Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

But notwithstanding this fo univerfal agreement of learned men in this matter, I am not afraid to undertake the defence of the contrary opinion. It is no new or uncommon thing for the bulk of criticks and commentators to agree in an error. An opinion that is plaufible, and has fome appearance of probability, first started by a person of reputation, and ushered into the world under fome great name, is very often univerfally received, and for a long time entertained as an unquestionable truth, though all the while it be really false: but if in process of time it has the good fortune to be espoused by more men of reputation and character, for sense and learning, it then acquires a fort of fanctity, and, through I know not what fort of fearfulness, men dare not so much as fufpect or call in question the truth of a propofition, which has been believed by almost all learned men. This I verily believe was the cafe, in respect of the point we are now upon. Auftin, and fome others of reputation, first started it: to others, who would not be at the pains of examining into the truth of it, it seemed plausible, and fo they received it. And by this means many learned men fuffered themselves to be impofed upon, taking that for truth, which they certainly had rejected as falfe, had they but ventured ftrictly and closely to examine it. But numbers are no evidence of truth, and (as Mr. Whifton well observes in another place 1) a common opinion without a folid foundation, is of no great value. He that heartily and in good earnest seeks after truth, muft not fuffer himself to be impreffed either with the number, or reputation of thofe, who think otherwise than he does. It was a noble refolution of Seneca's ", "That he "would obftinately perfift in the search of truth; not making "his understanding a flave to any man's, nor giving in to "any opinion, only because it was published under a great

name.

I fhall therefore endeavour to prove this common opinion. (viz. that St. Mark epitomized St. Matthew) false; and I shall take the more pains in the matter, not only because I shall

[blocks in formation]

thereby invalidate Mr. Whifton's most authentick evidence, but fet a matter in a clear light, which (as far as I can find) no one yet has attempted to do, and fo withal recover the honour of this Gospel (viz. St. Mark's), which has fo long lain under this hard and injurious charge, of being extracted, and compiled out of St. Matthew. And,

1. It is very evident, that St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, from the accounts we have in ecclefiaftical history, of the manner and occafion of St. Mark's writing his Gofpel. The fubftance of all thofe accounts which we have, is this, viz. That St. Mark, (who was the companion and interpreter of St. Peter) being at Rome with him, was defired by the brethren there, to give them an account in writing, of what he had learnt from St. Peter, of the doctrines and life of Chrift; that they did not defift in their intreaties, till they had prevailed, and this was the cause or reafon of the Gospel, we now call St. Mark's, being first wrote. This in fhort is the account, and it seems to be as largely attefted by the antients, as almost any matter of fact whatsoever, at that distance from us. Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and many others, all agree as to the main of this fact.

The moft full and antient relation of this matter, is that of Clemens Alexandrinus, cited by Eufebius in two several places, and confirmed in the firft of thofe places, by the most antient teftimony of Papias. To the fame purpose (though not quite fo full) is the account of Irenæus, viz. That St. Mark committed to writing the things which he heard St. Peter preach. So Origen, That St. Mark made or wrote his

[blocks in formation]

с

Gofpel, is Пérpos iqnyhσaro airy, as St. Peter directed or taught him. The fame account we have from Jerome several times, Theophylact", and several others of the antients. It was fo 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; fo 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 Gofpel, which (though it may seem to some to be too nice a speculation) yet perhaps, confidering the very many teftimonies of the antients, that St. Mark wrote what he heard from St. Peter, may have fome weight in it, and be fome confirmation of the preceding relation. The remark I mean is this, viz. That there are in the Gospel history, feveral very remarkable circumstances, relating to St. Peter, which are told by the other Evangelifts, and not so much as mentioned or hinted at by St. Mark. The reason of which feems to be, that St. Peter's modefty would not permit them to be inserted, being generally fuch as were to his advantage, and would tend to advance his honour above the reft of the Apoftles, a thing which no doubt the good Apoftle would endeavour to prevent. For the manifefting of this, I will felect a few out of the other inftances, which might be produced, viz.

1. The account of Chrift'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 fucceeding parts of the ftory, are both told by him. See Mark viii. 29, 30. and compare it with Matt. xvi. 16--20.

2

2. The relation of St. Peter's working the miracle, by get

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

[blocks in formation]

ting money out of the fish's mouth, to pay the tribute-money, told by St. Matt. ch. xvii. 24, &c. is omitted by St. Mark, though the preceding and fubfequent ftories are the fame as in St. Matthew. See Mark ix. 30-33.

3. Chrift's particular love and favour expreffed 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 Apoftles, about Chrift's washing his feet, &c. John xiii. 6—9. omitted by St. Mark.

5. The inftance of St. Peter's very great zeal for Christ, when he was taken, in cutting of the High-Priest's fervant's ear. John xviii. 10. is not mentioned by St. Mark concerning St. Peter in particular, but only told in general of a certain person that stood by; Mark xiv. 47.

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

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

These are some inftances of things tending to St. Peter's honour, recorded by the other Evangelifts, none of which are fo much as hinted at by St. Mark. I add, that there is not any one fingle instance in all that Gospel, like unto any of those which have been mentioned. There is nothing in that Gafpel, which does in the least tend to advance the honour and prerogative of St. Peter, above the reft of the Apostles. Now, why these and fome other particulars of a like nature should be omitted by St. Mark, is fomewhat strange, unless we account for it thus; that St. Peter, who dictated this Gospel to St. Mark, through modefty and for fear of fome bad confequences, 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 ftudiously avoid the mention of all those remarkable things, which tended fo much to his honour. Much to the fame purpose, is the ar

guing of a learned Popish divine on this head, out of Eufebius. "Why (fays 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 Eufebius (De"monftr. Evang. 1. 3. c. 7.) St. Peter's humility would not "fuffer him to tell these things to St. Mark, when he was σε writing his Gofpel. We may obferve the three other Evan66 gelifts relating those things, which tend to advance the ho"nour 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 modefty of St. "Peter." This reasoning is abundantly confirmed by a very common and well-known observation, that authors of modefty are seldom forward to mention those things, that tend to their own praise; fo 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 fome "characters difcernible in the writing itself; as that, setting "down the ftory of Peter's denying of Chrift, with the fame "enumeration of circumftances, and aggravations of the "fault, that Matthew doth; when he comes to mention his "repentance and tears confequent to it, he doth it (as became "the true penitent) more coldly than Matthew had done, only σε ἔκλαιε he wept ; whereas Matthew hath ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς, he wept "bitterly." How far this argument is conclufive, I fhall not

a Cur Marcus omittit illa magnifica promiffa Petro facta a Chrifto, quæ leguntur apud Matth. vid. apud Eufeb. lib. 3. Demonftr. Evang. c. 7. Petrus ex humilitate noluit hoc referre Marco fcripturo Evangelium; ubi nota reliquos tres Evangeliftas ea commemoraffe, quæ ad Petri excellentiam et prærogativam pertinent. Matt. ch. 16. Beatus es, Simon Bar-Jona, &c.

Luc. c. 22. Ego rogavi pro te, &c. Et apud Joan. 21. Pafce oves meas. Solum Marcum, qui Evangelium fcripfit, ficut Petro referente audierat, de his tacuiffe. Quæ res infignem B. Petri modeftiam nobis infinuat et commendat. Eftius in Difficilior. Script. loc. ad Marc. 8.

29.

Introduc. to Matt.

1

now

« AnteriorContinuar »