John
Evangelium secundum JoannemIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
The authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is attested first of all by a man who enjoys historical credit. The one who affirms that John son of Zebedee, and not another, wrote the Fourth Gospel, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. His first work Αντίων χοραχών εξήγησις, in 5 books, was attributed to the last years of Hadrian, ca. 135; today there is a tendency to fix its origin at ca. the year 100.
Eusebius connects the work with the reign of Hadrian and this suffices for its authority. But already from Irenaeus it is clear that Papias flourished ca. 110; indeed the latter seems to indicate that he wrote while the Roman Clement was still alive, who died in 96 (cf. Guhvenger, Papias, in Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie, 69 [1947], pp. 385-416). Papias is of the utmost importance, because he does not use words of his own, but preserves the sayings of the ancient witnesses. Thus the proem of his work preserved by Eusebius (Hist. …
Haydock
St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; and, according to some, his Gospel. Tota antiquitas in eo abundè consentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. (Lampe. Proleg. lib. i. cap. 4.) --- In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels. (St. Hier. [St. Jerome,] de vir. illust. Eusebius, lib. iii, chap. 24.) --- St. Luke, says a learned author, seems to have had more learning than any other of the evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education. --- St. Denis, of Alexandria, found in the gospel of St. John, elegance and precision of language, not only in the choice and arrangement of expressions, but also in his mode of reasoning and construction. We find here, says this saint, nothing barbarous and improper, nothing even low and vulgar; insomuch, that God not only seems to have given him light and knowledge, but also the means of well clothing his conceptions. (Dion. Alex. [Denis of Alexandria] apud Euseb. lib. vii, chap. 25.) --- Our critics do not join with St. Denis. They generally conceive St. John, with respect to language, as the least correct of the writers of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education: but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, by the supernatural lights, by the depth of the mysteries, by the superexcellency of the matter, by the solidity of his thoughts, and importance of his instructions. The Holy Ghost, who made choice of him, and filled him with infused wisdom, is much above human philosophy and the art of rhetoric. He possesses, in a most sovereign degree, the talent of carrying light and conviction to the mind, and warmth to the heart. He instructs, convinces, and persuades, without the aid of art or eloquence. --- St. John is properly compared to the eagle, because in his first flight he ascends above all sublunary objects, and does not stop till he meets the throne of the Almighty. He is so sententious, says St. Ambrose, that he gives us as many mysteries as words. (De Sacram. lib. iii, chap. 2) --- From Patmos our saint returned to Ephesus, where he died. (Euseb. lib. iii. hist. eccles.) --- It is said that the original gospel was preserved in the church of Ephesus till the seventh age [century], at least till the fourth; for St. Peter, of Alexandria, cites it. See Chron. Alex. and manuscript fragment. de paschate apud Petav. et Usher. --- Besides the gospel, we have of St. John three epistles and the Book of Revelations; and though other productions have been palmed on the world under the name of our evangelist, the Catholic Church only approves of those above specified. Ancient Fathers have given him the name of the Theologian: a title his gospel, and particularly the first chapter, deserves. Polycratus, bishop of Ephesus, tells us that St. John carried on his forehead a plate of gold, as priest of Jesus Christ, to honour the priesthood of the new law, in imitation of the high priests of the Jews. (Polycr. apud Euseb. liv. v, chap. 24.) --- This gospel was written in Greek, about the end of the first hundred years from Christ's nativity, at the request of the bishops of the Lesser Asia [Asia Minor], against the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, and those heretics, or Antichrists, as St. John calls them, (1 John 4:3.) who pretended that Jesus was a mere man, who had no being or existence before he was born of Joseph and Mary. The blasphemies of these heretics had divers abettors in the first three ages [centuries], as Carpocrates, Artemon, the two Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and some others; on whom, see St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine, etc. To these succeeded, in the beginning of the fourth century, Arius, of Alexandria, and the different branches of the blasphemous Arian sect. They allowed that Jesus Christ had a being before he was born of Mary; that he was made and created before all other creatures, and was more perfect than any of them; but still that he was no more than a creature: that he had a beginning, and that there was a time when he was not: that he was not properly God, or the God, not the same God, nor had the same substance and nature, with the eternal Father and Creator of all things. This heresy was condemned by the Church in the first General Council, at Nice, ann. 325. --- After the Arians rose up the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and afterwards the Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. In every age pride and ignorance have produced some heresies; for, as the Apostle says, (1 Corinthians 11:19.) there must be heresies. Towards the beginning of the sixteenth age [century] Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, etc. set themselves up for reformers, even of that general and Catholic faith which they found every where taught, and believed in all Christian Churches. Luther owns that he was then alone, the only one of his communion, (if so it may be called); yet none of these called in question the mysteries of the Trinity, or of the Incarnation. --- But not many years after, came the blasphemous sect of the Socinians, so called from Loelius and Faustus Socini. These, and their followers, renewed the condemned errors of the Arians. We scarce find any thing new in the systems of these men, who would pass for somebody, like Theodas, Acts 5:36.; or who, like Simon, the magician, and first heretic, would be looked upon as great men, and great wits, by daring to be free-thinkers, and thereby bold blasphemers. --- To do justice to Calvin, he did not think these Socinians fit to live in any Christian society: and therefore he got Michael Servetus burnt alive at Geneva, ann. 1553; and Valentinus Gentilis, one of the same sect, was beheaded at Berne, ann. 1565. I must needs say, it seems an easier matter to excuse the warm sharp zeal of Calvin, and his Swiss brethren, in persecuting to death these Socinians with sword and faggot, than to shew with what justice and equity these men could be put to death, who followed the very same principle, and the only rule of faith; that is Scriptures expounded by every man's private reason, or private spirit; which the pretended Reformers, all of them, maintain with as much warmth as ever, to this very day. --- Heretics in all ages have wrested the sense of the Scriptures, to make them seem to favour their errors: and by what we see so frequently happen, it is no hard matter for men who have but a moderate share of wit and sophistry, by their licentious fancies and arbitrary expositions, to turn, change, and pervert Scripture texts, and to transform almost any thing into any thing, says Dr. Hammond, on the second chapter of St. John's Revelation. But I need not fear to say, this never appeared so visibly as in these last two hundred years; the truth of which no one can doubt, who reads the History of the Variations, written by the learned bishop of Meaux. --- These late Reformers seem to make a great part of their religion consist in reading, or having at least the Bible in their mother-tongue. The number of translations into vulgar languages, with many considerable differences, is strangely multiplied. Every one rashly claims a right to expound them according to his private judgment, or his private spirit. And what is the consequence of this; but that as men's judgments and their private interpretations are different, so in a great measure are the articles of their creed and belief? --- The Scriptures, in which are contained the revealed mysteries of divine faith, are, without all doubt, the most excellent of all writings: these divers volumes, written by men inspired from God, contained not the words of men, but the word of God, which can save our souls: (1 Thessalonians 2:13.; James 1:21.) but then they ought to be read, even by the learned, with the spirit of humility; with a fear of mistaking the true sense, as so many have done; with a due submission to the Catholic Church, which Christ himself commanded us to hear and obey. This we might learn from the Scripture itself. The apostle told the Corinthians, that even in those days there were many who corrupted and adulterated the word of God. (2 Corinthians 2:17.) St. Peter gives us this admonition: that in the Epistles of St. Paul, are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- It was merely to prevent and remedy this abuse of the best of books, that it was judged necessary to forbid the ignorant to read the Scriptures in vulgar languages, without the advice and permission of their pastors and spiritual guides, whom Christ appointed to govern his Church. (Acts xx. 28.) The learned University of Paris, 1525, at that time, and in those circumstances, judged the said prohibition necessary: and whosoever hath had any discourses with persons of different religions and persuasions in our kingdom, especially with Anabaptists, Quakers, and such as pretend to expound the Scriptures, either by their private reason or by the private spirit, will, I am confident, be fully convinced that the just motives of the said prohibition subsist to this very day. Ignorant men and women turn Scripture texts to the errors of their private sects, and wrest them to their own perdition; as the very best of remedies prove pernicious and fatal to those who know not their virtues, nor how to use them, and apply them. --- They might learn from the Acts of the Apostles, (Acts 15.) that as soon as a doubt and dispute was raised, whether the Gentiles converted by the apostles, were obliged to observe any of the ceremonies of the law of Moses, this first controversy about religion was not decided by the private judgment, or private spirit, even of those apostolical preachers, but by an assembly or council of the apostles and bishops, held at Jerusalem; as appears by the letter of the council sent to the Christians at Antioch. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, etc. to us, whom Christ promised to direct by the Spirit of truth; with whom, he assured us, he would remain to the end of the world. --- The very same method, as it is evident by the annals of Church history, hath been practised to the very time, and will be to the end of the world. It is the rule grounded on the command and promises of Christ, when he founded and established the Christian Church. All disputes about the sense of the Scriptures, and about points of the Christian belief, have been always decided by the successors of St. Peter, and the other apostles; even by general councils, when judged necessary: and they who, like Arius, obstinately refused to submit their private judgment to that of the Catholic Church, were always condemned, excommunicated, and cut off from the communion of the Church of Christ. --- Nor is this rule and this submission to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning. The ignorant fall into errors for want of knowledge, and the learned are many times blinded by their pride and self-conceit. The sublime and profound mysteries, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, the manner of Christ's presence in the holy sacrament, are certainly above the reach of man's weak reason and capacity; much less are they the object of our senses, which are so often deceived. Let every reader of the sacred volumes, who pretends to be a competent judge of the sense, and of the truths revealed in them, reflect on the words which he finds in Isaias: (Isaias 55:8-9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts; nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to know, to demonstrate, what is possible or impossible to the incomprehensible power of God? --- A self-conceited Socinian, big with the opinion he has of his own wit and knowledge, will boldly tell us, that to say or believe that three distinct persons are one and the same God, is a manifest contradiction. Must we believe him? Or can he himself reasonably trust his own natural reason in such a mystery, against the clear testimonies of the Scripture, and the received belief of the Christian Catholic Church, in all ages? That is, against the greatest authority upon earth: whether we consider the Church as the most illustrious society and body of men; or whether we consider the same Church as under the protection of Christ and his divine promises, to teach them all truth to the end of the world. Besides this, experience itself should make the said Socinian distrust his own judgment as to such a pretended contradiction, when he finds that the brightest wits, and most subtle philosophers, after all their study and search of natural causes and effects, for so many hundred years, by the light of their reason could never yet account for the most common and obvious things in nature, such as are the parts of matter, and extension, local motion, and the production of numberless vegetables and animals, which we see happen, but know not how. See the author of a short answer to the late Dr. Clark and Mr. Whiston, concerning the divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. An. 1729. --- The latest writers among the pretended Reformers hesitate not to tell us, that what the Church and its councils have declared, as to Christ's real presence in the holy sacrament, is contradicted by all our senses; as if our senses, which are so often mistaken, were the supreme and only judges of such hidden mysteries. Another tells us, that for Christ to be truly and really present in many places, in ten thousand places at once, is a thing impossible in nature and reason; and his demonstrative proof is, that he knows it to be impossible. With this vain presumption, he runs on to this length of extravagant rashness, and boldly pronounces, that should he find such a proposition in the Bible, nay, though with his eyes he should see a man raise the dead, and declare that proposition true, he could not believe it: and merely because he knows it impossible: which is no more than to say, that it does not seem possible to his weak reason. I do not find that he offers to bring any other proof, but that it is contrary to his senses, and that God cannot assert a contradiction. And why must we take it for a contradiction, only because he tells us, he knows it to be so? It was certainly the safest way for him, to bring no reasons to shew it impossible to the infinite and incomprehensible power of the Almighty: this vain attempt would only have given new occasions to his learned antagonist, the author of the Single Combat, to expose his weakness even more than he has done. --- May not every Unitarian, every Arian, every Socinian, every Latitudinarian, every Free-thinker, tell us the same? And if this be a sufficient plea, none of them can be condemned of heresy or error. Calvin could never silence Servetus, (unless it were by lighting faggots round him) if he did but say, I know that three distinct persons cannot be one and the same God. It is a contradiction, and God cannot assert a contradiction. I know that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father. It is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. So that though I find clear texts in the Scriptures, that three give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one: though Christ, the Son of God, tells us, that he and the Father are one, or one thing; nay, though I should with my own eyes, see men raise the dead to confirm these mysteries, (as many are recorded to have done) and declare them to be revealed divine truths, I cannot believe them, because I know them to be false, to be nonsense, to be contradictions in reason and nature. The like the Free-thinker may tell us, with the Pelagians, as to the existence of original sin, that all men should become liable to eternal death for Adam's sinning; with the Manicheans, that men cannot have free will to do, or abstain from, sinful actions, and yet God know infallibly from eternity what they will do; with the Origenists, that God, who is infinite goodness itself, will not punish sinners eternally, for yielding to what the inclinations of their corrupt nature prompt them. They have the same right to tell all Christendom, that they know these pretended revealed mysteries to be nonsense, impossibilities, and contradictions. And every man's private judgment, when, with an air of confidence, he says, I know it, must pass for infallible; though he will not hear of the Catholic Church being infallible, under the promises of our Saviour, Christ. --- But to conclude this preface, already much longer than I designed, reason itself, as well as the experience we have of our own weak understanding, from the little we know even of natural things, might preserve every sober thinking man from such extravagant presumption, pride and self-conceited rashness, as to pretend to measure God's almighty and incomprehensible power by the narrow and shallow capacity of human understanding, or to know what is possible or impossible to Him that made all things out of nothing. In fine, let not human understanding exalt itself against the knowledge of God, but bring into a rational captivity and submission every thought to the obedience of Christ. Let every one humbly acknowledge with the great St. Augustine, whose learning and capacity, modestly speaking, were not inferior to those of any of those bold and rash pretenders to knowledge, that God can certainly do more than we can understand. Let us reflect with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 597. C.) that if we know not the things under our feet, we must not pretend to fathom the profound mysteries of God.qa Naz. Orat. xxxvii. Mede ta en posin eidenai dunamenoi ... me theou bathesin embateuein. --- And, in the mean time, let us pray for those who are thus tossed to and fro with every wind and blast of different doctrines, (Ephesians 4:14.) that God, of his infinite mercy, would enlighten their weak and blinded understanding with the light of the one true faith, and bring them to the one fold of his Catholic Church. (Witham)
Douay 1582/1609
❀ THE ARGVMENT OF S. IOHNS GOSPEL. 11 paragraphs
S. Iohns Gospel may be diuided into foure partes.
The first part is, of the actes of Christ before his solemne manifestation of himselfe, vvhile Iohn Baptist vvas yet baptizing: Chap. 1. 2. 3. 4.
The second, of his Actes in Iurie (hauing novv begonne his solemne manifestation in Galilee, Mat. 4, 12) the second Easter or Pasche of his preaching: Chap. 5. For of the first pasche, we had in the first part, chap. 2, 13: And the pasche of This speach very common in this Gospel, as appeareth by the places here marked, declareth that he writeth to the Gentils. the Iewes was at hand. And that feast vvhereof vve haue in this second part, chap. 5, 1: Iren. li. 2. c. 39. After this there was a festiual day of the Iewes, is thought of good Authors, to be the feast of Pasche.
The third part is, of his Actes in Galilee, and in Iurīe, about the third Pasche, and after it: cap. 6, to the 12. For so vve haue chap. 6, 4: And Pasche the festiual day of the Iewes was at hand.
