denomination commonly given, in thofe times by the minifter, to every one who by his means had been converted to the Chriftian faith. But as to the nephew of Barnabas, we have feen how differently he is reprefented in the Acts, as well as in Paul's Epiftles. And if we recur to tradition (for hiftorical evidence cannot be pretended,) it represents him as having been a difciple of our Lord, and one of the Seventy, whom Jefus in his lifetime fent out to preach the Gospel. Befides, no ancient author, in fpeaking of this Evangelift, ever calls him John, but always Mark. In brief, the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and thofe of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark, or Marcus; 100 flight a circumftance to conclude the famenefs of the perfon from, efpecially when we confider how common the name was at Rome, and how cuftomary it was for the Jews, in that age, to affume fome Roman name when they went thither.

4. Further, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, is as 'evidently conformable to the teftimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew. Cardinal Baronius is the only person who has ftrenuously maintained the contrary, affirming that this Evangelift publifhed his work in Latin. I know no argument, worthy the name of argument, but one, that he produces in fupport of his opinion. The external evidence of teftimony is clear against him; but fomething like internal probability may be urged in favour of his fen timent. This Gofpel,'. fays the Cardinal, was published at Rome, for the benefit of the Romans. Can we then fuppofe it would be written in any other than the language of the place?' I fhall admit that this Gofpel was publifhed at Rome; though that is not univerfally believed, fome rather fuppofing it to have been at Alexandria, after Mark had been entrusted with the fuperintendence of that church; and though the defign of the publication had been the benefit of thofe refiding at Rome, it would not have been exclufively intended for the natives. Let it be observed, that the miniftry of Peter, to whom Paul tells us, the Gofpel of the circumcifion was committed, was chiefly employed in converting and inftructing his countrymen the Jews, who abounded at that time in the imperial city. Now it was 'cuftomary with fuch of the Jews as went abroad (I may fay generally with travellers of all nations, efpecially from the Eaft,) to make themfelves mafters of the Greek tongue, which was become a kind of univerfal language, and was more ufed by ftrangers at Rome, than the language of the place. It was with fuch that the firft Chriftian millionaries were principally concerned. The Apostle Paul accordingly wrote to them in Greek, and not in Latin, which would not

have been done, if the former language had not been then better understood in the Chriftian congregation than the latter. Now, if there was no impropriety in Paul's writing them a very long Epiftle in Greek, neither was there any in Mark's giving them his Gofpel in that language. The only thing I know which looks like an ancient teftimony in favour of the opinion of Baronius, is the infcription fubjoined to this Gofpel in Syriac, and in fome other Oriental verfions. But it ought to be remembered, that thefe poftfcripts are not the teftimonies of the tranflators. They proceed merely from the conjecture of fome transcriber, but when written, or by whom, is equally unknown.

5. From this Gospel, as well as from the former, we should readily conclude that the Author was by birth and education a Jew. The Hebraisms in the style (or examples of what has been called the idiom of the fynagogue) are very evident throughout the whole. At the fame time, as fome critics have obferved, there are feveral expreffions here ufed, which clearly indicate that the writer had been accustomed for fome time to live among the Latins. Not only does he use the Latin words, which are to be found in other Gofpels, and feem to have been then current in Judea, as eyewv legion, and vapor a denarius; but he employs fome which are peculiar to himself, as Tugis centurion, and oxsharp fentinel. These have been pleaded as evidences that the original was Latin; but, in fact, they are much stronger marks of a Greek writer who had lived fome years among the Latins, and had been accustomed to use, and hear ufed by others, fuch names of offices as were familiarly known in the place. Nothing is more common with travellers, than to interlard their conver fation with fuch foreign words as thofe now defcribed. This is not always as people are apt to fufpect, the effect of affectation for it is manifeft from experience, that fuch words, in confequence of the recent habit, do moft readily fuggeft themfelves to the memory of the fpeaker or writer, even though uling a different tongue. There are fome other internal evidences which have not efcaped the notice of the inquifitive, that this Gofpel was written in a country of ftrangers, or at leaft beyond the confines of Judea, where the names of places, and the peculiar phrafes relating to religious ceremonies, could not be fo familiar to the people, not even to the Jews, as they would be in any part of Paleftine. The first time the Jordan is mentioned, woraus is added to the name for explanation for though no perfon in Judea needed to be informed that Jordan is a river, the cafe was different in distant countries. The word ye, which, on account of its figura. tive application in the New Teftament, is, in English, always Fendered hell, is frictly and originally the name of a place

