him to the kind regards of the Colossians, in a letter which he wrote to them from Rome, Col. iv. 10; wanted his company another time at Rome, as a person whom he judged and found of service and great help to him in the ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 11, and accordingly honours him with the character of his fellow-labourer, Philem. 24. Besides all which, St. Peter styles him his son; i. e. one who, as a son, served and helped him in the work of the Gospel, 1 Pet. v. 13.

II. I am next to consider the accounts we have from the ancients, relating to Mark the evangelist.

1. These all agree, that Mark, the writer of the Gospel, was a companion or interpreter of Peter. So Papias e, Irenæus f, the author of the Hypotyposes which went under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, and was supposed to be his by Eusebius 5, Origen h, Eusebiusi, Jerome, and many others of the fathers. Several of these add, that he was with St. Peter at Rome.

2. Another account of the ancients concerning Mark is, that he afterwards went down to Egypt, where he preached the Gospel which he had written at Rome, and founded many churches in Alexandria, and made a vast number of converts to Christianity. This is related by Eusebius1, Epiphanius m, e Apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. 1. 2.

c. 15. et l. 3. c. 39.

f Adv. Hæres. 1. 3. c. I.

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. 6. c. 14.

h In Matth. apud Euseb. Hist. Ec

VOL. III.

cles. 1. 6. c. 25.

i Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15.

k Catalog. Viror. Illustr. in Marco.

1 Histor. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 16.

in Vid. Epiphan. Hær. 51. §. 6.

E

Jerome, and many succeeding writers; such as Hippolytus °, Dorotheus P, Isidorus Hispalensis 9, Theophylact', &c. all which I shall pass over, only observing that the tradition of Mark's founding the church at Alexandria, which Du Pins calls an ancient and certain tradition, was always credited in Egypt, and that Eutychius, who was made patriarch of Alexandria, A. D. 933, in his Arabic history of that church published by Mr. Selden, has not only asserted the same, but given us the particular method by which the evangelist made his first convert at Alexandria, and in which he established the government of the church there. But to return to Eusebius and Jerome, they tell us that Mark was not only successful in making numerous converts, but induced them to a more than common strictness in the profession and practice of their new religion; for which reason Philo Judæus wrote a peculiar treatise concerning them and their manner of living, viz. that entitled Пepì Biou bewρnτixoũ, i. e. Concerning a contemplative Life. I shall not now inquire, how far these two fathers and Epiphanius, who was of the same opinion, were in the right, in supposing that Philo's Essenes were Mark's Christian converts; but would refer the reader to the authors which I have elsewhere cited upon this question, and a conjecture of my own which I have in the same place proposed ", relating to this matter.

3. Another thing delivered by the ancients to us concerning St. Mark is, that he was one of the seventy disciples whom Christ sent forth, Luke x. 1, &c. and that he left Christ on account of those words of his, Unless a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me, John vi. 53, &c. but that he was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, and so wrote his Gospel.This is related by several of the old Christian writers; but it will be enough to mention the testimony of Epiphanius, who relates the story with all the

mentioned particulars *. Grotiusy and Dr. Cave question the truth and genuineness of the tradition, because a Papias affirms, that he neither heard nor followed Christ. But to say nothing of what is objected against Papias as a witness in these cases, it is easy to answer to this argument; for Papias meant no more than that Mark was not such a disciple and follower of Christ, as to be able to form his Gospel out of his own knowledge; and this is very consistent with Epiphanius, whose account is, that Mark, though he was sent out by Christ, yet left him on occasion of his discourse, John vi. 53. i. e. almost two years before our Lord's ascension, and so could not be capable to write a history of Christ upon his own knowledge-I rather therefore incline to give credit to the tradition, and with the famous Jesuit Petavius b observe, that there is nothing in the circumstances of time, but what would incline a person to believe he might have seen Christ; and though Epiphanius should think differently in this matter from other fathers, (viz. Papias, and those who follow him,) yet his tradition is not to be rejected, in which he declares that Mark was of the number of the seventy-two disciples c.

Concerning the life of Mark in other instances, as also concerning his death, I know nothing that can be said with sufficient certainty. The later writers tell us, that he travelled westward to the most desert parts of Africa, and, upon his return to Alexandria, was by the idolaters there barbarously murdered. But I choose rather to refer to the authors of those relations, than to insert them. See Dorotheus d, Eutychius Alexandrinus in his Arabic Annals, with Mr. Selden's translation and commentary, and Isidorus Hispalensis 5, who saith that Mark died, and was placida quiete sepultus; and among the moderns Dr. Cave h and Mr. Eachard, who has transcribed his words. I shall only add here, that there is a constant tradition received in the Roman church, which is set down