The fourth part is of the fourth pasche (vvhich vve haue in the end of the chap. 11, 55: And the pasche of the Iewes was at hand) that is to say, of the Holy vveeke of his Passion in Hierusalem: chap. 12. vnto the end of the booke.
By vvhich diuision it is manifest, that the intent of this Euangelist vvriting after the other three, vvas, to omit the Actes of Christ in Galilee, because the other three had vvritten them at large: and to reporte his Actes done in Iurie, vvhich they had omitted.
And this he doth, because Iurie vvith Hierusalem and the Temple, beeing the principal parte of the Countrey, there abode the principal of the Ievves, both for authoritie, and also for learning in the lavv or knovvledge of the Scriptures. and therfore that vvas the place, vvhere our Lord IESVS finding in the Head it selfe and in the leaders of the rest, such vvilful obstinacie and desperate resistance, as the Prophets had foretold, did by this occasion, much more plainely then in Galilee, both say and proue, at sundry times, euen euery yere of his preaching, himselfe to be the CHRIST that had bene so lōg promised vnto them, & expected of them: & the same CHRIST to be not onely a man, as they imagined, but also the natural, consubstantial, & coëternal Sonne of God the Father, vvho novv had sent him. Therfore these vvere the vvordes and deedes that serued best the purpose of this Euangelist, being, to shevv the glorie & excellencie of this person IESVS: that thereby the Gētils might see, hovv vvorthily Hierusalem & the Ievves vvere reprobated, vvho had refused yea & crucified such an one: and hovv vvel & to their ovvne saluation themselues might doe, to receiue him and to beleeue in him. For this to haue bene his purpose, Io. 20, 31. him selfe declareth in the end, saying: These are written, that you may beleeue that IESVS is CHRIST the Sonne of God: and that beleeuing, you may haue life in his name.
And herevpon it is, Hier. in Catal. that S. Hierome vvriteth thus in his life: Iohn the Apostle, Io. 21, 20. whom IESVS loued very much, the Mat. 4. 21. sonne of Zebedee, Mat. 4. 21. the brother of Iames the Apostle Act. 12, 2. whom Herod after our Lords Passion beheaded, last of al wrote the Gospel, at the request of the Bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus, and other Heretikes, and specially against the assertion of the Ebionites then rising, who say that Christ was not before MARIE. Wherevpon also he was compelled to vtter his Diuine Natiuitie. Of his three Epistles, and of his Apocalypse, shal be said in their ovvne places.
It folovveth in S. Hierome, that In the Second persecution vnder Domitian, fourtene yeres after the persecution of Nero he was exiled into the ile Patmos. But after that Domitian was slaine, and his actes for his passing crueltie repealed by the Senate: vnder Nerua the Emperour he returned to Ephesus, and there continuing vnto the time of Traiane the Emperour, he founded and gouerned al the Churches of Asia, and worne with old age, he died the threescore and eighteth yere after the Passion of our Lord, and was buried besides the same citie.
IOHN the Apostle, one of our Lords Disciples, vvho vvas the yongest among the Apostles, and vvhom the faith of Christ found a virgin, remained a virgin, and therefore is Io. 13, 23. 24. &c. 21, 20. move loued of our Lord, and Io. 13, 23. 24. &c. 21, 20. lieth vpon the breast of IESVS: and that vvhich Peter durst not aske, Io. 13, 23. 24. &c. 21, 20. he desireth him to aske: and after the resurrection, vvhen Marie Magdalen had reported that our Lord vvas risen againe, both of them ranne to the Sepulchre, Io. 20, 4. but he came thither first: and vvhen they vvere in the ship and, fished in the lake of Genezareth, IESVS stood on the shore, neither did the Apostles knovv vvhom they savv: Io. 21, 7. onely the virgin knovveth the virgin, and saith to Peter. It is our Lord. This Iohn vvas both an Apostle, and Euangelist, and Prophet: an Apostle, because he vvrote to the Churches as a Maister: an Euangelist, because he compiled a booke of the Gospel, vvhich (except Matthew) none other of the tvvelue Apostles did: a Prophet, for he savv in the ile Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian the Emperour for the testimonie of our Lord, the Apocalypse, conteining infinite mysteries of things to come. Tertullian also reporteth, that at Rome being cast into a barrel of hote boiling oile, he came forth more pure and fresher or liuelier, then he vvent in. Yea and his Gospel it self much differeth from the rest. Matthevv beginneth to vvrite as of a man: Marke of the prophecie of Malachie and Esay. Luke of the Priesthod of Zacharie: the first hath the face of a man, because of the genealogie: the second the face of a lion, for the voice of one crying in the desert: the third the face of a calfe, because of the Priesthod. But Iohn as an Eagle flieth to the things on high, & mounteth to the Father him self, saying: In the beginning was the VVORD, and the VVORD was with God, and God was the VVORD. Thus far S. Herome.
Vpon this Gospel there are the famous commentaries of S. Augustine called Tractatus in Euang. Ioan. to. 9. and tvvelue bookes of S. Cyrils commentaries.
Cornely
CAPUT III. DE QUARTO EVANGELIO EIUsQUE CUM SYNOPTICIS HARMONIA. S 7. — De Evangelio S. loanaés seorsim spectato. QuAzsTIO I, — De S. Ioannis Apostoli et Evangelistae vita,
$6. — S. loannes, cui inscriptio quartum Evangelium attribuit , filius fuit Zebedaei, piscatoris cuiusdam satis divitis, et Salomes, unius ex piis illis mulieribus, quae Dominum in eius peregrinationibus secutae cum B. Virgine iuxta crucem steterunt ideoque postea resurrectionis dominicae primum nuntium ab Angelo recipere meruerunt!, Cum fratre lacobo Mai. patrem in piscatoria exercenda adiuvabat loannes, intimaque amicitia cam Simone Pelro et Andrea erat coniunctus. Antequam a Domino ad eius sequelam vocaretur, loanni Bapt. videtur adhaesisse; eum enim unum ex duobus discipulis fuisse, qui a magistro suo edocti primi Dominum secuti sunt, antiquorum et modernorum interpretum senlentia est verisimillima ?. Ad arctiorem vero Christi societatem vocatus et inter Apostolos adoptatus una cum fratre suo lacobo immediate post Petrum et Andream omnia statim reliquit, ut totum se Domino daret; in Apostolorum catalogis secundo vel tertio vel quarto loco reccusetur?,
Continue reading 23 paragraphs
Prae reliquis omnibus Apostolis singulari caritate a Domino est dilectus. Solus eum Petro et fratre suo lacobo adhibitus est testis, quum Dominus filiam lairi resuscitaret, in monte transfiguraretur, in. horto pateretur agoniam; simili modo, «quo Petrus, ipse quoque cum fratre suo nomine novo a Domino est insignitus : « et imposuit cis nomina Boanerges, quod est filii tonitrui » *. Una cum Petro missus est, ut ultimum pascha pararet; sed solus in ultima coena, utpote « discipulus quem diligebat lesus », « in sinu eius » recubuit, à ir:6740; eam ob causam a Patribus cognominatus. Dilectione autem dilectionem rependebat; aliis enim discipulis in horto fugientibus ipse cum Petro Dominum usque in atrium summi sacerdotis secutus est, et solus ex omnibus Apostolis sub cruce Domini stans dignus est habitus, cui matrem suam Dominus moriens commendaret?. Resurrectionis dominicae primo nunlio accepto cucurrit cum Petro ad monumentum et primus Dominum resurrexisse credidit; quare eliam eius oculi aperli sunt, ut Doninum, quum discipulis suis ad lacum Genesareth sese manifestaret, primus cognosceret,
Post Spiritus S. adventum S. Ioannes cum Petro primas partes in fundanda Ecclesia habuit. Petro adfuit, quum hie claudum ad portam templi speciosam sanarel; cum Petro primus carcerem passus est propter nomen Domini; cum eodem Samariam missus est, ut neopliytis manuum impositione Spiritum S. darent. Quando Paulus lerosolyma venit. uf Evangelium suum eum. Apostolis conferret, loannes eum l'etro et lacoho Min., fratre Domini, « columnae Ecclesiae » erant ?. Quamdiu in Palaestina remanserit, eum cerlitudine definiri nequit; Paulus, quum n. 55. exsecundo ct a. 59. ex tertio itinere apostolico lerosolyma rediret, loannem ín civitate sancta non einplius videtur invenisse; quare inter &. 52. et 55. eum ex Palaestina ad alias gentes conveetendas esse profecfum cetisemus *, « Propter verbum Dcei et testimonium lesu » in insulam, quae appellatur Patmos, relegatus futura. Ecclesiae fata. videre meruit; redux autem pracfuit ecclesiis Asiae ?.
6. Ioan. 20, 1-8 « Tunc ergo introivit ct ille discipulus, qui venerat primus ad monumentum, et vidit et credidit »; Ioan. ?1, 7.
$17. — Quibus ex S. Scriptura desumtis illa addamus, quae traditio nobis de S. loannis vita conservavit. Ex illa igitur haurimus, Apostolum ultimos vitae suae annos in Asia Minore degisse Ephesique residentem ecclesias asiaticas rexisse; ab imperatore quodam romano in insulam Patmum relegatum vidisse mysteria illa, quae in Apocalypsi Ecclesiae tradidit, post persecutoris autem. mortem Ephesum reversum ecclesiarum asiaticarum gubernatione iterum suscepta scripsisse Evangelium suum; Ephesi quoque senem. fere centenarium sub. Traiano imperatore vitam sanctam sancla morte terminasse. Quae quum omnia a modernis hypercriticis in dubium vocentur, testimoniis Patrum sunt confirmanda et ab adversariorum obiectionibus vindicanda.
Tertull/anus aucior est, Apostolum Romae in oleum igneum immersum, sed nihil laesum in insulam esse relegatum!. De quo romano quidem martyrio silent reliqui Patres praeter S. Hieronymum iunioresque, qui illud a Tertulliano mutuati sunt; sed eum ab imperatore quodam romano in insulam Patmum fidei causa esse relegatum, tradunt S. [renaeus, Clemens Alez., Origenes, Victorinus Petav. , Eusebius, S. Hieronymus, S. Epiphanius alii ?. Quisnam vero imperator ille fuerit, non consentiunt. S. Epiphanius Claudii tempori (41-55) exsilium Apostoli assignat; eum vero hac in re errasse, luce clarius apparet ex eo, quod vix viginti annis post Domini mortem loannem iam nonagesimum vitae annum egisse supponere cogatur Epiphanius ?. Multi tempore Neronis (55-68) cum Patmum relegatum esse censent ad Tertullianum provocantes, qui loannis confessionem cum Petri Paulique martyrio coniunxisse videatur; de tempore autem exsilii nihil certi quidem tradit, sed Domitiani potius, quam Neronis persecutionem videtur designare Tertullianus*. Quare cum Eusebio et Hieronymo Domitiani (81-96) persecutioni relegationem illam adscribamus oportet; S. Irenaet enim disertis verbis haec sententia fulcitur, qui Apocalypsin « non ante longum temporis spatium, sed fere suis diebus sub finem imperii Domitiani » visam esse asserit; iam vero Irenaei, qui per Polycarpum mediatus fuit loannis discipulus, testimonium in hac quaestione nequit repudiari. Domitianum autem a. 15. imperii sui Ecclesiam esse persecutum, teste Eusebio « scriptores eliam a nostra religione alienissimi » memoriae tradiderunt?.
Ut autem Ioannem Apostolum auctorem esse Apocalypseos facilius negarent, moderni quidam rationalistae traditionem hanc de Ioannis exsilio negare coeperunt : Hegesippum enim, cuius relationem de Domitiani persecutione Eusebius afferat, de martyrio illo prorsus sileve dicunt, reliquos Patres inter se dissentire atque relegationem illam inventam tantum esse, ut Apoc. 1, 9. explicaretur?. Optima procul dubio argumenta! Hegesippi igitur silentium contra nos affertur, ac si integram persecutionis Domitiani historiam scripsisset illaque integra ad nos pervenisset, quum tamen illam persecutionem commemorans Eusebius nihil aliud tradat, nisi llegesippum quoque narrare Domitianuni omncs, qui a Davide generis sui originem duccrent, interfici iussisse, aliquibus autem posteris Iudae « fratris Domini » vitam condonasse , quia « vilitatem istorum hominum esset aspernatus »*. Dissentire dicuntur Patres, quia Clemens Alex. et Origenes persecutoris nomen sileant, Tertullianus Neronem, Euscehius et Hieronymus eum Irenaco Domitianum, Epiphanius Claudium nominent. lie autem vera solus dissentit Epiphanius, uti diximus; eius vero, utpote multo iunioris testis , dissensus difficultatem non. ereat, quum in solo tyranni nomine memoria. lapsus sit dicendus. Quam parum demum ad Apocalypseos versum. explicandum Tertullianus, Clemens Alex., Origenes illam traditionem afferant, eorum verba, quae adscripsimus, demonstrant; neque illud est omittendum, duos Alexandrinos, ut testimonium suum corroborent, ad certam traditionem provocare id seribendum Evanzelinm impulit. proveeta. jam aetate, quippe qui nonagesimum vitae suae annum jam excederet, post eius reditum ex Patmo sub Claudio Caesare ».
Af non. solum Apostoli exsilium inter fabulas reiicitur, sed negatur quoque eum unquam in Asia Minore sedem suam habuisse. Quo quidem tempore Ephesum pervenerit, quum nihil hac de re antiqui Patres tradiderint, incertum est, at euin per sat multos annos ecclesias asiaticas rexisse, tot testimoniis historicis demonstratur, ut merito mireris audaciam hypercriticorum illorum, qui id non tantum addubitare sed propalam negare non erübuerunt 7.
Primus et gravissimus iterum nobis testis est S. [renaeus, qui frequentissime de asiatico loannis Apostoli ministerio loquitur. Ut condiscipulum suum Florinum. qui gnosticae haeresi sese dederat, ab erroribus ilis averteret, illa, quae a Polycarpo audierat, ia memoriam ei revocans : « Haec dogmata, inquit, presbyleri, qui ante nos fuere Apostolorumque discipuli exstitere, tibi non tradiderunt. Vidi enim te, quum adliue puer essem, in inferiore Asia apud Polycarpum, quum in imperatoria aula splendide ageres et illi te probare conareris. Nam ea, quae tunc gesta sunt melius memoria tenco, quam quae nuper acciderunt, adeo ut locum dicere possim, in quo sedens beatus Polycarpus disserebat... et quomodo fujadliarem consuetudinem , quae illi cum Ioanne et reliquis , quà Dominum viderant , intercessit, et dicta eorum cominemoraret », Ne quis vero dubitat, num in Asia Polycarpus loanne Apostolo amiliaviter sit usus, Irenaei. libros coutra haereses inspiciat; etenim « omnes, inquit, presbyteri teslantur, qué za Asta cum loanae Doneunt lscipulo convixcrunt, haec loannem tradidisse; mansit enim cum illis usque ad. Traiani tempus »; et iterum : « loannes discipulus Domini, qui et supra. peetus eius recumbebat, edidit Evangelium Ephes? Asete commoraus iot Merum : « Sed el quae est Ephesi ecelesia a Paule quidem fundata, Joanne autem. permanente apud. eos usque ad. Traiun tempora , (estis est verus Apostolorum traditionis », et ad Victorem Summum Pontificem scribens de die paschatis celebrando : « Neque Anicetus, inquit, Polycarpo persuadere unquam poterat, ut non observaret ea, quae cum loanne, Domini discipulo aliisque Apostolis, quihuscum convixit, semper observaverat »*. — Ad eundem Victorem de eadem paschatis quaestione scribens S. Po/ycrates Ephesi episcopus, qui septem consanguineis episcopis eiusdem ecclesiae se octavum accessisse gloriatur, etiam ad Apostolorum, qui in Asia vixerunt, exemplum provocat; inter quos post Philippum, uuum ex duodecim, qui mortuus est Hierapoli, nominat « loannem, qui in sinu Domiui recubuit et pontifex eius fuit, auream laminam in fronte portavit, martyr et doctor fuit, qui Ephesi sepultus est » '?. Tertius eiusdem aetatis et regionis testis est Apo//onzus , Montauistarum adversarius strenuus, qui & loanne Ephesi mortuum per divinam potentiam ad vitam esse resuscitatum narravit !!. Quibus praeter C/ementem Alez., cuius testimonium supra iam attulimus, omnes illos adnumeremus oportet, «qui Apocalypsin ab Apostolo Ioanne scriptam esse tradiderunt; epistolae enim ad septem Asiae ecclesias evidenter supponunt, auctorem gubernationem earum in manibus tenere; atqui usque ad S. Dionysium Aler., i. e. usque ad medium saec. 3., non invenitur scriptor ecclesiasticus, qui loanni Apocalypsin abiudicaverit. quam plurimi autem, qui disertis verbis illam loanni auctori attribuunt; ex quorum numero S. lusti num. M. nominasse sufficit. Ephesi enim cum Tryphone ludaco dispufans « apud nios , inquit, vir nomine Ioannes , unus ex Apostolis Christi, in apocalypsi ipsi facta mille annos lerosolymis traducturos praedixit cos, qui Christo nostro crediderunt » etc '*.
