'^yKrSJ} ;^-,:^u*^: 'M !->£: i^VVv^wO, yi& -^^^..^v.... ©j«g' ':^^^:.v^' ;VVV:,v.>w» 'c-:^y^^v wy V /^i^*y .y^^w.. y-.!-$;SwSiP*^ mim ^^ r >t^ ^|l\ieih those things which he esteemed needful to be known, and which he saw to have been omitted by the rest, with which request he complied. And he was induced to begin im- mediately with the doctrine of Christ's deity. After which he proceeded to the account of the things said and done by the Loid in the flesh."' S. Ambrose (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 330), born about A.D. 3-iO, and became Bishop of Milan a.d. 374. The share which he had in the public transactions of his time, and the force of his own character, rendered S. Ambrose one of the most prominent men of his age. Among other works written by S. Ambrose, which have come down to us, is a Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, in ten books. He is said to have been the first who wrote a Commentary on this Gospel in Latin. He names, in order to reject, the Gospel according to the Twelve, the Gospels according to Basilides, according to Thomas, and according to Matthias. He says the Clmrch has one Gospel in four books, spread all over the world, and w-ritten by Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.' Elsewhere also, he says, there is "one Gospel, and four books." ' He mentions the symbols of the Evangelists, as supposed to be represented by the four living creatures in Rev. iv. 7." In his prologue to his exposition of S. Luke's Gospel, like many others, S. Ambrose admires the transcendent sublimity of the beginning of S. John's Gosj^el ; and on that account seems to give him the preference above the other three Evan- gelists, though he ascribes also great wisdom to each one of them." In another place, he says, that the beginning of S. John's Gospel confuted all heresies, particularly Arianism, Sabellianism, and Manichreism.* S. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 295), the younger brother of S. Basil, was ordained Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia about the year A.D. 370. Being a zealous Homoiisian, he felt the heavy hands of the Arian administration under Valcns ; and for some time after his ordination he was obliged to live in exile, in an unsettled condition, till, upon the death of Valens, he and others were restored to their sees by an edict of Gratian, A.D. 378. He gives the title of " the Great John " to the Evangelist, quoting the beginning of his first Epistle, soon after he had quoted the beginning of his Gospel.' He also calls him " the Great Apostle." When -wiiting against Apollinarius, he says : " Where did Apollinarius learn that the Spirit became incarnate ? What scripture says this ? We have not learnt any such thing from the Gospels, but that the Word became Flesh, as the great Apostle says." '" S. Gregory Nyssen is said to have been among the first who pointed out the various reading in the last chapter of ' S. Jerome, in Matt, xxiii. 6, vol. vii. p. 168. ' Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. v. c. ult., vol. iii. p. 538. ' Theodorus Mopsuesten. in Jo.in. Prooem., Migne's Patrol, vol. Ixvi. p. 728. ' S. Ambrose, in Luc. i. 1, vol. ii. p. 153+. ' S. Ambrose, in Psalm xl. sect. 38, vol. i. p. 1085. * S. Ambrose, E-xposit. in Luc. Prolog, sect. 7, vol. ii. p. 1532. ' Ibid. sect. 3, vol. ii. p. 1530. * S. Ambrose, de Fide, i. 8, sect. 57, vol. iii. p. 5+1. * S. Gregory Kyssen, in Cantic. Homil. xiii. vol. i. p. 10+9. '" S. Gregory Xyssen, adv. ApoUin. 12, vol. ii. p. 11+5. i6 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. S. Mark's Gospel.' In his oration on the Resurrection of Christ, he observes that some things in S. Mark's Gospel appear to be different from the accounts given of our Lord's Kesurrection by the other Evangelists. He, therefore, recon- ciles them, and compares together all the four Evangelists, Matthew, Jolm, Luke and Mark, which shows that, so far as he knew, there were no other authentic histories of Christ, except these four : and that there were no other for which the Church had any regard. S. Gregory Nazianzen(Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 284). — S. .Jerome celebrates Gregory's eloquence, and calls him his master, whom he had heard interpreting the Scriptures. He also mentions several of his works, and says that he had died about three years before.^ It is generally allowed that S. Gregory Nazianzen flourished about a.d. 370 and afterwards. But learned men are not agreed as to the time of bis birth, and the age at which he died. Cave says that he was born about the time of the Nicene Council at Nazianzum in Cappadocia, and died a.d. 389 and about the 65th year of his age having been elected Bishop of Constantinople a.d. 378. Among the poems of S. Gregory Naziauzen, there is one which contains a catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testament. He says : " The books of the New Testament are as follows : Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, Mark for the Italians, LuRe for the Greeks, for all that great herald John, enlightened by the heavenly mysteries."' The following are the titles of some of his poems : — On the Twelve Apostles ; On Christ's Genealogy [as in Matthew and Luke] ; The Miracles of Christ according to Matthew ; Christ's Parables and Similitudes according to Matthew ; Christ's Miracles according to John ; Christ's Miracles ac- cording to Luke ; Christ's Parables according to Luke ; Christ's Miracles according to Mark ; The Parables of the four Evangelists.* S. Basil (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 278). — It is generally supposed that Basil, commonly called " the Great," was bom in Cappadocia, in the year a.d. 328 or 329 ; that he was ordained Bishop of Cssarea, the capital city of his native country, about a.d. 369, and died a.d. 378. S. Basil bears witness . to the respect which was all along paid by Christians to the Scriptures. In a homily, containing an exhortation to baptism, having quoted a text of Isaiah, of the Psalms, the Acts, and S. Matthew, he says : " For all these were in to-day's reading." ^ In a letter to S. Gregory Nazianzen, he says : " The best way to know our duty is to meditate on the divinelj' inspired Scriptures ; here are instructions concerning our conduct ; and the actions of good men recorded therein, are, as it were. living patterns, set before us as for our imitation. And what- ever malady any man labours imder, if he acquaint himself with the Scripture.s, he will there find a medicine suited to his case."^ In a letter to a woman of conditiou who was a widow, and had applied to him for counsel, he says : " If you attend to the consolations of the divine Scriptures, you will neither need my advice, nor the advice of any other, the directions of the Holy Ghost being sufficient to lead you into a right conduct." ' And to another he says : " And by you I salute your good daughter, and I exhort her to live in the meditation of the oracles of the Lord, that by their excellent institution her mind may be nourished, and improve more than her body does according to the course of nature." ' He says : " All things are to be proved by the divinely in- spired Scriptures."' Among other characteristics of a Chris- tian, he reckons, a sure and unhesitating, and what may even be called, an unreasoning persuasion of the truth of the divinely inspired Scriptures.'" S. Epiphanius (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 185) was a native of Palestine, and was chosen Bishop of Constantia, formerly called Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, a.d. 367 or 368. The works of his, which have survived to our time, are, the ' Ancorate,' written about A.D. 373 ; his ' Pinarium,' -a large work against heresies, which was begun a.d. 374 ; his treatise on ' Weights and Measures,' written a.d. 392. He gives a catalogue of the books of the New Testament in these words: "Had you, Aetius, been born of the Spirit, and been taught by the Prophets and Apostles, you would have read the seven-and-twenty books of the Old Testament, from the creation of the world to the time of Esther, which are reckoned two and twenty ; and also the four holy Gos- pels, and the fourteen Epistles of the holy Apostle Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles of James, and Peter, and John, and Jude, and the Revelation of John, and the Wisdoms of Solomon and Sirach, and in a word all the divine Scriptures." " Of S. Matthew he says : " Matthew both preached, and wrote a Gospel in Hebrew ;"''^ and he wrote first, because he had been called from the receipt of customs, and from many sins. It was therefore fit he should show, that Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He says : " Matthew- wrote first, and Mark soon after, being a companion of Peter at Rome. He also believed that Mark was one of Christ's seventy-two disciples, and likewise one of those who wore offended at the words of Christ, recorded, John vi. 44, and then forsook Him, but was afterwards ' S. Gregory Nyssen, in Christi Resurrect. Orat. ii. vol. iii. p. 644. - S. Jerome, de Viris lUust. cxvii. vol. ii. p. 707. ^ S. Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen de Veris Script. Libris, vol. iii. p. 474. ' S. Gregory Nazianzen, Carmina, vol. iii. p. 479-495. * .S. Basil, Homil. in Sanct. Baptisma, sect. 1, vol. iii. pp. 425. ' S. Basil, Epist. ad Gregorium, ii. sect. 3, vol. iv. p. 228. ' S. Basil, Epist. cclxssiii. (^alias 284), vol. iv. p. 1020. ' Ibid, ccxcvi. (^alias 285), vol. iv. p. 1040. ^ S. Basil, Moral. Reg. xxvi. vol. iii. p. 744. "> Ibid. Isxx. 0. 22, vol. iii. p. 868. '^ S. Epiphanius, Haresis, Isxvi. 5, vol. ii. p. 560. '2 Ibid. Ii. 5, vol. i. p. 896.' '3 Ibid. Ii. 4, vol. i. p. 893. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 17 recovered by Peter, ami being filled with the Siiirif, wrote a Gospel." ' The third Gospel is that of Luke. He also was one of Christ's seventy-two disciples, who took offence at the same words that Mark did. He was recovered by Paul, "and was moved by the Spirit to write a Gospel."^ Of S. John be says : " At length John also, moved by the Spirit, wrote a Gospel, after he had long declined it, through humility, when he was more than ninety years of a,ie, and when he bad lived many years in Asia, after his return thither from Patmos, in the time of the Emperor Claudius." ' He also says: "that John, the fourth and last in order of time, was first in respect to the sublimity of bis matter."'' He several times states that S. John's Gospel was occasioned by the errors of tlie I'ibionites, the Cerinthians, 'the Merinthians, and Nazarenes.* He says : " There are four Gospels, and in them a thousand one hundred and sixty-two sections, or chapters," which is very near the number of Eusebius's canon.* Having notic d the different characters of the four Evangelists, and the be- ginnings of their several Gospels, and that John wrote last, and supplied some things omitted by the former ; he says, " hence it has come to pass that we have from the four Evan- gelists a full and accurate account of all that concerned both Christ's humanity and divinity."'' He also says : " that S. John imparted spiritual gifts by his Gospel, his Epistles, and the Revelation;^ that John's books or writings, his Gospel, and Revelation, and Epistles, are harmonious." ' The following passages, from numberless others, show the great respect which the Christians of that day paid to the Scriptures, and how they ranked the Evangelists and their Gospels with the Prophets and the other writers of the Old Testament : " One and the same God is preached to us in the Law, and the Projihets, and the Gospels, and the Apostles, in the Old and the New Testament."'" Speaking of S. John, he says: "The Apostle therefore speaking, or rather the Holy Ghost, speaking through him."" Arguing against the Valentinians, he says, " their fables and fancies have no countenance from Scripture, nor from Moses, nor from any of the Prophets after him, nor from our Saviour, nor from His Evangelists, or Apostles." '" He comjilaius " that some men neglecting the truth of the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, have introduced false and fabulous notions." '^ He professes to have delivered " the true faith, taken from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospels, and the Apostles." " V lestine :ilatia .316 320 315 340 Fkom A.n. 350 to a.d. 300. The following are the men who, according to Lardner, were the most prominent in the Church during the former half of the fourth century, and who may therefore be taken as repre- sentatives of the btlief of the Church during that time. A.D. Arnobius .. .. .. .. .. 306 Lact.intius Alexin Ilt, Bishop of Alexandria Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea in Pa Arius Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in G; Eustatius, Bishop of Antioch .. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria Juvencus Julius Firmicius Maternus Cyril of Jerusalem Hilaiy of Poictiers Rheticius, Bishop of Autun Triphyllius Fortunatianus .. Photinus ,. .. .. .. .. 341 It will answer our purpose sufficiently to examine the extant writings of a few of these, as specimens of the rest : viz., Eusebius, S. Atliauiisius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem. S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 171). — It is computed that Cyril was born about a.u. 315, that he was ordained priest a.d. 344 or 345, bishop in a.d. 350 or 351, and died in a.d. 386. The Catechetical Dis- courses mentioned by S. Jerome,''' and which are still extant, were composed in a.d. 347 or 348, while he was yet priest only. S. Cyril gives a catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testament. " The books of the New Testament," he says, "are the four Gospels onl}', the rest are falsely inscribed and hurtful. The Mauichreans have also written a gospel accord- ing to Thomas, which, coloured over with the odour of evan- gelical phraseology, corrupts the souls of the more simple. Receive likewise the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; as also the seven catholic epistles of James and Peter, John and Jude, and the seal of all, and the last [work] of the disciples, the fourteen epistles of Paul. As for any beside these, let them be all held in the second, or no rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches those neither do thou read in private, as thou hast heard." '° S. Cyril notices various particulars respecting the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark." He quotes the Prologue of S. John's Gosiiel, and presses on his bearers to give attention to S. John's Gospel, whom he terms the divine : 'laavvji ra SfoXo'yo)." S. Epiphanius, Hferesis, li. 6, vol. i. p. 900. Ibid. H. 11, vol. i. p. 908; 11. 7, vol. i. p. 900. Ibid. li. 12, vol. i. p. 909. Ibid. li. 19, vol. i. p. 924; liix. 23, vol. ii. p. 240. Ibid. li. 2, 12, vol. i. pp. 889, 909 ; Isii. 23, vol. ii. p. 237. S. Epiphanius, Ancoratus, i. vol. iii. p. 105. S. Epiphanius, Hseresis, li. 19, vol. i. p. 924. Ibid. li. 3.5. vol. i. p. 953. ' Ibid. li. 34. vol. i. p. 949. I. S. Epiphanius, de Fide, 18, vol. ii. p. 820. S. Epiphanius, Hseresis, Ixxvi. 9, vol. ii. p. 532. Ibid. Jixi. 34, vol. i. p. 540. Ibid. Ixxvii. 1, vol. ii. ]>. 641. S. Epiphanius, .'\ncoratus, 82, vol. iii. p. 172. S. Jerome, de Vii-is Illust. csii. vol. ii. p. 706. S. Cyril, Hierosol. Cateches. iv. 36, p. 500. Ibid. xiv. 15, p. 844; xvii. 19, p. 992. '» Ibid. xii. 1, p. C i8 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. He ranks the Old and New Testament, the Law and tlie Prophets, Gospels and Apostles together, and says: "that all these Scriptures were dictated by one and the same Spirit." ' In numberless places he implies th;it the Scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit, as in the following: " Why do you curiously inquire after what the Holy Spirit has not written in the Scriptures?"^ He recommends his hearers " to nourish their souls," and , " to establish themselves, by reading the divine oracles."^ He continually alleges the books of Scripture in proof of what he teaohi'S ; as, " These things we iio not say of our own invention, but btcause tliey are taken from the Scrip- tures which are received [or read] in the Church."* "Not the least article of faith ought to be taught by mere probable reason only, without the divine Scriptures." ^ " The Christian creed is composed not of the fancies of men, but of doctrines collected out of Scripture." And he advises his hearers, " to receive and to guard that only as the faith which has been delivered by the Church, and which is confirmed and sup- ported by Scripture."* S. Athanasius (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol.iv. p. 152).-He suc- ceeded Alexander in the see of Alexandria, A. d. 326, and died A.D. 373, \\;Jien he had been bishop forty-six years complete. He says: "That on account of the Trinit}', the heathen people of his time thought that the Christians worshipped a plurality of Gods."' He says : " that Christian people never took their de- nomination from their own bishpps, but from the Lord in whom we believe. And though the blessed Apostles are our masters and have ministered to us the Gospel of our Saviour, we are not named from them. For from Christ we are Christians, and from Him are so called."* In the thirty-ninth festal letter, which is generally allowed to be a genuine work of S. Athanasius, he says : " But since we have spoken of heretics as dead persons, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for salva- tion ; and I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the weaker sort should be seduced from their sim- plicity and purity by the cunning and craftiness of some men, and at length be induced to make use of other books called apocryjihal, being deceived by the similitude of their names, resembling the true books ; I therefore entreat you to bear with me, if I by writing remind you of the things which ye know alreaily, as what may be of use for the Church. And for the vindication of my attempt I adopt the form of the Evangelist Luke, who himself says. Foras- much as some have taken in hand to set forth writings called apocryphal, and to join them with the divinely inspired Scriptures of which we are fully assiired, as they delivered them to the fathers, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word ; it has seemed good to me also, with the advice of some true brethren, and having learned it from the beginning, to set forth in order these canonical books, which have been delivered down to us, and believed to be divine Scripture, that every one who has been deceived, may condemn those who have deceived him ; and that he who remains uncorrupted may have the satisfaction to be re- minded of what he is persuadeil of. The books of the Old Testament, then, are all of them in number two-and- twenty." . . . . " Thus far of the books of the Old Testa- ment. Nor do I think it too much pains to declare those of the New. They are these : the four Gospels, according to -Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John. Then after them the Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles of the Apostles called Catholic : of James one, of Peter two, of John three, and alter them of Jude one. Besides these there are the fourteen epistles of the A[iostle Paul, the order of which is thus: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians, after them that to the Galatians, the next to the Ephesians, then to the Philippians, to the Colossians, after them two to the Thessalonians, and the epistle to the Hebrews, then two to Timothy, to Titus one, the last to Pliilemon : and again the revelation of John. These are fountains of salvation, that lie who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them : in these alone the doctrine of rehgion is taught: let no man add to them, or take anything from them. Of these our Lord spake when he put the Sadducees to shame, saying : ' Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And he exhorted the Jews : ' Search the Scriptures : for these are they which testify of me.' However, for the sake of greater accuracy, I add as follows : that there are other books beside these, without ; not canonical indeed, but ordained by the fathers to be read to (or by) those who are newly come over to us, and are desirous to be instructed in the doctrine of religion. They are the Wisdom of Solomc^n, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, Judith, Tobias : the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd. So that, my beloved, those being ca- nonical, and these read, there is no mention of apocryphal books ; but they are the invention of heretics, who wrote them after their own pleasure : assigning to them, and add- ing to them, times ; that, producing them as ancient writings, they may take occasion to deceive the simple."' No man ever endured such severe and continued oppo- sition in maintenance of what he considered the doctrine of the Church as S. Athanasius. In his Orations against the Arians he maintained his assertions by numberless quota- tions from the four Gospels, and more especially from the GospeJ of S. John.'" The correctness of his explanations of these passages, and of the inl'ercnces which he drew from S. Cyril, Hierosol. Cateches. xvii. 5. p. 976. Ibid. .ti. 12, p. 705. Ibid. i. 6, p. 377 ; iv. 37, p. 50-t. Ibid. iv. 17, p. 476. * Ibid. XV. 13, p. 885. " Ibid. v. 12, p. 520. S. Athanasius, Oratio contr. Arian. iii. sect. 15, vol. ii. p. 352 Ibid. i. sect. 2, vol. ii. p. 16. S. Athanasius, Epist. Heortast. xxxix. vol. ii. p. 1436. S. Athanasius, Oratio contr. Gentes, sect. 42, vol. i. p. 84. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 19 them, was constantly denied ; his right to defend his doc- trines by quotations from any one of these four Gospels was never once called in quesliun. If there had been any hesi- tation in the universal reception of the four Gospels by the Cluirch Catholic, or any flaw in the evidence of tliis uni- versal reception, the disputes between Athanasius and Arius would have brought this to light. It was his use of the woid o/iooucriof, to express the relation of the Son to the Father, and not his cnnstant appeal to S. John's Gospel, which earned for Athanasius the unceasing opposition which he met with from Arius and his followers. He terms S. John " the divine man," 6 ^foXoypt ai'rjp ; and (lie Apostles in general "the divines of the Saviour."' He often quotes the first epistle of S. John, and as John's.- He terms S. Paul, " the blessed Paul, a man bearing or carrying Christ," and " the holy servant of Christ."* He calls the Scriptures "sacred and divinely insjnred," and says they are " sufBcient to show us the truth." * He frequently counsels attention to the Scriptures, and more especially thoi^e of the New Testament: "Let these be hearkened to, the determination of the Gospel, the preaching of the Apostles, the testimonies of the Prophets.'"' Having quoted several things from the Old Testament, he says: " But do you also search the Gospels, and what the Apostles have written ;" * and afterwards : " Let us inquire after the ancient tradition, and doctrine, and faith of the Catholic Church, whioh the Lord delivered, which the Apostles preached, which tlie Fatliers kept : for on this the Church is founded." Eusebius, Bishop of Caasarea (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iv. p. 69), sa\s Jerome: "a man most studious in the divine Scriptures, and together with the Martyr Pamphilus, very diligent in making a large collection of ecclesiastical writers, jiublished innumerable volumes, some of which are these : ' The Evangelical Demonstration ' in twenty books : ' The Evangelical Preparation' in fifteen books: five boolss of the 1'heoplianie : ten books of Ecclesiastical History : Chronical Canons of Universal History, and an epitome of them: and of the difference between the Gospels : ten books upon Isaiah : against Porphyry, who at the same time wrote in Sicily, thirty books, as some think, though 1 have never met with more than twenty : 'Topics' in one book : an 'Apology for Origen' in six books: 'The Life of Pamiihilus' in three books: seveial small pieces concerning the Martyrs: most learned Commentaries upon the 150 Psalms, and many other works. He flourished chiefly under the emperors Constan- tine and Constantius. On account of his frientlship with tie martyr Pami>hilus, he received his surname from him."' Eusebius was born at Ca^sarea in Palesiine about a.d. 270, of which place he afterwards became bishop. It is said that he had read all sorts of Greek authors, whether philosophers, historians, or divines, of Egypt, Pha-uicia, Asia, Africa, and Europe. The character of the testimony which Eusebius oivcs of the reception of the four Gospels by the Church is dilferent from that of any other writer hitherto considered. They were evidence of the judgment of the Church in their own time; the testimony of Eusebius, as the historian of the Church from the beginning, has a much wider reference than to the practice of the Church when he lived. His testimony extends to the recejition which the Church had given to the four Gospels from the beginning up to his time ; and he speaks with the authority of a man who had full knowledge of the subject on which he writes. For, taking into account the careful investiuatious which he appeal's to have made into the history of the Church from the first, the many writings which lie quotes of men whose works are now lost, and whose very names would have been unknown but for the extracts which he makes from thim, the many traditions which he records respecting the early writers and their works, and the opinions which they held respecting the books of the New Testament, it is scarcely too much to say that Eusebius had read all the Christian writings which had been published before his t;me. He speaks with the know- ledge of a man who had read all that was to be read on the subject on which he speaks. If, then, there had ever been any hesitation in the Church as to tlie universal reception of the lour Gospels, he would Jiave known it; and, as he states when there had been any doubt or hesitation in the Church's reception of the other books, we may lairly conclude ho would have done so in this case had such ever existed. Among other extant works of Eu.-^ebius are ten Evan- gelical Canons, with a letter to Carpianus, showing what things are related by four of the Evangelists, what by three of them, what by two, and what by one.' It would be tedious to the reader to go through even a tithe of the piassages where Eusebius incidentally indicates the reverence in which the Scriptures generally, and more esptcially the Gospels, were held by Christians in his day, and before it. In the following paragraph from his 'Evan- gelical Demonhtration ' he discusses the character of the Evangelists, and gives several reasons to account for the way in which in several places they wrote as they did : " The Apostle Matthew docs not pretend to any honourable station in the former part of his life ; but placeth himself among publicans, employed in heaping up money. This none of the other Evangelists have mentioned ; not his fellow-disciple John, nor Luke, nor Mark. But Matthew is his own ac- cuser, and dissembles not his former course of life. Observe, ' S. Athanasius, Oratio de Incarnat. sect. 10, vol. i. p. 113. • S. Athanasius, Oratio IV. coutr. Arian. sect. 26, vol. ii. p. 503. I. contr. Arian. sect. 1, vol. ii. p. VS. • S. Athanasius, Oratio contr. Geutes, sect. 5 and 26, vol. i. pp. 12 ."ind 52. ■ de Incarnat. sect. 10, vol. i. p. 113. ' S. Athanasius, Oratio cuntr. Gentes, sect. l,Tol. i. p. 4. de Synodis, sect. 6, vol. ii. p. 689. ' S. Athanasius, contr. Apoliin. ii. sect. 4, vol. ii. p. 1137. * S. Athanasius, Epist. I. ad Scrap, sect. 6 and 28, vol. ii. pp. 541 and 593. ' S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. ls.\xi. vol. ii. p. 689. ' Eusebius, vol. iv. p. 1276. c 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. then, how he expressly mentions his name in the Gospel written hy himself: 'And as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom : and He saith unto him, Follow Me. And he arose and followed Him. And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans came and sat down with Him and His disciples' (Matt. ix. 10). And after- wards, in the course of the narrative, inserting a catalogue of Christ's disciples, he calls himself the publican. For thus he says : ' Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these : the first Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother ; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother ; Philip and Bartholomew ; Thomas and Matthew the publican ' (Ch. x. 2, 3). Thus Matthew, out of abundance of modesty, hides not his former course of life, but ingenuously owns himself to have been a publican, aud likewise placeth himself after his colleague. For whereas they were joined two and two, he with Thomas, Peter with Andrew, and Philip with Bar- tholomew, he puts Thomas before himself, giving the pre- ference to his fellow-Apostle as his superior ; whilst the other Evangelists have used a difierent order. Observe therefore Luke, how he mentions Matthew; he does not call him a publican, nw subjoin him to Thomas ; but, knowing him to be his superior, first mentions him and then Thomas, as does Mark likewise. The words of the former are these : ' And when it was day. He called unto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles ; Simon, whom He named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John ; Philip and Bartholomew ; Matthew and Thomas ' (Luke vi. 13-15). Thus did Luke prefer Matthew, 'even as they had delivered things unto him, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word' (Ch. i. 2). You may observe John to be of the same mind with Matthew ; for in his epistles he either nameth not himself at all, or calls himself only elder, nowhere Apostle or Evan- gelist. In his Gospel, when he speaks of him ' whom Jesus loved,' he does not mention himself by name. As for Peter, out of abundance of modesty, he thought not himself worthy to write a Gospel ; hut Mark, who was his friend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's relations of tlie acts of Jesus ; who, when he comes to that part of the history where Jesus asked, ' who men said He was,' and then, wliat opinion they themselves, his disciples, had of Him ? and Peter had replied, that they believed Him to be the Christ ; he does not relate anything that Jesus said hy way of answer to this, except that ' He charged them, that they should tell no man of Him ' (Mark viii. 27-30). For Mark was not present to hear what Jesus said, and Peter did not think fit to bear testimony to himself, hy relating what Jesus said to him, or of him. Kevertheless, what was said to him is related by Matthew in this manner: 'But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered, and said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shaft bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven' (Matthew xvi. 13, 16-19). Though such things were said to Peter by Jesus, Mark has taken no notice of them, because, as is probable, Peter did not relate them in his sermons. He only said : ' When Jesus put the question to them, Peter answered, and said. Thou art the Christ. And He charged them, that they should tell no man of Him ' (Mark viii. 29, 30). About those things Peter thought fit to be silent ; therefore Mark also has omitted them. But what concerned his denial (of Jesus) he preached to all men, because ujxjn that account he ' wept bitterly.' You will therefore find Mark relating concerning that matter all these several particulars : ' And as Peter was in the palace, there cometh to him one of the maids of the high-priest. And when she saw Peter, she looked upon him, and said, And thou wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand' I what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by. This is one of them. And he denied it again. And a httle after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean. But he began to curse and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye sjieak. And the second time the cock crew' (Mark xiv. 66-72). These things writes Mark ; and Peter testifies these things of himself, for all things in Mark are said to be memoira of Peter's discourses." Of S. John he says: "Let us observe the writings of this Apostle, which are not contradicted by any. And first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the Churches under heaven. And that it hath been justly placed by the ancients the fourth in order, and after the other three, may be made evident in this manner.'" He then goes on to explain much in the same way that others have done, that John having read the accounts which the other three Evangelists had written, perceived that they had omitted many things which he was able to supply ; and that it was in order to supply these omissions that he wrote his Gospel. Speaking of the Scriptures that were universally acknow- ledged, and those that are not such, Eusebius says : " It will be pro[ier to enumerate here in a summary way, the books of the New Testament which have been already mentioned; and in the first place are to be ranked the sacred four Gosi^els,"^ using an expression, the full force of which is untranslateable iuto English. For the periphrasis, the four- horse chariot of the Gospels is but a ix)or substitute for the ' Eusebius, Hist. Eicles. iii. 24, vol. ii. p. 264. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 2.5, vol. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. be^mty and force of the Greek rfiv &ylav twv EuayyeXimi' TtTpaKTuv. By this expression the writer probably meant to imply both the number of the Evangelists, and their union or a;^reenient in action, that there were four, and that these four were in accord, pulling to;:ether to gain the same end. He often applies to John titles of great dignity, calling him " the great and admirable Evangelist, John ; or the most holy disciple of God and Apostle John."^ From some of these passages it is also plain that Eusebius gives S. John these titles of respect in consequence of the Prologue of his Gospel. The following are additional proofs of the reverence ]>aid by the early Christians to the Gospels, and to the writings of the New Testament generally. The epithet most commonly applied to the Gospels is sacred or holy.- 'J'he Evangelists are also called holy' (Upoi), and divinely inspired* (5f o-jrf o-i'oi) ; tlie testimony of the Holy Gosjiels is said to be without any error or mistake* (xnrn ti]v a^tv^fuTUTr^u tu>v lepiov Einyye- \iQ3v fiapTvpLav). Up to tlie time of Eusebius, as is well known, certain of the Epistles, with the Ajiocalypse, had not been received as Scripture by all ; and in order to assist in forming correct views on this point, Eusebius gives quotations from some of the most ancient writers. But it lias been pointed out^ that he does not make any quotations from the early writers respecting the fourth Gospel, because its Apostolic author- ship had never been questioned by any Church-writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius was aware, and therefore that it was superfluous to call witnesses. This has been proved in such a way, that it never can be called in question again. I have now made a slight examination of the extant works of thirteen writers who lived in the fourth century, in dif- ferent places, ami at different times; who, either from the office which they held in the Church, or from their learning and research, or from their intellect and activity, or from the controversies in which they were engaged, or from the suf- ferings which they endured in defence of their belief, were the most prominent men of their time ; and who could not possibly be mistaken as to the mind of the Church with respect to the four Gospels. The extracts which I have given from these writers, fragmentary as they must necessa- rily be, are sufficient to show that in the fourth century the four Gospels, and substantially the same four Gospels, as we ourselves receive, were acknowledged by the Church throughout the world, as her authoritative Scriptures, or as a divinely inspired history of Christ and his teaching ; and that the writers of these four Gospels, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John, were believed to have been specially moved and assisted by the Holy Spirit in their work ; and that others who had attempted this had failed in their task, because they were not so assisted by the Holy Spirit, and that the Church had never received their gospels as hers ; that several of tlicse ajiocryphal gospels were then existing, and, though avoided by Christians generally, were occasion- ally read by the curious, but were never used by the Church for the establishment of any doctrine ; that S. John's Gospel was regarded as pre-eminent among the four Gospels, as worthily dealing with the most exalted subject, the Divine nature of Jesus, and that of his Gospel, the Prologue or beginning, was for the same reason conspicuous above the rest, exalted as the whole was. The ground, on which tlie Church of the fourth century acknowledged the four Gospels and rejected all others, was not the immeasurable difference in their character, though this was tully perceived, but the fact that these four Gospels only had been handed down by the Church successively fi'om the very beginning, or from the time they were published, as the works of the Apostles or of the companions of the Apostles. From the number of genuine writings of the fourth century, which have survived to our time, the proofs given for the above might have been ten times greater than they are. THE THIRD CENTURY. From a.d. 300 to a.d. 250. "When we turn from the fourth century to the third, we find that among the men who distinguished themselves in the latter half of it, either as leaders in action, or by their writings in the service of the Church, were the following ; but that few of their works have come down to our time. See Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iii. A.D. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage .. .. .. 250 CorneUus anil S. Lucius, Bishops of Rome .. 251 Novatus, otherwise called Novati.in .. .. 251 Dionysius, Bishop of Kiinie .. .. .. 259 Commodian .. .. •• -• .. 270 Malchion .. .. .. •■ .. 270 Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea .. .. .. 270 Theognostus .. .. .. .. .. 270 Pierius, Presbyter of Alexandria .. .. 283 Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria . . .. .. 290 I. Dorotheus, Presbyter of Antioch II. Dorotheus, author of the Synopsis of Lives of Prophets, &c. Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw .. .. .. 290 Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia .. 290 Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch .. .. .. 290 Hesychius, Bishop in Egypt . . . . . . 290 Pamphilus, Presbyter of Ca;sarea . . . . 294 The works, which remain to us from a.d. 300 to a.d. 250, as already stated, are not very numerous, nor are they dis- Eusebius, Demons. Evang. iv. 15, vol. iv. p. 301. vii. I, vol. iv. p. 488. de Eccles. Theol. i. 18, vol. vi. p. 861. ii. 12, vol. vi. p. 925. Eusebius, Demons. Evang. vii. 3, vol. iv s. vol. iv. p. p. 556. ' Eusebius, Demons. Evang. i.x. vol. iv. p. 652. Ibid. i. 1, vol. iv. p. 17. Ibid. vi. 21, vol. iv. p. 477. Canon Lightfoot, Contcmp. Rev. Jan. 1875, \>\\. 169-184. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. tinguished for the ability which tnavked the writings of the half-century which succeeded. But we must bear in mind that in tliis inquiry the testimony of a man is cited, because he is a fair exponent of the Church's belief in his day with respect to the four Gospels, and not merely because he is a man of great learning and ability, and therefore able to form a more independent, and, as some may think, a more valuable opinion on matters. The following are the writers whose testimony is examined : S. Cyprian, Novatus, S. Victorinus, S. Methodius. S. Methodius (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iii. p. 181), Bisliop of Olympus, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre, a man of neat and correct style, composed a work against Porphyry in several books. He also wrote a Banquet of ten Virgins ; concerning the Resurrection, against Origen, an excellent book ; and against him likewise on the Pythoness, and on liberty [or free will]; Commentaries also upon Genesis and the Canticles; and many other works, which are in the hands of everybody. He obtained the crown of martyrdom at Chalcis, in Greice, at the end of the last persecution ; or, as some say, under Decius and Valerian. So writes S. Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men.' Methodius expressly says : " There havg been four Gospels delivered to us."'' He fre- quently quotes the words of each of the four Gospels, and though he does not mention the name of their writers, there is no reason to doubt that he attributed them to the same author.s as the Church has always done. S. Victorinus (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iii. p. 162), Bishop of i ettau, or Petaw upon the Drave in Germany, nourished, according to Cave, about the year a.d. 290 ; according to Sixtus Senensis, about the year a.d. 270. He had the honour to die a martyr for Christ under the per- secution of Diocletian, and, as is supposed, in the year A. II. 303. S. Jerome's account of him in his book of Illustrious Men^ is to this efi'cct: Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, understood Greek better than Latin, hence his works are excellent for the sense, but mean as to the style. They are such as these — commentaries upon Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Eze- kiel, Habakkuk, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and' the I'lcvelation of John ; against all heresies, and many other works. At last he was crowned with martyrdom. Discoursing on the fourth day's work, Victorinus says that " there are four living creatures before the throne of ( i od, four Gospels, four rivers In Paradise." * S. John's Gospel is here quoted in this manner : " The Evangelist John thus sjieaks : In the heginning was the Word, and the Word was witli God, and the Word was God."^ In the commentary upon the Revelation he speaks of the Gospels in this manner : The four living creatures (Rev. iv. 6, 7) are the four Gospels. " The first," he says, " was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle. These living creatures have different faces, which have a meaning ; for the living creature like a lion denotes Mark, in whom the voice of a lion roaring in the wilderness is heard : ' A voice crying in the wilderness, Pre- pare ye the way of the Lord.' Matthew, who has the re- semblance of a man., shows the family of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh ; and while he computes his genealogy from Abraham to David and Joseph, he speaks of Him as a man ; therefore his preaching is represented by the face of a man. fcnke, who relates tlie priesthood of Zacharias offering sacri- fice for the people, and the angel that appeared to him, be- cause of the priesthood and the mention of the sacrifice, has the resemblance of a calf. The Evangelist John, like an eagle with stretched-out wings mounting on high, speaks of the Word of God. The Evangelist Mark commences thus : ' The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, the voice of one crying in the wilderness;' this is the face of a lion. Matthew says : ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.' This is the face of a man. But. Luke says : ' There was a priest, named Zacharias, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron.' This is the form of a calf. John begins thus: ' In the beginning was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God.' This is the similitude of a flying eagle." ° In this passage we have the four Evangelists, and the be- ginnings of their several Gospels, or at least what is near the beginning of each of them. Nor is there any reason to doubt that this passage is really Victorinus's. (Lardner, vol. iii. p. 175.) Victorinus also goes on to speak of the time and the occa- sion of S. John's writing his Gospel. It was written, he says, after the Evangelist had been confined in Patmos, and to con- fute the heresies which he saw springing up around him, such as that of the Valentinians, Cerinthians, and Ebionites.' Hovatus, otherwise called Novatian (Lardner, 'Credi- bility,' vol. iii. p. 78). — S. Jerome says of him : "Novatus, presbyter of the city of Rome, having endeavoured to invade tlie episcopal chair in opposition to Cornelius, formed the sect ot the Novatians, whom the Greeks call pure; not allowing apostates to' be received, though they repent."' Though his work on the Trinity, or the rule of faith, abounds with texts of the Old and New Testament, there are not many books of either cited by name. A great number of passages are quoted from S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, aiid S. John's Gospel is frequently quoted by name. ' S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. Ixxxiii. vol. ii. p. 691. ^ S. Metliodius, Conviv. Dec. Virg. Oratio x. cap. ii. ; Migne's I\itrol. vol. xviii. p. 196. 5 S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. Ixxiv. vol. ii. p. 683. ' S. Victorinus, Fragment, de Fabrira Mund. ; Migne's Piitrol. vol. XV. p. 304. ' S. Victorinus, Fragment, de Fabrica Mund. ; Migne's Patrol vol. XV. p. 311. 8 S. Victorinus, in Apoc. iv. 6, &c. ; Migne's Patrol, vol. xv p. 324. ' Ibid. xi. 1 ; Migne's Patrol, vol. xv. p. 333. ' S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. Ixx. vol. ii. p. 681. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 23 as, " And the Word, says John, was made flesh, and dwult among us."' "And so also John, describing tlie nativity of Jesus, says : ' The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begot- ten of the Father.' " ' " For John says, ' All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made."" He also quotes S. John's First Epistle.* S. Cyprian (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. iii. p. 3). S. Jerome says of him : " Cypiian of Africa first taught rhetoric with great applause. Afterwards, being converted to Christianity by a jircsbyter named CVcilius, whose name he also took, he gave all his estate to the poor ; and after no long time he was made presbyter, and then Bishop of Car- thage. It is needless to give a catalogue of his works, which are brighter than the sun. He suffered under the emperor Valerian and Galienus, in the eighth persecution, the same day that Cornelius died at Rome, but uot in the same year." ^ No man, whose life as a Christian was so short, has left behind him a more brilliant reputation than S. Cyprian. He was horn a heathen, and as such passed the greatest [lart of his life. Bishop Pearson places his conversion in the year A.D. 246. He was soon made priest, and shortly after, against his own inclination, but at the general and earnest desire of the people of Carthage, he was elected bishop. The Emperor Valerian, who for some time had been very favourable to the Christians, afterwards became their persecutor. On August 30th, A.D. 257, Cyprian was brought before the pro- consul Aspasius Paternus, and being examined by him, he owned himself to be a Christian and a bishop, declaring tliat he knew no other gods, beside .the true God, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all tilings therein. Being stedfast in tliis profession, the proconsul banished him to Curubis. His deacon, Pontius, accompanied him to the place of his exile, where he arrived the 13th or 14th of Sep- tember. Cyprian had many fellow-sufferers ; great numbers o! Cliristiaus in the province of Numidia were apprehended, and sent to work in the mines.^ We have a letter of Cypiian, written in his exile, which is inscribed to nine bishops by name, and beside them to others, " presbyters, deacons, and the rest of the brethren in the mines, martyrs of God the Father Almighty, and Jesus Christ our Lord." And those, who were not all in one and the same place, hut in mines at some distance from each other, answer him again in three several letters, which are still extant in S. Cyprian's works.' On a change of proconsul, S. Cyprian was recalled from exile, but only to suffer martyrdom the following year. He was beheaded September 14, a.d. 258. S. Cyprian speaks expressly of four Gospels, which he compares to the four rivers of paradise.' He speaks of these Gospels as received by the Church, and as her property, within her circuit ; and by wliich she is overflowed, and her plants are enabled to bear fruit. In his books of Testimonies, he makes many quotations from all the four Gospels. He also wrote a minute Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is still extant. He often expressly refers to the first Epistle of S. John, " The Apostle John, mindful of the com- mand, writes in his EpistleJ ' Hereby we perceive that we know Him, if we keep His commandments, &c.' " ' It is remarkable that often as S. Cyprian quotes the fe.ur Gospels, and the other canonical books of the New Testa- ment, he never once refers to any of the spurious apocryphal Christian writings, though he often quotes the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The following may be noticed as indications of the estima- tion in which the Gospels, and the Scriptures generally, were held by the Church in S. Cyprian's time, his numerous quotations of them, his appeals to them as decisive in matters of dispute and controversy, and his diveis forms of citation of them, particularly such as these: "The Lord says in the Gospel,"'" or, " 1'he Lord says in His Gospel."" S. Cyprian earnestly exhorts all in general, but es^xicially Christian ministers (Dei sacerdotes), in all doubtful matters to have recourse to tlie Gospels, and the Epistles of the Apostles, as to the fountain where may be found the true original doctrine of Christ.'^ His discourse on the Lord's Prayer he begins in this manner : " 'i'he precepts of the Gospel, my beloved brethren, aie to be considered as tlie lessons of God to us; as the foundations of our hope, and the suiiports of our faith ; as spiritual consolations to us, showing us the paths of righteous- ness, .and setting us forward in the way of salvation; for, whiUt with teachable and wilHng minds we receive upon earth the instructions conveyed to us, we are led on insen- sibly to the kingdom of heaven."" The great resiiect which they had for the Scriptures, and esi;ecially for the New Testament, ajipears in the public reading of them in the church. Cyprian, in two difl'erent letters, written in his retirement, gives his people an account of his having there ordained two persons, Aureliu? and Cele- rinus, who were before confessors, or who had endured torture for the faith, to be readers. In the former of these two letters * Novatian, de Trinit. x. ; Migne's Patrol, vol. iii. p. 903. ' Ibid. xiii. ; Migne's Patrol, vol. iii. p. 907. ' Ibid. xvii. ; Migne's Patrol, vol. iii. p. 917. ' Ibid, xviii. ; Migne's Patrol, vol. iii. p. 919; vii. ; Jligiie-'s Patrol, ol. iii. p. 897. * S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. l.xvii. vol. ii. p. 677. " S. Cyprian, Epist. Ixxvii. (alias 76), p. 414. ' Ibid. Ixxviii.. Ixxix., Ixxx., p. 420, &c. * S. Cvpri.in. Epist. (ad Jubaianuni) Ixsiii. 10; Mi-uc'.s Patrol. ol. iii. p. 1116. ' S. Cyprian, Epist. xxv. (alias 28) 2, p. 289. Ixxvi. (ad Magnum) 1 ; vol. iii. p. 1138. Migne's Patrol. S. Cyprian, de Lapsis, xi. p. 482, . ■ de Exhort. Mart. vi. S. Cyprian, de Orat. Dom. vi., ix., de Unitate Eccles. '■ S. Cyprian, Epist. Ixxiv. (.ad Pompeium) 10 vol. iii. [1. 