Matthew

Evangelium secundum Matthæum

Introductions

Enciclopedia Cattolica Matthew, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint

The 28 chapters of the first Gospel are grouped differently by various commentators. The division that takes account both of the dominant ideas and of the changes of situation is preferable.

a) Infancy and preparation for the public life of Jesus (1:1-4:11). - The genealogy (1:1-17), the conception and birth from a Virgin (1:18-25), the adoration of the Magi (2:1-12), the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the return to Nazareth (2:13-23) demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets. The Baptist, the precursor predicted by the prophets, presents him as Messiah and baptizes him (ch. 3). Jesus in the desert overcomes the tempter by citing the Scriptures (4:1-11).

Read the encyclopedia article

Haydock introduction to the book

This and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions, and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesioe Catholicoe commoveret auctoritas. (Lib. contra Epist. Manichoei, quam vocant fundamenti. tom. viii. chap. 5, p. 154. A. Ed. Ben.) (Witham)

St. Matthew, the author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fulness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock) ---This holy apostle, after having reaped a great harvest of souls in Judea, preached the faith to the barbarous nations of the East. He was much devoted to heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life; for he eat no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and berries, as Clement of Alexandria assures us, Poedag. lib. ii. chap. 1. St. Ambrose says, that God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus and Socrates tell us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern or eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus informs us, that he ended his course in Parthia; and Venantius Fortunatus says, by martyrdom.---See Butler's Saints' Lives, September 21st.

Douay 1582/1609 the argument of the book, Rheims 1582
The argument of S. Matthewes Gospel. 6 paragraphs

S. Matthevves Gospel may be vvell diuided into fiue partes. The first parte, as touching the Infancie of our Lord Iesus: Chap. 1 and 2.

The second, of the preparation that vvas made to his manifestation: chap. 3. and a piece of the 4.

The third, of his manifesting of him selfe by preaching and miracles, and that in Galilee: the other piece of the 4. chap. vnto the 19.

The fourth, of his comming into Iurie, tovvard his Passion: chap. 19. and 20.

The fifth, of the Holy vveeke of his Passion in Hierusalem: chap. 21 vnto the end of the booke.

Of S. Matthew vve haue Mat. 9. Mar. 2. Lu. 5: How being before a Publican, he vvas called of our Lord, and made a Disciple. Then Luk. 6. Mar. 3. Mat. 10: Hovv out of the vvhole number of the Disciples he vvas chosen to be one of the tvvelue Apostle. And out of them againe he vvas chosen (and none but he and S. Iohn) to be one of the foure Euangelistes. Among vvhich foure also, he vvas the first that vvrote, about 8 or 10 yeres after Christes Ascension.

Cornely Introductio specialis (1897), Latin
Qv.rsTto T. — De S. Matthaei Apostoli et Evangeli-tae vita 56 paragraphs

1. — Uti de omnibus fere Apostolis primisque Domini discipulis, ita de S. Matthaeo, cuius nomen primum Evangelium prae se fert, pauca certa nobis sunt tradita. Nemini est dubium, quin idem ille sit, qui in Apostolorum catalogis septimum vel octavum locum occupat, et in primo Evangelio 2 ::20»7; « publicanus » appellatur!. Eius autem ad Apostolatum vocatio hac ratione narratur : « Et quum transiret inde lesus, vidit hominem sedentem in telonio, Matthaeum nomine. Et ait illi : Sequere me; et surgens secutus est eum » *. Quae si cum illis comparaverimus, quae Marc. 2, 1& et. Lic. 5, 27 leguntur, unum idemque factum a. tribus Evangelistis referri. evidens erit; namque non tantum eadem fere adhibentur verba, sed eundem quoque locum narratio in tribus Evangeliis occupat : praecedit sanatio paralytici. sequuntur convivium a publicano converso paratum et Pharisaeorum murmurantium increpatio ?. In primo quidem solo Evangelio publicanus ille M«/- !haeus appellatur, in aliis duobus nomen habet Lev: id autem seriam difficultatem non creat; fieri enim potuit, ut iam ante vocationem binominis fuerit publicanus, aut in vocationis memoriam alterum nomen assumserit; Matthaeus enim donum De? (vel Adeodatum) significat *.

De eodem sermonem esse primus Gro/7is negavit duplici permotus ratione *, a.) quia Matthaeus nunquam sese Levi, alii Evangelistae Levi nunquam Matthaeum appellent, et ).) quia Heracleon, Valentini discipulus saec. 2. , inter Matthaeum et Levi distinguat atque C/emens Aer. et. Origenes hanc distinctionem approbare videantur*. Non paucos sequaces habuit Grotius, inter quos recentissimi tertiam addiderunt rationem, Levi scilicet et Matthaeum esse nomina hebraica, ludaeos autem interdum quidem nomen graecum vel latinum practer hebraicum gessisse, nunquam vero duo nomina hebraica, nisi cognomen fuerit patronymicum aut gentilicium aut ad qualitatem aliquam designandam impositum vel assumtum'. Ne fidem Evangeliis detrectare. videatur, Grotius duos viros eodem tempore a Domino vocatos esse coniicit, Levi, quiforsitan àgj1::2.0v5; (praefectus publicanorum) fuerit, et Ma/their, unum ex prioris ministris; in domo Levi, qui postea inter discipulos receptus sit, factum esse convivium, Matthaeum vero vocatum esse ad. Apostol? munus. Qua. ingeniosiore quam veri similiore coniectura contemta moderni rationalistae Evangelistas hac in relatione inter se pugnare contendunt *.

At rationes allatae non sufficiunt, ut identitatem , quae tam clare ex Evangeliis elucet, ut tota antiquitas eam agnoverit, in dubium vocemus. Nam a.) nec Paulus unquam se Saulum appellat nec a Petro hoc nomine appellatur; num ideo Saulum a Paulo diversum dicemus? ftecte autem post. Eusebii monet S. Hierongnats, « ceteros Evanzelistas propter verecundiam et honorcm Matthaei noluisse eum nominc appellare vulgato, sed dixisse Levi... ipsum autem Matthaeum secundum illud. quod a Salomone praccipiatur : /ustis accusetor est sut, in principio sermonis Matthaeum se et publicanum nominasse , ut ostenderet legendibus, nullum debere salutem desperare, si ad meliora conversus sit »?. Demuin ilud «quoque animadvertatur oportet, Marcum et Lucam, quainvis evidenter Levi ad apostolicum munus vocatum esse indicent, in suis Apostolorum catalogis Levi non recensere; quare sub nomine Matthaei latere dicendus est.

b.) Ad secundam rationem quod attinet, Heracleonis auctoritas tanta non est, ut omnium Patrum , qui Levi et Matthaeum cundem esse asseruere, testimonia evertat ; neque certum est, annon lfcracleon Lehbaeum, i. e. Thaddacum, designare voluerit". Quodsi Grotius Origenem quoque in suam sententiam trahere conatur. dubio Origenis loco opponimus clarum et apertum, in quo duobus nominibus Matthaei et Levi eandem personam designari affirmat !t.

c. Tertium demum argumentum nullius est roboris; ludaeos enim tam antiquitus binomines fuisse, non paucis exemplis Veteris Testamenti demonstratur, nec ulli negare licet, ctiam Christi tempore aliquos duo nomina hebraica gessisse, quae nec patronymica nec gentilicia nec ab alia qualitate desumta erant '*.

4. De nominis etymeolosia variie habentur sententiae, inter quas probabilior : Ma5- üxfo; vel] Maiüafo; so tivo s Cima Dub. 00. 33: Nehem. 02, 09) — TI (b Paral.

9, 15; 25, ete.) 8:520205, donum Dei vel Adeodatus. Vicina est. allera. quam praeferunt

Gesenius (Thesaur. ling. hebr. p. 929 b.) et Fürst (Hebr. Handworterb. Ed. 3. T. 806) : MUzIpm-—Cemm—Maraü8s, cx quo etiam Macüfag, S. Hieron. (Dc nomin. hebr.

8. v. M. 23, 812) quoque nomen a radicc ta derival ; explicat enim « donatus quondam ». Parum nobis probatur derivatio ab TYON (*DI2 —PIYZN [idelis), quia N radieale non facile omiLtitur; multo minus autem altera a. TY2, singulari inusitato pluralis eu (viri, homines), quum nec duplicatum 71 satis explicetur, nec sinilicatio sit apta. Q*TYZ enim, sive à nme (extendit), sive a YA (mori) derivatur, proxime designat homines adultos vel mortales, sed non viros; unde *ZY2 esset Jonas vel mortalis; parum

12. Gedeon, qui et Ierobaal (Iudic. 7, 1299.); Ozias, qui et Azarias (4 Reg. 14, 21 elc. ; ? Paral. 26, 1 etc.); quinque Matthathiae filii omnes duplex nomen hcbraicum habuerunt (1 Mach. 2, 2-4). Inter Apostolos Thaddaeus duorum vel trium fuit nominum; recte enim Origenes (1. c.) « eundem, quem Matthaeus Lebbaeum et Marcus Thaddaeum dixit, Lucas Iudam Iacobi scripsit ». Pleraque quidem cognomina hebraica aut patronymica sunt (Ioseph Barsabas Act. 1, 23), aut patriam designant (Iudas Iscariotes), aut ex qualitate quadam dcsumta sunt (Ioseph Barnabas Act. 4, 36), aut certis factis historicis originem dobent (Gedcon Ierobaal) ; at sunt ctiam , quae blanditiarum, ut ita dicam, causa a parentibus videntur pucris indita, intcr quae Lcbbaci et "'Thaddaci (2b et '1n corculum meum, dceliciao meae), Iudae cognomina, numeramus, Simili ratione publicanus, cuius nomen fuit Levi, a parentibus iam *z"2 t Adeodatus » cognominari potuit, quod cognomen deinde post conversionem et vocalionem suam retinuit , qua sibi ipse quasi à Deo redditus crat. ConsELY INTROD. III. — 2

8. — Quia Matthaeus (Levi) a Marco (2,15) Alphaei filius vocatur, quaestio exorta est, num Evangelista noster et S. lacobus Min., euius pater etiam. Alphaci nomen habuit, fratres fuerint. CArysostomus €t Theodoretus , quos sequuntur Graeci moderni plerique atque aliqui latini hagiographi id videntur haud obscure docere!. Verum ex codem nomine ad eandem personam concludere co minus licet, quo magis constat, Alphaei nomen admodum rarum non fuisse ; eiusdem enim nominis ludaeos in Thalmnude commemoratos habemus?. Aliud autem Matthaei et lacobi Min. consanguinitatis argumentum in Scriptura non invenitur; imo contrarium ex illa facile demonstratur. Nam nisi tres lacobos distinguere vclimus (Maiorem, loannis fratrem et Zebedaei filium ; Minorem, Alphaei filium; et lacobum fratrem Domini), lacobum Alphaet fratrem Domini fuisse dicamus oportet?; inter diseipulos autem, qui praeclaro fratrum. Doniini titulo insigniuntur, nunquam Matthaeus enumeratur.

Anfe vocationem suam Mattliaeum. Capharnaum habitasse, magna cum veri similitudine ex vocationis narratione coniicimus; paralyticum enim , de cuius sanatione immediate antea sermo est, in oppido Capharnaum esse sanatum, disertis verbis tradit Marcus et non obscure insinuat Matthaeus*, Erat autem Capharnaum emporium non ignobile, quod, quum ad mare Genesareth in finibus Nephthali et Zabulon in via , «quae Damasco ad Mediterraneum duxit, situm esset, inter suos incolas publieanos non paucos videtur habuisse. Ex quo hominum genere, ludaeis ob exactiones suas tam odioso, ut eos inter peccatores et ethnicos numerarent , Matthaeus erat; sed a Domino vocatus a telonio statim surrexit et, si recte vidit S. Basilius, « non telonii tantum emolumenta reliquit, sed pericula etiam contemsit, quae a magistratibus tum sibi tum consanguineis impeudebant, quod vectigalium rationes reliquissel infectas »*. Si in Apostolorum catalogis, id quod sine fundamento non admittitur, temporis ratio, quo singuli vocati sunt, observata est, septimus vocatus est Matthaeus; quod enim Thomae, cui associatur, ipse se postponit, id rectissime Eusebius eius modestiae attribuit.

Post vocationem suam in Evangeliis vel Actibus vel Epistolis, si catalogos Apostolorum excipis, nomen eius non amplius occurrit; quapropter illa tantum, quae de omnibus Apostolis narrantur, de eo pro certis asserere possumus. Cum reliquis igitur inissus est a Domino, ut per ludaeam praedicaret ; cum iisdem Dominum ultimis eius annis sequebatur, ultimae coenae interfuit, ex horto fugit, et nihilominus Dominum a mortuis resuscitatum videre ab eoque missionem in universum munduin accipere meruit; cuin iisdem ascensionis Domini testis factus in oratione permaneus post S. Matthiae electionem Spiritu S. impletus est; eum iisden in carcerem inicctus, ab Anzelo eductus, sed iterum captus et caesus gaudens abiit, quod dignus habitus sit pro nomine lesu. contumeliam pati, nec cessavit in templo et circa domos docens et evangelizans lesum Christum; cum reliquis demum «diaconos primos statuit, atque nova post S. Stephani mortem exorla perseculione, quum | fideles per ludaeam et Samariam dispergerentur, lerosolymis remansit atque Samaritanis per Philippum conversis Petrum et loannem misit. qui eis manus imponerent 7,

Haec fere sunt, quae de omnibus Apostolis in Seriptura. navrantur, quae. proin tamquam certa. efiam de Malfhaeo asserere. lieet; reliqua omnia sunt incerta, illo uno excepto. quod primum Evangelium seripsit, de quo statim dicemus. Severum vitam eum egisse tradit. C/epiens Aler., « seminibus, baccis et oleribus absque carnibus usum », idemque auctor est, Evangelistam nostrum per quindecim annos in Palaestina Iudaeis praedicasse ac dein ad alias gentes convertendas profectum esse?, Si ex S. Pauli et Actuum Apostolorum silentio concludere licct, iam anno 37.. quando post suam conversionem prima vice lerosolyima venit Paulus, Matthaeus saltem non amplius in civitate commorabatur, nec etiam concilio, quod dicitur Apostolorum, videtur interfuisse *. Ubi autem terrarum, postquam Palaestinam reliquit, apostolico munere sit functus, plane incertum est. Plures et, nisi fallimur, fide digniores testes antiqui Aethiopiam (regnum Meroe?) ab co Evangelium recepisse scribunt; haec enim sententia est Ru/inz , Gregori M., Eucheri? Lugd., Socratis, aliorum !'9, S. Ambrosius eum in Persiam profectum esse dicit, a qua opinione forte etiam non abludit S. Paulznus Nol., qui Parthos ab eo conversos refert; S. Isé/orus Hisp. eum ad Macedones, Sii. Metaphrastes ad. Syros, Parthos et. Aethiopes, N?zcephorus Call. ad zvügenopzyoss verbum divinum attulisse asserunt !!. Nec certiora sunt, quae de eius morte traduntur. IHeracleon eum illis accenset, qui morte naturali defuneti sunt; communior autem orientalium et occidentalium ecclesiarum traditio fert, eum vitam apostolicam martyrio coronasse, licet de loco, tempore, genere mortis magnus sit testium dissensus; at haec hagiographis relinquimus examinanda P,

3. De quaestione hac satis impcdita et diflicili disscremus infra Diss. 1I. $ 19. I.

naum appellat; nàm quae tulit ipsiun, Betlilehem fuit, quae educavit, Nazareth, quae diu inhabitantem habuit, Capharnaum ». cir. Matth. 4, 13.

Qu.xstio TI. — De primi Evangelii authbentia et. iutetritate,

9. — S. Matthaei Apostolum primi nostri Evangelit auctorem esse coDlra non paucos modernos interpretes acatholicos tamquam sentenliam certissimam asserimus.

Primus, qui AuTHENTIAM Evangelii nostri negare est ausus, fuit Fuuxtus Manich. futilissima illa ratione nixus, quod Evangelista, si Matthaeus fuisset, de se ipso loquens tertia persona non esset usus; eiusmodi aulem. argumentum aut « ex. errore imperitiae aut. ex more fallaciae » procedere monuit. iam dugustinus; « solere cnim scriptores rerum gestarum, quum in suam personam venerint, ila. se contexere, lanquam de alio narrent, quod de se narrant »!, Quievit dein haec quaestio, douce « Anabaptistae ex Vingua auctoris huius Evangelii eouteuderent illud non esse Matthaei. Matthaeus enim Hebraeus fuit et Hebraeis hebraica lingua et literis Evangelium scripsisse perhibetur; nt Evangelium, quod nune sub nomine Matthaei habetur, non hebraica sed. graeea magis lingua videtur al) auctore suo esse eonseriptum » 7. Quae obiectio olim non parum vexavit Protestantes, qui primigeniis solis textibus auetoritatem concedere voluerunt, usque dum contra unauime totius antiquitalis testimonium Malthaeum graece scripsisse asserentes audacius quam verius anabaplistici. argumenti. maiorem negarent. Quaestionem autem, quae de Evangelii auctore agitatur, à quaestione linguae primigeniae non pendere, evidens est; quare obiectione illa neglecta priorem hoc loco, alteram infra (15) solvemus.

Hoc demum nostro saeculo quam plurimi znterpretes. protestantéect Evangelii nostri authentiam omnibus viribus impugnarunt; ob Papiae lesfimonium male intelleetum sermones quosdam dominicos solos a Matthaeo collectos esse contenderunt atque ex. hae sermonum collecfione additis narritionibusab uno vel a pluribus iunioribus scriptoribus Evangelium nostram. esse conflatum ?; quam sententiam internis nonnullis quas vocant, rationibus confirme stiduerunt. Omnia corum systemata, quibus originem primi Evangelii explicare conati sunt et conantur, rcferre nec vacat nec iuvat; illa enim, quae ante aliquot annos proposita sunt, hodie iam oblivione sunt obruta, ct illa, quae hodie praedicantur, cras novis destruentue, Quare. quim. errorum. vationalislicorim historiam tradere nolimus, argumenta illa proferre safius erit. quibus Matthaeum integri nostri Evangelii auctorem. esse invicte demonstratur, ac deinde praecipuas obiectiones , quae, quoniam frequentius vepetuntur, speciem aliqualem veri videntur habere, paucis refutare.

10. — Quisnam libri alicuius sit auctor, factum est historicum : omnes igitur, quae de librorum authentia agitantur, quaestiones ante omnia historicis testimoniis sunt definiendae; illa autem. argumenta, quae, quia ex libri indole desumuntur, interna vocantur, secundo tantum loco in considerationem veniunt. Quapropter in omnibus eiusmodi quaestionibus illum ordinem tenebimus, ut prius quidem quibusnam historicis testimoniis authentia libri innilalur accurafe. inquivamus, dein. vero interna illa examini subiiciamus.

Iam vero 1.) Matthacum Apostolum primi nostri Evangelii auctorem esse, tanta cum unanimitate testatur an/giitas. christiana , ut si eius testimonium hac in quaestione repudiarctur, actum esset de certitudine omni historica. Ab exeunte 9. saeculo omnes Patres et seriptores ccelesiasticos una cum titulo, cuius anfiquitatem supra. (6) vindicavimus, S. Matthaeum dicere auctorem, apud omnes constat ; iuniorihus autem illis testibus, quarum auctoritas nec spernenda nec parvi pendenda est, neglectis anfiquiores solos citabimus.

a.) Inter quos gravissimus est. S... Popiegs, Hierapoleos. episcopus, cuius verba nobis conservavil. Eusebeus! : Malfato; uiv ov HET dix- AékTo vÀ Aéópa (SC. xupwkX) Guviyoxiuzot puveuos d aiTx (sg WügvaTo $4257655 « Mattliaeus igitur hebraica lingua sermones (douiinicos) seripsit; eos autem interpretatus est unusquisque prout potuit ». Cuius testimonii vis, de quo tanto cum ardore hac nostra aetate disputatum est et dispulatur, ut accurate intelligatur, haec sunt adnotanda,

2.) S. [renaeo Veste, qui ipse S. Polycarpi discipulus fuerat, Papias « loannis (Apostoli) auditor et Polycarpi amicus, vir antiquus » fuit (Lozvwoo piv axouc is, TMoYoxzz0o ài éraizos, dg aio; avo), ac proin ad secundam, imo ad primam Christianorum generationem pertinuit; E«- sebius autem eum « virum apprime disertum et eruditum ac Seriptuvarum peritum » appellat?. Opus non est, ut hoc loco inquiramus, num Apostol loannis Papias diseipulus fuerit, id quod Irenaeus et iuniores Patres disertis verbis tradunt, an alterius euiusdam presóyteri loannis, qui inter immediatos Domini discipulos sit numerandus, id quod Eusebius ex imnale, ut videlur, esplieatis verbis quibusdam ipsius Papiae deducit; neque magis opus est, ut de authentia testimonii eusebiani mox allati disputlemus, quippe quod. aliis eiusdem historiographi verhis contradicere videatur, quibus eum « mediocri admodum ingenio praeditum » esse asseruit?. Quidquid enim de his quaestionibus statuitur, illud extra controversiam positum est, Papiae, utpote « viri anliqui », qui « primis illis apostolicae successionis temporibus floruit »* et immediatis Domini discipulis familiariter usus est, de primi nostri Evangelii origine. testantis auctoritatem summi esse momenti. Elfusa enim contentio, qua illam nostrae aetatis increduli ad unum omnes aut. labefactare. aut. infringere sunt conati, id salis superque demonstrat.

