SERMON III.

ST. MARK.

1 PETER V. 13.

The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus, my son.

THE second in order of the evangelists is the person named in the text, whom St. Peter calls his son; upon which appellation I shall take occasion to speak hereafter. The authenticity of this Gospel, and its pure and unmixed descent to us, from the time of its composition, must of course rest chiefly upon such evidence as that which has been alleged in support of the preceding Gospel that it has always borne this title, "The Gospel according to Mark;" that such numerous copies of it were imme

a "Marcus," says Irenæus, Petri." L. iii. c. 1.

66

interpres et sectator

diately transmitted to the first Christian Churches, that any adulteration after it had fallen from the hand of the writer was impossible; and that its doctrines, having become the subject of debate between the early heretics and the more strict believers, its text has been frequently cited; from which it appears to have been the same then as we find it at present.

There is, however, an additional reason for ascribing this work to the person whose name it bears, which is this-that though it has been always acknowledged to have gone under the name of St. Mark, yet an opinion sprung up in the early Church, that it was only published or transcribed by him, but that the real writer was St. Peter. Some affinity to the style and manner of this latter apostle, and the knowledge that St. Mark was his convert and constant companion, when not dispatched by him on missions connected with the propagation of the Gospel, led to this supposition ". Now,

b "Patres primorum seculorum studiose errorem anno"tant, et immerito Petrum auctorem allegari observant *."

* Pritii Introduc. in Evangelium Marci. edit. Hoffman.

count.

though it can make but little difference to us whether the author were St. Peter or St. Mark, yet it will evince the extreme care with which the pristine records of our Saviour's life were guarded, to state that the error was no sooner made known than it was rectified; the first fathers of the Church studiously mentioning the existence of the opinion that the Gospel might be written by St. Peter, and also carefully recording it to be unfounded. Of St. Mark, then, the real writer, I proceed to give some short acIt should appear that, though he bore a Roman name, he was an Hebrew by birth, of the tribe of Levi, and of the sacerdotal family; it being customary with the Jews to change their names on the occurrence of any remarkable incident in their lives, such as even on their recovery from a dangerous illness, or their removal to a distant country; but more particularly was it the practice with those who quitted Judaism, and became converts to Christianity, to assume a new appellation. He is more generally thought not to have been that Mark who is described as John, surnamed

E

Mark, in the house of whose mother Mary the Apostle Peter found refuge after his miraculous escape from prison; and respecting whom Barnabas and Paul differed. First, because there is no testimony that this Evangelist was ever named John; and next, because he was the inseparable companion of St. Peter, and not of St. Paul. In the text St. Peter calls him his son; by which is not meant his son according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, as having been begotten by him to a "new life, and a more lively hope."

In the same manner St. Paul, in address"For

ing his Corinthian converts, says,

though ye have ten thousand instructors " in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; "for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you

66

through the Gospel. For this cause "have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son"." From St. Peter he took his apostolic character, by whom he was sent into Egypt, where he founded a Christian Church. From thence he is said to

Acts xii. 12. xv. 37.

d 1 Cor. iv. 15-17.

have visited other parts of Africa; and returning to Alexandria to have suffered martyrdom at a feast of Serapis.

Such, then, being the birth and country of St. Mark, we may boldly ask what there was in these which could possibly lead him by natural means to the knowledge of the important communications which he has left behind him for he, like St. Matthew, though in general with greater brevity, has ascribed to the sacred person, whose history he has related, the declaration of a future state, of a resurrection from the dust, and of a day of judgment. He, like St. Matthew, has left behind him a prediction that the temple and city of Jerusalem would be destroyed, but under circumstances peculiar to himself, and requiring some notice. It has been disputed at what time St. Mark wrote his Gospel: some assign the period of its publication to the eighth year of Nero's reign; others, among whom is the learned Selden, to the fourth year of the reign of Claudius.

But, at whatsoever time the composition of the work took place, it is of im