TERTULLIAN's Works.

and so in the LXX. πрò проσάпоν μov, i. e. before me,

whereas Mark has it po προσώπου σου, and ὁδόν σου ἐμπрoσbé σov, i. e. before thy face, and before thee; and in this Tertullian follows him, ante faciem tuam, qui præparabit viam tuam ante te; i. e. before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee; which are the very words of Mark, not only differing from, but larger than either the Hebrew or LXX.

2 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 26.

3 Lib. de Pudicit. c. 21.

4 Lib. de Animâ, c. 25. et de
Fugâ, in Persecut. c. 2.
5 Lib. de Baptism. c. 15. Vid.
Pamel. in loc.

6 Lib. de Carne Christi. c. 5. et de
Præscript. adv. Gnost. c. 9.

7 Lib. de Baptism. c. 19.

8 Lib. de Animâ, c. 25.

9 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 30.

These are some places in which Tertullian made use of St. Mark's Gospel, none of which are to be found in St. Matthew; so that it is as probable he cited this Gospel in those places which are the same in it and St. Matthew's, as that he cited St. Matthew's; and if so, it would be easy to produce almost half a hundred instances more.

It would be a superfluous task and endless labour to go, in like manner as above, through all the writers of the first four centuries, and collect the citations which they have made of this Gospel. Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Austin, &c. have made too many references to this Gospel to require a collection of them; besides, several of the fathers of

these times have wrote Commentaries or Homilies upon this Gospel, as on the other parts of scripture; which, with what is already said, is enough to evince its canonical authority by Prop. V.

Arg. III. The Gospel of St. Mark is of canonical authority (by Prop. VI.), because it was read as scripture among the other books of sacred scripture in the assemblies or churches of the primitive Christians. This will be evident to every one who will consult Cyril of Jerusalem, the fifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodicea, as above referred to Part I. Ch. X. and in this Part above, concerning St. Matthew, Chap. III. where it is also shewn, that in Justin Martyr's time the Gospels were wont to be read in the churches; and as Justin did esteem St. Mark's Gospel to be a true one, and cited it as such, there can be no reason to question but he includes this among those other άñoμvnμoveúμaτa, or memoirs of the apostles, which were read in the churches.

Arg. IV. St. Mark's Gospel is canonical, because it was esteemed so by the churches of Syria in or near the apostles' time, and accordingly by them in those days translated, and inserted in their collection of sacred books; Prop. XV. At the end of this Gopel in Syriac we accordingly read, Alxoa; ;am \\Jx? woo;x? 12:00 lage et voi so Pscoops i. e. The end of the holy Gospel of the preaching of Mark, which he spake and preached in Latin at Rome.

Having thus endeavoured to establish the canonical authority of this Gospel of St. Mark, I shall now briefly consider that which has been or may be objected against it.

1. It may seem a very considerable objection against this Gospel and its authority, that it seems to be only an epitome, or abridgment of St. Matthew's Gospel.

To this I answer, that were the fact certain, and it could be made appear, that St. Mark did transcribe his Gospel out of St. Matthew's, it would very much weaken its authority, and lessen the credit of its inspiration. This I have elsewhere more largely observed, (viz. Vindicat. of St. Matthew's Gospel, ch. 10.) and shewn how absurd it is to suppose a person under the conduct of inspiration, transcribing or stealing out of an

other's labours. The little necessity there is for inspiration in such a case is no mean argument that there was none at all. What need had a man of the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to read and write out here and there a piece of a history, where he had a mind? How odd is it to say, The Holy Spirit inspired one person to write a history, and then inspired another to abridge it! i. e. The Holy Spirit thought fit at first to have so much wrote, but then afterwards that it should not be quite so much, but the superfluities of his first work should be left out. Further, as the supposing St. Mark an epitomiser of St. Matthew lessens the credit of inspiration, so it detracts from the honour and usefulness of St. Mark's work. It is little better than to say, this Gospel was stolen, and the author a plagiary; and accordingly Ruffin in the fourth century, and some bigoted papists since, have called it religiosum furtum, a religious theft, or pious fraud z. Accordingly Spinoza a and Father Simon have by this very means attempted to ruin the credit of the books of the Old Testament, viz. by asserting them to be only extracts out of larger records now lost. All this and much more would follow, if we suppose St. Mark's Gospel an epitome of St. Matthew's; but the truth is, the world hath been mistaken entirely in the fact; and though some among the ancients, and almost all later writers have asserted it, it is utterly false, and most evident that St. Mark did not abridge St. Matthew, as I have in another book proved, by such arguments as appear to me undeniably conclusive; which I shall think it sufficient to refer the reader to b, with what is above said in this work, Part I. Ch. XIII. Prop. XIV.

