Page images

19.) All the first three evangelists have given a history of our Lord's raising the daughter of Jairus, and healing the woman with an issue of blood, both in connection. Matt. ix. 1826; Mark v. 22–43; Luke viji. 41–56. St. Mark has several things wbich are in neither of the other. Of the woman he says, ver. 26, “ she bad suffered much of many physicians—and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse.” At ver. 29, “ And she felt in her body, that she was bealed of that plague.” At ver, 41, he inserts the very words which Jesus spake when he raised the daughter of Jairus: “ Talitha Kumi.” I have omitted some other things peculiar to St. Mark in the account of these two miracles.

20.) Ch. vi. 13, In the account of the commission given to the twelve by Christ in his life-time, he says, “ they anointed many with oil, and healed them :" wbich is mentioned by no other evangelist, as was observed of old by n Victor.

21.) Mark vii, 2, 3, 4. What is there said of the Jews' wasbing themselves, when they come from the market, before they eat: and of their cleansing cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables,” is peculiar to St. Mark. Comp. Matt. xv. 1, 2.

22.) Ch. vii. 21, 22, Are the things that defile men. St. Matthew, ch. xv. 19, mentions seven things only. St. Mark bas tbirteen : and two of them, “an evil eye,” and “ foolishness,” are very singular.

23.) Ch. vii. 31–37, Our Lord bestows hearing and speech upon a deaf and dumb man.

24.) Ch. viii. 22–26, Our Lord cures a blind man at Bethsaida.

These two miracles are peculiar to St. Mark, being related by no other evangelist.

25.) Ch. x. 46–52, is the account of the miracle on the blind man near Jericho. St. Mark, ver. 46, calls him blind Bartimeus, son of Timæus: not mentioned by the other evangelists. See Matt. xx. 29—34; Luke xviii. 35–43. And at ver. 50, “he, casting away bis garment, rose, and came to Jesus :" a circumstance peculiar to St. Mark. Which shows his exact kuowledge of the history, as did likewise calling the man by bis name.

26.) Ch. xi. 13, “ For the time of figs was not yet :” that is, the time of gathering was not yet come. A most useful observation peculiar to this evangelist, showing, that as there were leaves, it was reasonable to expect fruit on this

See Vol. iv. ch. cxxii. 12.

fig-tree, if it was not barren. Upon this text might be consulted • bishop Kidder, and P Mr. Hallet.

27.) Ch. xiii. 3, 4, “ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, asked bim privately,—When shall these things be ?” No other evangelist bas mentioned the names of the disciples, who put this question to our Saviour. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 1–3; Luke xxi. 5.

28.) In Mark. 41–44, and Luke xxi, 1–4, is the account of the people casting their gifts into the chests of the treasury in the temple, St. Mark says: “ And Jesus sat over against the treasury.” In wbich expression there is great propriety. And he alone mentions the value of the poor widow's two mites, saying, “ wbich make a farthing."

29.) Ch. xiv. 51, " And there followed him a certain young inan, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. And the young men [the guards) laid hold on him.” Ver. 52, “ And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” A particular in no other evangelist, yet very fitly taken 'notice of, as intimating the usual noise and disturbance, when a man is taken up in the night-time as a malefactor, and is carried before a magistrate. By 4 the noise of the people passing along, that young person was excited to come hastily out of the house where he was, to inquire what was the matter. Mr. Le Clerc, in his French Testa. ment, has an useful note upon this place. He observes the natural simplicity of the evangelist's narration; which, as he justly says, confirms the truth of their history.

30.) Ch. xv, 21, “ And they compel one Simon, a Cyrepian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross." That particular, " the father of Alexander and Rufus," is in no other evangelist. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 32, and Luke xxiii. 26.

31.) Ch. xvi. 3, 4, “ And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre : for it was very great." In no other evangelist.

32.) Ch. xvi. 7, “But go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee.” The mention of Peter is peculiar to St. Mark. For in Matt. xxviii. 7, it is, “ Go quickly, and tell his disciples.” St. Luke has not recorded that message.

• Demonstration of the Messiah, Part i. ch. ii. p. 38, 39. P Notes and Discourses, Vol. ii. p. 114-125.

4 Non de apostolorum gregesed ex villa aliquà horto proximâ, strepitu militum excitatus, et subito accurrens, ut conspiceret quid ageretur. Grot. ad Marc. xi. 51.

33.) I add nothing more of this kind. I have omitted many things, which are in this gospel, and no other, being apprehensive, that if I enlarged farther, I should be charged with prolixity. .

34.) The particulars that have been alleged, are sufficient to assure us, that St. Mark is not an epitomiser of another author: and that he was well acquainted with the things of which he undertook to write a history. He writes as an eye-witness, or as one who had full and authentic information at the first hand. In a word, St. Mark's gospel, though short, is a very valuable and masterly performance.