A a 2

near

near Jerufalem, the valley of Hinnom, where infants had been facrificed by five to Moloch, a place well known to the inhabitants of the country, though perfectly unknown to those of Italy or Egypt. This Evangelist, therefore, when he mentions it, very properly adds for explanation, To up to coßeser, the unquenchable fire, ch. ix. 43. Words and phrafes not ufed out of Palentine and the neighbouring regions, are either not named by him at all, or attended, as the above example, with fome circumstance which may ferve to explain them. Thus he avoids altogether the word Mammon used by Mat. thew and Luke, which, though familiar in Judea, and perhaps. through all Syria, might not have been understood even by the Hellenift Jews at Rome. He therefore makes the com. mon term xnuara riches, which could not be miftaken any where, fupply its place; and though he finds it convenient on one occafion, ch. vii. II. to employ the Oriental word Corban, he immediately fubjoins the interpretation ese daspor, that is, a gift. In another place, he adopts the terms xovais xg, which, though not Oriental words, make a fort of Oriental phrafeology, that would be unintelligible to the far greater part of Greek readers. For this reafon he immedi ately explains himself by adding, tHt' esw, anπrois; that is, unwafhen. Add to this, that the rite there alluded to is, in the following verfes, explained in a manner, which, to one in Matthew's circumflances, who wrote for the immediate use of the natives of Judea, familiarized to fuch observances, must have appeared entirely fuperfluous. When the two Gospels, Matthew's and Mark's, are on thefe points compared together, though the particulars in the comparison, taken severally, appear inconfiderable, they bear fuch ftrong internal characters as ferve greatly to corroborate the hiftorical proof we have relating to their respective authors and languages, the circum fances of time, and place of publication, as well as the people for whofe ufe they were refpectively written. Such little points, which have nothing of the oftentation of evidence, will be admitted by the judicious to have the more weight on that very account. And let it be observed, that though the church of Rome in that early period, and the fame may be affirmed of the church of Alexandria, confifted mostly of Hellenift Jews, it was not confined to thefe. The facred writers, therefore, who wrote in Greek, chofe very properly, fo far to adapt their expreffions as to be at leaft. intelligible to other readers of that language.

6. There are fome peculiarities of flyle which have been obferved in this writer, fuch as the more frequent ufe of the adverbs and us, than is found in any other writer of the New Teftament, his beginning fentences oftner with xa, and xai sxeyev autos, idioms not unfrequent with the reff.

