Matthew 28:7

7.—tell his disciples] The disciples, after their Lord’s crucifixion, appear to have entertained no hopes of His resurrection. Shocked and confounded, dismayed at finding Him condemned to the ignominious death of the cross, they forgot every thing He had said to them respecting His rising again. Most of them seemed to have remained concealed during the whole time of Jesus being in the grave, and to have given themselves up to sorrow and despair. They had not even the courage or the curiosity to go to the sepulchre on the third day to see whether the promised event had taken place or not. Thus then it is perfectly clear that they were not at all disposed to be over-credulous in regard to the resurrection; their prepossessions led them the contrary way; and nothing but the most irresistible evidence would be able to convince them of a fact, which they seemed to think in the highest degree improbable. Bp. Porteus.

—into Galilee.] He had many disciples there whom He destined to be witnesses of His resurrection, and there He appeared to five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. Grotius.

Matthew 28:9

9.—All hail.] An accustomed mode of salutation. Bp. Mann.

Matthew 28:13

13.—His disciples came by night.] This story told by the guards carries collusion on the face of it. Men in their circumstances would not have made such an acknowledgment of their negligence, without previous assurances of protection and impunity. Dr. Townshend.

Matthew 28:16

16.—the eleven disciples] The Apostles, originally twelve, but now reduced to eleven, by the defection of Judas. Bp. Porteus.

—into a mountain] This was probably, as is said by constant tradition, mount Tabor, that on which he was transfigured before them. Grotius.

Respecting the several appearances of our Saviour after His resurrection, see the note at the end of St. John’s Gospel.

Matthew 28:17

17.—they worshipped him.] On this and other occasions (see Matt. xv. 25) Christ permitted Himself to be worshipped; but He would undoubtedly have refused this, as did St. Peter, (Acts x. 25, 26,) if, like him, He had been a mere man. Bp. Tomline.

—but some doubted.] It cannot be wondered that, among the great number of persons who saw Jesus, there should be some who, like the disciples mentioned by St. Luke, chap. xxiv. 41, “believed not for joy and wondered;” that is, (as is very natural,) were afraid to believe what they so ardently wished to be true; or who, like St. Thomas, would not believe, unless they touched the body of Jesus, and thrust their hands into His sides. But their doubts, like his, were probably soon removed. This circumstance therefore only serves to shew the scrupulous fidelity of the sacred historians, who, like honest men, fairly relate every thing that passed on this and other similar occasions, whether it appears to make for them, or against them. Bp. Porteus.

The transaction, as related by St. Matthew, seems to be this, Christ appeared first at a distance; the greater part of those present, as soon as they saw Him, “worshipped;” but, “some,” seeing Him as yet only at a distance, “doubted;” whereupon Christ came up to them, ver. 18, and spake to them, &c.: so that the doubt may have been a doubt only at first, when He was seen at a distance, which was immediately dispelled on His approaching nearer, and conversing with them. Dr. Townshend.

Surely no dishonest writer would, in the very last place where he mentions the resurrection, and in the conclusion of his book, have suggested such a cavil to unbelievers, as to say that “some doubted.” This passage shews, among many others, that the Evangelists were plain men, who, conscious of their own integrity, have related what they knew with admirable simplicity. Had they been deceivers, they would have

Matthew 28:18

18. — All power is given unto me] Jesus, in His divine nature, had this power from all eternity: but it was now to be exercised in His human nature also, which, from a state of humiliation, from “the form of a servant,” was soon to be exalted to the highest dignity, and placed at the right hand of God. Accordingly, St. Paul informs us, God has set our Lord “at His own right hand in the heavenly places,” &c. Ephes. i. 20—23, and again, Phil. ii. 9—11. In the same magnificent language He is spoken of in the book of Revelation, chap. v. 12, 13. Such is the dignity of the Lord and Master whom we serve, and such is that authority with which, in the two concluding verses of this chapter, He gives His last command to His Apostles. Bp. Portena.

Our Lord, having finished His course of afflictions, and possessing the reward of them, a place at the right hand of God, and the exercise of “all power in heaven and in earth,” has become the Author of eternal salvation to all those that obey Him. He governs the Church which is yet left behind Him upon earth; and by His word and ordinances, His providence and Spirit, He conducts all those who are willing to be thus led along the same road, to the same place, whither He is gone before: that, being first made conformable to His death, they may become partakers of His resurrection; and following Him through the paths of pain and trouble, may join in His triumphant ascension; and that, where He is, they may also be. Dr. Ogden.