Cui testium nubi, quibuscum iuniores Patres omnes consentiunt, adversarii nostri alios eosque maioris auctoritatis opponere se posse arbitrati sunt. Quid, quod ex ipsa Scriptura demonstrare volunt, Ioannem mortuum esse, antequam Ephesum venire potuerit? Quum enim Apocalypsis scriberetur, omnes Apostolos iam vita functos esse ex eo colligunt, quod « coelum et Sancti, Apostoli et Prophetae exsultare iubeantur, quoniam magnam Babyloniam Deus iudicaverit », quodque in duodecim fundamentis novae lerusalem scripla sint nomina duodecim Apostolorum **. Quis vi huius argumenti attonitus non stupueril? At Georgius /Tamartolus, inquiunt, saec. 9. chronographus, ex Papiae libris testimonium affert, Ioannem a Iudaeis esse occisum. Id quidem verum est; minime autem dicit, eum in Palaestina esse occisum, sed contrariam sentenliam secutus eum post reditum ex insula Patmo Ephesi a ludaeis martyrium perpessum esse tradit !*.
En omnes eorum testes loquentes; quibus, quum solos non sufficere viderent, tacentes addunt. S. Ignatius enim ad Ephesios scribens, quamquam Pauli, per quem eorum ecclesia gloriam assecutus sit, mentionem facit, loannem, qui tot annos inter eos vixisse dicitur, prorsus tacet; idemque in sua ad Trallianos epistola se non esse Apostolum, sicut Petrus et Paulus, confitens loannem iterum praetermittit. Iter S. Polycarpus in sua ad Philippenses epistola Paulum, sed non Ioannem, nominat; Papiam quoque, Hegesippum, lustinum nihil nobis de ephesina commoratione loannis tradere asserunt '5, Singula paucis illustremus. Ad Ephesios haec scribit S. Ignatius : « Transitus estis eorum, qui ita interficiuntur, ut ad Deum veniant ; Pauli consacerdotes, qui sanctificatus marlyrium consecutus et digne beatus est, ad cuius vestigia contingat mihi, ut inveniar, quando Dei particeps fio » '*. Luce clarius est, S. Martyrem ad ea, quae Act. 20, 17 sqq. narrantur, allusisse; at eo modo, quo Paulus, Ioannes per Ephesum non transivit, quapropter Ignatius, qui eliam per Ephesum ad martyrium properavit, Pauli quidem, sed non loannis mentionem facere potuit. Illa, quae ex epistola ad "Trallianos afferuntur, in longiore dumtaxat recensione habentur, quam hodie omnes (atque imprimis rationalistae, nisi eorum Lestimonio veritatem aliquam destrui posse arbirantur) spuriam esse concedunt "7. S. Polycurpus in sua epistola Philippensibus in memoriam revocat, quod Paulus inter illos laboraverit; quis ibi Ioannis, qui Philippis nunquam fuit, nomen exspectaverit '5? Ad Papiam quod attinet, adversarii nostri sub certo respectu Eusebii auctoritatem invocare queunt, quippe qui neget hierapolitanum episcopum auditorem Ioannis Apostoli fuisse; at non tantum Eusebius sibi ipse contradicit, quuin alio in loco contrarium asserat, sed contra eum etiam testantur Irenaeus, Hieronymus, Anastasius Sinaita, Maximus Confessor; imo Papias ipse, si verba eius, quae Eusebius nobis conservavit, recte explicantur, se loannis auditorem prodit '?. Hegesippi demum aliorumque, quotquot afferre volunt, silentium eo solo in casu aliquid demonstraret, si omnia eorum opera ad nos pervenissent illosque integram Ioannis vitam nobis tradere voluisse constaret.
talschr. 1862. p. 453; illud recepit Funk Patresapost. IT. p. 204. : « Post Domitianum rcgnavit unum annum Nerva, qui Ioannem ex insula revocatum Ephesi habitire permisit ; solus tunc vita supererat ex duodecim «discipulis et conscripto Evangelio, quod est sccundum ipsum, martyrio dignus factus est. l'apias enim Jlicerapolitanus, testis ocularis, in secundo Dominicorum oraculorum libro dicit cum a Iudacis interfectum esse; ita ut profecto cum fratre pracdictionem a Christo de ipsis factam compleret » etc. Utrum hoc Papiae testimonium sit genuinum et integrum necne, parum interest; si genuinum et integrum est, patet martyrium, cuius testis ocularis fuit Papias, in Palaestina non esse factum, sed Ephesi; unam autem testimonii partem admittere, alteram autem aeque claram relicere arbitrnrium est; Iudaeos extra fines quoque. Palaestinte Christianos esse persecutos, docent Aet. 13, 45. 20: 14, 2-5 ete. Cfr. alia testimonia penes Funk ]. c.
18. S, Polycarp. ad Philipp. 13. « Ego autom nihlt tale audivi do vobis vol cagnovi, intet quos laboravit bentus Paulus, qui estis In principio epistolae eius », — Aeque parum S, Clem. R. ad Corinthios scribens, quiunvIs Paulum nominaret, lonnnem nominare dobuit.
7C On; f "1x60; 7, zC Iodvuzs 3, Maü0xio;, — vel quid Thomas aut Iacobus, vel quid
3 t Ézspos TG toU Kuzloo paüncos, 3 v: — loannes aut Matthaeus, vel quis alius ex
PApiazlov xal 6 zosaGizipo; "lodesns, oi zo9.— discipulis Domini (cadem dixisset), qua-
Kvpiuo pascat, Aifnusty. lia Aristion et senior Ioannes, discipuli bomini, dicunt.
Ne longi simus, pauca de celeberrimo hoc loco adnotabimus, ut eius sensus clarior appareat.
à.) Duos fontes indicat Papias, ex quibus ea, quae traditurus est, hausit; primum constiluunt ea, quac ipse « à scnioribus bene didicit et bene memoriae mandavit », alterum ea, quae relate ad seniorum dicta ex iis, qui cum senioribus versati erant, exquisivit.
b.) Hinc iam clucet, vocem z2:399:i2o9 in hoc contextu non posse designare prese byterum, i. e. sacerdotem vcl episcopum; l'apias enim, quum ipse esset episcopus, cur tanla cum sollertia ab aliorum sacerdotum vel episcoporum discipulis exquisivisset ea, quae sacerdotes illi vel episcopi dixerant? Quosnam intelligat rgscGurípoug « seniores », jpse explicat, quum aliquos ex illis enumeret : Andrcas, Petrus, Philippus. "'homas, Iacobus, Ioannes, Matthacus : atqui hi omnes sunt Apostoli; ergo zpia- 6o::£o; Papiae est honorifica Apostolorum appellatio; atque fontes eius sunt dicta Apostolorum, sivc immediate ab ipsis Apostolis, sive mediate ab Apostolorum discipulis ea audivit.
€.) Quae si recte sunt. dicta, sequitur Papiam inter Domini discipulos latiore sensu interque Apostolos distinxisse; in fine cnim duos discipulos Domini nominat, at uni tantum honorificam zpesGutécou i. e. Apostoli appellationem attribuit : « Aristion ct 6 zpes6otepog Ioannes »; cur enim hanc significationem, quam in toto contextu vox habet, relinquamus, nulla prorsus est ratio. « Presbyter Ioannes » igitur, quem Eusebius quidem ab Apostolo Ioannes distinguere voluit, tota autem antiquitas ignoravit, prorsus disparet. Quac enim de duobus sepulcris apud. Ephesum, quae utraque nomine Ioannis insignita erant, primus tradidit Dionys. Alez. (apud Euseb. H. E. VII. 25. M. 20, 701) et post eum Eusebius ipse (H. E. IIl. 39), ea de duabus memoriis eiusdem IEvangelistae Ioannis intelligenda esse, iam Hieronymi tempore sententia fuit probabilior (Hier. de vir. ill. 9. M. 23, 025).
d.) Si moderni multi interpretes, ut Eusebii explicationem tucantur, Papiam dec Apostolis ita loqui monent, ut eos iam mortuos esse appareat (ct "Avógéas 3) «t [léxgos sintv), de Aristione autem et de seniore Ioanne, ac si inter vivos agant (& «s "Aciaziov xai $ npso63t:pos "luávvro Aéyouatv), nos contra monemus relativum & ve (« qualia ») interrogativo *l non posse esse parallclum. Quare etiam cum edito textu non est legendum : 7| zt; Ftepoc, sed 5$) tl; £xtpoc; scilicet ab aliorum Apostolorum discipulis exquisivit Papias, non soluin quid dixissent, sed etiam quis eorum eadem dixisset, quae suo tempore adhuc dixerunt Aristion et Apostolus Ioannes (Cfr. Leimbach in Herzog P. R. E. Ed. 2. XI. p. 200), ut hac ratione ad maiorem certitudinem perveniret. Num igilur eo tempore, quo Papias suum librum scripsit, Ioannes Apostolus tdliuc vivebat? Omnes illi, qui temporum a Papia adhibitorum (tlztv, Aévovotv) distinctionem urgent, concedere debebunt, aliquos immediatos Domini discipulos illo tempore, quo scripsit Papias, vixisse; nulla igitur est ratio, cur Apostolum Ioaunom tunc vivere non amplius potuisse dicamus. Chronicon Pasch. quidem Papiam eodem tempore, quo Polycarpum, imartyrium passum esse refert; at Chronici auctorem hac in re fidem non mereri demonstravit Funk (Patr. apost. M. p. L sq.), Papiam autem Polycarpo seniorem fuisse, Irenaeus, qui eum &v$pa doy aiov appellat, videtur indicarc.
Ultinos igitur vilae annos S. loannes in regendis ecclesiis asialicis peregit; praeter exsilium autem cius pauca tantuin, sed pulcherrima facla ex illo tempore nobis tradunt Patres, quae quantum eius fuerit veritatis evangelicae studium quantusque zelus animarum. demonstrant. Maristri sui. Polycarpi auctoritate nixus Irenaeus refert Apostolum, quuin Ephesi, ut lavaretur, in balneum intrasset ibique Cerinthum invenisset, ex eo non lotum statim exsiliisse, quia timeret ne balneum concideret, in quo Corinthus essct, inimicus veritatis ?^, Alteram « fabulam, quae non est fabula, sed vera de loanne Apostolo tradita narratio », nobis conservavit Clemens Alez.?! : Apostolus ex "atino insula Ephesum reversus, quum vicinas ecclesias visitaret atque in una iuvenem optimae spei invenisset, illum coram tota ecclesia et Christo teste loci illius episcopo diligentissime couimeudavit, Qui adolescentem sibi traditum in domum recepit, cius educationi sollicitus invigilavit, ud baptismum demum adinisit; deinde vero, ac si nihil amplius esset timendum, de pristina cura atque sollicitudine paullatim reinisit. Qua praematura libertate usus iuvenis lascivire coepit, atque tandem latro latronumquo dux factus est. Interea Apostolus ad ecclesiam illam denuo adscitus, post quam cuncta, quorum ratia venerat, ordinavit, ab episcopo depositum, quod ei commiserat, repeliit, iuvenem scilicet eius curae commendatum. Gemebundus autem et lacrymans confessus cst episcopus. illum Deo esse mortuum atque cum latronum satellitio montes occupare. Quibus auditis Apostolus scissa vesto equum sibi postulat itinerisque ductorem indeque ab ecclesia, ut erat, concito equo iter properat ad montem. A latronibus illis, qui excubias agobant, captus, ut ad ducem eorum adduceretur postulavit; qui ubi accedentemn Apostolum agnovit prae pudore in fugam versus est. At loannes totis viribus concito cursu, uelatis oblitus, hominem persecutus est identidem clamans : « Quid me pa- Irem. Cuum,, fili, fugis inermem. seniculum? Miserere mei, fili, noli timere; adhuc tibi superest vitae ac salutis spes. Ego pro te Christo ralionem reddam. Si sit opus, tuam ipse libens mortem sustinebo, quemadmodum Dominus pro nobis mortem sustulit. Animam mcam pro tua vicariam dabo; slà modo et crede; a Christo missus sum ». Quibus verbis permotus iuvenis a fuga destilit. proiectis armis ad senem accessit. gemitu ac lamentis crimen confessus lacrymis velut altero baptismo illud abluit; Apostolus autem illum in ecclesin. reduxit, exinde partim crebris orationibus Deum deprecans, partim continuatis unà cum iuvene ieiuniis simul decerlans variisque sermonibus animum eius demulcens non prius destilit, quam illum firma constantia Ecclesiae gremio restituisset, boni pastoris imitatus exemplum, qui unau oviculam deperditam in deserto quacrit, donec cam invenerit, animamque suam ponit pro ovibus suis. Atque Zieronymus demum, qui frequenter in loanne virginitatis privilegium celebrat??, de sene decrepito haec nobis tradidit : « Beatus loannes Evangelista, quum Ephesi moraretur usque ad ultimam senectutem et vix inter discipulorum manus ad ecclesiam deferretur nec posset in plura verba vocem contexere, nihi] aliud solebat per singulas proferre collectas, nisi hoc : Filioli, diligite alterutrum. Tandein discipuli et fratres, qui aderant, taedio affecti, quod eadem semper audirent, dixerunt : Magister, quare semper boc loqueris? Qui respondit dignam loanne sententiam : Quia praeceptum Domini est, et si solum fiat, suflicit » ?*.
