as fact by Dr. Cave, "That St. Mark's body, at least the re"mains of it, were with great pomp removed from Alexandria "to Venice, where they are religiously honoured, and he adopt❝ed as the tutelar saint and patron of that state, and one of "the richest and stateliest churches erected to his memory, "that the world can boast of at this day." He who would see a larger account of this fabulous translation, viz. when, and by what means, the Venetian merchants procured these relics of Mark, may consult the learned Spanheim. Hist. Christ. Secul. 9. §. 5. and the authors cited by Mr. Selden, Comment. in Eutych. p. 169.

CHAP. VII.

The occasion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel, viz. the request of the church at Rome. That it was wrote under the direction of St. Peter. The places of the ancients produced, in which this is asserted. The tradition supported by several observations.

HITHERTO concerning St. Mark. I proceed now to discourse concerning his Gospel, and to produce the several accounts which we have from antiquity relating to it; which I shall consider under the three following heads, viz.

I. The occasion of its being wrote.

II. The language in which it was wrote.

III. The time of its writing.

I. As to the occasion or cause, for which the Gospel of St. Mark was written. This I have had occasion to observe largely elsewhere, but shall nevertheless particularly set down here what the ancients have delivered to us upon this head. Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, the author of the Synopsis under the name of Athanasius, and Jewhom I mean. rome, are the persons

Eusebius out of Papias, and the book which went under the name of the Hypotyposes of Clemens Alexandrinus, relates 1, “That when Peter, in the reign of Claudius, came to Rome, 1 Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 15.

Vindic. of St. Matth. Gospel, ch. 6. p. 47.

" and had defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed "with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied with "the hearing of them, unless they also had them written down. "That accordingly they with earnest entreaties applied them❝selves to Mark, a companion of Peter's, and whose Gospel "we now have, praying him that he would write down for "them, and leave with them an account of the doctrines which "had been preached to them: that they did not desist in their

request, till they had prevailed upon him, and procured his "writing of that which is now called the Gospel of MARK. “That when Peter came to know this, he was, by the direction "of m the Holy Spirit, pleased with the request of the people, "and confirmed the Gospel which was written for the use of "the churches." This, says Eusebius, is related by Clemens Alexandrinus, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, and confirmed by the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.

The same Eusebius, in two other places of his works, relates particularly what Papias and Clemens have wrote concerning Mark's Gospel; viz.

The former says to this purpose, "that Mark, who was Pe"ter's interpreter, exactly wrote down whatsoever he remem“bered, though not in the same order of time, in which the “several things were said or done by Christ; for he neither "heard nor followed Christ, but was a companion of Peter, "and composed his Gospel rather with the intent of the peo"ple's profit, than writing a regular history. So that he is in 66 no fault, if he in some things wrote according to his memory, ❝he designing no more than to omit nothing which he had "heard, and to relate nothing false "."

The latter, viz. the Hypotyposes ascribed to Clemens Alexandrinus, relate, that, according to a tradition of the former presbyters, the Gospel of Mark was wrote on the following occasion, viz. "When Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel " in Rome, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the "converts there desired Mark, as having been a long compan

66

❝ion of Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, to "write down his discourses; that upon this he composed his Gospel, and gave it to those who made this request, which "when Peter knew, he neither obstructed nor encouraged the "work."

Irenæus P only says, "that after the death of Peter and "Paul, who had been preaching at Rome, Mark, the disciple " and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he had heard him "preach."

Origen 9 adds, "that Mark wrote his Gospel according to "the dictates or directions of Peter."

The author of the Synopsis under the name of Athanasius, saith the same as the last.

66

Jerome tells us, that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, "wrote a short Gospel from what he had heard of 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."

These are the relations of the ancients, concerning the occasion of St. Mark's writing his Gospel; as to which I would offer the following remarks.