18, 19. — All power is given unto me—Go ye therefore &c.] As if He had said, I have now all power over all things in the world conferred upon Me; by virtue of which I command, empower, and commission you, to enlarge, settle, and govern the Church which I have founded; to administer the sacraments which I have instituted, and to persuade mankind to embrace My doctrine, to submit to My discipline, to obey My laws, and to come up to the terms which I have procured for them, and propounded to them in order to their salvation. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” or, as the word in the original properly signifies, Make all nations My disciples, bring them over to My religion; and this I would have you do in two ways; first, by “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” and so initiating them into My Church, upon their consenting to the faith which I have published to the world; and secondly, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” that so they may be My disciples indeed, not only by an outward profession of the faith which I have taught them, but also by performing sincere and universal obedience to all the commands that I have laid upon them. Bp. Beveridge.

These words (ver. 19, 20) contain that great commission and charter granted by our Saviour to His Apostles and their successors, by virtue of which we and all mankind have been called to the knowledge and

Matthew 28:19

19. — teach all nations, baptizing them &c.] In this form of baptism there is no restriction or exception whatever as to the persons who were to be baptized. Nations consist of persons of all ages, and therefore infants as well as adults must be included in this command, as the objects of baptism: and this inference will be the more evident when we reflect, that the commission was given to Jews, who were accustomed to see infants baptized; and they would of course consider themselves authorized to receive converts to Christianity in the same manner as they had received converts to Judaism. Had our Saviour intended any alteration in the Jewish practice of baptizing, or any limitation with respect to age, He would not have failed to specify it. Bp. Tomlone.

The sacrament of baptism being instituted in our Church from this express command of our Saviour, it is ordained that infants should be baptized, their sureties making in their names promises of repentance and faith, which they, when they come to mature age, are bound to perform. God expressly ordered the children of the Jews to be admitted into covenant with Him at eight days old. Into the place of circumcision baptism has succeeded, as the Gospel has into the place of the Law. There is therefore the same reason why our children should from the beginning be admitted into the Christian, as why the infants of Jews should have been admitted into the legal covenant. God has made no exceptions in this particular. Infants with us are as capable of covenanting, as they were with them. And, if God did not think fit to consider the age of infants among the Jews to be a bar to their receiving circumcision, we ought not to think the same defect to be any sufficient obstacle to the admission of our infants by baptism into the covenant of the Gospel. Abp. Wake.

— baptizing them in the name &c.] He here declares that baptism was the ceremony by which our Lord’s disciples were to be admitted into His religion. This was sometimes used by the Jews on the admission of proselytes, and by the heathens on initiation into their mysteries. But the baptism of Christians was to be accompanied with a peculiar form of words, which distinguished it from every other. They were to be baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This form of words has, accordingly, been used in the Christian Church, from the earliest times down to the present; and is the mode of baptism adopted and constantly practised by the Church of England; and it is remarkable, not only on this account, but as being also one principal ground of a very distinguished doctrine of the Gospel, and of the Church of England, the doctrine of the Trinity. For the plain and natural interpretation of the words is, that by being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we are dedicated and consecrated equally to the service of each of those three divine Persons; we are made the servants and disciples of each, and are consequently bound to honour, worship, and obey each of them equally. This evidently implies that they are equal in their nature, and that “all the fulness of the Godhead” dwells in each. In confirmation of this, we find in various parts of Scripture, that all the attributes of Divinity are ascribed to each. And yet, as the unity of the supreme Being is every where taught in the same

to baptize and teach all nations.

Anno DOMINI 23. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway,

Scriptures, and is a fundamental article of our religion, we are naturally led to conclude with our Church in its first article, “That there is but one living and true God, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible: and that in the unity of this Godhead there are three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Bp. Porteus.

To baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” is to perform this rite or sacrament by the authority of, and by special relation to, the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the chief objects of the Christian faith, of which solemn profession is then made. So that, on this form of baptism, compared with what is elsewhere said in Scripture concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost, is founded the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, in that simplicity and clearness in which the Scripture has delivered it. Abp. Tillotson.

Sometimes Scripture speaks of baptism as if it were administered only “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Acts ii. 38; x. 48; xix. 5. But it fully appears that the name of the Holy Ghost was used at the time of baptism, Acts xix. 2, 3; and therefore, we may be certain, that of the Father also. Now being baptized “in the name” of these three, may signify being baptized by virtue of their authority: but the more exact translation is, “into the name;” and the more full import of the expression is, by this solemn action taking upon us their name, and professing ourselves devoted to the faith, and worship, and obedience, of these three, our Creator, our Redeemer, our Sanctifier. In this profession the whole of Christianity is briefly comprehended, and on this foundation therefore the Christian creeds are all built. Abp. Secker.