$., S. Papias, si Mattliaeum 2 257tz (xogi42x, sermones vel oracula Domini) scripsisse asserit, primum nostrum Evangelium canonicum designare voluit. Eusebium lioc sensu verba Papiae intellesisee perspicuum est omnibus; postquam enim eius lesliimonium « de Marco, qui Exangelium scripsit » (megt Mzxou 00 76 EoxytOuov ve229005) relulit, in hune moduni pergit : « De Matthaeo autem haec dieta sunt : Matthaeus igitur hebraiea. lingua. *& Aoytiz. conscripsit »; quo in contextu 7 *oyux. ex Eusebii mente nihil aliud. praeter Evangelium significare posse, ipsi adversarii futeri coguntur. At Eusebium Papiae verba non intellexisse ceusent; nam. nomen zx £4 augusliore sensu esse suinenduni, nee quidquai Papiam coguovisse, nisi « dominicorum dictorum » eollectionen quandam a Matthaeo adornalim, ignorasse autem nostrum Evangelium, quod. praeter. dieta. dominica. etiam historjeas narrationes contineal, Aculissime quidem. haee sunt dispulata; universa auletu

«quaestio eo tandem deducitur, ufrum Euschio potius, qui Papiae libros integros novit neque tamen verha eius de Evangelio nostro intelligenda esse dubitavit, an modernis fragmenti Papiaut interpretibus illis fidem ndhibeamus., qui evidentissima quaeque in dubium vocant, quampri- 1m corum praeiudiciis contradicant. Sedulo adnotavit Eusebius, Papin epistolas priorem Petri et primam floannis adhibuisse; num quis sibi persuadebit, eum non adnolavisse, Papiam Evangelium primum ignorasse, si quid in eius libris invenisset, quod umbram. praebuissel hypothesibus modernorum ?

1) AC Eusebio relicto videamus, annon Papias ipse, quidnam termino suo voluerit, satis clare prodat. Immediate antea 8. Marcum diligenter quidem conscripsisse dicit illa, quac à Christo ai dicta a1 geste sunt (*&9zà vo Xpwroo 3 AeyRivex V, cou Divx), at non. ordine onmia retulisse, quia ea tantum scripsit, quae Petrum tradentem audierat, Petrus autem pro audientium utilitate doctrinas tradiderat, non autem óczsc SNTUAMM TONY Z99V4AGN Aovíov vowousvos (« tamquam ordinatam dominieorum. sermonum vel oraculorum relationem faciens »). Quin in hoc contextu 7 xuotxzX Aoywx atque 72 525 N2z09 7 ey lira ou bv unum idemque sint, extra dubitationem est positum. Praeterea suo ipsius operi Papias titulum indideral Joyíow zuzizzóv ifia « explanatio sermonum Domini »5; illum vero in quinque huius operis libris non sola dicla Domini , sed etiam res gestas attulisse et. explanasse, omnes concedunt. ef pauca. quae supersunt. fragmenta: demonstvant*, Negari ergo nequit, Papiae usum loquendi a latiore illa vocabuli significatione non abhorrere, ct illad saltem omnes concedere debent, expressionem illam a Papia adhiberi potuzsse , si Evangelium nostrum, quod dicta et faeta. Domini complectitur, designare voluit. Neque id mirum ; nam eadem vocabuli significatio quum in Seripfuris tum in Fl. fosephi et Patrum operibus satis est frequens ?.

At ulterius progredientes expressionem in Papiae festfinionio sensu illo deere intelligi asserimus.. Etenim articulo addito x Xoyu a. Mat thaeo conseripta velut opus omnibus notissimum designantur; atqui quodnam est. illud Matthaei Apostoli opus omnibus saec. 2. ineunte vel medio cognitum praeter Evangelium nostrum? Ubinam est. vestigium aliquod operis apostolici, quod solos sermones Domini continuerit? Eusrbius enim diligentissimus antiquitatis investigator, «qui summa. eun eura omnia. collegit, quae de Apostolorum. discipulorumque. Pomiui scriptis antiqui seriptores tradidevant, nobisque tot librorum hodie deperditorum memoriam conservavit, nullam horum Xoyov iuvenit commemorationem. Quomodo explicatur, opus ineunte saec. 2. pro apostolico agnitum tantae oblivioni esse traditum , ut post medium saec. 9. pemo illius meminerit*? Demum coronidis gratia addamus, inler quatuor Evangelia nostra primum multitadine sermonum et dictorum et parabolarum Domini ita eminere, ut Aoytov zuguxzóv titulum prae aliis mereatur; quare illi quoque, qui sirieliorem vocabuli sensum retinere maluerint, Papiae testimonium apte de illo explicabunt.

3. Eus. MI. E. HI. 39. De Ioanne Apostolo Papiae magistro cir infra n. 56. n. 18.

í. Plerique ex Chron. pasch. (cfr M. 92. 628: desumunt, Papiam: eodem anno 153. Pergami, quo Smyrnae Polycarpuin, martyrium subiisse. Licet autein id non recte fiat, certum est, Papiam exeunte saec. f. et ineunte 2. floruisse; cfr Funk Patr. npost. II. p. L. sq.; 0. Bardenheier Patrolozic. Freiburg. 1891. p. 76.

b.) Mter. nobis lestis est S. Pastaeatts, primus ex. eelebriovibus alesandrinae. seholae. cateclieticae. rectoribus. Qui « divina. quadam aemulatione, Apostolorum accensus exemplo, stadium suum ad incrementum divinae fidei conferre volens » « ad Indos usque (i. e. in. Avabiam felicem) penetrasse dieitur ibique Evangelium. Matthaei, quod adventum ipsius iam praevenerat, apud quosdam Christi notitia imbufos reperisse; quibus seilieet. Bartholomaeus, mmus ex duodeciin, olii praedieasse fertur et Evangelium Matthaei hebraiets literis conscribi reliquisse; quod quidem ad praedicta usque tempora scrvatam «95e memoralur». Cui Eusebirtestimonioadiit Hiero» ymus Pantacnum Evergelium a se repertam. Alexandriam attulisse?, Quominus traditio have pro genuina recipiatur, nibil prorsus obstat; Evangelium antem illud. quod iam saec, 1. ad Indos allatum est, si a Pantaeno Matthaeo aüetori tribuitur, a nostro primo non dissensisse palet !8, c.) Porro magnae auetoritatis suut .Apologetariin saec. 2. 0t Pete apostolicorum testimonza. Eliamsi enim Matthaeum primi Evangelii aucforem disertis verbis non proclament, ita tamen Domini N. verba saepe allegant, ut ex nostro Evangelio ca desumta dicere debeamus; quumque praeterea in illis afferendis eas adhibeant formulas. quibus soli sacri libri allegari solent , Patrum istorum actate Evangelium nostrum iam exslitisse ef. in Scripturarum numero habitum esse. falendum est. Omnis igitur rafio, ob quam Mafthacum eius auctorem. aznoscere nolunt, adversariis nostris eripitur, atque iuniorum Patrum, qui primum Evangelium Matthaeo altribuunt, tradifio indirecte confirmatur. Neque effugere possint rationalistae dictitantes a Patribus illis sola veróu. dominica allegari, ac proin ex eorum allegationibus nihil demonstrari, nisi collectionem quandam sermonum Domini co tempore adfuisse; etenim aliqui ex illis etiam facta ex Evangclio desumserunt; si vero collecfionem quandam sermonum solorum ab apostolicis Patribus ct saec. 2. apologetis adhibitam daremus, magnum illud miraculum explicare deherent, quod collectio ista, quam medio saec. 29. apologetae pro divinifus inspirato libro adhibuerunt, viginti vel triginta annis post ita evanuerit, ut nec Irenaeus, nec Clemens Alex. nec ullus eiusdem aetatis scriptor ullam cius memoriam habuerint. Quibus praemissis testimonia nostra afferamus.

2.) Inter apolegetas Athenagoras, Theophilus Antioch. lustinus M. eminent.

S. A/henagoras in sua « Legatione pro Chrislianis », quam e. a. 177. Marco Aurelio tradidit, ad Domini doctrinam provocavit, ut Chrislianis 'arifatis defectum immerito obiici ostenderet. « Ex ipsis, inquit, doctrinis, quibus utpote non humanis, sed a. Deo pronuntiatis et traditis adhaeremus, persuadere vobis possumus, nos non esse atheos. Quaenam igitur sunt praecepta, in quibus enutrimur? Dico vohis : Difiqite inimicos vestros, benedicite muledicentibus, orate. pro persequentibus vos , ut sitis fili? Patris vestri, qui zn coclis est, qui solem summ oriri fcit. super. bonos et malos, et pluit super iustos et iniustos », Quod testimonium ex nostro. Evangelio desuimtum esse, evidenter demonstrant prima verba : dco vobis, quae in Evangelio aptissime posita ab Athenagora allezari non potuere, nisi integrum testimonium ex libro tanseribere voluit. In eadem autem apologia ex codem sermone montano alia verba. dominica affert, sivc ad Christianorum eaurifatem, sive ad eorum castitatem commendandam !!.

Si quis Athenagoram testem, quum verba dominica tantiim allezet, recusare velit, quid de 7heop//o Antzocheno (t 182) dicet? S. Hreronymus commentarios a S. Theophilo in primum Evangelium exaratos legit et adhibuit; num forte S. Hieronymum quoque collectionem quandam sermonum explicatam ab Evangelii commentario non distinxisse dicemus? Et quid antioclienus ille doctor in suis libris ad Autol. scribit? « Evangelica vox (4 eó«y12toc qová) maiore euin auetoritate castitatem docet, dicens : Quicunque aspezerit urorem alterius ad. concupiscendam eam , iam moechatus est e«in in. corde suo. Et qui repudiatam a viro duzerit, moechatur, et qué düiniserit. uzoreim suam eccepta. fornicalionis causa (rapswzos Xdvu coovetz5, altendas velim ad hanc loquendi formulam), facet eum moecheré ».. Et iteram de caritate 2 « Eceeigelium autem : Diliyite , inquit, inimicos vestros et orate pro imaledicenlibus » elc. ?,

Praeclarissimus vero inter apologetas testis nobis est S. Justinus M.. qui omnibus nostris Evangeliis usus frequentissime Matthaeum adhibuit; non raro accurate eius verba allegat, interdum tamen, maxime in narrationibus, liberiore modo procedit. Finem non faceremus, si omnes eius textus, in. quibus primo nos(ro Evangelio usus est, indicare vellemus; in sola enim sua prima Apologia, quam c. a. 150 Antonino Pio inscripsit, fere quinquaginta versus ex illo aut verbo tenus aut liberiore modo desumsit 9, Quominus vero S. Martyr illa omnia aut ex alio quodam seripto aut ex traditione ovali hausisse dicatur, impediunt textus Veteris Testamenti ab co adhibiti; etenim in vaticiniis messianicis haud raro contra versionem alexandrinam et contra textum hebraieum ita cum S. Matthaeo consentit, ut illum testimouia haee ex nostro Evangelio transeripsisse evidens sit. Neque Matthaei libruin, qui solis sermonibus dominicis constaret, illum cognovisse, sed integrum eius Evangelium prae manibus habuisse, docent illa, quae dc nativitate Domini, de Magorum adventu, de puerorum bethlehemiticorum eaede ete narrat ^, Minime quidem negamus quaedam Domini verba cireumstantiasque quasdam vitae eius a S. Iustino referri, quae nec in primo nec in aliis canonicis Evangeliis leguntue; sed. adinodum pauca illa sunt, si eum innumeris fere canonicis testimoniis conferuntur, et pleraque saltem, sin minus omnia, ex orali tradilione hausta esse non est ambigendum 5, te » c. Teyphi, 88) ex apoerypho Evang. iusta eHebr. derivare licet, quamquam ii cn ctiam leebantur. (cfr. infra p. 52); eur enim 8. Iust. ex eodem fonte orali, atque auctor ille, id haurire non potuit? Iam vero haec sola ex apoceryphis sumsíisse incusatur; nam quod interdum Matthaeum aid verbum non sequatur aut. Matthaei et Fucae verba coniunzat, il nemo mirabitur, nisi iuniores Patres, quos sola d Evanzelia adhibuisse constat, eodem modo egisse iznorat. Cir Introd. gener. Vd. 2. p. 16 sqq.

2.) Quum in Introduetione. ;zenerali iun. satis de Patrini epostoleoruin canone N. T. dissernerimus, in eoram testimoniis, quibus primi Evangelii authentia. et auctoritas. demonstratur, affereidis opus non est ut longi simus. Quamobrem innumeras, quic inveniuntur, allusiones prorsus omittimus illis textibus contenti, qui pro veris allegationibus haberi debent. Maximi ponderis praeprimis est, quod S. Barnabas verbum dominicum a Matthaeo relatum sollemni formula 6$ éfoxr 2t allegans jam ante saeculi 1. finem. Evangelium nostrum libris sucris adnumeratum esse doceat. Quos irritos conatus fecerint adversarii nostri, ut huius testimonii vim effugerent, alibi narravimus "7.

S. Clemens foin. in priore sua ad Cor. epistola semel dumtaxat verba dominica ita profert, ut nalla omnino remaneat. dubitatio, quin ex primo Evangelio ea desumserit !5, Mullo frequentior eius est asus in allera, quae dicitur, ad Cor. epistola et in epistolis de Virginitate: quanivis vero de carum autbentia omnimoda. eum certitudine non coustet, earum auetorifas in nostra quaestione tamen integra manet. quia earuni origo, quicunque auetor esse dicitar, saltem ante medium saec. 2, est quaerenda ae proinde ad prima fidei tempora. ascendit. iam in altera illa epistola eximium illum textum habemus, quo Evangelium nosti reliquis Seripturis aequiparatur : « Alia quoque Seriplira. dieit zt rion ói T0295 eye) : Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores »; inunediate MM alterum. dictum Domini iisdem prorsus verbis. quibus à Mattliaeo, afferlar ; « Ait vero etiam ipse ; Qui me confessus fuerit, confilebor euin coram Patre », atque tertium, quod sequitur, etsi liberiore modo, ctiam ex nostro Evangelio desuintuim est ; «. Dicit euiin ; Nou omnis, qui dieit mihi : Domine, Domine, salvabitur, sed qui lacit iuslitiam ». In duabus demum de Virg. epistolis sedecim. textus, plerique ad literam, ex primo Evangelio afferuntur !*,

Uti SS. Barnabue el E loni, Ha SS. Igualio M. e! D cognitum fuif. Etenim si S. Lrueténts l'olvearpum monet : qzovuros vits (9 Gig iv Vxugt) xauL WAOQUIOS ORC, TIMATIQA, quis dubitabit. quin ed Mattli. 10, 10 respexcrit ; sivistie (49 e MMA (5 0l ott Wi oiizntlas Gg ci mipis2260? S. Martyrem antioclienuimn enim seripta Evangelia cognovisse eaque Scripturis V. T. aequiparasse ostendimus in Introd. gener. S. P«- lycarpus autem in parva sua epistola ad Philippenses bis verha Domini ex nostro Evanzelio desumsit, nisi priora ex S. Luca, quoenni magis consentiunt, altera ex Marco, qui illo in loco accurate eum. Matthaeo consentit, desumta dicere malueris ?*.

Quibus testimoniis, quae a plerisque authentiae Evangeliorum assertoribus afferri solent, nova ex Doctrina. Apostolorum addere licet, quae nuperrime reperfa a. non paucis viris erilieis saec. 1. adseribitur, idque veetissime, Non parva pars huius libelli dictis dominicis est contexta, quorum. pleraque eodem modo, quo in primo Evangelio, referuntur. llla autem non ex orali traditione esse hausta, sed ex Evangelio scripto, evideuter ex duobus testibus alterius partis elucet. Quod si enim catechuneni monentur ;: « Nolife orare sicut liypoecritae, sed orate sec Dominis in. Evongelio suo praecepit. : Pater noster, qui es in coelis » ete. .0$ i4f)euotv Ó xjots iv TO s)ayye)io «2705) , nemo opinor, ambiget, Doctrinae auctorem de Evangelio scripto loqui; attendas autem, velim. orationem dominicam iisdem verbis, quibus in primo Evangelio, esse conceplam. Et iterum, si monet : Nolite arguere invicem in ira, sed in pace, sieut habetis in. Evangelio » (6s £js16 iv «à eon ye) ; aut « pre. ees vestras et eleemosynas vestras et omnes actiones vestras ita facite, sicuti habetis in Evangelio Domint vestri » (bg £jsss iv và envy io 02 *2i0) 0946), liber scriptus supponitur adesse, ex quo illa discere queant*!.

Ceterum illud hoc loco repetere iuvat, quod supra iam innuimus : nullo scilicet modo explicari, quomodo ex. gr. S. Irenaeus, qui S. Polycarpi discipulum se fuisse gloriatur, tanta cum firmitate quatuor nostra Evangelia sola admittenda csse docuerit, nisi eum hanc doctrinam a maioribus suis accepisse concedamus, aut quomodo S. Theophilus librum aliquem velut divinum adhibuerit et commentario illustraverit , quem eius praedecessores prorsus ignorasse dieuntur.

18. S. Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 46 : « Dixit enim (Dominus) : Vae homini illi! Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset, quam ul unum ex electis meis scandalizaret ; melius erat, ut ei mola circumponeretur et demergeretur in marc, quam ut unum de clectis meis perverteret ». Coniunxit S. Clemens Matth. 26, 2 1 (Marc. 16, 21), ct Luc. 17, 2 (Matlh. 8,6).

vix dubium esse arbitror, quin hoe soliin ab eius auctore nomine Erangelii Pouini designetur; cfr Introd. gener. Ed. 2. n. i5 p. 228 sqq.

d.) Cum ortliodoxis Patribus in. primo. nostro Evangelio agnoscendo consentiunt Aaereticz, qui immediate post Apostolorum aetatem: Eecclesiam impugnarunt. Ceriuun, qui ultimis iam S. loannis annis errores suos spargere coepit, Carpocratem , qui ineunte saec. 2. sectam suam fundavit, E&/onitasque Matthaei Evangelio (truncato) usos esse auctor est S. Ejuophauius?. Valentinus cum suis omnia Evangelia recepisse dicitur; primum Evangelium ab eo adhibitum demonstrant varii textus, quibus suam haeresin stabilire conatus est testibus Irenaeo et Epiphano 3, Dasilidianos eodem Evangelio usos esse tradunt Epéjiinius et auctor. Philosophumenon , qui eliam Naassenos et Sethitas illud adhibuisse docet ?*,

Celsum quoque Evangelium primum integrum cognovisse consat ex libris, quos Origenes contra eum scripsit. Disertis enim verbis Iudaeus, quem loquentem Celsus induxit, ex libris Christianorum se illa, quae profert, hausisse asserit ?, inter quae non pauca in nostro solo Evangelio leguntur, uti adventus magorum, caedes bethlehemitica, fuga in Aegyptum etc 9, Monet quidem Origenes Iudaeum istum Celsi « multa contra lesum et contra Christianos eflutiisse, quae ex Evangeliis nostris non hausit »; at additamenta. haec facile cognoscuntur, quum nihil sint nisi focdae illae Iudaeorum calumniae, quas Thalmudici aliis quoque libris spargere non. erubuerunt; quare non impediunt, quominus simul genuino nostro Evangelio ludaeum Celsi usum esse dicimus ?7,

Quibus testimoniis demum addenda. sunt evangelia. apocryupha (fla, quae exeunte. 2. saeculo jam latissime propagata. nostrum primum Evangelium cognitum supponunt. Quo maxime spectant. Eecengelium secundum Hebraeos, de quo infra (17) dicemus, et Protevangelium Iacobi , de quo in Introductione generali diximus?8, haec locutionis, sicut etiam mentio dé/rac/unatis , atque adeo ipsa narratio, in qua mentio haec habetur » t.

Minuta quidem haec nonnemini videbuntur; sed quuin multo minutioribus utantur moderni critici, ut novas suas et inauditas asserliones specie quadam argumenti muniant, ad traditam sententiam confirmandam illis uti sane licebit, etsi multum ponderis illis non attribuamus.

12. — Quum tot tantaque sint priniitivae Ecclesiae testimonia , qui bus primi nostri Evangelii authentia vindientur atque S. Matthaeo Apostolo auctori liber attribuitur, merito miruberis inter modernos inter pretes protestantieos non nisi paucos inveniri, qui nobiscum traditam senteutiam. | defendere audeant; multo minus autem mirandum est, quod. omnes. authentiae adversarii, simulatque de Evangelii origine explicanda agitur, in diversissiinas abeant sententias ; veritas enim una, error multiplex. Omnia figinenta recensere, quae pro argumentis nobis obtrudere conantur, operae pretium non est; pleraque nimis ridicula sunt, quam quae refulatione sint digna. Quid quod aliqui, ut Evangelii nostri originem explicent, tribus vel quatuor antiquioribus libris indigeant, ex quibus conflatum sit? Primo loeo sibi brevissimum aliquod scriptum fingunt, cuius auctorem faciunt loannem Marcum; ex quo brevissimo scripto exortum esse docent Proto-Mareum, qui fundamentum sit secundi nostri Evangelii. Interea Matthaeum seripsisse aiunl sua Aeyx ( Proto- Matthaeus), ex Proto-Marco et Proto-Matthaeo compositum esse Deutero-Matthaeum, qui tandem fundamentum factum sit Trito-Matthaei i. e. primi nostri Evangelii !!