1135. xxvi., pp. 523, 525, 534, iii., XV., pp. 505, 511. ignes Patrol. " S. Cyprian, de Orationc Doiniu. i. p. 519. 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. he relates the many sufferings of Aurelius, and gives him a high character, and then adds: that he had deserved, though young, a higher degree in the clergy, but he thought it best that he sliould begin with the ofifice of a reader. " Nothing," he says, " can be more fit than that he, who has made a glorious confession of the Lord, should read pub- licly in the church ; that he, who has shown himself willing to die a martyr, should read the Gospel of Christ, by which martyrs are formed ; and that he should be advanced from the rack to the reading-dessk." ' Of Celerinus, he writes in the following letter: " That it was very fit and becoming that he, who -was already so illustrious in the world, should be placed upon the pulpit, that is, the tribunal of the church ; that being conspicuous to the people he may read the pre- cepts and Gospel of the Lord, which he faithfully and courageously observes and maintains." '■' S. Cyprian divides the Scriptures received by Christians into old and new, and recommends the study of both these as very beneficial for confirming our virtue and increasing our knowledge ; and he calls them " the books of the Spirit," or "inspired writings," " the divine fountains," and "foun- tains of the divine fulness."' . From a.d. 250 to a.d. 200. The following are the men whose names have come down to us as most prominent in the Church by their writings during the first half of the third century : — Minucius Felix .. Apolloniu.s Caius Asterius Urb.inus Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem Hippolytiis Ammonius Julius Africanus Origen Firmilian Noetus .. Gregory, Bishop of Neocsesarea Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria The writers that lived in the first half of the third century were few in number, and their writings, (ir at least those that have come down to us, with the exception of the works of Origen, and of his contemporary, S. Hipi olytus," and of those which TertuUian wrote at this time, were of no great importance. Origen by his greatness seems to dwarf all the rest. His influence in his own day was so great, and he wrote so many works, embracing such a wide field, and he was engaged in so many controversies and on so many dif- 211 232 212 220 230 233 247 2i7 ' S. Cyprian, Epist. xxxiii. (alias 38) 2, p. 319. "- Ibid, xxxiv. (alias 39) 4, p. 323. ' S. Cvprian, Testimon. Pra;fat. p. 677. ' Euse'bius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 2, vol. ii. p. 524. • S. Hippolytus. — " As regards Hippolytus, I have counted above fifty references to S. Matthew, and forty to S. John, in his work on the Refutation of Heresies, and Fragments." — Mr. Sadler, 'The Lost Gospel,' p. 126. "The undoubted writings of Hippolytus contain quotations from ferent subjects, that his testimony alone will be amply suflB- cient to show us what was the Church's belief with respect to the four Gospels during the time he lived. As TertuUian wrote at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century, he is reckoned as belonging to the former. Origen (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 468) was born in Kgypt a.d. 184 or 185, and died A.D. 253. His father, Leonidas, sufl'ered martyrdom a.d. 20i, leaving behind him a wife and seven children, of whom Origen was the oldest, but not quite 17 years of age. In the very beginning of this per- secution, Origen showed great zeal for Christianity, and was ready to offer himself to martyrdom. Being detained at home hjf the pnident care of his mother, he sent a letter to his father in prison, earnestly entreating him to be constant. Kusebius has preserved but the following hue of it : "Take heed, father, that you do not change your mind for our sake." * Amongst his masters had been Clement, who then held the Catechetical chair at Alexandria, one of the most im- portant positions of the time. At eighteen years of age, Origen himself, such was his reputation, succeeded to the same chair. This he continued to hold until he was forty-five years of age, when on some misunderstanding arising — with Deme- trius, the Bishop of Alexandria — he retired to Ca?sarea, in Palestine, where he was ordained priest, and where he lived most of the remaining years of his life. In consequence of certain philosophical speculations in which he indulged, and which he endeavoured to reconcile with the doctrines of the Christian religion, he was engaged in controversy with his contemporaries nearly the whole of his life, as his followers were for many years after his death. Origen was a most voluminous %vriter : S. Jerome styles him the greatest doctor of the Churches since the Apostles,^ a remark which had been made before by S. Jerome's own master Didymus. Among the works of Origen, which have come down to our time, are large portions of a commentary which he wrote on S. Matthew, and on S. Luke, and also on S. John, the latter of which occupies in Migne's ' Patrology ' about 200 pages, royal octavo, with double columns. If it could be said of any man, in either ancient or modern times, that the absorbing subject of his life was the study of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, this would be eminently true of Origen. An exaniination of his works shows the following results with respect to the four Gospels. I. Origen recognises and declares that the Church recog- nises and had always from the very beginning recognised, only the four Gospels as her authoritative documents. In proof of this may be quoted the following testimony » S. Jerome, Prasf. in Lib. de Nom. Heb. vol. iii. p. 772. ( Prsef. in Trans. Homil. Grig, in Jerem., &c p. 584. vol. all the acknowledged books except the Epistle to Philemon and the first Epistle of St. John. Of the disputed books he uses the Apocalypse as an unquestionable work of the Apostle St. John, and is said to have written a Commentary upon it." — Prof. Westcott, ' On the Canon of the New Testament,' p. 376. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 25 from Eusebius.' In tlie fii-st book of his Commentaries upon the Gospel of Matthew, Origen observing tlie ecclesiastical canon, declares that be knew only four Gospels, expressing liiinself thus : " As I have learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole Church of God under heaven. The first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ; who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language. The second is that according to Mark, who wrote it as Peter dictated it to him, who therefore also calls him his son in his Catholic Epistle (1 Pet. v. 13), saying, ' The Cliurch which is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Mark my son.' The third is that according to Luke; the Gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts (Rom. xvi. 25 ; '1 Tim. ii. 8). Lastly, that according to John .... But what need I speak of John, who leaned upon the breast of Jesus? who has left us one Gospel, professing, at the same time, that he was able to write more than even the world itself could contain." There are also very many other passages in Origen's genuine works, where he intimates that there were only four Gospels or four Evangelists.'' He often implies, and sometimes expressly asserts, that the writers of the four Gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit for their office ; and that others, who attempted this, failed in their work because they were not so inspired.' The following may serve as proofs of this. In his Com- mentary on Matthew xx. 30, when discussing the apparent discrepancy in the accounts of the E\'angelists respecting the blind man, whose eyes Jesus opened on His way to Jeru- salem, Origen implies that it was the common belief of Christians, "That the Gospels were written exactly according to truth, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and that the writers had made no mistakes."' And afterwards, when sjieaking of the addition which S. Mark makes to the narra- tive, and which he alone relates, that the blind man, casting away his garment, leaped, and came to Jesus, Origen goes on to say : " Shall we say that the Evangehst wrote without thought when he related the man's casting away his garment, and leaping, and coming to Jesus? Shall we dare to say that these things were inserted in the Gospels in vain? For my part, I believe that not one jot or tittle of the Divine instructions is in vain."'' He says the Gospels were written by " the wisdom of God." ^ He ranks the Evangelists as equals with the Prophets and Apostles. He says : " In th^ mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be esta- blished. In order to establish this interpretation I shall bring two witnesses out of the New and the Old Testaments. Yea, I shall bring three witnesses: from the Gospel, from the Prophet, from the Apostle." ^ In his observations on S. Luke's introduction, he says: " As of old among the Jewish people many pretended to the gift of prophecy ; and there were some false prophets, one of whom was Ananias, son of Agor ; but others were prophets, and there was among the people the gift of discerning spirits, by which some were owned as prophets ; others were rejected as it were by skilful money-changers. So also under the New Testament, many took in hand to write Gospels ; but all have not been received. And that not four Gospels only, but very many, were written, out of which those we have were chosen and delivered to the Churches, we may perceive even from Luke's preface, which is thus: 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration ' (Luke i. 1). His expression of their ' taking in hand ' contains a tacit accusation of those who, without the gift of the Holy Spirit, took upon them to write Gospels ; for Matthew and Mark, and John and Luke, did not take in hand to write, but being full of the Holy Ghost wrote Gospels. Many, therefore, took in hand to set forth in order a narration of those things which are most surely kno^vn among us. The Churches have four Gospels, heresies have very many."' II. Origen mentions by name several of the apocryphal gospels, and not only makes a marked distinction between them and the four Gospels, but seldom refers to them except in order to reject them. In his Commentary on S. Luke's introduction, Origen says : " The Churches have four Gospels, heresies have very many, of which one is entitled ' according to the Egyptians,' another 'according to the Twelve Apostles.' Basihdes, likewise, had the assurance to write a gospel and call it by his own name. Many took in hand to write, many also took in hand to set forth in order. Four Gospels only have been approved, out of which the doctrines of our Saviour are to be learned. I know a certain gospel, which is called ' according to Thomas,' and 'according to Matthias;' and many others we read, that we may not seem to be ignorant of anything, for the sake of those who think they know something if they are acqu.ainted with these gospels ; but among all these we approve of none but the four Gospels received in the Church." There is a difference between the Greek text of this passage, as it remains, and the Latin. The Greek contains no reference to the gospel of the Egyptians. On the whole paragraph, Lardner (vol. ii. p. 535) thus remarks : " If this passage be really Origen's (as I think there can be no reason to doubt but that for the main it is so), it shows us very much what was his opinion concerning the spurious apo- cryphal books of the New Testament, and particularly the ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25, vol. ii. p. 580. * OrigeD, in M.itt. tomus svi. 20, vol. iii. p. 1441. in Jran. tomus i. 6, vol. iv. p. 29. ii. 4 (45), vol. iv. p. 194. vi. 17, p. 256. ' Origen, in Matt, tomus xvi. 12, vol. iii. p. 1409. in Luc. Homil. i. vol. iii. p. 1802. * Origen, in Matt, tomus xvi. 12, vol. iii. p. 1413. ' Ibid, tomus xvi. 27, vol. iii. p. 1461. * Origen, in Jeremiah, Homil. i. sect. 7, vol. iii. p. 264. ' Origen, in Luc. Homil. i. vol. iii. p. 1803. 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. gosix;! of the Twelve, or according to the Twelve ; which is generally supposed to be the same which is also called the gospel according to the Hebrews. If the gospel according to the Egyptians was not mentioned by Origen in this place, he has nowhere taken any notice of it, that I remember, in his remaining works. But, allowing him to have mentioned it here, still this affords full proof of the obscurity of this gospel, and the vast neglect of it by Catholic Christians, that so little notice is taken of it by Origen, who lived so long at Alesandiia in Egypt, and the rest of his days in Palestine, or near it." Besides the apocr} phal gospels referred to by Origen in his Commentary on S. Luke, he elsewhere refers to the gosiiel according to the Hebrews ;' the gospel according to Peter, or Book of James;'' the Doctrine or Preaching of Peter f and the Acts of Paul.* But in all the places where Origen quotes any of the apocryphal gospels he uses certain expressions, which utterly condemn them, or which imply either that the book was not received by Christians generally, or that he himself rejected it, or had no great opinion of it. THE SECOND CENTURY. • From a.d. 200 to a.d. 150. The following are the principal writers and extant docu- ments assigned to the latter half of the second century ; but many of them are known as authors only because they are mentioned as such by Eusebius or S. Jerome : — • A.D. Old Latin, or Italic, version of the Xew Testa- ment .. .. .. .. .. c. 150 Old Syriac, or Peshito, version of the New Testament .. Soter 162 Clementine Homilies .. .. ,. .. c. 100 An unknown author on the Canon of the New Testament (Muratorian Fragment) .. c. 170 Dionysius of Corinth .. ., .. .. 170 Pinvtus Philip Palmas Modestus Tatian 172 Hegesippus .. .. .. ,, .. 173 Musanus .. .. .. .. .. 17S Claudius Apollin;iris Melito 177 Celsus 178 The Epistle of the Chur<:he3 of Vienne and Lyons Irenaeus .. .. .. .. .. 178 Athenagoras . . Miltiades .. .. .. .. .. 180 Bardesanes Theophilus .. .. 181 Apollonius .. .. .. .. .. 18ti Rhodon Victor Bacchylus Theophilus and Narcissus Pantffinus ., .. .. .. .. 192 Clemens Alexandrinus .. .. .. 19+ Polycrates .. .. .. .. .. 196 Hermias Serapion Symmachus ,. .. .. .. .. 200 Tertullian I have selected a few of these for examination as to the Clmrch's belief with respect to the four Gospels; and further, to indicate the value of their testimony 1 have also added, in the form of notes, the results airived at after minute and patient investigation by several modern scholars, who have given special attention to this subject, and who have earned for themselves a right to speak with some authority. The witnesses selected for examination are. The Italic or Old Latin version of the Gospels, the Old Syriac or Peshito version, the Muratorian Fragment, Tatian, Claudius Apolli- naris, Melito, Celsus, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, S. Irenjeus, S. Thcophihis, S. Clement of Alex- andria, S. Serapion, and Tertullian. Tertullian' (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 267) — ' Origen, in Joan, tomus ii. 6, vol. iv. p. 132. in Jeremiah, Homil. xv. 4, vol. iii. p. 433. - Origen, in Matt, tomus x. 17, vol. iii. p. 877. ' Tertullian. — "This man, who from an advocate of paganism became a powerful defender of the Christian truth, talces such a scrupulous view of the origin and worth of the four Evangelists that he will allow to Mark and Luke, as apostolic men, i.e. as companions and assistants of the Apostles, a certain subordinate place, while he upholds the full authority of John .and Matthew on account of their character of real Apostles chosen by the Lord himself. In his work against Marcion (book iv. chap, v.), Tertulli.cn lays dpwn the principle by which we should decide on the truth of the articles of the Christian faith, and especially of that most im- portant one of all, the authenticity of the apostolic writings. For this he makes the value of a testimony to depend on its antiquity, and decides that we are to hold that to be true for us which w.is held to be true in former ages. This appeal to antiquity leads us back to the Apostles' day, and in deciding what is the authenticitv of any writing which claims to be apostolic, we must refer to those Churches which were planted by the Apostles. I ask, then, is it credible in any degree that this man, so sagacious, could have acted ' Origen, de Princip. Praef. 8, vol. i. p. 120. * Origen, de Princip. 1. 2, 3, vol. i. p. 132. in Joan, tomus xx. 12, vol. iv. p. 600. hastily and uncritically in accepting the credibility and authenticity of the four Evangelists? The passages I have referred to are taken from liis celebrated reply to Marcion, who, on his own authority and in conformity with his own heretical tastes, had attacked the sacred text. Of the four Gospels, Marcion had completely re- jected three, and the fourth, that of S. Luke, he had modified and mutilated according to his own caprice. Tertullian, in his reply, formally .appeals to the testimony of the apostolic Churches in favour of the four Gospels. Is such a challenge as this, in the mouth of such a man as Tertullian, to be passed by as of no weight ? When he w'rote his reply to Marcion, the Apostle S. John had been dead only about a century. The Church of Ephesus, among whom the Apos"tle S. John h.id so long lived, and in which city he died, had surely time to decide the question once for all, whether the Gospel of" St. John was .authentic or not. It was not difficult to find out what was the judgment of the apostolic Church on this question. Moreover, we must not forget that in Tertullian we have not merely a man of erudition occupied in laying down learned INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 27 Quintus Septimius Florens'TprluIlianus, or IVrtuUian — is geucrally reckoned the most ancient Latin father now remaining. S. Jerome says of him: "Tertullian, a presbyter, is now reclioned, after Victor and Apollonius, the first of the Latins. He was born in the province of Africa, in the city of Car- thage. His father was a proconsular centurion. He was a man of an eager and vehement temper: flnurished chiefly in the time of the emperors Severns and Antoninus Caracalla, and wrote a great number of books, wliioh, because they are generally known, I omit.- I have seen one Paul of Concordia, which is a small town in Italy, then an old man, who said, that when he was very young he had seen the secretary of the blcs.sed Cj'prian, then of great age : and that he was wont to tell him, that not a day passed but Cyprian read something in 'J'ertuUian, and that be would often say to him, ' Bring me my master,' intending Tertullian. When he bad continued a presbyter of the Churcli till about the middle part of his age, on account of the enty and reproaches of the clergy of the Roman Church, he went over to the sect of Montanus, and in many of his Iwoks maki s mention of that new prophec}-. Several books especially were composed by him against the Church, as these, on chastity, on persecution, on fasts, on monogamy [or against second marriages], on Ecstasy, in six books, to which he added a seventh, written against Apol- lonius. He is said to have lived to an extreme [a decrepit] old age, and to have written many books besides those now extant." ' Cave places Tertullian at the year a.d. 192. He supposes that he might be born a little before the middle of the second c ntury, and that he embraced Christianity about the year a.d. 185, and was made presbyter of the Church of Carthage about a.d. 192. He concludes that he became a Monlanist about the year a.d. 199 and died, as may be con- jectured, about A.D. 2^0. The pnncii'les of Montanism made so little alteration in this author, that there are several of his pieces concerning which it is not easy to determine v/hether they were written by Tertullian a Montanist, or Tertullian still a Catholic. 'J'o use the words of Daille : As for Tertullian, I must con- fess bis very turning Montanist has taken off indeed very much of the repute which he before had in the Church, both for the fervency of bis piety, and also for his incomparable learning. But j et, beside that a great part of his works were written while he was yet a Catholic, we are also to take notice, that this his Montanism put no separation at all betwixt him and other Christians, save only in point of dis- cipline ; which he, according to the severity of his nature, would have to be most harsh and rigorous. For, as for his doctrine,' it is very evident that he constantly kept to the very same rule, and the same faith, that the Catholics did ; whence proceeded that tart speech of his, that people re- jected Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, not because they had any whit de])avted from the rule of faith, but rather be- cau-e they would have us fast oftener than to marry .^ Tertullian, nevertheless, from this time forward, believed ^ S. .Teronie, de Viris Illust. liii. vol. ii. p. G6L • Tertullian, de Jlonogam. 2, vol. ii. p. 931. theses, but a man of serious mind to whom a question like this was one on which his faith, and with it the salvation of his soul, de- pended. Is it then likely that such a man would have given easy credence to writings like these, which concern the fundamental doctrines of Christianity — writings which distinctly claimed to be ajtostolic, and at which the wisdom of the world in which he had been educated professed to be ofiended? Now, since Tertullian ex- pressly asserts that in defending the apost-lic origin of the four Kvangelists, he rests his case upon the testimony of the apostolic Churches, we must be incorrigible sceptics to doubt any longer that he had not thoroughly examined for himself into the origin of these Gos- pels."— PROF.TlscIIENnoRF, ' When were our Gospels written ?*p. 56. '* His numerous writings contain several hundred pages taken from the Gospels — two hundred of these, at least, taken from S. John."— Ibid. 49. *' There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon excellence i'or thought and style, in the writers of all characters for several ages. And there is a like number of quotations of the New Testament ih S. Irena'us and S. Clement of .Alexandria, both writers of the second century. TertuUian*s testimony is considerable too for the evident tokens of that high respect which was paid to these Scriptures. Indeed, they would not have been 50 much quoted if they had not been greatly esteemed." — Lardxek, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 306. "Tertullian is still more exclu>ive. He not onlv regards the four Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He says respecting the Gospels, 'In the first place, we lay it down that the evangelical document (evangclicum inslrumentuui) has for its ' Tertullian, de Jejuniis, i. vol. ii. p. 954. authors the Apostles, to whom this office of preaching the Gospel was committed bv the Lord Himself. If it has also apostolic men, yet not the^e alone but in company with Apostles and after Apostles * (adv. Marc. iv. 2). He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the tact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held close relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,' and Luke, the companion of Paul (adv. Marc. iv. 5). In another passage he expressly asserts their authenticity (adv. Marc. v. 9), and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the conflict with heresy (adv. Marc. iv. 2-9)." — Mr. Saxday, 'The Gospels in the .Second Century,' p. 318. "i will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting, that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and IreuEeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manu- scripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may sav, within approximate limits, established." — Mr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 343. "Teitullian furnishes one kind of evidence for the Gospels, which Irenieus and Clement, who wrote in Greek, could not give. We learn from him that there were in his time several Latin transla- tions of the New Testament (.adv. Marc. ii. 9) in common use. One of these versions enjoyed a special authority, so that Tertullian, in quoting the beginning of S. John's Gospel, has to explain that he is deviating from the common interpretation (adv. Prax. 5). Else- where, when he had deserted the Church, he attacks a particular rendering in this version for having introduced a misconception among Christians (Monog. xi.)." — 'Dublin Kev.' April 1875, p. 365. 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. the Spirit of God to have spoken in Montanns and his two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and to have made by them some further discoveries, for the greater perfection of Christians, than had been made before. He approved of the longer, more strict, and more frequent fasts of the Montanists ; condemned second marriages, as unlawful in all; and denied the jx)wer of the Church to pardon any great sins committed after baptism ; that is, to receive again to communion any who had fallen into fornication, adultery, or any such like offences after their baptism. He also often arrogantly calls his own people spiritual, and the Catholics, as contemijtuously, animal or carnal. TertuUian states the number of the Gospels which were universally received, with the names of the Evangelists, and their characters whether Apostles or Apostolic men. " In the first place we lay this down for a certain trath, that the evangelic Scriptures CEvangelioum Instrumentum) have for their authors the Apostles, to whom the work of publishing the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. And if also [it have for authors] apostolic men, not them alone, but with the Apostles, and after the Apostles [which was very fit]. Forasmuch as the preaching of the disciples might have been suspected as liable to the charge of a desire of gloiy, if not supported by the authority of the masters, j'ea, of Christ, who made the Apostles masters. To conclude, among the Apostles John and Matthew [first] teach us the faith ; among apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it, going upon the same principles, as concerning the one God the Creator, and His Christ bom of the Virgin, the accom- plishment of the law and the prophets." • He shows that the ground on which the Gospels were re- ceived was the sure and credible witness of the Churches from the beginning. " In a word, if it be certain, that is most genuine which is most ancient, that most ancient which is from the beginning, and that from the beginning which is from the Apostles ; in like manner it will be also certain that has been delivered from tlie Apostles which is held sacred in the Churches of the Apostles. Let us then see what milk the Corinthians received from Paul ; to what the Galatians were reduced ; what the Phili])pians read ; what the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, and likewise what the Komans recite, who are near to us, with whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood. We have also Churches which are the disciples of John ; for though Marcion rejects his Hevelation, the succes- sion of bishops traced up to the beginning will show it to have had John for its author. We know also the original of other Churches [that is, that they are apostolical]. I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received from its fii'st publication, which we so zealously maintain .... The same authority of the apostolical Churches will support the other Gospels, which we have from them, and according to them [that is, according to their copies], I mean John's ani Mat- thew's ; although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. For Luke's Digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's which the disciples have pub- lished." ^ TertuUian often quotes the first epistle of S. John. " John exhorts us to lay down our lives for the brethren, denying there is any fear in love, ' for perfect love casteth out fear,' &c. (1 John iii. 16 ; iv. 18)."^ 'In another place, " Lastly, let us consider whom the Apostles saw, ' That which we have seen,' says John, ' which w-e have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled of the Word of life : for the Word of life was made flesh ' — ' and we saw His glory, as of the only begotten of the Father' (1 John i. 1 ; John i. 14)."* TertuUian incidentally furnishes a proof of the vigilance and scrupulosity exercised by the early Christians with respect to the writings, which they received in the name of Apostles. A certain presbyter in Asia was convicted of having forged a document, which was called the Travels of Paul and Thecla, and was deposed. TertuUian's account of this is : " If they think fit to make use of writings falsely ascribed to Paul, to support the right of women to teach and baptize ; let them know that the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he had been able to increase Paul's fame, being convicted of it, and having confessed that he did it out of love to Paul, was deposed." ° S. Jerome also refers to the same story and to TertuUian's account of it.^ S. Serapion (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 264) was Bishop of Antioch, the eighth in succession from the Apostles, and was bishop from about a.d. 190 to a.d. 211, or a little later. Busebius says ^ that Serapion wrote many pieces, and among.' t others " a treatise on the gospel, called the gospel according to Peter, in which he confutes the falsities of that gospel ; which book he composed for the sake of some in the parish of Khossus [in Cilicia], who by means of that w-riting were led into heterodox opinions. It cannot be improper to transcribe some short passages, in ' which he declares his sentiment of that book. ' We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles as Christ : but, as skilful men, we reject those writings which are falsely ascribed to them ; w-ell knowing that we have received no such. When I was with you, I supposed ypu had all held the right faith ; and, not having read the gospel offered to me under the name of Peter, I TertuUian, adv. Marc. ir. 2, vol. ii. p. 363. Il)it]. adv. Marc. iv. 5, vol. ii. p. 366. TertuUian, Scorpiace 12, vol. ii. p. 147. TertuUian, adv. Praxcam, 15, vol. ii. p. 173. ' TertuUian, de Baptismo, 17, vol. i. p. 1219. * S. Jerome, de Viris Ulust. vii., vol. ii. p. 619. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 12, vol. ii. p. 545. Routh, Rel. Sacra;, vol. i. p. 452. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 29 said, if that be the only lliiiig that causeth a diflference aiaono; you, let it be read. But now, having uudeistood by what has been told me, that their minds are secretly filled with some heresy, I will do my endeavour t« come to you a>;ain : therefore, brethren, you may expect me shortly. And we, brethren, have found what was the heresy of Marcian\is, and that he contradicted himself, not under- standing what he said : as you may perceive from what is here written to you. For we have obtained sight of that, gospel from others that make use of it ; that is, from the successors of those who were the authors of that opinion, whom we call Docetas (for the chief sentiments of it belong to that sect). Having, therefore, obtained it of them to read it over, we have found, that the main part of the book is agreeable to the right doctrine of our Saviour. Nevertheless there are some other things added, which we have noted down, and sent to you.'" S. Jerome says much the same with respect to Serapion, to wit, " that he wrote a book concerning the gospel that goes under the name of Peter, which he sent to the Chuich of Rhossus in Cilicia, which had been led into heresy by reading it."' Lardner's remarks on this are as follows : 1. " We see the great resiiect paid by Christians to the writings of the Apostles. Serapion assures us the Church received the Apostles as Christ; that is, their writings, as the very words and doctrine sjxjken and preached by Christ Himself. 2. " We see his method of judging of the genuineness and authority of any books of Scripture : those which haA been delivered with an authentic tradition, as the Apostles', he received : others he rejected. 3. "The book called the gospel of Peter was no part of canonical Scripture, nor any writing of Peter : it had not been delivered as such. 4. " We learn the obscurity of this book, called the gospel of Peter. Here is a bishop of the large and celebrated Church of Antiooh, about the end of the second century, who had never read it or seen it ; and who, as far as we are able to judge, was not unworthy of his high olBce. He seems to have been a learned man, and a diligent pastor. He wrote divers treatises and epistles. This book concerning the gospel of Peter, which he composed for the benefit of the Christians at Rhossus, is a good proof of his ability and diligence."* 5. Clemens Alexandrinus (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 220).'' — Titus Flavins Clemens, usually called S. Clement of Alexandria, flourished, according to Cave, from the yiar A.D. 192, and downwards. The works of Clement now remaining are, an Exhortation to the Gentiles; the Pa;dagogue, or Instructor, in three books ; and the Stromata, or Various Discourses, in eight books; and a small treatise, entitled Who is the Rich Man that may be saved ? The Stromata were written after the death of Commodus, in the reign of Severus, as Eusebius* has observed from a passage of the woj-k itself. Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, contemporary with Clement, and perhaps one of his scholars, in a letter to the Antiochians, written before he was Bishop of Jerusalem, in the heat of the persecution under Severus, speaks to them of Clement in these words : " This letter I have sent unto you by Clement, a blessed presbyter, a virtuous and ap- proved man, whom also ye know, and will know better ; who, having been brought hither by the divine disposal ' S. Jerome, de Viris lUust. ixi. vol. ii. p. 655. * Serapion. — " That I am not indulging in any hypothetical case when I aiu supposing such vigilance to be exercised with respect to the canon of Scripture, is clear, from facts which may be adduced. Thus, Serapion, a bishop of Antioch, in the second century, writes to Rhosson, a Church in Cilicia, respecting a reputed gospel of St. Peter, circulating in that Church, which he had at first regarded with favour, but which on examination he had rejected, the object of his letter being mainly to inform them of this fact, and to tell them that, though receiving Peter and the other Apostles as he would receive Christ, still that spurious writings passing under their names he repudiated, being accustomed to investigate such matters, and aware that the Church had not come into possession of such by regular tradition. (Routh, Reliq. Sacr. i. p. 471.) indeed, all ecclesiastical documents appear to have been most rigorously examined before they were admitted by the Church ; insomuch that Cyprian (Epist. iii. p. 22S, Jligne), having received a letter by one Crementius, a sub-deacon, purporting to come from the presbyters and deacons at Rome, and giving an account of the circumstances of that Church, not satisfied with scrutinising the sense, the characters, and the very paper of the letter, in order to determine its authenticity and genuineness, and to convince himself that * nothing had been added to the truth, or diminished there- from,' returned it to the parties for their indorsement, ' it being a very grave matter,' says he, ' if the truth of a clerical epistlo be corrupted by any lie or fraud ' — a sentiment which had been strongly expressed, long before, by Irenjeus (contr. Hsreses, v. 30, 1. p. 1203, Migne), who says that ' no ordinary punishment awaits 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 6, vol. ii. p. 536. those who either augment Scripture or reduce it.' Accordingly, so early a writer as he is, he charges the heretics repeatedly with 'adding an unutterable number of apocryphal and spurious Scrip- tures ' (contr. Ha;reses, i. 20, 1, p. 653) — a phrase he could not have used without being prepared to show the genuineness of those to which the addition was made— with ' transgressing the order and series of the Scriptures ' (contr. Hwreses, i. 8, 1, p. 521), another ex- pression implying the same thing ; and, indeed, though all we learn from him as' to the contents of the canon is incidental, we can establish our own, within a verv little, even by him alone." — J. J. Blunt, ' History of the Chii'stiau Church,' p. 166. " Irenseus, Clement, and TertttlUan. — "It is very little to say that these writers quote the four Gospels as frequently, and with as firm a belief in their being the Scriptures of God, as any modern divine. They quote them far more copiously, and reproduce the his- tory contained in them far more fully than any modern divine whom I h.ave ever read, who is not writing specifically on the life of our Lord, or on some part of His teaching contained in the Gospels. . . . "Clement wrote in Alexandria, TertuUian iu Rome or Africa, Irenseus in Gaul. They all flourished about A.D. 190. They all speak of the Gospels, not only as well known and received, but as being the only Gospels acknowledged and received by the Church. One of them uses very 'uncritical' arguments to prove th.at the Gospels could only be four in number ; but the very absurdity of his analogies is a witness to the universal tradition of the day." — Mb. Sapler, 'The Lost Gospel,' p. 129. 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. and providence, established and increased the Church of the Lord."' The same Alexander, in a letter to Origen, written after the death of Clement, speaks thus : " For we know those blessed fathers who have gone before us, and with whom we shall shortly be ; I mean Panta?nus, truly blessed, and my master ; and the sacied Clement, who was my master, and profitable to me." ^ Eusebius calls him more than once the admirable Clement, K\r])iris 6 6avixacrt.os.^ In his Chronicle, at the year a.d. 194, Eusebius says of him : " Clement, the author of the Stromata, presbyter of Alexandria, an excellent master of the Christian philosophy, was eminent for his writings."* S. Jerome says of him : He was presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, a hearer of Pantajnus, and his successor in the school of Alexandria; and of his works, of which he there gives a catalogue, that they are full of erudition and eloquence, borrowed from the treasures of the divine Scrip- tures and secular literature.' ]n another place he says of him: "Clement, presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, in my opinion the most learned of all men [or perhaps, of all the Christian writers whom he there names], "wrote eight books of Stromata, as many of Institutions, and another against the Gentiles; the Pa'dagogue also, in three books. What is there in them unlearned ? what not taken out of the very depths of philosophy '?" * Eusebius' gives an extract from a lost work of S. Clement's, the Institutions, which shows that he received the four Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John, as the Church's authoritative docuraents, and believed that the Evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these ; it also contains a tradition as to the order in which these four Gospels were written, which tradition Clement had received from presbyters of more ancient times. "Moreover, in the same books Clement has a tradition concerning the order of the Gospels, which he had received from presbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He says that the Gospels containing the gene- alogies were first written; that the occasion of writing the Gospel according to Mark was this : Peter, having publicly preached the word at Home, and having spoken the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were there entreated Mark to write the things that had been spoken, he having long accom- panied him [Peter], and retaining what he had said ; and that when he had composed the Gospel, he delivered it to them who had asked it of him ; which when Peter knew, he neither forbade it nor encouraged it ; and that last of all John, observing that in the other Gospels those things were related that concerned the body [of Christ], and being per- suaded by his friends, and also moved by the Spirit of God, wrote a spiritual Gosi)el. So far Clement." In the extant works of S. Clement of Alexandria the four Gospels are constantly quoted.' In fact, the frequency with which the early fathers generally quote the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, would be scarcely credible to the mere modern reader. S. Clement also sometimes refers to the apocryphal writings,* such as the gospel according to the Hebrews, the gospel according to the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Traditions of Matthias. But he makes a wide distinction between those and the four Gospels. He refers to the gospel according to the Egyptians in such a way as to show that he knew little or nothing about it, and had most probably never seen it.^ But if Clement, who lived at Alexandria, and who was so well acquainted with almost all sorts of books, knew little or nothing of this book, it must have been in consequence of its obscurity, and because it was held in so little regard by the Church. Theophilus of Antiooh "" (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 11, vol. ii. p. 54-1. ^ Ibid. vi. 14, vol. ii. p. 5.52. <• Eusebius, Prsep. Evang. ii. 2, vol. iii. p. 120 ; iv. 16, vol. iii. p. 273. * Eusebius, Chronic, ii. vol. i. p. 566. ^ S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. xxxviii. vol. ii. p. 653. * S. Jerome, Epist. l.ts. (cilias 83, 84) ad Magnum Orat. 4, vol. i. p. 667. * TJncanonical Gospels. — " Clement quotes several uncanonical gospels, and, if we knew him only from e.\tracts, we might believe that he quotes the gospel according to the Hebrews as an authority with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. The fact stands thus : Clement was not, like Irenajus, in direct conflict with Gnos- tics, who introduced a multitude of apocryphal scriptures. He has not the same motive for caution. He quotes uncanonical gospels as sources of tradition, .and one of them, at least, with the formula, ' it is written.' But he was for removed from doubt as to the paramount authority of the four Gospels. When the Gnostic Cassian alleged a passage from the 'gospel according to the Egyptians,' Clement's reply is simple and ready: 'This is not in the four Gospels which have been handed down to us ' (Strom, iii. 13, p. 553, ed. Potter)."—' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 364. ' Theophilus. — "In his extant work, addressed to Autolycus, Thuophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippiaus, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to p. 551. . i. p. 1193; i. 21, vol. i. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 1+. vol ' S. Clemens Alex., Strom, iii. 13, p. 889; i. 21, vol. i. p. 885. Quis Dives, sec. v. vol. ii. p. 609. Paid.ig. i. 6, vol. i. p. 296. ' S. Clemens Alex., Strom, iii. 9, vol. i. p. 1165. mention points of resemblance with other apostolic Epistles which can hardly have been accidental. He has one or two coincidences with the Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning of the fourth Gospel by name, as follows: — " ' Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men (irveu- /xaTu(j>6poi) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at the first (ex TrpuiToii) God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he s.ays, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Hifn was not anything made." ' "This quotation is direct and precise; indeed, even the most suspicious and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference. It is, moreover, the more conspicuous, because it is the one solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any book of the New Testament." — Canon Lightfoot, 'Contemp. Rev.,' Jan. 1875, p. 178. "Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (about A.D. 180), quotes the INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 31 p. 203) was originally a hiatlien, as he has iiifoimeii us him- self. His works show him to have been will acquaintel with the Greek language. He succeeded Eros, in the eighth year of Marcus Antoninus, a.d. 168. There is nothing remaining that can be depended on as his, besides three books to Autolycus, a learned and studious heathen, who had provoked Theophilus by frequent dis- courses, if not also by writing, to make a defence of the Christian religion. It is the general opinion that they were written by Theophilus a little before his own death, in the beginning of the reign of Commodus, a.d. 181. Eusebius says Theophilus was the si.xth bishop of Antioch after tlie Apostles. His order is this : Euodius,' Ignatius, Hi-rus, Cornelius, Eros, Theophilus.' S. Irenaeus ' (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 165). — His country is not certainly known ; but it is probable, from his name, that he was a Greek ; and from his early acquaintance- with Polycarp, that he was of Asi;i. It is likewise ]jrobable tliat he was from the beginning educated in the Christian religion. When he came into Gaul is unknown. Some have supi'osed that he came to Rome with S. Polycarp, in the time of Anicetus, about the year a.d. 157, and from thence passed into Gaul. But concerning this we have no informa- tion in antiquity. Learned men are not entirely agreed about the time of Irenieus himself, or of his principal work against heresies. Some suppose that he was born in the reign of Nerva, in the year a.d. 97, wrote his books against heresies in a.d. 176, and did not outlive the year a.u. 190. Others place these events rather later. The martyrs of Lyons, in their letter to Eleuthcrus, make a very honourable mention of Ireufeus, and give him the title of presbyter.^ Tertuliian mentions him as one of the most considerable writers of the Christian Church, and says, " He was a diligent inquirer of all sorts of opinions."' He means, it is likely, that IreUKUS had well studied the sentiments of the heathen philo- sophers, and of heretics, as well as the principles of the Chris- tian religion. Eusehius says, " When Pothinus had been put to death with the martyrs in Gaul, Irena;us succeeded him in the ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 20, vol. ii. p. 377. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 4, vol. ii. p. 440. ^ TertulUan, contr. V'alentin. 5, vol. ii. p. 548. * Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 5, vol. ii. p. 444. Gospel of John, and speaks of it as inspired (Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 22, p. 120, ed. Otto), and not only so, but he classes the Gospels together and compares them with the books of the Old Testament. ' The writings,' he says, ' of the projihets and of the Gospels are found to be in harmony, because all the inspired men have spoken bv one Spirit of God' (lb. iii. 12, p. 218)." — 'Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 373. * S.Irenseus. — The following is a testimony to the value of Irenaeus as a guide to the mind of the early Church, given by a very com- petent witness: "Any one who will take the [)ains to read Irena;us bishopric of the Church of Lyons, who, in his youth, had been a disciple of Polycar])."* S. Jerome says of him, " Irena:us, presbyter of Pothinus, who was bishop of the Church of Lyons in Gaul, carried a letter from the martyrs of that city concerning some disputes of the Church to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, in which letter he is honourably mentioned. Aftenvards, Pothinus having obtained the crown of martyrdom, when he was almost ninety years of age, he was substituted in his room. It is certain he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop and martyr. He wrote five hooks against heresies He flourished chiefly under the Emperor Commodus, who succeeded M. Antoninus Verus." ^ Though it is not in our power to determine exactly the time either of the birth or death of Irena;us, we have good reason to believe he was a disciple of S. Polycarp, and pres- byter in the Church of Lyons under Pothinus, whose martyr- dom happened in the year a.d. 177, and that he succeeded Pothinus in the bishopric of that Church. His antiquity is further confirmed from the frequent mention he makes of a presbyter who had convened with the immediate successors of the Apostles.^ But who this was cannot be determined ; whether Papias, whom he has quoted by name, or Pothinus, or some other. Eusebius, who also has taken particular notice of this, says, " Irenajus has mentioned the sayings of a cer- tain apostolical presbyter, without telling us his name, and puts down his expositions of the divine Scriptures."' There is nothing now remaining of Irenaeus beside his five books against heresies, and fragments of some other pieces ; and those five books, which were written by him in Greek, are extant only in an ancient Latin version, excepting some fragments preserved by Eusebius, and other Greek writers who have quoted him. Irenajus bears most ample testimony that the Church re- ceived the four Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John ; that these were believed to have possessed a special fitness for their work ; that, having been first filled with the knowledge of the doctrine of the Gospel by the Spirit, and having first preached that doctrine, they then set it down in writing. He says, " For we have not received the knowledge of the ' S. Jerome, de Viris lUust. .\xxv. vol. ii. p. 649. = S. Irenjeus, contr. Haireses, iv. 27, i. p. 1056. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8, vil. ii. p. 448. throuo-h carefully, endeavouring to enter into his historical position in all its bearings, striving to realise what he and his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New Testament, and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all, resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines, will be in a more favour.-ible position for judc^ing rightly of the early history of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which have issued from the German press during the hist half century." — Caxox Ligutfoot, ' Con temp. Kev.' May 1875, p. 866. 