Au

guflin confiders this Evangelift as the abridger of Matthew. Marcus Matthæum fubfecutus tanquam pediffequus et breviator ejus videtur. It is indeed true, that Mark fometimes copies the very expreffions ufed by Matthew. That he is not, however, to be confidered as an abridger, may be evinced by the following reafons: First, he omits altogether feveral things related by Matthew, our Lord's pedigree, his birth, the vifit of the Magians, Jofeph's flight into Egypt, the cruelty of Herod. As his intention appears to have been to give in brief the hiftory of our Lord's miniftry, he begins very properly with the preaching of the Baptift. Again, there are fome other things in Matthew, whereof, though they fall within the time to which Mark had confined himself, he has taken no notice; and fome things are mentioned by Mark which had been overlooked by Matthew. Further, he has not always followed the fame arrangement with his predeces for; and his relation of fome facts, fo far from being an abridgment of Matthew's, is the more circumftantial of the two. His ftyle in general, instead of being more concife, is more diffufe. That he had read Matthew's Gofpel, cannot be doubted. For their exact conformity in expreffion in feveral places, Gro tius has an ingenious manner of accounting, He fuppofes that Mark had carefully read, Matthew's Golpel in the original Hebrew, before it was tranflated into Greek; and that he had the particulars fresh in his memory, when he was occupied in writing his Gofpel. Again, he fuppofes that the tranflator of Matthew into Greek has thought it fafeft to adopt the expreflions of Mark, wherever they would fuit the Hebrew, from which he was tranflating. But this, it must be confeffed, though not implaufible, is mere conjecture. It is generally our Lord's difcourfes which are abridged by Mark. As to his miracles, he has rather more fully related them. The additional circumflances and incidents recorded in this Gofpel, appear to rest upon the authority of the Apostles, but princi pally on that of Peter.

On GRATITUDE for divine MERCIES.

TH

HE ALMIGHTY GOD moft jufily expects Praife, or Thankfulnefs, from every rational creature, for Benefits received; and more especially from thofe who know Him, and have tafted that he is gracious. The paying of this Rentpenny, is the only heavenly work that can be done upon earth; it is the only joyful employment, that shall last to all Eternity. Will not the very Heathens themselves rife up in judgment against unthankful Chriftians? Plato, when ready to die, gave God thanks for three things; 1. That he was made a Man; 2. That he was born in Greece; and 3. That he lived in the time of Socrates. How much more

fhould

fhould our lips fhew forth the high praifes of God, who hath not only made us men, but NEW MEN? That we are born of God, adopted into his family, and regenerated by his holy Spirit? That we have breathed, not in Greece, but in Britain? O the riches of Free Grace! That we have our refidence in a Land of Liberty, overflowing with the glorious Light of the Gospel! Why did not the Lord fhut thee up with the rest of the World in darkness, and in the shadow of Death? And yet, ungrateful wretch, thou wilt hardly confefs, that the lines are fallen happily, and thou haft a goodly Heritage. How feldom is fuch language as this heard from thee; "Bleffed be the Lord, that my lot is fallen in fo fair a ground; that I was born in Britain; and not in the Deserts of Afia, or Africa. Bleffed be God that I have had more than the light of the fun, moon, and ftars, to conduct me to Jefus! Thanks be to the Lord, that fo many wells of Salvation have been opened unto me!"

If Plato thanked God for living in the days of Socrates, we may fay, That greater than Socrates have been among us. We have had thofe with whom we have taken fweet counsel, and with whom we have gone to the Houfe of God together; who have been burning as well as fhining lights; many examples of clofe-walking, heavenly Chriftians, have we enjoyed; and who were endued with Wifdom from above, far fuperior to what either Socrates or Plato could pretend to. We have been bleffed with the fociety of ferious, active Christians; fuch as would not fuffer fin to reft upon us; who have admonished us faithfully, and daily told us, "This is the Way, walk herein." What extraordinary helps we have had! But O the curfed unthankfulness of our hearts towards God; notwithstanding his bestowing upon us fo many lights to guide us, fo many fires to warm us, and fo much falt to feafon us!

Inftead of giving God the glory of all, how have we facrificed to our own nets, and to other inftruments? We have praifed ourselves, rather than God, for what we have; we have not afcribed the glory to God, but to inftruments; like unto that Cardinal, who wrote down, What fuch a lord did for him, and what fuch a pope conferred upon him; whereupon another inferred, "This man remembered his friends, but forgot God." "Saul hath flain his thousands, and David his ten thousands;" but God hath little or no fhare in the triumph.

How fenfible are we of our wants and ftraits? But how unaffected with the Goodness of God towards us? How full of complaints, but empty of acknowledgments? Has not the want of fome one thing robbed us of the comfort of all other enjoyments, and God of the praifes that were due to his

Name ?