Usque ad "Traiani aetatem S. Ioannem vixisse Patres plerique, ut vidimus, tradiderunt, atque communis quoque est sententia , eum naturali morte vita esse defunctum ; nihilominus, ut habet S. Augustinus, « non impar meritum patientiae in Petro, qui passus est, et in loanne, qui passus non est », nam patientiae virtutem, quam Petrus opere exhibuit in suo martyrio, Ioannem in babitu habuisse tota eius vita probat 3**
QuakEsTIO II. — Do quarti. Evangelii authentia et integritate 26 paragraphs
58. — S. loannem Apostolum quarti Evangelii auctorem esse usque ad nostrum fere saeculum omnes, quotquot christiano nomine gloriabantur, firma fide tenebant, si paucos illos antiquos haereticos excipis, quos, quia 7óv Aoyov (Verbum ) ab loanne praedicatum respuerunt Apostolique libros reiecerunt, S. Epiphanius nomine ' AAórov imposito « rationis expertes » declaravit!. Exeunte autem saeculo praecedente Ed. Evanson, anglicanae seclae assecla, primus, ut videtar, «quartum Evangelium, «quia synoptieis et Apocalypsi contradiceret , loanni abiudicavit iuniorique cuidam neophyto, philosopho platonico, attribuit?. Quamvis, qui ipsi assentiret, vix quemquam invenisset , ab eo tamen tempore antiquorum « Irrationalium» error ab iis praesertim , qui rationalistae vocari solent, sub novis continuo formis recoquitur. Paucis iam annis post Evanson in Germania £. F. Vogel Evangelii nostri auctorem fudaeochristianum alexandrinum, G. Bretschneeder vero Ethnicochristianum esse declaraverunt?. Testimonia enim historica, quibus authentia probetur, aut iunioris esse originis aut dubia ac proinde certitudinem non dare censuit Bretschueider, internis autem argumentis constare , auctorem ne Palaestinensem quidem fuisse, nedum testem ocularem aut Apostolum, quum multi in libro inveniantur errores geographici et historici atque alius prorsus Christus praedicetur in quarto, alius in synopticis
Evangeliis. At nondum salis erant praeparati plerique interpretes proiestantici, ut hisce argumentis caperentur; quare Bretschneider ipse confutatus assertionem suam retractare et irritam declarare coactus est. Ut melius igitur animi praepararentur, Littzelberger demonstrare conatus est, loannem Apostolum nunquam in Asia fuisse, originem autem asiaticam ab omnibus antiquis scriptoribus quarto Evangelio attribui; I. D Strauss verointegram historiam evangelicam mythis constare definivit atque hac ratione a priori, ut ita dicamus, authentiam omnium Evangeliorum impugnavit^. Tum demum XNeo-Tubingiant. eorumque sequaces in campum prosilierunt. Eorum parens, P. CAr. Baur, Evangelium nostrum circa a. 170 in Asia Minore vel Alexandriae illum in finem conscriptum esse docuit, ut iudaizantes Petrinos et Paulinos universalistas altiore quadam et sublimiore doctrina ad unionem adduceret; ideo in quarto Evangelio historiam non narrari, sed symbolico quodam modo doctrinas evolvi; omnia enim facta, quae nova in eo proponantur, ad doctrinam illam sublimiorem de Logo, qui caro factus est, stabiliendam et evolvendam ab auctore esse conficta; in Apocalypsi, quae loannem Áp. auctorem habeat, doctrinas iudaizantes tradi, Evangelium igitur eidem auctori non posse attribui ». Similes sententias discipuli eius et sequaces proposuerunt , quas omnes referre nullius prorsus utilitatis est; id unum monemus, nec in sententiis ipsis, nec in argumentandi modo, nec in tempore origini Evangelii assignando discipulos cum magisíro aut infer se aut secum ipsis consentire *.
589. — Ioannem revera auctorem «quarli nostri Evangelii esse demonstraturi pro more historica argumenta primo in loco afferemus, deinde quid liber ipse de suo auctore testetur examinabimus, atque demum « criticorum » obiectiones paucis expediemus.
I. HisroRICA TESTIMONIA. 1.) À nemine negatur exeunte saec. 2. Evangelium nostrum in universa Ecclesia propagatum atque pro genuino Apostoli loannis opere agnitum esse; atqui fieri non potuit, ut liber, qui a falsario quodam intra a. 130. et 170. compositus est , in fine eiusdem saeculi in tota Ecclesia sit receptus, ac multo minus ceu apostolicus ab omnibus sit agnitus.
Quaenam huius argumenti sit vis, clarius apparebit, si testium, qui apostolicam Evangelii originem asserunt, auctoritatem perpenderimus. Primo in loco ponamus oportet S. Irenaeum , qui Polycarpi discipulum se esse gloriatur : « Postea, inquit, et loannes, discipulus Domini, qui supra pectus eius recubuit, et ipse edidit Evangelium , quum Ephesi in Asia commoraretur ». Quum tam accurate locum et tempus originis indicet, eum haec a Polycarpo, loannis Ap. discipulo, didicisse concludimus. Quam legitima vero sit haec conclusio facile apparet consideranti, quantopere lugdunensis Doctor omnibus in rebus principio tradilionis inhaereat, et quoties certissimam suam aperiat persuasionem se id docere, quod ab Apostolis sit traditum et ab omnibus in Ecclesia sit receptum !. Ut aperte dicamus, quod sentimus : unicum hoc testimonium viri, qui tam prope ad apostolicam aetatem ascendit, tam arcto nexu per magistrum suum cum S. loanne Apostolo cohaeret, tam sollers fuit in apostolicis traditionibus conquirendis et couservandis, prudenti critico sufficere deberet, elsi alii antiqui testes omnes tacerent.
At non tacent; cum fide enim asianarum et gallicanarum ecclesiarum, quarum testis est Irenaeus, consentiunt reliquae. Romanam fidem nobis prodit auctor fragmenti Muratoriani : « Quarti Evangeliorum (auctor est) loannes ex discipulis. Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit : conieiunate mihi hodie triduum, et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex Apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis loannes suo nomine cuncta describeret »?. Quidquid de huius narrationis veritate statuitur, illud testimonio Muratoriano extra controversiam positum est, circa a. 170. in ecclesia romana certam traditionem de loanne Evangelii quarti auctore adfuisse. Quibus testibus occidentalibus tertius africanac ecclesiae antiquissimus scriptor ecclesiasticus, Tertullianus, adstipulatuv. Etenim « auctoritas, inquit, ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis (sc. aeque atque Evangelio Lucae), quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, loannis dico et Matthaei » etc; idemque « evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos auctores habere » docet, « si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis et post Apostolos »; nam « nobis fidem ex Apostolis loannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant »; atque demum quartum Evangelium auctoris nomine tacito contra Marcionem allegat formula , « sieut in Evangelio ante Marcionem edito continetur »?.
Non minus clare, quam Occidentales, loquuntur Orientales. Alexandrinae ecclesiae persuasionem nobis exhibet C/emens Alez. : « loannes omnium (Evangelistarum) postremus, quum videret in aliorum Evangeliis ea, quae ad corpus Christi pertinent, tradita esse, divino Spiritu afflatus spirituale Evangelium familiarium suorum rogatu conscripsit »; haec autem Clemens a magistris suis audierat, illa enim refert tamquam mapzÓoct vOv dvíxali:v mpscoucíoev 5. Antiochenae fidei insigne testimonium affert S. TheopAilus, qui sextus post S. Petrum inde ab an. 169. illam ecclesiam gubernavit; prima enim Evangelii verba, expresso loannis nomine, pro auctoritate divina allegat : « Haec nos, inquit, docent Scripturae Sanctae et quotquot Spiritu S. afflati erant, inter quos Ioannes dicit : In principio erat verbum » etc; eundem vero, leste S. Hieronymo, « quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compegisse » iam saepius diximus *.
Quae omnia testimonia tam diserta et clara sunt, uf. ipsi moderni « critici » quid contradicant nulla ratione inveniant; eorum igitur nunc est explicare, quomodo liber, qui a nescio quo Iudaeochristiano aut Ethnicochristiano aut philosopho platonico circa medium saec. 2. scriptus dicitur, diu ante eiusdem saeculi finem in dissitissimis ecclesiis unanimi consensu et sine ulla haesitatione apostolicae originis sit creditus et Apostolo Ioanni attributus. Aliud afferant similis falsarii exemplum, qui tanta cum astutia librum fingere potuerit, ut. vigilantia pastorum non obstante corruptae eius literae pro genuinis per decem et septem integra saecula ab omnibus sint habitae.
que : quamvis, quía sunt perversae sententiae, modernae « scholae criticae » maioris sint auctoritatis, quam Polycarpus eiusque discipult. Cfr. quoque quae III. 3. 4; V. 20 etc (M. 7, 848. 855. 1177) de traditione apostolica sequenda statuit Irenaeus.
2). Antiquiora testimonia diser&« quidem desiderantur; at satis multa, quae vetustioribus saec. 2. apologetis Evangelium nostrum cognitum fuisse demonstrent, praesto sunt.
S. Iustino M. quartum Evangelium una cum reliquis cognitum fuisse, vel unum illud celeberrimum argumentum ostendit, quo in prima sua Apologia necessitatem baptismi adstruit : « Dixit enim Christus : nisi renati fueritis, non intrabitis in regnum coelorum. Fieri autem nou posse, ut semel nati in uteros matrum regrediantur, omnibus manifestum est ». Quac ex loan. 3, 3. & desumta esse omues fatebuntur, qui ad eum dementiae gradum nondum pervenerunt, ut cum modernis quibusdam 'AXeye; aut. Evangelii auctorem ex lustini apologia aut utrumque ex deperdito fonte haec hausisse maluerint dicere . Porro si dicit : « Unigenitum illum Patris universorum esse, proprie Verbum et virtutem ex eo genitum, atque postea hominem natum ex Virgine, uti ex commentariis discimus, ium antea demonstravi », merilo interrogamus, quinam sint illi commentarii, « quae vocantur Evangelia », ex quibus hacc didicerit; « Unigenitus Patris », « Verbum » Christus in solo Evangelio quarto vocatur?. Atque iterum, si loannem B. clamasse refert : « Non sum Christus, sed vox clamantis », undenam haec desumsit, nisi ex loann. 1, 20. 23, quum haec a Synopticis non referantur? Praeterea animadvertendum , verba Zachariae (12, 10) a Iustino eodem prorsus modo referri, quo in. Evangelio nostro leguntur?. Saepissime 8. lustinus de « Verbo » loquitur; suam autem de Verbo doctrinam non ab loanne eum didicisse contendunt adversarii, quia Verbum ei non persona divina fuerit ante creationem exsistens, sed attributum quoddam divinum, quod personalitatem assumserit per creationem. At legantur ea, quae de Verbo ipse diserte et satis fuse exponit. Postquam enim ostendit Patri nullum nomen esse inditum, quod proprie ei conveniat, quum omnes appellationes Patris, Dei, Creatoris, Domiui, Regis sint ex eius beneficiis et operibus derivatae, in hunc modum pergit : « Eius autem Filius, qui solus proprie (xvpíex) Filius dicitur, Verbum, quod , antequam creaturae fierent. c una cum eo aderat et genitum est (6 Acyoc vp) t&v movn.krov xal auviv xal yevvopy.tvo;) , quia ab initio per illud omnia condidit et ornavit, Christus vocatur, propterea quod unctus sit ct Deus per illum omnia ornaverit (quod tamen nomen ipsum quoque significat rem incomprehensibilem, sicut et vox Dez non nomen est, sed rei inennarrabilis insita naturae hominum opinio); lesus autem et hominis et Salvatoris nomen et significationem habet. Nam et homo factus est, ut antea diximus, secundum Dei et Patris voluntatem editus pro credentibus hominibus et ad daemonum eversionem » ?. Quis his in verbis non videt loannis doctrinam de Verbo, quod in principio erat apud Deum, et per quod facta sunt omnia, et quod in tempore homo factus est, ut qui credant in eum (adoptivi) filii Dei fieri queant? Alii non pauci in S. Martyris operibus exstant textus, quibus idem demonstratur; sed cur omnes aíferamus? Allati enim prudenti non relinquunt dubitationem, quin S. Martyr inter suos Apostolorum commentarios, « quae Evangelia vocantur », eliam quartum nostrum habuerit.
Tatianum, S. lustini discipulum, Evangelium nostrum in suo Diatessaro habuisse omnes concedunt, et ex S. Ephraemi commentario constat !!. S. Iustini autem coaevus fuit S. Claudius. Apollinaris, hierapolitanus episcopus, ex cuius libro de paschate duo tantum fragmenta supersunt, sed utroque Evangelii nostri authentia confirmatur, quum illud cogbitum aliisque aequiparatum supponant. In priore enim difficultatem de die mortis Domini commemorat, quae exoriri non potuit, nisi loannis Evangelium alia, atque synoptica, tradere putabatu;. Alterum vero ita se habet : « Decima quarta dies est verum Domini pascha, magnum sacrificium, pro agno Filius Dei (mactatus) , qui vinctus fortem vinxit, et qui iudicatus vivorum et mortuorum iudex est, et qui traditus est in manus peccatorum, ut crucifigeretur, qui exaltatus est super cornua
: unicornis, et cuius /atus percussum est, et qui ez latere suo effudit duo y purgatoria, aquam et sanguinem , et qui sepultus est in die paschatis, lapide imposito sepulturae » '*.
nein incipit, positum esse reymuon. coelorum, dum loannes habcat region Dei, 3vxyevvr re pro yevyr 0s, &vof:v, apud Matthacum similem textum legi (sc. 18, 3 : « nisi conversi fueritis ct elficiamini sicut parvuli, non intrabitis in regnum coelorum «); unde demum concludunt, S. Iustinum haec desumsisse ex Evangelio secundum He«- braeos. (Cfr. Davidson 1ntrod. 1I. p. 374 sqq., qui Neotubingianorum argumenta paucioribus verbis comprehendit et approbat). At S. Iustinum ipsa V. T. testimonia non semper verbotenus allegare, N. T. autem verba fere semper libero modo afferre, nemo ignorat; eadem autem prorsus idea in utroque textu exprimitur. Quis autem unquam in verbis Matthaei allegatis argumentum pro necessitate baptismi quaesivit? Quod demum. verba illa ex. Evangelio secundum. Hebraeos sint desumta, tam. gratuita et absurda est assertio, ut mais ;ratuita et absurdior excogitari non. posse videatur. Admirabilis haec. est rationalisttumum arzgumentandi ratio, ut eo audacius asserant, quo absurdiora sunt asserta.
Zach. 19, 10 : xxi lzi- Iust. 1. c. : wax zozt Glov- loan. l. e : Gyosza: tl "S » CEA 5 j CXPyovtat noó; ut, d Ov — cai elg ov DEzutvtrsav. [IH TPTUEPETTR x&ttpJ 1,3avt0.
Nceotubingianos suos secutus Pacidson (d. €. p. J88] Ioannem et Iustinum hacc ex Apocalypsi 1, 7 desumsisse asseril : « «xt Gyztat abtüy n3; ÓyÜaÀuo; xal oitwto a)t6v iEiafvtroav. ltefutationi sufficit, ut textus legantur.
3.) 4 medii saec. 2. testibus ad. éounediatos Apostolorum discipulos veniamus; inter quos primo in loco S. [gnatum M. ponimus, cuius testimonia sunt certissima. Quod si enim scribit : « Spiritus enim, quum a Deo sit orlus, non dceeipilur; sez euàn, unde ventat et quo cadat v, el iterum z « Peri Det volo, qué est caro lesu Christé , qui ex semine David factus est, el potum volo sangutaein epstis » , vel si de « principe huius saceuli » loquitur, de « vivente in se et loquente aqua », vel si lesum dicit « ante saecula apud Patrcin fuisse « eumque vocat » Filium Dei, qui est Verbum eius e silentio progressum » i. e. qui ante saecula apud Patrem exsistens post longum quasi silentium in mundo apparuit,
Verbum Dei caro factum, procul dubio ex quarto Evangelio suas expressiones desumsit illudque eis, quibus scripsit, cognitum supposuit ; ita enim verba eius sunt comparata, ut. evangelicis verbis ipsis uon cognitis non intelligantur "?.