Quibus omissis ex duobus tantum operibus, quae, quum multis editionibu: sint propagata, maiore inter suos auctoritate gaudent, obiectiones desumemus, quibus Evangelii authentia impugnatur. 1.) Z. 4. W. Meyer?. Evangelium Matthaeo auctori non esse attribuendum tribus argumentis persuadere conatur. a.) Matthaeus, utpote Apostolus et rerum a Christo gestarum testis ocularis, dilucidiore et significantiore narratione res gestas, quibus ipseinterfuit, et maxime suam ipsius vocationem retulisset, accuratius locum, tempus, circumstantias rerum gestarum indicasset, sermonum dominicorum occasionem historicam exposuisset; b.) e contra illa, quae falsa esse Apostolus ignorare non potuit, omisisset, quemadmodum narrationem de resurrectione multorum corporum sanctorum et de custodibus sepulcri, neque illa recepisset, quae ad

Evangelium non pertineant et mythum redoleant, uti historiam infantiae Domini et longam narrationem de Domini tentationibus; c.) tot tantasque demum differentias adesse asserit, imo contradictiones primum inter et quartum Evangelium, ut utrumque testi oculari adscribi non possit; atqui loannem quarti Evangelii auctorem esse nobiscum pro certo admittit, ergo primum ab Apostolo non esse conscriptum, concludit. sed Matthaeum solos sermones dominicos literis consignasse censet, eiusque genuinum opus addilis historiis postea in nostrum Evangelium canonicum esse transmutatum.

lam primam obiectionem duplici falso supposito innili perspicuum est. Descriptiones enim et narrationes languidae atque parum dilucidae, ctsi eas in primo Evangelio adesse daremus ?, auctorem quidem artis scribendi imperitum fuisse demonstrarent, minime vero suflicerent, ut opus a teste oculari conscriptum esse negaremus. Non enim omnibus data est cadem narrandi et describendi facilitas, neque omnes illas res gestas, quibus ipsi interfuerunt, ita narrant, ut quasi sub oculos audientium eas subiiciant; neque naturalis huius facultatis defectum tollit inspiralio; auctores enim iuspirati aliler scribaut necesse non est, ac pro individua sua facultate naturali possunt. Dein falso supponitur, Evangelii auctorem partes historici scriptoris agere voluisse, qui utique omnia dilucide ct signiticanter narrare omnesque rerum gestarum circumstantias accurate referre solet; dozmalicum enim et apolozelicum finem Matthaeum prae oculis habuisse infra ostendemus; suo igitur iure circumstantias, quac ad rem suam non faciunt, omisit, ordinem chronologicum plerumque neglexit, narrationes suas ita proposuit, ut fini suo inservirent.

Rationalistis germanis, quibus ipse, quum miraculorum possibilitatem non neget, adnumerari non vult, secundam obiectionem relinquere debuit adversarius noster. Quomodo is, qui Domini N. resurrectionem admittit, resurrectionem sanctorum istorum, quam etiam iam testatur S. /gnatius M. ^, inter fabulas apocryphas reiicere audet? Quae porro in commentario affert, ut narrationem de sepulcri custodibus impugnet, ipsa quoque rationalisticam interpretationis methodum olent atque a prudente interprete despiciuntur*. Risum vero movet, si modernus interpres antiquo errore Fausti Manichaei recocto * ius sibi arrogat definiendi, quid ad apostolicam praedicationem pertinuerit, quid in libros suos Evangelistae recipere, quid omittere debuerint. Numquid, quia Marcus et Ioannes historiam infantiae omiserunt, Matthaeo et Lucae eam tradere non licuit? Numquid, quia Marcus Evangelium suum a praedicatione Ioannis B. incepit, Faustus et Meyer omnia, quae praedicationem illam praecesserunt, bonam annuntiationem non esse definient 7?

Tertiam obiectionem infra (71 sqq.) solvemus, ubi de relatione , quae Ioannem inter et synopticos intercedit, erit dicendum. Id unum hoc loco adnolemus, per octodecim saecula viros eruditissimos et perspicacissimos veras contradictiones inter primum et inter quartum Evangelium non vidisse; quare difficultatum, quae hoc nostro saeculo inveniuntur, originem nec in ipsis Evangeliis nec in maiore rationalistarum sagacitate et eruditione, sed in eorum incredulitate et praeiudiciis quaerendam esse iure suspicamur. Quod vero ConszLY INTnOv. III. — 8 addant Meyer et Weiss primum nostrum Evangelium a secundo dependere, id prorsus gratuito asseritur, uti ex infra dicendis apparebit.

4. S. Ignat. ad Magnes. 9. « Et propter hoc is, quem iuste pracstolabantur, advcniens suscitavit ipsos ex mortuis ».

7. S. Aug. l1. c. 6. : « Cur ergo non sit Evangelium, quod de ista generationc uarratur, quum tam bona nobis annuntietur, ut per ipsam nostra sanetur infirmitas? Au quia Mattliaeus non est ita exorsus, ut diceret : Initium. Evangelii lesu. Christi, sicut ait Marcus, sed. Liber generationis lesu Christi? Moc modo nec Ioannes Evanzelium scripsisse dicatur, quia nec ipse dixit : Initium Evangelii lesu Christi, aut Liber Erangrlii, sed : In principio erat verbum » etc.

9.) Alter adversarius, qui inter rationalistarum autesignanos recensetur, M. L. de Wette, hacc profert argumenta, quae, quamvis nonnulla iam in praecedentibus relata sint, omnia transcribemus, ne quid roboris el cfficientiae argumentationi eius delraxisse videamur *.

a.) Evangelium nihil continet, quo Matthaeus eius auctor esse. prodatur: imo b.) testis ocularis et Apostolus ea, quae Dominus in ludaca egit et docuit, quaeque fuse tradit loannes, silentio non praeterisset, nec c.) ordinem chronologicum arbitrarium, imo absurdum (44, 13) secutus esset; evidens quoquo error est, si Christus primo paschatis die cruci affixus esse asseritur. Accedit d.) quod de historica narrationum quarumdam veritate merilo dubitetur. Narratio de sepulcri custodibus fabula est, quae omni veri similitudine caret ; narratio de corporum sanctorum resurrectione ex apoeryphis est desumta: narrationem de baptismo Christi, si cum loannis relatione comparatur, mythicam esse apparet; tentatio Christi, quae antiquitus non fuit nisi symbolica quaedam narratio, velut factum historicum proponitur; miraculum stalevis iu piscis ore inventi creditu nimis est diflicile; idem factum interdum bis narratur, et aliquae narrationes (de Iuda 27, 3-10, de ingressu Domiui sollemni 21, 7) vaticiniis allatis couformatae sunt. Demum e.) ubique, mnaxime vero in vocationis Malthaei ct crucifixionis narratione deest perspicuus et dilucidus narrandi modus, qui merito a teste oculari exspoctatur, et f.) sermones Domini partim non fideliter, partim non secundum debitum ordinem chronologicum sunt relati. Quae enim 10, 19 sqq. Dominus dixisse refertur, discipuli eotempore intelligere nondum potuerunt : item in sermone montano Doimninus sc iam Messiam esse prodit, quod co tempore facere nondum debuit etc.

The whole text at its source

Cornelius a Lapide English
General Preface Concerning the Excellence and Majesty of the Four Gospels 59 paragraphs

I PROCEED from the Old Testament to the New, from Solomon to Christ, as from a rivulet to a fountain: from Proverbs to Gospels, as from a river to the Ocean of Wisdom. Speaking of the Gospels I would place a crown upon the Scriptures of the New Testament.

The dignity, usefulness, and majesty of Scripture are so great that it surpasses the books of all philosophers and theologians, both Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as much as Divine surpasses human wisdom. For Scripture is the Word of God. It is the very utterance of God, by means of which God enunciates His wisdom to us, and points out to us the way to virtue, health, and eternal happiness. S. Augustine asserts that “Sacred Scripture is an Encyclopædia of all the sciences. Here is Natural Philosophy, because all the causes of all creatures are in God, the Creator. Here is Moral Philosophy, because a good and honest life is derived from no other source than the love of God and our neighbour as they ought to be loved. Here is Logic, because Truth and the Light of the rational soul are God. Here is Political Science, for a really flourishing State can neither be founded nor preserved except upon the foundation, and by the bond of faith, and firm concord, when the common good of all is loved: that is to say, when God is loved above all things, and when men love one another in Him, and for His sake.” After an interval he adds, “By the Scriptures depraved minds are corrected, little minds are nourished, great minds are delighted. The only minds which are hostile to this doctrine are those which either by going astray know not its healthfulness, or being sick dislike its medicine.”

Sacred Scripture is the art of arts, the science of sciences: it is the Pandora of Wisdom. In our own time, S. Theresa, a woman endowed with the spirit of prophecy, and renowned throughout all Spain for the glory of her miracles, and the sanctity of her life, was taught by God that all the troubles of the Church, all the evils in the world, flow from this source, that men do not, by clear and sound knowledge, and serious consideration, penetrate into the verities of Sacred Scripture. See Franciscus Ribera, her Life.

S. Basil (Hom. in Ps. I) says, “Holy Scripture is the universal depository of medicine for the cure of souls. From it every one may select the remedy which is salutary and appropriate for his own disease.”

Thus it was that in the age of the martyrs, the Church drew from Holy Scripture courage and fortitude; in the times of the doctors aptitude both to learn and teach, the illumination of wisdom, floods of eloquence; in the ages of heresy, confirmation of faith, whereby errors were plucked up: in prosperity she learns from Holy Scripture humility and modesty, in adversity greatness of soul. Lastly, if at any time in all the gliding years the Church be deformed by the wrinkles of old age, by spots, or blemishes, it is from the Scriptures she derives correction of morals, and a return to her primitive state of virtue and dignity.

Now, of all the Divine writings, the Gospel is the most excellent, says S. Augustine (de Consens. Evan. c. I). “For that which the Law and the Prophets foretold was to be is shown in the Gospel to be accomplished. Prophecy is the Gospel veiled as the Gospel is prophecy unveiled.” Hear S. Ambrose: “It is the Gospel by which the martyr ascends to heaven. The Gospel is the sea in which the Apostles fish: wherein the net is cast to which the kingdom of heaven is like. The Gospel is the sea in which the mysteries of Christ are figured. The Gospel is the sea in which the Hebrews were saved, the Egyptians drowned. The Gospel is the sea, wherein is the plentitude of Divine grace, wherein is the Spouse of Christ, which has been founded upon the seas, as the prophet hath said, ‘He hath founded it upon the seas.’”

Christ cries aloud, “I am the Light of the World,” for by means of the Light of the Gospel which I spread abroad, I illuminate the whole world. The Gospel, therefore, is the Light of the world, and its Sun. This is why, when it is read, candles are lighted. This was an ancient custom even in the time of Jerome, as he shows in his work against Vigilantius: “In all the Eastern churches when the Gospel is read, lights are kindled, even when the sun is shining, not for the purpose of banishing darkness, but as a mark of joy. Whence also the virgins in the parable always had their lamps burning, that under the figure of corporeal light there might be set forth the light of which we read in the Psalter, ‘Thy word, O Lord, is a light unto my feet, and a lantern unto my paths.’”

This is why there has ever been, not only by the Saints but by all Christians, wonderful reverence paid to the Gospel, wonderful love, wonderful veneration. Constantine the Great sent a book of the Gospels, adorned with gold and precious stones, to S. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra. The Emperor Theodosius wrote the Gospels with his own hand, and was wont to read them a good part of the night. The Œcumenical Councils of Nicæa, Chalcedon, and Ephesus, caused a volume containing the Gospels to be placed in the midst of their house of assembly, that to it, as to the Person of Christ, they might turn, as though Christ Himself were saying to them, “Judge righteous judgment.” (S. Cyril, in Apolog.) Even the heretics, who have expunged some books of Holy Scripture from the Canon, mutilated and depraved others, have not dared to meddle with the Gospels. Even heathens have respected the Gospels. How high an opinion the Platonists had of them S. Austin relates. de Civit. Dei, 10. 29. And in his Confessions he says, that in a certain Platonic book he had found the first words of S. John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,” but not the sentence, “The Word was made flesh.” In fine, the devils tremble at beholding the Book of the Gospels; and S. Chrysostom says, they dare not enter the place in which it is kept. (Hom. 31 in Joan.)

Christ has wrought many miracles by means of the Gospels. Hear a few out of many. Gregory of Tours relates that when a certain city was in a state of conflagration S. Gall entered the church, and prayed for a long time before the altar. He then rose and took the Book of the Gospels, and placed himself in front of the fire, which was immediately extinguished. Zonaras also, in his Life of Basil the Macedonian, relates that the Russians were converted by seeing a book of the Gospels preserved uninjured in the flames.

The Holy Gospels claim the surpassing dignity which they hold, as well on account of their subject as because of their Author. Their subject is God Himself, as God and Man. That is to say, the Gospels relate the deeds and the words of Christ the Lord, by means of which He has redeemed us, and taught both what we should believe, and what we should do, that we may arrive at eternal life. Therefore Christ in the Gospels deals with the divine precepts and counsels, with the perfection of Christian life. He speaks of the Sacraments, of faith, hope, and charity, of the Trinity, and indeed of the whole matter with which theology is conversant. You might, with S. Jerome, give this definition of the Gospels: “A Breviary and Compendium of all Theology.”

The Author, and as we might call Him, the Choragus in the Evangelical Drama, who is the chief, almost the sole actor and speaker, is Christ the Lord. “God,” says the Apostle to the Hebrews, “who at sundry times, and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.” Therefore not Moses, nor prophets, nor kings, but the Only-Begotten One, who from the mind of the Father hath drawn the secrets of the Divine Wisdom, and the very uncreated Wisdom itself, hath made the same known unto us in the Gospels. The very omniscient Word, I say, here speaks to us with His own mouth, and declares the mysteries kept secret from eternity, though shadowed forth by so many figures in the Law and the Prophets.

This is another way by which the Gospels vindicate for themselves the dignity which is due to them. They have been so formed by the Holy Ghost that those who are simple and unlearned should not be without profit in reading them, whilst great and lofty intellects may discover many things both difficult and obscure in which they may find exercise for their highest powers. “The Divine Word,” says S. Gregory (Prefat. in Job, c. 4), “exercises by its mysteries those who are prudent and comforts the simple, for the most part, by what appears on its surface. It has openly wherewith to nourish the little ones: it preserves in secret things whereby it may fill with admiration the minds of the lofty. It is, if I may so say, a river which is both shallow and deep: in which a lamb may wade, and an elephant may swim.” For indeed the doctrine of Christ is easy and accessible both to the lowly and the learned: it is only difficult and inaccessible to those who are proud, or slothful, or have confidence in themselves. “I give thanks unto Thee, O Father,” saith Christ, “because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, because it hath seemed good in Thy sight.”

These and many other such like things you will clearly perceive, if you compare the Law with the Gospel. Under the Law I include the Prophets, and all the other books of the Old Testament: under the Gospel, the rest of the New Testament. The Gospels are, as it were, their base and centre. As the sun shines resplendent in the midst of the planets, and as they borrow their light from him, and circle around him, and move, as I may say, in a kind of choric dance, so is the Gospel refulgent like the sun amongst the writings of the Apostles, and imparts to them its own light and splendour. For what else are Peter, Paul, James, John, and Jude than preachers and interpreters of the Gospel? “Paul,” says S. Jerome (Epist. 61, ad Pammach.), “is the Gospel trumpet, the roaring of our lion, the flood of Christian eloquence.” Thus the Acts of the Apostles set forth Gospel practice; the Epistles of S. Paul and the other Apostles, Gospel doctrine; the Apocalypse, prophecy. For what Christ foretold concerning Elias, Antichrist, the Judgment, and the end of the world, and the signs which shall go before it, John, in the Apocalypse, relates and unfolds more at length. Christ in the Gospel is, as it were, the Supreme Lawgiver, Apostle, Evangelist, and Doctor. He likewise is the Divine Seer and Prophet.

Christ Himself is the true Author of the Gospel. For this very cause He clothed His Godhead with our flesh, that by means of it, He might dictate the Gospel with His own mouth. “For,” as S. John says, “The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” What then is the Gospel? It is the Book of Christ, the Philosophy of Christ, the Theology of Christ; it is the most joyful message of Christ concerning redemption, and the everlasting salvation of the human race, brought by Himself from heaven, and conferred upon believers in Him. For Christ spake far more sublime and divine things by His own mouth than He spake by Moses and the Prophets.

To read, then, or to hear the Gospel, is to read or to hear the very words of the Son of God. And thus the Gospel must be listened to with the self-same reverence as if we were listening to Christ Himself. And this is what we read S. Anthony, S. Basil, S. Francis, and other saints did. “Let us hearken to the Gospel,” saith S. Austin, “as to the Lord: the Lord is above, but here, too, is the Lord, the Truth.” This is why, when the Gospel is read in church, all stand up, as venerating Christ. This custom has Apostolic sanction. Hear S. Clement (in book 2 of the Apostolic Constitutions, c. 61), “When the Gospel is read, let all the presbyters, deacons, and laity stand up, and keep perfect silence.” Isidore of Pelusium shows that the same custom should also be observed by bishops: “When the True Pastor himself approaches, by opening the adorable Gospels, then at last the bishop rises, by this signifying that the Lord Himself is the Prince of the pastoral office, and that God his Master is present.” (Lib. I Epist. 136.) Sozomen condemns the Alexandrine custom, by which, contrary to the general usage of the Church, the bishop does not rise when the Gospels are read. (Lib. 9, c. 39.) Moreover, the Eighth General Council (Act. 10. Can.) decrees that equal honour shall be paid to the Gospels as to the Cross of Christ: “We decree that the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all, shall be reverenced with the same honour as the book of the Holy Gospels. For like as by the words which are contained in the Book all attain to salvation, so by depicting in colours, both wise men as well as the unlearned receive profit from that which is before their eyes. For that which is in syllables are the words of Scripture, and they are preached and commended to us by pictures.”

A second reason for the superiority of the Gospel over the Law is found in the surpassing excellence of its doctrine. The doctrine of the Gospel greatly excels that which is found in the Law. The Law declares that one God is to be believed in and worshipped. The Gospel preaches of God, One in Essence, but Three in Person, who is to be loved and worshipped. “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” I allow that in the Law and the Prophets there was a foreshadowing of the mystery of the Trinity. And it was from thence that Trismegistus drew his oracular saying, “Monad begat Monad, and reflected back his warmth upon Himself.” But he neither understood nor penetrated the truth of the mystery. This, too, the Platonists followed after, but they did not attain unto it. They corrupted the truth by an error similar to Arianism, for whilst they proclaimed one chief God, they held that there were lesser and inferior gods. The prophets darkly and obscurely foretell the birth, life, cross, passion, and ascension of Christ, the mission of the Holy Ghost, the calling and conversion of all nations; but the Gospel firmly and clearly announces these things. The foreknowledge, providence, predestination, omnipotence, infinite love of God, and all His other attributes, are openly and distinctly set forth, not by the Law, but by the Gospel. “No man,” saith S. John, “hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.” Therefore, when Christ was made man, He descended from the bosom of His Father into the bosom of His Mother, that He might declare unto us the secrets of the Father, which were known to Himself alone. This, in truth, is “the great mystery of godliness,” which, as the Apostle says, “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” This verily is not in the Law, but in the Gospel.

S. Anthony, as Anastasius testifies in his Life, called the Gospel “a Letter of God sent down from heaven,” teaching how we ought to journey towards heaven, how we ought to please God, and live a good and perfect life. Excellently saith S. Bernard (Serm. 1, on the Seven Loaves), “The Gospel is the mirror of truth; it flatters no one, it misleads no one; in it every one will find himself just what he is, so that he need not fear where there is no cause for fear, nor yet rejoice when he hath done evil.” S. Gregory uses the same metaphor (lib. 2 Mor. c. 1), “Sacred Scripture is placed before the eyes of the mind, as it were a mirror, that in it we may behold our inward face; in it we can behold our deformity and our beauty; there we discern how we have profited, there how far we have been from profiting.” With this S. Ambrose agrees, saying (Serm. 20 in Ps. 119), “The Gospel not only teaches the faith, it is the school of morals, the mirror of conversation.”

Let us admire the sentiment of S. Bernard, who does not hesitate to say (Serm. 1 in Sep.) that he who hears, reads, meditates upon the word of God with profit, hath a sign and a pledge of his predestination; and, that you may not be astonished, he adds the reason: “He that is of God,” saith the Truth, “heareth the words of God. Ye, therefore, hear them because ye are of God.” Thus S. Cecilia, the glory of Rome, the princess of virgins, the standard-bearer of the martyrs, always carried the Gospel of Christ in her bosom, which neither flame, nor sword, nor torments were able to wrest from her; but by it she not only won for herself the laurels of virginity and martyrdom, but instructed and prepared her betrothed, Valerian, and her brother, Tiburtius, and many more, for the same laurels; so that deservedly does the Church sing of her, “Thine handmaid, Lord, Cecilia, like unto an industrious bee, doth Thee service.”

Lastly, the Law made no Apostles, but the Gospel hath made very many. For “the word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” For the Gospel has this force, that it causes him who believes in it to engage in propagating it, and so makes him a herald and preacher of it.

S. Chrysanthus, who empurpled Rome by a copious stream of his own and his relations’ blood, being converted to Christ from heathenism by reading the Gospel, afterwards converted his wife, Daria; and after that he drew men, and Daria women, without number, to faith and chastity.

S. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, when he was propagating the faith of Christ in Germany, about the year A.D. 750, always carried about with him the sacred volume of the Gospels. Even in his martyrdom he did not let it go, but when the Frisons brandished their swords above his head he opposed this book as a sort of spiritual shield; and by a remarkable miracle, although the book was cut right in twain by a sharp sword, not a single letter was destroyed. S. Dominic, that illustrious torch of the Church, the Father of the Friars Preachers, had the Gospel of S. Matthew for his constant companion. He knew almost the whole of it by heart, and was wont to say, “Without Holy Scripture a preacher cannot exist.” Rightly does S. Gregory, upon those words of Job, “Silver has the beginnings of its own veins,” say, “Silver is the brightness of eloquence, or wisdom. The veins of Holy Scripture are as if any one should say plainly, it is necessary that he who prepares himself for the words of true preaching should derive their sources from the sacred pages, that whatsoever he speaks he should recall to the foundation of Divine authority, and make firm the edifice of his discourse upon that.” When Ven. Bede was dying, almost with his last breath he would finish his translation of S. John’s Gospel, and said to his scribe, “Take your pen, and write quickly.” Then when the last words were written, like a dying swan, he sang, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” and most calmly breathed out his spirit to enjoy the reward of his faith and labours in the Beatific Vision of God, A.D. 731. The Emperor Charles, truly the Great, both in body and in the glory of sacred literature, as well as for his actions, a little before his death, after the coronation of his son Louis, gave himself up entirely to prayer, almsdeeds, and learning. He himself carefully revised the Four Gospels in conformity with their Greek and Syriac originals. Thus he spent his time until his last conflict. His Book of the Gospels is religiously preserved at Aix-la-Chapelle, as I myself have seen. The heretics have been imitators of these things. It is well known of one, Philip Melancthon, that he never went anywhere, never sat down, nor supped, nor dined, without having the Gospels by his side. But, leaving the sectaries, let us return to the Apostles. S. Barnabas was with S. Paul, the first Apostle of the Gentiles. When he was going forth to convert them he wrote out the Gospel of S. Matthew, and carried it about with him wherever he went. At length, dying a martyr for the Gospel in Cyprus, he desired to be buried with it, as a pledge of the heavenly resurrection promised to him. This very Gospel of S. Matthew was found upon his breast in the time of the Emperor Zeno. See his Life. The Apostle Bartholomew, as Eusebius tells us (H. E. v. 10), took with him to the Indies the Gospel of S. Matthew in Hebrew, written with his own hand. There he left it, and more than a hundred years afterwards Pantænus found it, and brought it to Alexandria. What turned Saul into Paul? The Gospel. “These were the men,” says S. Leo (Serm. 1 on SS. Peter and Paul), “by whom the Gospel shone upon thee, O Rome. They delivered to thee, as a charge to keep, that Gospel which Christ had committed unto them: they sealed it with their blood, that thou shouldst keep it pure, and deliver it, and expound it to all the other Churches as a mistress of truth. This is what Paul proclaims aloud to thee in his Epistle: ‘That I may be the minister of Christ to the Gentiles, sanctifying (Gr. ίερουργοϋντα, that is, consecrating) the Gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be accepted and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.’” The Gospel, and the preaching and interpretation of the Gospel, is the sacrifice; the Romans and the Gentiles who believe the Gospel are the victims. These the Apostle offered to God as a most acceptable oblation, when he evangelized them. The blood of Paul was the libation by which this sacrifice was bedewed.

The same S. Paul says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, “To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things: that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church.”

Paul, therefore, was the doctor of angels. S. Chrysostom commenting on the passage says, he taught the principalities and powers the Gospel of Christ. They, therefore, are followers of Paul, and co-workers with him who handle and expound the Gospel, and preach it to countrymen and foreigners, to believers and infidels. These are they whom Isaiah deservedly praises, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things.”

It remains that we should apply the doctrines of the Gospel to our own lives and those of others. For the Gospel is a mirror in which every one may behold his own face. “The Life of Christ,” says S. Bernard, “is the rule by which I ought to frame my life.” Christ is Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. “The First,” says S. Austin, “in eternity, the Last by humility.”

Let us learn then from the Evangel to live evangelically, that is, angelically. For Christ as an Angel descended from heaven that He might teach men angelic life and doctrine, yea, that of men He might make angels, and in a certain sense, gods. Christ shall come to his temple, and purify the priesthood. They that continue in their evil ways shall be punished: but true penitents shall receive a blessing. “Behold, I” saith He by the Prophet Malachi, “send My Angel, and He shall prepare the way before My face: presently the Lord whom you seek, the angel of the testament whom you desire, shall come to His temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye delight in, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Wherefore from Him, who is the Eternal Wisdom of the Father, we must diligently ask light and the grace of His Spirit, that He who sat in the midst of the Doctors when He was about to make a commencement of the Gospel, would even now open it both to teachers and taught, that they may understand it, and fulfil their understanding of it by Christian works.

Let us say therefore again and again with S. Augustine, if not with equal, yet with similar fervour (lib. 4 de Trinit. c. 1), “In this sort of men, who have sorrow in their pilgrimage, because they long for the country, and for God the Founder of it, in this family of Thy Christ, O my God, among Thy poor I groan; give me of thy Bread to answer men, who neither hunger nor thirst after justice, but are full and abound. For their own fancy, not Thy Truth hath satisfied them, for they repel Thy Truth and kick against it, that they may fall in their own vanity. Clearly do I perceive how many figments the heart of man brings forth. And what is my heart but the heart of a man? But for this I pray to thee God of my heart that in these writings I may put forth none of those figments for solid truth, but that there may come into them whatever shall be able to come through me from the place whence the dawning of His truth breaks upon me, although I have been cast out of the sight of His eyes, and am striving to return from afar by the path which the Divine Person of His Only-Begotten One hath laid down for mankind.”

After a little he adds, “The essence of God is such, that It hath nothing mutable, neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will, because there there is eternal truth, and eternal love: and true charity is there, and true eternity; there is loving eternity, and loving truth.”

Open unto us, O Lord Jesus, the arcana of truth, and of Thine own true love, Thou that hast the key of David, who openest and no man shutteth, and shuttest and no man openeth, that we may know it clearly, and when we know it, may love and cherish it, and loving it, may indeed fulfil it, for Thou art our Love, Thou our Desire, our Life, and Blessedness. Amen.

VERY many in the olden time wrote Gospels, and fathered them upon Apostles, giving them the names of Apostles, that they might in this manner gain a sanction for their heresies. “Thus,” says S. Jerome, “these were the authoritative books of divers heresies, published by divers authors, such as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel of Thomas, of Matthias, of Bartholomew, of The Twelve Apostles, of Basilides, of Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate. This only is it needful to say, that certain men rose up, who without the Spirit and grace of God attempted rather to weave a tale than to compile historical truth. To these men may justly be applied the words of the Prophet, ‘Woe unto them which prophesy out of their own heart, and walk after their own spirit, who say, The Lord saith, and the Lord hath not sent them.’ Of such the Saviour also speaks in the Gospel of S. John, ‘All that ever came before Me were thieves and robbers.’” And after an interval he adds, “From all these things combined, it may be clearly seen that four Gospels only ought to be received, and that all the follies of the Apocryphal Gospels have been the utterances of dead heretics, rather than of Catholic writers.”

There are then only Four Canonical Gospels, and the Church proves them to be so by the teaching and tradition of the Apostles. For S. Peter gave his sanction to the Gospel of S. Mark, S. Paul to that of S. Luke, the Apostles unitedly to that of S. Matthew, for when they were about to go away to their several provinces they carried it with them. All the Bishops of Asia, and the rest of the faithful are witnesses to the Gospel of S. John. Origen and S. Jerome, cite the authorities for these statements. As for the Gospel according to the Hebrews, attributed to S. Matthew, although it seems to have been the same with his Gospel, it has been depraved by additions from various sources, so that it is of doubtful and uncertain authority. S. Jerome, however, translated it out of Hebrew into Latin. This is what he says in his catalogue of illustrious men, speaking of James, the Lord’s brother: “The Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews, I have lately translated into Greek and Latin. Origen frequently quotes it. It makes the following mention of James after the Lord’s Resurrection. ‘When the Lord had given a linen cloth to the priest’s servant, He went and appeared unto James. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from the hour in which he had drank of the Lord’s chalice, until he beheld Him risen from the dead.’ And again, ‘Bring forth,’ saith the Lord, ‘bread and a table,’ adding immediately, ‘He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave it unto James the Just, and saith unto him, My Brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man hath arisen from among them that slept.’”

In the same work, Jerome, speaking of S. Ignatius says, “Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Smyrnæans, in which he quotes a passage from the Gospel which has been recently translated by me, upon the Person of Christ, saying, ‘I indeed, even after His Resurrection, have seen Him in the flesh, and I believe that He is. And when He came unto Peter, and unto them which were with Peter, He saith unto them, Behold Me, and touch Me, for I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed.’” Origen moreover (tom. 2 in Joan.) cites from the same Gospel, “Christ hath said, Presently My Mother, the Holy Ghost, received Me, and carried Me by one of My hairs to Mount Tabor.” This sentence, unless it be construed favourably, seems to contain the Gnostic heresy of the Valentinians, who asserted that the Holy Ghost was the Mother of Christ.

Origen, however, defends it thus, that the Holy Ghost is not called the Mother of Christ by generation, but by imitation, forasmuch as He imitated His Father, and conformed Himself to His will. This is but a poor defence however. Bede also quotes this Gospel, and asserts that it was allowed by the ancients. But however this may be, it is certain that it is not canonical, and has not the authority of Holy Scripture.

This Gospel according to the Hebrews was also called the Gospel of the Nazarenes, because the Nazarenes made use of it. Hear S. Jerome (in c. 12 Matth. v. 13), where he is speaking of Christ healing the withered hand: “In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, which I have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is considered by many an authentic work of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is said to have been a mason. These are the words in which he cried for help. There was a certain mason who gained his living by the use of his hands, who cried out unto Him and said, ‘I pray Thee, Jesus, that Thou wouldest restore me to soundness, that I may not disgracefully beg my bread.’”

The Nazarenes were Jews who were converted to Christ, who, because they kept the law of Moses together with the Gospel, were cast out of the Church. The Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, which they kept at first genuine and untampered with, they seem to have subsequently corrupted by certain additions, in the same way that the Ebionites and Carpocratians did.

You may ask why there are precisely four Evangelists and four Gospels, neither more nor less. 1. S. Augustine (lib. I de Consens. Evang. c. 2) answers, because there are four quarters of the world in which the Gospel must be preached.

2. “These four are, as it were, the four pillars of the Church, on which as on a square stone, the sacred structure of the faith is built.” So says S. Gregory (lib. I, Epist. 24).

3. Because the number four is solid and square. Therefore it denotes the solidity and perfection of the Gospels. Whence Philo (lib. de Mundi Opificio) says, “The number four first shows the nature of a solid: for a point is reckoned in unity, a line by duality; when breadth is added, superficies pertains to the number three; for surface to become a solid body it lacks one thing; when this is added, namely height, we have the number four.” Aristotle calls a perfect man foursquare.

4. Others assign as the reason, that there are just so many letters in the Hebrew name of God, which is called the Tetragrammaton, representing the four primary attributes of God, which are unfolded in the Gospels. Others say, because there were four rivers in Paradise. But these are all mystical and symbolical reasons.

5. The literal and real reason is because, as there are four Cherubim in the court of Heaven, as it were the princes and wise ones of God, so in the Church on earth there are four Evangelists, as it were, princes and cherubim of Christ. This is plain from the first chapter of Ezekiel, where he represents these four Cherubim with four faces, as denoting the four attributes of God. Add that two of the Evangelists, in the beginning of their Gospels, speak of the two natures of Christ—Matthew of His human, John of His divine nature. The other two speak of the two-fold dignity of Christ—Mark of His royal, Luke of His sacerdotal dignity. So Ruperti on the first chapter of Ezekiel. “For Christ was a man by being born, a calf by dying, a lion by rising again, an eagle by ascending,” says S. Jerome. That cherubic chariot then is the Gospel chariot, drawn, as it were, by four horses, that is to say, the four Evangelists, making the circuit of the world. This application of Ezekiel’s vision of the four Cherubim to signify the four Evangelists is given by S. Jerome, Athanasius, Austin, Irenæus, Gregory, Ambrose, Bede, and the rest of the Fathers by a unanimous consensus.

Listen to S. Jerome (Epist. 103, ad Paulinum), “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the Lord’s chariot, the true cherubim, which means the multitude of knowledge, whose bodies were all full of eyes, who gave forth sparks, ran to and fro like lightnings, had straight feet, and who were borne aloft; who had their backs covered with wings, and who flew in all directions. They each take hold of one another, they are mutually intertwined, they revolve as a wheel within a wheel, and they proceed whithersoever the breathing of the Holy Spirit leadeth them.”

Now, the cherubim of Ezekiel had four faces and four forms, namely, of a lion, a man, a calf, and an eagle. S. John, in the Apocalypse (chap. iv.), calls them four living creatures. “The first living creature,” he says, “was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, and the third living creature, having the face, as it were, of a man, and the fourth living creature was like an eagle flying.”

The lion denotes S. Mark, whose face, i.e., the beginning of his Gospel, is the cry and the roar of John the Baptist in the wilderness, “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand:” the calf denotes S. Luke, who commences his Gospel with the ancient priesthood, whose victim was a calf. The man denotes S. Matthew, who begins with the human genealogy of Christ. The eagle denotes S. John, who, soaring aloft from earth to heaven, balances himself like an eagle, and thunders forth, as it were, that Divine exordium, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Deservedly does S. Denis the Areopagite, in his Epistle to the same John, call him the sun of the Gospel, and his Gospel itself the memory and the renewal of that Theology, which he drew from the Lord, as he lay upon His breast, and left to be beheld in his Gospel by those who came after, like a ray of the sun.

Listen to S. Jerome in his Preface to S. Matthew: “First of all is Matthew the publican, surnamed Levi, who published a Gospel in Judæa in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake of those from among the Jews who had believed in Jesus, but who still observed the shadow of the Old Law, after the truth of the Gospel had come in its place. The second is Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, and first Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, who had not indeed himself seen the Lord, the Saviour; but related the things which he had heard his master preach, rather according to the truth of what was done, than the order. The third is Luke the Physician, a Syrian by nation, an Antiochene, whose praise is in the Gospel. He was a disciple of the Apostle Paul; and composed his work in the parts of Achaia and Bœotia. He aimed somewhat loftily; and as he himself confesses in his Preface, narrated what he had heard rather than what he had seen. The last is John, the Apostle and Evangelist, who loved Jesus very greatly, and who, lying upon the Lord’s bosom, drank of the very purest streams of doctrine, and who alone was privileged to hear from the Cross, ‘Behold thy Mother.’”

These four so appropriately wrote the words and deeds of Christ, that they seem to make a kind of musical harmony of four chords; for what each one writes is different in style from the others, but agrees with them in meaning and in facts. What one is silent about, another supplies: what one gives concisely, another relates more at large: what one obscurely hints at, another gives at length. As S. Augustine says, “Although each seems to have preserved his own order in writing, yet they are not found to have written as though any one were ignorant of what had been said by him who preceded; but as each was inspired, he added the not superfluous co-operation of his own labour.”

Lastly, the discrepancies of the Evangelists are the greatest possible testimony to their truthfulness. As S. Chrysostom says in his Preface to S. Matthew, “If altogether and in every respect they exactly corresponded, and with the utmost precision with respect to times and places were in perfect verbal agreement, there is not one of our enemies but would believe, that they were engaged in a common design to deceive, and that they had framed the Gospels by human understanding, for they would not judge that this supposed harmony arose from simple sincerity, but was the result of contrivance.” And again, he says, “If any one whatsoever had related everything, the others would have been superfluous: or if again, on the other hand, each had written nothing which was found in the others, there could have been no proof of their agreement. Wherefore they have written many things in common, and yet each hath related something specially and peculiarly his own. And thus they have escaped the charge of writing for writing’s sake, merely to add to the number of the Gospels, as well as the opposite danger of bringing discredit upon everything, by each giving entirely different events.”

THE Syriac version of the Gospels was made, as it would seem, from the Greek, and is extant in the royal Bibles. The Arabic version was printed at Rome with a translation, at the Medici printing press, A.D. 1591. I frequently cite both these versions.

I have also found in the Vatican Library at Rome the Coptic, or Egyptian version of the Gospels, the Ethiopian, and the Persian, all very ancient. For the Gospel was brought into Egypt soon after Christ by S. Mark, into Ethiopia by S. Matthew, into Persia by S. Simon and S. Jude. And so the faith of the Gospel flourished in those regions. In them there were swarms of holy monks and brave martyrs. A Persian version was transmitted by Jerome Xavier, the Jesuit, a cousin of S. Francis Xavier, from the city of Arga, in the territory of the King of Mogor, as a precious gift, and a remarkable monument of antiquity, to the Collegium Romanum, where I have collated it. This Codex was transcribed from the original in the Mahometan year 730 of the Hegira, which corresponds to A.D. 1381. The original itself was very much more ancient, for which reason the version contains a great number of Persian words differing from modern Persian. Of all these versions I propose to make use, though in moderation, and cum grano. For they have not the authority of the Greek and Latin Gospels; but they confirm, and to some extent illustrate them. Moreover there are at Rome Ethiopians, or Abyssinians, whose youthful priests are in the habit of coming to the Collegium Romanum. In Rome too there are those who are skilled in other tongues, for the world is in that city. The various Gospels have been interpreted to me by men of the several nations and languages in which they are written, especially by the Reverend Father Athanasius Kincher of our Society, a man well acquainted with the Oriental languages, as may be seen by the Lexicon which he has lately published.

It is said that S. Matthew preached in hither Ethiopia, now called Sennaar, where there are black Ethiopians. He is said to have died in the city of Luah, where there are still standing churches dedicated to him. The rest of Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, attributes its reception of the Gospels and the rest of Holy Scripture, together with the faith of Christ to a certain Ethiopian monk, named Abba Salama, or the father of peace. He was brought up amongst the Eastern Arabs, from whom he derived his knowledge of Christianity and the Holy Scriptures, which he afterwards communicated to the whole of Ethiopia, for which reason he is called its apostle. The Ethiopic version agrees with the Arabic, from which it was derived.

Very many, both in ancient and modern times, have written commentaries on the Gospels. Not to multiply citations, let us quote what S. Jerome says in his preface to S. Matthew: “I confess that I have read many years ago twenty-five volumes of Origen upon S. Matthew, and as many volumes of Homilies. I have read also the commentaries of Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, of Hippolytus the Martyr, and of Theodore of Heraclea, of Apollinarius of Laodicæa, and Didymus of Alexandria. Of Latin commentators, I have read the works of Hilary, Victorinus, and Fortunatus, from whom, even though little be taken, something worthy of remembrance might be written down.”

Of recent commentators the number is all but infinite. Their superabundance makes it difficult for the reader to know which to choose, so that he might say with Niobe of old, “Abundance has made me poor.”

For myself, I have written the following commentaries, partly at Louvain, A.D. 1600, partly when I was teaching and lecturing publicly on the Gospels at Rome. I am now an old man, and have passed nearly all my life in learning in the school of the Holy Scriptures. In a science so vast, so sublime and difficult, no one ought to be a teacher and doctor until he has spent a long time in studying as a disciple of the doctors.

IN presenting to the reader the Second Volume [Matt X to XXI] of this Translation of the great work of Cornelius à Lapide, I desire to mention that it has not been within my purpose to give an equivalent for every word of the original. This ought to have been stated at the commencement of the first volume, and I greatly regret the omission.

The stern exigencies of publication have compelled me to compress the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels within five octavo volumes, when a reproduction of the Latin original, verbatim et literatim, would have probably necessitated seven.

The matter standing thus, I have had to exercise my own judgment as to the character of the necessary omissions and compression. I am perfectly aware that in omitting or compressing anything at all, I expose myself to the full fury of the blasts of unkind, bitter, or unscrupulous criticism; though criticism of this kind has, I am thankful to say, been confined to a single print.

I have no fault whatever to find with the criticism of the R. Catholic Tablet. It was dictated by a thoroughly honest and commendable, but certainly mistaken fear, that I had made omissions for controversial purposes. Of this, I hope I am incapable.

With regard to the other adverse criticism to which I have alluded, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as either just or righteous. One reason is this; the reviewer in question concludes his remarks by saying "Those who are familiar with Cornelius' work are aware of the terseness and pungency of the author's style. Whether it would be possible to give this in English we cannot say, but the present translators do not appear to have even attempted the task, either in their literal rendering, or in their paraphrased passages, so that much of the sententiousness of the original has evaporated."

It would be almost impossible to single out from the whole range of the history of criticism a more telling example of its frequent utter worthlessness and disregard of a strict adherence to truth. In the first place, with regard to Cornelius himself, those who are best acquainted with him his greatest lovers and admirers are aware that if there is one thing more than another which they are disposed to regret, it is his great prolixity, and the inordinate length of his sentences.

Secondly, if the hostile reviewer had examined my translation solely for the purposes of an honest criticism, he could not have helped becoming aware of the fact that there is scarcely a page in which I have not broken up what is a single sentence in the Latin into two, three, and sometimes even more sentences in the English.

