Jewish customs; and cities and places in Palestine are always mentioned in it as being well known by those to whom it is addressed. St. Matthew seems studiously to have selected such circumstances as were calculated to conciliate or strengthen the faith of the Jews; for example, no sentiment relative to the Messiah was more prevalent among them, than that he should be of the race of Abraham, and family of David, and accordingly St. Matthew begins his narrative by showing the descent of Jesus from those two illustrious persons; he then relates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the city in which the Messiah was expected to be born; and throughout his Gospel he omits no opportunity of explaining the Scriptures, and of pointing out the fulfilment of prophecy, which was known to have greater weight with the Jews than any other species of evidence: moreover, he records many of our Saviour's reproofs to the Jews for their errors and superstitions, and thus endeavours to eradicate from their minds those prejudices, which impeded the progress, or sullied the purity of the Christian faith. Though this Gospel was particularly adapted to the Jews, it must also have been very useful in confirming and in converting other persons, especially those who were acquainted with the types and predictions of the Old Testament.

"As the sacred writers, especially the Evangelists, have many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of them, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the rest.

That which principally distinguishes Matthew, is the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord's discourses and moral instructions. Of these, his sermon on the Mount, his charge to the Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the apostleship, he was an eye-witness and ear-witness of most of the things which he relates: and though I do not think it was

the scope of any of these historians to adjust their narratives to the precise order of time wherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline me to think, that Matthew has approached at least as near that order as any of them." a And this, we may observe, would natuturally be the distinguishing characteristic of a narrative written very soon after the events had taken place.

The most remarkable things recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the visit of the Eastern magi; our Saviour's flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins; the dream of Pilate's wife; the resurrection of many saints at our Saviour's crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard, appointed to watch at the holy sepulchre, by the chief priests and elders.

a

Dr. Campbell's Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel,

PART II.

CHAPTER THE THIRD.

OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.

1. HISTORY OF ST. MARK. II. GENUINENESS OF HIS GOSPEL.· -III. ITS DATE.-IV. OBSERVATIONS.

I. DOUBTS have been entertained, both in ancient and modern times, whether Mark the Evangelist be the same as John, whose surname was Mark, mentioned in the Acts and in some of St. Paul's Epistles. This appears a very uncertain point; but as even Dr. Campbell, who thinks that they were different persons, admits that there is no inconsistency in the contrary supposition, I shall, with Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, and Michaelis", consider them as the same. It is known to have been a common thing among the Jews for the same person to have different names.

We shall therefore consider Mark, the author of this Gospel, as the son of Mary, who was an early convert to the religion of Christ. St. Peter, when he was delivered out of prison by an angel, went immediately to her house, where he found many gathered together praying." Thence it is inferred, that the Christians were accustomed to

b

a Cave, Grotius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, were of a contrary opinion. b Acts, xii. 12.

;

meet at Mary's house, even in these times of persecution, and that there was an early acquaintance between St. Peter and St. Mark. Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister's son; and he is supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his sona; but no circumstances of his conversion are recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different countries ; but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem. Afterwards, when Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterwards reconciled to St. Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his Epistles written subsequent to this dispute, and particularly from the direction which he gives to Timothy;

b

a

"Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry." No further circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with him for some time, perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerome, all assert that Mark preached the Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him Bishop of Alexandria. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other learned moderns, have thought that Mark died a martyr; but I find no authority for that opinion in any ancient writer; and it seems to be contradicted by Jerome, who says, that he died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria", which expression appears to imply that he died a natural death. Papias, and several other ancient fathers, say, that Mark was not a hearer of Christ himself; but, on the contrary, Epiphanius, and the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, written in the fourth century, assert that he was one of the seventy disciples, to whom our Saviour gave a temporary commission to preach the Gospel; this however does not seem probable, as there is reason

с

a 2 Tim. iv. 11.

De Vir. Ill. cap. 8. Eus. Hist. Ecc. lib. iii. cap. 39. [Eusebius says that he founded a church there: St. Jerome says, "Qui primus Alexandriæ fuit Episcopus cujus per singula opus fuit

scire, et evangelii in se dicta disponere, et disciplinam in se legis cognoscere, et divinam in carne Domini intelligere naturam. Qui seminat post Matthæum, &c. Op. t. v. p. 887.-Editor.]