Since baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must all three be Persons; and since no superiority or difference whatever is mentioned in this solemn form of baptism, we conclude that they are all three of one substance, power, and eternity. Since we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is quite impossible that, while the Father is self-existent, eternal, the Lord God omnipotent; the Son, in whose name we are equally baptized, should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to all the frailties and imperfections of human nature; or that the Holy Ghost, in whose name also we are equally baptized, should be a bare energy or operation, a quality or power, without even a personal existence. Bp. Tomlase.

This form of baptism, whilst it proves the divinity of each Person, proves also their unity in the Godhead. For we hear in it but of one name. Now, as the Apostle reasons, “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made; He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed,” Gal. iii. 16; so we are baptized, not in the names, as of many, but “in the name,” as of one: one name, and one nature or essence. Bp. Andrews.

Let us always bear in mind how essential a doctrine of our religion is the doctrine of the Trinity. For what is Christianity but a manifestation of the three Divine Persons, as engaged in the great work of man’s redemption, begun, continued, and to be ended by them, in their several relations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, three Persons, one God. If there be no Son of God, where is our redemption?

If there be no Holy Spirit, where is our sanctification? Without both, where is our salvation? And if these two Persons be any thing less than Divine, why are we baptized equally “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” Let us not be deceived: “This is the true God, and eternal life.” Bp. Horne.

Matthew 28:20

20.—lo, I am with you alway, &c.] I, the eternal Son of God, and now also become the Son of man; I, who have in your sight caused the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to rise, with a word of My mouth; I, who have all power committed to Me in heaven and in earth; “I am with you:” not, I will be with you, but I am with you, in the present tense, hereby reminding them of His divine power and essence, to which all things were present. I am with you, My Apostles, not with any one or any part of you, but with all of you equally, and at all times, so that, wheresoever you are, whensoever you do any thing towards the execution of this My commission, I am with you in the doing of it: and that to the very end of the world; that is, so long as I have a Church on earth, which shall be till My coming again to judge the world. Bp. Beveridge.

It is remarkable that St. Matthew has made no mention of our Lord’s ascension into heaven; the relation of which is given by St. Mark and St. Luke. The reason of this omission it is not perhaps very easy to assign, nor is it necessary. We know that, in several other instances, various circumstances are omitted by one Evangelist, which are supplied by the rest, and others passed over by those which are noticed by the former; a plain proof that they did not write in concert with each other, but each related his own story, and selected such facts and events as appeared to him most deserving of notice. Bp. Porteus.

It is also observable, that St. Matthew notices only one of our Saviour’s appearances to His disciples after His resurrection. It may be mentioned as a probable reason of this, that the particular design which St. Matthew had in view while he was writing the history of the resurrection, was to attest the faithful performance of Christ’s promise to His disciples, to go before them into Galilee; because he alone, except St. Mark, who seems to have taken it from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confined his narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the great and most publick manifestation of our Lord’s person. It was the thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew’s mind, and he adapted his narrative to it. Archdeacon Paley.

The following Chapters from St. Matthew are appointed as Proper Lessons, or as Gospels, on Sundays and Holydays:

CHAP. VERSE. - I. 18—25, Sunday after Christmas, Gospel. - II. 1—12, Epiphany, ditto. - III. 13—18, Innocents’ Day, ditto. - IV. 13—18, Trinity Sunday, Morning. - V. 1—11, 1st Sunday in Lent, Gospel. - VI. 18—22, St. Andrew, ditto. - VII. 1—12, All Saints, ditto. - VIII. 20—26, 6th Sunday after Trinity, ditto. (Proper Lessons continued.) CHAP. VERSR. VI…16-21, Ash-Wednesday,…Gospel. VI…24-34, 15th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. VII…15-21, 8th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. VIII…1-13, 3d Sunday after Epiphany,…ditto. VIII…23-34, 4th Sunday after Epiphany, ditto. IX…1-8, 19th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. IX…9-13, St. Matthew,…ditto. IX…18-26, 24th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. XI…2-10, 3d Sunday in Advent,…ditto. XI…25-30, St. Matthias,…ditto. XIII…24-30, 5th Sunday after Epiphany, ditto. XIV…1-13, St. John the Baptist,…Evening. XV…21-28, 2nd Sunday in Lent,…Gospel. XVI…13-19, St. Peter,…ditto. XVIII…1-10, St. Michael and All Angels, ditto. XVIII. 21-35, 22d Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. CHAP. VERSR. XIX…27-30, Conversion of St. Paul,…Gospel. XX…1-16, Septuagesima Sunday,…ditto. XX…20-28, St. James the Apostle,…ditto. XXI…1-13, 1st Sunday in Advent,…ditto. XXI…33-41, King Charles the Martyr,…ditto. XXII…1-14, 20th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. XXII…15-22, 23d Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. XXII…16-22, ( Restoration of the Royal Family,…) ditto. XXII…34-46, 18th Sunday after Trinity,…ditto. XXIII. 34-39, St. Stephen,…ditto. XXIV…23-31, 6th Sunday after Epiphany, ditto. XXVI…6th Sunday in Lent,…Morning. XXVII. 1-54, Sunday next before Easter, Gospel. XXVII. 57-66, Easter Even,…ditto. XXVIII…Monday in Easter-week,…Morning. # THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO # S T. M A R K. ## INTRODUCTION.

It has been doubted, both in ancient and modern times, whether St. Mark the Evangelist is the same as “John, whose surname was Mark,” mentioned in the Acts, and in some of St. Paul’s Epistles, Acts xii. 12, 25; Col. iv. 10. Allowing that they were the same, which, though an uncertain point, may be believed without any inconsistency, the writer of this Gospel was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and it is supposed that he was converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his son, 1 Pet. v. 13. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New Testament is, that he went in the year 44 from Jerusalem to Antioch with Barnabas and Saul. 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, Acts xiii. 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 whether they went when they had 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 subsequently to this dispute, and particularly from the direction which he gives to Timothy: “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 St. Barnabas, he met with St. Peter in Asia, and that he continued with him for some time, perhaps till St. Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.

St. Mark, even humanly speaking, was a very credible witness of the life of Christ. He was, in the strict sense of the word, an Evangelist; that is, a preacher sent by the Apostles to Jews and Gentiles, without being confined to any particular Church. What Timothy was to St. Paul, Mark was to St. Peter and St. Barnabas, and at last he bore the same relation to St. Paul himself. It was usual for such Evangelists to have extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6. Hence we have just reason to believe that St. Mark wrote by inspiration: and, as the primitive Church has transmitted to us his Gospel as a book of Divine authority, without ever entertaining the least doubt of his inspiration, we have every reason to consider it as a work divinely inspired.

Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel: but, as there is an almost unanimous concurrence of opinion that it was written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and as we find no ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till the year 64, we may be disposed to date the publication of this Gospel about the year 65.

As St. Mark wrote this Gospel for the use of the Christians at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all peculiarities, and equally accommodated to all descriptions of persons. Quotations from the ancient Prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs, are as much as possible avoided; and such explanations are added as might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome: thus, when “Jordan” is first mentioned in this Gospel, the word “river” is prefixed, chap. i. 5; the Oriental word “Corban” is said to mean “a gift,” chap. vii. 11; the “preparation” is said to be “the day before the sabbath,” chap. xv. 42; and “defiled hands” are said to mean “unwashed hands,” chap. vii. 2; and the superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.

The Gospel of St. Mark is a simple and compendious narrative, and his style is clear and correct; he is, in general, much less circumstantial than St. Matthew; and usually follows his arrangement. Some authors represent St. Mark’s Gospel as an abridgment of St. Matthew’s, but this is surely a mistaken idea. St. Mark entirely omits several important things related by St. Matthew, such as the genealogy and birth of Christ, the massacre at Bethlehem, and the sermon upon the mount. He dilates upon some facts which are concisely mentioned by St. Matthew, such as the cure of the paralytic in the second chapter, (compare Matt. ix. 2.) and the miracle among the Gadarenes in the fifth, (compare Matt. viii. 28.) He now and then departs from the order of time and arrangement of facts observed by St. Matthew; and there have been enumerated above thirty circumstances noticed by St. Mark, which are not found in any other Gospel: many of these are trifling, but two of them are the miraculous cures recorded in the seventh chapter, and in the middle of the eighth. If, however, we except slight additions made by St. Mark to the narrative common to the first three Evangelists, there are not more than twenty-four verses in his whole Gospel which contain facts not recorded either by St. Matthew or by St. Luke. Bp. Tomline.