Simili modo idem Evangelium ab auctore epistolae ad Diognetum adhibitum est. Quis verborum S. loannis (1. 1 « omnia per ipsum facta sunt »)pulcherrimam amplificationem non viderit in his epistolae verbis: « Invisibilis Deus veritatem et verbum sanctum et incomprehensibile inter homines locavit et cordibus eorum infixit; non quemadmodum aliquis coniicere possit, hominibus ministrum aliquem mittens, aut angelum, aut principem, aut aliquem eorum, qui terrena gubernant, aut aliquem eorum, quibus commissa est cura rerum in coelis administrandarum , sed Zpsum opificem. et creatorem omnium , per quem coelos condidit, per quem mare suis terminis inclusit. cuius mysteria fideliter observant omnia elementa, a quo mensuras diurnorum cursuum accepit sol observandas, cui obtemperat luna iubenti eam lucere nocti, eui obtemperant stellae lunae cursum sequentes, a quo omnia disposita sunt et limitibus circumscripta, cuique subdita sunt omnia : coeli et quae in coelis, terra et quae in terra, mare et quae in mari, ignis, aér, abyssus, quae in altis, quae in profundis, quae in mediis sunt. Hunc ad eos misit. Num forte, id quod aliquis hominum cogitare possit , ut iyrranidem exerceret et terrorem incuteret? Minime vero; sed in clementia et lenitate sicut rex mittens filium regis misit eum, sicut Deum misit, sicut hominem ad homines misit. s?cut salvans misit , sicut persuadens, non sicut violentiam exercens; violentia enim non est in Deo. Misit sicut vocans, non sicut persequens, misit sicut amans, non sicut ?ud?cans ». Cum ultimis his verbis confer, quae Dominus apud loannem (3, 16. 17) de fine suae missionis docet : « S?c enim Deus d?lexit mundum, ut. Filium suum unigenitum daret , ut omnis qui credit in eum habeat vitam aeternam. Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum , sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum ». Eadem aulem verba dominica alio in loco respexit auctor epistolae, quum diceret : « Deus homines dilexit , propter quos mundum creavit, quibus omnia subiecit..., ad quos filium suum unigenitum misit » 5,
Polycarpi et Papiae, S. loannis discipulorum, directa quidem testimonia pro quarto Evangelio non habemus, at indirecta. Quam maxima enim inter Evangelium nostrum et 1. Ioannis epistolam invenitur affinitas, sive stylus spectatur sive indoles characterque eorum integer; quare nisi quis cum Neotubingianis quibusdam falsarium quendam aut in epistola Evangelium, aut in Evangelio epistolam imitatum esse sine ullo fundamento statuerit, unum eundemque utriusque scripti esse auctorem fatebitur. Praeterea epistola Evangelium ubique supponit intimeque cum eo cohaeret atque eius, ut ita dicam, praefationem quandam constituit!?; quapropter is qui epistolam agnovit, Evangelium agnovisse est dicendus. lam vero S. Papias, teste Eusebio, in suo opere « testimoniis ex priore epistola Ioannis » usus est, S. Polycarpum autem, quum in sua ad Philippenses epistola scriberet : « Omnis qui non confessus fuerit lesum Christum in carne venisse, antichristus est », verba hacc a magistro suo loanne mutuatum esse , vix quisquam addubitabit !6, ;
4.) Catholicorum doctorum testimoniis iterum incredulorum et haerelicorum saec. 2. testimonia addamus. Quorum agmen ducat Celsus, quem Evangelio nostro usum esse concedent omnes, qui viderint eum Christianis obiicere, quod « captiosis argutiis freti asserant Filium Dei esse eius ipsum Verbum » (AjtoAoyov), et dein « pro Verbo illo puro et sancto, quod Filium Dei esse praedicent, exlibeant despicatisstmium hominem flagris caesum et in erucem actum », aut cum videre « de sanguine, qui de corpore in crucem sublato fluxit » et interrogare, num forte similis fuerit ei « sacro qui manat corpore divum », aut eum vituperare Dominum, quod « quamvis en templo provocalus » signum nullum fecerit, aut eum loqui de siguis supplicii et manibus pevforalis, quas lesus post resurrectionem «discipulis exhibuerit ete '.
Celsum excipiant omnes illius actatis Gnostici, qui quartum Evangelium reliquis videntur praetulissc. Bas/Zides, qui Wadviani cl Antonini Pii aetate Alexandriae haeresin suam sparsit atque Matthiec Apostoli discipulum se fuisse finxit, teste auctore Philosophnmenon non tantum textibus quarti Evangelii ad suos stabilieudos errores abusus cst, scd eliam illos « in Evangeliis » legi asseruit 8. Circa idem tempus Vea/eatinum (t c. 160) et eos « qui a Valentino sunt, Evangelium, quod est secundum Ioannem plenissime uti » testatur Irenaeus; ab auctore autem Philesophumenon discimus, Valentinnm diabolum appellasse 5àv 22/5vto 755 »9ep.09 , quam appellationem ex nostro Evangelio desumsit, alque dictum Domini : « Omnes qui venerunt aute me fures sunt et latrones » (Joan. 10, 8) ad suum sensum traxisse 9, Pro/emaeus, Valentini discipulus, allegavit loan. 1, 3 tamquam « verba Apostoli », Herac/eo aulem, alter eius discipulus, quartum Evangelium iam commentatus est, quo commentario non raro utitur Origenes?». Naassen?, una ex anfiquissimis sectis ophiticis, magnum numerum textuum S. loannis adhibuerunt ?!,
Argumentum , quod ex Gnosticorum testimoniis derivamus, duplici exceptione nobis eripere conantur adversarii nostri ; alii enim practendunt, a Patrib:s doctrinam ct placita scctarum , prout decursu temporis paullatim efformata sunt, ipsis sectarum fundatoribus adscribi, alii autem ad eam usque vesaniam progrediuntur, ut Evangelium nostrum illis sectis posterius esse dicant, imo illi in haereseos huius evolulione suum locum attribuant. At quomodo probare velint, Patres, «quibus haeresiarcharum istorum opera prae manibus fuerunt, Dasilidi et Valentino sine ullo fundamento ca adscripsisse, quae Basilidianis et Valentinianis tantum competant, nemo facile dixerit , nisi somnia et commenta ncotubingiana pro argumentis accipiat. Alterum autem assertum risum dumtaxat excitat; quis conim prudens unquam sibi persuadebit, Evangelium, quod post medium saec. 2. scriptum nihil nisi gnosticus foetus esse perhibetur, exeunte saec. 2. ab omnibus Patribus, qui lanta cum dilizentia in traditionem apostolicarum ecclesiarum inquisiverunt, quam pro « canone veritatis » statuerunt, et in universa Eeclesia tamquam apostolicum et genuinum loannis Apostoli opus esse receptum?
60. — II. Historicis igitur testimoniis authentia quarti Evangelii extra omne dubium prudens ponitur; ARGUMENTIS INTERNIS autein non parum confirmatur.
1.) Ipsius enim auctoris habemus testimonium, quo se librum hunc scripsisse asserit. Etenim « discipulus, quem lesus diligebat » Evangelium hoc scripsisse in eius fine asscritur!. Atqui nomine « discipuli, quen diligebat lesus « neminem nisi loannem Apostolum designari, non tantum integer Patrum chorus tradit, sed ex libro ipso apparet.
Tres enim Apostolos, Petrum, lacobum Mai., loannem, a Domino singulari modo reliquis esse praelatos, Synoptici testantur; cos enim solos quemadmodum transfigurationis, ita agoniae suae testes esse voluit. At nec Petrus Evangelii auctor est, quia « discipulus, quem diligebat Iesus » diserte ab eo distinguitur ?; nec lacobus Mai., quia iam a. 15. post Christi assumtionem ab Herode occisus est, quo tempore quartum Evangelium iam exstitisse nemo unquam dixit. Si quis vero hunc testum ab loanne ipso scriptum negaret, argumentum vi sua et auctoritate non privaretur; quoniam enim illum Evangelio semper fuisse additum certissime constat (nam nec in ullo antiquo codice nec in ulla versione desideratur), testimonium semper erit externum , quod ad ipsam Evangelii originem ascendit ?.
Cornelius a Lapide
THE HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO JOHN 46 paragraphs
THIS is the title in the Greek and Latin codices. In the Syriac it is as follows, The Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Jouchanon (John), which he spake and preached in Ionic (Greek) at Ephesus. The Arabic has, The Gospel of the holy and great disciple, the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, the beloved of our Lord Jesus Christ.
AS it has been found impossible to compress the Translation of the Commentary upon S. John's Gospel into one volume, it is now given in two, of which this is the first. The second volume comprises the remainder of the Gospel, and the Commentary of À Lapide upon S. John's Epistles.
It is with great pleasure I present this portion of this great Commentary to the English reader. Admirable as Cornelius à Lapide almost invariably is in his exposition of Holy Scripture, on the Gospel of S. John he seems to me to surpass himself. Beginning from the Incarnation of the Divine Word, nothing can be more masterly, nothing more magnificent, than the way in which he shows that the whole sacramental system of the Catholic Church of Christ is the necessary consequence and complement, as well as the extension of the Incarnation, Divinely planned and ordained for the eternal salvation of the whole human race. Granted the truth of the Incarnation as an objective fact, dealing with realities both in the spiritual and immaterial universe, and also in the material and physical universe, in this world of time and sense, as we call it, I do not see how it is possible to dispute our author's conclusions, taken as a whole.
The translation of Vol. 1. is by myself as far as the end of the 6th chapter. From the 27th verse of 6th chapter to the end, I have translated practically without any abridgment or omission, and also with greater literalness than I sometimes do, on account of the surpassing importance of the doctrine treated of, and the controversies resulting from it. Chapters vii.-x. are by the Rev. James Bliss, Rector of Manningford Bruce. For the last chapter, the 11th, I am indebted to the Rev. S. J. Eales, M.A., D.C.L., lately Principal of S. Boniface's College, Warminster, and now Principal of the Grove College, Addlestone, Surrey.
In Volume II. the Translation of chap. xiii. is by a young scholar, Mr. Macpherson. The remainder of the Gospel is by my most kind friend, Mr. Bliss, and myself.
Of S. John's Epistles, the first three chapters of the First Epistle are by Mr. Bliss, the remaining two chapters, and the Second and Third Epistles, are by myself.
T. W. Mossman.
S. JOHN the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and Salome, wrote this Gospel in Asia in the Greek language, towards the end of his life, after his return from Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse.
His reasons for writing were two. The first was that he might confute the heretics Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man. The second was to supply the omissions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Hence S. John records at length what Christ did during the first year of His ministry, which the other three had for the most part passed over.
Listen to S. Jerome in his preface to S. Matthew. "Last was John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved the best, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and drank of the purest streams of His doctrines. When he was in Asia, at a time when the seeds of the heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, those whom in his Epistle he calls Antichrists, and whom the Apostle Paul frequently refutes, he was constrained by well nigh all the bishops who were at that time in Asia, and by the deputies of many other Churches, to write of the deep things of the Divinity of our Saviour, and to 'break through,' as it were, to the Word of God by a kind of happy temerity. Whence also we are told in ecclesiastical history that when he was urged by the brethren to write, he agreed to do so, on condition that they should all fast, and pray to God in common. When the fast was ended, being filled with the power of revelation, he burst forth with the preface coming straight from above, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. "
Others add that S. John's beginning to write was preceded by lightnings and thunderings, as though he had been another Moses, who thus received the Law of God (Exod. xix.)
Baronius shows that S. John wrote his Gospel in the year of Christ 99, or sixty-six years after the Ascension. This was the first year of the reign of Nerva, and the twenty-seventh after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
As then Isaiah surpassed all the rest of the Prophets in sublimity, so did John the other Evangelists. Last in time, he is first in dignity and perfection. Thus in the first chapter of Ezekiel he is compared to an eagle flying above all other birds. Thus his dignity and special excellence, as well as his consequent obscurity, may be considered under three heads.
First, his matter and scope. S. John alone of set purpose treats of the Divinity of Christ, of the origin, eternity, and generation of the Word, of the spiration of the Holy Spirit, of the unity of the Godhead, and of the Divine relations and attributes. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concerned with the actions of Christ's humanity. This is why the Fathers derive almost all their arguments against the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and such like heretics from S. John.
The second is the order of time. We know that the Church, like the dawning of the day, advanced by the succession of time to the perfect day of the knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Thus the sacred writers of the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists, write far more clearly concerning them than do Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. John was the last of all, and his Gospel was his last work. He composed it therefore as a sort of crown of all the sacred books.
The third is the author. S. John alone was counted worthy to win the laurels of all saints. For he is in very deed a theologian, or rather the prince of theologians. The same is an apostle, a prophet and an evangelist. The same is a priest, a bishop, a high priest, a virgin, and a martyr. That S. John always remained a virgin is asserted by all the ancient writers, expressly by Tertullian (Lib. de monogam.) and S. Jerome (Lib. 1 contra. Jovin.). To him therefore as a virgin Christ from His cross commended His Virgin Mother. For "blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God," as the Truth Itself declares.
The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, made known to this His most chaste and beloved friend, who reclined upon His breast, the hidden things and sacraments of the Divinity, which had been kept-secret from the foundation of the world. John hath declared the same to us, as a son of thunder, thundering and lightening the whole world with the Deity of the Word. As with a flaming thunderbolt "he hath given shine to the world;" and with the fire of love he hath inflamed it. Let that speech of Christ, His longest and His last, bear witness, which He made after supper (S. John xiii. &c.), which breathes of nothing but the ardour of Divine love.
See more to the same effect in S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom (Præm. in Joan.). Indeed, S. Chrysostom dares to say that S. John in his Gospel hath taught the angels the secrets of the Incarnate Word, such as before they knew not, and that therefore he is the Doctor of the cherubim and the seraphim. He proves this from the passage of S. Paul in Ephesians iii., "that there might be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places by the Church the multiform wisdom of God." "If," he says, "the principalities and powers, the cherubim and seraphim, have learned these things through the Church, it is very evident that the angels listen to him with the deepest attention. Not slight therefore is the honour which we gain in that the angels are our fellow-disciples in the things that they knew not.
JOHN has a style peculiar to himself, entirely different from that of the other Evangelists and sacred writers. For as an eagle at one time he raises himself above all, at another time he stoops down to the earth, as it were for his prey, that with the rusticity of his style he may capture the simple. At one time he is as wise as the cherubim, at another time he burns as do the seraphim. The reason is because John was most like Christ, and most dear to Him; and he in turn loved Christ supremely. Therefore at His Last Supper he reclined upon His breast. From this source, therefore, he sucked in, as it were, the mind, the wisdom, and the burning love of Christ. Wherefore, when thou readest and hearest John, think that thou readest and hearest Christ. For Christ hath transfused His own spirit and His own love into S. John.