1. That they all agree, that St. Mark wrote what he heard or learnt from St. Peter.

2. That Eusebius makes Clemens Alexandrinus directly to contradict himself in this matter: for whereas he in one place (viz. lib. 2. c. 15.) saith, "that Clemens testifies Peter's appro"bation of the church of Rome's request to Mark to write, as "also of the Gospel written :" in another he saith, (viz. lib. 6. c. 14.) "that Peter neither obstructed nor encouraged Mark in “his undertaking." This is so plain a contradiction, that I know not how it can be reconciled. Valesius has indeed attempted a reconciliations, viz. "That Peter privately approved ❝ it, but not publicly;" but no one, who considers the words, can be satisfied with this. I doubt not but the former place is the true one, and that St. Peter did approve the writing of Mark, because so many of the primitive writers assert it; and if we

will suppose Jerome to have looked into this book of Clemens, which he cites, the matter will be past doubt; for he saith, that there it was said, that "this Gospel was approved and deliver"ed to the churches to be read by Peter." Catalog. Vir. Illustr. in Marco.

3. It seems more probable that Mark wrote his Gospel from what he could remember of Peter's discourses concerning Christ, than from the immediate dictatings of that apostle; for most of the accounts above suppose Peter ignorant of his writing, till after he had wrote. See Cotelerius's conjecture to the same purpose; Not. in Constit. Apostolic. lib. 2. c. 57. and Vales. in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 39.

4. That which is by all writers on this subject cited as the testimony of Papias, ought not to be looked upon so much to be his, as the testimony of John the Elder; for it is not only declared by Papias, that "he had all traditions of this sort from "Aristion and John the Elder," but he introduces this very testimony thus, καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε ; i. e. “ and this the "elder [John] said,” viz. that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, &c.

5. St. Mark's character, as interpreter of St. Peter, does not imply that apostle to have been destitute of the gift of tongues. The word spμnveurs denotes an expositor, not only of an unknown language, but of any thing else unknown; and in this sense Mark was properly Peter's interpreter, as he was made use of particularly to explain to the people, what the apostle had more largely preached. Dr. Cave has another way of accounting for the matter; viz. "That though the apostles were "divinely inspired, and among other miraculous powers had "the gift of languages conferred upon them, yet was the inter"pretation of tongues a gift more peculiar to some than others. "This," says he, "might probably be St. Mark's talent in ex"pounding St. Peter's discourses, whether by word or writing, "to those who understood not the language wherein they were "delivered t."

6. There are some evidences in the Gospels now received, that St. Mark's Gospel was written according to the preaching or discourses of Peter, or that the accounts, which we have t Life of St. Mark, p. 214.

from the ancients, are true. This I gather from a remark, which I have elsewhere made ", and endeavoured to support by proper arguments, viz. That there are in the Gospel history, several very remarkable circumstances relating to, and in favour of St. Peter, which are related by the other evangelists, and not so much as mentioned, or hinted at by St. Mark. The reason of which seems to be, that as St. Peter's modesty would not allow him to publish and preach them, so neither would he suffer them to be inserted in a Gospel, which was to go into the world with his approbation, and even under his name. The passages in the Gospel, to which I refer, are several, that seem very much to St. Peter's advantage, and tend to his superiority or advancement above the rest of the apostles; which as that apostle would decline from in preaching, so would he not encourage to be written, and consequently as they are in the other Gospels, and not in St. Mark, seem clearly to intimate to us, that St. Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter. I have in the book last cited collected several of these instances, which, for the sake of the curious in these studies, I shall here set down, viz.

A Catalogue of several places in the Gospel history, which relate things tending to St. Peter's honour, which are not mentioned by St. Mark in his Gospel.

I. The account of Christ's pronouncing Peter blessed, when he had confessed him; his declaring that he had his faith and knowledge from God; his promise of the keys and of that large power, which is made to him, &c. are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and succeeding parts of this discourse are both told by him. See Matt. xvi. 16—20. compared with Mark viii. 29, 30.

II. The relation of St. Peter's being commissioned by Christ to work the miracle, by getting money out of the fish's mouth to pay the tribute money, is told by St. Matthew, ch. xvii. 24, &c. but omitted by St. Mark, though the preceding and subsequent stories are the very same as in St. Matthew. See Mark

ix. 30-33.

III. Christ's particular expressions of love and favour to u Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel, ch. 6. p. 48, &c.