The whole text at its source

St Thomas Aquinas Latin

Matthaeus ex Iudaea et cetera. Evangelio Matthaei Hieronymus praemittit prologum, in quo tria facit: primo enim ipsum auctorem describit; secundo Evangelii mysteria aperit, ibi duorum in generatione Christi principia praesumens; tertio suam intentionem ostendit, ibi nobis autem in hoc studio argumenti fuit. Auctorem vero ipsum describit ex quatuor: primo ex nomine, cum dicit Matthaeus; secundo ex origine, cum dicit ex Iudaea; tertio ex scribendi ordine, ibi sicut in ordine primus ponitur; quarto ex vocatione, ibi, cuius vocatio ad dominum, idest ad Christum et cetera. De hoc Matth. IX, 9 et Luc. V, 27. Et nota quod Glossa interlinearis, quae dicit: primus, idest ante quem nullus etc., videtur velle, quod alii post Matthaeum scripserint in Iudaea, quod non est verum: solus enim Matthaeus scripsit in Iudaea, Marcus in Italia, Lucas in Achaia, Ioannes in Asia. Consequenter ipsius Evangelii mysteria aperit. Et primo aperit mysteria circa principium Evangelii; secundo ostendit eadem mysteria requirenda esse et in medio, et in fine, ibi in quo Evangelio utile est et cetera. In principio autem Evangelii duo tanguntur. Primo ponitur quasi quidam titulus, cum dicitur, liber generationis; secundo generationis cuiusdam series describitur, cum dicitur, Abraham genuit Isaac et cetera. Primo ergo ponit mysteria tituli, vel quae tanguntur in titulo; secundo mysteria generationis, ibi sicque quaterdenario. In titulo autem dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi; ubi tanguntur duo principia, scilicet David et Abraham. Et hoc quia Abrahae prius datum est praeceptum de circumcisione; ad Rom. IV, 11: signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei, quae est in praeputio, ut sit ipse pater omnium credentium. David autem electus est a domino; I Reg. XIII, 14: inveni virum secundum cor meum. Unde propter hoc isti duo tanguntur, ut denotetur quod Christus traxit originem ex circumcisis patribus et electis. Et hoc est, duorum, hominum, vel duorum principiorum, idest duo principia, scilicet David et Abraham. Consequenter ponit mysteria, quae tanguntur in genealogia. Et primo tangit mysteria ipsius Evangelii, vel Evangelistae; secundo ipsius Christi, ibi quarum omnium rerum et cetera. Et est mysterium quod Evangelista genealogiam Christi per tres tesseradecades distinxit: quarum prima est ab Abraham usque ad David; secunda a David usque ad transmigrationem; tertia usque ad Christum; ut ostenderet Christum esse et de circumcisis, et de electis, et de transmigrantibus. Et hoc est triformiter posito, idest tripliciter repetito, supra in genealogia, a credendi fide, idest ab ipso Abraham, qui fuit primum exemplar credendi, in electionis tempus porrigens, idest usque ad ipsum David deducens, et ab electione, idest ab ipso David, in transmigrationis diem dirigens; et a transmigrationis die usque in Christum definiens, patet, decursam, idest breviter et cursorie tactam, adventus domini ostendit generationem, et numero satisfaciens et tempori. Patet. Quarum omnium rerum et cetera. Nota quod in hac generationis serie quatuor tanguntur, tempus, numerus, ordo et dispositio sive ratio; quia ab Abraham usque ad David et cetera. Omnia ista nil aliud ostendunt nisi quod Deus Christus est: hoc enim intendit secundum dispositionem et rationem allegoricam, quod Christus est Deus. Quod est fidei necessarium, scilicet quod Christus Deus est, idest in omnibus non est plus de necessitate fidei, nisi quod Christus est Deus. Qui factus ex muliere et cetera. Nota, et expone, et signa capitula. Et omnia in cruce fixit, idest peccata, secundum quod de medio tulit, quod adversum nos chirographum erat. Item melius: Christus secundum Deum et hominem qui est omnia, secundum illud, Ioan. XII, 32, ego si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum, et Phil. II, 10: ut in nomine domini omne genuflectatur caelestium, terrestrium et Infernorum. Ut triumphans ea in semetipso, quia per trophaeum crucis omnia sibi subiecit, et de quolibet triumphavit. Et patris nomen in patribus filio. Ad evidentiam autem huius notandum, quod in serie generationis ponuntur quidam patres et quidam filii, sicut patet. Item ponitur ibi quidam pater sine patre, sicut Adam: quidam filius sine filio, sicut Iesus. Item ponuntur quidam qui sunt patres et filii, sicut omnes intermedii. Per hoc autem mystice designatur, quod in Trinitate est pater et filius, sicut in hac genealogia sunt quidam patres, quidam filii. Item per hoc quod primus pater non habet patrem in hac serie, nec ultimus filius filium, ostenditur quod isti sunt ab aeterno. Item per hoc quod unus et idem in persona est pater et filius respectu diversorum, tangitur quod isti sunt unum, non quidem in persona, sed natura. Et hoc est quod dicit et patris nomen restituens filio in patribus, idest quod filius habeat patrem; in patribus, idest per hoc quod ponuntur ibi quidam patres. Et nomen restituens patri, idest quod pater habeat filium, et hoc in filiis, idest per hoc quod ponuntur ibi aliqui filii sine principio et sine fine: quia pater primus non habet patrem, nec ultimus filius filium. Ostendens se unum esse cum patre, idest unus naturae, quia unus, in persona, scilicet pater et filius, respectu tamen diversorum, in dicta genealogia. Nota interlinearem quae dicit: unus Christus; quod nihil est dictum. Consequenter ostendit consimilia mysteria requirenda esse in dicto Evangelio, non solum in principio, sed etiam in medio et fine: et hoc est, in quo Evangelio, scilicet Matthaei, utile est desiderantibus Deum sic, idest eodem modo sicut diximus, cognoscere prima, idest principium, vel media, vel perfecta, finem, et consummationem; ut et vocationem apostoli et cetera. Scriptum est Phil. III, 12: sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam. Nobis autem. Hic ostendit intentionem suam, scilicet quod intendit quod ea quae hic dicuntur, vera sunt in historia, et tamen spiritualiter intelligenda. Nobis autem fuit hoc, idest haec intentio, in studio argumenti, idest prologi.

Catena Aurea St Thomas Aquinas, English

Augustine: (contra Faust. ii. 2.) The word ‘Evangelium,’ (Gospel,) is rendered in Latin ‘bonus nuntius,’ or ‘bona annuntiatio,’ (good news.) It may indeed be used on all occasions whenever any good is announced; but it has come to be appropriated to the announcement of the Saviour.

Gloss: Those who have related the birth, deeds, words, and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ, are properly styled Evangelists.

Continue reading 41 paragraphs

Chrysostom: (Homil. in Matt. i. 2.) For what is there that can equal these good tidings? God on earth, man in heaven; that long war ceased, reconciliation made between God and our nature, the devil overthrown, death abolished, paradise opened. These things, so far beyond our merits, are given us with all fulness; not for our own toil or labour, but because we are beloved of God.

Augustine: (de vera relig. c. 16.) Whereas God in many ways heals the souls of men, according to the times and the seasons which are ordained by His marvellous wisdom, yet has He in no way more beneficently provided for the human race, than when the Very Wisdom of God, the Only Son of one substance and coeternal with the Father, stooped to take upon Him perfect man, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Hereby He made manifest how high a place among creatures had human nature, in that He appeared to men as Very Man.

Pseudo-Augustine: (Serm. de Nativ. Serm. ix.) God was made man, that man might be made God.

Gloss: This part of the glad tidings that should be preached, the Prophet foretells saying, Behold, your God, &c.

Leo: (Epist. ad Flavian. xxviii. 3.) Pope; For this emptying of himself, by which the Invisible made Himself Visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to become one of us mortal creatures, was a stooping of His mercy, not a failing of His power.

Gloss: Therefore that the Lord should not be supposed to be present in such a way as that there should be any thing lost of His power, the Prophet adds, The Lord shall come with power.

Augustine: (de doct. Christ. i. 12.) Come, not by passing through the regions of space, but by shewing Himself to men in the flesh.

Leo: (Serm. in Nativ. s. xix. 3.) By the unspeakable power of God, it was wrought, that while very Man was in the inviolable God, and very God in passible flesh, there was bestowed upon man, glory through shame, immortality through punishment, life through death.

Augustine: (de Peccatorum Meritis, ii. 30.) For blood that was without sin being shed, the bond of all men’s sins was done away, by which men were before held captive by the Devil.

Gloss: Therefore because men, having been delivered from sin by virtue of Christ suffering, became the servants of God, it follows, And His arm shall have dominion.

Leo: (Ubi sup.) In Christ then was given us this wonderful deliverance, that on our passible nature the condition of death should not abide, which His impassible essence had admitted, and that by that which could not die, that which was dead might be brought to life.

Gloss: And thus through Christ is opened to us the entrance of immortal glory, concerning which it follows, Lo, His reward is with Him; that, namely, of which Himself speaks, Your reward is abundant in heaven. (Matt. 5:12.)

Augustine: (contra Faust. iv. 2.) The promise of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to the New Testament; in the Old Testament are contained promises of temporal things.

Gloss: So then evangelic teaching delivers to us four things concerning Christ; the Divinity that takes upon it, the Humanity that is taken upon it, His Death by which we are delivered from bondage, His Resurrection by which the entrance of a glorious life is opened to us. On this account it is represented in Ezekiel under the figure of the four animals.

Gregory: (in Ezek. Hom. iv.) The Only-begotten Son of God was Himself verily made Man; Himself condescended to die as the sacrifice of our redemption as a Calf; He rose again through the power of His might, as a Lion; and as an Eagle He ascended aloft into heaven.

Gloss: In which ascension He shewed manifestly His Divinity; Matthew then is denoted by the Man, because he dwells chiefly on the humanity of Christ; Mark by the Lion, because he treats of His Resurrection; Luke by the Calf, because he insists on His Priesthood; John by the Eagle, because he describes the sacraments of His Divinity.

Ambrose: (Comm. in Luc. pref.) And it has happened well that we set out with delivering the opinion that the Gospel according to Matthew is of a moral kind, for morals are the peculiar province of man. The figure of a Lion is ascribed to Mark, because he begins with an assertion of His Divine power, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The figure of the Eagle is given to John, because he has described the miracles of the Divine Resurrection.

Gregory: (Ubi sup.) These things the commencement of each of the Gospel books testifies. Because he opens with Christ’s human generation, Matthew is rightly designated by a Man; Mark by a Lion, because he begins with the crying in the desert; Luke by a Calf, because he begins with a sacrifice; because he takes his beginning from the divinity of the Word, John is worthily signified by an Eagle.

Augustine: (de Consensu Evang. i. 6.) Or, Matthew who has chiefly represented the regal character of Christ, is designated by a Lion; Luke by a Calf, because of the Priest’s victim; Mark, who chose neither to relate the royal nor the priestly lineagea, and yet is clearly busied about His human nature, is designated by the figure of a Man. These three animals, the Lion, the Man, the Calf, walk on the earth, whence these three Evangelists are mostly employed about those things which Christ wrought in the flesh. But John, as the Eagle, soars on high, and with most keen eyes of the heart beholds the light of unchangeable Truth. From which we may understand, that the other three Evangelists are occupied about the active, and John about the contemplative, life. The Greek Doctors by the Man understood Matthew, because he has deduced the Lord’s lineage according to the flesh; by the Lion, John, because as the lion, strikes terror into the other beasts by his roaring, so John struck terror into all heretics; by the Calf, they understood Luke, because the calf was the victim of the Priests, and he is much employed concerning the Temple and the Priesthood; and by the Eagle they understood Mark, because the eagle in the Divine Scripture is used to denote the Holy Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the Prophets; and Mark begins with a citation from the Prophets.

Jerome: (Prolog. in Evan. Matt. ad Euseb.) Concerning the number of the Evangelists, it should be known, that there were many who had written Gospels, as the Evangelist Luke witnesses, saying, Forasmuch as many have taken in hand, &c. (Luke 1:1.) and as books remaining to the present time declare which divers authors have set forth, therein laying the foundation of many heresies; such as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, according to Thomas, Matthias, and Bartholomewb; that of the twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others whom it would be long to reckon up. But the Church, which is founded by the Lord’s word upon the rock, sending forth, like Paradise, its four streams, has four corners and four rings, by which as the ark of the covenant, and the guardian of the Law of the Lord, it is carried about on moveablec staves.

Augustine: (de cons. Evan. i. 2.) Or, Because there are four quarters of the world, through the whole of which Christ’s Church is extended. In learning and preaching they had a different order from that they had in writing. In learning and preaching they ranked first who followed the Lord present in the flesh, heard Him teaching, saw Him acting, and by His mouth were sent to preach the Gospel; but in penning the Gospel, an order which we must suppose to have been fixed by Heaven, the first place, and the last place were filled out of the number of those whom the Lord chose before His passion, the first by Matthew, the last by John; so that the other two, who were not of that number, but who yet followed Christ speaking in them, were embraced as sons, and placed in the middle between the other two, so as to be supported by them on both sides.

Remigius: Matthew wrote in Judæa in the time of the Emperor Caius Caligula; Mark in Italy, at Rome, in the time of Nero or Claudius, according to Rabanus; Luke in the parts of Achaia and Bæotia, at the request of Theophilus; John at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, under Nerva.

Bede: But though there were four Evangelists, yet what they wrote is not so much four Gospels, as one true harmony of four books. (non occ.) For as two verses having the same substance, but different words and different metre, yet contain one and the same matter, so the books of the Evangelists, though four in number, yet contain one Gospel, teaching one doctrine of the Catholic faith.

Chrysostom: (Ubi sup.) It had indeed been enough that one Evangelist should have written all; but whereas four speak all things as with one mouth, and that neither from the same place nor at the same time, nor having met and discoursed together, these things are the greatest test of truth. It is also a mark of truth, that in some small matters they seem to disagree. For had their agreement been complete throughout, adversaries might have supposed that it was by a human collusion that this was brought about. Indeed in essentials which pertain to direction of life, and preaching the faith, they do not differ in the least thing. And if in their accounts of miracles, one tells it in one way, another in another, let not this disturb you; but think that if one had told all, the other three would have been a needless superfluity; had they all written different things, there would have been no room for proof of their harmony. And if their account differs in times or modes, this does not hinder the truth of the facts themselves which they relate, as shall be shewn below.

Augustine: (Ubi sup.) Though each seems to have followed an order of narration of his own, yet we do not find any one of them writing as if in ignorance of his predecessor, or that he left out some things which he did not know, which another was to supply; but as each had inspiration, he gave accordingly the cooperation of his own not unnecessary labour.

Gloss: (Ubi sup.) But the sublimity of the Gospel doctrine consists, first, in its preeminent authority.

Augustine: For among all the Divine instruments which are contained in Holy Writ, the Gospel has justly the most excellent place; its first preachers were the Apostles who had seen the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ present in the flesh; and some of them, that is, Matthew and John, published each a book of such things as seemed good to be published concerning Him. And that it should not be supposed, that, as far as relates to receiving and preaching the Gospel, it makes any difference whether it is announced by those who followed Him during His sojourn in the flesh, or by those who faithfully believed what they heard from others, it is provided by Divine Providence through the Holy Spiritd, that a commission, as well of writing as of preaching the Gospel, should be bestowed on some out of the number of those that followed the first Apostles.

Gloss: And thus it is clear that the sublimity of the authority of the Gospel is derived from Christ; this is proved by the words of the Prophet cited above, Go up to the top of the mountain. For Christ is that Mountain of whom the same Isaiah speaks, And there shall be in the last days a mountain prepared, the house of the Lord in the top of the mountains; that is, upon all the saints who from Christ the Mountain are also called mountains; (Is. 2:2.) for of His fulness have we all received. And rightly is that, Go thou up upon a high mountain, addressed to Matthew, who, as had been foretold, in his own person saw the deeds of Christ, and heard His doctrine.

Augustine: (de cons. Evan. i. 7.) This should be considered which to many presents a great difficulty, why the Lord Himself wrote nothing, so that we are obliged to give our belief to others who wrote of Him.

Gloss: But we ought not to say that He wrote nothing, seeing His members have written those things which they learned by the dictation of their Head. For whatever He would have us to read concerning His actions or His words, that He enjoined upon them to write as His own hands.

Gloss: Secondly, the Evangelic doctrine has sublimity of strength; whence the Apostle says, The Gospel is the power of God to the salvation of all that believe. (Rom. 1:16.) The Prophet also shews this in the foregoing words, Lift up thy voice with might; which further marks out the manner of evangelic teaching, by that raising the voice which gives clearness to the doctrine.

Augustine: (ad Volus. Ep. 3.) For the mode in which Holy Scripture is put together, is one accessible to all, but thoroughly entered into by few. The things it shews openly, it doth as a familiar friend without guile speaking to the heart of the unlearned, as the learned. The things it veils in mysteries, it does not deck out in lofty speech, to which a slow and unlearned soul would not dare to approach, as a poor man would not to a rich; but in lowly phrase it invites all, whom it not only feeds with plain truth, but exercises in hidden knowledge; for it has matter of both. But that its plain things might not be despised, these very same things it again withholds; being withheld they become as new; and thus become new they are again pleasingly expressed. Thus all tempers have here what is meet for them; the bad are corrected, the weak are strengthened, the strong are gratified.

Gloss: But because the voice when raised on high is heard further off, by the raising of the voice may be denoted the publication of the Gospel doctrine; because it is given to be preached not to one nation only, but to all nations. The Lord speaks, Preach the Gospel to every creature.

Gregory: (Matt. 16:15. Homil. in Evan. 28.) By every creature may be meant the Gentiles.

Gloss: The Evangelic doctrine has, thirdly, the loftiness of liberty.

Augustine: (con. Adver. Legis et Proph. i. 17.) Under the Old Testament because of the promise of temporal goods and the threatening of temporal evils, the temporal Jerusalem begets slaves; but under the New Testament, where faith requires love, by which the Law can be fulfilled not more through fear of punishment, than from love of righteousness, the eternal Jerusalem begets freemen.

Gloss: This excellence of the Gospel doctrine the Prophet describes when he says, Cry aloud, fear not. It remains to see to whom, and for what purpose, this Gospel was written.

Jerome: (Prolog. ad Euseb.) Matthew published his Gospel in Judæa, in the Hebrew tongue, for the sake of those of the Jews who believed in Jerusalem.

Gloss: (Ordinaria.) For having first preached the Gospel in Judæa, being minded to pass to the Gentiles, he first put in writing a Gospel in Hebrew, and left it as a memorial to those brethren from whom he was departing. For as it was necessary that the Gospel should be preached for confirmation of the faith, so was it necessary that it should be written to oppose heretics.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: (Comm. in Matt. Prolog.) Matthew has arranged his narrative in a regular series of events. First, the birth, secondly, the baptism, thirdly, the temptation, fourthly, the teachings, fifthly, the miracles, sixthly, the passion, seventhly, the resurrection, and lastly, the ascension of Christ; desiring by this not only to set forth the history of Christ, but to teach the order of evangelic life. It is nought that we are born of our parents, if we be not reborn again of God by water and the Spirit. After baptism we must resist the Devil. Then being as it were superior to all temptation, he is made fit to teach, and if he be a priest let him teach, and commend his teaching, as it were, by the miracles of a good life; if he be lay, let him teach faith by his works. In the end we must take our departure from the stage of this world, and there remains that the reward of resurrection and glory follow the victory over temptation.

Gloss: From what has been said then, we understand the title Gospel, the substance of the Gospel doctrine, the emblems of the writers of the Gospel, their number, their time, language, discrepancy and arrangement; the sublimity of the Gospel doctrine; to whom this Gospel is addressed, and the method of its arrangement.

Maldonatus English
PREFACE 3 paragraphs

THE Preface shall consist of a brief preliminary disquisition on some points, before proceeding to the explanation of the Gospels themselves. They may be arranged under six heads.

I. The meaning of the words " Evangel " and " Evangelist ".

II. What and whence their authority. III. What their number, and why neither less nor more than four. IV. Where each was written. V. In what language. VI. To what end and purpose.

CHAPTER I. OF THE VARIOUS MEANINGS OF THE WORDS "GOSPEL" (EVANGEL) AND "EVANGELIST" 9 paragraphs

THE word " Gospel " means a happy and pleasant message, and evayyeXt£eu', or, as it is more frequently written, evayyeXi^ea-ffai, signifies the beginning of such a message. This is so well known that it needs less to be mentioned than not passed over. It is less known that these two words, although sometimes found in profane authors, are more properly the possession of the Church. Through the LXX. they seem to have been in a manner bestowed by the State upon the Church. For other Greek authors, even when relating the most fortunate events, use the term of ordinary announce ments — dyye'XXeij>, rather than the more proper one — €uayyeXi£e^. But the Hebrews with the utmost scrupulousness retain the correct meaning of the term *W1 when relating prosperous circumstances. In all other cases they keep the usual expression TOT SPDt^n. The difference between the terms is seen in the following passages of Scripture : 2 Kings w. 10; xviii. 19, 25, 26, 31 ; 4 Kings vu. 9. There are two passages in which the word "fttH seems to be used in a calamitous sense (i Kings w. 17). Eli was told that the ark was taken by the Philistines, the people of Israel slaughtered and dispersed, and his two sons slain. The term used of the messenger is "Wlft " Evangelista". The other is (2 Kings i. 20) where David laments for the death of Saul and Jonathan, and says, " Publish it not in the streets of Ascalon," Ne ista Evangelizetis in plateis Ascalon, nsim VYttnn h& J^jWM. But even in these passages the true meaning of the word is preserved. In the former, not because it was a happy message, as some think, because wicked priests were killed. Even if so, it was not such to the father to be told that the people were destroyed and the ark taken, for on hearing it he fell to the ground as one dead and broke his neck ; but because the author of the book used the word not in accordance with truth and fact, but agreeably to the opinion and expectation of the people, who thought that the ark of the Lord in the camp was a sure harbinger of victory. Unless we are to think that the word was used ironically, which, in so great a calamity, we should hardly feel to be right ; to laugh at a person overwhelmed with misfortune, being to make light of his suffering. In the latter case, although the death of Saul and Jonathan caused grief to David, it brought joy to the Philistines, " lest," as he immediately adds, " the daughters rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph". In these cases the Hebrew *TO1 and the LXX. euayyeXi£eo-#ai are used properly. For while the LXX. emulously endeavoured to give the force of the Hebrew word, they made the word euayyeXi- £ecr#cu so well known, that it seems to be not so much a word of the Greeks as of the Church. For the LXX. borrowed it from the Hebrews, the Apostles from the LXX., and the whole Church, both Greek and Latin, received it from the Apostles. The Church uses evangelizare like baptizare, so that if any abstained from their use he would be thought very little religious, and be justly considered to possess the spirit of Cicero rather than of the Church. The word " Gospel " (euayyeXio*') then means a gift given to one who brings good tidings. It was used by Homer (xiv. 152) and by the Hebrews (2 Kings xviii. 20-22), mttfl, Though the LXX. in the two latter instances use not euayye'Xto^, but in the one evayyeXLo-jjiov, and in the other evayyeXiav. So also a sacrifice which was offered in gratitude for the receipt of good news has been noticed by many, and is known, I suppose, by all. In the same way our great Divine Sacrifice was styled by the earliest Greek Christians Euxa/oicma, and the Latins took the term from them. To us Christians, then, the word " Gospel " means nothing else than a good and wished-for message, and not that only but the one than which none better or more desired could either be brought to man or sent by God : the Son of God, made man to procure our salvation, and by His death (that is, His most glorious victory), at the hands of the most cruel of men, to deliver us from certain and never-dying death. And this word has attained to more honour in the Church, in which He in a certain manner sojourned, than in Greece its own country. For, forgetful of all other meanings, it declares especially and above all others, /car' l^o^p, only that which is the most excellent of all things^ proclaiming nothing less than Christ, the salvation of man, heaven, and a life of beatitude.

Thus, and rightly, it was received by S. Ambrose, or, rather, Remigius (Rom. i. and Gal. i.) and Eusebius (i., De Prcep. Evang.\ These define the Gospel as a good message by which sinners are brought to mercy. If we add " through Christ," the message will be not only perfect, but also more explicit. But even this does not exhaust the subject.