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the Gospel has been bronght to us ; which Gospel they first preached, and afterwards by the will of God committed to writing that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the Ajjostles) were endued from above with the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the bless- ing of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the Gospel of God. Matthew, then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit (death) or departure, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered. to us in writ- ing the things that had been preached by Peter : and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, be likewise pub- lished a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia. And all these have delivered to us, that there is one God, the Maker of the heaven and the earth, declared by the law and the prophets, and one Christ, the Son of God. And he who does not assent to them, despiseth, indeed, those who knew the mind of th(/Lord ; but he despiseth also Christ Himself, the Lord, and he despiseth likewise the Father, and is self-con- demned, resisting and ojjposiiig his own salvation, as all heretics do." ' That part of this passage which particularly concerns the four Evangelists severally is cited by Eusebius' in the Greek ; the rest is only in the old Latin version. S. Irenasus, like some others of the early writers, gives fanciful reasons" why there could be neither more nor fewer than four Gospels. Insufficient as the nasons given may cow appear to us, the passage itself is of value, as showing how firmly the Church believed there were only four Go.spels, and that the writers of these four Gospels were the same as we ourselves believe. He also gives sufficient particulars concerning the four Gospels to satisfy us that he means the very same books as we now possess. He says, " Nor can there be more or fewer Gospels than these. For, as there are four regions of the world in which we live, and four catholic spirits, and the church is spread all over the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and foundation of the Church, and the spirit of life ; in like manner was it fit it should have four pillars breathing on all sides incorrup- tion, and refreshing mankind. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the Former of all things, who sits upon the C'he- rubim, and upholds all things, having appeared to men, has given us a Gospel of a fourfold character, but joined in one spirit. The Gospel according to John declares his primary and glorious generation from the Father: 'In the beginning was the Word.' But the Gospel according to Luke, being of a priestly character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense to God. Matthew relates his generation, which is according to man : ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.' Mark begins from the prophetic Spirit which came down from above to men, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet.'" ^ Of S. Matthew's Gospel he elsewhere says, " The Gospel "according to Matthew was written to the Jews ; for they earnestly desired a Messiah of the seed of David ; and Mat- thew having also the same desire to a yet greater degree, strove by all means to give them full satisfaction, that Christ was of the seed of David, wherefore he began with His genea- logy-" * Of S. Mark he says, " Wherefore also Mark, the intei'- preter and follower of Peter, makes this the beginning of his evangelic writing : ' The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, &c. And in the end of the [his] Gospel Mark says, ' So then the Lord Jesus,' after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God,' " ' Because some of the heretics, with whom IreuMus is dis- puting, owned a part at least of S. Luke's Gospel, while others rejected it altogether, he says, " But if any one rejects Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will be convicted of throwing away the Gospel of which he jsrofesseth to be a disciple. For there are many, and those very necessary parts of the Gospel which we know by his means : as Luke i. ii. iii., the birth of John, the history of Zacharias, and the visit of the angel to Mary, and the descent of the angels to the shep- herds, and the things said by them, and the testimony of Anna and Simeon to Christ, and that at the age of twelve years He was left behind at Jerusalem, and the baptism i f John, and the age of our Lord when He was baptized, and that this was done in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cajsar, and that He said in His sermon to the rich, ' Woe unto you that are rich, for ye receive yom' consolation,' Luke vi. 24, 25, 26, — all these things we know from Luke onl}'. And we have learned from him many actions of our Lord, which all receive; as the great multitude of fishes which they who were with Peter inclosed when at the command of the Lord they cast their nets ; and the w'oman with the in- firmity of eighteen years, who was cured on the sabbath- ' S. Irenaeus, contr. Hsereses, iii. 1, p. 844. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8, vol. ii. p. 449. ' S. Irenaeus, contr. Hcereses, iii. 11, 8, p. 885. ' Fanciful Eeasons. — " There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr, in Irenseus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Only it is frequently mi.\ed up with the S. IrAiKus, Fragmenta, .'cxix. p. 1243. S. Irenajus, contr. Hajreses, iii. 10, 6, p. 878. highest wisdom, which more than redeems it." — Canon Ligiitfoot, 'Contemp. Rev.' Feb. 187(i, ii. 480. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 33 day, chap. xiii. 11; and the man with the dropsy whom j tlie Lord healed on the sabbath-day, xiv. 2, 3 ; and how He defended Uis healing on that day; and how He taught His disciples not to covet the chief seats ; and that we ought to invite the poor and infirm, who cannot recompense us again, 7-13 ; and of hiiu who knocked at the door in the night time for bread, and obtained it because of his importunity, xi. 8 ; and that, sitting at table at the house of a pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed Him with ointment, vii. 3G ; and all that, for her sake, the Lord said concerning two debtors ; and the parable of the rich man that hoarded up his increase, xii. 16, to whom also it was said, ' This night shall thy soul be required of thee : then whose shall these things be which thou hast provided ?' As also the parable of the rich man that was clothed in purple and fared sumptuously, and the beggar Lazarus, xvi. 19 ; and the answer which He made His disciples when they said to Him, 'Increase our faith,' xvii. 5 ; and the conversation with Zaccha-us the publican, xix. 1 ; and concerning the pharisee and the publican who worshipped together at the temple, xviii. 10 ; and the ten lepers whom He healed at the same time in the way, xvii. 12 ; and that He commanded the lame and the blind to be brought to the wedding from the streets and the lanes, xiv. 21 ; and the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity com- pelled to avenge her, xviii. 1 ; and of the fig-tree in the vineyard which bore no fruit, xiii. G. And many other things there are to be found iu Luke alone, which [things] Marcion and Valentinus made use of; and beside all these things, after His resurrection, what He said to the disciples in the way, and how He was made known unto them in breaking of bread, xxiv. 35." ' or S. John he says: "John the disciple of the Lord being desirous by declaring the gospel to root out the error that had been sown in the minds of men by Cerinlhus, and a good while before by those who are called Nicolaitans — that he might confute them and satisfy all that there is one God, who made all things by His word ; and not as they say, one who made the world, and another the Father of the Lord ; and one the Son of the Creator, and another from the super- celestial places, even Christ, who they say also continued ever impassible, who descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator, and fled away again into His pleroma [or fulness] — the disciple therefore of the Lord, willing at once to cut off these errors, and leave a rule of truth in the church ; that there is one God Almighty, who by His Word made all things visible and invisible ; declaring likewise, that by the Word by which God finished the creation, by the same also He bestowed salvation upon those men who are in the creation ; he thus begins in his doctrine which is according to the gospel : ' In the beginning was the Word,' John i. 1-5."'' The First and Second Epistles of S. John are expressly quoted by Irenajus as John's, the disciple of the Lord. Having just quoted S. John's Gospel, he adds : " Wherefore also in his Epistle he says thus to us, 'Little children, it is the last time,' 1 John ii. 18."' A little further on in the same chapter, Irenanis says, " And in the forementioned Epistle, John the disciple of the Lord commands us to shun these persons, saying, ' Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come iu the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist. Look to yourselves that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought.'"'' These are plainly the words of the Second Epistle ; Irena?us seems to quote them as in the First, the same Epistle he had before quoted. This is supposed to be owing to a slip of memory. " And John the disciple of the Lord does not so much as allow us to bid them God speed. ' For,' he says, ' ho that biddeth them God speed, is partaker of their evil deeds.' "° The Acts of the Apostles is a book much quoted by Irena^us as written by Luke, the disciple and companion of the Apostles.* There are few things, regorded in the Acts of the Apostles, which have not been mentioned by Irenajus. la speaking of the Scriptures Irenjeus sometimes calls them "divine scriptures,"' sometimes "divine oracles,"' and sometimes also " Scriptures of the Lord." ° He speaks of the books of the New Testament as compre- hended under the two divisions of Evangelic and Apostolic writings, and says: "The Valentinians endeavour to fetch arguments for their opinions, not only from the Evangelic and Apostolic writings, but also from the Law and the Pro- phets."'" He quotes S. Paul's Epistles more than two hundred times, and sonjetimes be cites them by name. He speaks of the Gospels as having the same authority as the Old Testament, thus, "Since all the Scriptures, both Pro- phecies and Gospels, are o\>eo and clear, and may be heard of all."" In another place, "In the Law and the Gospel, the first and great commandment is to love the Lord with all the heart," '^- — again, "with our assertions agree the preaching of the Apostles, the doctrine of the Lord, the declaration of the Prophets, the word of the Apostles, the ministration of the Law." " Speaking of the Valentinians, he says : " They have become so audacious, as to call that which has not been long since written by them the gospel of truth, though it agree in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles." " * ' S. IrencEus, contr. Hatreses, iii. 14, 3, p. 915. = Ibid. iii. 11, 1, p. 879. ' Ibid. iii. 16, 5, p. 925. ' Ibid. iii. 16, 8, p. 927. = Ibid. i. 16, 3, p. 633. « Ibid. i. 23, 1, p. 670. ' Ibid. ii. 27, 1, p. 802. » Ibid. i. 8, 1, p. 524. ' Irenseos. — " At Lyons, where the first Christian church in Gaul vas founded, the Bishop Irenxus wrote, at the end of the second I. S. Irenaus, contr. Ha;reses, v. 20, 2, p. 1178; ii. 33. 4, p. 842. Ibid. i. 3, 6, p. 477. " Ibid. ii. 27, 2, p. 803. Ibid. iv. 12, 3, p. 1005. " Ibid. ii. 35, 4, p. 841. Ibid. iii. 11, 9, p. 891. century, a great work on those early Gnostic heresies, which arbitrarily attempted to overturn the doctrine of the Church ; and 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSrELS. That Trenfeus represents the belief of the Church, not only of his own time, but also of a former generation, is plain from his references to persons of an earlier generation, and to their teaching. At one time^ he speaks of a certain presbyter or ^ S, IrenEeus, contr. H^ereses, iv. 27, 1, p. 1056. in combating those errors, he made a general use of the Gospels. The number of the passages which he refers to is about four hun- dred, and the direct quotations from St. John alone exceed eighty." — Prof. Tischendorf, ' When were our Gospels written? * p. 4-8. "From Justin to Irenreus, the Christian writings are fragmen- tary and few ; but with IreujKus, a whole body of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irena?us is succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, Tertullian by Hip- polytus and Origen, and the testimony which these writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous. I calculate roughly that Iren^us quotes directly 193 verses of the first Gospel, and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian must have quoted considerably more; while in the extant writings of Origen, the greater part of the New Testament is actually quoted. *' By the time of Irenjpus, the canon of the four Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed ; we have already seen that this was the case in the Fragment of Muratori. Irena^us is still more explicit. In the famous passage (adv. H^er. iii. 11, 8) which is so often quoted as an instance of the weakmindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of things, that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor more. " Irenteus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claim- ing for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration (adv. Haer. iii. 1, 1). " We have tot now to determine the exact value of these tradi- tions; what we have rather to notice is, the fact that the Gospels are at this time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge divinely imparted. It is evident that Irena'us would not for a moment think of classing any other gospel by the side of the now strictly canonical four." — Mr. Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 315. "By this time [the last qiiarter of the second century, and very probably before] the Gospels were acknowledged to be all that is now understood by the word ' canonical.* They were placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They were looked up to with the same reverence, and regarded as pos- sessing the same divine inspiration. We may trace, indeed, some of the steps by which this position was attained. The yeypawrai of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the rh eiprjfifvov of Tatian, the KvpiaKal ypaipai of Dionysius of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the Muratorian Canon and Irenieus. So complete had the process been, that Irena;us does not seem to know of a time when the authority of the Gospels had been less than it was to him."— Ibid. p. 344. "The theology of the Fourth Gospel is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed even by a Judaizing writer like the author of the Clementines. The phenomena which con- front us in the last quarter of the second century are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the alternative of *only begotten God* for 'the only begotten Son' in i, 18, and *six' for 'five* in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of the angel in v. 3, 4 ; that legends and traditions have grown up respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria, and in the Muratorian fragment ; that perverse mystical interpretations, wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon ? How is it that ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this epoch, — Irenaus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria, Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome? That they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the beginning? That they never betray a consciousness that any Church or church- man had even questioned it? The history of the first three- quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure, owing to the paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the remaining years of the century .... Even if it be granted that the opinion of Irenaus, as an isolated individual, is not worth much, yet the widespread and traditional belief which under- lies his whole laiufuage and thoughts, is a consideration of the highest moment; and Irenjeus is only one among many witnesses." — Canon LiGHTFOOT, 'Contemp. Rev.' Jan. 1875, p. 184. "S. Irenaeus, who wrote the greater part of his book against heretics before 190 A.D., insists that there are but four Gospels, and appeals to the four winds, to the four regions of the world, and to the four faces of the Cherubim in support of his statement (Iren. iii. 11, 8). Now the mystical reasons which Irenteus gives for the fourfold number of the Gospels, do but serve to show how absolutely the authority of the four Gospels was to him a first principle placed beyond all possibility of dispute, at least within the Church, by an immemorial tradition. * Nay, so certain,' he says, * is the authority of the Gospels, that even the heretics themselves bear witness in their belief' (Iren. iii. 11, 7). He is unable to imagine a time when the Church was without four Gospels. 'It is impossible,' he tells us, ' that the number of the Gospels should be greater or less than it is,' and he finds this number * fore- shadowed in the order of Nature, and in the covenants of grace which God has made with His creatures' (Iren. iii. 11, 8). The u^e which Irena^us makes of the Gospels, and the mode in which he cites them, are proof that their authority had been acknowledged time out of mind within the Church. His quotations from the Gospels amount, according to Tischendorfs estimate, to about four hundred; and of these, some eighty are taken from the Gospel of S. John. ('Origin of the Gospels,' p. 35.) He attributes to them a verbal inspiration. (Iren. iii. 16, 2.) He classes them in express terms with the rest of the Scriptures. (Iren. ii. 27, 2.) It is need- less to point out that this separation of the canonical Gospels from other writings must have been a work of time, for our argument is not merely that S. Irena'us witnesses to the existence of the Gospels, not even that he takes for granted their authority and their inspi- ration ; but further, that he speaks of them as books collected and set apart as composing the one 'Gospel which is fourfold, but bound together by one Spirit.' (Iren. iii. 11, 8.) Further, if time was needed before the Gospels could be thus set apart and regarded as forming a single Gospel, much more was time needed before the New Testament could be looked upon as a whole, before its books could be classified, before this classification could become so familiar that S. IrenEeus might refer to it without need to explain his meaning; yet all this was complete some time before 190, when S. Irenaus wrote. Just as the Jews divided their sacred writings into the haw and the Prophets, so S. Irenieus alludes to the division of the New Testament Scriptures into two parts {evayyehiKo. Kal airoa-TokiKo) (Iren. i. 3, 6), as they relate more immediately to our Lord or to His Apostles. In short, in S. Irena-us, we find the canon of the New Testament universally recognized, and the greater number of the books which had a place in it fixed beyond dispute. It is true, that there was still doubt within the Catholic Church ; not, of course, as to the authority and authen- ticity of the Gospels, but as to that of some among the books which form part of our New Testament. This, instead of weaken- ing the evidence for the Gospels, supplies a strong argument in their favour. The books of the New Testament which were not, so far as we know, recognized by S. Irona?us, were still the subject of doubt in the time of Eusebius ; nay, it is not till the close of the fourth century, that their place in the New Testament was fixed beyond dispute. So slow, so gradual, was the growth of the canon."— 'Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 361. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 35 elder, wLo had heard from those who had seen the Aposfles ; at another' he gives the explanation of a passage in S. John's Gospel, wliich he had learnt from certain elders ;* at another,'* he calls to the recollection of a friend of his youth, and who had now wandered from the faith of the Church, how many years ago, when Irenaius was very young, they had met in the house of Polycarp, and had together listened to his dis- courses, especially to his discourses on the subject of S. John. His letter to Florinus has been preserved by Eusebius, and runs thus: " When I was yet a child, I saw thee at Smyrna, in Asia Minor, at Polycarp's house, where thou wast dis- tinguished at Court, and obtained the regard of the Bishop. I can more distinctly recollect things which happened then than others more recent ; for events whicli happened in infancy seem to grow with the mind, and to become part of ourselves, so that I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, the style of his address to the people, his frequent references to S. John, and to others who had seen our Lord ; how he used to repeat from memory their dis- courses, which he had heard from them concerning our Lord, His miracles and mode of teaching, and how, being instructed himself by those who were eye-witnesses to tlie Word, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with the Scrip- tures." In this letter we liare IrenKUS distinctly declaring that he had listened to Polycarp relating what he had heard from the lips of S. John himself.'' Thus the chain which connects Irtuaius with S. John, is as short as it cau well be. There are only three links in it, Irena-us, Polycarp, and S. John ; only one link between Iren.TUS and S. John, and no break. For, as far as questions of time are concerned, Irena;us might have been the grandson of S. John. That Irenanis acknowledged the same four Gospels that we do ourselves, is confessed by all ; that Irenajus acknowledged the same four Gospels that Polycarp and his contemporaries did, is proved by all the evidence that exists. For though the extant writings of this period are few and fragmentary, their evidence, as far as it exists, tends all in the same direc- tion. And we must bear in mind, that absence of testimony is not the same as ant.igouistic testimony. In this case paucity of testimony or lack of testimony only indicates the waste caused by time. Tha Epistle of the Chmohes of Vienne and Lyons (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 160). — In the time of Marcus Antoninus the Christians suffered extremely. "In the seventeenth year of the reign of this prince," says Eusebius, " the persecution against us raged with great violence in several parts of the world through the enmity of the pcojile in the cities. What vast multitudes of martyrs tliere were throughout the whole empire, may be well concluded from what happened in one nation."' He means that of Gaul. The persecution was particularly violent at Lyons and the coantry thereabout. At this lime many of the Christians of Lyons and Vienne suffered exquisite tortures with the grcate.-t patience. Pothinns, Bishop of Lyons, then above ninety years of age, was apprehended and carried before the governor, by whom he was examined, and before whom he made a generous confession of the Christian ' S. Irenseus, contr. Hjerescs, v. 36, 1, p. 1222. ' S. Iren.Tus, Fragment, ii. p. 1226. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 20, vol. ii. p. 48."). * The Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles. — " Of more import- ance— indeed, of high import.ince — is the evidence drawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Iventciis and Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel iu a passage for which Irena;us alleges the authority of certain ' presbyters,' who at the least belonged to an elder generation than his own. There can be little doubt, indeed, that they are the same as those whom he describes three sentences latei', and with only a momentary break in the oblique n.arration into which the pass.age is thrown, .is 'the presbyters, disciples of the Apostles.' .... It is quite enough that Iren;cHs evidently attributes to them an antiquity considerably be- yond his own; that, in fact, he looks upon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and that of the Apostles." — Mr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 297. " We may, without any great impropriety, speak of the school of St. John. The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow- disciples, but also of his ' bishops.' Clement of Ales.indria, again, among whose teachers was one from this very district, and pro- baldy of this very school (Strom, i. 1, vol. i. p. 700, Migne), repre- sents him as going about from place to place in the neighbourhood of tphesus, appointing bishops, and i>roviding in other ways for the Toyernment of the Cnurches (Quis Dives Sal. 42, vol. ii. p. 648, ^ligne). Moreespecially Irenajus, who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate disciple of St. John, appeals again and ag.iiu to such a body as preserving and handing down the Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. Prooem. vol. ii. p. 405. correct tradition of the Apostolic doctrine and pr.ictice. He de- scribes these persons in one place as ' the elders who in Asia asso- ciated with Johu thediscipleof theLord ' (ii. 22, 5); in another, as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,* specifying more particularly the Church in Ephesus, the true witness of the Apostolic tradition (iii. 3, 4) ; in a third, as ' those who saw John face to face ' (v. 30, 1) ; or, 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord' (v. 33, 3) ; in a fourth, as ' the elders who were before us, and who also were pupils of the Apostles ' (Epist. ad Florin.) ; in a Hfth, as ' the elders who have their succession from the Apostles ' (iv. 26, 2) ; in a sixth, as 'the elders, disciples of the .\postles ' (v. 5, 1), with similar expressions elsewhere. The prominent members of tliis school in the first age were Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third quarter of the century." — Caxon Ligmtfoot, 'Contemp. Rev.' Feb. 1876, p. 471. ' Irensens. — " Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufliciently precise to enable us to tix the date either of this inter- course with Polycarp, or of the letter to Florinus, in which Irena?us records it. In the year 155 or 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenieus became Ilishop of Lyi>ns. Putting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenajus must have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 130-150 We are lei to the conclusion that the letter to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this father." — Casox LlGIITFOOT, ' Contemp. Rev.' May 1875, p. 833. D 2 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. religion ; and, having suffered many indignities, lie was sent to prison, where he soon expired. The time of the persecution in Gaul has been disputed. The general opinion is with Eusebius, who, in his ' Ecclesias- tical History,' places it in the seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus, a.d. 177. The Churches of Lyons and Vienna sent a relation of the sufferings of their martyrs to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia. Eusebius placed this epistle entire in his 'Collection of the Acts of the Martyrs;'' and he has likewise inserted a large jart of it into his ' Ecclesiastical History,' which is still extant. Lardner calls it the finest thing in all antiquity. Some think it was composed by Ireuajus." Celsus (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. vii. p. 210) lived in the time of Adrian and afterwards ; he was a heathen, and wrote a book against the Christians, entitled 'The True Word,' about 176 A.D. Celsus was not a contemporary of Origen,^ but appears to have lived about a century before him. But at the desire of his friend Ambrose, Origen wrote an answer to the work of Celsus in eight books; and it is from Origen's answer, written about A.D. 246, which is still extant, that tbe opinions of Celsus are chiefly to be gathered. The value of Celsus,'' as a witness for the antiquity of our Gospels, is well expressed in the words of S. Chrysostom : " Celsus and Bataneotes (meaning Porphyry) are sufficient witnesses to the antiquity of our books. For, I presume, they did not oppose writings which have been published since their own time."^ Melito (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 157) was Bishop of Sardis in Lydia.* He was a most voluminous writer; and catalogues of his works are given by both Eusebius and S. Jerome.^ All his books are lost, except a few frag- ments. Melito addressed an ' Apology ' to Marcus Antoninus in behalf of the Christians then under sufferings." This is placed by Eusebius in his 'Chronicle' in the year a.d. 171, and the tenth of that emperor.* ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. Procem. vol. ii. p. 408. ' Origen, contr. Cels. Praefat. 4, vol. 1. p. 648. lib. i. 8, vol. i. p. 669. Canon Lightfoot, ' Contemp. Rev.' Dec. 1874, p. 5. ' S. Chry^stom, in Epist. I. ad Corinth. Homil. vi. p. 64. " The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons.— Mr. San- day makes a rigid examination of two passages in this Epistle, in the former of which it is supposed by Lardner and others to refer to S. Lulie i. 6, and in the latter, to S. .John xvi. 2. His conclu- sion with respect to the former passage is, " This instance of a synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be depended upon " (p. 253). In the case of the latter, he compares the supposed quotation with the Evangelist, thus : — Epist. Vienn. et Lugd. iv. John xvi. 2. Thus, too, was fulfilled that Yea, the hour cometh, that whichwasspokenof by ourLord; everyone that killeth you will that a time shall come in which think he offereth God service, every one that killeth you shall think that he offereth God ser- vice. 'EKtifferai Kaipb^ eV £ iras 6 'AAA' epxerat a'pa 'Iva jraj o 7rpoaund in S. Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere. It is a fact that about the same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the .Apostolic Epistles. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as ^ S. Jerome, de Viris lilust. xsvi. vol. ii. \t. 646. * Theodoret, Hjeret. Kabul, iii. 2, vul. iv. p. 171. = Ibid. i. 11, vol. iv. p. 157. ' Eusebius, Chronicon, vol. i. p. 56-1. being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken after- wards as the subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher. It is a fact that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, sjieaks of certain writings as *the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical Scriptures,' and denounces those who tamper with them. It is a fact that Irenseus, who h.ad received his early education in Asia Minor, writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito, quotes the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more especially of the four Gospels, that they had been received by the Churches from the beginning, and treating all these wi'itings alike with the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church, from the banks of the Euphrates to the Pillars of Hercules, who remained in this state of dense ignorance — Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and Syriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made ciireful inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the very land where those Scriptures had their birth." — Canon Ligutfoot, 'Contemp. Kev.' Feb. 1876, p. 479. 3S INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. as much, as they understand hira, wlieuce it is evident that their interpretation is contrary to the Law ; and according to them the Gospels disagree."^* ApolUnaris here takes it for granted, as the acknowledged belief in his day, tliat there could be no real, only an apparent discrepancy between the Gospels. Afterwards he quotes Apollinaris as saying : " The four- teenth is the day of the true passover, the Lord the great sacrifice, instead of the Lamb the Son of God, who was bound, who bound the strong man, who, though judged, is judge of the quick and dead; and who was delivered into the bands of sinners, that he might be crucified ; who was exalted upon the horns of the unicorn, and whose sacred side was pierced ; who also poured out of bis side two cleansers, water and blood, the Word and the Spirit ; and who was buried on the day of tlie passover, a stone being laid upon the sepulchre,"^ Tatian'' (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 147) flourished > Dr. Routh, Kc-1. Sacr. vol. i. p. 160. * Glaadlus Apollinaris. — "This variance or disagreement in the Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy between the synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John .... Apollinaris—. would thus seem to recognize both the first and the fourth Gospels as authoritative." — Mk. Sanday, *The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 246. "1 am not concerned here with the question whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed is that he speaks of 'the Gospels* (under which term he includes at least St. Matthew and St. John) as any one would speak of received docu- ments, to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this is such as might be used by a writer of the fourth century, or in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears out the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the blood is taken from the fourth Gospel ; but a theological interpreta^on is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist. Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike suggest that the fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when they were written." — Canon Lightfoot, *Contemp. Rev.* Feb. 1876, p. 488. "■There seems to me nothing in these extracts to compel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the 'Paschal Chronicle*] any more than to other writers of the same times on whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contem])oraries ; especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had written." — Dr. Routh, *Rel. Sacr.* i. p. 167. " The authorship of these extracts was indeed questioned by some cailier writers, but on entirely mistaken grounds ; and at the present time the consensus among critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. ' On the genuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now no more dispute,* writes Scholten." — Canon Lightfoot, 'Contemp.' Rev.' Feb. 1876, p. 489. *> Tatian. — The case of Tatian is well expressed in the following. "After the death of Justin, between 170-175, Tatian wrote an oration against the Greeks, and in it he makes use of S. John's Gospel. Afterwards he lapsed into the heresy of the Encratites, and probably after his fall he composed a Diatessaron, or Harmony of our four Gospels. "First, as to Tatian's use of S. John; and here our task, if irk- some, is at least easy. Tatian is discoursing on the darkness of man's heart, 'and this,' he says, Ms the sense of the declaration, the darkness doth not comprehend the light' (Tatian, *Orat.* 13, p. 60, ed. Otto). He is exhorting the Greeks to leave the service of demons for that of the true God, and he gives this reason: 'All things (have been made) by Him, and without Him nothing has been made' (lb. 19, p. S'S). This surely is plain proof; and besides these there are other phrases which we may fairly attribute to the influence of our fourth Gospel, now that we have established the fact of its use by Tatian. Thus we read, ' God is a Spirit ' (lb. 4, p. 18), (words found in S. John, and nowhere else) ; arid again, *God was in the beginning, but we have received it that the be- - Ibid. ginning is the power of the Word' (lb. 5, p. 20). Our first two ^ examples are clearer than many undoubted patristic citations .... We are reminded that, even if Tatian quotes the fourth Gospel, there is no sign that he regarded it as authoritative. Now he quotes a verse from the first chapter of S. John with a special formula; he calls it rd €lp7)fx4vov. This formula occurs often, and in different parts of the New Testament, and it always serves to introduce a quotation from the Scriptures. Tatian, then, not only quotes S. John's Gospel, but he quotes it as a recognized authority." —'Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 375. "Eusebius, the oldest authority, states (Hist. Eccles. iv. 29, 16) that Tatian, ' having made, I know not how, a certain collection and combination of the Gospels, culled this the Diatessaron.' Eusebius had not seen it, and he did not know how Tatian arranged the Gospels, but he was certain that it was our Gospels which he arranged. If Eusebius had been in doubt as to the Gospels which Tatian used, he would have said that he did not know whence, i.e, from what sources {ovk oW oirddey, as in Hist. Eccles. iii. 36 ii.) Tatian composed his Harmony, nor would he have stated cate- gorically that Tatian made it from 'the Gospels.' The evidence of Eusebius is confirmed by the fact, that no four Gospels except ours were ever separated from others and regarded as the four, and by the knowledge which we have, that Tatian was familiar with the Gospel of S. John. The next authority is Epiphauius. He, like Eusebius, had no personal knowledge of the Diatessaron; but his account deserves much less consideration, not only because of his inferiority to Eusebius in learning and accuracy, but also because Epiphanius does but profess to repeat a vague rumour. ' The Diatessaron,* he tells us, * which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been made by him ' (S. Epiphan. Ha?r. xlvi. i.) . . . , Our third authority is Theodoret (Ha?r. Fab. i. 20), perhaps the most important of all. He was Bishop of Cyrus, in Syria. He found that the Catholics of his diocese used Tatian's Diatessaron, regarding it as a useful compendium. Theodoret, who was specially learned in the history of heresies, knew the bad reputation of Tatian ; he collected two hundred copies of the book, found upon examination that it omitted the genealogies which traced our Lord's descent to David, and finally prohibited this Diatessaron, and intro- duced the full records of the Gospel instead. Observe, Theodoret knew the book well ; he calls it the Diatessaron, and, anxious as he was to find fault, he does not say a syllable about its being com- piled from apocryphal Gospels. If ever there was a strong argu- ment from silence, it is this. And, further, Theodoret distinctly implies that Tatian's Diatessaron was made from our Gospels; for he speaks of the heretic as having '■cut out the genealogies, and all which related to our Lord's birth from the seed of David according to the flesh' .... Thus there is every reason to believe that Tatian compiled his Harmony from the Gospels. The oldest and the most accurate authority tells us that he actually did so, and his statement is confirmed by Theodoret, who had seen and examined the Diatessaron. "Tatian's evidence has a double value, for it shows that the Gospels were received without as well as within the Church. Nor were the Encratites the only heretics who availed themselves of the canonical Gospels." — Ibid. p. 376, &c. " Eusebius calls it, * of the four,' as does Theodoret. This is strong INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 39 shout A.D. 172. la his oration against the Gentiles, gene- rally reckoned his only remaining work, he has informed ns ol' several things respecting himself. That he was born in Assyria, was origiually a heathen, and was converted to Christianity by reading the ho-jks of the Old Testament, and by reflecting on the corruptions and absurdities of Gentilism ; and that he had been a considerable traveller, and seen the world ; and aflerwards came to Home, where he farther im- proved himself in the arts and sciences. The oration itself shows him to be a man of reading, and well acquainted with the Greek learning ; which character is also universally allowed him by the ancient writers. He mentions Justin Mart}?!- with great respect; and by many ancient Christian writers he is said to have been his disciple ; but some time after Justin's death, which happened about the year a.d. 165, he fell into a great variety of absurd opinions. He is said to be the author of the Encratites or Continents ; condemned the use of wine ; denied the lawfulness of marriage, the reality of Christ's sufferings, the salvation of Adam ; embraced the opinion of Yalentinus res[.>ecting ^ohs ; and asserted with Marcion, that there are two gods. But whatever were his jirinciples in the latter part of his life, he bears valuable testimony to the antiquity of the Gospels, and to the great estimation in which they were held in his time. Iren^us says that Tatiaii was a follower of Justin, and mentions the heresies he taught after Justin's martyrdom.' Clement of Alexandria makes frequent mention of him, and confutes him.' Origen speaks of his oration to the Greeks as a learned work.' Eusebius, in his Clironicle, dates his heresy at the 12th of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, or the year 173 A.D.* S. Epiphauius has given a minute account of liis heresy.' S. Jerome's account of Tatian is as follows:^ Tatian, who first taught rhetoric and gained a great deal of honour thereby, was a follower of Justia Martyr, and flourisliej in the Church as long as he adhered to him. But afterwards puffed up with the pride of eloquence, he founded a new heresy, called that of the Encratites, which was afterwards improved by Severus. Tatian wrote an infinite number of books ; of which there is one written against the Gentiles, which is reckoned the most considerable of all his works. He flourished under the Emperor M. Antoninus Verus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. Eusebius, in his ' Ecclesiastical History,' having given an account of Tatian and his opinions, from Irenajus, and then of Severus and his followers, who had made additions to some of Tatian's opinions, adds — " But their first leader, Tatian, composed I know not what harmony and collection of the Gospels, which he called [Dia Tessaron] Of the Four, which is still in the hands of some. And it is said that he had the assurance to alter [or explain] some words of the Apostle, as pretending to correct the composition and order of his style. • He left a great number of books ; of which his celebrated discourse against the Gentiles has been quoted by many, which seems to be the most elegant and most useful of all his writings." ' Theodoret speaks of this book thus, "He composed a Gospel which is called Dia Tessaron [Of the Four], leaving out the genealogies, and everything that shows the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh ; which has been used not only by those of his .sect, but also by them who follow the Apostolical doctrine : they not perceiving the fraud of the comix)sition, but simply using it as a compendious book. I have also met with above two hundred of these books which were in esteem in our churches, all which I took away and laid aside in a parcel, and placed in their room the Gospels of the Four Evangelists."* Since the Oration against the Gentiles is commended by so many, we may hence conclude that it was written before the year a.d. 172, about which time Tatian deserted the Catholic opinions; and as it seems to have been written after Justin's death, we may set it down as written some time between a.d. 165 and 172. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 144) flourished about a.d. 170. Eusebius in his Chroni- cle, at the eleventh year of Marcus Antoninus, which is the A.D. 172, says, " Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, a sacred man, was then in reputation."' Of the seveu letters wliich Eusebius says Dionysius wrote to different churches, and which were extant in his time, only a few fragments remain, preserved by Eusebius. Few as these fragments are, they are interesting and valuable, as showing among other things, the title which the Scriptures of the New Testament, and more especially the Gospels, had even then received, 'the Scriptures of the Lord;' and as showing also the extreme care and jealousy with which the ' S. Irenajus, contr. Hser. i. 28, 1, p. 690. iii. 23, 8, p. 965. - Clemens Ale's. Strom, i. 21, vol. i. p. 820. iii. 12, vol. i. p. 1182. iii. 13, vol. i. p. 1191. ^ Origen, contr. Cels. i. 16, vol. i. p. 688. proof th.it there were four, and but four Gospels, which were in esteem with Christians. It seems that Eusebius had not seen this Harmony or collection of Tatian. . . . "All the fault that Theodoret, who had seen so many copies, finds with this performance, is that Tatian had left out the genea- logies. . . , " We see plainly, that tjie Gospels, and many of S. Paul's Epistles, were received by Tatian, and owned by him to the last ; and his * Eusebius, Chvonicon, vol. i. p. 563. * S. Epiphanius, Hieresis, xlvi. vol. i. p. 836. « S. Jerome, de Viris lUust. x.^ix. vol. ii. p. 645. V ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 29, vol. ii. p. 400. « Theodoret, Hreret. Fab. i. 20, vol. iv. p. 156. " Eusebius, Chronicon, vol. i. p. 563. rejecting any of the rest is of no weight, when a man gave way to such manifest absurdities as he did in the latter p.wt of his life."— Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 149, &c. "I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever may have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Ad- dress to the Greeks ' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute."— JlR. Sandav, 'The Gospels in the Second Century," p. 303. 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS'. Catholic Christians guarded these Scriptures against the attempts of the iieretics to corrupt them. In his letter to the Romans, addressed to Soter, then the hishop, Dionysiiis says, " I have written Epistles, at the de- sire of the brethren, but the apostles of the devil have filled them with darnel, taking out some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not to be wondered, therefore, if some have attempted to corrupt the Scriptures of the Lord {rav KvpuiKav ypacpaiv'), since they have attempted the same things in writings not comparable to them."'* The Muratorian Fragment, or fragment on the Canon of the New Testament, was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan in 1740 by Cardinal Muratori, in a manu- script of the seventh or eighth centm-y, and is called the— Muratorian Fragment, or the Muratorian Canon, from the name of the man who discovered it, and who first printed it as a specimen of corrupt Latinity. Gradually critics awoke to the importance of this fragment for the history of the Canon, and it lias been re-edited, examined, and discussed by a multitude of critics. Several copies of this fragment have been published in England.^ This fragment is generally allowed by competent scholars to have been written about a.d. 170, or a little, but not much, later.'' In the state in which we now have it, the fragment begins with the last words of a sentence, which most probably refers to S. Mark. Then follows " in the third place the Gospel according to S. Luke," of which some account is given. " The fourth of the Gospels " is that of John, " one of the disciples of the Lord." A legend is then related as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of the Acts, which are attributed to S. Luke. Then follow thirteen Epistles of S. Paul by name. Two Epistles, pi ofessing to be addressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines, are dis- missed as forged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of Jude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted. Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. Thus, in this fragment, we have a definite list of the books received by the Church, and a distinct separation made be- tween these and those that are rejected. The fourth place is given to the Gospel of S. John, " a dis- ciple of the Lord," and the occasion of its composition is thus described: "At the entreaties of his fellow-disci|iles and his bishops John said, Fast with me for three days from this time, and whatevtr shall be revealed to each of us [whether it be favourable to my writing or not] let us relate it to one another. On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should relate all things in his own name, aided by the revision of all ... . What wonder is it, then, that John brings forward each detail with so much em- phasis in his epistles ? saying of himself, What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and- our hands have handled, these things have we written unto you. For so he professes that he was not only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and moreover a historian of all the wonderful works of the Lord in order." This account of the origin of John's Gospel is valuable, not ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 23, vol. ii. p. 389. Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 181. * Dionysius. — "By 'Scriptures of the Lord,' he seems to mean the Scriptures of the New Testament in general, as containing the doctrine and precepts of the Lord Jesus." — Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 146. " Of course it is not affirmed that the collection here called oi KvpiaKol ypaipal was identical with our New Testament, but simply that the phrase shows that a collection of writings belonging to the New Testament existed. The whole usage of Kvpiaxds in Christian writers is decisive against the application of the word to the Scrip- tures of the Old Testament in this connection.". — Pkof. Westcott, ' On the Canon of the New Testament,' p. 188. " Credner (' Beitrage,' i. p. 52) gives his judgment thus : ' Dionysius, about the year 170, gives to the Gospels the significant title of 7pa(/)a! Kvpiaxal, an expi-ession of frequent occurrence in the literature of the time ;' and he goes on to prove this by references to Irena>us, ii. 3."), 4.'— 'Dublin Kev.' April 1875, p. 374. •■ The Muratorian Fragment. — " The date of the composition of the Fragment is given by allusion made in it to Hernias. It claims to have been written by a contemporary of Pius, and cannot on that supposition be placed much later than 170 A.D. Internal evidence fully confirms its claim to this high antiquity ; and it may be regarded on the whole as a summary of the opinion of the Western Church on the Canon shortly after the middle of the second century." — Prof. Westcott, 'On the Canon of the New Testament,' p. 209. " I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D. ; but by adding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit ad- missible. "1 do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection 2 Dr. Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 394. Prof. Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, p. 527. Dr. Tregelles, Oxford, 1867. from the absence of any mention of the first two Synojitic Gospels through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the inference that they were originally mentioned rests only ' upon con- jecture,' but it is the kind of conjecture that, taking all things into consideration — the extent to which the evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with the Catholic tradition, the state of the canon in Irenaius, the relation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to that for tne others — can be reckoned at very little less than ninety-nine chances out of a hundred." — JIr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 266. "The Muratorian writer agrees with Irenseus in representing our Gospels, and these only, as the traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two Evangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously questioned." — Caj^ON Lightfoot, 'Contemp. Rev." August 1875, p. 395. " The fragment tells its own tale. It was written not long after 155, i.e. a time which we may place approximately with many eminent critics, who defend and who" deny the authenticity of the Gospels, about 170 A.D. The fragment proves that our four Gospels were received within the whole Catholic Church at that date, as at once authentic and inspired. The writer may deserve little credit when he relates the circumstances under which S. John wrote his Gospel, but he has a right to be heard when he speaks of the authority of the Gospels in the Church at his own time, and on this, the one point which concerns us here, his evidence is clear and explicit." — 'Duljlin Rev.' April 1S75, p. 3y2. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 41 in proportion to its correctness^but independently of tliat, as sliowinf; in what estimation the fourth Gospel was held at tlie time when this fragment was written, namely, tliatit was written by John, one of the Apostles, an eye-witness, and that he was inspired by the Holy Sjiirit for his work. The Clementine Homilies (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 3T()) are nineteen homilies in Greek, published by C'ote- lerius, with two letters prefixed ; one of them written in the name of Peter, the other in the name of Clement, to James, Bishop of Jerusalem. The date of these Clementine Homilies is uncertain, but the most probable opinion appears to be that they were written by an Ebiouite in the -second century, and were falsely attributed to Clement of Itnme. That the Clementine Homilies quote our Gosjiels can scarcely be doubted." The Old Latin, or Old Italic Version of the Kew Testa- ment.'— The Canon of the V\d Latin Version coincides with that of the Muratorian Fragment, and contains the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, the three Catholic Epistles of S. John, the First Epistle of S. Peter, the Epistle of S. Jude, and the Apocalypse. To these the Epistle to the Hebrews was added subsequently, but before the time of TertuUian, and without the author's name.'" Critics have shown that the Old Latin Version was written about the middle of the second century, certainly before 170 A.D. ; how much before has not yet been decided. It has been pointed out that the great mass of the people in Kome, at the time of the Christian era, especially of the jioorer classes, from which converts to Christianity were first drawn, were chiefly Greek, either by descent or by speech. Among the names of the fifteen bishops of Rome up to the end of the second century, four only are Latin. When S. Paul wrote to the P.oman Church, he wrote in Greek ; and in the long hst of salutations to its members at the end of the Epistle, only four genuine Latin names occur. Shortly after, Clement wrote to the Corinthians, in Greek, in the name of the Church of Rome. For these and similar reasons, it has 'been concluded that Rome was not the home of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament. The late Cardinal Wiseman was the first to point out, what has since been generally accepted, that the Old Latin Version had its origin in North Africa.^ By aa elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical constructions of this version with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African writers, such as TertuUian, Cyprian, and others, and from them only, he has made out a case which all, who have followed him, liave accepted as irresistible. The Syriao Version.^ — The Peshito or "'simple" Syriac, that is, Aramajan Version, is assigned almost universally to the most remote Christian antiquity. The Syriac Christians of Malabar even now claim for it the right to be considered as an Eastern oiiginal of the New Testament ; and though their tradition is unsupported by external" evidence, it is not to a certain extent destitute of all plausibility. There can be no doubt that the so-called Syro-Chaldaic (Aramaean) was the vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine in the time of our Lord, however much it may have been superseded ' See Scrivener's IntroductioD, p. 252. Westcott ou the Canon of the New Test. ]). 2+4. - Cardinal Wiseman's Essays, vol. i. 1853, Kume. ' Clementine Homilies. — After a very careful examination of the several passages in the 'Clementine Homilies,' in wliich the Gospels are supposed to be quoted, Mr. Sanday comes to the follow- ing conclusion: ''Taking into account the whole extent to which the special peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clemen- tines, I thinii we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been actually used by the writer" (p. 177). " We have, then, the same kind of choice set before us as in the case of Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his apocryphal quota- tions; that he did draw from apocryphal sources, partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, 1 think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line, and say exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources, and what shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive use of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately or immediately, and to a greater or less degree, is, 1 believe, beyond question " (p. 180). "That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of the word, but as probable as most human atiairs can be. The real element of doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence must lie taken subject to tjiis uncertainty" (p. 295). — Mk. Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century.' Dr. Scrivener's Introduction, p. 229, &c. Prof. Westcott on the Canon of Scripture, p. 233. ' The Old Latin Version. — "On the unity of the Old Latin Ver- sion there is a ditference of opinion among scholars, but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes : ' The expressions of TertuUian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew and recognized one translation, and that this version was in several places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found " in Groeco authentico." This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the age when TertuUian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back towards the middle of the second century at the latest: how much earlier the version may have been, we have no proof; for we are alre.idv led back into the time when no records tell us anything re- specting the North African Church.' (Home's Introduction, p. 233.) Dr. Tregelles, it should be remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science his works ai-e one of the noblest monu- ments, and not directly of the history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, but an equally exact and trust- worthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees with him here both as to the unitv of the version and as to its date from the middle of the cen- tury. (' Introduction,' 2nd ed. pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.) Dr. West- co!t, too, writes in Smith's Dictionary, 'TertuUian distinctly re- cognizes the general currency of a Latin version of the New Testa- ment, though not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which, even in his time, had been able to mould the popular language. This was characterised by a " rudeness " and " simplicity " which seems to point to the nature of its origin.' " — Mr. Sasday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 321. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. by Greek in the common business of life.^ Tbe dialect of the Pesliito, even as -it stands now, represents in part at least that form of Aramaic whicli was current in Palestine. Tradition fixes on Edessa as the place whence the Peshito took its rise. Gregory Bar Hebra3US, one of the most learned and accurate of Syrian writers, relates that the New Testa- ment Peshito was made in the time of Thaddeusand Abgarus, Kin;T of Edessa, when, according to the uuiversal opinion of ancient writers, the Apostle went to proclaim Christianity in Mesopotamia. It is worthy of notice that he assumes the Apostolic origin of the New Testament Peshito as certain; for while he gives three hypotheses as to the date of the Old Testament version, he speaks of this as a known and acknow- ledged fact.' Ephrem Syrus, himself a deacon of Edessa, treats this version in such a manner as to prove that it was already old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it " our Version." He speaks of the " trans- lator" as one whose words were familiar;^ and though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, his expla- nations show that its language, even in his time, had become partially obsolete. The Peshito was universally received by the dift'erent sects into which tUe Syrian Ciiurch was divided in the fourth cen- tury, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians,^. whether belonging to the Nestorian, Jacobite, or Roman communion, hold the Peshito authoritative, and use it in their public services. It must consequently have been established by familiar use before the first heresies arose, or it could not have remained without a rival. Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament were indeed made afterwards ; but no one ever supplanted the Peshito for ecclesiastical purposes. Like the Latin Vulgate in tlie Western Church, the Peshito became in the East the fixed and unalterable Rule of Scripture. The Peshito was taken as the basis of other versions in the East. An Arabic and a Persian version were made from it. At the beginning of the fifth century (before the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431) an Armenian version was commenced from the Syriac, in the absence of Greek manuscripts.-* These indications of the antiquity of the Peshito do not possess any conclusive authority, but they all tend in the same direction, and there is nothing on the other side to reverse or modify them ; they all go to show that there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation is to be fixed within the first half of the second century. The text of the Peshito, even in its present state, like the Old Italic, exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek manuscripts and the earhest quotations.' From a.d. 150 to a.d. 100. The following are the principal writers and extant docu- ments assigned to the first half of the second century : — A.D. Hernias 100 S.Ignatius .. ,. .. .. .. .. 107 S. Polycarp 103 The Epistle containing an account of Polycarp's martyrdom Papias 116 Quadratus .. .. .. .. .. .. 1213 Basilides .. .. .. .. .. circa 125 Avistides .. .. .. .. -. .. 126 Agrippa Castor .. .. .. .. ' .. 132 Marcion .. .. .. .. .. circa 140 Aristo of Pella 140 . Valentinus .. .. .. .. .. .. 140 Justin Martyr 140 Tlie Epistle to Diognctus S. Justin Martyr (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 125) was born in Flavia Neapolis, anciently called iSiehem, a city of Samaria in Palestine. He was early a lover of truth, and studied philosophy under several masters ; first under a Stoic, next a Peripatetic, then a Pythagorean, and lastly a Platonic, whose principles and sentiments he preferred before all others, until he became ac- quainted with the Christian religion, which he then embraced as the only certain and useful philosophy. Of his conversion to Christianity he gives an account in his 'Dialogue with Trypho.' All these particulars we have from himself. Justin is mentioned by many ancient Christian writers; ' Cardinal Wiseman, Hora; Syriacte. 2 Ibid. p. 116, &c. ^ Ibid. p. 108. ° The Syriac Version. — " A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems rapidly approaching to a consensus, to rcard this as bearing the same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version." — Mr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 323. ^ The Old Italic Version. — " The test of the old Italic version, as found in a certain class of nianuscrii)ts, was already in use as early as the second century. The text of the Old Italic is substan- tially that which TertuUian, about the end of the second century, and the Latin translator of Irensus still earlier, made use of. If we had any Greek text of the second century to compare with this Old Italic version, we should then be able to arrive at the original Dr. Tregelles, Smith's Bibl. Diet. : VEKSIOSS. Greek text at that time in use. We should thus be able to approach very nearly to the original text which came from the Apostles' hands, since it is certain that the text of the second century must resemble more closely that of the first than any later text can be expected to do. Such a manuscript is before us .in the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the Old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the Old Italic ver- sion, which the translator, who lived in Korth Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the Old Syriac version, which has been recently found, is quite as closely related as the Italic. The fathers of the Egyptian Church of the second and third century, moreover, established the trust- worthiness of this Sinaitic text." — Pkof. Tischekdorf, 'When were our Gospels written?' p. 115. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 43 his disciple Tatian, by S. Irehanis, Tertnllian, S. Methodius, Kiisubius, S. Jerome, S. K]piphaiiius, Pliotius, and others. The ]irincipal xvorlis of Justin are his two 'Apologies' and his 'Dialogue' with Trypho the Jew. The first and larger 'Apology' was addressed to Titus Antoninus the Pious, Jlnrcus Antouinus, and Lucius Verus, the Senate and people of Rome, somewhere aliout the year a.d. 145.° The larger 'Apology' is still extant entire. The beginning of tlie second 'Apology' is wanting, as is the conclusion of the first and beginning of the second part of tlie 'Dialogue witli 'i-rypho.' " Justin has quoted the Gospels in numberless places in his 'Apologies' and 'Dialogue,' though always without express- ing the names of the Evangelists. The following will serve as specimens :' — " At the same time an angel was sent to the same virgin, saying, 'Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb by the Holy Ghost, and thou shalt bring forth a Son, and He shall he called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins,' as they have taught who have written the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ. And we believe them."' S. Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 54. * Justin Martyr. — " Modern critics seem pretty generally to jilitce thu two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D., and the Dialogue against Ti'vphon a little later. Dr. Keira indeed would throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 on account of the mention of Marcion, but this is decided by both Hilgenfeld and Lipsius to be too late. ' I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves high respect, comes to the conclu- sion 'that we may without fe.ar of considerable error set down Jus- tin's First Apology to 145, or better still to 146, and his death to 148. 'ihe Second Apology, if really separate from the tirst, will then fall in 146 or 147, and the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time.'" — Me. Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 89. *• " A flood of light would probably have been j)oured on the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents [the lost ecclesiastical literature of the second centui-y] of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century, how- ever important they may be from other points of view, give a very inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the Canonical writers. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not from his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should e.\pect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point. In works like these, addressed to heathens and Jews, who attributed no authority to the writings of Apostles and Evan- gelists, and for whom the names of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he refers to those writinccs for the most part anonymously and with reserve. On the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single instance) had been jireserved, we should probably have been placed in a position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the Canonical writings." — Canon Lightfoot, ' Contemp. Rev.' Jan. 1875, p. 170. ■^ After making a very careful summary of the passages in which Justin Martyr appears to quote our present Gospels, but also with the special object of bringing out the points in which he seems to difter from or add to the Canonical narratives, Mr. Sanday makes tills important statement : " If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be reaily a question of comparatively small importance whether or not he made use of our present Gospels in their jU'esent form. If he did not use these Gospels, he used other documents which contained substanti.ally the same matter It is antecedently quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been derived from a document other than our Gospels ; but if so, that is only proof of the existence of further and inde- pendent evidence to the truth of the history. This document,^ supposing it to exist, is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the ev.angelical tradition; it diHers from the three synoptic Gospels, nay, we may say even from the four Gospels, less than they ditfer from each other. " But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a separate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge from its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a tertiary stage of the evangelical literature ; it must have implied the previous existence of our present Gospels" (p. 98). " It seems to me that the choice lies between two alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels or else he used a do- cument later than our Gospels and presupposing them" (p. 102). " Taking these salient poiuts together with the mass of the co- incidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either medi- ately or immediately, and most probably immediately and directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels" (p. 106). — Mk. Saxday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century.' " We proceed to a closer comparison between the facts in Christ's life, as given by Justin, and the narrative in our Gospels. We must refer our readers who wish to examine the question thoroughly to Credner's tables of the Gospel history, as it can be extracted from Justin; and here we can only state the results of our own investigation. We have counted one hundred and thirty- six distinct statements made by Justin with regard to our Lord's life. It is, of course, a little hard to settle what is to be reckoned as a distinct statement, but we have done our best to make the calculation impartially. Further, Justin gives sixty sayings of our Lord. Of these one hundred and thirty-six facts, one hundred and sixteen occur substantially in our Gospels. Of the sixty sayings, all are found there in substance except two. Thus the proportion between the cases in which Justin agrees with our Gospels, com- pared with those in which he diverges from them, are as 174 to 22. These additions or divergencies, moreover, are for the most part exceedingly slight. A few seem to be inferences from our text, others to be lapses of memory, the rest probably drawn from tr.adition." -' Dublin Kev.' April 1875, p. 384. The general tenor of Justin Martyr's teaching is well ex- pressed in th^ following words: "The leading conception of this passage, which sees all theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though it lingers on through the suc- ceeding ages, is essentially characteristic of the second century. The Apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon ; but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the concep- tion is worked out by Melito, has striking parallels in Justin. Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord, sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word, while sometimes He calls Himself Chief Captain {apxKTTpaTTiyos), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun (t^j tov Navfj 'Irjaov} (Dialog. 61, p. 284).* Elsewhere he states that Christ is 'King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Chief Captain, and Stone,' &c., and he under- takes to show this from all the scriptures (Dialog. 34, p. 251). And again, in a third passage he says that the same Person, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, ' went forth from the Father before all created things through His power and coun- sel,* being designated ' Wisdom, and Day, and Orient, and Sword, and Stone, and Staff, and Jacob, and Israel, now in one way, and now in another, in the sayings of the prophets,* and that ' He became man through the Virgin ' (Dialog. 100, p. 327). Nor do these passages stand alone. This same conception pervades the whole of Justin*s Dialogue, and through it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained." — Canox LiGurrooT, ' Contemp. Rev.* Feb. 1876, p. 4S4. 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. (Matt. i. 20, 21. Compare Luke i. 31.) Thus he writes in hi.s tirst ' Apology.' In the same ' Apology,' he say.s : " But lest we should seem to deceive you, it may be fit to lay before you some of the doctrines of Christ. His words were short and concise. For He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God. Of chastity He spoke in this manner: ' Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, has committed adulter}' with her already in his heart, in the sight of God. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. For it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into eternal fire. And he who marries her that is divorced from another man, committeth adultery.' "^ (Matt. V. 28, 29, 32.) " And it is written in the Gospel, that He said, ' All things are delivered to me of the Father. And no man knoweth the Father but the Son ; neither the Son, save the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'"- (Matt. xi. 27.) " And the Virgin Mary having been filled with faith and joy, when tlie angel Gabriel brought her good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should rest upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadow her, and therefore that Holy thing born of her should be the Son of God, answered, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.'"' (Luke i. 36, 38.) Justin chiefly quotes the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke ;* and S. Mark only seldom. In the following passage all these three Gospels are quoted : " And in other words He says, 'Depart from me into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his angels' (Matt. xxv. 41). And again. He said in other words, ' I give unto you power to tread upon serpents, and scorpions, and venomous beasts, a»d upon all the power of the enemy ' (Luke x. 19). And before He was crucified, He said, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, aud rise again the third day.' " ' (Mark viii. 31.) The following passages will show that Justin liad read S. John's Gospel. ■■ " But He is the first power next aiter God by • S. Justin Martyr, 'Apolog. i. p. 21. * " Let us compare Justin's language with that of the first Syn- optic Gospel. Matthew alone, of all the New Testament writers, uses the e-ipression ' kingdom of heaven ' (/3a(riA.€ia Twy ovpavwv) ; it recurs eleven times in Justin. He alone speaks of the ' Heavenly Father ' (o iraTTjp 6 oiipdvios') ; the same phrase recurs three times in Justin. S. Matthew uses no less than three times a very pecu- liar Greek expression to describe the healing miracles of Christ. He speaks of Him as ' healing every disease and eveiy infirmity ' (flepaTreuwt' iraffav v6(70v Kal iraaav fiaXaKiav). Of the word for * infirmity ' there is no other instance in the New Testament, while the adjective from which it is derived has in the rest of its books a meaning widely different. Even in the entire Septuagint the col- location of the three principal vfovds {depairfveiv fiaAaKiav Kal ySaov} does nut occur; yet this peculiar j)hrase is repeated by Justin (Apol. i. 31, p. 80) ; and even Hilgenfeld, in an early work directed against the very identity of Justin's Memoirs with our Gospels, which we are trying to establish, threw down his arms when he came to this coincidence, and acknowledged that the recurrence of such a singular expression in Justin must be regarded as a reminis- ceuce of Matthew's Gospel."—' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 385. " There are nine passages in Justin which agree, some quite, all nearly word for word, with our Gospel of S. Matthew. We shall give one instance. ' Our Christ,' we read in the Dialogue, ' declared upon earth at that time to those who said that Elias must come before the Christ — Elias indeed will come, and will restore all things ; but I say to you that Elias has come already aud they did not know him, but they did to him whatsoever they willed. And it is written, then the disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Ha/ttist.' • We subjoin the commentary of Credner, and, in doing so, we take a critic who has been the most powerful opponent of the position which we maintain. Dis- cussing the last clause of this passage, which is introduced ■ with the formula, ' and it is writteu,' he says, ' These words can only come from our Matthew, with whom they are in verbal agreement, for it is utterly improbable that a remark of such a special nature should have been made in identically the same way by two persons distinct from and independent of each other ' (Credner, ' Beitrage,' i. p. 237). Over and above the direct coincidences between Justin and our First Gospel, there are other hardly less striking proofs that he had read our S. Matthew. It is well known that our B'irst Gospel quotes passages from the Old Testament which are not to be found exactly as they are quoted, either in the Hebrew text or 2 S. Justin Martyr, Dialog, ii. 352. ' Ibid. ii. p. 354. * Ibid. ii. p. 303. the Septuagint. In five or six instances these peculiarities of Matthew's citation reappear in Justin. As he gives them, they are not to be found in the Hebrew or the Septuagint, or in other books of the New Testament. He must therefore have taken them second-hand from S. Matthew. The most striking instances are the quotations from Micah, in Apol. i. 34, p. 86, ed. Otto, comp. Matt. ii. 6 ; from Zechariah (Justin has Sophonias by mistake), Apol. i. 35, p. 90, comp. Matt. xxi. 5; from Jeremiah, Dial. 78, p. 270, comp. Matt. ii. 18.' — Ibid. p. 387. ^ " In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again emphatic support from Dr. Keim" (p. 278). After a minute examination of some of the passages in Justin Martyr, which, either from similarity of expression or from similarity of doctrine contained in them, appear to be quotations from the fourth Gospel, as well as the various explanations which have been given of these, Mr. Sanday thus concludes, " No other Christian writer had com- bined these two ideas before — the divine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When, therefore, we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them ; for the strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chrono- logical, if not on other grounds certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth Gospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar assigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A.D." (p. 287). — Mr. Sakoay, ' The Gospels in the Second Century.' " Hilgenfeld and Keim are certainly among the most celebrated advocates of the false criticism, which has striven to undermine the historical evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels ; but while they hold their original position on the main point, they have been obliged to give way with respect to Justin. In 1850 Hilgenfeld, in an elaborate work, admitted that Justin used a re- cension of S. Matthew's Gospel, and that he made some distinct but inconsiderable use of our S. Luke, adding that his use of S. John was ' in the highest degree improbable.* In 1867 he admitted as beyond doubt that Justin used all our synoptic Gospels, a matter which was . by that time regarded as a settled question, even in the Tubingen school. In 1875, in his Last and most elaborate work, he assumes Justin's use of our Synoptics, and confesses that it is ' hard to deny ' his use of S. John's Gospel. Keim, in 1867, considers the use of S. John in Justin absolutely certam." — 'Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 396. " Whatever internal coincidences there are between the con- INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 45 the Father and Lord of all, and Son, and the Word. And in what manner being made flesh He became man, I shall show hereafter."^ (John i. 14.) Speaking of John the Baptist, " They suspected him to be the Christ, to whom he said, ' 1 am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying, There will come One mightier than me, whose shoes' latchet I am not worthy to bear." (John i. 20, 23, 27.2 Compare Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 10.) " For Christ Himself has said, * Unless je are born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven * (John iii. 3, 4, 5). But it is manifest to all, that it is impossible for those who have been once born to enter into the wombs of them that bare them."^ " For thus He said, * He that hears me, and does the things I say, be hears Him that sent me.'''^ (John xiv. 24.) Justinuften speaks of the Gospels under tlie title of Memoirs" * S. Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 52. 2 S. Justin Martyr, Dialog, ii. p. 332. tents of St. John and those of the Synoptics, the external differ- ences are exceedingly striking, and it is not at all to my present purpose to keep this fact out of sight. The plan of St. John's Gospel is difi'erent, the style is different, the subjects of the dis- courses, the scene of action, the incidents, and (with one exception) the miracles, all are different. " Now this will greatly facilitate the investigation of the question as to whether any author had St. John before him when he wrote. There may be some uncertainty with respect to the quotations from the Synoptics, as to whether an early writer quotes one or other, or derives what he cites from some earlier source, as for instance from one of St. Luke's iroWol. *• But it cannot be so with St. John. A quotation of, or reference to, any words of any discourse of our Lord, or an account of any transaction as reported by St. John, can be discerned in an instant. At least it can be at once seen that it cannot have been derived from the Synoptics, or fi-om any supposed apocryphal or traditional sources from which the Synoptics derived their information. "The special object of this Gospel is the identification of the pre- existent nature of our Lord with the Eternal Word, and, following upon this. His relation to His Father on the one side, and to man- kind on the other. " He is the only-begotten of the Father, God being His own proper Father (^Sioy), and so He is equal to the Father in nature (John v. 18), and yet, as being a Son, He is subordinate, so that He repre- sents Himself throughout as sent by the Father to do His will and speak His words. *' With reference to mankind He is, before His incarnation, the * Light that lighteth every man.* After and through His Incar- nation He is to man all in all. He is even in death the object of their faith. He is the Mediator through whose very person God sends the Spirit. He is the Life, the Light, the Living Water, the Spiritual Food. ** Justin Martyr repeatedly reproduces in various forms of expres- sion the truth that Christ is the eternal * Word made flesh' and revealed as the 'Only-begotten Son of God,' thus: — '"The first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son, and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.' (Apol. i. ch. xxxii.) "Again, 'I have already proved that He was the Only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner ((5ia)s) Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin.' (Dial. ch. cv.) " Now, we have in these two passages four or five characteristic expressions of St. John relating to our Lord, not to be found in any other Scripture writer. I say ' in any other,* for I believe that not only the Epistles of St. John, but also the Apocalypse, notwith- standing certain differences in style, are to be ascribed to St. John. '* We have the term ' Word ' united with ' the Son,* and with ' Only-begotten,' and said to be ' properly (propria Idltus) be- gotten ;' a reminiscence of John v. 18, the only place in the New Testament where the adjective iBios or its adverb IB'iws is applied to the relations of the Father and the Son, and we have this Word becoming flesh and man. "Now Justin, in one of the places, writes to convince a heathen emperor ; and in the other an unbelieving Jew ; and so in each case 3 S. Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 89. * Ibid. p. 25. he reproduces the sense of John i. 1 and 14, and not the exact words. It would have been an absurdity for him to have quoted St. John exactly, for, in such a case, he must have retained the words 'we beheld His glory, the glory as,' which would have simply de- tracted from the force of the passage, being unintelligible without some explanation. '* Again, we have in the Dialogue (ch. Ixi.) the words, ' The Word of W^isdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things.' Now, here there seems to be a reproduction of the old and very probably original reading of John i. 18, 'The only be- gotten God who is in the bosom of the Father ' (see note on John i. 18). Certainly this reading of John i. 18, is the only place where the idea of being begotten is associated with the term ' God ' " (p. 45, &c.). "From all this it is clear that Justin had not only seen and reverenced St. John's Gospel, but that hjs mind was permeated with its peculiar teaching. '*! hesitate not to say that, if a man rejects the evidence above adduced, he rejects it because on other grounds he is determined, cost what it may, to discredit the Fourth Gospel. "Let us briefly recapitulate. "Justin reproduced the doctrine of the Logos, using the words of St. John. He asserted the Divine and human natures of the Son of God in the words of St. John, or in exactly similar words. He reproduce! that peculiar teaching of our Lord, to be found only in St. John, whereby we are enabled to hold the true and essential Godhead of Christ, without for a moment holding that ' He is an independent God.' He reproduced the doctrine of the Logos being, even before His incarnation, in every man as the ' true light * to enlighten him. " He reproduces the doctrine of the Sacraments in terms to be found only in the Fourth Gospel. He reproduces, or alludes to, arguments, and types, and prophecies, and historical events, only to be found in St. John's Gospel. " It seems certain then, that if Justin was acquainted with any one of our four Gospels, that Gospel was the one according to St. John " (p. 60). — Mr. Sadler, * The Lost Gospel,* &c. * " He calls the Gospels, the Memoirs of the Apostles {airofiinf}- ^ovevfiara riev a.trov). This title was in all likelihood of his own devising, for it does not occur elsewhere in Christian litera- ture. He uses it first in the Apology addressed to the Roman Emperor, and it seems to be an attempt to put the word ' gospel ' into tolerable Greek, and make it intelligible to educated Pagans. These ' Memoirs ' were not ahout the Apostles ; on the contrary, Justin says that they were composed 6y the 'Apostles* [of Christ] and by those who followed them (liiaiog. 103, p. 354, ed. Otto), and tha't they contained the whole history of Christ (Apol. i. 33, p. 86). Further, the common name for these Memoirs was * Gospels,* for Justin describes them as the ' Memoirs which are called Gospels' (Apol. i. 'oQ^ p. 156). In conclusion these Gospels were read throughout the whole Church in the Christian assem- blies. This appears from the first Apology, in which Justin gives the Emperor an account of Christian worship, and particularly of the celebration of the Eucharist. ' On the day called Sunday,* he says, 'all who live in cities or in the country assemble together [notice the general terms which are employed], and the Memoirs of 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. or Commentaries, Commentaries of tlie A|iostlcs, His or Christ's Memoir.-;, Memoirs of tlie Apostles and tlieir com- panions, as in the following instances. Speaking of the Eucharist, he says, " For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered it, ' And Jesus commanded them to take bread, and give thanks.'"' " For in the commentaries, which, as I have said, were com- posed by the Apostles and their followers [or companions], it is written, that His sweat fell like drops of blood as He prayed, saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.'" (Luke xsii. 42 ; Matt. xxvi. 3dy Justin also incidentally shows in what estimation the Gospels were held by Christians in his time, that they were read in their assemblies every Lord's Day, along with, or in the place of, the Prophets, and by a person appointed for that purpose whom he calls "reader;" for, giving an account of the Christian worship to the Emperor, he says, "The memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the Propl'.ots, are read ac- cording as the time allows; and when the reader has ended, the president makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of so excellent things." ^ Trypho the Jew, in the ' Dialogue with Justin,' is made to say, " I am sensible that the precepts in your Gospel, as it is called, are so great and wonderful that I think it impossible for auy man to keep them. For I have been at pains to read them." * ' Besides the testimony to the Church's early belief in the authoritative character of the four Gospels, which is furnished by writers who adhered to the Church Catholic, there is also evidence of this in the extant remains, or in ancient quota- tions from the works of those who 'early in the second century departed from the faith of the Church, and, as teachers of deadly heresies, became the bitterest opponents of the Church. Such were Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinus. Valentinus.'' — Some suppose that he sprang from Egypt.^ > S. Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 96. ^ S. Justin Martyr, Dialog, ii. p. 361. '■> S. Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 97. * S. Justin Martyr, Dialog, p. 156. the Apostles [that is, as we have seen, the Gospels] or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits ' (Apol. i. 67, p. 158). These 'Memoirs' then were called Gospels, and they were written by the Apostles and those who followed them. This description answers exactly to our Gospels ; two of them are the work of the Apostles Matthew and John, and two of Apostolic men, Mark and Luke. It answers to nothing else. We have no proof that there was any one Gospel in Justin's time, except the canonical ones, which profess to be the work of an Apostle. The Gospel according to Peter is mentioned for the first time about the year 190 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 12); and Serapion, Bishop of Autioch, to whom we owe our information about it, speaks of it in terms which are perfectly consistent with a belief that the forgery was still recent. Moreover, if Justin's Gospels were not ours, we want proof that there was in his time a collection of Gospels differing from our present ones, yet attributed to the Apostles and their followers, and separated in such a way from other records of the same kind that they could be regarded as one writing, and called ' the Gospel.' For Justin's language tallies exactly with that of a later age Like Tertullian, he speaks of Gospels, ' composed by the Apostles and their followers.' Like Irena:us and Clement of Alexandria, he looks upon the Gospels as one, and calls them 'the Gospel ' (Dialog. 100, p. 340)."—' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 380. ' " We thus sum up the evidence of this writer. He has numerous quotations of our Gospels, except that of St. Mark, which he has seldom quoted. He quotes them, as containing authentic accounts of Jesus Christ and His doctrine. He speaks of ' memoirs ' or records written by ' Apostles ' and ' their companions ;' plainly meaning the Apostles and Evangelists Matthew and John, and by companions or disciples of Apostles, Mark and Luke. These Gospels were read and expounded in the solemn assemblies of the Christians, as the books of the Old Testament were, and as they had been before in the Jewish synagogues. Whether any other books of the New Testament were so read, he does not inform us. This reading of the Gospels he mentions in his first Apology to Antoninus the Pious. He must have been well assured of the truth of what he savs, and, it is likely, knew it to be the ordin.ary custom of the Christian churches he had visited in his tr.ivels. If it had not been a general practice, or had obtained in some few places only, he must have spoken more cautiously, and made use of some limita- tions and exceptions. For if there were Christian churches in ^ .See — Prof Westcott on the Canon of the Kew Test. p. 294. Mr. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 196. ' S. Epiphanius, Ha;resis, xxxi. 2, vol. i. 476. which the ' memoirs * he speaks of were not read ; upon inquiry made by the Emperor, or his order, he had run the hazard of being convicted of a design to impose ujion all the majesty ot the Roman- empire ; and that, not in an affair incidentally mentioned, but in the conduct and worship of his own people, concerning whom he professeth to give the justest information. The general reading of the Gospels, as a part of divine worship at that time, about the year 140, or not very long after, is not only a proof that they were well known and allowed to be genuine, but also that they were in the highest esteem. These Gospels were not concealed. Justin appeals to them in the most public manner, and they were open to all the world : read by Jews and others." — Lardneb, ' Credibilitv,' vol. ii. p. 139. " There is no need to reason from analogy as to the amount of accuracy we may expect from Justin, when he quotes his Memoirs. He quotes the classics ; he quotes the Old Testament in the Septuagint version. In the Apologies we find a citation from the 'Timajus' of Plato (Apol. ii. 10, p. 192), another from Plato's Re- public (Apol. i. 3, p. 8), a third from the ' Memorabilia' of Xenuphon (.\pol. ii. 119, p. 41). All these quotations are clearly and evi- dently made from memory; for Justin alters unconsciously the sense of the authors whom he quotes, and makes a variety ot marked changes in their language. As to the Old Testament, Justm quotes over and over again from one of its books words which really occur in another (Apol. i. 35, p. 90; ib. 51, p. 120; ib. 53, p. 124 : Dialog. 14, p. 52 ; ib. 49, p. 160) ; he puts together and welds into a continuous quotation passages which really occur in different chapters, nay, in different books of the Old Testament (Apol. i. 52, p. 122). He quotes verses in reversed order (Apol. i. 38, p. 94), he abbreviates the sense (Apol. i. 44, p. 104), adds and changes words (Apol. 1. 48, p. 114), -sometimes .unconsciously alters facts (Apol. i. 60, p. 140); he allows himself these liberties even when he introduces his quotations with the solemn formula ' it is writfen.' Inaccuracies of this kind occur even in the Dia- locrue where Justin is arguing with Jews, and h.ad special motives for care in quoting the Old Testament. We have given but a few instances out of a vast number collected by Semisch, who has proved that each variety of inaccurate quotations which apologetic critics assume in Justin's quotations from our Gospels, finds an exact parallel in his quotations from the Old Testament." — ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 386. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 47 Tren.Tsus says that he went to'Eome during the episcopate of Hyj^inus, who was the eighth bishop of that city;' that he was at the lieight of his fame in the time of Pius, and con- tinued until the time of Anicetus. Valeutinus professed to follow the teaching of Theodas, a disciple of S. Paul.* Marcion'' (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. viii. p. 448) was born in Pontus. He was at first a Catholic, but afterwards fell into the most deadly heresy. It has been generally sup- posed that he came to Rome some time about a.d. 130, or a little later, where he disseminated his opinions. His influ- ence was great, and he attracted many follower.'!, who were spread over Italy, Egyjit, Palestine, Arabia, and Syria, Cyprus, Thebais, Persia and elsewhere.^ More than one of the early writers has given an account of Marcion's teaching. These may be seen stated in Lardner at full length. An eminent living writer ha.s summed up his opinions and cha- racter in the following words : — " Marcion taught that the God of the New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he identified with the God of Nature ; that these two Gods were not only distinct, but antagonistic ; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine feud between them ; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews .... Again, Marcion rejected the autbo- S. Irenicus, coatr. Hjer. iii. 4, 3, p. 856. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 11, vol. ii. p. 328. * Valeutinus. — " The case in reg.ird to Valentinus. the nest grerit Gnostic leader, who came forward about the year 140 A.n., is very similar to that of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to the school of Valeutinus than to Valeutinus himself" (p. 19G). After the usually severe examination of this subject, Mr. Sanday concludes, "That the Valentiniaus made use of unwritten sources as well as of written, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they called the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their use of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentiniaus undoubtedly did use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth Gospel." — ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 202. *' S. John's Gospel was in especial esteem amimg the great sect of the Gnostics known as the Valentiniaus. Heracleon, the most illustrious member of Valentine's school, wrote a commentary on S. Johu, large fragments of which have been preserved by Origen (see Grabe's Spicileg. Patr. ii. p. 8.^). In these fragments the authenticity of the Gospel is assumed throughout; indeed Heracleon bases his tenets on a perverted interpretation of single words spoken by Christ and recorded by S. John. The shifts to which he betakes himself in trying to elude the natural meaning of the words, and the trouble which he took in writing an exposition, are evidence enough th.at he admitted its Apostolic origin. Clement of Alex- andria quotes an exposition by the same heresiarch of a verse in S. Luke (Strom, iv. 9). What was the date of Heracleon? Heinrici thinks he has shown that he wrote his commentary on S. John between 140 and 160. Hilgenfeld and Lipsius place the time of his greatest activity about 170." — ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 379. '' Valentinus was born about 100 A.D. After teaching in Egypt and Cyprus he came to Rome, about 140 A.D., and died some twenty years later. We maintain that, like his followers, Valentinus ac- knowledged the Four Gospels, and that, like them, he made special use of S. John. Our reasons are these. (1.) Tertullian tells us that heretics in reality reject Scripture, either openly like Marcion, by rejecting or mutilating its test, or like Valentinus secretly, by perverting its sense. Of Valentinus he speaks tlius : ' If Valen- tinus seems to use the entire document {i.e. all the scrijjtural books received in the Church), (still) with a mind no less crafty than that of Marcion, he laid violent hands upon the truth. For Marcion openly and plainly used the knife, not the pen, since he mutilated the scriptures to suit his doctrine. But Valentinus spared [the sacred text], since he did not devise scriptures to Ht his doctrine, but invented a doctrine which was iitted into the scriptures. And yet he took away more and added more [than Marcion], since he took away the projier meaning of the words. ' Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. p. 43. Tertullian, de Praiscr. 30, vol. ii. p. 42. S. Epiphanius, Haeresis, xlii. i. vol. 1. p. 696. and added systems of things [phantastic teon systems] which do not appear' (TertuU. Pra;script. 38). This is plain testimony, as Dr. Westcott saw, that Valentinus received the scriptures of the Church and the Gospels .among them ; and it is strong testimony, for Tertullian gives it against his will, since he is trying to show the enmity of heretics to Scripture. . . . " (2.) Apart from external testimony, we have internal evidence of the most convincing kind that Valentinus used S. John's Gospel. Among his thirty a;ons, we find the names Father (riaTTJp). Grace (Xapis), Only-begotten (Movoyevvi), Truth ('4Ai|e€ia), Word {Aiyos), Life (Zm^), Man ("Ai/flpm-n-os), Paraclete (napaK\VT6s) ; and he called his whole teon system the • Fulness ' (n\ripti>/j.a). These words are all from S. John. All but one occur in the first few verses of his Gospel, and it is self-evident that either the writer of the Fourth Gospel took them from S. John or else vke versa. It is perfectly credible that Valentinus borrowed them from S. John ; it was the way of his school to take detached words from the Gospels, and to build their phantastic doctrines upon them ; and we know that S. John's was the favourite Gospel with his followers. On the other hand, the words have a plain and simple meaning, and an obvious connection in our Gospels. And when German critics have been driven to affirm that the words were due to Valentinus in the first instance, and were adopted by S. John, we can only regard this as a desperate attempt to escape the pressure of fact."— Ibid. p. 397. " Marcion. — " Marcion was the founder of another great Gnostic school. He was at the head of his sect not later than 144. He accused all the Apostles except S. Paul of corrupting Christianity by Judaism (Irena;us, iii. 12, 12). He knew the Gospels of Mat- thew and John, and he rejected tliem, not because he disputed their authenticity, but because he rejected the authority of their authors. This is the account Tertullian gives (Adv. Marc. iv. 1-B ; De Carne Christi, 2), and it is plain tliat Tertullian describes Marcion's procedure from a knowledge of his writings. Thus iu his very rejection of the First and Fourth Gospels, he yields his witness to their authenticity. However, he retained the Gospel of S. Luke on account of its connection with S. Paul. Even that he could not afford to keep unaltered. He maintained that Judaism w.as the religion of a lower and an evil god ; and hence he cut out the passages which did not fit this view. The Tubingen school held at one time fh.at Marcion's Gospel w.is the true original, that it w.as not he who mutilated, but the Church which interpolated. We know with tolerable certainty the portions of our Luke retained by Marcion, and on close examination it was found that Marcion's Gospel could not represent the original text, and the Tubingen critics themselves made a formal retreat from their position. The old view, savs Dr. Davidson (and we could not quote a more extreme opponent of the authenticity of the Gospels), on the nature of Marcion's Gospels, will not again be seriously disturbed." — ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 398. 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. rity of the Twelve, denouncino; tliem as false Apostles, and lie confined his canon to S. Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again, Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married persons." " He did indeed denj' the resurrection of the flesh, and the future body of the redeemed. This was a necessary tenet of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this sense only he denied a resurrection ; and he did not deny a judgment at all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged to recognize a judg- ment in some form or other. His Supreme God, indeed, whom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an avenger, but he got over the difficulty by assign- ing the work of judging and punishing to the Demiurge. " The high luoral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century ; the worst charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an ascetic of the most un- compromising and rigorous type."' Marcion is accused of rejecting all the books of the New Testament except eleven, which he curtailed and altered. He divided these into two parts, and called the one the Gospel, and tlie other the Apostolicon. The former contained only one of the four Gospels, namely, that of S. Luke,* and this he is said to have mutilated and altered, and even inter- polated in a great variety of places.'' Basilides (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. viii. p. 349) lived soon after the Apostles, and taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117-137). Nothing remains of Basilides except a few quotations from him, found in the works of Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius. Some liave contended that these quotations may not be the words of Basilides himself, but of some one of his disciples.''- Origen, and most probably from him S. Ambrose and SnJeronie, mention a Gospel of Basilides.^ Eusebius relates that Agrippa Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, says that he wrote twenty-four books of Commentaries on the Gospels.* Lardner and others held that by the Gospel of Basilides these writers probably meant his Commentaries on the Gospels. Papias (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. ji. 116). — According to Ii-ena;us,^ he was a liearer of John and a companion of Polycarp." He wrote a work in five books entitled an Expo- sition ot the Oracles of the Lord. These are all lost with the exception of a few fragments quoted by other writers, chiefly Irenajus and Eusebius. In "a fragment cited by Eusebius,^ Papias refers both to Canon Lightfoot, Contemp. Eev. May 1875, p. 848, &c. S. Epiptianius, Haresis, xlii. 9, vol. i. p. 708. S. Irenaius, contr. Har. iii. 14, 4, p. 916. Theodoret, Hjeret. Fab. i. 14, vol. iv. p. 158. TertuU. adv. Marc. iv. 2, vol. ii. p. 363. ' Marcion. — "As in most other points relating to tliis period, tiiere is some confusion in tlie ciironological data, but these range within a comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about li7 A.D.), says that at that time Marcion had ' in every nation of men caused many to blaspheme ;' and again speaks of the wide spread of his doctrines. Taking tliese statements along with others in Irenseus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics seem to be agreed that Marcion settled at Rome, and began to teach his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. " The Church writers Irenseus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated version of St. Luke" (p. 205). Mr. Sanday then says that the question in dispute in modern times is this: "Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, is it possible that the converse may be true, and that Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an inter- polated version?" He then proceeds to sift the evidence in his usual way, carefully weighing every point that presents itself, and concludes, " I think it may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are passible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive with it. No third hypothesis is tenable" (p. 216). " When every deduction h.as been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it does not seem too much to describe as over- whelming. We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke in its ' Origen, in Luc. Homil. i. vol. iii. p. 1803. S. Ambrose, in Luc. i. 1, sec. 2, vol. ii. p. 1533. S. Jerome, in Matt. Prolog, vol. vii. p. 17. * Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 7, vol. ii. p. 317. ^ Irenffius, v. 33, 4, p. 1214. " Eusebius, Hist. Ecules. iii. 39, vol. ii. p. 296. Routh, Eel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 13. complete form, as it has been handed down to us" (p. 230). — Mr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century.' ^ Basilides. — After a minute ex.amination of a passage attributed to Basilides, and sui>posed to be quoted from S. Matthew vii. 6, Mr. Sanday says, "I have little moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. Matthew, and there is quite a fair pro- bability that it was made by Basilides himself" (p. 194). After the examination of a passage supposed to be from St. Luke i. 35, he says: "This is a body of evidence that makes it extremely ditficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation has its origmal in the third Synoptic" (p. 196). After the examination of two passages from S. John (i. 9, and ii. 4), he says : " We conclude then that there is a probability — not an overwhelming, but quite a substantial probability — that Basilides himself used the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative re- cord of the life of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early period indeed ; and it should be remembered that this is the only uncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really from S. John cannot be doubted." — Mr. Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 300. " Fapias. — In an interesting discussion on Papias and his con- temporaries. Canon Lightfoot says, " If it is necessary to put the result of these incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias was probably born about A.D. 60-70. But his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of his per- sonal intercourse with the elders as a thing of the remote past. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical records had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be wrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or even later." — 'Contemp. Rev.' August 1875, p. 383. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 49 S. Matthew's Gospel, and also to S. Mark's. Of the former he says, "Matthew wrote the [divine] oracles in the Hebrew tonioie, and every one interpreted them as he W'as able ;" * of the latter, that he had not related our Lord's discourses and actions in oriler, as if he were drawing up a consecutive and chronological account of tlieni." Both of these statements have caused considerable difficult}', and many explanations of them have been offered.' Eusebius distinctly states that Papias brought testimonies from S. John's First Epistle." It has been abundantly shown that a knowledge of S. John's First Epistle implied a know- ledge of his Gospel also.^ S. Polycarp (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 94) was most probably the son of Christian parents. He was a disciple of the Evangelist S. John. Irenajus, who in his youth had listened with delight to Polycarp, says that he was appointed Bishop of Smyrna b}- Apostles, one of whom must have been S. John.3 There is still extant a letter addressed by Polycarp to the Philippians. This letter is referred to by Irena^us in the following words :■* — " There is also a most excellent epistle of Polycarp, written to the Philippians ; from which they who are willing, and are concerned for their own salvation, may learn both the character of his faith and the doctrine of the truth." This passage from Irena^us has been transcribed by Euse- bius,^ who immediately adds, " Polycarp, in the foremeiitioued epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant, has made use of some testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter." Polycarp's epistle is also referred to by S. Jerome, who also says, " Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna, was the prince of all Asia ; forasmuch as he had seen and been taught by some of the Apostles, and those who had seen the Lord. Afterwards, in the reign of Marcus Antoninus and L. Aurelius Commodus, in the fourth persecution after Nero, he was condemned to the flames at Smyrna, the proconsul being present, and all the people in the amphitheatre demanding his death. He ' See- Canon Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev. August 1875, p. 39.3. Mr. Sanilaj', The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 146. ' See note on S. Polycarp. " " The words, ' each one translated as he was able,' are perfectly clear in the language of Papias No careful reader can avoid asicing why Papias writes ' interpreted,* and not ' interprets.' The natural answer is that tlie necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it implies the existence of a re- cognized Greek translation, when Papias tcrotc " But, if a Greek St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias, we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our St. Matthew. As in the case of St. Mark, so here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of improbabilities " The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as regards the recognition of our St. Matthew in his own age. liut it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It m.ay or may not have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius what Papi.as supposed to be the exiict relation of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, which he had before him, to the Hebrew document of which he speaks." — Cakon Ligutfoot, 'Contemporary Rev.' August 1875, p. 397. " Papias says that ' Matthew wrote the oracIe.s in the Hebrew dialect [i'.^., in the Aramaean], and each interpreted them as he was able.* What security have we, it may be asked, that our Greek Matthew is a genuine reproduction of the original ? We cannot dwell here upon the testimony of S. Jerome, who had copied out the original Matthew, but we observe that, when Papias wrote, there must have been an authorized Greek translation; for he speaks of the time when everv one interpreted it for himself as past."— ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 403. i" "Our Synoptics dili'er in their arrangement. Authorities in ancient and modern times have taken, some one, some another Gospel as representing the true chronological sequence ; and supposing John the Presbyter preferred Matthew's order to Mark's, this is rather slight ground for assuming that his Mark was other than ours. But, indeed, we need not betake ourselves even to a supposi- tion as permissible as this. M,atthew and Luke begin Christ's history with His birth. Luke lays particular stress on the fact that he has ' followed all things from the heijinning^^ and set them ' in order.* Mark, on the contrary, omits all the early history of Christ and all His longer discourses. This exactly fits in with the state- ' S. Irenseus, contr. Hser. iii. 3,-4, p. 852. * Ibid. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 14, vol. ii. p. 340. ment of Papi.is, that Mark did not write ' in order ' (tV Tcijei), and with his explanation of his own words, that Mark wrote some things [evta] out of all that our Lord had said and done." — 'Dublin Kev." April 1875, p. 401. ° "Professor Lightfoot, in the January number of the 'Contem- porary,' has demolished the fallacy that Papias cannot have used S. John's Gospel because Eusebius does not say he did. It did not fall in with the plan of that historian to collect testimonies for any one of the canonical Gospels. He regarded their authority as fixed and certain from the first; aud with respect to them he quotes early writers only when they relate facts of historical interest about the circumstances under which our Gospels were composed. However, Eusebius did not regard the whole canon of the New Testament as fixed beyond dispute, and he collects ancient evidence for the Catholic Epistles, for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Now he tells us that Papias acknowledged the first Epistles of S. John and of S. Peter (Euseb. iii. 39, Iti), and we know from another source that he made use of the Apocalypse (see Fragm. viii. of Papias in Kouth's 'Rel. Sacr.' i. p. 15). These facts are important for the origin of the Gospels in two ways. First, because there are, notoriously, the strongest grounds of internal evidence for assigning the First Epistle and the (iospel of S. John to the same author. They agree in doctrine and phraseology ; so that if Papias knew and received the one, we may conclude with the highest probability that he knew and received the other.#Next, the abler critics of the destructive school have striven to divide the Christians at the time of Papias into a Pauline party, a Petrine party, &c. They represent the ditlerent books of the New Testament as fabricated in the ,, interest of these parties, and they insist that all our four Gospels could not be received till these diHerences were softened down and forgotten, and the opposing parties merged in the Catholic Church. This theory is necessary to the negative position, for unless there is positive reason to the contrary, we h,ave evident right to take the fuller statements of Irenaus, e.g.. on the authority of the Gospels, as completing the fragmentary notices of an earlier age. But it is shattered to pieces by the knowledge we have of Papias; for he re- ceived the Epistles of S. John, of S. Peter, aud of the Apocalypse, each of which, on the hypothesis of our opponents, was the mani- festo of three conflicting sects.'' — 'Dublin Review,' April 1875, p. 402. 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. wrote to the Philippians a very useful epistle, which to this (lay is read in the assembly of Asia." ' Prom this it is plain that antiquity, as represented by S. Ircnajus, Eusebius, and S. Jerome, believed in the genuine- ness of the Epistle attributed to S. Polycarp ; and it has been shown that modern criticism has been unable to disprove this.^ It has been concluded on good grounds, that Polycarp was at least forty years of age when he wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, and may have been close upon fifty.* Recent investigation has also shown that S. Polycarp was born in the year a.d. 69 or 70, and that he suffered martyrdom in the year a.d. 155 or 156." S. Polycarp uses the words of the New Testament in many passages without giving the name of the writer to whom he is referring."" Among other instances, he represents our Lord as uttering certain words, which words are found in one case in S. Matthew,'' and in anotlier in S. Luke.'' He also refers to the First Epistle of S. John.^ '' ' S. Jerome, de Viris lUust. xvii. vol. ii. p. 635. 2 Canon Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev. May 1875, p. 838, &c. Mr. Sand.ay, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 82. " S. Polycarp. — " Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first century, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of his birth m.iy be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70. At all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his martyrdom, which is now ascer- tained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156, he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years ; and if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of his life (which is the more pro- bable supposition), we are carried back to the date which I have just given. " Irenseus (if!. 3, 4) reports (and there is no reason for doubting the truth of his statement) that St. John survived to the reign of Trajan, who ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about thirty years old at the time of St. John's death. When therefore Iren^us relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna by Apostles, the statement involves no chronological diffi- culty, even though we interpret the term * bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme for presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers (TertuU. de Prsescr. 32) say dis- tinctly tb.^t he was appointed to the episcopal oflice by St. John. At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the second century." — Canon Lightfoot, 'Contemp. Rev.' May 187.5, p. 828. " Polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statins Quadratus. The commonly received date of his death is A.D. 166 or 1 67, as given in the Chronicon of Eusebius. Quite recently, however, M. Waddington has subjected the proconsular fasti of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous scrutiny. This Statins Qua- dratus is mentioned by the orator Aristides; and by an investiga- tion of the chronology of Aristides' life, with the aid of newly- discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at the result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154—155; and, as Polycarp was martyred in tlie early months of the year, his martyrdom must be dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan, and subst,antially .also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius, who, however (for reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here), postpones the martyrdom to the follow- ing year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments seem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some stumbling-blocks. The relations between .St. John and Polycarp, for instance, as reported by Irenseus and others, no longer present any difBculty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap each other is thus extended."— Ibid., p. 838. *" "Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains de- cisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty passages in the New Testament." — Canon Lightfoot, 'Contemp. Rev.' May 1875, p. 831. ' In answer to an objection that the passages in which Poly- carp seems to quote our present Gospels may have been quoted from some collections other than our actual Gospels, and after a careful examination of every such passage, Mr. Sanday says, "It ought to be borne in mind that if such collections did exist, .and if Polycarp's allusions or quotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent evidence that these hypothetical collections ' Canon Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev. May 1875, p. 851. ^*" Polycarp, Epist. ad Philip, sec. ii. p. 117. * Ibid. sec. vii. p. 120. did not materially differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much the same relation that they bear to each other." — ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 87. •^ " The knowledge of the First Epistle of St. John almost neces- sarily carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree of unanimity that it may be placed in the cate- gory of acknowledged facts. " But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic con- nection between the two. The First Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the two books are re.ad continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written or (more properly speaking) dict^ated for an immediate circle of disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of correcting the mis;s that I have grave and increasing doubts whether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius himself." ' The letters of Ignatius were quoted or referred to by several of the ancient writers, by S. Ireufeus, Origen, Euse'bius, S. Jerome, and by others. The two latter evidently refer to these letters as they are now extant in the Vossian version.* There is every reason to believe that, in the Ignatian letters, even as they exist in the Syriac or Curetonian version, there is at least one quotation from S. John's Gospel,' ' S. Chrysostom, Homil. in Ignatium, sec. 1, &c. ' Canon LighU'oot, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1875, p. 349. 3 Ibid. Feb. 1875, pp. 357, 358. ' S. Irena!us, contr. Haer. v. 28, 4, p. 1200. Origen, in Canticum Cantic. Proleg. vol. iii. p. 70. ill Luc. Homil. vi. vol. iii. p. 1816. [Eusebins, •* S. Ignatius. — " A parallel is alleged to a passage in the Epistle to till/ lu.iiiaiis which is found both in the Syriac and in the shorter Gri'C'k nr Vossian version. 'I take no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this life. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in the latter days of the seed of David and Abraham ; and I desire drink of God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever abiding life' (Epist. ad Rom. sec. vii.). This is compared, with the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter of St. John .... The ideas are so remarkable that it seems ditlicult to suppose either an accidental coincidence or quotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the author of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote suggestions." — Mr. Sandav, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 275. " First, we find in the Epistles marked resemblances to the lan- guage and theology of S. John, which prove little one by one, but which are striking when found together in letters which are very brief, abrupt, and without connected theology of their own. Thus S, Ignatius speaks of our Lord as the ' eternal Word ' (Aiyos), as ' the only Son of God ' (like the Koi/oyeviis of S. John) ; of the devil as 'the ruler of this age' (Spx™" "" alufos tovtov, like the Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 36, vol. ii. p. 288. vol. ii. p. 449. Qujestiones ad Stephanum, i. vol. iv. p. 881. S. Jerome, de Viris Illust. xvi. vol. ii. p. 633. See also— Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, p. 158, &c. &PX01V TQv Kifffiov roi/Tov in S. John) ; of the water which is living and speaks in him — in indirect allusion to Christ's words in S. John, ' He would have given thee living water,' — ' the water which I will give him will be in him a fountain of water springing up to life eternal.' Ne.\t, there are two places where the connection with the tourth Gospel is much more definite. ' The Spirit,' S. Ignatius says, ' is not deceivfed, being from God, for he knows whence he comes and whither he goes.* In the Greek the verbal coincidence with John iii. 8, viii. 14, puts the source of the sentence in S. Ignatius beyond reasonable doubt. Again, S. Ignatius exclaims, ' I take no pleasure in food of corruption .... I wish the bread of God, which is the Jlesh (irapf) of Jesus Christ .... and the drink of God, His blood, which is love incorruptible and perennial life * (Ad Rom. 7). This short sentence touches the sixth chapter of S. John in no less than three points. It contrasts the ' bread of God ' with the ' food of corruption,' answering to the * food which perishes ' in S. John. Next, he declares that the bread of God is the flesh (adp^) of Christ, a most remarkable coincidence ; for while S. Paul and the Synoptics speak of bread as the ' body ' ((Tw/ao) of Christ, S. John alone calls it His flesh (chap. vi. 51). Lastly, S. Ignatiu.s, like S. John, says this flesh of Christ is eternal life .... In conclusion, we must add that this use of the fourth Gospel in S. Ignatius is INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 53 and most probably several ; and that, in the Vossian version, there are both references to the Gospel of S. Matthew and S. John, and also terms imiwrting a collection of the Gospels, and of the Epistles of the Apostles, and of the books of the New Testament in general. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians,' he says, "Fleeing to the Gospel, as the flesh of Jesus, and to the Apostles, as to the presbytery of the Church, let us also love the Prophets, because that they also spoke of the Gospel, and hoped in Him and expected Him."" Again, "But the Gospel has somewhat in it more excellent, the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Passion and Resurrection. For the beloved Prophets referred to Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of incorruption." ^ Again, " Ye ought to hearken to the Prophets, but especially to the Gospel, in which the Passion has been manifested to us, and the Kesurrection perfected.'"" Again, " whom neither the prophecies nor the law of Moses have persuaded ; nor yet the Gos[iel even to this day, nor the sufferings of every one of us."* Of the writers which flourished during the second century, I have adduced about twenty, and from every part of the world, as witnesses to the Church's belief in the authoritative character of the four Gospels. Some give their testimony to this incidentally, others of set purpose. Some were writers known to fame, others were men of little note. In answer to the objection that some of these witnesses were men of little mark in their own day, either for learning or ability, I reply that what is required to render them trust- worthy witnesses in this matter, is not exalted intellect or great strength of judgment, but simply such connection with the Church Catholic, either as members or as opponents, as gave them the opportunity of knowing the fact to which they bear witness. A writer may have been little known in his own time or country, and his arguments may sound to us trifling and frivolous, and his single testimony may appear but a slender thread to rest a conclusion on. But we must bear in mind that the strongest cords are formed of threads, which taken singly are weak enough; and that in like maimer, though a testimony, when given by one witness, may be set aside on the ground of the insignificance of his character, or the obscu- rity of his station, yet when the same testimony is repeated by more than twenty independent witnesses, it becomes Impossible to do this. We may therefore conclude that it has been proved beyond all possibility of cavil, that the Church in the second century- received- the four Gospels as written by Apostles and their companions, and appealed to them as her authoritative documents. ' S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Philad. r. p. 98 (Hefele). v. p. 93 (Cureton, Corpus Igaat.). 2 Ibid. ix. p. 101 (Hefele). Ibid. ix. p. 99 (Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum). confirmed by the fact that Polycarp, who wrote but a few months later, shows his linowledge of S. John's first Epistle, the authorship of which is bound up inseparably with that of the Gospel .... We will quote three recent critics of great celebrity who ought to be impartial, for they deny the authenticity both of the Gospels and the Epistles. 'The whole theology of the Ignatian Epistles,' says Hilgenfeld, ' is founded upon the fourth Gospel.' Lipsius and Keim say the same thing. "This evidence for S. John's Gospel comes to us from the country in which he lived and wrote ; it comes to us from the circle of his disciples, and it dates from a few years after his death. We may fairly take it as the completion and the confirmation of later testi- mony."— ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 405. "The Ignatian writings, as might be expected, are not without traces of the influence of St. John .... Love is the ' stamp of the Christian ' (Ad Magn. v.) ; ' Faith is the beginning, and love the end of life* (Ad Ephes. xiv.) ; 'Faith is our guide upward (^avaywyevs), but love is the road that leads to God' (Ad Ephes. ix.); 'The eternal (aiSios) Word is the manifestation of God ' (Ad Magn. viii.), 'the door (fli'ipa) by which we come to the Father' (Ad Philad. ix.), 'and without Him we have not the principle of true life' (Ad Trail, ix.). 'The Spirit (irveD/uo) is not led astray, as being from God. For it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and testeth (^{'7X^0 that which is hidden ' (Ad Philad. vii.). ' The true meat of the Christian is the " bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ," and his drink is Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible ' (Ad Rom. vii.). He has no love of this life ; ' his love has been crucified, and he has in him no burn- ing passion for the world, but living water [as the spring of a new life] speaking within him, and bidding him come to his Father' (.Vd ' S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Smyrn. vii. p. 105 (Hefele). ^ vii. p. 109 (Cureton). * Ibid. V. p. 104 (Hefele). Ibid. V. p. 107 (Cureton). Rom. vii.). Meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master, even ' the ruler of this age ' (Ad Rom. vii.). " These passages, it must be repeated, are not brought forward as proofs of the use of the writings of St. John, but as proofs of the currency of the modes of thought of St. John. They indicate at least that phraseology and lines of reflection which are preserved for us in the characteristic teaching of the fourth Gospel were familiar to the writer of the Ignatian Epistles." — PROF. WestcOTT, ' The Canon of the New Testament,' p. 35. " "In this place Grabe and Mill understand by 'the Gospel' the book or volume of the Gospels ; by ' the Apostles,' the book or volume of their Epistles ; as by ' the Prophets,' the volume, or whole canon of the Old Testament. And Le C'lerc, who assents to the truth of the observation of these learned men, has farther com- mented upon this passage in this manner : ' Which words,' says he, 'as it seems, are to be understood of the Evangelic and Apostolic writings. So that what Ignatius intends is this, that in order to understand the will of God, he fled to the Gospels, which he be- lieved no less than if Christ Himself, in the flesh, that is, in the condition He w.as in on earth, present and still living among men, delivered with His own mouth those discourses which are contained in the Gospels. As also he fled to the writings of the Apostles whom he esteemed as the presbytery of the whole Christian Church, under Christ the universal Bishop, which [presbytery] taught all Christian societies what they ought to believe . . . ." — Laudnku, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 89. •> " In the two la.st places. Mill supposes to be meant the book of the Gospels. And in the following passage by 'Gospel,' he supposes to be meant the canon of the Xcw Testament in general." — Ibid., vol. ii. p. 90. 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. TUE FIRST CENTURY. The Apostolical Fathers, S. Clemext and S. Barxabas. S. Bamatas (Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 17) was a Levite, of the country of Cyprus, and one of those Christians who, soon after the Resurrection of Jesus, sold their goods and lands, and brought the money and laid it at the Apostles' feet (Acts iv. 36, 37). He aftenvards preached the Gospel in many places, together with the Apostle Paul (Acts XV. 36). There is still extant an Epistle ascribed to S. Barnabas. It consists of two parts : the first is an exhortation and argu- ment to constancy in the belief and profession of the Christian doctrine, particularly the simplicity of it without the rites of the Jewish law. The second part contains moral instruc- tions. This Epistle was held by the earljr writers to be rightly ascribed to S. Barnabas, the companion of S. Paul. S. Clement of Alexandria quotes this Epistle seven different times,' anff in four of these he calls it the Epistle of Barnabas the Apostle. Most of these quotations are from the first part of the Epistle, but one of them is from a passage which is found in the last chapter, which shows that the second part, containing the moral instructions, was supposed to be his, as well as the former. Origen, in his answer to Celsus, quotes it with the title of the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas.- In another work he quotes a passage, which is now found in the second jjart of the Epistle, as tlie other was from the first.' Eusebius says, " That Clement [of Alexandria] in his Insti- tutions has written short commentaries on the books of Scripture, not omitting those that are contradicted, T mean the Ei)istle of Jiide, and the other Catholic Epistles, and that of Barnabas, and the Pievelation of Peter."* In another place Eusebius reckons this Epistle among the books that arc spurious, meaning, as is most likely from the context, con- tradicted.' S. Jerome says, "Barnabas of Cyprus, called Joseph, a Levite, ordained an Apostle of the Gentiles with Paul, wrote an Epistle for the edification of the Church, which is read among the ajiocryphal Scriptures." ^ But in spite of the apparent agreement of antiquity on this point, modern critics are much divided in their opinions as to the writer of this Epistle. Some, among whom may be reckoned Lardner, no mean authority, thought that it was written by Barnabas the Apostle. Others, and among them Hefele and Professor Westcott, conclude that it was not written by Barnabas the Apostle. From several incidental notices in S. Paid'a Epistles, they conjecture that Barnabas the Apostle had died about 62 a.d. ; and as tliis Epistle (cap. xvi.) alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem, it could not have been written by him. But those w'ho hold that this Epistle was not written by Barnabas the Apostle,' still maintain that it must have been written some time about, or a little before, 120 a.d.' Whetlier, therefore, written by an Apostle or not, this Epistle is still a very ancient witness to the Church's belief in the Gospels, and to her custom of appealing to them as books of authority and regarding them as Scripture. ■ For, beside several apparent but not exact quotations, there is one which is generally allowed to be a reference to S. Matthew's Gospel and is made in that form of quotation which was used by the Jews when they cited their sacred books, namely (ch. iv.), " It is written," Let us therefore beware lest it should happen to us as it is written. There are many called, few chosen."^ S. Clement (Lardner, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 29) was Bishop of Some. Ancient writers, without any doubt or scruple, assert that he was the same Clement whom S. Paul mentions among his " fellow-labourers whose names are in the book of life " (Philipp. iv. 3). A very great number of writings have been ascribed to • S. Clemens Alex. Strom, ii. 6, 7, 20, vol. i. pp. 965, 969, 1060 ; Epist. cap. i. iv. xvi. V. 10, vol. ii. p. 96; Epist. cap. vi. ii. 15, 18, vol.i. pp. 1005, 1024 ; Epist. cap. X. lilt. r. 8, vol. ii. p. 81 ; Epist. cap. x. ' Origen contr. Oels. i. 63, vol. i. p. 777 ; Epist. cap. ° The Epistle of Barnabas. — " The Epistle of Barnabas cannot be placed later than 120 A.D., while the majority of critics place it much earlier. It contains three distinct allusions to words or facts which occur in our text of S. Matthew. And, in a fourth place, it quotes the words of our Gospel with the formula, ' it is written ' (chap. v.). The last passage in the Epistle stands thus : ' Let us take heed, lest we should be found, as it is written, many called, but few chosen.' Hilgenfeld admitted that the allusions to our first Gospel made its use by the author of the Epistle probable ; but the original Greek of the last pass,age, where words, found in S. Matthew, and in him alone, are distinctly and formally quoted as ' Origen, de Princip. iii. 2, 4, vol. i. p. 309 ; Epist. cap. xviii. * Eusebius, Hist, liccles. vi. 14, vol. ii. p. 549. ' iii. 25, vol. ii. p. 269. ^ S. .Terome, de Yiris lllust. vi. vol. ii. p. 619. ' Hefele, Patres Apost., Proleg. p. viii. * Ibid. p. xii. ^ S. Barnabas, Epist. sec. iv. p. 6. Scripture, had perished; and Hilgenfeld, with a multitude of other critics, suggested that the foi-mula, 'as it is written,' was .in inter- polation. Some years after, Tischeudorf discovered the original Greek of the whole Epistle, and not only so, but the Greek test, which he found, was contained in the Sinaitic codex, one of the two most ancient and valuable MSS. in existence. There in the original Greek stood the very formula in dispute, viz., ' as it is written ;* and Hilgenfeld has had to print it in his own edition of Barnabas. Thus the cause is finished at last, and we have the certainty that as early as 120 our first Gospel ranked as 'Scripture.'" — 'Dublin Kev.' April 1875, p. 403. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 55 S. Clement, but the first Greet epistle alone can be confi- I dently pronounced genuine. The Epistle is written in the name of the whole Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth. The main design of it evidently is to compose some dissensions which had arisen in the Church of Corinth about their spiritual guides and I governors. These differences appear to have been raised by j a few turbulent and selfish men among them. In the Epistle Clement recommends not only concord and harmony, but love in general, humility and all the virtues of a good life, and many of the great articles and principles of religion. Several of the ancient writers refer to S. Clement's letter to the Corinthians. Some tliink that S. Polycarp has in several places trans- ferred the thoughts and also the expression from the letter of Clement to the Corinthians to his own letter to the Philippians.' S. Irena;us says, " When the blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] had founded and established the Church [at Rome], they delivered the office of the bishopric in it to Linus. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his epittles to Timothy [2 Tim. iv. 21]. To him succeeded Anacletus. After whom, in the third place after the Apostles, Clement obtained that bishopric, who had seen the blessed Apostles, and con- versed with them : who had the preaching of the Apostles still sovmding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor he alone, for there were then still many alive, who had been taught by the Apostles. In the time there- fore of this Clement, when there was no small dissension among the brethren at Corinth, the Church at Rome sent a most excellent letter to the Corinthians, persuading them to peace among themselves," &c.^ S. Clement of Alexandria' quotes the Epistle of S. Clement of Ronifi to the Corinthians in several places ; so also do .Origen ^ and Eusebius," as well as others of the early writers. Some modern critics place this Epistle of Clement as early as 70 A.D., at the close of the persecution of Nero* (68-70)- But the more general opinion is that it was written later, about 95 or Ofi A.n." In this Epistle, Clement makes use of the following words, " Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for He said, ' Woe to that man [by whom oft'ences come]. It was better for him that he had not been horn than that he should offend one of My elect. It was better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck and that he should be drowned in the sea than that he should offend one of My little ones.' "' A difference of opinion has arisen as to whether Clement is here referring to words of Christ written and recorded, or whether he is reminding the Corinthians. of words of Christ which he and they might have heard from the Apostles, or other eye and ear witnesses of our Lord." ' Hefele, Patres Apost., Proleg. p. xxi. ' S. IrenKus, contr. H.-er. iii. 3, 3, p. 849. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. r. 6, vol. ii. p. 445. 2 S. Clemens Ales. Strom, i. 7. iv. 17, vol. i. pp. 736, 1312. V. 12, vi. 8, vol. ii. pp. 117, 283. * 3, Clement. — " Upon the whole, I think this Epistle was written by Clement, when bishop, at the end of Domitian's persecution, in the year 9G a.d." — Lardner, ' Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 34. "The latter date (circ. 95) seems more probable." — Prof. West- COTT, ' On the Canon of the New Testament,' p. 24. " It may fairly be said that very few writings of classical or Christian antiquity are so well authenticated as this letter." — p. 4. Then, after reviewing all the points that refate to the date of the letter. Canon Lightfoot thus concludes, " This date, moreover, is confirmed by the fact that the most trustworthy accounts place the episcopate of Clement late in the century, making him third in the succession of Koman bishops. Thus the letter will have been written about the year 95.'' — p. 5. ' The Epistles of S. Clement of Komc,' by Canon Lightfoot. " Between the date of S. John's Gospel and that of the earliest of sub-apostolic writings, the interval is probably at the most not greater than fifteen years. S. Clement of Rome was a contem- porary of S. John, and, if we may believe Eusebius, barely survived the last of the Apostles. Compare Eusebius iii., 34 with 23." — H. B. SwETE, ' History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.' p. 11. '' " Le Clerc, in his Dissertation of the Four Gospels, is of opinion that Clement refers to written words of our Lord which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known to them. On the other hand, I find, Bishop Pearson thought that Clement speaks of words which he had heard from the Apostles themselves or their disciples. " I certainly make no question that the first three Gospels were written before this time. And I am well satisfied, th.at Clement might refer to our written Gospels, though he does not exactly * Origen, de Princip. ii. 3, 6, vol. i. p. 194. in Ezekiel, cap. viii. vol. iii. p. 796. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 16, 38 ; vol. ii. pp. 249, 293. * Hefele, Patres Apost., Proleg. xxx. ' S. Clement, ad Corin. xlvi. p. 57 (Hefele). p. 143 (Lightfoot). agree with them in expression. But whether he does refer to them is not easy to determine, concerning a man who very pro- bably knew these things before they were committed to writing, and, even after they were so, might continue to speak of them in the same manner he had been wont to do, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to the Scriptures themselves. However, either way he by these passages greatly confirms the truth of our Gospels. If he be supposed to refer to them, the case is clear. If the words are spoken of as what he had received from the Apostles or others, he confirms our Gospels, forasmuch as these words are agreeable to those which are there recorded ; and he speaks of them as certain and well known, both to himself and the Corinthians of that time. We are therefore assured by Clement, that our Evangelists have truly and justly recorded the words of Christ, "which He spake, teaching gentleness and long suflering, and that they are worthy to be remembered with the highest respect." — Lardnek, 'Credibility,' vol. ii. p. 38. ■■ After a very minute examination of this passage, and after making every possible allowance, that any fair mind can desire, if not even more, Mr. Sanday says, " The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made memoritcr from our Gospel is very far from being inadmissible It seems not at all too much to say that Clement does not ditl'er from the Synoptics more than they difi'er from each other." — p. 67. On another passage in this Epistle, which is a quotation from Isaiah, and which is common to it with the first two Synoptics, he says, "This passage seems to carry the presumption, that Clement did use the Synoptic Gospels up to a considerable degree of proba- bility The whole evidence, which on a single instance 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. Different opinions have been heM as to whether S. Bai-- nahas or S. Clement referred to S. John's Gospel.* Imperfect as this examination may be, I think it will he allowed by all fair-minded men that sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that as the Church received the four Gospels in the nineteenth and sixteenth centuries, so also it received them in the fourth century, and in the third, and in the second, and during the lives of the contemporaries of the Apostles up to the time that they came from the hands of the Apostles themselves. Considering the number of works that were in existence in the time of S. Irenajus, Eusebius, and S. Jerome, which have since perished, and the great use which they made of these works, it would have been amply sufficient to prove the con- tinuous reception by the Church of the four Gospels, if the writings of these thiee Fathers alone had remained. Evi- dence such as theirs would have been more than sufficient to testify to the authorship, or the date, of any classical work. But far diflei'ent is the case here. Testimonies to the con- tinuous reception by the Church of the four Gospels, up to the time they were written, are so many that the attention becomes distracted and the full force of their accumulated and combing evidence is never felt. I may now, without presumption, I think, state the belief of the Church Catholic — that is, the luivarying belief of the Church from the nineteenth century, without any interruption, rip to the days of the Apostles — to be this : after Jesus had founded His Church, He Himself ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy S|iirit upon His Apostles, to whom He had committed the rule in His newlj'-constituted society. Up to this time. His Apostles and disciples had acted entirely on the oral instructions which Jesus had Himself given them. After the day of Pentecost they were guided partly by the oral instructions which they had received from Him, and partly by the direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts. One result of the descent of the Holy Spirit was the committing to writing a history of the Incarnation ; that is, an account of the birth of Jesus, His instructions to the people. His miracles, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascen.sion. Four were aided by the Holy Spirit for this work — S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John ; and their Gospels were received by the Church from the first, and stamped with her authority and accredited as her Gospels. But besides these four, others took upon themselves this office, and, because they were not aided by the Holy Spirit, -they failed in it, and their works were never acknowledged by the Church or accredited as hers. It was not that other writings besides these four were accepted by the Church as her Gospels at first, and then in a later and more critical age rejected. All but the four were disowned by the Church from the beginning. In the first age the four were accepted by the Church as her Gospels on the ground that they were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit for their work, by Apostles or by those who wrote imder their direction ; and the others were rejected on the ground that they were not written by Apostles or their companions. In the next and in all suc- ceeding ages the four were received and believed in because the Church bore witness that they are the same four, sub- stantially the same four, which were at first received as the works of Apostles or their companions. One or two reflections which naturally arise during this examination will aptly conclude the subject. First, though this inquiry has been in a great measure confined to the four Gospels, and has seldom taken into con- sideration the Epistles, we may fairly conclude that the for- might seem to incline the other way, does appear to favour the conclusion that (.'lenient used our present Canonical Gospels." — p. 70. Jlr.. .San'HAY, 'The Gospels in the Second Century.' Apostolic Fathers. — "The Apostolic Fathers wrote with the living words of the Apostles 'ringing in their ears' (Irenajus, iii. 3, 3), and they had little motive for reference to their writings. Their evidence for the authority of the Gospels is neither full nor complete ; still, if we examine it carefully, if we consider it as history compefs us to do, in its inseparable connection with the later tradition, we shall find that this evidence does not fail to be sufficient, because it is fragmentary and indirect.'' — ' Dublin Rev.' April 1875, p. 360. " I do not know that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic Fathers than thus ; we have two alterna- tives to choose between, either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that their existence only proves the essen- tial unity and homogeneity of the evangelical tradition." — Mr. Sanday, ' The Gospels in the Second Century,' p. 87. * " We have the express statement of Irenieus (adv. H.-ereses, ii. 22, 5 ; iii. 3, 4) — who, if he was born, as is commonly supposed, at Smyrna about 140 A.D. must be a good authority — that the Apostle St. John lived on till the times of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the Gospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of Rome wrote his Epistle to the Cor- inthians. Neither, considering its almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a work would travel at iirst, should we be vei-y much surprised if it was not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and Hermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two writers be of much moment, as m the Epistle of Barnabas the allusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and slight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and certain references either to the Old Testament or the New Testament at all. " And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel ; and that they do is maintained, not only by Apologists, but also by writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim," &c. &c. —p. 269. " The opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our [fourth] Gospel is not justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not sufi^ciently clear to be pressed contro- versially. " A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shep- herd of Hermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side. Here again Dr. Keim, as well as Canon Westcott (On the Canon, p. 182, &c.), thinks that we can trace an acquaint- ance with the Gospel, but the indications arc too general and uncer- tain to be relied upon." — p. 273. Mr. Sandav, 'The Gospels in the Second Century.' INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUR GOSPELS. 57 mation of the Canon of the Xew Testament generally, or the rcce[ition of some books as authoritative, and the rejection of others, was not the result of a divine revelation, so to speak, from God to man, as to the character of each particular book ; but that it arose from the deliberate determination of a divinely directed body, the Church of Christ, and on the evidence which it had before it with respect to each book separately ; the question in each case simply being, whether such a book was written by an Apostle or under the direc- tion of an Apostle. The inspiration of the Apostles being granted as proved in some other satisfactory manner, the question in the formation of the Canon of the New Testament was, whether a Gospel or an Epistle was written by an Apostle or under the direction of an Apostle. Secondly, that tlie Church of Christ, at the time when it settled the Canon of the New Testament, was not a body possessing only one centre of action, or many centres united under one visible head, but that it consisted of many Churches in every part of the world, in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa, each in a manner, so far as internal arrangements were con- cerned, independent of the other; and that the agreement of these several Churches, especially of those that were A{X)stolic seats, which had been founded by an Apostle, or which had received a letter from an Apostle, was necessary for the full ■ reception of any book into the Canon. Lastly, that the history of the formation of the Canon of the New Testament lends no countf-nance to the modern doctrine, that the See of Eome is the divinely appointed centre and source of all authority. It must be conceded, as I take it, even by those who hold this doctrine to be true, that the Church did not act on it in the formation of tlie Canon of the New Testament. ( 59 ) MATTHEW. S. JIattiiew, the Apostle and Evangelist, is the same person olscwliure called Levi (Luke v. 27-29), the son of Al|ihaHis (Mark ii. 14). His call to be an Apostle is related by all the three Evangelists in the same words, except that S. Matthew (ix. 9) gives the former name, and S. Mark (ii. 14) and S. Luke (v. 27) the latter. The publicans, properly so called, were persons who farmed the Roman taxes, and they were usually, in later times, Roman kniyhts, and men of wealth and credit. They cmploj-ed under them inferior officers, natives of the pro- vince where the taxes were collected, to which class Matthew most probably belonged. Eusebins says that, after our Lord's Ascension, S. Matthew preached to the Jews, and then to some other nations.' In an early tradition he is represented as using a very sparing diet, eating vegetables only but no flesh.