2. Although John by the consent of all wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks, yet because he himself was a Hebrew, and from love of this primeval language, which was his native tongue, he abounds above the rest in Hebrew phrases and idioms. Hence to understand him we require a knowledge of two, or indeed of three languages Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Thus he Hebraizes in his frequent use of and for like as (sicut) as Solomon does in Proverbs, where he compares like with like by means of the conjunction and. And in such instances is a mark of similitude, and has the same meaning as like as (sicut). On the other hand, he Grecizes in his use of perchance (forsitan) for surely. In John viii. 19 the Greek particle άν expresses affirmation, not uncertainty. So also in viii. 43 ού δύνασθε, ye are not able, is put for ye are not willing. He likewise constantly duplicates the Hebrew Amen, when the other Evangelists only express it once. The reasons for this diversity are examined in chap. iii. 2.
3. John abounds more in the discourses and disputations of Christ with the Jews than in the things that were done by Him. Not that he relates all the discourses and disputations of Christ, but such as were of greater importance. Especially he gives a compendious account of those in which Christ proved that He was God as well as man.
4. In S. John Christ speaks sometimes as God, and sometimes as man. There is need therefore of a careful examination of contexts to distinguish one from the other.
5. When Christ says, as He often does in S. John, that He "does, or says nothing of Himself," or that "not He, but the Father, does, or says this, or that" there must be understood "originally" and "alone." As thus, "neither alone, nor as man perform I these things: nor yet as God am I the first originator of them; but it is God the Father, who together with His Divine essence communicates to Me omniscience and omnipotence, even the power of doing all things."
6. Although the Apostles and other saints wrought miracles, yet Christ in S. John's Gospel often proves that He is the Messiah and God by the miracles which were done by Him. This proof is a true and effectual one; first, because He Himself made direct use of it. For a miracle as the work of God, and the Voice of the prime Verity, is an infallible proof of that which it is brought forward to confirm. Second, because Christ wrought them by His own power and authority, which He could not have done unless He had been God of God. Thus then He did them that they might appear to proceed from Him as from God, the original source of miracles. For the saints do not work miracles by their own authority, but by the invocation of the name of God, or Christ. Let us add that the miracles which were done by Christ were foretold by Isaiah and the other prophets, that they m ight be indices and marks of the Messiah, as will appear in chap. xi. 4.
7. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record for the most part the acts of the last year, and the last but one of Christ's ministry, that is to say, what He did after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist. But S. John's Gospel for the most part gives an account of the two preceding years. This consideration will solve many seeming discrepancies between S. John and the other Evangelists. So S. Augustine in his preface.
8. There is frequently in S. John both great force as well as obscurity in the adverbs and conjunctions of causation, influence, connection, and so on, in such a manner that a single particle will often include and point out the entire meaning of a passage. Hence these particles must be most carefully examined and weighed, as I shall show in each place.
9. The particles that, wherefore, on account of which, and the like do not always signify the cause, or the end intended, but often only a consequence or result. This is especially the case if an event has been certainly foreseen, and therefore could not happen otherwise. This is plain from chap. xii. 38, 39, where it said, They believed not on Him, that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled: and shortly afterwards, Wherefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes. For the reason why the Jews would not believe in Christ was not the prediction of Isaiah foretelling that they would not believe (non credituros), but the hardness of heart and malice of the Jews, which as a sort of objective cause preceded Isaiah's prophecy. For Isaiah foretold that the Jews were not about to believe, because in truth they themselves through their own malice and obstinacy were not going to do so. So S. Chryostom and others.
10. By the Jews S. John sometimes means the rulers only, sometimes the people only. Thus he represents the Jews at one time as opposing, at another time as favouring Christ. For the people were His friends, the rulers were His adversaries.
11. By a H e braism the present tense often signifies not an action issuing in a result, but a force, o r power of nature, or the act (in the sense of will or intention, Trans.) of the agent, even in cases where the effect is opposed by the subject, or in some other way. Thus in i. 9 it is said that Christ by His advent gave light to the world. That means, so far as He was concerned. For many, like the Jews, refused to receive this light, as he immediately adds, and continued in the darkness of their unbelief.
12. The particles as if, so as, and the like, because they correspond to the Hebrew caph, do not always signify likeness, but the truth of a fact, or assertion. Thus in i. 14, we have seen His glory, as of the Only Begotten, means, "we have seen the glory of the Only Begotten to be truly such, and so great as became Him who was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God the Father." So S. Chrysostom and others.
13. John, following the Hebrew idiom, sometimes takes words of inceptive action to signify the beginning of something that is done; but sometimes to signify continuation, that a work is in progress; and sometimes, that a work has been perfected and accomplished. Thus we must not be surprised, if sometimes that which increases, or is being perfected, is spoken of as if it were just commencing, and vice versa. An example of inceptive action is to be found in xvi. 6, where Peter, resisting Christ desiring to wash his feet, says, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet ? Dost Thou wash ? that is, "Dost Thou wish, prepare, begin to wash?" There is an example of continued action in ii. 11, where, after the miracle of the conversion of water into wine, it is added, And His disciples believed in Him: that is, they went on believing, they increased, and were confirmed in faith. For they had already before this believed in Christ, for if they had not believed in Him, they would not have followed Him as His disciples. There is an example of a perfected action in xi 15, where Christ, when about, at the close of His life, to raise up Lazarus, said, I am glad for your sakes, that ye may believe. That is, " that by means of this My last and greatest miracle ye may be altogether made perfect in your belief in Me." Again, in xx. 17, Jesus appearing after His resurrection to Mary Magdalene, who had fallen at His feet, said, Touch Me not. That is, "Do not delay, and waste time in touching My feet, but go quickly, and tell the Apostles, who are very sorrowful because of My death, that I have risen again."
14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in i. 20, when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. And in i. 3, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
15. John delights in calling Christ the Life, and the Light, for reasons which I will give hereafter. He has several other similar and peculiar expressions. For instance, he often uses the word judgment for condemnation which takes place in judgement. In other places he uses judgment for the secret judgments and decrees of God, because they are just. Sins he calls darkness. The saints he calls sons of light. That which is true and just he calls the truth. In vi. 27, for procure food, or labour for food he has ε̉ζγάεσθα βζω̃σιν. In the 9th chap., when Jesus is asked by the Jews, Who art Thou? He answers, The Beginning, who also am speaking unto you.
16. John relates that Christ said previously certain things, the when and the where of His saying which He had not previously mentioned. For studying brevity, he considered it sufficient to relate them once. Thus in the 11th chap. he says that Martha said to her sister Mary, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. Yet he had not previously related that Christ bade Martha to call Magdalene; for his mentioning that Martha, by Christ's command, called her sister was sufficient to show that Christ had so commanded. In the same chapter Christ saith to Martha, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou wouldest see the glory of God? Yet there is no previous account of Christ saying this. Also in vi. 36, Christ says, But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me and believe not. Yet we nowhere recall that Christ previously so said.
17. The miracles of Christ which John alone records are as follows:- The conversion of water into wine, chap. ii. The first expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, in the same chapter. The healing of the sick child of the nobleman, iv. 47. The healing of the paralytic at the pool in the sheep-market, chap. v. Giving sight to the man born blind, chap. ix. Raising Lazarus from the dead, chap. xi. The falling of Judas and the servants to the earth, when they came to take Jesus, xviii. 6. The flow of blood and water from the side of Christ after He was dead, xix. 34. The multiplication of the fishes, xxi. 6.
Very many persons have written commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, and among them the principal Greek and Latin Fathers. Among the Greeks, after Origen, who composed thirty-two tomes, or books, upon this Gospel, were S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who has written a learned and very excellent commentary. He has written a didactic work, and is especially able and skilful in expounding the literal sense. S. Cyril's commentary on S. John's Gospel consisted originally of twelve books. But of these the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth have perished. Their loss has been supplied, by Clictovæus, a doctor of Paris, whose work has been mistaken by many learned men for the original of S. Cyril.
A second commentator is S. Chrysostom, who seems to have been imbued with the very spirit of S. John himself. He wrote eighty seven homilies on this Gospel.
A third is Theophylact, and a fourth Euthymius. They, as is usual with them, follow S. Chrysostom. Theophylact is the more diffuse of the two.
A fifth commentator is Nonnus Panopolitanus, an Egyptian, and a very eloquent writer, who, as Suidas says, explained the virgin theologian, that is, John the Evangelist, in heroic verses. Although the commentary of Nonnus can properly only be called a paraphrase, nevertheless in many places he points out and illustrates the meaning of the Evangelist in pithy sentences.
Among the Latins the first and chief commentator is S. Augustine, who has written systematically upon the whole Gospel in one hundred and twenty-four tractates.
The second is Venerable Bede, who follows S. Augustine passim, and often word for word.
A third commentary is what is called the Gloss. Where observe that the Gloss is tripartite. The first is the Interlinear Gloss, so called because written between the lines of the sacred text. For that reason it is brief, but pithy, and treats many things in the Gospel learnedly and usefully. The second is the Marginal Gloss, because written on the margin of the text. To this is subjoined the Gloss of Nicolas Lyra. This Nicolas was called Lyra from a village in Normandy. He was a Jew by birth, and was converted to Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order, and taught scholastic theology, A.D. 1320. He was a learned man, and skilled in Hebrew. He wrote his Gloss upon S. John and the other sacred writers, expounding them literally, and became so celebrated that it has passed into a proverb "If Lyra's hand had erst not swept his lyre,
Our theologians had not danced in choir."
However, we must keep this in mind, that he is too credulous with regard to Jewish fables and puerilities, giving too much heed to writers of his own nation, to the Rabbin, and especially to R. Salomon, who is a great retailer of fables.
In later ages, and especially in our own day, many commentaries have been written upon this Gospel. Pre-eminent among them are Maldonatus, of the Society of Jesus, who is copious, acute, elegant, and learned: Cornelius Jansen, who is exact, solid, and to be depended upon: Frank Toletus, who displays a sound judgment, especially in the application of metaphors and similitudes. Sebastian Barradi has written a good literal commentary, mingling with it moral reflections. He is useful to preachers in affording materials for sermons, and showing how to treat them. Frank Ribera is brief, but as usual excellent and learned. Frank Lucas is entirely literal, but he uses the letter to draw the reader to pious affections.
Among the heretics, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, Brentius, Calvin, and Beza have written upon S. John's Gospel. Of all these authors Augustinus Marloratus has made a catena, which I read through and refuted when I was in Belgium.
St Thomas Aquinas
Vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, et plena erat omnis terra maiestate eius, et ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum. Is. VI, 1. Verba proposita sunt contemplantis, et si capiantur quasi ex ore Ioannis Evangelistae prolata, satis pertinent ad declarationem huius Evangelii. Ut enim dicit Augustinus in libro de consensu Evangelist., caeteri Evangelistae informant nos in eorum Evangeliis quantum ad vitam activam; sed Ioannes in suo Evangelio informat nos etiam quantum ad vitam contemplativam. In verbis autem propositis describitur contemplatio Ioannis tripliciter, secundum quod dominum Iesum est tripliciter contemplatus. Describitur autem alta, ampla et perfecta. Alta quidem, quia vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; ampla quidem, quia plena est omnis terra maiestate eius; perfecta, quia ea quae sub ipso erant replebant templum. Circa primum sciendum quod altitudo et sublimitas contemplationis consistit maxime in contemplatione et cognitione Dei; Is. XL, 26: levate in excelso oculos vestros, et videte quis fecit haec. Tunc ergo homo oculos contemplationis in excelso elevat, quando videt et contemplatur ipsum rerum omnium creatorem. Quia ergo Ioannes transcendit quicquid creatum est, scilicet ipsos montes, ipsos caelos, ipsos Angelos, et pervenit ad ipsum creatorem omnium, ut dicit Augustinus, manifestum est, quod contemplatio sua altissima fuit; et ideo vidi dominum. Et quia, sicut ipse Ioannes dicit: haec dixit Isaias quando vidit gloriam eius, scilicet Christi, et locutus est de eo, ideo dominus sedens super solium excelsum et elevatum, Christus est. In hac autem contemplatione Ioannis circa verbum incarnatum quadruplex altitudo designatur. Auctoritatis, unde dicit vidi dominum, aeternitatis, cum dicit sedentem, dignitatis, seu nobilitatis naturae, unde dicit super solium excelsum, et incomprehensibilis veritatis, cum dicit et elevatum. Istis enim quatuor modis antiqui philosophi ad Dei cognitionem pervenerunt. Quidam enim per auctoritatem Dei in ipsius cognitionem pervenerunt; et haec est via efficacissima. Videmus enim ea quae sunt in rebus naturalibus, propter finem agere, et consequi utiles et certos fines; et cum intellectu careant, se ipsa dirigere non possunt, nisi ab aliquo dirigente per intellectum dirigantur et moveantur. Et hinc est quod ipse motus rerum naturalium in finem certum, indicat esse aliquid altius, quo naturales res diriguntur in finem et gubernantur. Et ideo cum totus cursus naturae ordinate in finem procedat et dirigatur, de necessitate oportet nos ponere aliquid altius, quod dirigat ista et sicut dominus gubernet: et hic est Deus. Et haec gubernandi auctoritas in verbo Dei demonstratur, cum dicit dominum; unde in Ps. LXXXVIII, 10 dicitur: tu dominaris potestati maris; motum autem fluctuum eius tu mitigas; quasi dicat: tu es dominus et universa gubernas. Hanc cognitionem manifestat Ioannes se habere de verbo, cum dicit: in propria