The word Evangelium may be noticed as taken in the New Testament in four senses.

1. For the joyful message itself which is announced (as in Matt. w. 23 ; ix. 35 ; Mark i. 14).

2. For the doctrine of Christ (Matt. xxiv. 14 ; xxvi. 12 ; Mark i. 15 ; viii. 35 ; x. 29).

3. For the preaching of the Gospel, as very frequently found in S. Paul (Rom. i. i ; xvi. 25 ; i Cor. w. 15; ix. 23; Gal. u. 2).

4. The History in which the Gospel, that is, the coming of Christ to us and His life, are related (Mark i. i). I do not know if it be found in this sense elsewhere. For what S. Paul says, when speaking of S. Luke, " whose praise is in the Gospel," although many, and the great S. Jerome among them, on S. Luke (in his De Viris I I lust.}, think that wherever he speaks of his own Gospel, as he often does, that of S. Luke is to be understood ; yet the explanation is not certain. It is more probable that S. Paul was commending the great daily labour of S. Luke in preaching, beset as it was with many perils, than that of his writing, which was not so great, and was very brief and free from danger.

In this sense, then, these four books are called the Gospels, so that we may define them to be a History containing the advent of Christ to us and His acts, and approved by the authority of the Catholic Church as dictated by the Holy Ghost. For not every History of Christ, though true, is a Gospel, unless the authority of the Church is given to it, as we shall show in the second Chapter of our Preface.

The Evangelists, however — that is, they who wrote the Evangelical History — although deriving their appellation from the Evangel, are never, as far as I remember, so called in Scripture, but they who preach the Gospel (Isa. lu. 7, although the Greek LXX. have not translated the passage, and Acts xxi. 8 ; Ephes. w. 1 1 ; 2 Tim. w. 2). Yet the ecclesiastical custom has obtained that they who never have this title in those books are always known by it in common life, and they who are called Evangelists in the Sacred Books are never ordinarily called so, whilst they who never bear that title in those writings always receive it in common conversation. Nor is the language of our mother to be held in contempt, but followed. For even in cities, they who use the language learnt from their mothers or nurses, so that it be not vulgar, but elegant and correct, are considered the best speakers, as was the case with the most famous orators of ancient Rome. And as in the city to use unpolished expressions is thought barbarous, so in the Church to make use of unecclesiastical terms savours of heresy. Let him, then, be an Evangelist to us who at the dictation of the Holy Ghost wrote the Evangelical History, and who has been approved as such by the Catholic Church.

CHAPTER II. THE AUTHORITY OF THE EVANGELISTS 6 paragraphs

To those who have not studied the History of the Church it may appear strange that we should inquire into the extent of the authority possessed by the Evangelists. But whosoever has done so will remember that many heretics were found in ancient times who sought to detract from the authority even of the four Evangelists themselves, whose words it seems to us profane to question ; and he will under stand that while in no sense doubting, ourselves, it is a duty for us to doubt for others, lest they doubt for themselves.

The Ebionites received S. Matthew only because, while wholly intent on asserting the true human nature of Christ, this Evangelist appeared to be the one who less than the rest opposed their wickedness (S. Irenaeus, i. 26). Others admitted S. Mark only, whom S. Irenaeus (i. 26) reprehends without naming them. Others, like the Marcionists and Cerdonians, received only S. Luke. These are mentioned by Tertullian (De Prczs. and w., Against Marcioii) ; S. Irenaeus (iii. 1 1); Philaster (chap, xlv.) ; S. Epiphanius (Her., xlii.). The Manichaeans and others like them admitted only S. John, as we learn from S. Augustin. The Alogiani, a kind of Arians, accepted all but S. John. They could not hear that heavenly thunder by which their heresy was wholly destroyed, as smitten by a voice from heaven : "In the begin ning," &c. We are told this by S. Epiphanius (Her., 1L).

Not, indeed, that these different heretics received the Gospels which they accepted, in their truth and integrity, but in a mutilated and, to use the words of S. Irenaeus, circumcised form. They carefully rejected whatever was opposed to their own heresy, and under pretence of correcting they largely mutilated the text. They could not therefore be refuted by Catholics except from those texts which from forgetfulness, heedlessness, or over-confidence they had left uncorrupted. Tertullian (v., Contra Marcion) derides the sponge of Marcion, which he had not drawn with sufficient care over all those passages from which he could have been refuted.

Others, not to appear profane, but religious, comprehended that the Evangelists had been corrupted by heretics, and that they might not prove themselves altogether false, under pretence of amending, they themselves corrupted them ; and thus a pretended adulteration became the cause of real corruption. " That heresy," says Tertullian (w., Against Marcion], " is not of divine authority but of human temerity, which thus always mends when it vitiates the Gospels." All classes of heretics employed themselves in these practices, but the Manichaeans excelled them all. And thus S. Augustin (Ep. xix.) could scarcely find any locus standi against them ; but by these means they continually cut away the ground from under his feet. This was an old-standing artifice with heretics ; for even in the first age of the Apostles themselves, as S. Ignatius says (Ep. i. ad Philadelph.}, there were some so full of universal suspicion that they said they would not believe even the Gospels themselves unless they found them in the archives of the Church.

The Manichaeans, by a different but not a lighter wickedness, said that our Gospels were not written by those whose names they bear, but by others long after them, who had neither seen what they relate themselves, nor received them from those who had. So S. Augustin (xxxiii., 3, Cont. Faust?). Faustus himself, a chief man among the Manichaeans, says that the Manichaeans had their own pure and incorrupt Gospel, which the Holy Ghost had given to Manichseus. It was the custom, indeed, of all heretics not to admit the Scriptures, but to make them ; not to receive, but to give them. And in these days we should not have the four Gospels but for the good-will and pleasure of Calvin, for he might have rejected these with the same audacity as that by which he rejected so many other books that are approved by the Church. The four Evangelists, then, have the same authority as the Holy Spirit Himself has, whose amanuenses in the composition of them they were. Our own letters derive not their authority from being written by a servant, but from having been dictated by ourselves.

Modern heretics are offended, and regard us with a holy horror, because we say that the Evangelists and other sacred writers derive their authority from the Church, as if we were putting the Church before God. They do not understand, acute as they think themselves, that we say that the Church gives authority to Scripture, because she declares that it was given and dictated by God. Why do they not blame those who say that royal letters have their authority from the chancellor who affixes the seal to them, as if they set the servant above the lord ? The Church, and not Calvin, has the seal of God, that very Spirit which was promised and given, not to Calvin, but to the Church, that He might remain with her for ever. It is He who first dictated the four Gospels, and then taught us that they were dictated by Him, through the Church. And He, the same Spirit, tells us that the spirit of Calvin, by which he approves these Scriptures and disapproves those, is an heretical one. But whilst all the sacred writers have the very greatest authority that they can possibly have, yet the four Evangelists, if there can possibly be a greater than the greatest, have one greater than the greatest. For there is no Christian but, by some religious impulse, whilst he ascribes to the sacred writers the most authority possible, gives to the four Evangelists still more, both because these commemorate the very words and acts of Christ, so that when he reads them, he seems to see and hear Christ Himself, as S. Basil has observed on the opening words of S. John's Gospel, and because the Gospels are the end of the ancient Scriptures, the foundation of the new, and the first fruits, as Origen calls them of all (Origen, torn, i., In Joann.\ and because the same things have been said by four witnesses. This multitude of witnesses is necessary, not, indeed, to the faith, but to human frailty.

CHAPTER III. THE NUMBER OF THE EVANGELISTS 4 paragraphs

THAT there were many writers of the Gospels we have the evidence of one who deserves the highest confidence— S. Luke (i.). We learn the same fact still more clearly and distinctly from the writings of antiquity. For in S. Clement (Alex. Strom., u., Hi.), Origen (Tract, in S. Matt.}, S. Irenaeus (i. 15), S Athanasius (In Synops.), S. Epiphanius (Her., xxvi., xlvi.), S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome (Prolog, in S. Matt.}, S. Ambrose (i., On S. Luke i.), we read of the Gospel of the Hebrews, Nazarenes, Ebionites ; of James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, even Judas the traitor, and the twelve Apostles. Many heretics also composed or invented Gospels, as Apelles and Basilides in S. Epiphanius. Of so many the Church, by a mystical number as has been thought, only approved four. The heretics, when they had rejected the four true, received the false. As Origen and S. Ambrose have truly said : " The Church, although she has only four books of the Gospel, overflows through the whole world with Evangelists ; heresy, while it has many Gospels, has not one. It has been asked why, as so many wrote Gospels, the Church has never received more than four ? The answer is obvious. She found that no more than four were written by the Holy Spirit. This is believed to have been the act of the Holy Spirit. Many reasons are given for it, but those of S. Irenaeus (iii. n), Anastasius (Qucest. 5 in Script. \ S. Jerome (Prologue in Matt.), and S. Augustin (De Consens., i. 2) seem to be the bestthat there are four quarters of the globe through which the Gospel was to be published. For God in the government of His Church seems to have a regard to this number, so as to act and speak inaccordance with the custom of men and the nature of things. Thus Christ says (S. Matt. xxiv. 31) that when the Gospel is about to be ended and the harvest gathered in, He would send His angels (four in number, very probably) to the four winds to reap where they have sowed ; and there will be an equal number of the morning and evening in a fourfold division of the earth.

So, in the Apocalypse (vu. i), the lour angels will hold the four winds, and, in Ezekiel i. 16 and Apocalypse w. 6, the chariot on which the Divine Majesty sits will be drawn by the four beasts. The Gospel is the chariot of God, in which the Divine Majesty shines most brightly ; for, as S. Paul says, "it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Rom. i. 16). It was therefore to be drawn by the four beasts.

And as the four Evangelists were represented in the Old Testament by the creatures, ancient authors have said that they were so by the four rivers of Paradise, and (S. Jerome, Prolog, in S. Marc.) by the four rings by which the ark was carried, the other figures seem to be both rightly adapted to them, and probable. This one seems not only probable, but even certain, and to have been instituted by the Holy Spirit to this very end— the fore showing of the future Evangelists.

For it cannot be doubted that the four beasts mean the same thing in Ezekiel and the Apocalypse. But as it is clear that the twenty-four Ancients who sit around the throne (Apoc. w.) signify the fourand-twenty columns of the Church, the twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles, it is clear that the four beasts which bear the throne show the four Evangelists. It was not without reason, nor, as I believe, divine inspiration, that while the ancient Fathers differ in assigning the figures to the four Evangelists, they all agree on this point (S. Irenaeus, iii. i ; S. Jerome, Prol. to Matth. ; and others). Human minds are seldom found in harmony with the Divine Spirit. But why God sat with those four animals — the man, the ox, the lion, and the eagle — rather than any others, some reasons have been given in the Commentary on Ezekiel. It is sufficient here to give a few of those which the ancient Fathers have given. These four animals seem the best adapted to express the peculiar features of the four Evangelists. For S. John, flying upwards with a great rush even to the Divinity of our Lord, resembles the eagle ; S. Luke, begin ning with the offices of a priest, resembles the ox of sacrifice ; S. Mark, beginning with the voice of one crying in the desert, represents the lion roaring in the wilderness ; S. Matthew, beginning from the human generation of Christ, makes himself, as it were, a man with Christ. Thus almost all authors apply these four creatures to the four Evangelists, some a little differently to others ; for S. Iremeus, the most ancient of all, makes S. John the lion and S. Mark the eagle, because the former commences boldly at once : " In the beginning," and S.Mark, with the spirit of prophecy, begins : " The voice of one ". But this diversity does not detract from the faithfulness of the figure. Sedulius, a Christian poet, thinks that the Evangelists being four in number represents the universality of the times. For he says that the twelve Apostles signify the twelve months of the year, and the four Evangelists the four seasons through which the sun of the Gospel takes his annual course.

CHAPTER IV. AT WHAT TIME THE EVANGELISTS WROTE 2 paragraphs

WITH regard to the time at which each Evangelist wrote his Gospel, almost all authors seem to agree that they wrote them in the order in which they now stand. It is not doubtful, therefore, that S. Matthew comes first, S. Mark second, S. Luke third, and S. John last. But the precise time and place are uncertain.

Most say that S. Matthew wrote in the third year of Caligula — that is, the eighth after the Ascension, when S. Peter and S. Paul were preaching at Rome — and that he composed it most especially for his own people in Judea. So say S. Irenaeus (iii. i), though he does not mention the time of Cali gula ; S. Athanasius (Synop.) ; Eusebius (Hist., v. 8, and Chron.} ; S. Chrysostom ; S. Augustin (De Consens., i. 2) ; and Theophylact (Comment, on S. Matt.\ These mention it as the tradition of the Church. Eusebius and S. Athanasius say that S. Mark was then at Antioch ; Theophylact says that S. Mark published his Gospel ten years after, S. Luke fifteen, S. John thirty-two ; he says in his prologue that S. John wrote his Gospel in the island of Patmos ; Nicephorus and others that he wrote it at Ephesus, after his return from banish ment. S. Isidore (De Sanct. Nov. Test.\ Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, Nicephorus, say that he wrote it before the destruction of Jerusalem, thirtytwo or thirty-three years after the Ascension, and they who assert that he wrote it at Patmos must hold the same opinion. S. Jerome and others say that he wrote it after the destruction of that city — sixty-eight years. Bede says sixty-five after the Ascension.

CHAPTER V. IN WHAT LANGUAGE THE EVANGELISTS WROTE 11 paragraphs

IT was the constant opinion of all the Ancients that the others wrote in Greek, which was then the almost universal language, but that S. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. This was the opinion of the authors mentioned above, Papias, a very ancient author quoted by Eusebius (Hist., iii. 39), S. Epiphanius (Her., xxx), S. Chrysostom (Horn. i. in Matt.\ S. Jerome (De vit. Illust. and Prol. in Matt.}, and whoever has treated of the subject. But who translated it into Greek is quite uncertain. Few say anything on the subject, and those do not agree among themselves. For S. Athanasius says it was James the brother of S. John ; Theophylact that it was S. John himself. S. Augustin leaves it undecided ; and I seem most inclined to follow his opinion. S. Jerome says that he saw the Hebrew version, and there is one still extant; but whether it is in all respects the same as that mentioned by S. Jerome may be a question. I cannot help the suspicion that it has passed through the hands first of Jews and then of heretics — neither of them very trustworthy persons.

To deny that S. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, as some not unlearned men of our age have done, is somewhat rash. I, at least, cannot agree with them, for the constant opinion of antiquity, and the authority of all ancient writers, are of more weight with me than the reasoning of these persons, however acute. Their assertion, that S. Matthew could not have written in Hebrew because he so often explains Hebrew words (as "Emmanuel," that is, "God with us" ; "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" that is, " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me "), is not of sufficient weight to induce me to give up an opinion confirmed by so many ages of antiquity, and the question why he explains these two Hebrew words rather than all the others, if he wrote all in Hebrew, is of still less.

In what language should he explain them? In Hebrew ? This was not needed. In some other ? He could not when he was not writing in any other. By this reasoning it might be proved that the Old Testament was not written in Hebrew, nor the New in Greek.

For even in the Old Testament Hebrew words are sometimes explained by Greek, often by Latin, ones ; and in the New Testament we have Greek explanations, as (i Kings vu. i2)*rtyn pN mwnN frn,T1 "He called its name Ebenchezer," to w^hich the LXX. added the explanation : "He called the place ' The stone of help' ".

In Gen. xxxi. 48 : " The name thereof was called iyh$". The Latin adds: " That is, the witness heap ".

In Gen. xxxv. 18, she called his name *01N"p that is, "the son of my pain," as is added by the Latin, and again " but his father called him "pMl". The Latin explains it as "the son of my right hand ".

Exodus xvi. 15, 31 : "The house of Israel called the name thereof NIPT p "• The Latin adds " which signified! ' What is this ? ' "

In Apocalypse ix. n : "Whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon ". The Latin version adds: " In Latin Exterminans ".

If Moses wrote in Hebrew, how does he explain Hebrew words? If S. John wrote in Greek, how does he explain Greek words by Latin ? These explanations are not the work of the author, but of the translator, and it is not improbable that a writer in Hebrew may explain one Hebrew word by another ; as we often do in ordinary conversation with a compound word or one not in common use.

For example, the Hebrew vNl^fcV which not only can be explained but which needs explanation. i:ny mm "The Lord with us," or htt 12By "God with us/' and "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is Syriac, and can be translated into Hebrew.

In the extant Hebrew Gospel, the explanation of these words is not found. I am not speaking of what has been done, but of what I think it possible to do. It appears more probable that derivations and explanations of this kind were the work of the translator. But this does not in any degree detract from the authority of Scripture.

CHAPTER VI. WHY THE EVANGELISTS WROTE 3 paragraphs

WITH what design and from what motives the Evangelists were induced to write the Gospels they partly inform us themselves, and partly we learn from the authoritative statements of the Ancients, and our own conjectures on the subject. S. Luke (i. i) signifies that he himself was led to write because he saw that many were endeavouring to compose Gospels who did the work with very little truthfulness. This fact, although he does not state it directly, he wishes to be understood. For when he says that "It seemed good to me, having dililigently attained to all things from the beginning, to write " (i. 3), he points indirectly to those of whom he was speaking, and who had not learnt the truth sufficiently as having taken in hand to write. But so holy a man judged it more in accordance with modesty to state his own diligence and faithfulness in the composition of his history than to blame the negligence and untruthfulness of others. This appears to be his meaning, though not openly stated by him. For the word used by him in the begin ning of his Gospel, eVe^e'i^o-a^, have " taken in hand," signifies that they whom he is tacitly accusing made their attempt indeed, but very little carried it out into practice, as the Ancients (Origen, Horn. i. in Luc.; S. Ambrose, In Luc. i.; S. Augustin, De Consens., w. 8), have observed.

That the same cause induced the other Evangelists to give us their Gospels we may understand from S. Luke. 2. S. John brings another reason, which, although the others do not, but as they had one heart and one soul, and the same holiness, we must believe to have been common to all. "These," says S. John, "are written that you 1 may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (xx. 31). 3. A third cause seems to have been that the hearers might have in writing what the Apostles had taught them by word of mouth, that they might not forget them or under stand them amiss. S. Luke gives this reason (i. 4), or, as the Greek says more emphatically: "Which thou hast heard viva voce ". 4. That what they had taught their hearers when present they might teach them still in their absence by their writings. In this manner S. Paul speaks to the Romans (x. 18), for their own voices would be very shortly silenced on earth. 5. That not only during their lives, but also after their death, they might preach the Gospel, not to those alone who were then living, but also to all who should live hereafter; that as it had been preached to the dead, so it should be preached through the dead. The knowledge was of such importance that it had to be taught in all places, at all times, to all manner of men, and through every class of the human race.

These are general reasons, but each Evangelist must also have his own particular ones. For all ancient authors relate that S. John was compelled to write because of heretics. For as the Ebionites, Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans denied the Divinity of Christ, and he saw that the other Evangelists laid less stress on asserting it, he judged that he himself ought most especially to write in its support. So says S. Jerome (De vir. illust. in Joann.), S. Epiphanius (H&r., li.), S. Augustin (in his Introduction to S. Jo/in}. This object, besides the fact that the Ancients tell us of it, appears clearly, not only ex initio, but from his whole work, for he everywhere teaches the Divinity of Christ. And that the other Evangelists also had their own peculiar reasons for writing is taught and explained by S. Epiphanius (Hcer., li.) and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., iii. 24).

Cursus Scripturae Sacrae Joseph Knabenbauer SJ, Latin

In evangeliis Marci et Lucae narratur Levi Alphaei filium sedentem ad telonium a'Christo esse vocatum vocatumque esse Christum secutum (Marc. 2,14. Luc. 5,27). In albo autem apostolorum apud utrumque non recensetur Levi, sed Matthaeus, qui in primo evangelio appellatur publicanus (Matth. 10,3. Marc. 3,10. Luc. 6,15) et de quo Matthaeo sedente ad telonium eadem referuntur quae de Levi apud illos leguntur. Praeterea haec de Levi-Matthaei vocatione narratio apud tres synopticos in eadem rerum connexione describitur; praecedit narratio de paralytico sanato, sequitur narratio de convivio in eius domo habito, cui multi publicani et peccatores intersunt, quare pharisaei et scribae de commercio Christi cum eiusmodi hominibus offenduntur, quibus Christus eodem modo apud omnes tres synopticos respondet; pariter sequitur quaestio a discipulis Ioannis baptistae de ieiunio proposita. Unde efficitur Levi esse eundem qui Matthaeus quoque nominatur idque immerito negari ab aliquibus protestantibus (inter quos Grotius, Sieffert, Neander, Ewald, Reuss, Grimm, Keim, Hilgenfeld) quorum opinatio ab aliis (cf. Meyer, Weiss, Keil, Holtzmann, Mansel etc.) merito reiicitur. Tota quoque antiquitas unum eundemque esse Levi et Matthaeum agnovit. Si quandoque Heracleon (apud Clementem alex. Strom. 4,9; M. 8,1981) et Origenes (c. Celsum 1,62; M. 11,773) pro contraria opinione afferuntur, notari oportet utrumque locum esse satis obscurum nec probabilitate carere eos non de Levi, sed de Lebbaeo loqui atque insuper dubio Origenis loco posse opponi indubium et clarum quo inter exempla virorum binominium Matthaeum quoque nominat (praef. in ep. ad Rom. M. 14,836; ceterum plura vide de ea re apud Cornely, Introd. Ill p. 16 seq.). Haud enim infrequenter inveniuntur viri binomines; ita quinque filii Mathatiae (1 Mach. 2,2-5), loseph Barsabas, Ioseph Barnabas (Act. 1, 23; 4,36), Iudas Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus). Incertum autem est, utrum duplex nomen semper gesserit an Matthaei nomen postea assumpserit relicto priore, prout Paulus pro Sauli nomine. Improbabile autem ei nomen a Christo esse inditum sicuti Simoni nomen Petri, cum de ea re nihil in evangeliis habeatur.

cedes fieri posse ut nomen derivetur a *T12. Quod autem haud pauci proposuerunt

Continue reading 37 paragraphs

nomen : donatus quondam (S. Hieronymus, lib. interpret. hebr. nominum) vel donatus (idem), δεδωρημένος, δωματισθείς͵ δόξα ζωῆς (cf. de Lagarde, Onomastica sacra, Gottingae 1887; 62,20; 70,1; 173,79; 175,22; 203,16). Notioni donati etiam multi recentiorum calculum adiiciunt; ita Cornelius a Lapide allegans Origenem et Isidorum, Etymol. 7,9, Schegg, Schanz, qui monent forma nominis nos remitti ad nomen adiectivum, uti similiter dicitur Amithai (fidelis), Barzillai (ferreus) etc. Gesenius (Thes. p. 929) opinatur *IYv2 esse contractum ex *nmD idemque significare quod mnn donum Iahve, Theodorus, Adeodatus ; similiter Bisping, Fillion, Keil; vel referunt nomen ad mano eiusdem notionis, uti Arnoldi, Cornely (Introd. III p. 16), Meyer. Alii autem ἸῺ interpretantur virilem, virtute viro digna prae-

Cum tempore Matthaei iam invaluerit lingua aramaica, in qua aleph initiale (etiam sustineri potest. Videtur itaque nomen referri ad noN et erit explicandum fidelis, quam derivationem iam Hitzig et Fürst proposuerunt. Ceterum vide Payne Smith, Thes. syr. p. 2249.