^ Later writers relate that he died by martyrdom ; but some of the earliest, who mention him, speak as if he had died a natural death.' When did S. Matthew write his Gospel, and in what language ? These are questions which have been frequently discussed, and to which men of unquestioned learning and impartiality have, on the same evidence, returned different answers. It will be sufficient here to indicate what these answers have been, and on what grounds. I. At what time did IS. Matthew write his Gospel? Some late authors,* writing; in the twelfth century, say that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel about eight years after the Ascension, and others, writing in the fourteenth century, say that he wrote his Gospel about fifteen years after the Ascension.'' But this exactness of date is lacking in the earlier writers. The first who states the time when S. Mat- thew wrote his Gospel is S. Irena;us, who was born in Asia, and who had hstened to S. Polycarp, and who was Bishop of Lyons about 178 a.d. : he says, " Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding [or establishing] the Church there." ^ Eusebins has quoted this passage, but has made no remark on the time indicated.'' Elsewhere he says, " Matthew, having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language the Gospel according to him, by that writing supplying the want of his presence with those whom he was leaving." ' S. Epii^hanius says, " Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower of Peter at Rome." ' Theodore of Mopsuestia says, that " for a good while the Apostles preached chiefly to Jews in Juda;a. Afterwards Providence made way for conducting them to remote countries. Peter went to Rome, the rest elsewhere ; John, in particular, took up his abode at Ephesus. About this time the other Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, published their Gospels, which were soon spread all over the world."'" The passages adduced are all the notices that are to be found within the first five centuries which help to fix the date of S. Matthew's Gospel. Of these, S. Irenwus alone points to any definite time ; and the rest do not contradict but are consistent with his statement, that S. Matthew wrote his Gosjiel when S. Peter and S. Paul were at Rome preaching the Gospel and establishing the Church there. Irenasus does not ^y whether it was on S. Paul's first or second visit to Rome that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel. The presumption is that it was on his second visit. If these inferences be correct, S. Matthew's Gospel was written somewhere about the year 60 a.d., or about 30 years after the Crucifixion ; but nothing can be positively settled with respect to the exact date.* ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 24, vol. ii. p. 265. ' S. Clemens Alex. Paedag. ii. 1, vol. i. p. 405. ' Strom, iv. 9, vol. i. p. 1281. ' Theophylact, I'r.-cfat. in Matt. vol. i. p. 2. ' Euthymius, Pr;vfat. in Alatt. vol. i. p. 15. * Nicephorus t'allist. Hist. Eccles. ii. 4, 5. * S. Matthew's Gospel. — "Irenwus, who is the earliest writer upon the subject, says expressly, that llatthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the Church there, and I have shown that this expression, if talten literally, cannot be applied to an earlier period than the year 58. Most of the ancient authorities support this date, rather than the earlier one, which modern critics have assigned to .St. Matthew's (uispcl; and if he did not publish it till the beginning of the reign ° S. IrenEBUs, contr. Haer. iii. i. p. 844. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8, vol. ii. p. 449. » Ibid. iii. 24, vol. ii. p. 265. " S. Epiphanius, Haeresis, Ii. 6, vol. i. p. 897. '" Thcodorus Mopsuest. in Joan. Proccm. Patrol, vol. I.\vi. p. 728, Migne. of Nero, we may account for his recording in such detail the pre- dictions of our Saviour concerning the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The inspired Evangelist could discern the signs of the times ; and he wished to remind his Christian countrymen that they were to save themselves by a timely flight. The interest with which St. Matthew's Gospel was read will appear much greater, if we suppose it to have been written when wars and rumours of wars, when famines and pestilences and earthquakes, 6o S. MATTHEW. All the early writers who refer to the subject agree that S. Mattiiew's Gospel was written the first of the four.' II. In what language did S. Matthew write his Gospel ? It is more dififioult to give an answer to this, at least a satis- factory aliswer, than it is to state at what time he wrote his Go.'spel. Papias is the first who says that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.^ But after him all who mention the subject say the same.' Two explanations may be given of this : (1) these writers may not be stating what they know of their own knowledge, but may be taking it from Papias's report, that there was such an early tradition, and on his authority ; or, (2) they may be so many independent witnesses to the fact, or to the general belief, that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Many considerations appear to render the former the more probable solution. Lardner points out that, of all the writers who state that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, not one ever quotes S. Matthew from the Hebrew, but all from the Greek, though some of them must have been acquainted with the dialect of Palestine, or with the language here called Hebrew. In one place Origen laments the many variations to be found in ^he several copies of the Gospels in Greek ; and he mentions what he had done to correct the errors which had crept into the Greek edition of the Old Testament then in use : how he had compared the several Greek ver- sions with the Hebrew original, and had thus been enabled to detect and to correct many errors ; and he seems to imply that he had no such helps towards attaining the right read- ings in the Gospels. But if S. Matthew's Gospel had been written in Hebrew, the original would doubtless have been of very great use for revising and correcting the Greek copies. It seems difficult to believe, then, that, conscious as Origen was of the many differences and errors in the readings of the Greek Gospels, he would not desire to possess a copy of the original Hebrew, with which he could compare and thus correct them, if such had been in existence ; or that, with all his diligence and research, he should not be able to obtain one. But he never expresses any such desire, or alludes to any such search after a Hebrew cojoy of the Gospels. The later S. Matthew committed his Gospel to writing, the less is the probability that he wrote it in Hebrew. For by Hebrew is here meant, not the language in which the Old Testament was written, but the language which the Jews then used in Palestine, i.e. Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic. S. James, residing at Jerusalem, writes an epistle about the year 60 a.d., addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and he writes it in Greek, as is allowed by all. Why then, it is urged, should not S. Matthew, writing for the same people, and at the same time, use the same language ? It is also urged that S. Matthew's Greek Gospel has about it many marks of an original, rather than of a translation. ""Neither can any time be alleged when the Gospel of S. Matthew was translated from the Hebrew into Greek, nor is there any unanimous or consistent tradition as to the name of the translator. These and similar considerations have led many' modern critics to conclude that the statement, that S. Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, rests entirely on the report of an early tradition to that effect, which Papias had heard ; and that the later writers who follow him, such as S. Irena;ns and others, are merely repeating his statement, but do not add any confirmation to it from their own knowledge. The Hebrew copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, which S. Jerome saw in the library collected by Pamphilus,* may have been a translation of S. Matthew into Hebrew from the original Greek. It has been also supposed that the Gospel of S. Mat- thew, which the Nazarenes are said to have used,* was a translation of S. Matthew into Hebrew from the original Greek, with the addition of some other things taken from the other Gospels and also from tradition. This was Larduer's opinion, and few men had a more impartial judgment, or a more thorough acquaintance with the writings of antiquity.^ It has already been shown that there is every reason to believe that S. Matthew's Gospel was referred to by S. Cle- ment of Rome, S. Barnabas, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, S. Justin Martyr, and that all these refer to the Gospel in Greek, and that none of them gives any sign that he is using merely a translation from the original. S. Irenffius, contr. Hares. Hi. 1, p. 844. Origen, in Joan, tomus vi. vol. iv. p. 256. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25, vol. li. p. 581. S. Athanasius, Epist. ad Amun. Monach. vol. ii. p. 1177. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. i. 17, Homil. iv. vol. i. p. 38. S. Epiphanius, Hseresis, li. 4, vol. i. p. 893. S. Jerome, Prolog, in Matt. vol. vii. p. 18. S. Augustine, de Consensu Evangel, i. 2, vol. iii. p. 1043. Papias, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 39, vol. ii. p. 300. Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 14. which were to be the beginning of sorrows, were already actually felt ; and those impressive words, whoso readcth let him understitml, were well calculated to persuade every believer in Christ that the ^ S. Irenfeus, contr. Hffireses, iii. 1, p. 844. Origen, in Matt, tomus i. vol. iii. p. 829. S. Athanasius, Synopsis, 76, vol. iv. p. 432 (inter dubia). •S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Prolog. Homil. i. 3, vol. i. p. 6. S. Epiphanius, Ha:resis, li. 5, vol. i. p. 896. S. Jerome, in Matt. Prolog, vol. vii. "p. 18. S. Augustine, de Consensu Evangel, i. 2, vol. iii. p. 1044. * S. Jerome, de Viris lllust. iii. vol. ii. p. 613. ' S. Jerome, in Matt. xii. 13, vol. vii. p. 78. ,idv. Pelag. iii. 2, vol. ii. p. 570. " Lardner, Credibility, vol. v. p. 312. evil was near, even nt the doors. We kn-w frnm history that the salutary warning w.as not thrown away.'' — Dr. I»L'i;ro.\, 'Lectures on Eccles. Hist.' p. 229. S. MATTHEW. 6i INTRODUCTORY NOTE. The Talmud. — The word Talmud is used in different senses : sunii'tinics it denotes tlie Mislina, wfiicli is the text ; at other times it is used fur tlie commentaries upon the Mislina. " After the death of Simon the Just there arose a sort of men wliom tliey call the Tannaim, or the Mishnical doctors, tliat made it their business to study and descant upon those traditions which had been received and allowed by Ezra and the men of the great synagogue, and to draw inferences and consequences from them, all which they ingrafted into the body of these ancient traditions as if they had been as authentic as the other .... And thus it went on to the middle of the second century after Christ, when Antoninus Pius governed the Koman empire, by which time they found it necessary to put all these traditions into writing. For they were then grown to so great a number, and enlarged to so huge a heap, as to exceed the possibility of being any longer preserved by the memory of men .... And there- fore, there being danger that under these disadvantages they might be all forgotten and lost, for the preventing hereof it was resolved that they should be all collected together and ]int into a book ; and Eabbi .Tudah, the son of Simeon, who from the reputed sanctity of his life wns called Hakkadosh, tliat is, the holy, and was then rector of the school which they had at Tiberias in Galilee, and president of the Sanhe- drim that there sat, undertook the work, and compiled it in six books, each consisting of several tracts, which all together make up the number of sixtj^-three : in which, under their proper heads, he methodically digested all that hitherto had been delivered to them of their law and their religion by the tradition of their ancestors. And this is the book called the Mishnah, which book was forthwith received by the Jews with great veneration throughout all their dispersions, and hath ever since been held in high esteem among them .... And therefore, as soon as it was published, it became the subject of the studies of all their learned men ; and the chiefest of them, both in Judaja and Babylonia, employed themselves to make comments on it, and these, with the Mishnah, make up both their Talmuds, that is, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonish Talmud. These comments they call the Gemara, i.e. the complement, because by them the Mishnah is fully explained, and the whole traditionary doc- trine of their law and their religion completed. For the Mishnah is the text and the Gemara the comment, and both together is what they call the Talmud. That made by the Jews of Judaja is called the Jerusalem Talmud, and that made by the Jews of Babylonia is called the B.abylonish Talmud. The former was completed about the year of our Lord three hundred, and is published in one large folio ; the latter was published about two hundred years alter, in the beginning of the sixth century, and hath had several editions since the invention of printing ; the last, published at Amsterdam, is in twelve folios .... The Babylonish Talmud is that which they chiefly follow. For the other, that is, the Jerusalem Talmud, being obscure and hard to be understood, is not now much regarded by them. But this and the Mishnah being the ancientest books which they have (except the Chaldce paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan), and both written in the language and style of the Jews of Juda;a; our country- njan. Dr. Lightfoot, hath made very good use of them in explaining several places of the New Testament by parallel phrases and sayings out of them. For the one being com- posed about the one hundred and fiftieth year of our Lord, and the other about the three hundredth, the idioms, pro- verbial sayings, and phraseologies used in our Saviour's time, might very well be preserved in them." — Prideaux's ' Con- nection,' B.C. 446, vol. i. p. 364. " The Mislina was published by Surenhusius in six vols, folio, Amsterdam 1698, 1703, with a Latin translation of the text. There is no reasonable doubt that, although it may in- clude a few passages of a later date, the Mishnah was com- posed, as a whole, in the second century, and represents the traditions which were current amongst the Pharisees at the time of Christ." — Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible,' art. ' ' Talmud.' See also ' Quarterly- Review,' Oct. 1867, p. 417 ; ' Edinburgh Review,' July 1873, p. 28. 62 S. MATTHEW. THE SUM OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. " The story hereof is written by four ; who in Ezekiel (i.) and in the Apocalypse (iv.) are hkened to four living creatures, every one according as his book beginneth ; S. Matthew to a man, because he beginneth with the pedigree of Christ as He is man ; S. Mark to a lion, because he beginneth with the preaching of S. John Baptist, as it were the roaring of a lion in the wilderness ; S. Luke to a calf, because he begin- neth with a priest of the Old Testament (to wit, Zachariah, the father of S. John Baptist), which priesthood was to sacrifice calves to God ; S. John to an eagle, because he beginneth with the divinity of Christ, flying so high as more is not possible. " The first three do report at large what Christ did in Galilee after the imprisonment of S. John Baptist. Where- fore S. John the Evangelist, writing after them all, doth omit His doings in Galilee, save only one, which they had not written of, the wonderful bread which He told the Capharnaites that He could and would give (John vi.), and reporteth, first, what He did whiles John Baptist as yet was preaching and baptizing ; then, after John's imprisoning, what He did in Jury every year about Easter. But of His Passion all four do write at large. " Where it is to be noted that from his baptizing (which is thought to have been upon Twelfth Day, what time He was beginning to be about thirty years old, Luke iii.) unto His passion are numbered three months and three years, in which there were also four Easters. " S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. "S. Matthew's Gospel may be divided into five parts. " The first part, as touchiug the infancy of our Lord Jesus : chaps, i. and ii. " The second, of the preparation that was made to His manifestation : chap, iii., and a piece of the fourth. "The third, of His manifesting of Himself by preaching and miracles, and that in Galilee : the other piece of the fourth chapter unto the nineteenth. " The fourth, of His coming into Jury, toward His Passion : chaps, xix. and xx. " The fifth, of the Holy week of His Passion in Jerusalem : chap. xxi. unto the end of the book." — Fulke's ' New Testa- ment.' COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW. S.V. After Mattbew. Vulg.* Sanctum Jesu Christi Evangelii 1 secundum Matthccum, CHAPTER I. [1. The Genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph. 18. Be was con- ceived by the Uohj uhost, and born of the Virgin Mary when she teas espoused to Joseph. 19. The angel satisfieth the misdeeming thoughts of Joseph^ and interpreteth the names of Christ.} [Vulg. A quibus majoribus Christus secundum camem descenderit : angelus instruit Joseph de Maria sua conceptione, partuque futuro.'j It is most probable that the titles were not prefixed to the Gospels by the Evangelists themselves, but by the Church at a very early period.' The similarity which exists in all the titles rather goes to prove this. The division of the Gospels into chapters and verses, and the analysis of the contents of each chapter, may also be explained in the same way.^ Enthaliiis, bishop of Sulca, in Egypt, in the fifth century, is the first who is known to have prefixed a prologue or preface to portions of the New Testament, such as to S. Paul's E|)istles, the Acts, and the Catholic Epistles. It was probably after this that the practice arose of preparing an analysis of the contents to each chapter. This is the first time that the word eiayyeXiov, translated Gospel,' is used in Scripture in its specific scn.se, as the history of the Incarnation, or the salvation offered to man through the Incarnation ; and there is evidence to show that the term eiayye\tov was in this sense applied to the writings of the Apostles from a very early time.* The word does not occur in the singular in the Septuagint, but it is used four times in the plural, once as a reward to the bringer of good tidings (2 Sam. iv. 10), and three times as good tidings or good tidings of victory over an enemy (2 Sam. xviii. 20, 22, 25). The corresponding verb (eiayyeXifu/xai) is often used in the Old Testament, sometimes with a prophetic refer- ence to the Incarnation, as Isaiah Ixi. 1. It is observable that the Hebrew word ITlba (besorah), which is rendered eiayyeXiov by the Septuagint translators, means " flesh." Thus the very derivation of the word may point out that the good news which the Evangelists had to declare, was the In- carnation, or the coming of God in the flesh.^ The word Kara, " according to," or " as delivered by," pre- fixed to each of the Evangelists, contains no expression of the Church's mind, either as to the share which the Holy Spirit had in the composition of each Gospel, or as to how much was left to their own natural temperament and ability. At the same time it leaves room for any amount of diversity among them, in the selection of the portions which they should each relate, and also in the degree of fulness with which they should relate them, as well as in the style and manner in which they should compose their relations." I. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." S. Chrysostom. in Epist. ad Rom. Homil. ii. p. 7. Maldonatus, in Matt. i. vol. i. p. 10. Cornelius a Lapide, in Argument. Matt. vol. viii. p. 40. Lardner, Credibility, vol. v. p. 68. S. Augustine, cont. Faust, lib. ii. c.ip. ii. vol. viii. p. 210. ' The Vulgate. — I have compared the A. V. with the Vulgate on the ground that the Vulgate translation, as left by S. Jerome, was most probably older than the oldest of our existing MSS. of the New Testament ; and also that it represented the te.tt which was in use certainly in the middle of the second century, and pro- tiablv before that time. For S. Jerome savs (Prsef. in iv. Evangelia, vol.'x. p. .■.2G; Praf. in Job. vol. ix. p. 1079), that his revision was * S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Philad. v. p. 98 (Hefele). V. p. 9.3 (Cureton, Corpus Ignat.). Martyrium S. Polycarpi, i. and iv. pp. 124, 126. i?. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. sec. 98, p. 99. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Argument. S. Matt. vol. viii. p. 39. ® Cornelius a Lapide, Ibid. substantially the text of the Old Latin Version, with the errors which had crept into it in the coarse of time, corrected from the Greek MSS. of that day. ' The Son of David. — " That is, the true Messias. For by no more ordinary and more proper name did the Jewish nation point out the Messi.ah, than by the Son of David. See Matt. xii. 23 ; xxi. 9 ; xxii. 42 ; Luljc xviii. 38, and everywhere in the Talmudic 64 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Three different meanings have been given to the word yevi- cTfcof , here rendered " generation." Some would nudeistand by it the genealogy of Jesus Christ, others His birth, as in verse 18 ; and others would give it a wider meaning, and make it embrace His life and conversation. Other reasons have been given why S. Matthew mentioned David before Abraham, saying, "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ;" but the following has been the most generally received.' The Evangelist singles out David and Abraham for particular mention, because to them especi- ally had the Messiah been promised ; and he makes mention of David first, because the promises given to him were more recent and more honourable, and were more prized by the Jewish nation than those that were given to Abraham. The angel promised to the Blessed Virgin that the Lord God should give unto her Son the throne of His Father David (Luke i. 32). The Son of David was more distmotly recog- nized as the designation of the Messiah than the Sou of Abraham was, and the people frequently used the Son of David as synonymous with the Messiah, never the Son of Abraham. (Matt. xxi. 9 ; Mark x. 47.) To the question, whence did S. Matthew and S. Luke de- rive their genealogies? it is answered, that registers, probably both public and private, of the tribe of Judah and of the other tribes, that adhered to it, were kept during the Cap- tivity and after it. Sacred as well as profane history shows this. This is abundantly clear from many parts of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. How otherwise could S. Luke state that Anna was of the tribe of Aser (ii. 36), or S. Paul, that he was of the tribe of Benjamin (Philipp. iii. 5)"^ This is also to he gathered from S. Luke's account of the gr I taxing or census (an-oypa^ij), which was made when vj_ ^- nius was governor of Syria. " All went to be taxed ((i?ro- —ypd(f>€as) of their own, which they had either transcribed from memory, or had before possessed copies of, and so preserved the record of their noble birth ; .imong whom, it is .added, were the Desposyni, our Lord's kinsmen I. ^ Lightfoot, Harmony of the Four Evangelists, sec. iii. vol. i. p. 417. according to the flesh. Now, .although I do not conceive the tradition relating to the genealogy of our Lord which follows this preamble, and professes to have been derived fi-om the Desposyni, to be of the slightest authority, (Africanus himself .admits that the whole story of the destruction of the genealogies, and all that follows, is quite unsupported by the Greek historians,) yet we mny take it for granted, that whoever invented the story would adopt details known to be in accordance with Jewish customs." — LOBD A. Hervey, ' On our Lord's Genealogies,' p. 24. • Judah. — " In Hebrew min', Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks for want of the letter h in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves do contract into mV. Judah, which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same pei-son who is called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah (Demai, vol. s.\ii. 3), in the next line is called R. Jose Bi K. Judah (Demai, xsii. 3). So also Shabb (fol. 4. 4). And this is done elsewhere (lom. toph. fcl. 62-3) in the very same line." — Ligutkoot, ' On S. Matthew,' i. 2, vol. ii. p. 97. 66 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEWS GOSPEL. all the shame that belongs to it ; and that He did so to h.al and to remove it.' Another reason given is, that the other women are not mentioned, because they were of the Jewish r.ace, and the lawful wives of the meu, who were the fathers of the children that are named, and that it was not so with these four, and therefore to prevent any suspicion arising, that their children were not the descendants of Abraham, their names are mentioned, and thus allusion is made to their history, as related elsewhere in the Old Testament.'' 4. And Aram begat Aminadab ; and Ami- nadab begat Naason ; and Naason begat Sal- mon ; 5. And Salmon begat Hooz of Rachab ; ^ and Booz begat Obed of Rulh ; and Obed begat Jesse ; S.V. Boss; S.V. lobed. The Old Testament contains no mention of the marriage between Salmon and Eahab. But there are sufficient proofs that they were contemporary. S. Matthew probably ex- tracted this marriage from some public genealogical table.' 6. And Jesse begat David the king ; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias ; S.V. and David (omit the king) begat. Vulg. David autem rex genuit. Thus from Abraham to David, both inclusive, there are fourteen generations. And the names correspond exactly with those recorded in the Old Testament. Gen. xxv. 19-26 ; xxix. xxx. xxxv. 22-26. Gen. xxxviii. Kuth iv. 18-22. The last two verses contain one of the greatest difficulties to be found in the Scriptures. For if the chronology which is commonly received be correct, and if the genealogy from Salmon to David, as contained in the book of Ruth (iv. 18-22), and as repeated by S. Matthew and S. Luke, be complete, it will be impossible to reconcile the chronology and the genealogy together. The interval between the en- trance of the children of Israel into Canaan and the time of David is usually reckoned as 400 years, or from 4.00 to 500 _j'ears. But between Salmon, one of Joshua's contemporaries, and David, only three names occur according to the genealogy, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse. Evidently there is a mistake, either in the received chronology or in the genealogy.' Some have suggested that the genealogy, as given in the book of Ruth (iv. 18-22), and as repeated by S. Matthew and S. Luke, was not intended to be a full and complete list of all the names, that were in direct succession from Salmon to David, but contained only the principal ones; and that the missing links occnr before Boaz rather than after.'' But it has been shown with great clearness, that there is reason to believe that the genealogy from Salmon to David is full and complete, while there is ground for believing the chro- nolo.ay, which assigns 400 years or more to the interval between the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan and the time of David, to be wrong by at least 200 years. This would bring the genealogy and the chronology into harmony with each other.* ' S. Ambrose, in Luc. lib. iii. 17, &c., vol. ii. p. 1595. S. Jerome, in Matt. i. 3, vol. vii. p. 21. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. iii. vol. i. p. 29. Euthymius, in Matt. i. 3, vol. i. p. 27. 2 Maldonatus, in Matt. i. 3, vol. i. p. 13. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 3, vol. viii. p. 45. " Salmon begat Booz of Rachab. — " As to the source from whieh St. Matthew derived his linowledge that Salmon married Rahab, the mo.st probable appears to be the genealogical table, in which this circumstance was recorded, and for the truth of which we now have St. Matthew's Apostolic and inspired authority." — Bisnoi' OF Bath and Wells (Lord A. Heevev), ' On the Gene- alogies,' p. 65. " It can be little doubted that he meaneth her, mentioned Joshua 2. Now the Jews, belike to deface the truth of Matthew, who from ancient records, averreth her for the wife of Salmon, have broached this tenet, that she was married unto Joshua. Vid. Kimld in loc." — LiGHTFOOT, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' vol. i. p. 417. " So far the Jewish writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was married to some prince of Israel, but m'istaking concerning the person ; whether they do this out of ignorance or wilfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babyhmian Gemara (Megill. fol. .xiv. 2) hath these words : ' Eight prophets, and those priests sprang from Rachab, and they are these : Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum.' R. Judah saith, ' Huldah also was of the posterity of Kachab.' And a little after, ' There is a tradition that she being made a proselytess, was married to Josua' (which Kimchi also produceth in Jos. vi.) Here the gloss casts in a scruple. ' It sounds somewhat ' Dr. Mill's Sermons, pp. 161-163. * Dr. Mill's Sermons, p. 165, &c. = Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), on the Gene.ilo- gies, ch. is. p. 204, &c. ; also his article in Smith's Bible Dictionary. harshly,' saith it, * that Josua married one that was made a prose- lyte ; when it was not lawful to contract marriage with the Canaanites, though they became proselytes. Therefore we must say, that she was not of the seven nations of the Canaanites, but of some other nation, and sojourned there. But others say, ' That that pri'hibition took not place before the entrance into the pro- miM'd land.' " — Li'iUTFOOT, ' On S. Matthew,' i. 5, vol. ii. p. 97. '' Salmon begat Booz. — " In both the genealogies (St. Matthew's and .St. Luke's) there are but three names between Salmon and David — Booz, Obed,' Jesse. But according to the common chro- nology, from the entrance into Canaan (when Salmon was come to man's estate) to the birth of David was 405 years, or from that to 500 years and upwards. Now for about an equal period, from Solomon to Jehoiachin, St. Luke's genealogy contains 20 names. Obviously, therefore, either the chronology or the genealogy is wrong. It must suffice here to assert that the shortening the interval between the Exodus and David by about 200 years, which brings it to the length indicated by the genealogies, does in the most remarkable manner bring Israelitish history into harmony with Egyptian, with the traditional Jewish date of the Exodus, with the fragment of Edomitish history preserved in Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, and with the internal evidence of the Israeliti.sh history itself." — Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), ' On the Genealogies ' in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. CHAPTER I. Vers. 7-1 i. 6y 7. And Solomon begat'Roboam ; and Roboam bcijat Abia ; and Abia begat Asa ; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat : and Josaphat begat Joram ; and Jorani begat Ozias ;" S.V. Asaph. Vulg. As;i. It is clear from 1 Chron. iii. 10, 11, tli.it Ozias, i. e. Uzziah, was neither the son nor the immediate successor of Joram. For Joram begat Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begat Joash, and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Azariah or Ozias. Joram. Ahaziah. I Joash. I Amaziah. I Azariah or Ozias. 'I'liiis the names of the three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are omitted between Joram and Ozias. The question arises, were these names really omitted by S. Matthew? and if so, why did he omit them? or did this happen through some mistake of the copyist of S. Matthew's manuscript ? As no manuscript of S. Matthew's Gospel has ever been known that contained the names of these three kings, it has been generally concluded that they were omitted by S. Matthew himself. The reason why three names should be omitted, most probably was to make this period correspond with the first, and so to contain only four- teen names. Why these three names in particular should be omitted rather than three others, it is difBcult to .say. The reason given by several of the Fathers was, that God had threatened to cut off all the posterity of Ahab, and as Joram had married Ahab's daughter Athaliah, the first name omitted was their son Ahazinh ; and as posterity was counted to the fourth generation, his two successors in a direct line were both omitted.' . That S. Matthew himself omitted these three names has been rendered extremely probable by the publication of several instances of a similar handling of the numbers of generations, in order to bring them to a symmetrical or mys- tical shape by Philo, and also by the author of an ancient Samaritan poem.^ The natural conclusion in both these cases, as well as in that of S. Matthew, is that there could be no question either of ignorance or deception, but merely an adoption of a national mode of thought in dealing with numbers. Several instances of similar omissions in the genealogical tables given in the Old Testament have also been pointed out. 9. And Ozias begat Joatham ; and Joatham begat Achaz ; and Achaz begat Ezekias ; 10. And Ezekias begat Manasses ; and Ma- nasses begat Amon ; and Anion begat Josias ; II. And Josias begat Jcchonias and his bre- thren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon : " Margin, Some read, Josias b?gat Jakim, and Jaktm Iwgat Jcchonias. ' ,S. Hil.ary Pict. in M.-itt. i. 8, vol. i. p. 920. S. Jerome, in Matt. i. 8, vol. vii. p. 22. S. Thoni.ts Aquinas, Sum. iii. qua?st. xxxi. art. iii. vol. iv. p. 284. [Jansenius, * And Joram begat Ozias. — '■ The names of Ahazias, Joash and Amazias are strm-k out. See the history in the books of the Kings, anil 1 Chron. iii. 11, 12. "The promise, that the throne of David should not be empty, passed over after a manner for some time into the family of Jehu, the overthrower of Joram's family. For when he had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung on the mother's side of the family of Ahab ; the Lord promised him, that his sons should reign unto the fourth generation, 2 Kings x. 30. There- tore, however, the mean time the throne of David was not empty; and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between, yet their names are not unfitly omitted by our Evangelist, both becaiise they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners, and because their kingdom was very much eclipsed by the kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu, and his cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his cousin Joas, 2 Chron. xxv. * * * if * " Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth genera- tion, Exod. XX. 5. '•Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab, 2 Kings viii. 18. Which horrid violation of the second command God visits upon his Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. vi. p. 47. Maldonatus, in Matt. i. 8, vol. i. p. 15. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 8, vol. viii. p. 46. * Dr. Mill's Sermons, pp. 153-158. posterity, according to the threatening of that command, and therefore the names of his sons are dashed out unto the fourth generation. " The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that idolatry of Joram in a wav not unlike this of the New, and shews that family un- worthy to be numbered among David's progeny, 2 Chron. xxii. 2. ' Ahazias the son of two and forty years,' that is, not of his age (for he was not above two and twenty, 2 Kings viii. 26), but of the dur.ation of the family of Omri, of which stock Ah.azias was on the mother's side, as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely ! that the years of a king of Jiidah should be reckoned by the account of the house of Omri. * " Let a genealogical stile not much difl'erent be observed 1 Chron. iv. 1, where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate son of Judah. Compare chap. ii. 50. " In like manner Ezra x\\. in the genealogy of Ezra five or six generations .are erased." — LiGHTFOOT, ' On S. .Matthew,' i. 8, vol. ii. p. 97. "■ About the time they were carried away to Babylon. — " The captivity of the Jews into Baljol was but ^cToiKeo-Zo, a ffitting of their families (as Ariste.as saith of Ptolemy Lagus his capti\nng them, Tous fiei' fifTaKiaev, Toiis Si rixMo^'^Tue) for they returned ere long to their own home .again. But the Ten tribes cai>tiTated F 2 68 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel ;" and Salathiel begat Zorobabel :" V. Selathiel. Vulg. Salathiel. In verse 17, S. Matthew sajs, th;it from David until the carrying away unto Babylon, are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into B.abylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Now if we begin the second period or tessara- decide with Solomon, and end it wiih Jechoniah, there will be fourteen generations, and if we begin the third period or tessara-decade with Salathiel, and end it with Jesus, there will be only thirteen generations. Two ways of solving this difficulty have been proposed. One of these is to reckon David twice, as the last of the first tessara-decade, and as the first of the second, and then to reckon Jechoniah as the first of tbe third. The reasons that can be nrgei for this are given in the note.' The second explanation is to reckon David once, and Jech- oniah twice, or rather to reckon two Jechoniahs. For it has been conjectured that the person indicated by Jechonias in verse 11, " Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren," and the person indicated by Jechonias in verse 12, " And after they were brouglft to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salatliiel," are not one and the same, but two persons. An examinntion into the family of Josiah will show that they were probably father and son. In 1 Chron. iii. 15, 16, we read that Jotiah had four sons, Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiab,and Sliallum,and that Jehoia- kim had also a son called Jehoiachin or Jechoniah. From 2 Kings xxiii. xxiv., we learn that, on the death of Josiah, Shallum succeeded to tbe throne, and that PLaraoh, king of Egypt, dethroned him, and made his brother Jehoiakim king, and that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, put him to death, and made his son Jehoiachin king, and that he after- wards deposed Jehoiachin, and made Zedekiah his uncle, king ; and that he then deposed Zedekiah, put out his eyes, and carried him away captive to Babylon. Thus Zedekiah was the last descendant of David, that actually reigned on bis throne. The difference between Jehoiakim ('imaKfi'^), and Jehoia- chin ('IfflaxfiV), is so trifling, being merely that between k and X: or k and ch, that it could excite no surprise, if they were occasionally confounded. Several instances have been -given, where these two names have been confounded by writers.^ But if the conjecture, that the Jechonias in verse 11, and the Jechonias in verse 12, refer not to the same person, but to two men, fsither and son, be correct, it is also probable that the similarity in the two names may have caused a part of the text of S. Matthew to have been, by some oversight, omitted. For in every other case, every name in this list is written twice, first as son and then as father. Nor does there appear to be any reason, why this should not be the case here. Thus the full expression, to be in conformity with the others, would be of this kind, "Josiah begat Jehoiakim and his brethren, and Jehoiakim begat Jehoiakin, about the time they were carried away into Babylon : And after they were brought to Babylon, Jehoiachin begat Salathiel." When the words Jehoiachim and Jehoiachin were confounded, Je- choniah, the name by which the latter was also called, would stand for both.- This second explanation of the difficulty is approved by some commentators, who have given very careful attention to ' Dr. Mill's Sermons, p. 151. Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), On the Genealo- gies, p. 72. ' S. Epiphanius, Hteresis, viii. 7, vol. i. p. 217. S. Jerome, in Watt. i. 12, vol. vii. p. 23. [S. Augustine, by Shalmanezar, are said to be iv airoiKia in the LXX. 2 Kings xviii. 11, in a perpetual departure from their own houses. And they and all the rest of the nation, are at this day ev SmCTropa, in a dispersion, without any home of their own at all, John vii. 35 ; James i. 1 ; 1 Peter i. 1." — LiGHTFOOT, ' Harmony of the Four Evangelists,' vol. i. p. 415. " Jechonias. — " Called Conias, Jer. xxii. 24. For God by taking awav the first syllable of his name, sheweth that He will not establish the throne or race of Solomon any more upon it : as his father Jehoiakim belike in so niiming him had presumed. The Jews delighted to join the name Jehovah to their own names, but somewhat shortened. For in the beginning of the name it was but Jeho, as Jeho-shaphat, Jeho-ram, Ac. And in the end it was Jahu, as Mica-jahu, Eli-jahu. And sometimes in the very same name it was set before or after indiflerently, as Jeho-achaz, 2 Chron. xxi. 17, is Ahaz-j.ahu, 2 Chron. -\xii. 1. So Jehoj,achin, 2 Kings xxiv. 8, is Jechon-jahu, 1 Chron. iii. 16." — LiGHTFOOT, ' Harmony of the Four Evangelists,' vol. i. p. 415. •■ Salathiel begat Zorobabel. — "I have not thought it necessary to enter into anv argument to prove that the Salathiel and Zerub- babel of the author of Chronicles, of the Gospel .if .'^t. iMatthcw, and i.f the Gospel of St. Luke, are the same individuals, though S.Augustine, de Consen. Evang. ii. cap. iv. 10; vol. iii. p. 1076. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 12, vol. viii. p. 46. Grotius, in Matt. i. 17 ; Critici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 45. Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), On the Genealo- gies, p. 70, &c. the opposite view has the s.anction of some great names. The occurrence of two such names (both a7ra| KfySfieva) at exactly the same period, and in the same genealogical sequence, in the gene- alogy of the same person, is to my mind conclusive; and any scheme which requires us to consider two distinct Zerubbabels, sons of Salathiel, must by that circumstance fall to the ground. It may how'ever be >vell just to note that the identification of a third and fourth generation makes assurance on this point trebly and quadruply sure." — Bishop of Bath asd Wells (Lokd A. Hervey), 'On the Genealogies,' p. 126. ' "There is some diversity among commentators in making out the three divisions, each of fourteen generations, v. 17. It is how'ever, obvious, that the first division begins with Abraham and ends with David. But does the second begin with David, or with Solomon ? Assuredly with the former ; because, just as the first begins dirh 'AjSpaciju, so the second also is said to begin airh AavtS. The first extends ea-s AautS, and includes him; the second extends ews T^s jueToiKecT^ay, i.e. to an epoch and not to a person ; and therefore the persons, who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch €7rl T^s /i€TO(*c€(r/os, v. 1 1), are not reckoned before it. After the epoch the enumeration begins again with Jechoniah, and ends with Jesus." — Robinson, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' p. 183. CHAPTER I. Ver. 12. 69 tlie subject, in ancient as well as in modem times ; but there arc otliers, whom it does not satisfy.' If we accept this cx- jilanation, the three tessera-decades will be : 1. Abraham. 1. Solomon. 1. Jehoiachin, or J echonias. 2. Isa;ic. 2. Eoboani. 2. Salathiel. 3. Jacob. 3. Abiah. 3. Zorobabel. 4. Judah. 4. Asa. 4. Abiud. 5. Phares. 5. Josajihat. 5. Eliakim. G. Ksrom. G. Jorani. 6. Azor. 7. Aram. 7. Uzziab (Ozias) 7. Sadoc. 8. Amiuadab. 8. Jothani. 8. Achim. • 9. Nas.son. 9. Aliiiz. 9. Eliud. 10. Salmon. 10. Hezekiah. 10. Kleazar. 11. Boaz. 11. Mauasseh. 11 Mat than. IL'. Obed. 12 Amon. 12 Jacob. 13. Jesse. 13. Josiah. 13 Joseph. 14. David. 14 Jehoiakim. 14. Jesus. It is urged that what renders this explanation more probable is,^ that it could scarcely be said of Josiah, that he bejjat a sun about the time the tribe of Judah and the other tribes, that adhered to it, were carried away to Baljylon. Some of these were carried to Babylon after the reign of Jehoiakim, others after the reign of Jehoiachin, and the remainder after the reign of Zedekiah. But Josiah must have been dead sonic years before even the first of the three removals of the kingdom of Judah to Babylon. But it could be said with much greater appearance of historical accuracy, that Jehoia- kim begat a sou about the time they were carried away to Babylon. Also, the expression " his brethren " might apply to Jechonias in verse 11, because he had three brothers; but not to Jechonias in verse 12, because he had only one. It was of this Jehoiachin, or Jechouiab, or Coniah, son of Jehoiakim, and grandson of Josiah, that God, by the prophet Jeremiah (xxii. 30) said, " Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days ; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Two very different interpretations have been given of verse 12, mainly depending on the meaning of the word "childless" in Jeremiah xxii. 30, and of the word "begat" in S. Matthew, chapter i. Some interpret the word " childless " in its literal sense, and as meaning that Coniah or Jeconiah should have no children, at least, none that should survive him. They also explain the word "begat" as not confined to natural procrea- tion, but as including also legal succession. They maintain that the throne of David had been hitherto filled by none but the descendants of David through his son Solomon, and that this line now failed ; that Jeconiah was the last survivor of all the descendants of David through Solomon, and that he was literally childless, with no descendant who survived him ; that, though the kingly dignity had been suppressed by Nebuchadnezzar, the kingly rights, or the right of succession to David's throne, would naturally devolve on a lineal de- -sceudant of David through another of his sous, if such existed ; ■that S. Luke shows that there was another line from David, through his son Nathan, the brother of Solomon by the same mother; that Salathiel, the son of Neri, a limal descendant of David, through his son Nathan, was the conten:porary and survivor of Jeconiah, and that on him the succession to David's throne devolved ; and that when S. JIatthew says that "Jechonias begat Salathiel," he does not use the term "begat" in the sense that he gave life to him by natural generation ; but that he bequeathed to him the right, which he had himself inherited, that is, the right of succession to the throne of David. This explanation has been maintained by commentators of reputation for learning and ability in the seventeenth, as well as in the nineteenth century.' Others understand the sentence against Coniah or Jeconiah (Jeremiah xxii. 30) differently. They suppose that the first part of the verse is explained by the latter, and that " child- less " means in this case, that he should have none to sit upon his throne ; that none of his children should succeed to his throne. They also hold that the word " begat " in S. Mat- thew, chapter i., expresses sometimes the relation of a father to his son, and sometimes that of a father to a lineal descend- ant more or less remote ; but that it always implies descent by natural procreation, and not by legal succession only. They therefore maintain that when S. Matthew says, "Jecho- nias begat Salathiel," he meant that Salathiel was the actual son of Jechonias, and not merely that he was legally bis successor.* Of those, who hold that Salathiel was the actual son of Jechoniah, some' think that the Salathiel and Zorobabel of S. Matthew (i. 12), were not the same as the Salathiel and Zorobabel of S. Luke (iii. 27) ; that Zorobabel, son of Sala- thiel, of S. Matthew, was the same as the Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, indicated by Ezra (iii. 2), Nehemiah (xii. 1), and Haggai (i. 1), as the leader of the Jews who returned from captivity ; and that the Salathiel and Zorobabel of S. Luke were probably so called, after the other and more famous Salathiel and Zorobabel ; others * maintain that the Salathiel vand Zorobabel of S. Matthew were the same; as the Salathiel and Zorobabel of S. Luke; but that the Salathiel of S. Matthew was the son of Jechoniah naturally or by biith, and the son of Ncii legally only. ' Bengel. in Matt. i. 11, p. 6. Jlr. McClellan, New Test. vol. i. p. 409. ' Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), On the Genea- logies, p. 71. » Grotius on Luke iii. 23, Critici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 1230. Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. Hervey), On the Genea- logies, ch. iv. Id., Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. ■* Cornelius a Lapide, in Agga;um, i. 1, vol. vii. p. 613. Mr. McClellan, New Testament, vol. i. p. 410. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Aggajum, i. 1, vol. vii. p. 613. « Mr. McClellan, New Testament, vol. i. p. 410. 