venit, scilicet in mundum; quia totus mundus est suus proprius. Alii vero venerunt in cognitionem Dei ex eius aeternitate. Viderunt enim quod quicquid est in rebus, est mutabile; et quanto aliquid est nobilius in gradibus rerum, tanto minus habet de mutabilitate: puta, inferiora corpora sunt secundum substantiam et secundum locum mutabilia; corpora vero caelestia, quae nobiliora sunt, secundum substantiam immutabilia sunt; secundum autem locum tantum moventur. Secundum hoc ergo evidenter colligi potest, quod primum principium omnium rerum, et supremum et nobilius, sit immobile et aeternum. Et hanc aeternitatem verbi propheta insinuat, cum dicit sedentem, idest absque omni mutabilitate et aeternitate praesidentem; Ps. c. XLIV, 7: sedes tua, Deus, in saeculum saeculi; Hebr. ult., 8: Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula. Hanc aeternitatem Ioannes ostendit dicens: in principio erat verbum. Quidam autem venerunt in cognitionem Dei ex dignitate ipsius Dei: et isti fuerunt Platonici. Consideraverunt enim quod omne illud quod est secundum participationem, reducitur ad aliquid quod sit illud per suam essentiam, sicut ad primum et ad summum; sicut omnia ignita per participationem reducuntur ad ignem, qui est per essentiam suam talis. Cum ergo omnia quae sunt, participent esse, et sint per participationem entia, necesse est esse aliquid in cacumine omnium rerum, quod sit ipsum esse per suam essentiam, idest quod sua essentia sit suum esse: et hoc est Deus, qui est sufficientissima, et dignissima, et perfectissima causa totius esse, a quo omnia quae sunt, participant esse. Et huius dignitas ostenditur, cum dicitur super solium excelsum, quod, secundum Dionysium, ad divinam naturam refertur; Ps. CXII, 4: excelsus super omnes gentes dominus. Hanc dignitatem ostendit nobis Ioannes, cum dicit: et Deus erat verbum, quasi: verbum erat Deus, ut ly verbum ponatur ex parte suppositi, et Deus ex parte appositi. Quidam autem venerunt in cognitionem Dei ex incomprehensibilitate veritatis. Omnis enim veritas quam intellectus noster capere potest, finita est; quia secundum Augustinum, omne quod scitur, scientis comprehensione finitur, et si finitur, est determinatum et particularizatum; et ideo necesse est primam et summam veritatem, quae superat omnem intellectum, incomprehensibilem et infinitam esse: et hoc est Deus. Unde in Ps. VIII, 2 dicitur: elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos, idest super omnem intellectum creatum, angelicum et humanum. Et hoc ideo, quia, ut dicit apostolus, lucem habitat inaccessibilem, I Tim. ult. 16. Huius autem incomprehensibilitas veritatis ostenditur nobis, cum dicit et elevatum, scilicet super omnem cognitionem intellectus creati. Et hanc incomprehensibilitatem insinuat nobis Ioannes, cum dicit: Deum nemo vidit unquam. Sic ergo contemplatio Ioannis alta fuit et quantum ad auctoritatem, et quantum ad aeternitatem, et quantum ad dignitatem, et quantum ad verbi incomprehensibilitatem, quam nobis in suo Evangelio tradidit Ioannes. Fuit etiam ampla. Tunc enim contemplatio ampla est, quando in causa potest aliquis considerare omnes effectus ipsius causae; quando scilicet non solum essentiam causae, sed etiam virtutem eius, secundum quam se ad multa diffundit, cognoscit. De qua diffusione dicitur Eccli. XXV, 35: qui implet quasi Phison sapientiam, et quasi tigris in diebus novorum; Ps. LXIV, 10: flumen Dei repletum est aquis, quia divina sapientia altitudinem habet quantum ad cognitionem omnium rerum; Sap. IX, 9: ab initio est tecum sapientia quae novit opera tua. Quia ergo Ioannes Evangelista elevatus in contemplationem naturae divini verbi et essentiae est, cum dicit: in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, statim virtutem ipsius verbi secundum quod diffundit se ad omnia, nobis insinuat, cum dicit: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ideo contemplatio sua ampla fuit. Et ideo in auctoritate praemissa, postquam dixerat propheta vidi dominum sedentem, subiungit de virtute eius et plena erat omnis terra maiestate eius, idest tota plenitudo rerum et universi est a maiestate eius, et virtute Dei, per quem omnia facta sunt, et cuius lumine omnes homines venientes in hunc mundum illuminantur; Ps. XXIII, 1: domini est terra, et plenitudo eius. Fuit etiam contemplatio eius perfecta. Tunc enim contemplatio perfecta est, quando contemplans perducitur et elevatur ad altitudinem rei contemplatae: si enim remaneret in infimis, quantumcumque alta ipse contemplaretur, non esset contemplatio perfecta. Ad hoc ergo quod sit perfecta, oportet quod ascendat et consequatur ipsum finem rei contemplatae, inhaerendo et assentiendo per affectum et intellectum veritati contemplatae. Iob XXXVII, 16: numquid nosti semitas nubium, idest contemplationes praedicantium, quod perfectae sint? Inquantum firmiter per affectum et intellectum inhaerent summae veritati contemplatae. Quia ergo Ioannes non solum docuit quomodo Christus Iesus, verbum Dei, est Deus super omnia elevatus et quomodo omnia per ipsum facta sunt, sed etiam quod per ipsum sanctificamur, et ei per gratiam quam nobis infundit, inhaeremus, dicit: de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus gratiam pro gratia. Ideo apparet, quod sua contemplatio perfecta fuit. Et haec perfectio ostenditur, cum subdit et ea quae sub ipso erat, replebant templum. Nam, sicut dicitur I Cor. c. XI, 3, caput Christi Deus. Quae ergo sub Christo sunt, sacramenta sunt humanitatis, per quae fideles replentur plenitudine gratiae. Sic ergo ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum, idest fideles qui sunt templum Dei sanctum, sicut dicitur I Cor. III, 17 inquantum per ipsius sacramenta humanitatis, fideles Christi omnes de plenitudine gratiae ipsius accipiunt. Fuit ergo Ioannis contemplatio ampla, alta et perfecta. Sed notandum quod diversimode diversae scientiae istos tres modos contemplationis sortiuntur. Perfectionem namque contemplationis habet scientia moralis, quae est de ultimo fine; plenitudinem autem scientia naturalis, quae res a Deo procedentes considerat; altitudinem vero contemplationis inter scientias physicas habet metaphysica. Sed Evangelium Ioannis, quod divisim scientiae praedictae habent, totum simul continet, et ideo est perfectissimum. Sic ergo ex praemissis colligitur materia huius Evangelii; quia cum Evangelistae alii tractent principaliter mysteria humanitatis Christi, Ioannes specialiter et praecipue divinitatem Christi in Evangelio suo insinuat, ut supra dictum est: nec tamen praetermisit mysteria humanitatis; quod ideo factum est, quia postquam alii Evangelistae sua Evangelia scripserunt, insurrexerunt haereses circa divinitatem Christi, quae erant quod Christus erat purus homo, sicut Ebion et Cerinthus falso opinabantur. Et ideo Ioannes Evangelista, qui veritatem divinitatis verbi ab ipso fonte divini pectoris hauserat, ad preces fidelium, Evangelium istud scripsit, in quo doctrinam de Christi divinitate nobis tradidit, et omnes haereses confutavit. Patet ergo ordo istius Evangelii ex verbis praemissis. Primo enim insinuat nobis dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, in prima parte, cum dicit: in principio erat verbum. In secunda vero parte insinuat quomodo omnis terra plena est maiestate eius, cum dicit: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. In tertia parte manifestat quomodo ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum cum ipse dicit: verbum caro factum est. Patet etiam finis huius Evangelii, qui est ut fideles templum Dei efficiantur, et repleantur a maiestate Dei; unde et ipse Ioannes XX, 31: haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quia Iesus est Christus filius Dei. Patet etiam materia huius Evangelii, quae est cognitio divinitas verbi. Patet ordo, patet et finis. Sequitur conditio auctoris, qui quidem describitur in praemissis quantum ad quatuor: quantum ad nomen, quantum ad virtutem, quantum ad figuram, et quantum ad privilegium. Quantum ad nomen, quia Ioannes, qui huius Evangelii auctor fuit, Ioannes autem interpretatur in quo est gratia, quia secreta divinitatis videre non possunt nisi qui gratiam Dei in se habent; unde I Cor. II, 11 dicitur: quae sunt Dei nemo cognovit, nisi spiritus Dei. Ioannes ergo vidit dominum sedentem, quantum ad virtutem, quia fuit virgo: talibus enim competit videre dominum; Matth. c. V, 8: beati mundo corde. Quantum ad figuram, quia Ioannes figuratur per aquilam. Et hoc quia cum alii tres Evangelistae circa ea quae Christus in carne est operatus, occupati, designentur per animalia, quae gradiuntur in terra, scilicet per hominem, vitulum et leonem; Ioannes vero, supra nebulam infirmitatis humanae sicut aquila volans, lucem incommutabilis veritatis altissimis atque firmissimis oculis cordis intuetur, atque ipsam deitatem domini nostri Iesu Christi, qua patri aequalis est, intendens, eam in suo Evangelio, quantum inter omnes sufficere credidit, studuit praecipue commendare. Et de hoc volatu Ioannis dicitur Iob c. XXXIX, 27: numquid ad praeceptum tuum elevabitur aquila? Idest Ioannes; et infra: oculi eius de longe prospiciunt, quia scilicet ipsum verbum Dei in sinu patris oculo mentis intuetur. Quantum ad privilegium, quia inter caeteros discipulos domini Ioannes magis fuit dilectus a Christo: iste est enim discipulus ille quem diligebat Iesus, sicut ipsemet non exprimens nomen suum dixit; et ideo, quia amicis revelantur secreta, ut dicitur ibid. XV, 15: vos autem dixi amicos, quia omnia quaecumque audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis, secreta sua huic discipulo specialiter dilecto specialiter commendavit. Unde Iob XXXVI, 32 dicitur: immanibus, idest superbis, abscondit lucem, Christus scilicet divinitatis suae veritatem, et annuntiat de ea amico suo, scilicet Ioanni, quod possessio eius sit etc., quia ipse est, qui lucem verbi incarnati excellentius videns, ipsam nobis insinuat, dicens: erat lux vera et cetera. Patet ergo materia, ordo, finis et auctor huius Evangelii beati Ioannis, quod prae manibus habemus.
In quo duo intendit Hieronymus exprimere, scilicet auctorem Evangelii, et ostendere quod ei scribere hoc Evangelium competebat. Dividitur ergo in duas partes. Primo ergo describit Ioannem quantum ad vitam; secundo quantum ad mortem, ibi hic est Ioannes. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit auctorem operis, quantum ad dona in vita sibi collata; secundo ex illis ostendit idoneitatem ad Evangelium conscribendum, ibi denique manifestans in Evangelio. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit praeconia auctoris; secundo probat, ibi cui virginitatis in hoc duplex testimonium datur in Evangelio. Describit enim auctorem quantum ad nomen, dicens hic est Ioannes, in quo gratia; I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Secundo quantum ad officium, cum dicit Evangelista; Is. XLI, 27: primus ad Sion dicet: ecce adsum, et Ierusalem Evangelistam dabo. Tertio quantum ad dignitatem, cum dicit ex discipulis domini; Is. LIV, 13: ponam universos filios tuos doctos a domino. Quarto quantum ad castitatis virtutem, cum dicit qui virgo. Quinto ab electione est electus a domino; infra XV, 16: non vos me elegistis. Sexto a modo vocationis, cum dicit, quod de nuptis vocavit, ab illis scilicet nuptiis ad quas est invitatus Iesus cum discipulis suis, ubi mutavit aquam in vinum. Sed contra est, quod dicitur Matth. c. VI, 21, quod vocatus est cum Iacobo fratre suo de navi, non autem de nuptiis. Ad quod dicendum est quod diversae fuerunt vocationes apostolorum. Primo enim vocati fuerunt ad familiaritatem Christi, sed ultimo vocati ad discipulatum, quando scilicet relictis omnibus, secuti sunt Iesum. Quod ergo Hieronymus dicit, intelligendum est de prima vocatione, qua Ioannes ad familiaritatem Christi de nuptiis est vocatus; quod vero Matthaeus dicit, intelligendum est de ultima vocatione, qua de navi vocavit cum Iacobo fratre suo, quando scilicet relictis omnibus, secutus est Christum.
Continue reading 4 paragraphs
Consequenter cum dicit cui virginitatis in hoc duplex testimonium datur, probat praeconium virginitatis Ioannis duplici signo. Primo, signo maioris dilectionis. Et quantum ad hoc dicit cui, scilicet Ioanni, in hoc, scilicet Evangelio, duplex testimonium virginitatis datur in Evangelio, idest ex verbis Evangelii, sive quae continentur in Evangelio, quod et prae caeteris discipulis a Deo dilectus dicitur; infra XXI, 24: hic est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his et scripsit haec. Causa autem huius specialis dilectionis fuit munditia, quae ad dilectionem provocat, ut dicitur Prov. XXII, 11: qui diligit cordis munditiam propter gratiam labiorum, habebit amicum regem. Secundo probat idem signo commendationis matris, cum dicit: et huic, scilicet Ioanni, dominus, scilicet in cruce pendens, matrem commendavit, ut dicitur Io. XIX, 27, ut virgo, scilicet Ioannes, virginem matrem congrue servaret.
Deinde cum dicit denique manifestans in Evangelio, etc. ostendit quod Ioanni competebat Evangelium scribere; et hoc quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad principium Evangelii, quod incipit a verbo incorruptibili, de quo non nisi incorruptum tractare oportuit. Et quantum ad hoc dicit denique manifestans, scilicet Ioannes, in Evangelio, quod ipse erat incorruptibilis verbi opus inchoans, solus verbum carnem factum esse, nec lumen a tenebris comprehensum fuisse testatur. Secundum quantum ad miraculorum exordium. Incipit enim miraculorum ordinem texere a miraculo quod Deus in nuptiis ostendit, quando scilicet aquam mutavit in vinum, ut patet Io. II, 1-11, in quibus vinum nuptiarum defecit, vino novo, scilicet virginitatis, restituto. Et quantum ad hoc dicit primum signum, id est miraculum, quod in nuptiis facit dominus, ponens, scilicet in principio aliorum miraculorum, ostendens quod ipse erat, scilicet virgo, ut legentibus demonstraret quod ubi dominus invitatus sit, deficere vinum nuptiarum, idest coniugii delectatio, debeat; et veteribus immutatis, idest antiqua aqua in novum vinum, nova omnia quae a Christo instituuntur, appareant; quia scilicet homines conversi ad Christum, debent exuere veterem et induere novum hominem, ut dicitur Col. c. III, 10, et Apoc. XXI, 5: dicit qui sedebat in throno: ecce nova facio omnia. Sed contra. Videtur per hoc quod dicit, quod ubi dominus invitatus est debeat deficere vinum nuptiarum, quod quicumque Deum amat, et diligit, debet cessare a coniugio: non ergo licet uxorem ducere. Respondeo dicendum quod homo invitatur a Deo dupliciter: quantum ad communem gratiam et sic non est necesse deficere vinum nuptiarum; et quantum ad speciale contemplationis fastigium: et sic oportet deficere vinum nuptiarum. Cuius rationem apostolus assignat I Cor. VII, 34: quia mulier, quae nupta est, cogitat quomodo placeat viro, et ideo oportet quod ab actu contemplationis impediatur, quae autem nupta non est, cogitat quomodo placeat Christo. Vel dicendum quod diligentibus Deum, et habentibus ipsum per gratiam, deficere debet vinum nuptiarum ab effectu vini, ut scilicet non inebrientur delectatione carnali, quae tanta posset esse, et cum tanta libidine exerceri, quod etiam in coniugatis esset peccatum mortale. Tertio quantum ad ordinem descriptionis libri. Nam post omnes alios libros sacrae Scripturae, hoc Evangelium est scriptum. Cum enim canonica Scriptura incipiat a libro Genesis et terminetur in Apocalypsim, Evangelium istud conscriptum fuit postquam Ioannes revocatus est a Pathmos insula Asiae, ubi ad preces episcoporum Asiae hoc scripsit Evangelium. Non tamen ordinatur ultimo, licet ultimo scripserit. Ex quo congruentia scribendi Evangelium ostenditur ut cui in principio canonis, idest sacrae Scripturae, ubi dicitur: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, incorruptibile principium praenotatur in Genesi ei etiam incorruptibilis finis per virginem in Apocalypsi redderetur, quantum ad ordinem librorum, non quantum ad ordinem Scripturae.
Deinde cum dicit et hic est Ioannes, describitur auctorem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit praeconia suae laudis quantum ad mortem; secundo concludit ex his congruentiam ordinis huius Evangelii, ibi tamen post omnes Evangelium scripsit. Privilegium autem mortis admirabile et speciale est, quia nullum dolorem sensit in morte; et hoc Deo faciente, ut qui a corruptione carnis extitit penitus alienus, esset a dolore mortis extraneus.
Congruentiam auctoris ad fidem ostendit, dicens tamen post omnes Evangelium scripsit. In libris sacrae Scripturae duplex ordo consideratur, unus scilicet temporis quo scripti fuerunt, et alius dispositionis, quo in Biblia ordinantur.