Quoniam Marc. 2,14 filius Alphaei dicitur nonnulli suspicati sunt eum fuisse fratrem lacobi minoris, qui pariter Alphaeum patrem habebat. At nulla est huius opinionis probabilitas. Nomen enim Alphaei satis frequens erat; lacobus minor est frater i. e. cognatus Domini; Matthaeus vero nunquam fratribus Domini accensetur; demum in albo apostolorum fratres recenseri solent coniunctim ; nullibi &utem Matthaeus iungitur cum lacobo. Ceterum de eius vita fere nihil scimus. Ex narratione vocationis eius colligere licet eum habitasse in Capharnaum (9,1 cf. v. 9) quae urbs commercio utpote frequens et florens muneri.portitoris exercendo maxime apta erat. Ex ordine quem in: albo apostolorum constanter occupat haud sine fundamento concluseris eum septimo loco ad apostolatum esse vocatum (vide ad 10,3). Uti.Clemens alex. refert, per quindecim annos evangelium in Palaestina annuntiavit; dein ad alias gentes se contulit; eodem teste vitàm austeram degebat perpetuo a carnibus abstinens (Paedag. 2,1; , M. 8,406). Apud scriptores ecclesiasticos et in actis apostolorum apocryphis aliae et aliae provinciae quibus praedicaverit assignantur : regiones ad Pontum, Persis, Syria, Aethiopia, Macedonia, Hispania, regiones indicae (de scriptoribus eccl. cf. Cornely, Introd. III p. 19; de actis apocr. cf. Adalbert Lipsius, die apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, Ergaenzungsheft p. 217 seq. et vol. II b p. 109 seq.). Vario quoque mortis genere interemptus esse dicitur : obiisse mortem naturalem, igne interiisse, decollatione, lapidatione. Ceterum vide Acta Sanctorum, septembri mense VI p. 206 seq.

II. — 8. Matthaeum scripsisse evangelium.

Evangelii librum ordine primum esse a S. Matthaeo lingua aramaica conscriptum communis est ac vera totius antiquitatis sententia. Id iam indicatur titulo κατὰ M. qui saeculo secundo in ecclesiis lugdunensi , alexandrina, africana, romana in usu fuit et qui de auctore libri intelligebatur, id quod evidenter "patet ex Tertulliano (c. Marc. 4,9), Irenaeo (adv. haer. 3,1), Clemente alex. (Strom. 1,21). lam vero cur traditione adeo antiqua et constanti liber adscribatur Matthaeo apostolo, nulla alia causa aíferri potest nisi certa rei cognitio. Matthaeus enim nec in narratione evangelica nec in Actis apostolorum nec in libris apocryphis locum prae aliis insignem occupat ex quo explicari posset cur ei prae reliquis scriptio libri attribueretur. Immo nisi certa rei scientia subesset, omnino dicendum foret futurum fuisse ut liber evangelicus alicui ex primis et insignioribus apostolis qui saepius in aliis libris laudantur adscriberelur; solet enim fama ubique ea nomina efferre οἱ suis decorare laureis et ornamentis quae maiore celebritate in omnium ore et sermone sunt. Quare illi quoque

ex recentioribus qui nostrum evangelium integrum non ad Matthaeum referunt tamen statuunt ei subesse debere aliquod scriptum quod indubie habeat auctorem Matthaeum; alias enim plane non posse intelligi cur liber constanter eo nomine inscribatur. Probandum itaque est testimonia historica antiquitatis ea esse quibus nostrum evangelium Matthaeo vindicetur neque ex rationibus quas vocant internis

Inter omnes constat S. Papiam, episcopum Hierapoleos, floruisse verbis ab Eusebio servatis (h. e. 3,36.39) et testimonio S. Irenaei (adv. haer. 5,833.&). Eodem modo constat verba Papiae : Μαθθαῖος μὲν oov ἑδραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο (al. συνετάξατο), ab. Eusebio qui ea refert (ἢ. e. 3,39) intellecta esse de evangelio Matthaei quod suo tempore ut tale ferebatur i. e. de nostro evangelio. Eusebius enim explicite profitetur se inquisivisse in veterum scripta, ut quid ipsi hac inquisitione facta testimonium Papiae de nostro evangelio profert. Solum restat ut probetur Papiam quoque verba illa de eodem evanτοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν εἶπεν d τε ᾿Αριστίων xai ὁ πρεσδύτερος ᾿Ιωΐννης οἱ τοῦ χυρίου μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν. Hisce Papias nobis ostenditur suis ipsius verbis sollicitus de interpretatione; proinde a fortiore concludere debemus eum de textu quoque τῶν λογίων curam adhibuisse et diligentiam. Porro Eusebius qui eius libros perspectos habuit testimonium eius de nostro evangelio dici perhibet; ergo nihil in textu Papiae reperit quo sequeretur Papiam de alio quodam libro vel libri forma scripsisse, sed textum Papiae nostrum referre librum deprehendit. Proinde minime audiendi sunt illi recentiores qui quamvis libros Papiae nullatenus viderint tamen asserunt tesüimonium Papiae non valere de nostro evangelio, verum solummodo de commentariis sermonum Domini (Redesammlung).

Haerent scil. in verbo λογίων. Sed quam immerito, iam concludi S. MATTHAEUM SCRIPSISSE EVANGELIUM. . — . ' 5 oportet ex acceptione Eusebii, qui si Papias solum novisset sermones Domini ἃ Matthaeo conscriptos, talem librum non potuit censere eundem quem ipse tamquam evangelium Matthaei prae manibus habuit; proinde verba Papiae non potuit afferre ut ostenderet quid ille de nostro retulerit evangelio. Praeterea ipse Papias quo sensu adhibeat τὰ λόγια nos docet clare. Quae enim a Marco scripta esse dicit τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα, haec eadem vocat σύνταξιν τῶν χυριαχῶν λογίων. Insuper in opere illo de quo Edsebius refert non solum dicta Domini sed etiam res gestas afferri ostenditur paucis quoque illis fragmentis quae usque ad nos perlata sunt, quae vide M. 5,1955 seq. et Funk, Patr. apost. op. II p. 276 seq. Praeterea negari nequit vocem λόγια etiam alias sensu latiore adbiberi; vide Schanz, Commentar über das Ev. Matth. p. 27-31.

Eadem traditio de Matthaei evangelio nobis refertur ex ecclesia , alexandrina. Refert enim Eusebius Pantaenum ad Indos usque (i. e. ΄ in Arabiam felicem, probabilius) penetrasse ibique iam reperisse Matthaei evangelium quod Bartholomaeus ibi reliquerit (h. e. 5,10); etsi hoc narrat ἔνθα λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν etc. hic ipse λόγος ostendit Alexandriae 'eiusmodi Matthaei librum notum fuisse. Idem refert S. Hieronymus (de vir. illustr. c. 36) : « reperit (Pantaenus in India) Bartholomaeum de duodecim apostolis adventum Domini nostri juxta Matthaei evangelium praedicasse, quod hebreicis litteris scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit » . Gravissimum quoque est S. Irenaei testimonium : ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος iv τοῖς Ἑδραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν xal γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου (adv. haer. 3,1). S. Irenaeus autem discipulus erat S. Polycarpi, discipuli S. Ioannis. Scit itaque Matthaeum scripsisse hebraice; textum autem graecum evangeli verum 5. Matthaei opus referre ipsi exploratum erat. Eius autem persuasio firmissima eo magis valere debet, quia testis nobis est et evangelia nostra communi omnium sententia haberi genuina et temporis sui doctrinam referri ad apostolos auctores. Atque de evangelüs ita inter alia habet : « tanta est autem circa evangelia haec firmitas ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam » (3,11. 5) atque similiter 3,11. 9. Quanta autem constantia et firmitate singula doctrinae capita ad apostolorum traditionem et doctrinam referri et ab iis derivari ei persuasum sit, integer liber quem de haeresibus conscripsit testis est. Pauca afferre sufficiat : « traditionem autem apostolorum in toto mundo manifestam in omni ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre et habemus annumerare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et suecessores eorum apud nos » (3,1) « hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos » (3,3. 3) « et si de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias in quibus apostoli conversati sunt et ab eis de praesensti quaestione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est, » (3,4. 2) et similiter 3,5. 1; 4,33. vero ita sentit neque ullam doctrinam amplectitur nisi eam ab documentum suscepisset, nisi.certissime scivisset librum habere tionem postulat apostolicam, quomodo censeri posset librum sine

. Hisce adde testimonia Tertulliani (de carne Ch. 22; adv. Marc. " 2. 5), Clementis alex. (apud Euseb. 6,14), Origenis (apud Euseb. 6, 25. 4), ipsius Eusebii (3,25. 6) qui traditione maiorum profitentur se accepisse haec evangelia ab iis esse conscripta quorum nomina prae se ferunt neque de illis ullam ex antiquitate dubitationem referunt. Atque horum testimonia eo quoque confirmantur quia scripta versionibus quae saeculo secundo factae sunt, ex vetere latina et syriaca simplici (peschittho) quibus pariter constat et evangelium idem quod nos habemus ubique fuisse notum et apostolo Matthaeo

Ne autem existimes a saeculo secundo medio et ineunte usque ad ipsum tempus apostolicum esse aliquam lacunam vel tale temporis intervallum quale sufficiat ad scriptum aliquod apostolicum interpolationibus et additamentis transmutandum, meminisse oportet Patres illos ac scriptores saeculi secundi provocare ad traditionem maiorum illisque codices antiquiores praesto fuisse. Praeterea a Patribus apostolicis.ea allegantur quae in nostro quoque evangelio leguntur; quae testimonia vide apud Schanz p. 7; Cornely Introd. I[[ p. 28 seq.; Fel/ion, Évangile selon S. M. p. 9; Kei/, Commentar p. 17.

Istis itaque testimoniis patet evangelium nostrum tot firmari argumentis quae mediate usque ad ipsa tempora apostolica ascendant. Proinde cum agatur de re historica , scil. quis librum scripserit , istis rum maxime intererat verum cognoscere nobis traduntur. Ceterum iuvat adnotare pro nullo libro profano ex antiquitate graeca vel romana ad nos perlato tot afferri posse testimonia atque argumenta; pro plerisque vix unum alterumve vere antiquum, et tamen neminém dubitare quin ea volumina, quae nomine Aristotelis , Herodoti, Thucydidis, Taciti etc., etc. circumferuntur, eorum sint quorum nominibus inscribuntur in codicibus qui haud raro pluribus saeculis distant ἃ tempore scriptorum illorum. Quare qui nostra evangelia classicos omnes repudiare, qui in numero et antiquitate testimopiorum nullo modo comparari possunt cum evangeliis. E

N. T. p. 365, non posse extistimari opus apostolicum, quia relicta serie ris consilium persequendum conformentur ac disponantur. Sed sane gere et apte disponere quae ad docendum conducebant. Id apostolos fecisse, videmus ex eorum epistolis. Quare ergo idem praestitisse Matthaeum negatur? Porro obiicit dictiones vagas atque indeterminatas πολλοί, πάντες, τότε, ἐν ἐχείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ etc. ; utique si Matthaeus sibi proposuisset diurnos scribere commentarios rerum a Christo dictarum gestarumque, ille modus fuisset ineptus; at si dicta et facta afferat non tam propter seipsa, sed ut doctrinam legentibus conferat, non est cur illa narrandi ratio vituperetur. Tertio obiicit Ho/tzmann evangelium non posse ad apostolum referri quia narret miracula de Christi conceptione, de resurrectione multorum sanctorum , de custodibus sepulcri, de angelo descendente et revolvente lapidem (27,52. 53. 62-66; 28,2-&. 11-15). En , haec sufficiunt viro critico, ut firmissima testimonia historica spernat! haec est scil. ars critica quae sublimior vocatur! Similia sunt quae Meyer, Bleek aliique obiiciunt; plerumque supponunt apostolum debuisse litteris consignare quae per singulos dies dicta factave fuerint; quam formam cum evangelium non exhibeat, opinantur non posse ad apostolum testem ocularem referri. Sed apostolorum non erat solum narrare res gestas cum omnibus quae ad tempus, locum, cetera adiuncta pertinent, verum eorum potissimum intererat docere, annuntiare evangelium de salute messiana; id quippe facere iussi erant a Domino; idcirco si scribunt, scribunt quoque ut doceant, non ut solum narrent res gestas. — Ceterum de istis obiectionibus vide plura apud Cornely l. c. p. 32-38.

Testimoniis quae supra allata sunt etiam asseritur S. Matthaeum scripsisse hebraice i. e. ea lingua qua tum Palaestinenses utebantur, lingua scil. aramaica vel syro-chaldaica, uti a plerisque nuncupatur et quae in paucis illis formis etiam cernitur Matth. 27,56. Marc. 5, ^ ἔμ. 7,35. loan. 19,93. Act. 1,19; 9,36. Rom. 8,15. 1 Cor. 16,22." Gal. 4,6. (llis testimoniis adde Origenem (apud Euseb. 6,95. 4), Eu- - sebium (8,25,6. quaest. evang. ad Mar. 2,1), S. Cyrillum hieros. - (eatech. 154,15), S. Epiphanium (haer. 30,3; 31,5), S. Chrysostomum (in Matth. hom. 1,3), S. Hieronymum (de vir. ill. c. 3; prolog. in Matth. et saepius). Atque frivolum est quod aliqui obiiciunt omnia haec testimonia ab uno derivari Papia qui ea in re utpote parvi ingenii vir deceptus sit (Wetstein, Hug). Quae obiectio duplici defectu laborat. Sufficit enim legere illa testimonia, ut statim evidenter pateat neminem recurrere ad Papiam quasi eius rei fontem testemve . et insuper ab aliquibus quaedam adduntur quae nequaquam a Papia hausta sunt. Dein adverti debet, ut Papias referat quae a presbytero. loanne acceperat non requiri magnum ingenium; insuper illa parvi ingenii nota ei ab Eusebio solum affigitur propter chiliasmum quem ex parabolis male intellectis proposuit. Alii obiiciunt aliquos textus allegari ex LXX (Bleek, Holtzmann); sed cur non potuit interpres graecus, si verba textus graeci prorsus eandem probandi vim eundemque sensum habent, sequi versionem LXX , cum tamen opus suum illis destinaret qui solum ea versione utebantur? quare ex 1,93 nihil concludi potest. In aliis allegationibus deprehendimus vel textum hebraeum ad amussim exprimi vel neque eum neque versionem LXX verbotenus referri. Dein arguunt cerni lusus verborum , ideoque librum esse ab origine graece scriptum. At quinam sunt lusus verborum? duo afferuntur ; 6,16 ἀφανίζουσιν ὅπως φανῶσιν οἱ 24,30 χόψον- ται xai ὄψονται (nam 91,&1 malos male perdet χκαχοὺς καχῶς afferri, ut idem probetur, nimis tenue est). Sed quis nesciat eiusmodi lusus in versione posse casu oriri? vide quae ad 6,16 adnotavi. Porro num ex 16,18 sequitur Christum vel graece vel latine locutum esse discipulis? num ex 22,44 (dixit Dominus Domino meo) sequitur Christum graece locutum vel psalmum ab origine esse graece scriptum? vel 23,14 orationes orantes legimus; num ex eo lusu qui non est in graeco inferendum est textum esse ab origine latine conscriptum? Eodem iure posses etiam 23,94 ezcolantes cultcem lusum latinum deprehendere; vel 24,15 qui leqtt intellegat (scribe scil. tntellegat cum recentioribus!) habes lusum verborum; vel 24,99 /una non dabit /umen, en, eodem iure posset ex hisce aliquis arguere librum esse ab origine latine scriptum.

. Praeterea Matthaeum scripsisse aramaice, valide confirmatur iis quae nobis Patres tradunt de evangelio secundum Hebraeos, quippe quod ita nobis describunt, ut pro depravato Matthaei evangelio secundum Matthaeum evangelio uti (adv. haer. 1,26. 2; 3,11. 7); idem Eusebius (h. e. 3,27.,4) et Epiphanius docet eos admittere evangelium secundum Matthaeum idque vocare secundum Hebraeos, uti

quae S. Hieronymus nos docet. Testatur enim « ipsum hebraicum (Matthaei evangelium) haberi usque hodie in caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus M. studiosissime confecit; mihi quoque a Nazaraeis qui in Beroea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit » (de vir. ill. c. 3). Iam vero hoc evangelium ita erat conformatum, ut ex una parte authenticum Matthaei haberi deberet, ex altera autem parte multa haberet addita vel mutata, ita quidem ut S. Hieronymus nova eius versione opus esse existimaret. Haec patent ex iis quae s. doctor variis in locis de eodem commemorat (de vir. ill. c. 2; ad Matth. 19,13; adv. Pelag. 3,2). Quae autem in eo evangelio quibus in paraphrasibus chaldaicis veteris testamenti textus sacer l. c. p. 59. III. — Quid Matthaeus potissimum specta verit.

Tradunt veteres Matthaeum evangelium suum Iudaeis destinasse qui crediderant, ut quod praesens praedicaverat absens quoque libro annuntiaret (cf. Origenes apud Euseb. 6,95. 4; Eusebius 3,25. 5: τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου; S. Chrysostomus hom. 1,3 in Matth. S. Hieronymus de vir. ill. c. 3; prolog. in Matth.). Cui sententiae plane ea conveniunt quae in libro deprehendimus. Obiter enim inspicienti librum et cum aliis evangelii libris comparanti statim apparet multo frequentius adhiberi locos ex vetere testamento el praesertim tot afferri oracula messiana quibus ostendatur Iesum esse Christum et in eo illa esse impleta; dum apud Marcum 5, 8 apud

Lucam, apud Ioannem 14 leguntur, deprehenduntur 20 apud Matthaeum. Insuper multa in rebus et verbis occurrunt quae solis genere Iudaeis nota erant neque tamen explicantur; quare illa legentibus graphica, festorum non explicantur, in parabolis mores Iudaeorum quae eorum machinationes ad Christum perdendum. . Hisce iam suadetur librum. esse pro Iudaeis conscriptum. Ulterius quaerunt sitne destinatus i iis qui. crediderant an iis qut nondum credipraesentiae. suae libro scripto compensare voluit et ministerium - erudiebat qui fidem iam amplexi erant et alios ad eandem adducere apud synopticos observatum videmus. Praeterea quae de evangelio Marci a veteribus traduntur, ostendunt id Marcum scripsisse quod Petrus praedicaverat. Quare concludere licet evangelium esse praedicatione Sibi proposuit. Atque ex hoc consilio quo utilitati ac necessitati Iudaeorum credentium et nondum credentium prospiciebat cuncta quae in libro reperimus facile declarantur.

Primo considerare oportet quaenam difficultates removendae fuefirmiter tenere et tueri potuerint. Hae vero difficultates ex duplice fonte praesertim oriebantur : ex exspectatione messiana quae tum temporis vigebat communiter et ex eo quod duces populi et principes synagogae et maior populi pars omnino renuebant Iesum agnoscere Messiam. Quae fuerit communis exspectatio messiana, tum aliis tum praesertim breviter et clare edocemur psalmo salomonico 17 ; psalmos salomonicos qui dicuntur annis 63-48 ante Christum ortos esse sententia est apud plerosque recepta (cf. P. Ed. Ephraem Geiger, der Psalter Salomo's, Augsburg 1871 p. 11; ScAürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter J..Ch. Leipzig 1886 II p. 590; Cornely, filium David, qui regnet super Israel et robore cinctus principes iniustos conterat, qui lerusalem purget a gentibus quae eam conculcent in interitu, qui peccatores expellat ab hereditate et insolentiam eorum confringat ut vas figuli et sceptro ferreo omnem eoruin potentiam comminuat, qui gentes impias verbo oris sui perdat (v. 23- 921). Deinde rex ille davidicus congregabit Israel, omnes erunt filii Dei, alienigena. iam non erit inter eos; sub iugo eius servient gentes et venient ab extrema terra ut videant eius gloriam et filios Israel tissimum, maxime splendidum in aliis libris : in oraculis sibyllinis (III v. 6-50), in libro Henoch , in: Assumptione Moysis, in libro lubilaeorum et apud Philonem quoque (cf. ScAitrer 1l. c. p. 431-535). Etiam postmodum in libris talmudicis tamquam primum regis Messiae opus enumeratur destructio regni et potestatis gentium (cf.