70 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud ; and Abiud begat Eliakim ; and Eliakim begat Azor ; 14. And Azor begat Sadoc ; and Sadoc begat Achim ; and Achim begat Eliud ; 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar ; and Eleazar begat Matthan ; and Matthan begat Jacob ; 16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ ; The question may be raised, What was S. Matthew's object, ia his genealogy ? Was it mainly to show, that Jesua was descended from Abraham, and from David through his mother ; and incidentally to show, that He was the rightful lieir to the throne of David through Joseph, the husband of Mary? Or was S. IMatthew's principal object to prove, that Jesus was the rii;htful heir to the throne of David through Joseph, and only by inference to show, that He was the descendant of David and Abraham through His mother? Those, who hold the latter of these two opinions, say that S. Matthew brings his genealogy from Abraham, the father of the Jewith nation, to whom the Messiah had been promised, to David the king, to whom He had also been promised, as a descendant and successor to his throne. Some think that S. Matthew then traces the successors to David's throne through his son Solomon as far as Jechoniah, who, in their opinion, was the last survivor of David's descendants tl»-ough his sou Solomon, and that he then traces the heirs to David's throne from SaUithiel, the heir of Jechoniah and a descendant of David through his son Nathan, down to Joseph. Others hold that S. Matthew traces the successors to David's throne through his son Solomon only, and not at all through his son Nathan : namely, from David to Jechoniah, and from Sala- thiel, Jechoniah 's son, to Joseph the husband of Mary : that whatever legal rights Joseph eoukl confer as a father, these he conferred on Jesus, because, in the eye of the law, and in the estimation of the people, Joseph was the father of Jesus. When therefore S. Matthew shows, that Joseph was the legal heir to the tlirone of David, he proves also that Jesus, as his heir, was likewise lieir to David's throne. But in proving to the Jews, that Joseph was the lawful successor to Da?id's throne, S. Matthew necessarily shows, that he was David's descendant. But Joseph and Mary were, in all probability, and as is generally admitted, cousins, 'therefore, in proving that Joseph was the descendant of David, S. Matthew by implication proves that Maiy was, and therefore that Jesus was. Such is the reasoning of those, who hold that S. Matthew's chief object was to show that Jesus was heir to the throne of David through Joseph, the husband of His mother. But S. Matthew himself gives no intimation, that his ob- ject in the genealogy was to show the legal right to the throne of David, which Jesus acquired through Joseph, the husband of His mother. The title which he gives to his genealogy, " the book of the generation of Jesus Christ,' seems rather to imply, that his main purpose was to trace the actual descent of Jesus from David, and not his legal right to his throne, or at least, only incidentally so. If, as many think,. Mary's mother was the sister of Joseph's father, Joseph and Mary would have a common ancestor in their ■ grandfather Matthan. Had Jesus been the son of Joseph and Mary, the names of Joseph and of Jacob his father would have correctly stood in the genealogy, as showing the descent of Jesus from Matthan, and so from David. But as the case was, these two names appear to us in these days, to be out of place in the genealogy. Nevertheless, S. Matthew puts them in, because it was not according to tlie Jewish custom for the names of any women to stand, as in modern times, as a separate independent link in a genealogy.^ In all the genea- logies in the Old Testament, not a single instance of this can be found. Instead of the names of Mary and her mother up to Matthan, as we in modern times should have expressed it, S. Matthew 'according to the Jewish custom inserts those of Joseph and his father up to Matthan, and then imme- diately goes on to guard against the conclusion, which in ordinary cases would have been drawn from this, namely, that Joseph was the father of Jesus. The remainder of the chapter is taken up with showing, that Joseph, though the husband of Mary, was not the father of Jesus. Mary's maternal, and Joseph's paternal descent would coa- lesce in their grandfather Matthan, and beyond that would be identical. If the preceding explanation be correct, S. Matthew's genealogy will show the Blessed Virgin's maternal descent from David, as S. Luke shows her paternal.^ The Fathers of the second centuiy,^ that is, the earliest writers, who refer to the genealogies — S. Justin Martyr, S. Irenajus, S. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian — all interpret S. Matthew, as tracing the descent of Jesus through His mother up to David and Abraham. The testimony of S. Justin Martyr is important for two reasons. (1.) Because what he says, applies to one of the genealogies, as much as ta the other. He is speaking of that part of the genea- logy, which is common to S. Matthew and to S. Luke, namely, from Abraham to David ; and he says, " From them Mary derives her descent." (2.) Because he gives the key which explains how, in spite of the omission of Mary's name, and of the insertion of Joseph's, the genealogy really in- ' S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. ii., vol. i. p. -22. Euthymius in Matt. i. 2, vol. i. p. 23. Cnrnelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 16, vol. viii. p. 47. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Luc. iii. 23, vol. viii. p. 701. 3 S. Justin Martyr, Dial. sec. 327, p. 353. S. Irena?us, Fragment, xxi-x. p. 1244. 8. Clemens Alex. Strom, i. 21, vol. i. p. 889. Tertullian, de Carne Cbristi, 22, vol. ii. p. 789. CHAPTER I. Vers. 17, 18. 71 trnilcil was that ol' MaiT, amT only incidentally that of hor husband Joseph. Having been born a Jew, Justin JIartyr knew that no wonjan's name could stand, as a separate and independent link, in a genealoiry ; and also that Mary, having, as seems probable, no brother, and being an heiress, would, aceording to the law of Moses, be married to a man of the same family, namely, to her cousin, and that from their grandftither upwards, the genealogy would be identical. The charge which Theodoret makes against Tatian, the jnipil of 8. Justin Martyr, shows tliat, in Tatiau's opinion also, the natural interpretation of the genealogies was, that they traced the descent of Jesus through His mother, up to David. Theodoret says, that when Tatian became a heretic, he composed his " Diatessaron " from the four Gospels, " leaving out the genealogies and everything; that smows the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the fiesh." 1 'J'his part of the subject is discussed at greater length, and S. Matthew's genealogy compared with S. Luke's, and their points of agreement and of difference shown, under S. Luke, eh. iii. 17. So all tile generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations ;" and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are four- teen generations ; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera- tions. S. Matthew divides his genealogy into three groat periods, from Abraham to David, and from David to the Caiitivity, and from the Captivity to Jesus. Because the first period coutained exactly Iburteen generations, he makes the other two periods to correspond with this ; at least so far, a.s to mention the names of only fourteen in each. The men, whom he omits, may have been in themselves unworthy of men- tion ; but they were probably omitted, rather to make the two latter periods correspond with the first. The precise object in this is probably unknown. It may have been to assist the memory, or from some reference to the number seven, which with the Jews was sacred, and full of deep significance. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ'' was on this wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused ' Theodoret, Hjeret. l- * Fourteen Generations. — '• In every one of these several four- teens, they were under a several and distinct manner of govern- ment, and the end of each fourteen produced some alteration in their state. In the first they were under prophets ; in the second, imder kings ; and in the third, under Hasmonean priests. The tirst fourteen brought their state to glory in the kingdom of I>;ivid ; the second, to misery in the Captivity of Babylon; and the third, to glory again in the kingdom of Christ. " The first begins with Abraham that received the promise, and ends in David, that received it again with greater clearness. The second begins with the building of the Temple, and ends in the destruction of it. The third begins with their peeping out of misery in Babel, and ends in the accomplished delivery by Christ. " The second, that terminateth in the peoples captiving into Babel, fi.xeth not on Jehoiakim, in whom the captivity began ; nor in Zedekiah, in whom it was consummate ; but in Jechonius, who was in the middle space between. And from the same date doth Kzekiel count and reckon the captivity through all his book. Caps. viii. 1 ; xx. 1 ; xsvi. 1 ; sxix. 1 : xssi. 1 ; .x-x-xii. 1 ; and xh 1. " The whole sum of the three fourteens is the renowned number of two anil forty ; the number of the knops and Howers, and branches of the candlestick ; of the journeys and stations of Israel betwixt Kgypt and Canaan, Numb, xxxiii. Of the children of Bethel, 2 Kings ii. 24. And see Rev. xi. 2, and xiii. 5." — LlGHT- FOOT. ' Harmony of the Four Evangelists,' vol. i. p. 418. '' Of Jesus Christ. — "The point to be determined, is whether 'IjliToD should stand in the text before XpiffToi! or not. It is found in the text of perhaps every existing Greek manuscript; on the other hand, S. Irena:us expressly asserts that it should not be there, ancl gives a reason for his statement. His words are as given by his Latin translator (for the Greek original does not exist), * ccterum pottcerat diccre Mntthwus Jcsu vero generatio sic erat, scd praxidcus Spirit'is S. depravatores, ct prcemunietis contra fraudu- lentiam eomm, per Matthccum ait Christ! autem generatio sic erat.' (S. Irensus, cont. H^r. iii. 16, 2.) . . . . " For the reading 'Ij/o-oiJ XpttrTou there are all existing Greek WSS. (except pvssilihj No. 71, which, according to Tischendorf, reads X()icrToC ; Cod. B, which has Xpiarov 'ItjitoC ; and I'robiUilij D ; ab. i. 20, vol. iv. p. 156. for though the Greek Text is wanting at this place, the Latin version, which is generally a slavish interpretation of the Greek, reads Christi). With them are the two Egyptian versions, the Peschito and Harclean Syriac, the .\rmenian and the -Ethiopic ; and of Patristic writers Origen, Eusebius, and others of later date. " On the other side, for the reading XpiffToC are all the Latin versions, including the Vetus Latina; the Curetonian Syriac; and S. Irenajus expressly, as we have seen, with later Fathers. " At first sight, no doubt, there seems an overwhelming array of evidence for the reading 'Iijiroi; XpiirToO ; but our estimate of it will probably be modified when we take the following considerations into account, viz. ; "1. According to S. Irena;us' expi'es.s statement, Greek MSS. were known to him with the reading Xpiffrov. ** 2. All the evidence for this reading is undoubtedly of the second century; while the opposing witnesses, except perhaps the Thebaic version, arc all later. At any rate, it is clear that XpKTTOv was the current reading through so wide an area as Syria, North Africa, and Gaul, in the second century, though it may have been supplanted by the other in the third. " 3. In no other gcnmnc place of the New Testament is the collo- cation of words d ^iTjaovs XpiaT6s found. It is found in three places of the Text us Receptus, viz. Acts viii. 37, 1 S. John iv. 3, and Apoc. xii. 17 ; but every one of these places is undoubtedly spurious, in fact the collocation belongs to a later time, when the distinction between 'Itjo-oDj as the jiersonal name, and Xpiaris as the officiixl title had been lost, and the two were merged in one common appellation. There is a peculiar force in the use of 6 Xpi(TT6s in the passage under discussion, by S. JIatthew, writing for Jews. "4. It is more in accordance with the laws of the variation of MSS., that the short reading should have been changed into the longer one, than rice versa. '• . . . Considerations 2, 3, and 4, are of great weight. Per- haps the best conclusion is to pUace 'Iriaov in the margin, a.s a reading supported by great authority, but as having too strong arguments against it to place it in the text " — C. E. Ham- mond, 'Textual Criticism,' p. '11, v^c. COMMENTARY ON S, MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Vulg. Christi autem generatio. The meaning of this passage is not to be gathered from one word, but from several. The usual meanin'^ of fivr^tr- Tevofim is, to be betrothed to a man, or to be affianced, to become his wife at some future time. The ceremony of be- trothal took place among the Jews months before the actual marriage ; and it was a formal, and a legally recognised custom among the Jews. But there are several reasons, which lead to the conclu- sion, that livrjcrrevoiiai is not used here in its usual sense ;' that, for instance, a virgin espoused (^f^jT/oreu^eViji') to a man whose name was " Joseph " (Luke i. 27), does not simply mean, that the Virgin Mary was affianced to Joseph to become his wife at a future time ; but that she was then by this act, and thus before her Conception, made his legal wife;' only that there was no more marital intercourse be- tween them, than if she had been merely his betrothed, i.e. promised to become his future wife. For after this act of betrothal, Joseph is called her husband (o dvfjp avTrjs), v. 19, and Mary is called his wife (tiji/ yvvalKcl crov), v. 20 ; and this act of betitthal or marriage is e.xpressly spoken of, as con- ferring on him the right of marital intercourse. For Joseph's difliculty is said to have arisen from the fact, that after Mary bad been espoused or mariied to him (fi^fi.i'Tja-Tfvfiei'rjv), but before they came together, that is, before they had marital intercourse, she was found with child. Again, months after this, and after Joseph had been bidden by the angel to take luito him Mary his wife (napoKajielv Mapicifi, Tiyv yvpa^Ka crov), or rather, to letain Mary whom he had taken for his wife, S. Luke (ii. 5) still calls her his espoused wife (Mapm/i rfj \ji(}ivr}a-Tevji(vri avTa yvi/aiKi). That Mary was already Joseph's wife is also implied in the intimation, that he was minded to put her away (oTroXCo-nt avrijv), v. 19. That the Jews regarded Joseph and Mary as legally mar- ried by the act here spoken of as betrothal is plain. Anxious as they were to cast reproach upon Jesus, they never object to Him illegitimacy or spuriousness of birth. All that they can find to object to Him is the meamiess of His birth, that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter. Nor do they any- where cast a slander on His mother, as having given birth to Jesus, before she was mai'ried ; or before she had been married a sufficient length of time. From all this, it is abundantly clear, that fivrjo-rfvopai imjilies in this case more than to betroth, and that it means that Mary was by that act made Joseph's wife ; but that there was no more marital intercourse between them, than if she had been only betrothed to him to become his wife at a future time. Legally, by the act here called betrothal, Joseph had become the husband of Mary ; practically he was only her guardian, the protector of herself and her Child ; of herself from the possibility of calumny and reproach, and of her Child from the machinations of Herod. Thus, before her Conception, Joseph and Mary were legally married, but were living a life of holy continence. In leading this life, they were probably followinu' a supernatural impulse,' and were unconsciously influenced by Uod to lead the life, which best fitted them to become His instruments in the stupendous work of the Incarnation ; Mary to become the mother of God, and Joseph to become the guardian of the Holy Child, and His mother. The conduct of Joseph and Mary, in living such a life, would be far above the common standard of life among men, and it would be little less than angelic. But such were the lives of all, who were intimately connected with the Incarnation, as far as we have any means of ascertaining it. Such certainly were the lives of Simeon and of Anna. (Luke i. 25, 3B.) The marriage of Joseph and Mary was necessary for several reasons. For had the Virgin given birth to Jesus, without being married, there would have been no one to protect her Child from the designs of Herod, or to shield herself from an evil reputation among men. Even the devout Jews, sincerely anxious to learn, would have had au additional difficulty in believing that Jesus, born of a mother who was unmarried, and therefore born in a condition that was esteemed base both by God and man, was the Messiah foretold by the prophets. In addition to this, it has also been said, that one object in this marriage, was to deceive Satan, and thus for a time to avoid his devices. Aware from the prophets, that the Messiah should be born of a Virgin, Satan interpreted the Virgin to mean an unmarried woman, and was on the look out for the birth of the Messiah of an unmarried woman ; and thus for a long time he was left in doubt, whether Jesus were the Christ, even up to the Temptation and after it." 19. Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not wishing to make her a pubhck example, was minded to put her away priviiy. 20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Eiiscbius, Quoestiones ad Stephanum, i. 1, vol. iv. p. 881. S. C'hrysostom, in Matt. Homil. iv., vol. i. p. 39, &c. Theophylact, in Matt. i. 18, vol. i. p. 7. S. .\inbrose, in Luc. lib. ii. vol, ii. p. 1553, &c. .S. .Icrome, in Matt. i. 18, vol. vii. p. 24. .S. Avigustin, de Nupt. et Concupiscent, i. 11, vol. x. p. 420. , cont. Julian. Pelag. v. 12, vol. x. p. 810, &c. S. Thomas Aquinas, Sumiin, iii. quaest. xxix. art. 2, vol. iv. p. 268. Janscnins, in Concord. Evang. cap. vii. p. 50. Mjaldonatus, in Matt. i. 18, vol. i. p. 25. Franciscus Lucas, in Matt. i. 18, vol. i. p. 10. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 18, vol. viii. p. 58. S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. sec. 19, p. 79 (Hefele). ■ Corpus Ignatianum, Cureton, p. 36. Origen, in Luc. Homil. vi. vol. iii. p. 1815. Eusebius, Quaistiones ad Stephanum, i. 1, vol. iv. p. 881. S. Ambrose, in Luc. lib. ii. 3, vol. ii. p. 1663. S. Jerome, in Matt. i. 18, vol. vii. p. 24. CHAPTER I. Vers. 2i-2j. 11 wife : for that; which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. M;irgin. boKotten. V'ulg. apparuit in somnis fl — qui^d enim in ea natum est. 21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins. Margin, Saviour. ThoUL;li willing to do whatever was right, for he was a good and conscientious man (StKaios), Joseph was sadly perplexed by the condition of Mary. For though she was his wife, thei'e had been no marital intercourse between them, and yet she was evidently with child. In such cases, the law would allow him to inflict condign punishment on her, and to put her away ; but this was not to be thought of in the case of the saintly JIary. For inexplicable as her condition was to him, her conduct had been holj' and beyond all reproach. While considering what was the right course to jnirsue, whether this was not to put her away with as little publicity as possible, an angel of the Lord ajipeared unto him, and bid him not to fear to take unto him Mary his wife, or rather to retain (7rapaXn/36ic) Mary, whom he had already taken to wife ; ' for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. An angel of the Lord appeared to Mary as well as to Joseph, but at a different time, and in a different manner, but each suited to their purpose. These are also related by dilferent Evangelists ; S. Luke relating the appearance of the angel unto Mary (i. 20, &c.), and S. Matthew that to Joseph. Tlie angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce her Concep- tion, but he appeared not iu a dream, for this required lier previous faith and concuirence. Some time after Mary's Conception, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, to command him to keep Mary his wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and to per- form to the Child the duty of a legal father, and to give Him the name which was descriptive of his office and character, Jesus, the Saviour. Some, chiefly the Greek commentators, have supposed, that the two following verses are the words of the angel, who goes on to direct Joseph's attention to the fact, that in the Virgin, and in her Conception, is the fulfilment of Isaiah's (vii. 14) prophecy.^ Others have held, that these are the words of the Evangelist.' This would only be in keeping with S. Matthew's practice, who frequently calls attention to the fulfilment of the prophets by the Incarnation. 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Vulg. quod dictum est a Domino por prophetam. 23- " Behold, a virgin shall be with child," and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," which being interpreted is, " God with us." Margin, his name shall be called, Vulg. et vocabiint nomcu ejus. ' .I.insenius, in Concord. Evangel, cap. vii. p. 52. Maldonatus, in Matt. i. 20, vol. i. p. 28. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 20, vol. viii. p. 52. ^ S. Irenaius, contr. Ha^reses, iii. 21, p. 950. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Humil. v. vol. i p. 62. [Theophylact, * Behold, a virgin shall be with child. — " That the word nO^y in the pviphet denotes an untouched virgin, sufficiently ai)jjears Irom the sense of the place (Isaiah vii.). King Achaz there was afraid lest the enemies that were now upon him, might destroy .Terusalem, and utterly consume the house of David. The Lord meets with this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, that sooner should a pure Virgin bring forth a child, than the family of David perish. And the promise yields a double comfort : namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a Virgin, and of their security from the imminent danger of the city and house of David. So that, although that prophecy of a Virgin's bringing forth a son should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after, yet at that present time, when the prophecy was made, .\haz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said, Be not so troubled, 0 Ahaz, does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure Virgin should become a mother? But I tell thee, a pure Virgin shall bring forth a Son, before the house of David perish." — LiGIITFOOT, ' On S. Matthew,' i. 23 ; vol. ii. p. 101. '•The early Christians (Justin Martyr, Dialog, ii. page 319 Thirlby), urged against the unbelieving Jews, that the miraculous conception of the Saviour was to be expected from the famous passage in Isaiah (vii. 14), the reading of which, and the interpre- tation of the reading, could not be disputed, inasmuch as irap9eVos, and not fEavis, was the transl.atinn of the term in qtiestion in the Septuagint version, made some hundreds of years before Christ Theophylact, in Matt. i. 22, vol. i. p. 9. Euthymius, in Matt. i. 22, vol. i. p. 45. ^ Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. vii. p. 54. Maldonatus, in Matt. i. 22, vol. i. p. 29. Franciscus Lucas, in Matt. i. 22, vol. i. p. 14. was born, inasmuch as there would have been no ' sign ' or ' wonder ' (which was promised) had reai'is been the true rendering ; and inasmuch as other texts point to the same conclusion, as for instance, ' who shall tell His generation ?' " — p. 128. " The Fathers in using the Septuagint as the weapon of their warfare, used the same which the Apostles did, and one the legiti- macy of which was acknowledged by the party they were contend- ing against. Moreover, as this translation was made some two hundred and fifty years before Christ was born, it was impossible to object that those texts which bore testimony to Jesus could have been unduly treated by the Christians, and a meaning assigned to them which they were never intended to bear. Indeed, in this respect the translation, perhaps, had greater force even than the 'original, for it furnished an argument that the plain, unpcrverted sense of the Hebrew was what that version represented it : and that though the Hebrew, when strained for a purpose, might be made to speak somewhat less favourably for the Christian, still this could not be done with impunity so long as the Septuagint remained to rebuke the novelties of later translations, and stood as a monument of the sense assigned to Scripture by scholars neces- sarilv impartial, and who lived when the original Language was well" understood. The attempts to wrest the Hebrew from the cause of the Gospel, made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in their translations, only served to show what a tower of strength the Septuagint was found to be."— p. 134. J. B. Blust, 'History of the Christian Church.' 74 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. In answer to the Jews,' who objected that the proper word for a virgin was nVins, and that Isaiah in his prophecy (vii. 14) had not used this word, but nOpVH, the ancient commentators show, that while both these words refer to a virgin or unmarried girl, the latter carries with it the additional notion of youthful ; and that the Septuagint translators have accordingly rendered it by irapBivos, which always means a virgin ; and that such is the use of the word in the Old Testament. For both these VFOids are applied to Rebecca, to describe her condition before any man had known her (Gen. xxiv. 16 and 43), and the word used by the Septua- gint translators in both these passages to express these two Hebrew words is the same, namely, napdivos. The latter word is also applied to Miriam, the sister of Moses, soon after his birth (Exod. ii. 8) to express that she was a very young girl, scarcely marriageable. It was also pointed out that neither Isaiah nor S. Matthew said "a virgin," but "the virgin" (Isaiah HOpVn, ij napdivos Septuag. ; S. Matthew, fi TTapdivoi)? These words do not mean, that the translation of Emma- nuel from one language into any other, would be Jesus, but that the Emmanuel of Isaiah is equivalent, in its meaning, to the Jeans of the Gospels. Emmanuel means " God with us," and Jesus means Saviour. Therefore, literally understood, and as to the meaning; of their component parts, they are not the same. But they are the same in the meaning, which they are intended to convey to man. For by these two words we are taught that " God with us," " God Incarnate," is the only Saviour, and that Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the God Incarnate, the Saviour of mankind.' 24. Then Joseph being raised from .sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife : -^5. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son : '^ and he called His name JESUS. S.V. I1.1.I br.ni'iln forth a son. Vulg. doiioc p^p rit filiuiu saum primogenitum. S. Matthew is careful to record tlie fact, with all the autho- rity which he, as an Evangelist possessed, that there had been no marital intercourse between .Joseph and Mary before the birth of Jesus. His language on this point admits of no doubt. Whether there was such marital intercourse between them afterwards was a subject of discussion towards the end * S. Jerome, cont. Jovin. lib. li. 32, vol. ii. p. 254. * S. Chrysostora, in Isaiah, vii. 14-. * Her first-born Son. — " The prominent idea conveyed by the term ' lir.st-bura ' to a Jew would not be the birth of other chil- dren, but the .special consecration of this one. The typical refer- ence in fact is foremost in the mind of St. Luke, as he himself explains it, ' Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy lo the Lord ' (ii. 23). Thus ' firstborn ' does not necessarily sug- gest ^ later-born,* any more than * son ' suggests ' daughter.' The two words together describe the condition under which in obedience to the Law a child was consecrated to God. The ' firstborn son ' is in fact with the Evangelists equivalent for the 'male that openeth the womb.' — rhv ■7rpwT6roKov ought to be rejected from St. Matthew's text, having been interpolated from Luke ii. 7." — Canon LionTFOOT. ■ On Epistle to the Galatians,' p. 257. Mary Ever- Virgin (aenrapfleVos). — " This title, which is com- monly applieil to S. Mary by later writers, is found in Epiphanius Havre's. 78, 5 ; Didym. Iren. i. 27, p. 84 ; Rutin. Fid. i. 43 ; Lepor ap. Cassian. Incarn. i. 5 ; Leon. Ep. 28, 2 ; Oaesarius has aenrais^ qu. 20. On the doctrine itself, vid. a letter of S. Ambrose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's letter in response (Const. Ep. Pont. pp. 669-682). As we are taught by the predictions of the prophets that a Virgin was to be Mother of the promised Messiah, so are we assured by the infallible relation of the Evangelists, that this Mary '* was a Virgin when she bare Him." Bishop Pearson adds that ' many have taken the boldness to deny this truth, because not recorded in the sacred writ,' but ' with no success.' He replies to the argument from * until ' in Matt. i. 25, by referring to Gen. 28, 15; Deut. 34, 6 ; 1 S.im. 15, 35 ; 2 Sam. G, 23 ; Matt. 28, 20. He might also have referred to Psalm 110, 1 ; 1 Cor. 15, 25, which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the School of Marcellus as a proof that our Lord's kingdom would have an end, and are explained by Euseb. EccL Theol. iii. 13, 14. Vide also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29, where the true meaning of ' until ' (which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25) is well brought out. * He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them ?' Vide also note on S. Thomas's Catena, Old Test, in loc. ; vide also Suicer de Symb. Niceno-Const. p. 231 ; Spanheim, Dub. Evang. 28, 11." — Dr. J. H. Newman, 'On S. Athanasius,' Library of the Fathers, vol. viii. p. 3S1. ' TertuUian, adv. Judieos, cap. ix. vol. ii. p. 617. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. v. vol. i. p. 63. " Helvidius, against whom St. Jerome (de Perpetua Virgin. B. Maria;, 5 ; vol. ii. p. 188, Migne) writeth, abused gre:itly those words of Matthew concerning Joseph and the mother of our Saviour Christ, ' He knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born,* thereby gathering against the honour of the blessed Virgin, that a thing denied with special circumstance doth import an opposite atlirraation when once that circumstance is expired." — Hooker, ' Eccles. Pol.* v. .^Iv. 2 ; vol. ii. p. 194. "To be persuaded that the blessed Virgin did not continue so pure a virgin (all her lifetime) after our Saviour's birth as she was before, is certainly an error ejc specie, very dangerous ; yet nothing so deadly as the error of Eutyches, which held that our Saviour Christ did not, after His resurrection and glorification, continue as truly man as He was before." — Dr. Tuomas Jackson, vol. xii. p. 97. " We believe the Mother of our Lord to have been not only before and after His nativity, but also for ever, the most immacu- late and blessed Virgin. For although it may be thought sutlicient as to the mystery of the Incarnation, that when our Saviour was conceived and born, His Mother w'as a Virgin; though whatsoever should have followed after could have no ret^e.'tive operation upon the first-frtiit of her womb ; though there be no farther mention in the Creed, than that he was horn of the Virijin Mary; j-et the peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that Mother, the special honour and reverence due unto that Son, and ever paid by her, the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon her, and the power of the Highest which overshadow-ed her, the .singular good- ness and piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, have persuaded the Church of God in all ages to believe that she still continued in the same rtrginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged the ever Virgin iLiry " (see also the notes). — Bisuop Pearson, ' On the Creed,* art. iii. ; vol. i. p. 213. " Now, tihe necessary consequence of this dignity of the Blessed Virgin, is, that she remained for ever a Virgin, as the Catholic Church hath always held and maintained. For it cannot with decency be imagined, that the most holy vessel, which was thus once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated and profaned by human use." — Bisuoi' Bill, 'Sermon on Luke,' i. 48, 49 : vol. i. p. I.j6. CHAPTER I. Ver. 25. 75 of the fourth century. The Church Catholic, having regard to the uniform language of Scripture, and to the reverence which naturally belongs to such an awful mystery as the Incarnation, held that there was not, but that Joseph and Mary lived the same life of holy continence, after the birth of Jesus, as thej' had before ; and that the Blessed Virgin remained ever a virgin, as was probably intimated in many passages in the Old Testament, such as Cant. iv. 12 ; Ezek. xliv. 2. This doctrine is affirmed by a succession of repre- sentative writers in both the Eastern and Western Church from the earliest times down to the 16th centurj'.' On the other hand, men like Jovinian, Helvidius, the Ebionites, and others, whose faith on other points, to say the very least, was defective, maintained that there was such intercourse; and that the language of S. Matthew in this passage implied as much. The two expressions on which they relied as showing this were (1), " And knew her not till she had brought forth." They maintained that the word " till " ((019 ov) implied that he knew her afterwards. (2.) " Her first-born Son," found in some MSS. here, and in all in S. Luke ii. 7. This, they urged, meant that others were born after, and thus that our Lord's brethren, who are men- tioned in several places in the Gospels, were the sons of Joseph and Mary. With respect to the expression " until," the great Doctors of the Church showed that the common use of it both in Scripture and in profane anthors, was to assert or deny a fact up to a certain time, but with no reference to any time beyond that, as in the following instances, " He sent forth a raven, which went to and fro, until (cus ov, Septuagint) the waters were dried up from off the earth " (Gen. viii. 7). But this does not mean that the raven returned to him when the waters were dried up. " Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day (cms t^j fj/iepas, Septuagint) of her death" (2 Sam. vi. 2.3). 'I'his of course means that she never had any child. "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand until (eas av) I make Thine enemies Thy footstool " (Ps. ex. 1). " Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till (cms av) thou hast paid the uttermost far- thing " (Matt. V. 26). But this does not imply, that he should ever be able to pay the uttermost farthing, and should then come out. Such, too, is the use of the word in number- less other passages. With respect to the expression " first-born" (ttpoitotokos) they replied that it meant that none was born before, and that it did not impl}- that others were born after. This is the coustant use of the word, thus " At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born (jrav nparoTOKov, Septuagint)," Exod. xii. 29. Here it evidently means that the Lord slew the first-bom, whether it were the first-born of many, or was the only-begotten. " Sanctify unto me all the first-born (ttSv TrpioTOTOKov), whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of l)east : it is mine " (Exod. xiii. 2). Here the meaning of first-born is fixed, as that which openeth the womb. It may be the first-born among many, or it may be the only-bom, the only-begotten. With respect to the Lord's brethren, James and Joses, and Simon and Judas, and His sisters (Matt. xiii. 55), whether they are the children of Joseph and Mary, it may be said that the early writers maintain that the constant tradition of the Church is against this; and that it is not necessary to understand these words in that sense, as there are other ex- planations of these terms sufiScieutly satisfactory. (See ' Comment, on S. Matt.' xii. 46.) The Evangelists nowhere state the year, or the month, or the day of the month on which Jesus was born. Nor do any data now exist that will enable us to deternjine the day on which He was born. For that we have nothing but the tra- dition of the Church. But the year and the month we can still determine, at least by probable calculations.^ Four events are recorded in the Gospels which have been used as data to fix the year in which Jesus was born.* These * Origen, in Joann. tomus i. 6, vol. iv. p. 31. in Luc. Homil. vii. vol, iii. p. 1818. S. Athanasius, Fragment in Luc. vol. iii. p. 1393. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. v. vol. i. p. 6+. S. Epiphanius, Hser. Ixjtviii. 9, vol. ii. p. 711. S. Cyril Alei. in Luc. ii. 7, vol. v. p. 485. Theophylact, in Matt. i. 25, vol. i. p. 10. Euthymius, in Matt. i. 25, vol. i. p. 47. S. Hilary Pict. in Matt, i., vol. i. p. 921. S. Ambrose, de Causa Bonosi, 3, vol. iii, p. 1173. * S. Jerome, de Perpet. Virginit. B. M. 9, &c., vol. ii. p. 192. • " Proceeding to compare the general results of our investigation of the four chronological data given in the Gospels, by the help of which we propose to determine the year of our Lord's Birth, we shall discover the following surprising agreement : (1.) If Jesus was born in the lifetime of Herod the Great, He must have been born before April 750 A,U.C,, since Herod died at the beginning of that month. This is the estremest terminus ad quem of the Birth of Jesus, (2,) The star which led the wise men from the East to Jerusalem to see the Messiah, appeared during the months of Kebruary, March and April, 750 A,r,c, (3,) The census, which S. Augustine, de Nupt, et Concup. i, 11, vol, x. p. 420. S. Leo Magnus, Sermo in Nativit. Dom. ii. 2, vol. i. p. 195. Venerable Bede, in Matt. i. 25, vol. iii. p. 12. S. Bernard, Homilies on the Annunciation. S, Thomas Acjuinas, Summ, iii, quasst, 28, art, 3, vol. iv. p. 262. Erasmus, in Matt. i. 18, Critici Sacri, vol. vf. p. 9. Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. vii. p. 55. Maldonatus, in Matt. i. 25, vol. i. p. 25. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. i. 25, vol. viii. p. 57, ' See Wieseler's Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, ch. ii. p. 45, &c. was the cause of our Lord's Birth taking place at Bethlehem, must have been held at the close of the reign of Herod the Great, pro- bably a short time before the 12th of March, 750 A.U.C, on which day the insurgent Matthias, the Theudas of the New Test.-imcnt, was executed, (4.) About thirty years, reckoned back from the Baptism of Jesus, i.e., the summer of 780 A.C.C, brings us back again to a date somewhat earlier than April, 750 A.U.C, but scarcely earlier than the beginning of that year. " These four chronological data lead us to the -same year 750 A.v.C, and, what is more, the same period of the year, viz., its 76 COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR GOSPELS. are (1), the reign of Herod, the father of Archelaus ; (2), the appearance of the Star to the wise men ; (3), the census of Judaea under Augustus; and (4), the fact that Jesus was about thirty years of age when He began His Ministry. From a comparison of various passages in Josephus and otlier autliors, it is clear that the deatli of Herod tooli place seven days before the Passover of 750 A.n.c, and therefore in the first eight days of the month Nisan, 750 a.d.c. Since Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, His birth must have taken place before the month Nisan, 750 a.d.c, tliat is, four years before the common era, or the era of Dionysiiis." This date for the birth of Jesus is further confirmed by an examination into the time indicated by the apjiearauce of the Star to the wise men ; that is, on the supposition that this Star was a real Star, and not a meteor of extraordinary nature, supernaturally created for a temporary purpose — (see ' Com- ment, on Matt. ch. ii.) — also by the census, which was the cause of His birth taking place at Bethlehem — (see ' Comment, on Luke,' ch. ii.) — and by reckoning about thirty years back from the baptism of Jesus to His birth. Even the month in which Jesus was born can be calculated approximately, and on fairly probable grounds. By a series of ingenious calculations it has been ascertained that the course of Abia, to which Zacharias (Luke i. 5) belonged, was in office in tne temple service in the year 748 a.d.c, from tlie 3rd to the 9th of October. Zacharias, who would leave the Temple on the evening of the 9th of October, might there- fore have reached his home in the hill country of Juda;a on the 10th. If we assume nine months from that date for the pregnancy of Elizabeth, and add to it the six months mentioned Luke i. 26, we shall obtain the 10th of January as the date of the birth of Jesus. It was necessary that new-born infants should be presented in the Temjile forty days after their birth. If, as some have considered probable, the presentation of Jesus in the Temple preceded the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus at Beth- lehem, it would follow that He must have been born more than forty days before the death of Herod, which brings Tis to February, 750 a.u.c, as the latest date for the birth of Jesus. Nor, taking into consideration the climate of Palestine at the present time, and the changes which it may have under- gone in the lapse of ISOO years, will there be found anything in the fact that the shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks in the open field, to militate against the supposition that Jesus was born as early in the year as the month of January or February. The following interesting table is taken from Wieseler's ' Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,' p. 436 : — BIRTH. Kusebius Jerome . . Baronius Scaliger . . Lamy Ussber . . I'etavius . . Calvisius. . Pearson . . Bengel . . Vogel Suskind . . Hug Sanclemente Jdeler Paulus . , Schi'ader. . Anger . . Wieseler. . ,, 6 Jan ,, 25 Dec „ 25 Dec , end of Feb. or beginning of Marcb ,, 25 Dec ,, 25 Dec ,, 25 Dec ., beginning of Oct. , 25 Dec. , end of Feb. or beginning of March . ,, Feb , 25 Dec , before the close of the year . . , Ftb Whether we call this difference of opinion as to the nionth and the day when Jesus was born, a great diversity if drawn from the same data, or a singular agreement if drawn from r beginning of JIarcli. . 25 A.D., close 25 A.D., close or beginning of 2tj a.d. 29 A.D., end of Feb. or beginning of March. 29 A.D., beginning 27 A.U., spring , March. , 3 April. , 3 April. , 3 April. , 23 April. , 3 April. , 7 April. 29 A.D., 25 March. 29 A.D., 15 April. 31 A.U., 26 April. 35 AD. 31 A.D., 27 April. 30 A,D., 7 April. different data, it will tend to show that the tradition of the Church, which assigns December 25 as the day of Christ's birth, is true, or not far from the truth. beginning. While then we consider it not impossible that Jesus was born towards the end of 749 A.u.C, 5 B.C., yet we must on these grounds hold it to be far more probable that He was born in one of the early months of 750 A.u.c. =4 B.C. " Early ecclesiastical tradition hesitates between the years 750, 751, 752, A.U.C, as the date of our Lord's Birth. It is not till a somewhat later period, that it seems to have adopted the view of DionvNins, that Jesus was born in 75i A.D.C." — Wieseler, * Chrounli.^iral Synopsis,* p. 114. ■* Dionyslan Era. — Dionysius Exiguus was a monl; of Scythian extraction, who flourished at Rome A.D. 533, and died before A.D. 556. He was intimate with Cassiodorus ; who gives him a high character for intelligence and virtue. Being familiar with Greel?, he collected and translated a body of canons, including the first 50 Apostolic Canons, and those of the Council of Nice, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Sardica, and some in Africa ; he also made a collection of the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, from Siricius to Anastasius II. ; both are extant in Jastell's Biblioth. Juris Canonici, tom. i. He likewise translated a synodic epistle of Cyril of Alexandria, a paschal Epistle of Proterius, the life of S. Pachomius, an Oration of Proclus, Gregory Nyssen de Opificio Hominis ; and composed a Paschal Cycle of 97 years, commencing A.D. 527, of which only a fragment remains. In the last work, he proposed that Christians should use the time of Christ's birth as their era ; which proposal was soon followed universally. Hence the Christian era is called the Dionysiiin era. But Dionysius miscalcul.\ted the time of Christ's birth, placing it four years, as most writers suppose, too late. — Sec Cave, ' Hist. Literaria.' CHAPTER II. 71 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. Chief Priests. — "'And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together' (Matt. ii. 4). That is, ho assembled the Sanliedriu. Herod is said by very many authors to have slain the Sanhedrin, but this is.neitber to be understood of the whole Sanhedrin, nor, if it were to be understood of the whole, would it denote the total subversion of the Sanhedrin " Herod was to overcome two difficulties, that he might, with the peace and favour of the Jews, become their king. For although he had been raised unto the kingdom by the llomans, nevertheless that he might establish his throne, the people remaining quiet and accepting him, first, it seemed necessary to him tliat the Asmonean family should be re- moved out of the way, which formerly governing the people, they had some affection and love for, and which still remain- ing, he suspected he could scarce be secure. Secondly, that law of setting no king over them, but of their brethren, debarred him, since he himself was of the stuck of Edom. Therefore he took away all those Rabbins, who, adhering stiffly to this law, opposed what they could, his coming to the kingdom. But all the Rabbins he slew not (Bava Bathra, fol. 3, 2), for the sons of Betira were left alive, who held the chair, when Hillel came out of Egypt. " Therefore, he slew not all the Elders of the Sanhedrin, but those only, who taking occasion from that law, opposed his access to the kingdom. Out of that slaughter the two sons of Betira escaped, who held the first place in the Sanhe- drin after the death of Sliemaiah and Abtalion. Shammai also escaped, who according as Josephus relates, foretold this slaughter. Hillel escaped likewise, if he were then present, and Menahem, who certainly was there, and who thenceforth sate second in the chair. Bava ben Buta escaped also, as the Gemara relates, who afterwards persuaded Herod, that he should repair the Temple, to expiate this bloody impiety. And others escaped. " The Chief Priests (dp;(ifpeTr). When the Sanhedrin consisted of Priests, Levites, and Israelites (as Maimonides teacheth in Sanhedr. cap. 2) under the word 'Ap;(tfpfij, chief priests, are comprehended the two former, namely, whoever of the clergy were members of the Sanliedriu ; under ' the scribes of the people' are comprehended all those of the Sanhedrin, who were not of the Clergy. " Among the priests were divers difterences. " 1. Of the priests some were called, as if you would say, the Plebeian priests, namely such who indeed were not of the common jwople, but wanted school education, and were not reckoned among the learned, nor among such as were devoted to religion. For seeing the whole seed of Aaron was sacer- dotal, and priests were not so much made as born, no wonder, if some ignorant and poor were found among them." This is then proved by quotations from Hierosol. Trumoth. fol. 44, 1 and 2 ; Bab. Sanhedr. fol. 90, 2. " However ignorant and illiterate these were, yet they had their courses at the altar according to their lot, being in- structed at that time by certain rules for performing their ofiice appointed them by lot. You would stand amazed to read (Joma, cap. i.), those things which are supposed con- cerning the ignorance and rudeness even of the High Priest himself. "2. There were others who were called Idiot or private priests; who although they both were learned, and performed the public office at the altar, yet were called private, because they were priests of a lower, and not of a worthier, order. "3. The worthier degree of priests were fourfold, besides the degree of the High priest, and of the Sagan his substitute. For 1. There were the heads of the Ephemeries, or courses ; in number twenty-four. 2. There were the heads of the families in every course. Of both see the Jerusalem 'J'almud (Taanith, fol. 68, 1). 3. The presidents over the vaiious offices in the Temple. Of them see Shekalim, cap. 5. 4. Any priests or Levites, indeed, although not of these orders, that were chosen into the chief Sanhedrin. 'Ap^ifpeis chief priests therefore, here and elsewhere, where the discourse is of the Sanhedrin, were they, who being of the priestly or Levitical stock, were chosen info that chief Senate. " ' Scribes of the people.' A ' scribe' denotes more generally any man learned, and is opposed to the word rude or clownish. " More particularly scribes denote such, who being learned, and of scholastic education, addicted themselves especially in handling the pen and in writing. Such were the public Xotaries in the Sanhedrins, Registers in the Synagogues, Amanuenses, who employed themselves in transcribing the law, phylacteries, short sentences to be fixed upon the door posts, bills of contracts, or diverse, &c "But above all others the Fathers of the tradition are called Scribes, who were indeed the Elders of the San- hedrin " These, therefore, whom Matthew calls ' the Scribes of the people,' were those elders of the Sanhedrin, who were not sprung from the Sacerdotal or Levitical stock, but of other tribes. The elders of the Sanhedrin sprung of the bloal of COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. the priests, were the Scribes of the Clergy, tlie rest were the scribes of the people. " We may therefore guess, and that no improbable conjec- ture, that in this assembly called together by Herod, there were present, among others : 1. Hillel, the President ; 2. Shammai, Vice-President ; 3. The sons of Betira, Judah, and Joshua, 4. Bava ben Buta ; 5. Jonathan the son of Uzziel, the Chaldee paraphrast; 6. Simeon the son of Hillel." — Lightfoot, 'On S. Matthew,' ii. 4; vol. ii. p. 109. " He calleth them scribes of the people, to distinguish them from the secretaries or clerks of particular men, as Baruch was the scribe of Jeremy, and Seraiah the scribe or secretary of David (2 Sam. viii. IT). But these of whom mention is here, and so very frequently in the Gospel elsewhere, were not such private or peculiar clerks, but they were the public scribes or clerks of the people ; and this their office or function con- sisted in two particulars. " 1. They were the men that took upon them to copy the Bible for those that desired to have a copy. For so great and various is the accuracy and exactness of the Scripture text in the mystical and profound significancies of letters, vowels, and accents, that it was not fit that every one should ofier to transcribe the original, or that every vulgar pen should copy things of so sublime speculation. Therefore there was a peculiar and ^cial order of learned men among the Jews, whose office it was to take care of the preservation of the purity of the text in all Bibles that should be copied out, that no corruption or error should creep into the original of the sacred writ, and these were called the ' Scribes of the people,' or their scriveners or writers of the copy of the Bible. And hence it is that there is so frequent mention in the Rabbins of Tikkun Sopherim, the correction or direction of the Scribes, or their peculiar and special disposing of the text, which the Massoreth at the beginning of the book of Numbers observeth to have been in eighteen places, which are reckoned there. These scribes may be conceived to have beeu either Priests or Levites, or both, the men of that tribe being the chiefest students in the Scriptures ; and being bound by their calling to be able to instruct the people in the same (Dent, xxxiii. 10 — Mai. ii. 7). " They had eight and forty universities as it were, belong- ing to that tribe, for the education of the Clergy in the know- ledge of the Law and the Prophets (Josh, xxi.) ; and from among the learned of those students were some set apart for this office, which required profound learning and skill ; namely, to be the copiers of the Bible when any copy was to be taken, or, at least, to take care that all copies that should be transcribed, should be pure and without corrup- tion. " 2. These also were the public and common preachers of the people, being more constant pulpit men, than any other of the Clergy ; taking on them, not only to be the preservers and providers for the purity of the text, but also the most "constant and common explainers and expounders of it in sermons. Therefore, it is said of our Saviour, that He taught as one that had authority, and not as tlie scribes (Matt. vii. 29), where tlie scribes are rather mentioned than any other order, because they were the greatest and most ordinary preachers. And our Saviour Himself in Mark xii. 25, 'How say the Scribes, that Christ is the Son of David.?' Instan- cing in the Scribes only [whereas the Pharisees, Sadducees, and even all the nation of the Jews held the same opinion] because the Scribes were the men that were oftest in the pulpit, and preached more than any other ; and so this doctrine was heard more from them than others. " And thus was Ezra a ready scribe in the Law of Moses (Ezra vii. 6), both for the copying and preserving pure the text of the Scripture, and also for the expounding of it by his sermons. And such a one is the Scribe that our Saviour speaketh of, that is instmcted in the kingdom of heaven, that bringeth out of his treasure instructions out of the New Testament and Old (Matt. xiii. 52). The Chaldee Paraphrast on Jer. vi. 13, and viii. 10, and in other places instead of the Prophet, readeth the Scribe, taking, as it seemeth, the prophet in the same sense that Paul doth prophesying (1 Thess. V. 20 — 1 Cor. xiv. 5) for the preacher, and making the text speak in the same tenour that it doth here, ' the Priests and the Scribes.' " — Lightfoot, ' Harmony of the Four Evangelists,' Matt. ii. 4 ; vol. i. p. 439. CHAPTER II. Vers, i, 2. 