صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

66

"wrote his Gospel, ws Пéτpos úpnyýσato autæ, as St. Peter di"rected or taught him." The same account we have from Jerome a several times, Theophylact b, and several others of the ancients. It was so far believed in the first ages, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel under the conduct and direction of St. Peter, that this Gospel was by a great many called the Gospel of St. Peter, and not St. Mark; so Tertullian tells us, that "the Gospel which St. Mark published was affirmed to be wrote by St. Peter." Such is the account which we have from antiquity of the writing of this Gospel. There is one remark which I have made in reading this Gospel, which (though it may seem to some to be too nice a speculation) yet perhaps, considering the very many testimonies of the ancients, that St. Mark wrote what he heard from St. Peter, may have some weight in it, and be some confirmation of the preceding relation. The remark I mean is this, viz. That there are in the Gospel-history several very remarkable circumstances relating to St. Peter, which are told by the other evangelists, and not so much as mentioned or hinted at by St. Mark. The reason of which seems to be, that St. Peter's modesty would not permit them to be inserted, being generally such as were to his advantage, and would tend to advance his honour above the rest. of the apostles, a thing which no doubt the good apostle would endeavour to prevent. For the manifesting of this, I will select a few out of the other instances which might be produced,

viz.

1. The account of Christ's pronouncing St. Peter blessed, when he had confessed him, the promise of the keys, and of that large power, &c. made to him, are omitted by St. Mark, though the former and succeeding parts of the story are both told by him. See Mark viii. 29, 30. and compare it with Matt. xvi. 16-20.

2. The relation of St. Peter's working the miracle, by getting money out of the fish's mouth to pay the tribute-money,

• Marcus-juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romæ a fratribus, breve scripsit Evangelium. Catalog. Script. Eccl. in voce Marcus. Vid. Præfat. in Comment. in Matt.

b Præfat. in Comment. in Marc.

Evangelium, quod Marcus edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Tertull. Adv. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 5.

told by St. Matthew, ch. xvii. 24, &c. is omitted by St. Mark, though the preceding and subsequent stories are the same as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30—33.

3. Christ's particular love and favour expressed to St. Peter, in telling him of his danger, and that he had prayed for him in particular, that his faith might not fail, Luke xxii. 31, 32. is omitted by St. Mark.

4. St. Peter's remarkable humility above the rest of the apostles, about Christ's washing his feet, &c. John xiii. 6—9. omitted by St. Mark.

5. The instance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting off the high priest's servant's ear. John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by St. Mark concerning St. Peter in particular, but only told in general of a certain son that stood by; Mark xiv. 47.

per

6. St. Peter's faith in leaping into the sea, to go to Christ, John xxi. 7. not mentioned by St. Mark.

7. Christ's discourse with St. Peter concerning his love to him, and his particular repeated charge to him to feed his sheep, John xxi. 15, &c. omitted by St. Mark.

These are some instances of things tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other evangelists, none of which are so much as hinted at by St. Mark. I add, that there is not any one single instance in all that Gospel, like unto any of those which have been mentioned. There is nothing in that Gospel which does in the least tend to advance the honour and prerogative of St. Peter above the rest of the apostles. Now, why these and some other particulars of a like nature should be omitted by St. Mark, is somewhat strange, unless we account for it thus; that St. Peter, who dictated this Gospel to St. Mark, through modesty and for fear of some bad consequences, caused him to leave out those things which so particularly concerned himself. Had not St. Mark had his Gospel from St. Peter, I cannot conceive why he should so studiously avoid the mention of all those remarkable things which tended so much to his honour. Much to the same purpose is the arguing of a learned popish divine on this head, out of Euse

d Cur Marcus omittit illa magnifica promissa Petro facta a Christo, quæ

leguntur apud Matth. vid. apud Euseb. lib. 3. Demonstr. Evang. c. 7. Petrus

bius. "Why," says he, "St. Mark should leave out those great " and honourable promises made to St. Peter, which we read "in St. Matthew, (ch. xvi.) may be seen in Eusebius, (De"monstr. Evang. l. 3. c. 7.) St. Peter's humility would not "suffer him to tell these things to St. Mark when he was writ"ing his Gospel. We may observe the three other evange"lists relating those things which tend to advance the honour "and prerogative of St. Peter. Only St. Mark, who wrote his "Gospel from St. Peter's dictating to him, has omitted them; "which evidences the great modesty of St. Peter." This reasoning is abundantly confirmed by a very common and wellknown observation, that authors of modesty are seldom forward to mention those things that tend to their own praise; so that we have at least a probable argument from the Gospel itself, to prove the account we have from antiquity, of the writing of it, true. The learned Dr. Hammond has another argument taken out of the Gospel itself, by which he endeavours to prove the account, that has been given of its being dictated by St. Peter, to be true. After having cited the account, he adds¤; “Of "this there be some characters discernible in the writing itself; "as that, setting down the story of Peter's denying of Christ, "with the same enumeration of circumstances, and aggra"vations of the fault, that Matthew doth; when he comes to " mention his repentance and tears consequent to it, he doth it (as became the true penitent) more coldly than Matthew had "done, only exλase he wept; whereas Matthew hath exλauσe "Txpws, he wept bitterly." How far this argument is concluπικρῶς, sive, I shall not now inquire; if this be not, perhaps there may be several of the like nature that are. I would only add, that St. Peter himself in his first Epistle f makes mention of St. Mark, as being along with him, and calls him his son: The church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. There can be no just reason to