II. It is objected, that Mark himself was not an apostle and eyewitness of what he wrote, but only a companion of the apostles, and consequently his Gospel is, and ought to be of no more authority than the writings of Barnabas, Clemens, or any other companion of the apostles. This is urged by Mr. Toland, Amynt. p. 47, 48. His words are, "If they think "them (viz. the Epistle of Barnabas, Clemens, &c.) ge"nuine, why do they not receive them into the canon of scrip

z See Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trident. pars I. p. 34.

a Tract. Theolog. Polit. c. 8. and c.

9. in init.

b Vindicat. of St. Matthew, c. 6, &c.

"tures, since they were the companions and fellow-labourers "of the apostles, as well as St. Mark and St. Luke? If this "quality was sufficient to entitle the two last to inspiration, why should it not do as much for the two first? And if this “be not all the reason, pray let us know the true one, having 66 never heard of any other."

66

To all this I answer;

1. That St. Mark is not received as canonical, only because he was a companion of the apostles, but because he wrote under the direction of an inspired apostle, St. Peter; and who, as Eusebius saith, approved the book ἀποκαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος, i. e. by the revelation of the Holy Ghost c.

2. That St. Mark's Gospel was approved by St. John, as I have above shewn; see the Dissertation prefixed to this Part.

3. That it was received by the primitive churches as canonical, was read in their assemblies, and cited in their writings as scripture; which cannot be proved of Clemens, Barnabas,

&c.

4. That it contains nothing false or fabulous; which I have proved above, Part III. Ch. XLI. &c., that the Epistle of Barnabas doth, and shall hereafter prove of Clemens.

It would scarce be justice to St. Mark, and the subject which I have now in hand, if I should finish it without observing, that whatever has been surmised to the contrary, the last chapter of this Gospel is equally canonical with any other part. The matter has been controverted, and there have been those who have thought it should be excluded from the canon; I mean not the whole chapter, (as many, Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, &c. in loc. have falsely understood the question,) but only that part of it which is after the words ¿poßoũvto yàp, i. e. after the end of the eighth verse. The reason of this controversy is, that Jerome in a letter to Hedibia, who desired him to reconcile the differences between the evangelists Matthew and Mark, about our Saviour's resurrection, answers, "That there "were two ways of solving the difficulty, viz. Either we must reject the testimony of Mark, which is in few copies of his "Gospel, almost all the Greek copies wanting this section in "the end of his Gospel, besides that it seems different from, and

66

e Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 15.

"contrary to the accounts of the other evangelists, &cd." (The other answer I need not mention.) And besides Jerome, Gregory Nyssene says, this last section was wanting in several, " and those the most exact copies e. Besides, Father Simon declares f, that he saw two ancient Greek manuscripts in the French king's library, and one in Monsieur Colbert's, in each of which was inserted a note in Greek to this purpose," that "what followed after ver. 8. in this last chapter of Mark was only to be found in some copies." Dr. Mill has mentioned some old Greek scholiasts, viz. Euthymius, Victor Antiochenus, and an anonymous writer, who says the same 8. But to all this I answer, and will endeavour to shew, that this last part of the Gospel of St. Mark is equally authentic with the rest; for,

1. Though Jerome says this section was not in most of the Greek copies of this Gospel, yet he himself seems not to have rejected it, because he endeavours afterwards to reconcile Matthew and Mark together.

2. Because Irenæus (lib. 3. c. 11.) has cited the nineteenth verse of this chapter, which is the last except one, and introduces it thus; In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus: from whence it is evident, that the whole chapter was in his copy of Mark.

3. Athanasiush and Austin i have also cited this part of St. Mark's Gospel.

4. All the Greek manuscripts which are in the world have this part of St. Mark's Gospel. Erasmusk and Beza1 declare, it was in all the ancient manuscripts which they had seen. 5. All the ancient versions extant, Syriac, Latin, and (as I find by De Dieu's Commentary) Arabic, have it.