4. It may be proper for me to add one thing more: that I suppose the twelve verses at the end of the sixteenth chapter to be a genuine part of this gospel. If any doubt of it, I would refer them for their satisfaction to Dr. Mill, and to the observations of Grotius, at the beginning of that chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verse. And for-explaining those twelve verses, and reconciling them with the other evangelists, I refer to Grotius, and other commentators.



J. His history from the N. T. II. Testimonies of ancient

christian writers to St. Luke, and his two books, his gospel, and the Acts. III. Remarks upon those Testimonies. IV. The time of writing his gospel and the Acts. V. Internal characters of time in the gospel. VI. The place where it was written. VII. A general recollection of St. Luke's character. VIII. Observations upon his gospel. IX. Observations upon the book of the Acts.


spel andose Testino, Los

1. THE first time that we find any mention of St. Luke in. the books of the New Testament is in his a own history.

a From some words in the Cambridge manuscript, Bp. Pearson has argued that Luke was in Paul's company from the year 43. Dein peragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, et per Mysiam venit Troadem, ubi se illi comitem adjunxisse indicat Lucas, xvi. 10, qui antea etiam Antiochiæ cum Paulo fuit, et jam eum Troade assecutus est : ut colligere licet ex Act. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, ovvespappevwv de ruwv. Ab anno igitur 43, per octennium

Acts xvi, 10, 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's company at Troas, before the apostle took shipping to go into Macedonia : in which voyage St. Luke was one of the company, ver. 8, “ And they, passing by Mysia, came to Troas.” Ver. 9, “ And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed bim, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” Ver. 10, “ And when he bad seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.” Ver. 11, “ Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia.”

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi, 11-17. So far St. Luke speaks in the first person plura). But having finished his account of the transactions at Pbilippi, which reaches to ver. 40, the last of that chapter: at the beginning of the next ch. xvii. 1, beb cbangetb the person, and says: “ Now when they had passed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews.”

Nor does he any niore expressly speak of himself, until Paul was a second time in Greece, and was setting out for Jerusalem with the collections, which had been made for the poor saints in Judea, Acts xx. 1–6, “ And after the discipulus fuerat Antiochiæ. Annal. Paulin, p. 10. But it is not safe to rely upon one manuscript only, different from all others, and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemont took notice of this observation of Pearson, I transcribe his thoughts about it. Selon le manuscrit de Cambridge, S. Luc dit qu'il étoit avec S. Paul à Antioche, dès l'an 43: ce que Pearson a reçu. - Mais il ne seroit pas sûr de fier à un manuscrit différent de tous les autres. Et quand cela se pourroit en quelques occasions, ce ne seroit pas à l'égard du manuscrit de Cambridge, qui est plein d'additiones et altérations contraires au véritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may argue from these words, that Luke was a Gentile, converted by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue that he is the same as Lucius, mentioned, Acts xii. l. But I should think it best for neither side to form an argument from this reading. Mr. Wetstein has referred us to a place of St. Augustine, where this text is quoted very agreeably to the Cambridge manuscript. In illis autem diebus descenderunt ab Jerosolymis prophetæ Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, surgens unus ex illis, nomine Agabus, &c. De Serm. Dom. I. 2. c. 17. But it is observable, that Irenæus, l. 3. c. 14. init. a more ancient writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's company, begins at Troas. Acts xvi. 8-10. I presume, it must be best to rely upon him, and the general consent of all manuscripts, except one, in the common reading.

• Nevertheless it is supposed by many, that Luke continued with Paul. Irenæus calls him Paul's inseparable companion, after his coming to be with the Apostle at Troas. Adv. H. 1. 3. c. 14. So likewise Cave. Cujus perinde sectator erat, et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L. T. 1. p. 25. See also Tillem. St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

uproar” [at Ephesus] “ was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea.—These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we sailed away from Philippi—and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode seven days.” So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Pbilippi, and also went with him from thence to Troas.

And it appears from the sequel of the bistory in the Acts, that Luke was one of those, who accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, and stayed with bim there. And when the apostle was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, he was in the same ship with him, and stayed with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years' imprisonment there, with which the history of the Acts concludes.

From St. Paul's epistles written at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as with the apostle, 2 Tim. iv. 11; an epistle written, as I suppose, in the suinmer after the apostle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24, he is one of those who send salutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the apostle as one of his fellow-labourers. And, if Luke the beloved physician, mentioned, Col. iv. 14, be the evangelist, that is another proof of his being then with the


St. Luke is also supposed by some to be “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches," 2 Cor. viii. 18, but that is not certain

As I think, that all St. Paul's epistles, which we have, were written before he left Rome and Italy, when he had been sent thither by Festus, I must be of opinion, that the New Testament affords us not any materials for the history of St. Luke, lower than his own book of the Acts, which brings us down to the end of that period.

II. I now therefore proceed, without farther delay, to observe what ligbt may be obtained from ancient christian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, bis gospel and the Acts, were all along universally received; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, such passages only, as contain something relating to the his

« PreviousContinue »