immediate attendants upon the person of Jesus. 66 They that stood by," say St. Matthew and St. Mark, preferred this charge against him, and, among these, was the confident man, spoken of by St. Luke, and the kinsman of Malchus, mentioned by St. John 1. It is to be considered that a principal object of the Evangelists, in this part of their Histories, was to show that the prophecy of Jesus was made good. They all relate that Peter denied his Master thrice within the time of the watch, called, The cock-crowing; and this is what they are chiefly anxious to 1 The persons, who are mentioned by the different Evangelists, as having observed that Peter was a follower of Jesus, are distinguished in the following Scheme, drawn up by Wall, and inserted in his Critical Notes on the New Testament. The first Denial.-Matt. xxvi. 69. Μία παιδίσκη, as he sat without, v r avλy. Mark xiv. 66. Μία τῶν παιδισκῶν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, as he was beneath, ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ. Luke xxii. 56. Παι diokη Tis, as he sat by the fire. John xviii. 17. Ἡ παιδίσκη, ἡ Oupwpós, the maid, who kept the door. The second Denial.-Matt. xxvi. 71. "Aλλŋ, when he was gone out into the porch. Mark xiv. 69. Ἡ παιδίσκη ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν πάλιν. Luke xxii. 58. "Erɛpoç. John xviii. 25. avr―They said therefore unto him, &c. The third Denial.-Matt. xxvi. 73. Εἶπον οὖν 70. Οἱ παρεστῶτες. about one hour after. αρχιερέως. Luke xxii. 59. "Αλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο, Eig EK TV dovλwv Tou make appear, attending to the fact, more than to the order of the several minor transactions that led to it. Conscious that they are stating the truth, they tell it, each in his own way; not all presenting the same exact detail of particulars, but all in substance agreeing, and frequently, in the relation of circumstances, illustrating each other's account. CHAPTER II. A VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS, WHICH GIVE CONFIRMATION TO THE ANCIENT ACCOUNT, THAT THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK IS THE SUBSTANCE OF ST. PETER'S PREACHING. There is a very general agreement among ancient ecclesiastical writers, that St. Mark, the disciple and companion of St. Peter, collected the materials for his Gospel from the discourses of that Apostle 1. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, at the beginning of the second century, and Clement, Master of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, nearly a century later, give this account. The testimony of Papias is rather that of John the elder (not the Apostle, but a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the Apostles), for Papias says-TOUTO Ó πρeσßÚTEρOS Éλeye" This the Presbyter (John) reπρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε 1 Marci Evangelium credebant veteres nihil aliud fuisse quam Petri ȧτоμvημоvεúμara.—Pearson, Vindiciæ Ignatianæ. lated: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order, in which things were spoken and done by the Lord, for he was not himself a hearer or follower of Christ, but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions for the profit of those who listened to him, but not in the way of a regular history of our Lord's teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing what occurred to his memory; for this he made his great care, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert nothing false in his narrative 1." We read, in another book of the History of Eusebius: "The lustre of religion so enlightened the minds of Peter's hearers (at Rome) that, not contented with the mere hearing, and unwritten instruction, of his Divine preaching, they earnestly entreated the follower of Peter, Mark, whose Gospel we have, to leave them in writing a memorial of the instructions, which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist, till they had prevailed with him; and thus they caused the writing of the Gospel, which is called, According to St. Mark. It is said, that when the Apostle knew what had been done, he expressed, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, his pleasure in the zeal of the people, and autho rized that writing to be read in the Churches. Clement gives this account in the sixth Book of his Institutions, and herein agrees with him, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis 1." Irenæus relates, "After the death of Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple and interpreter2 of Peter, delivered to us in writing what he had heard that Apostle preach 3." Tertul 1 1 H. E. lib. ii. c. 15. Eusebius, in another part of his History (lib. vi. c. 14.) gives a statement, in some respect different, of what was written concerning St. Mark's Gospel in this Book of Clement's Hypotyposes. In the second passage, Clement is represented to say, that when Peter became acquainted with the composition of a Gospel by St. Mark, he neither forbad, nor encouraged, the work. Probably, the first passage is the correct one, because other early writers intimate that Peter sanctioned St. Mark's Gospel, and Jerom says, on the authority of Clement (sicut Clemens in sexto 'YTоTUάσεшv scribit) that this Gospel was approved by Peter, and delivered by his authority to be read in the Churches. De Vir. Illustr. c. viii. In both places, however, it is declared that the Gospel of St. Mark was a written memorial of St. Peter's oral discourses. 2 St. Mark is called 'Epμnvεurns Пlérρov-Interpres Petri-in the sense, not of a mere interpreter, but of an attendant, guided by the Apostle's counsel. The word is derived by some etymologists from 'EPMHZ, Hermes, interpres Diyum, the fabled messenger of the heathen gods. 3 Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, Μάρκος ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν πapadédwкɛ.—Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 2. If the words μɛrà de Thν TOUTWV Eodov, be translated, after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul, this does not agree with the passage from Clement of Alexandria, which states that St. Mark's Gospel was seen by St. Peter, and read in the assemblies of believers under his sanction. It has been thought, that the meaning of Irenæus may be, that the Gospel was not delivered to the Christian |