66

66

ex humilitate noluit hoc referre Marco scripturo evangelium; ubi nota reliquos tres evangelistas ea commemorasse, quæ ad Petri excellentiam et prærogativam pertinent. Matt. c. xvi. Beatus es, Simon Bar-Jona, &c. Luc. c. xxii. Ego rogavi pro te, &c. Et apud Joan. xxi. Pasce oves meas. Solum

Marcum, qui evangelium scripsit, sicut Petro referente audierat, de his tacuisse. Quæ res insignem B. Petri modestiam nobis insinuat et commendat. Estius in Difficilior. Script. loc. ad Marc. viii. 29.

f

e Introduc. to Matt.

I Pet. v. 13.

question, whether the same Mark is here intended, who wrote the Gospel; and if the word Babylon be here taken for Rome, as the fathers, the papists in general, and many other among the protestants & do take it, then the foregoing account receives a very great confirmation from St. Peter and St. Mark's having been at Rome together. So Jerome h and Eusebius make use of this argument for this very purpose. The words of the latter are these; "But Peter makes mention of Mark in his first "Epistle, which they say was wrote at Rome, and it was that "which Peter himself meant, when by a strong figure he makes "use of the word Babylon to denote that city, viz. Rome, in "these words, The church which is at Babylon, chosen toge"ther with you, saluteth you, and Mark my son."

If then upon the whole it be reasonable to conclude that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, at the request of the brethren there, from the things which he had heard of St. Peter; we have, I think, an undeniable argument that this Gospel is not an abstract or epitome of St. Matthew's. If his Gospel be a collection of what St. Peter had told him, then it is not a bare transcript of St. Matthew: for to say he took his Gospel from St. Peter's mouth, and transcribed it from St. Matthew's writing, is somewhat like a contradiction. But besides this, if St. Mark had had St. Matthew's Gospel along with him at Rome, why should the Romans have pressed him so very earnestly to make an epitome of it? Was it too long, and did it contain any things that were tedious or superfluous? The truth is, if St. Mark or any one else had had St. Matthew's Gospel at Rome, there would have been no need of St. Mark's writing. "If," says the famous cardinal Bellarmine, "the Gospel of "St. Matthew had been then at Rome in the hands of any of "the Christians, when St. Mark wrote there, he would not have "wrote." And one would think they should rather have de

g See Dr. Hammond on 1 Pet. v. 13. and on Rev. xviii. 2.

h Petrus in Epistola prima sub nomine Babylonis figuraliter Romam significans. Hieron. De Vir. Illustr. in voc. Marc.

· Τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ Ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ' αὐτῆς Ῥώμης σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ ̓ αὐτὸν τὴν πόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα

προσειπόντα, διὰ τούτων ̓Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ vios pov. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 15. Vid. etiam Vales. ad h. loc.

* Immo si tunc (scil. quando Marcus Romæ scripsit) evangelium Matthæi in manibus fidelium Romæ fuisset, credibile est Marcum scripturum non fuisse. Bellarm. de Matrimon. Sacr. lib. I. c. 16.

sired St. Matthew's Gospel, being wrote by one that was an eye and ear witness of what he said. Besides, those for whom he wrote, wanted much of the zeal of the primitive Christians; nay, and of that zeal, which Eusebius says they had for the Gospelhistory, if they did not desire an account of all that our Lord said and did. They would hardly desire, and be contented with a less full, when they could have a more full and perfect account. I conclude therefore, that St. Matthew's Gospel was not then at Rome, and consequently that St. Mark did not epitomize, or make any use of it, when he composed his Gospel.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. VII.

The second argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel not to be an epitome of St. Matthew's, because his accounts are generally larger, and contain many more particular circumstances, than St. Matthew's do. This evidenced by several instances. Arg. II. ST. Mark's Gospel is not an abridgment or epitome of St. Matthew's, because for the most part his accounts are much more large and full, and related with many more particular circumstances, than the same accounts are by St. Matthew. There is scarce any one story related by both these evangelists, in which St. Mark does not add some considerable circumstances which St. Matthew has not; and if this be so, I think there can be no more convincing evidence that St. Mark did not design to epitomize St. Matthew: but if we were to conclude any thing of this nature from comparing them together, the conclusion must be, that St. Matthew in all these parts did design to abridge St. Mark.

The matter of fact, which I have here asserted, will easily appear to be true to any one who reads these two Gospels with this view, and compares them together. To save the reader the pains, I have collected some instances, and set them down in such a manner, that by a bare casting the eye upon them, the truth of that which I contend for will sufficiently appear, viz. that St. Mark is generally larger in his accounts than St. Matthew.

« السابقةمتابعة »