Porro multis fuisse offensioni quod maior populi pars Iesum Messiam noluit agnoscere, etiam eo constat quia S. Paulus Rom. cap. 9-11 illam offensionem variis argumentis tollere studet. Atque in ea maioris partis: contumacia non levem difficultatem repositam esse facile concesseris memor regnum messianum primo ludaeis esse promissum, eos fuisse populum electum. Nonne mirum et fere increquibus primo et per se promissus erat non agnoscebant, et illud esse admittebant, sed odio implacabili persequebantur? Tali autem consideratione etiam ipsos fideles potuisse tangi, ita ut edoceri ac praemuniri deberent, quis negaverit? Nonne eodem modo fideles quoque muniendi erant contra falsam illam exspectationem splendoris regni messiani? illis quoque arma erant subministranda quibus se contra ludaeos infideles tuerentur ac defenderent et eorum argumenta destruerent. Sed si Matthaeus eiusmodi subsidia fidelibus praestitit, simul aliis viam demonstravit et paravit ad regnum messianum ingrediendum.

Consilium itaque quod Matthaeus prosecutus est consideratis evangelii argumento et modo tractandi ita enuntiari potest cum Cornely : voluit demonstrare Iesum quidem verum esse Messiam Ecclesiamque ab eo fundatam regnum messianum per prophetas promissum ; nec tamen esse mirandum quod hic Messias a principibus populi sui magnaque eius parte non sit agnitus, cum suis ipsi praeiudiciis et peccatis salute messiana se excluserint » (l. c. p. 58). Id quidem ex ipsa explicatione libri potissimum elucebit; hic autem sufficiet summa quaedam capita strictim indicare percurrendo breviter illa quae ipso libro demonstrantur. Et primo quidem probat [esum ex stirpe descendere Abraham et - David et in eius conceptu et partu virgineo iam cerni impletionem oraculi gravissimi. Eius dignitas sublimior et salus quam nomine suo promittit gentibus quoque profutura statim demonstratur stella apparente et adventu adorationeque magorum; qua occasione iam patefit negligentia et contemptus maioris populi partis; immo debet Iesus ex terra sui populi fugere; sed ipsa fuga fit ut alia impleantur yaticinia; demum ipso loco quo adolescit prophetia in eo impleta exsistit, uti praedictum erat, praecursor qui iam clare docet indolem regni spiritualem et falsam illam pharisaeorum praesumptionem subvertit iudicio messiano in improbos annuntiato. In ipso baptismo Iesus declaratur Filius Dei et ut doceat qualem adversarium sit eiecturus in deserto tres diaboli tentationes vincit. Atque haec est "praeparatio et prolusio operis (3,1-5,11). Vitam publicam ingressus , eam seligit habitationem et regionem quae iam ab Isaia erat praesignata; auspicatur praedicationem regni messiani, cuius veram notionem et indolem evangelista statim pandit in sermone montano, quo falsa exspectatio funditus evertitur, pharisaeorum quam dicunt iustitia plane manca et vitiosa declaratur, praeclara quaedam et sublimis virtutis forma proponitur, vana gloria rerumque terrestrium aviditas condemnatur et magnum quoddam robur animi et fortitudo ad salutis opus postulatur; quod si quis non praestiterit, ruinae erit obnoxius. Eo sermone [esus cernitur tamquam legislator et princeps prophetarum; singula autem eius doctrinae documenta - totidem quoque sunt argumenta, quibus manifestum redditur, cur multi talem doctorem sequi renuant (5,12-7,29).

Dein Iesum ostendit patratorem miraculorum et ita quidem, ut omne morborum genus solo voluntatis nutu sanet ideoque tamquam talis appareat quem Isaias praedixit; eadem potestate et ventis marique et daemonibus imperat; praeterea se praebet benignissimum, remittit peccata, cum peccatoribus, ut eorum saluti consulat, agit . familiariter, in suos se maxime clementem ostendit. Cum ea amabilitate coniuncta est. summa quaedam potestas qua morti quoque praedam eripit et si fidem invenerit morbos curat insanabiles. Iam quomodo talis Dei legatus adeo potens et benignus suscipitur? Pharisaei in principe daemoniorum eum daemones eiicere calumniantur (8,1-9,34). Quare Iesus miseratus turbas quae a talibus ducibus vexentur et seducantur, alios eis in apostolis duces providet (Ecclesiae suae fundamenta prima ponens) quos sua potentia instruit et de missionis ratione edocet. [ta se prodit apertius regni spiritualis conditorem. Eius dignitas messiana egregie comprobatur legatione ἃ Ioanne baptista missa, cuius doctrina populus iam olim ad Iesum perversitate et malitia pharisaeorum in dies crescente cernitur qui iam Iesu mortem meditantur et summa obstinatione animos oculosducibus alios sui regni instituat principes. Quae vero sit huius regni indoles septem exponitur parabolis (9,35,-13,50). Adumbravit itaque Matthaeus Christum ut prophetam (doctorem, torem ; sed simul odium in eum pharisaeorum nobis monstravit, quo praesagium cernimus in morte praecursoris.

Principes itaque synagogae se ipsos quam maxime indignos reddidisse regno messiano satis superque constat. Iesus autem exinde potissimum operam dat, ut, apostoli, Ecclesiae suae regnique principes, rite edoceantur et ad munus suum praeparentur. Quare duobus insignibus miraculis patratis eos adducit, ut se tamquam Filium Dei agnoscant et profiteantur; dein contra perversas pharisaeorum doctrinas munimenta discipulis praebet eosque miraculis patratis ad maiorem provocat fidem, suo exemplo curam populi iis commendat primatum promitüt; verum ne de regni messiani natura perperam sequatur abnegatione. Transfiguratione autem gloriosa et eiectione daemonis fidem apostolorum confirmat, eamque altera praedictione passionis probat; sed ipsa hac praedictione et alio miraculo quo suam omniscientiam et potentiam denuo manifestat simul ostendit se libere obiturum esse mortem quam inimici ei machinantur (15,1-17,96). Dein magna caritate et cura apostolos edocet de iis virtutibus quibus in munere suo potissimum indigent : docet cos de humilitate (contra falsam regni messiani exspectationem) de cura eorum qui viles videntur, de mansuetudine ct inisericordia, de praestantia virginitatis, de cura et amore parvulorum, de contemptu divitiarum et praecellentia et mercede paupertatis voluntariae, de Dei in gratiis distribuendis libertate deque gratia opera hominis mercede digna reddente, de sua passione mox futura, de vera animi demissione (18,1-20,28). -

Dein' evangelista nobis narrat quae ultimis vitae publicae Iesu diebus acciderunt, eius mortem et resurrectionem. Quae narratio quantopere eius consilio quod supra descriptum est aptetur, ex hisce conclude : prophetiam impletam docet festivo Iesu ingressu in lerusalem; pharisaeos autem in tanta maiestatis eius declaratione obstinatos et obcaecatos exhibet, quare merito arbore arefacta eorum sors adumbratur; pessimi quoque eorum sensus panduntur quaestione de Ioannis baptismo proposita et quam merito regno Dei excludantur; tribus parabolis Christus ostendit. Illi autem pro sua malitia subdolis quaestionibus Iesum in sermone capere tentant; quibus refutatis tota eorum perversitas longiore sermone et enumeratione scelerum populo palam exponitur, ne ab huiusmodi ducibus se falli permittant. Horum autem impietate et sceleribus et urbis et templi ruina inducetur, quod iudicium in plebem contumacem devolvendum simul est figura quaedam iudicii ultimi, cui vigiles et bene paratos obviam ire oportet, id quod tribus parabolis magis ^ declaratur. In. oraculo de ruina urbis et templi et in doctrina de iudicio ultimo et praeparatione ad id facienda iterum clare proponitur quae sit regni messiani natura, et falsa illius exspectatio subruitur (20,99-25,46).

In Christi patientis historia iisdem vestigiis ingreditur Matthaeus. Imprimis ostendit principes sacerdotum et seniores populi mortem Christi esse machinatos (26,3. &7. 59. 66; 27,1. 6. 12. 20. 41), vaticinia -prophetarum esse impleta (26,28. 31. 55. 56; 27,9. 35. 46); ' insuper aliqua apud eum solum leguntur quae plebis iudaicae scire maxime intererat 27,6 seq. 24. 25. 3&. 59-55. 63 seq. 28,11-15. Christum esse passum quia libere voluit repetito docet; eius gloriam ^ jam esse manifestatam in cruce docet tenebris ortis, scisso velo templi (quo tamquam symbolo abrogatio veteris foederis declaratur), mortuorum resurrectione, terrae motu, fide centurionis militumque. Ultimo demum loco ea refert Christi verba quibus mandat ut evangelium omnibus gentibus annuntietur et ut opere exprimant quae ipse docuerit; itaque denuo, indolem regni messiani et universalem (qua iam transeat ad gentes) et spiritualem effert modo claro et indubitato.

Ex qua analysi inferri potest haud inepte quattuor partibus librum posse distingui : 1,1-4,11 describi Christi ortum et praeparationem ad vitam publicam; &,12-13,58 Christum proponi doctorem, miraculorum patratorem, regni messiani conditorem (prima fundamenta

. cha. et t spirentibus ventis dictàáre me cogis, ut quando notarii excipiant, quando scribantur schedulae, quando emendentur, quo spatio digerantur ad purum /minime attendas), maxime cum scias me ita tribus mensibus languisse, ut vix nunc ingredi incipiam nec possim laboris magnitudinem brevitate temporis compensare. Igitur omissa. . auctoritate veterum quos nec legendi nec sequendi mihi facultas ᾿ data est historicam interpretationem quam praecipue postulasti diperfectum opus reservans in posterum » ad quod tamen s. doctor . jam non pervenit; in epistola ad Evangelium dicit.se paucos dies in - Matthaei expositione consumpsisse; quare mirum. non est in hoc

grum evangelium pertractat. Genus dicendi est turgidum et satis " implexum; nihilominus sat multa bene explicantur; auctor sectae arianae fuisse videtur; at quandoque arianae interpretationi adiungitur-alia orthodoxa (cf. omnia mihi tradita sunt col. 777). Venerabilis Beda (expositio in M. ev. M. 92) in plerisque sequitur 'S. Hieronymum; multa explicat allegorice. Beatus Rabanus Maurus (commentariorum in M. libri octo; M. 107,727-1156) plurimorum sensus et sententias in unum contraxit, prout ipse dicit, ut lector pauperculus qui librorum copiam non habet aut.cui in pluribus scrutari profundos sensus Patrum non licet, saltem in isto sufficien- - tiam suae indigentiae inveniret; sententias collegit praesertim ex S. Hier. Aug. Hil. Beda aliisque. Maiori utilitati sunt interpreti S. Paschasius Radbertus et S. Bruno astensis (Pasch. Br. M. 190.165); ille fusius (multis ex Origene, S. Hieronymo, op. imp. desumptis) hic breviter et concinne explicat; praeter sensum litteralem uterque alexpositionem in M. evangelistam (M. 106,1961-1504) scripsit, quia se - * perspexisse dicit beatum Hieronymum multa verba quasi levia praeterisse; « studui autem plus historicum sensum sequi quam spiritalem ,... cum historia fundamentum omnis intelligentiae sit et ipsa primitus quaerenda et amplexanda », idque in expositione observat; delectatur quoque etymologica verborum explicatione, in qua nemo mirabitur reperiri mira; v. g. pan graece omne dicitur et per panem omnis substantia intelligitur quae quotidie nobis necessaria est quod est quotidianus panis. Anselmus laudunensis enarrationes in M. ita confecit ut explicaret historiam , dein adderet moralitatem et allegoriam vel mysticam interpretationem; multa ex S. Augustino, Gregorio, Rabano aliisque commentario suo inseruit (M. 162,12927-1500).

Cum laude quoque nominandus est b. Ajbertus magnus; sensum litteralem diligenter investigat, singulas libri partes arcte inter se nectit multisque adhibitis divisionibus quid scil. primo, quid secundo etc. exponatur et adductis locis s. Scripturae plurimis illustrare studet; habetur eius « luculenta expositio » in M. operum eius tomo nono, Lugduni 1651. Brevior ac magis concinna, sed simili divisionum ac partitionum modo adornata est expositio S. Thomae; praeter eam S. Thomas composuit catenam auream quae vocatur et quae multa laude digna est (cf. Cornely, Introd. III p. 309). Ex aliis interpretibus ex quibus pariter explicationes sententiasque adnotavi nominandi sunt : Faóer stapulensis (Fab.), cuius quidem commentarii « donec corrigantur » in indice librorum prohibitorum Concilii tridentini positi sunt; cum in commentariis suis quos initiatorios nuncupat sensum litteralem et historiam satis sequatur, non caret utilitate. Subiungit textui annotationes breves « quae partim quod in vetere editione obscurum est illust rant, partim quod vitiatum est emendant, partim quod apud Graecos plusculum est adiiciunt praeposito asterisco, partim quod non ha. betur apud illos confodiunt obelisco, partim alia subindicant quae 80 iis qui quantulacumque luce donati sunt facile intelligentur; dein sequitur commentarius exactius consimilia efficiens, id est interdum veteris litterae, interdum mentium, interdum utrorumque, illius mendas, harum caligines detergens » (praefatio, Meldis 1521); saepe etiam ad allegorica deflectit; Alphonsus Tostatus fere quattuor magna volumina in folio (ut aiunt) implevit ingenti numero quaestionum quas ad singula evangelii capita ponit et valde diffuse tractat, in quibus praeter quaestiones ad interpretationem pertinentes plurima ex theologia morali et dogmatica etc. disputantur. Brevis explicatio textus quam quaestionibus praemittit interpreti saepe est utilior quam ipsae quaestiones; Dionysius carthusianus (Dion.) enarrationes scripsit in quattuor evangelistas; diligenter singulas sententias exponere studet; Thomas de Vio Caietanus (Cai.) breviter sensum litteralem exponit; hos longo intervallo superat Ioannes Maldonatus (Mald.), cuius commentarii in evangelia ubertate, perspicuitate , felicissima interpretandi arte eminent, quare merito maximi aestimantur; Cornelius a Lapide (Lap.) praeter sensum litteralem multus est in allegorico et tropologico explicandi genere; voluit enim potius concionatoribus prodesse et aptam materiam colligere quam soli interpreti; Caimet commentarios litterales, breves, con- Spicuos reliquit. |

. Mansel (Speaker's Bible'. Plures recensitos invenies apud Cornely, Introd. ΠῚ p. 311 seq. |

Hisce addi oportet eos qui quattuor evangelistarum libros in unum concordiae opus redactos explanarunt : Zachartas chrysopolitanus (M. 186,11-620, de quo opere vide Tübinger Quartalschrift 1886 p. 531,1887 p. 231), Cornelius lansenius, episcopus gandavensis (Jans.) , Sebastianus Barradtus (Bar.), qui post explicationem litteralem subiungit longiorem moralem, Ioannes da Sy/lverra (Sylv.), qui quin- . -que magnis voluminibus textum evangeliorum multis quaestionibus et plurimorum sententiis propositis fuse pertractat, Bernardus Lamy, qui brevi ac dilucido commentario etiam textus harmoniam praemisit, sicut lansenius quoque fecit.

Praeterea interpreti utilia sunt alia opera quibus historia temporis Christi, mores ludaeorum, rabbinorum dicendi genus, vita Christi illustrantur; v. g. LigAtfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae (in altero operum eius tomo, Ultrajecti 1699 p. 247 seq.), Schoettgen , Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, Dresdae et Lipsiae 1733, Wünsche, Neue Beitraege zur Erlaeuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Goettingen 1878, Alfred Edersheim , The life and times of Jesus the Messiah, in 2 voluminibus (Ed.), London 1890, qui saepius varia a Wünsche proposita corrigit vel falsa esse demonstrat. Multa quae interpreti prosunt etiam reperiuntur in variis tractatibus quos de historia evangelica Salmeron scripsit et apud Patritium , de evangeliis, lib. tert. qui est ἐξηγητιχός, Friburgi Brisg. 1853 et apud Grimm Joseph, Einheit der vier Evangelien, Regensburg 1868; Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, Band I II III. etc.; Coleridge, The public life of our Lord, London 1876 seq.; Meschler, Leben Jesu, Freiburg i. B. 1890; Didon, Jésus Christ, Paris 1891.

De versionibus antiquis vide quae disputavit Cornely, Introd. I p. 357 seq.

Hac parte ostenditur Iesum esse filium David, esse conceptum a autem populo neglectum, immo ab Herode ad mortem quaesitum, blicam in praedicatione Ioannis baptistae, in Christi baptismo et tentationibus. In codd ΝΒ inscriptio est κατα Μαθθαιον; similiter in nonnullis codd it et vulg;

Eiusmodi inscriptiones, uti iam earum varia forma proditur, non ab ipso s. auctore profectae sunt; nam, ut Maid. advertit, non est sacrorum scriptorum consuetudo, ut ante initium librorum titulos ponant, sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant; ut : visio Isaiae prophetae, Apocalypsis Iesu Christi, et titulos illos omnes qui extra libros sunt : Genesis, libri Regum, psalmi David, omnes confitentur non ἃ librorum auctoribus positos sed a scriptoribus additos. Idem quoque recte adnotat ipsa etiam titulorum in singulis evangeliis similitudine indicari non ab evangelistis eos esse appositos. Attamen eiusmodi tituli sunt perantiqui, cum iam apud lrenaeum , Clementem alexandrinum, in fragmento muratoriano, apud Tertullianum legantur; hi enim evangelia eo modo allegant τὸ μὲν χατὰ Ἰωάννην... τὸ δὲ χατὰ Λουχᾶν (Iren. c. haer. 3,11. Clemens Strom. 1,21), tertium evangelii liberum secundum Lucam; et Tertullianus ex eiusmodi titulis contra Marcionem argumentatur (c. Marc. &,2). Modus itaque evangelia ita nominandi saeculo 2 iam invaluerat in ecclesiis lugdunensi, alexandrina, romana, africana; unde usus iste antiquissimus esse debet et fere ad tempora ascendere apostolica (cf. Cornely, Introd. Ill p. 12). Censet S. Chrysostomus hom. 1,2 S. Matthaeum opus suum vocasse evangelium, id quod eo sensu verum esse potest quod nuntium de Messia a se praedicatum eodem nomine designasse censeri potest quo in libro suo de evangelio regni sermonem facit (4,28; 9,35; 94,15; 26,13), sed librum eo nomine appellare spectat ad tempus posterius.

Ceterum quam apte nuntius de Messia eiusque regno vocetur evangelium, neminem fugit. Vox enim εὐαγγελίζειν in versione LXX iam sianae et regni Dei instaurandi; Is. 40,9; 52,7; 60,6 et 61,1 ipse Messias profitetur se esse missum εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς. lam vero ceptissimus et gratissimus, siquidem, ut S. Chrys. dicit, poenarum sublationem, veniam peccatorum, iustitiam, sanctificationem, redemptionem, adoptionem, coelorum hereditatem et cognationem cum filio Dei omnibus annuntiat, quibus adiungit Euthymius, nuntiari Deum hominem factum, hominem vero divinum (ἀνθρώπου θέωσιν) de praedicatione Christi et apostolorum in libris sacris novi testamenti frequenter adhibeatur (circa 77 vicibus; praesertim apud S. Marcum et praeprimis apud S. Paulum), sua sponte factum est ut demum etiam praedicatio scripta eodem appellaretur nomine. Notioni vocis etiam congruit κατὰ M. i. e. nuntius de regno messiano secundum eum modum quo illum annuntiat Matthaeus. Ea enim voce χατὰ etiam profani utuntur, si unum idemque argumentum a variis scriptoribus pertractatum est; ita legitur in scholiis ad Homerum : Ὅμηρος χατὰ ᾿Αρίσταρχον, χατὰ Ζηνώδοτον, χατὰ ᾿Αριστοφάνην (cf. Schegg , Weiss). Nullo autem pacto in dubium vocatur Matthaeum esse libri auctorem. Nam x«:à etiam adhibetur ad auctorem designandum ; ita in graecitate posteriore dicebatur ἡ καθ᾿ Ἡρόδοτον icvoρία; ita legimus 2 Mach. 2,13 oi ὑπομνηματισμοὶ οἱ κατὰ Νεεμίαν i. e. memorabilia, prout; conscripsit Nehemias, quo loquendi genere indicatur exsistere alios quoque libros quibus titulus similis ab historia vel memorabilibus depromptus sitinscriptus. Demum etiam adhibetur vox sine notione adiuncta, uti v. g. Epiphanius : ἡ xxrx Μωυσέα πεν- τάτευχος. Neque obstat quod etiam dicitur εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾽ ' E6oaíouc , xxv' Αἰγυπτίους ; nam etiam ea dictione exprimitur evangelium prouti ab Hebraeis vel Aegyptiis est mutatum et transformatum. Demum tate semper esse intellectam de. auctore veri nominis : evangelium prout illud conscripsit Matthaeus, et cum complures de eadem re scripserint, titulus selectus est aptissime. Adde quod haud bene diceretur ex notione primaria evangelii : evangelium Matthaei, nam lus loquitur de evangelio suo, intelligit munus praedicandi sibi commissum vel suam praedicandi rationem qua alios iam de regno messiano edocuit, vel rem ac praedicationem sibi demandatam. Unde iterum patet librum a Matthaeo conscriptum ex usu eius temporis non potuisse vocari evangelium Matthaei. Usui autem vocis antiquissimo bene congruit titulus qui in vulgata legitur : sanctum Iesu CÀristi evangelium secundum Matthaeum. l. Jesus filius David, natus de Virgine. Cap. 1.

Recensetur priore loco album progenitorum Iesu quo ostenditur eum esse filium David i. e. descendere ex stirpe et familia David, in qua enumeratione tripartita simul adumbratur triplex populi electi conditio (1,1-17); dein exponitur Iesum conceptum esse natumque ex Maria virgine quo eventu vaticinium Isaiae est impletum (1,18-25).

Chapters

Save for later

Enter your email and we will send you a sign-in link. No password. What you save (articles, verses, chapters, documents) follows you to any device.