Calmet
SAINT JEAN l’Evangéliste, natif de Betzaïde de Galilée, étoit fils de Zébédée, & de Salomé. Son métier étoit la pêche. Quelques-uns ont cru qu’il avoit été Disciple de saint Jean-Baptiste, avant qu’il suivît JESUS-CHRIST: mais ce fait n’est pas certain. Le Sauveur donna à Jean, & à Jacques le Majeur son frère, le surnom de Boanerges, ou Fils du tonnerre, à cause apparemment de la vivacité de leur zéle, & parce qu’ils lui demanderent un jour la permission de faire tomber le feu du Ciel, sur une ville des Samaritains, qui ne les avoit pas voulu recevoir. On croit que saint Jean fut appelé à l’Apostolat plus jeune qu’aucun des autres Apôtres, n’ayant qu’environ vingt-cinq, ou vingt-six ans. Les Peres enseignent qu’il vécut toujours vierge. Le Sauveur eut pour lui une tendresse particuliere; & il lui en donna des marques sensibles un moment avant que d’expirer sur la Croix, en lui confiant la Vierge sa Mere. C’est le seul des Apôtres qui ne quitta point son divin Maître dans sa passion, & jusqu’à sa mort. On assure qu’il prêcha l’Evangile aux Parthes, & qu’il fonda, ou gouverna la plûpart des Eglifes de l’Asie Mineure. Il demeura assez long-tems à Ephése, où l’on veut que la sainte Vierge, & Marie Madeleine l’ayent suivi. Sous l’empire de Domitien, il fut conduit à Rome, & plongé dans une chaudiere d’huile bouillante, d’où il sortit plus faîn qu’il n’étoit entré. Ensuite il fut relégué dans l’Isle de Patmos, où il écrivit son Apocalypse, &, selon quelques-uns, son Evangile. De-là il revint à Ephése, où il mourut.
On convient qu’il écrivit son Evangile étant fort âgé : mais on n’est pas d’accord ni sur l’année précise, ni sur le lieu où il le composa. Plusieurs ont dit que ce fut à Ephése, après son retour de l’exil de Patmos. D’autres soutiennent que ce fut à Patmos même. Cette Isle est une des Sporades dans la mer Egée. Plusieurs Manuscrits Grecs portent qu’il l’écrivit trente-deux ans après l’Ascension du Sauveur; d’autres lisent trente; & d’autres, trente-un. Les uns en fixent l’époque sous l’empire de Domitien; les autres, sous celui de Trajan. Nos Chronologistes ne conviennent pas entre eux sur ces dates: mais la plûpart croyent que l’Evangile fut écrit après le retour de saint Jean de l’exil de Patmos, vers l’an quatre-vingt-dix-huit de JESUS-CHRIST, la premiere année de Trajan, soixante-cinq ans après l’Ascension de notre Sauveur, saint Jean ayant alors environ quatre-vingt-quinze ans.
Continue reading 16 paragraphs
Les Anciens nous apprennent que le principal motif qui l’obligea à écrire l’Evangile, furent les hérésies naissantes de Cérinthe, & d’Ebion, qui nioient la Divinité du Verbe. Il y a beaucoup d’apparence qu’il en vouloit aussi aux Juifs incrédules, & aux PhiIosophes Platoniciens, & Stoïciens. Il renverse leurs principes, & leurs erreurs dans tout son Evangile ; & principalement dans son premier Chapitre, qui est un précis de tout ce qu’il y a de plus rélevé dans la Religion Chrétiennne.
Quelque répugnance qu’il se sentît à écrire, il s’y résolut toutesfois, ne pouvant résister aux instances de ses Disciples, des Evêques, & des Eglifes, qui l’en conjuroient ; ni à l’inspiration de l’Esprit saint, qui l’y portoit. Il ne le fit toutesfois qu’après avoir lu, examiné, loué, & approuvé les Evangiles des trois autres Evangélistes, & dans le dessein de suppléer ce qu’ils pouvoient avoir omis, principalement en ce qui regardoit la doctrine du Sauveur, & les mystéres de son Incarnation, & de sa Divinité ; car les autres s’étoient plutôt appliqués à nous donner le détail des miracles du Sauveur, qu’à nous découvrir ces secrets, dont peut-être les peuples ne se trouvoient pas encore assez capables, lorsqu’ils commencèrent à écrire.
Quoi qu’il en soit, il ne se mit à écrire qu’après un jeûne, & des prieres publiques. Il prononça les premieres paroles de son Evangile au fort d’une profonde méditation ; & il y en a même qui disent que ces premieres mots furent accompagnés d’éclats de tonnerre. Ce qui pourroit bien être pris de l’expression de quelques Peres, qui faisant allusion au nom de Boanergès, ou Fils du tonnerre, que le Sauveur donna à saint Jean, disent qu’il a principalement vérifié cette dénomination, dans le commencement de son Evangile, qui est comme un tonnerre qui vient d’une nuée extrêmement haute, mais qui est accompagné d’une lumière pleine de sérénité, par le moyen de laquelle saint Jean découvrit ce qui étoit caché dans le sein du Pere. Saint Grégoire de Tours dit que de son tems on voyoit encore sur le sommet d’une montagne voisine d’Ephèse, le lieu où l’on tenoit par tradition que saint Jean avoit écrit son Evangile. C’étoit un endroit découvert entre quatre murailles ; & l’on assuroit qu’il n’étoit point tombé de pluye tout le tems qu’il avoit occupé à écrire son Evangile, & qu’il n’y en tomboit point encore.
Quelques Anciens ont cru que pour l’écrire il s’étoit servi de la plume de Caïus, qui avoit été Disciple de saint Paul; & c’est peut-être ce même Caïus à qui saint Jean envoya sa troisième Epître. D’autres ont dit qu’il avoit adressé son Evangile à Papias Evêque d’Hiéraple, son Disciple, pour lui servir de supplément, & d’explication à ce qu’il lui avoit enseigné de vive voix. Ce qui est certain, est que le style de l’Evangile dont nous parlons, & des trois Epîtres de saint Jean, est le même. On y voit non seulement le tour & le caractère d’esprit de saint Jean, mais aussi la même Doctrine, les mêmes maximes, & jusqu’aux mêmes termes. Il y a quelque diversité de sentiment sur le style de l’Apocalypse, que l’on examinera ailleurs.
Saint Denys d’Alexandrie trouvoit dans l’Evangile de saint Jean de l’élégance, & de l’exactitude de langage, qui consistoit non-seulement dans le choix, & l’arrangement des termes, mais aussi dans le raisonnement, & dans la construction. On n’y trouve, dit ce Saint, rien de barbare, & d’impropre, ni même de bas, & de vulgaire: En forte qu’il semble que Dieu lui ait donné non-seulement le don de la lumiere, & des connoissances, mais aussi celui de bien exprimer ses conceptions.
Nos Critiques ne conviennent pas tout-à-fait avec saint Denys d’Alexandrie en ce qui regarde l’éloquence, & les graces du discours qu’il croyoit voir dans saint Jean. On ne peut ôter à ce Saint la grandeur des choses, & la majesté de l’expression dans bien des endroits: mais il y en a d’autres où son style paroît simple, & bas. On y remarque des traits de la Langue Syriaque, ou Hebraïque; on y voit des repetitions & des tours de phrase, qui ne sentent pas la délicatesse de la Langue Grecque. Tout le monde fait que ce saint Evangéliste n’avoit point étudié les Lettres humaines, & qu’il n’avoit aucune teinture de l’éloquence, & de la Rhétorique artificielle; & cela ne lui fait point de tort. Ce petit défaut se trouve bien réparé par les lumières surnaturelles, par la profondeur des mystères, par l’excellence des choses, par la solidité des pensées & par l’importance des instructions. Le Saint Esprit qui l’a choisi, & animé, est au-dessus de la Philosophie, & de la Rhétorique. Il possède au souverain degré le talent de porter la lumiere dans l’esprit, & le feu dans le cœur. Il instruit, il convainc, il persuade sans l’aide de l’art, & de l’éloquence.
L’Evangile de saint Jean tout simple qu’il paroît dans son style, n’a pas laissé de mériter les éloges des plus grands hommes, & des plus éclairez. Si les Evangiles sont comme les prémices, & la partie la plus excellente des saintes Ecritures, dit Origènes, l’Evangile de saint Jean est lui-même les prémices des Evangiles, & de tout le nouveau Testament. Personne n’en peut dignement comprendre toute la profondeur, que celui qui comme ce saint Evangéliste, s’est reposé sur la poitrine du Sauveur ; c’est, dit le même Pere, le sceau qui confirme les autres Evangélistes, & la colonne sur laquelle Dieu a achevé d’affermir son Eglise. C’est avec raison que dans les Peres, cet Evangéliste est comparé à l’aigle, parce qu’il s’éleve jusqu’au trône de Dieu même. Il renferme autant de mystéres, que de sentences.
Un Platonicien disoit que ce qui est marqué de la grandeur du Verbe dans cet Evangile, méritoit d’être écrit en lettres d’or, & placé dans les lieux les plus éminens des Eglises. Un autre Platonicien nommé Amélius, qui vivoit au troisième siécle, disoit de saint Jean, que ce Barbare, en parlant du Verbe avoit dit que par lui toutes choses existoient, qu’il étoit éternel, le principe de toutes choses, Dieu lui-même, qu’en lui vivoit, & subsistoit, tout ce qui étoit dans l’univers, qu’il s’étoit incarné, sans cesser d’être Dieu, qu’il devoit retourner à Dieu, & tenir la même place qu’il occupoit avant qu’il fût descendu sur la terre. Enfin plusieurs autres Philosophes l’ont admiré, & n’ont pas eu honte d’inférer dans leurs écrits, les paroles de ce Pêcheur, & de ce Barbare, ainsi qu’ils l’appelloient, qui n’avoit jamais ni lû, ni étudié les sciences humaines.
Car ce qu’ont prétendu quelques nouveaux Auteurs, qu’il avoit puisé dans Platon, ou dans Philon le Juif, ce qu’il a dit du Verbe, est une prétention chimérique, & sans fondement. Il a pû apprendre de vivre voix par ses disciples, ou par les Philosophes eux-mêmes quelque chose en général du Verbe, & du principe dont parle Platon, & il y a même beaucoup d’apparence qu’il les avoit principalement en vûe dans ce qu’il dit au commencement de son Evangile. Mais c’étoit pour les réfuter ; & dans son Evangile, le Verbe dont il parle, est fort différent de celui des Platoniciens, & de Philon, comme on l’a montré dans le Commentaire sur le premier
Chapitre. Il est aisé à quiconque a du goût, & du discernement en matière de style, & de Philosophie, de reconnoître que saint Jean n’avoit aucune teinture, ni de la Philosophie, ni de l’éloquence des Grecs, ni de celle de Platon en particulier.
Son Evangile se conservoit, dit-on, en original dans l’Eglise d’Ephèse encore au septiéme siècle, ou du moins au quatriéme, puisque saint Pierre d’Alexandrie cité dans la Chronique d’Alexandrie, l’assure expressément. Les Hébreux le traduisoient bien-tôt en Hébreu, c’est-à-dire, en Syriaque; & saint Epiphane raconte qu’ils le conservoient précieusement dans leur Bibliothèque secrete de Tibériade, sur la mer de Galilée.
L’Eglise a toujours reconnu l’Evangile de saint Jean pour authentique. Saint Epiphane donne le nom d’Alogi, ou ennemis du Verbe, à ceux qui en contestoient l’authenticité. Ces hérétiques l’attribuoient à Cérinthe: mais rien ne pouvoit être plus mal concerté que cette prétention; puisque par tout saint Jean détruit les erreurs de Cérinthe. D’ailleurs cet Evangile est cité par tous les anciens Peres, & attribué à saint Jean l’Apôtre. Il n’y a donc nulle apparence que Cérinthe en soit l’Auteur, ni que l’Eglise s’y soit méprise. Ajoutez ce que nous avons remarqué de l’Evangile, qu’on croyoit l’Original de cet Evangéliste, & qu’on conservoit encore à Ephèse sur la fin du troisiéme siècle. Enfin si Cérinthe est Auteur de cet Evangile, il faudra dire qu’il a aussi écrit l’Apocalypse & les Epîtres de saint Jean, puisque le style de ces trois Ouvrages est le même.
D’autres ont voulu contester la vérité de cet Evangile par le style, qui est différent de celui des autres Evangélistes, non-seulement dans les récits, ce qui ne prouveroit rien, mais dans les discours qu’ils font tenir au Sauveur. Est-il croyable que JESUS-CHRIST se seroit expliqué d’une façon si différente dans saint Matthieu par exemple, & dans saint Jean? Ici ses discours sont longs, chargés de répétitions, & de raisonnemens, donr on a souvent assez de peine de voir la suite & l’enchaînement: Là la manière de parler est concise, sentencieuse, claire, & presque toujours parabolique. Dans les autres Evangélistes, le Sauveur dit très-souvent: Amen dico vobis; dans saint Jean, il double l’Amen: Amen, amen dico vobis.
Mais ces raisons ne font d’aucune solidité. Les Ecrivains sacrez
SUR L’EVANGILE DE SAINT JEAN. conservent dans leurs Ecrits ; le style qui leur est propre. Ils parlent chacun dans le goût de leur pays, & de leur langue ; & lorsqu’ils rapportent les discours d’un autre, c’est d’ordinaire d’une manière, qui sans donner atteinte à la verité, est conforme au génie, & au style de celui qui parle. C’est ce qu’on expérimente tous les jours dans la conversation, & dans les livres. Le même récit est tout différent dans la bouche de deux personnes ; & toutes deux toutefois ne disent que la verité. Les Lettres du Sénat Romain, & celles des Rois de Lacédémone rapportées dans les Livres des Maccabées, sont tournées dans le goût des Hébreux, fort différent de celui des Romains, & des Grecs. Que l’on compare même les Evangélistes entre eux, dans les discours qu’ils font tenir au Sauveur, on y remarquera des différences pour le style, pour l’ordre, pour les termes. De plus saint Jean ayant entrepris son Ouvrage pour suppléer à ce que les autres Evangélistes n’avoient pas dit, il a dû rapporter les discours que ceux-là n’avoient pas rapportez ; & illes a rapportez comme ils avoient été prononcez. La nature des choses dont il parle, & qui avoient été omises par les autres Evangélistes, est encore une des causes de la diversité du style. Saint Jean a rapporté tout ce qu’il y a de plus sublime dans la Religion de JESUS-CHRIST. La plûpart des véritez qu’il nous débite, sont des véritez spécultives. Les autres Evangélistes se sont plus attachéz à la morale, aux miracles, aux véritez de pratique. Or le récit de ces fortes de choses demande un style tout différent.
Grotius a crû que le Chapitre dernier de saint Jean étoit ajouté, & que c’étoit l’ouvrage de l’Eglise d’Ephése, qui vouloit par-là faire connoître aux Fidéles le peu de fond qu’on devoit faire sur le bruit qui s’étoit répandu que saint Jean ne mourroit point. Les deux derniers versets du Chapitre xx. paroissent en effet une conclusion toute naturelle de cet Evangile : JESUS a fait un grand nombre d’autres miracles en présence de ses Disciples, qui ne sont pas écrits dans ce Livre. Or ceux-ci sont écrits, afin que vous croiiez que JESUS est le Christ Fils de Dieu, & que le croyant, vous ayez la vie éternelle en son nom. D’autres ont crû qu’il n’y avoit que les deux derniers versets du Chapitre xxi. qui ne fussent pas de saint Jean ; parce qu’en effet on y parle d’une manière qui convient mieux aux Disciples de saint Jean, qu’à lui-même : C’est lui qui est le Disciple qui rend témoignage de ces choses, qui les a écrites ; & nous savons que son témoignage est vrai. Il y a encore beaucoup d’autres cho-