79 CHAPTER II. [I. The wise men out of thx tasl are directed to CkrUt by a star. n. They warship Bim, and offer their presents. 14. Joseph fleeth into Kgypt, with Jesus and His mother. 16. Herod slayHk the childrtn : 20. himself dieth. 23. Christ is brouglU back again into Galilee to yazareth.] [Vulg. Quomolo magi cum : terram Israel.^ •ibus ad Christum natum pervenerint : de n<.rodis in infantes savitia, et Christi in .Egyptu :ilio ipsiusque reditu All tlie four Evangelists begin their Gospels in a different way ; and introduce Jesus to us, so to sjieak, from a different point of view. S. Mark begins with the preaching of John, tlie Baptism, and the Temptation of Jesus prejwratory to His Miui.stry. S. John first of all states the Eiernal Generation of Jesus, and the testimony of the Baptist to Him, as the Lamb of God that laketh aw.ay the sin of the world. S. Luke begins with the miraculous conception and birth of John Baptist, the Annunciation of the Angel to the Blessed Virgin, the Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the appearance of the heavenly host to the shepherds, and their adoration of Him in the manger. S. JLatthew begins his Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus, the perplexity of Joseph at the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the Birth of Jesus, and the arrival of the wi.se men from the East. Each seems to give a different portion, so as to make up a perfect whole. S. Mark and S. John say nothing of His Birth or Childhood. S. Luke relates much of what S. Mat- thew omits, but he says nothing of the doubts of Joseph, of the arrival of the wise men from the East, or of Herod's act of crueltj' and subtility towards the infants around Bethlehem. 1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem " of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews .■" for we have seen his star"' in the east, and are come to worship him. * Bethlehem. — " No one has ever doubted, I believe, th.it the present Beit Lahm, ' House of Flesh,' of the Aral)s, is identical with the ancient Bethlehem, House of Bread, of the Jews ; and it is therefore not necessary here to dwelt upon the proofs, which may be seen in Reland, Pala?st. p. 642. Euseb. et Hieron. Onomast. art. Bethleem. Not only does the name coincide ; but the present distance of two hours from Jerusalem corresponds very exactly to the six Roman miles of antiquity. Tradition moreover h.as never lost sight of Bethlehem ; and in almost every century since the times of the New Testament, it h.as been visited and mentioned by writers and travellers; by Justin Martyr in the second century; by Origcn in the third ; and then by Eusebius, Jerome, the Bor- deaux pilgrim, and so on by hundreds to the present day. Helena built here a Church, whicli appears to have been the same that still exists. Jerome afterwards took up his residence in the con- vent, which early sprung up around it ; and the Roman matron Paula came and erected other convents, and spent here the re- mainder of her days "The crusaders, on their approach to Jerusalem, first took pos- session of Bethlehem, at the entreaty of its Christian inhabitants. In A.D. 1110, King Baldwin I. erected it into an episcopal see, a dignity it had never before enjoyed; but although this was con- firmed by Pope Paschal II., and the title long retained in the llomish Church, yet the actual possession of the see appears not to have been of long continuance. In A.D. 1244, Bethlehem like Jerusalem was desolated by the wild hordes of the Kharismians. " The present inhabitants of Bethlehem are all Christians ; and are rated at eight hundred taxable men, indicating a population of more than three thousand souls. There was formerly a Muham- niedan quarter ; but, after the rebellion in 18.34, this w.as destroyed by order of Ibrahim Pacha. The town has gates at the entrance of some of the streets ; the houses are solidly built though not large. The many olive and fig-orchards and vineyards round about, are marks of industry and thrift ; and the adjacent fields, though stony and rough, produce, nevertheless, good crops of grain. Here indeed was the scene of the beautiful narrative of Ruth, gleaning in the fields of Boaz after his rfaj^ers : antl it required no great stretch of imagination to call up again those transactions before our eyes. The present inhabitants, besides their agriculture, em- ploy themselves in carving beads, crucifixes, models of the Holv Sepulchre, and other similar articles, in olive-wood, the fruit of the Dom-palm, mother of pearl, and the like, in the same manner as the Christians of Jerusalem. Indeed the neatest and most skil- fully wrought specimens of all these little articles, come from Bethlehem." — Dk. KoBiNSON, ' Biblical Researches in Palestine,' vol. ii. p. 159. *' Its confined position on the narrow ridge of the long gray hill would leave * no room * for the crowded travellers to find shelter. Its elevation would naturally lead the early Christians to connect it with the words of Isaiah, ' He shall dwell on high, in a lofty c.ive of the strong rock,' Isaiah xxxiii. 16. Its southern situation made it always a resting-place, probably the first halting-place from Jerusalem, on the way to Egypt. ' By Bethlehem ' in ancient times, Jerem. xl. 17, was the caravanserai or khan of Chimham, son of Barzillai, for those who would ' go to enter into Egypt ;' and from Bethlehem, it may be, from that same caravanserai, Joseph ' arose and took the young Child and His mother and de- parted into Egypt,' Matt. ii. 14. The familiar well appears close by the gate, for whose water David longed. Eastward extend the wild hills, where the flocks .and herds of D.avid, and of Amos, and of ' the shepherds abiding with their flocks by night,' may have wandered. Amongst these hills is the long succession of rocky vaults, probably the * cave of Aduliam,* to which David retired, in the neighbourhood of his ancient home, 1 Sam. xxii. 2. Below lie the corn-fields, the scene of Ruth's adventures, from which it derives its name, the ' house of bread.' Along its slopes may be traced the vineyards of Judah, here kept up with greater euergy because its inhabitants are Christians." — Stanley, * Sinai and Palestine,' p. Hj3. " His Star. — " From the general expectation which prevailed in the East at the period of the Advent, and from the prophecies collected and carefully preserved in Rome under the name of the Sibylline books, we are at once led to presume that the knowledge of the early promise of a Deliverer had not been confined to tlie 8o COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. After a careful examination it has been ascertained that the death of Herod, called the Great, took place about seven days before the Passover of 750 a.u.c, and therefore in the first eight days of the month Nisan, 750 A.u.c. As Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, His birth must in any case have taken place before the montli Nisan, 750 a.u.c, that is four years before the common era, or the era of Dionysius.' The Incarnation was itself a miracle so stupendous, that it need not excite our surprise if God wrought other miracles to announce it. In spite of an occasional expression, which may seem to imply that some thought this star one of the regular, but uncommon, phenomena of the existing hea- venly bodies, it was the general opinion of the ancient Fathers that this star was a supernatural light created for this special purpose.^ But how did these wise men infer that the appearance of this star indicated the birth of the King of the Jews? Either this was divinely borne in on their minds by God, in some strong irresistible manner, or they arrived at this con- clusion from some tradition which they had received from earlier times. We are not driven to look to a Jewish source exclusively for such tradition ; nor would their secluded posi- tion in Palestine, the peculiar nature of their government, or their own exqlusive habits, be favourable for the dissemi- nation of such knowledge among the henthen. The tradition may have come from some source common to both, before the Jews were separated off from the rest of the world; or the knowledge may have been gained and put into a prophetic form, even after the time of Abraham. The country from which these wise men came may have been the same as that in which Balaam had formerly lived. Both are said to come from the East (dn-o hvaTokwv). A prophecy of Balaam, sufBoient to suggest that the birth of some illustrious personage would be announced by a star has been preserved in the Old Testament (Numb. xxiv. 17). Additional knowledge, or other prophecies of like nature, he may have been the means, through God, of delivering to his own people, and for the benefit of their descendants. These men might he, as their name implies, skilled in some branch of scieiKje; they might be astrologers, versed in the motions of the heavenly bodies, and they may have become acquainted with some singular phenomenon which happened about that time. But the more intimate was their acquaintance with the heavenly bodies, and with the laws according to which their movements are made, tlie greater would be their certainty, that no natural phenomenon could predict the birth of any human being, either in Judaa, or elsewhere. Their whole behaviour favours the old opinion, that this star was a supernatural light, and that, though their minds might be prepared for ready belief by an ancient tradition, they received a special intimation as to the import of this star.' Earnest and fearless they undertake a distant journey to a land, probably unknown to them. The throne of Judaja is then held by one of the most suspicious and jDOst unscrupulous despots that ever lived, yet they proclaim that a new king of the Jews is born; and that their object in coming is to worship him. Men only act as these men did, when they are impelled by religious fervour, when they are acting, or think they are acting, at the direct command of God, and through His undoubted influence. Few men would risk their lives on convictions formed by the joint force of a scientific deduction and a popular tradition. Among the Persians, the Magi were a distinct order, like the priests among the Egyptians, and the Druids among the Gauls.'' Arabia Felix, or Persia, is most generally believed to be the country from wliich these wise men came. Justin Martyr, writing about the year a.d. 146 says that they came from Arabia ;^ and he repeats this statement no less than ten times. The Church, from time immemorial, has taught that these wise men first beheld the star on the birth of Jesus,^ and that they then started on their search, and, travelling on drome- daries, as was the custom of the country, they went first to Jerusalem, and then to Bethlehem, on January 6th, the day of the Epiphany, or Manifestation of God Incarnate to the Gentiles." Early writers' were accustomed to recognise in the arrival of these wise men the fulfilment of Isaiah's words, "The Gentiles shall come to Thy Light, and kings to the bright- ness of Thy rising" (Ix. 3). " The midtitude of camels shall cover Thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah, all they from Sheba shall come : they shall bring gold and incense ; and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord." And the Psalmist's words, " The kings of Tarshibh, and of the isles shall bring presents : the kings of Sheba shall offer gifts " * See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 46-51. * Jansenius in Concord. Evang. cap. ix. p. 69. Maldonatus in Matt. ii. 2 ; vol. i. p. 35. Cornelius a Lapide in Matt. ii. 2 ; vol. viii. p. 61. 3 S. Augustine, Sermo ii. in Epiphan. cap. i. ; vol. v. p. 1028. S. Leo Magnus, Sermo i. in Epiphan. cap. i. ; vol. i. p. 2S5. " Herodotus, lib. i. 140. Cicero de Divinatione, i. [TertuUian Jewish nation. Their exclusive character, and that of their re- ligion ; their small significance in the political system and intel- lectual movement of the world; and the false as well as imperfect notions which seem to have prevailed elsewhere respecting them and their law (Apocrypha, Esther siii. 1-7) ; all make it highly improbable that their expectation and predictions should have been drawn from them and their sacred books exclusively. Further, Holy Scripture distinctly exhibits to us the existence of channels TertuUian ad Marcion. i. 13 ; vol. ii. p. 260. 5 S. Justin Martyr, Dialog. 305. ^ S. Augustine Serm. i. ii. iii. de Epiphan. vol. v. pp. 1026-1031. S. Leo Magnus, Serm. i.-viii. de Epiphan. vol. i. jjp. 235-260. ' TertuUian, adv. Marc. iii. 13 ; vol. ii. p. 339. adv. Jud*eos, ix. ; vol. ii. p. 619. S. Hilary Pict. de Trinit. iv. 38 ; vol. ii. p. 123. S. Jej-ome in Dan. ii. 2 ; vol, T. p. 498. of traditional knowledge severed from them. Thus much we learn particularly from the cases of Job, who was a prophet and servant of God, though he lived in a country where idolatry was practised, and of Balaam, who, not being an Israelite, nor an upright man, was nevertheless a prophet also." — Gladstone, 'Studies on Homer,' vol. ii. p. 39. " January vi., see note on ch. iii. 15. CHAPTER II. Vers. i--j. 8i (Ixxii. 10). They consequently concluded tliat these wise men were princes or persons in high station in their own laud. From the fact that the Evangelist does not speak of them in the dual, but in the plural number, it is inferred that they were more than two ; and from the three kinds of gifts which they brought, it is further concluded that they were probably throe in number. In spite of the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of recon- ciling the expressions of S. Matthew with this supposition, the opinion has been held by some, in modern days, that this star was not a supernatural light created for a particular purpose, but one of the regular, though rare, phenomena of the heavenly bodies. Acting on this belief, the celebrated astronomer, Kepler, in the- early part of the seventeenth cen- tury, calculated that in theye.irA.u.c. 748, or the year in which the birth of Jesus had been fixed on historical grounds, there was a rare conjunction of three planets, visible in the months of February, March, and April. This calculation has been confirmed, with slight alterations, by later astronomers. If this phenomenon, it is argued, was observed by the Magi, men who were probably astrologers, and acquainted with Balaam's prophecy of the star rising out of the East, and at a time, too, when all the world was in eager expectation of some such event, it would be sufficient to induce them to seek for firrther information.' 3. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. .S.V. the king Herod. Vulg. Audieus autem Herodes rex. 4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. Berod, called the Great, was an Idumaean, and not a Jew by birth. The Roman Senate had created him king of Judaea, to the exclusion of the Asmonean line, and it was in the thirty-sixth year of his reign that this star apjieared. Conscious that he had no hereditary title to the throne of the Jews, and that he had gained for himself but a very slight hold on the afl'ections of the people, he would naturally enough be jealous of anything that appeared like setting up a rival to his power. To say that a new king of the Jews was born was a bold thing, and it would touch him to the quick. All Jerusalem would also be troubled, because they feared the miseries which this might be the occasion of their suffering from him. They had had experience before this of the excesses and cruelties of which Herod could be guilty. The assembly, which Herod now called together for consul- tation, was probably the Sanhedrin. I'his usually consisted of seventy-one members, chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and other men of eminence. This was the council in which thirty years later Nicodemus spoke in defence of Jesus (John vii- 50) ; and of this council Joseph of Arimathea was a member (Mark xv. 43). 5. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea : for thus it is written by the prophet, Valg. Sic enim scriptum est per propbetani. 6. . " And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda ; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." JIargin, that shaU feed. S. omits for. Vulg. tjui regat populum meam Israel. Herod inquires of the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, where the Christ should be born, because they are the national guardians and interpreters of their own Scriptures. They reply from the i^ophet Micah (v. 2), in Bethlehem of Judfea. They do not quote the words of the jirophet literally, but with sufficient accuracy for all purposes. There is no real contradictiou between the prophet and the Evangelist. Micah calls Bethlehem "little" among the princes, or principal cities of Judah, and. S. Matthew calls it " not the least," that is, among the greatest. Bethlehem was little in itself, in its size, in the number of its inhabitants, in the grandeur of its buildings, when compared with other cities, but it was among the greatest when considered as the birth-place of David, the type of the Messiah, and as the birth-place of the ilessiah Himself, of God Incarnate. Micah calls it Bethlehem Ephratah, from Ephratah, who wa.s the father of Bethlehem (1 Chron. iv. 4). The meanings of the two names are similar, and, if not intended as pro- phetic of Jesus, they are eminently descriptive of Him. Ephratah means fruitful, or fruit-bearing, and Bethlehem means the house of bread. After Bethlehem became the cradle of the Incarnation, all reference to the name of its founder, or to the fruitfulness of its soil was lost, and its meaning was concentrated in Him, who was the 'J'rue Bread, who came down from heaven to give life unto the world. 7. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. Vulg. Tunc Herodes clam vocatis magis diligentcr didicit ab eis tempu3 stellae, quae apparuit eis. Herod's object in calling the wise men privately was, that he might not apipear to give too much importance to their communication ; to avoid the excitement and tumult which an examination before the Sanhedrin would have created among the people ; and to inquire more minutely into the particulars respecting the Star than he could in a public assembly. ' See Wieseler's Chronological Synopsis, pp. 56-64. McClell.m, New Testament, p. 399. 82 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 8. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diUgently for the young Child ; and when ye have found Him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship Him also. 9. When they had heard the king, they de- parted ; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. Some have supposed that the star may not have been visible to any but the wise men, or at least when it appeared the second time on their way I'rom Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Herod was not accustomed to let his plans fail from want of skill or decision in the execution of them. If the star had been visible to himself and to his servants, he would doubt- less have commissioned some more trusty messengers to go and search diligently for the young Child, and bring him word again where He was to be found. Herod only employed these strangers because, for some reason or other, he could not gain his object without them, probably because the star was not visible to any but them.^ The star first indicated Juda>a as the place where the new- born King was to be found, then Bethlehem, and then the habitation, tt]v oiki'ui/, in which Jesus and his Mother were found. 11. IT And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshipped Him : and when they had opened their treasures, they pre- sented unto Him gifts ; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Martdn, cffered. \'ulg. Et apertis tbesauris suis obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus, et niyrrham. The opinion most common in primitive times, as already stated, and that in accordance with which the ofBces of the Church were framed, wa.s, that the wise men arrived at Jeru- salem within a few days after the birth of Jesns, that a few days more elajised while they were delayed in Jerusalem, and that they finally arrived at Bethlehem about the 6th of January, where they found the Babe and His Mother still in the inn or khan, and probably still in that portion of it set apart for the cattle.^ An individual writer or two there were in early times, who held with many since, that the visit of the wise men might be considerably later.^ They were led to form this opinion, partly by the desire of shorteniug the interval between the time when Herod's suspicions were first aroused, and the time embraced by tlie decree which he issued for the slaugh- ter of the infants, and partly by the words when they were come into " the house." They supposed that the term {tt]v oiKlav), which we have rendered " the house," implied a place or building, not merely inhabited by man, but intended for the habitation of man, and that the holy family had removed from the inn, the place in which was the manger, and where the shepherds had beheld and worshipped Jesus; and that this would be after the Purification of the Blessed Virgin and the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and therefore more "than forty days after the Nativity. This explanation implies that they returned to Bethlehem, either immediately after the Presentation in the Temple, or some time later. S. Luke's words seem to indicate that after the Presentation they went straight to Nazareth (ii. 39). S. Matthew does not speak of Joseph as being present when the wise men find the young Child with Blary, His Mother. He may, nevertheless, have been there. For the Evangelists seldom mention him, and only when they relate how his services were required for the protection of the Blessed Virgin and her Son, Joseph is introduced only on five occasions in the whole Gospel history; first, when he is represented as perplexed at the conception of Mary, his espoused wife ; again, when he takes her to Bethlehem to be taxed along with him- self, when Jesus was born (Luke ii. 4, &c.) ; when he took the young Child and His Mother into Egypt (Matt. ii. 1.3) ; again, when he brought them out of Egypt to Nazareth (Matt. ii. 19) ; and, lastly, when Jesus was twelve years old, when Joseph took Him and His Mother up to Jerusalem (Luke ii. 41). On all these occasions the character in which Joseph is prominently set forth, is not so much as the hus- band of Mary, as the guardian and protector of herself and her Son. It is only when acting in that capacity that Joseph is mentioned in the Gospels at all. In falling down and worshipping Jesus (TrecroVrfs n-pno-f- Kvinja-av"), and in ofi'ering to Him gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh, were the Magi, or wise men, merely following the custom of their country, and acting as they would have done to one of their own native kings? or was the act intended as worship to a Being whom they recognised to be more than human '? Probably they would have done the same to one of their own kings, but that does not exclude the notion that they did this to Jesus as to God, and as an act of divine worship. In the Eastern mind the difl'erence between civil homage and religious worship was not so sharply defined as it was among the Jews. In Eastern countries the homage paid to man always bordered, and still borders, on what in more western ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 9 ; vol. viii. p. 66. = S. Justin Martyr, Dialog, p. 306. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. viii.; vol. i. p. 100. S. Gregory Nyssen, in Dieoa Natal. Christi, vol. iii. p. 1144. Euthymius, in Matt. ii. 11 ; vol. i. p. 65. S. Jerome, Epist. 17 a.I Marcollam ; vol. i. p. 490. S. Augustine, Serm. i. et ii. de Epiphan. ; vol. v. p. 1026, &c. S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qua'st. 36, art. 6 ; vol. iv. p. 332. M.ildonatus, in Matt. ii. 10 ; vol. i. p. 38. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 11 ; vol. viii. p. 67. ^ S. Epijihanms, Hreres. x.xx. 29; vol. i. p. 456. CHAPTER II. Vers. 12-15. 83 climes, would be loolcoil upoh as divine worship. In the Ka.st, the dilTeicDce betwcin homau'e 1o man and worshij) to God, was scaicely marked bv the outward act. The conduct of the Magi hitherto had been so different from that of the generality of men, even in their own country, that we can scarcely measure their actions by the common standard. lu performing the greatest act of humiliation of which they were capable, and in offering the most costly, rare productions that their country yielded, they were probably influenced by veiy different feelings from those which animated the rest of their countrymen, or which had even influeuced themselves before in performing similar acts. All the early writers who refer to tlie offering of the wise men, regard them as consciously per- forming an act of worship to one whom they were divinely taught to recognise as the God of heaven and earth.' The gilts, too, may have had a prophetic significance beyond what the givers intended, or they may have been fully alive, as was the common belief, to their import. Either way, the gifts were singularlj' adapted to represent the character of Him to whom they were offered. Gold has always been the emblem of a king, and as such the gold, which these wise men offered, would aptly represent Jesus as the King of heaven and earth ; and might also indicate their belief in Him as such. Among the Jews, incense was used chiefly in the service of God. It was burnt daily on the altar before God, and was offered by the priest. Here it is presented to God Incarnate, the Great High Priest. Myrrh was used in embalming the body after death. Given to Jesus for His own use, it would have refer- ence to His death. As early as the fourth century this was expressed in verse, and served to guide the faith, and to animate the devotion of Christians. S. Jerome praises Ju- vencus, a presbyter, as having succeeded in exiTcssing in one admirable line, the supernatural meaning of these three gifts. Thus, aurum, myrrham, regique, hominique, Deoque Dona ferunt. How much these wise men saw of the nature and appli- cation of their own gifts, we are not informed. But may we not reasonably conclude that the sincerity and childlike faith which they had shown in following the star, would receive its reward and fuller development in a further manifestation of God's will to them, and in a fuller revelation of the Incarnation, the great object of man's faith, and the appointed means of his salvation ? 12. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. Vulg. Et response accepto in somnis ne rt-dirent ad Herodem. 13. And when they were departed, behold the angel of the Lord appearcth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egj'pt, and be thou there until I bring thee word : for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. Vulg apparuit .... Futurum est enim ut Htrodes quadrat puerum ad perdendam eum. 14. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt : 15. And was there until the death of Herod : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son." Vulg. Ul adimpleretur quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicent«m. There is not sufficient reason to conclude tliat the departme of the wise men, and the flight of Joseph with the young Child and His Mother into Egypt, were closely connected in point of time. The most common opinion iu the Church ha.s been that there was a considerable interval between them. After the departure of the wise men, the holy familj' go up to Jerusalem, for the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, and the Presentation of her Son, related in I.uke ii. The fortieth day required for her Purification would be February 2nd. This was most probably the very day on which they appeared in the Temple. It could not be before this day, and we knon that in other particulars, and on other occasions, they observed the law of Moses strictly and to the very letter. From the Temple they proceed to their own city, Nazareth, in Galilee (Luke ii. 39). Here it is probable that the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, bidding him flee into Egypt.^ But some commentators have supposed that the Flight into Egypt was made from Juda'a, and not from Galilee.' Egypt had always been the place of refuge for the Hebrews, whether in distress from famine, or when fleeing from their enemies the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Already had there been a return out of Egypt, which was a prophetic figure of S. IreniEus, contr. Hocr. iii. 9 (alias 10), 2 ; p. 870. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. viii. ; vol. i. p. 100. y. Epipfianius, Hjpres. ss3. 29 ; vol. i. p. 456. S. Gregory Xyssen, in Diem Natal. Christi, vol. iii. p. 1144. Theophylact, in Matt. ii. 11 ; vol. i. p. 13. Tertullian, de Idololatria, 9 ; vol. i. p. 672. adv. Marc. iii. 15 ; vol. ii. p. 339. S. Ambrose, in Luc. ii. 6, 7 ; vol. ii. p. 1569. S. Jerome, in Matt. ii. 11 ; voL vii. p. 26. S. Augustine, Serm. i. et ii. de Epiphan. vol. v. p. 1026, &c. S. Leo Magnus, Sermo in Lpiphan. i. 2 ; vol. i, p. 236. S. Fulgentius, Sermo de Epiphan. ; Patrol, vol. liv. p. 736, S. Gregorins Magnus, in Evangel. HomiL x. 6 j voL ii. p, 112. S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qusest. 36, art. 8 ; voL iv. p. 36. Jansenius, in Concord. Erang. cap. ix. p. 72. Maldonatus, in Matt. ii. 11 ; vol. i. p. 38. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 11 ; vol. viii. p. 67. ' Euthymins, in Matt. ii. 13 ; vol. i. p. 71. Maldonatus, in Matt. ii. 14 ; voL i. p. 39. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 13 ; vol. viii. p. 69. Grotius, in Matt. ii. 13 ; Critici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 79. ' S. Augustine, de Consensu Evang. ii. 5 ; vol. iii. p. 1083. Jansenius, in Concord. Evaug. cap. x. p. 82. G 2 84 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. the return of Jesus. God, by the mouth of the evaugehst S. ITatthew, now describes the calling of Jesus out of Egypt, liy the very same words, in which He had before described the calling of Israel out of Egypt, by the prophet Hosea (si. 1), and in such a way as to show, that the one was tyjjical or prophetic of the other. In reply to the objections of Julian the apostate, it was pointed out' that S. Matthew's translation, e| Alyvwrov eKoKcaa Tov viov fiov, is a much more correct rendering of the original Hebrew, than the Septuagint translation, i^ AlyvTrnw fifrcKa- \(a-a TO TCKva avTov. The latter is so wide, that it seems to have been intended as a paraphrase, giving the sense only, or, as it has been suggested, they may have had a dift'erout reading, as for instance, VJ3, instead of '^a.'' — 1 6 II Then Herod," when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diHgently inquired of the wise men.'' Vulg. Tunc Herodes, videns quoniam iUusns esset a magis, iratus est valde, et miltens occidit omiies pueros qui erant iu Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus ejus, a bimatu et infra, secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. % We need not suppose, that Herod at once came to the con- clusion, that he had been mocked by the wise men. Probably he never entertained the same confidence, that they, would find the young king, as they did. When they did not return, at first he might very naturally conclude, that they had themselves been deceived, and had not found Him. Even supposing, that the visit of the wise men to Bethlehem was, as the Church in her office appears to imply, on January 6th, the interval between that date and February 2nd, the fortieth day from the birth of Jesus, would not be too long for Herod to have waited without having formed any unfavourable con- clusion as to their conduct. He might still be expecting them, or he might suppose, that they had failed to find the Child, and were ashamed to return and confess their failure."- But when he heard, as doubtless such a jealous tyrant would hear, that a Child had been presented in the Temple, who had been acknowledged by men, who had the character of saints and prophets, as " the Lord's Christ " and as " a Light to lighten the Gentiles," and the "Glory of Israel" (Luke ii. 26, 32) ; when Herod heard this, he would at once conclude, that he had been deceived by the wise men. Some have supposed that Herod caused the children at Bethlehem to be put to death almost immediately, at the ap- proaching Passover, that is, when Jesus was three months old. But the opinion most generally held by commentators is, that it took place in the second year of Jesus, probably about the time of the Passover, or when Jesus was fifteen months old.' There may have been several I'easons for this delay. Herod was not an independent sovereign. He ruled by the favour of the Roman Senate, and he could scarcely act in an affair of such gravity, until he could count on their S. Jerome, in Hosea xi. 1 ; vol. vi. p. 915. Erasmus, in Matt. ii. 15; Critici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 63. Maldonatus, in Matt. ii. 15 ; vol. i. p. 40. S. Augustine, de Consensu Evang. ii. 11 ; vol. iii. p. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 16 ; vol. viii. p. 7'J. " Herod. — The following .are the various Herods mentioned in the New Testament. (See L.ardner, Credibility, part i. ch. i. ; vol. i. p. 13, &c.) Herod, called the Great (Matt. ii. 16-lS). Herod Philip, narried Herodia.s. Herod Archelaus (Matt. ii. 22), P^thnarcU of Juda?a. Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 1 ; Lukevi. 1; i.^. 17; xxiii. 7; Actsxiii. I), Teirarcb of Galilee, married Herodias, wife of Herod Philip. Herod Philip (i.ukeiii. 1), Tetrarch of liuras Aristobulus. Herod Agrippa T. (Acts xii. 21). Herod Agrippa II. (Acts XXV. 13, 23; xxvi. 27, 23.) ' Massacre of the Innocents. — " The longer we live in the world, and the further removed we are from the feelings and remembrances of childhood, (and especially if removed from the sight of children,) the more reason we have to recollect our Lord's impressive action and word, where He called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of His disciples, and said, ' Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.' And in order to remind us of this our Saviour's judgment, the Church like a care- ful teacher, calls us back year by year upon this day (the Feast of the Holy Innocents) from the bustle and fever of the world. She takes advantage of the Massacre of the Innocents recorded in St. Matthew's gospel, to bring before us a truth which else we might think little of; to sober our wishes and hopes of this world, our high ambitious thoughts, or our anxious fears, jealousies, and cares by the picture of the purity, peace, and contentment which are the characteristics of little children. And, independently of the benefit thus accruing to us, it is surely right and meet thus to celebrate the death of the Holy Innocents ; for. it was a blessed one. To be brought near to Christ, and to sutler for Christ, is surely an un- speakable privilege ; to sutler anyhow, even unconsciously. The little children whom He took up in His arms, were not conscious of His loving condescension; but was it no privilege when He blessed them ? Surely this massacre had iu it the nature of a Sacrament ; it was a pledge of the love of the Son of God towards those who were encompassed by it. All w'ho came near Him, more or less suffered by approaching Him, just as if earthly pain and trouble went out of Him, as some precious virtue for the good of their souls — and these infants in the number. Surely His very presence was a Sacrament ; every motion, look, and word of His conveying grace to those who wouhl receive it ; and much more was fellowship with Him. And hence in ancient times such barbarous murders or martyrdoms were considered as a kind of baptism, a baptism of blood, with a sacramental charm in it which stood in the place of the appointed Laver of regeneration." — Oit. Newman, * Parochial Sermons,' vol. ii. p. 68. CHAPTER II. Vers. 16-18. 85 sufteranco. Joseplms represents liiiii in the latter part of his life, as exceedingly anxious as to his posidon with the autho- rities at Rome.' To issue a decree for the slaughter of these children, before he had taken the precautionary measures, that were necessary to ensure its execution, would be the "ay to frustrate his own plans, to incur the odium of the hateful deed, without securing the accomplishment of it. To have given any hint of his intentions, before all was ready to carry them into operation, would simply have been to give the peojile warning to escape with their children. All would doubtless be carried on secretly and craftily, and probably under the guise of goodwill towards the children. The names of all, boj-n within the stated period, would be ascertained, and especially of the male children. Such was the accuracy with which the Jews kept their tribal registers, that this could be easily done. But it would require some time, and the concurrence of the people. When all was perfectly ready. but not till then, the diabolical order would be issued, and it would be relentlessly carried into execution by Herod's agents. Under some pretence or other, the cliildrcn may have been collected to;..;ethcr, or his officers may have been dispersed throughout Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. S. Matthew does not state, how long after the apjiearance of the Star it was, when Herod put the children lo death. He is only careful to explain, that he put to death all the children that were born within the two yi ars before the ajj- pcarance of the Star. He learned from the wise men, when the Star appeared, and he concluded that the Star had ap- peared first on the birth of Jesus ; and to ensure His death, he slew all the children who were born within the two years before that.* S. Matthew does not record the number of the children that were slain. But the impression produced by reading bis narrative is, that it was large ; that there were many mothers who mourned for their children and would not be comforted. A conjectural, though perhaps an approximate estimate of the number may be made. The population of Bethlehem at the present time is about 3000. The proportion of births to the population in England, is in round numbers three per cent, annually. This rate would give one hundred and eighty children born in Bethlehem in the two years. Allowing twenty for the children born in the district around Bethlehem, we have two hundred children, male and female, born in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, during the whole two years. Taking one half of these for the males, though a less number would be iK'rhapj more correct, we have about one hundred, rather under than over, as the number of male children born in Bethlehem and the neighbourhood in the two years. S. Matthew only says, that Herod slew all the male children (^navras roiis iraiSas). We have no means of ascertaining what was the exact population of Beth- lehem at the time of Herod ; but all modem writeis on Palestine agree, that Josephus is correct in representing its population in his time, as very much greater than it is now. If we suppose the population of Bethlehem then double what it is now, and the proportion of births in Eastern countries double that in England, we shall have about two hundred as tlie number of male children whom Herod put to death, in order to ensure the death of Jesns, the King of the Jews. If other and more probable conditions be assumed, a difterent and more coirecl result will naturally follow. JosejAus, the contemporary Jewish historian, makes no mention of the slaughter of these children at Bethlehem. But he mentions Jesus only once, and that with a very slight passing notice ;' and he says nothing of the ]iarticulars of His birth, or of the miracles that attended it. Josephus was not, therefore, bound by the course of his history, to re- late Herod's massacre of these children, with the sole object of including Jesus among them. Bul^ he relates other atrocities which Herod perpetrated, and such as make this perfectly credible. When wishing to show the cruelty aud jealousy of Herod's temperament, Josephus selects instances of his conduct towards those who were bound to him by the nearest ties of nature, towards his most intimate friends, or his nearest relations, his own flesh and blood. He relates how Herod put to deatli men of the highest rank in the kingdom, three of his own sons, his w-ife, her brother, mother, and grandfather. All this and more he did, under the infatuation that he should thereby render liimself more firm on his throne, the very same motive which influenced him in order- ing the slaughter of these children of Bethlehem. 17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, Vii'g. Tunc adimpletura est quod dictum est per leremiam propbetam, " In Rama ' was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping, and great mourn- ing. * Antiq. xvii. ' Euthymius, in Matt. ii. 16 ; vol. i. p. 81. MalJonatus, in Mutt. ii. It) ; vul. i. p. 41. * Rama. — "From the passes of the tribe of Benjamin we turn by a natural connection to those remarkable heights which guard their entrance into the table-land, and which diversify with their pointed summits that table-land itself. The very n.imes of the towns of Benjamin indicate how eminently they partook of this gencr.al characteristic of the position of Judaan cities — Gibeah — Gcba— Gibeon, all signifying ' hill'— Ramah, ' the high place' — ' Antiq. xviii. 3, 3 ; vol. ii. p. 798. Whiston's Trans. Antiq. .wiii. 3, 3 ; Mizpeh, * the watch-tower.' And it h.is already been observed, how from these heights to the North of Jerusalem, is in all likelihood derived tlie ancient image of God * standing about his people.' .... Er-Kam, marked by the village and green patch on its sum- mit— the most conspicuous object from a distance in the ajiproach to Jerusalem from the south — is certainly ' Kamah of Benjamin.' " — STiXLEY, ' Sinai and Palestine," p. "213. [" Descending 86 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Rachel" weeping/"- her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." S.F. (ymit lamentation and. Vulg. Vox in Rama audita est ploratus et ululatus multus : The Evangelist expresses the exceeding bitterness of the cry which these women seat up for their children, in two waj's : (1.) He represents them as Rachel weeping for her children ; Eachel whose longing for children was excessive (Gen. ssx.), and a subject of history well-known to all the Jews. (2.) The weeping was uttered in Bethlehem, but it was heard in the neighbouring village of Eama. Bethlehem was six miles to the south of Jerusalem, in the tribe of Jiidah, and Kama was six miles to the north of Jerusalem, and of the tiihe of Benjamin. Rachel aptly represented the bereaved mothers of Bethlehem for another reason. She had died near Bethlehem, in giving birth to Benjamin, and was buried there, and though Bethlehem properly belonged to tlie tribe of Judah, the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were united into one. Thus Eachel, the mother of Benjamin, might represent all the mothers of Bethlehem, especially where mourning lor chiVlrin was concerned. S. Matthew saj's that in this was fidflUed the prophecy of Jeremiah (xxxi. 15). 19. ^ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,'' 20. Saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel : for they are dead which sought the young Child's life. 21. And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. —22. But when he heard that Archelaus'^ did reign in Judsa in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither : notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee : Several opinions have been held as to the length of time that Jesus remained in Egypt;' but the most probable ap- pears to be, that He remained there not more than a year or two. Many modern commentators allow a much shorter time for our Saviour's sojourn in Egypt, not more than two or three months. Herod died at Jericho soon after the massacre of the infants at Bethli.'hem, in the seventieth year of his age, after a reign of thirty-seven years. After his ' S. Epiphanius, Haires. Ixxviii. 10; vol. ii. p. 714. " Descending the N.W. side of Tul'il el Ful, we observe at its base, near the rnad, some old fouudations and heaps of ruins called Khirbat el-Kut'a, probably remains of Gibeah. A few minutes farther the road to Yat'a by el-Jib and Wady Suleiman strikes off to the left ; and twenty minutes more is a ruined khan with arclies and re.:.ervoirs, from which a path leads up tlie stony hill on the right to er-Rim. This is a small poor village, with some fragments of columns and large stones built up in the modern houses, and scattered among the dirty lanes. The situation is high, as the name implies, but the view eastward is not equal to that from Tuleil el-Ful. This is Ramah of Benjamin, which lay between Gibeon and Beeroth (Josh, xviii. 25) ; and which we learn from the poor Levite's sad story was not far distant from Gibeah (Judg. six. 13). it is probably the place mentioned in the story of Deborah. ' She dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah, between Rauiah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim ' (Judg. iv. h). Eusebius places it six Roman miles north of Jerusalem. It was inhabited Ity the Jews after the captivity (Ezra ii. 26), and has probably continued ever since much as we see it now. It is about ten minutes off the road, and is scarcely worth a visit." — ' Handbook to Palestine,' p. 309. " Bachel's Tomb. — " The sepulchre which is called the tomb of Rachel exactly agrees with the spot described (Gen. xx.xv. 16) as a little way from Bethlehem." — Stanley, ' Sinai and Palestine,' p. 149. " The building is modern, but the authenticity of the sepulchre cannot be questioned. It is one of the few shrines which Muslems, Jews, and Christians agree in honouring, and concerning which their traditions are identical *• Passing the tomb, we skirt the side of a rocky hill, and h.ave a wide and wild landscape of glen and mountain on our right. Bethlehem is a fine object behind, occu])ying the summit of a terraced ridge, clothed with olive, vine and fig. Its large convent on the eastern brow resembles an tdd baronial castle ; the aqueduct Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. ii. 20 ; vol. viii. p. 75. from the pools is here close to the road on the right. Ascending a steep hill, we reach, in half an hour from Rachel's tomb, the convent of Mar Ellas — a large pile of gray masonry surrounded by a high wall. In the surface of a smooth rock, opposite the gate. Is shown a slight depression, something like what might be left by the human form retdining on a bed of sand. Here, says tradition, the prophet Elijah lay down under the shade of an olive, weary, hungry, and careworn, when he fled from Jezebel ; and here angels supplied his wants." — • ' Handbook for Syria and Palestine,' p. 70. *" In Egypt. — '* The time that He was in Egypt was not above three or four months, so soon the Lord smote Herod for his butchery of the Innocent children, and murderous intent against the Lord of Lite." — LiGUTFOOT, ' Harmony of the New Testament.' sect. vii. ; vol. i. p. 206. " The flight into Egypt can have been little more than a journey there and back again. For the p.arents of Jesus set out shortly before the death of the aged Herod, who was already affected with a mortal sickness, and returned to Palestine as soon as they heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in his father's room." — WlESK- LER, ' Chronological Synopsis,' p. 138. ■^ Archelaus. — " St. Matthew says, that * when Joseph heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, hs was afraid to go thither.' There must have been some particular reason for lihis fear, and for his ' turning .aside into the parts of Galilee,' (by virtue of a pure choice of^his own, or of a new direction from heaven,) though Galilee also was in possession of one of Herod's sons. " Some may infer from hence, that Archelaus must have had a bad character in Judea, even in his father's lifetime. And there are divers particulars in Josephus, which may confirm such a suspicion. " After his father's death, and before he could set out for Rome, to obtain of Augustus the confirmation of Herod's last will, the .lews, upon his not granting some demands they made, became very CHAPTER II. Ver. 23. 87 flcatli, two of his sons bccnine 'claimants for his kingiiom, Arcliflaus and Antipas. Augustus, the Roman Emperor, rivate person : for many reel^oned him no more, till the succession was coutirmed by Augustus. '• As Archelaus went to Rome, so did Herod Antipas, and almost all tlie rest of the family. When they came thither, Herod m.ade interest for Archelaus's share, which w.as called the kingdom ; and the whole family favoured Herod's i)retensions, 'not out of any love to him, but out of hatred to Archelaus ' (Ibid. sect. 4). " After Archelaus had left Judea, with the leave of Quintilius Varus, president of Syria, an embassy of fifty of the chief men of Jerusalem was sent to Rome, in the name of the whole nation, with a petition to Augustus, that they might be permitted to live according to their own laws under n lioiiian guveruor ; and when ^ Lightfoot, Harmony of the New Testament, sec. vi. vii. ; vol. i. p. 204. Greswell, Harmony, pp. xviii. and 13. Wieseler, Chron. Synoj). p. 141. Tischendort, Harmonia, p. xxiii. and 7. Robinson, Harmony, p. 5. Stroud, p. cxxviii. See also the Bishop of Lincoln, on Matt. ii. 9, Greek Testament. they came to Rome, they were joined by above eight thousand Jews who lived there. They .arrived before Augustus had given his sentence upon Herod's will. When he gave Archelaus and this embassy an audience, none of the royal family would attend Archelaus to support his interest ; such was their aversion to him. ' Kor did they joiu in with the embassy, being ashamed to oppose so near a relation in the presence of Augustus.' (Ibid. cap. ii. sect. 1.) " ' And in the tenth year of his government, a.d. 6 or 7, the chief of the Jews and Samarit.ans, not being able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, presented comi)laints against him to Ca?sar. Augustus, having heard both sides, banished Archelaus to Vienna in Gaul, and coutisrated his treasury.' (Ibid. cap. l.i, sect. 2.) ''Indeed he seems to have been the worst of all Herod's sons, except Antipater, whom Herod had ]iut to death five davs before bis own decease." — Laruski!, 'Credibility,' vol. i. p. 10. COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTER HI. The Wilderness of Judaea. — "The ' wilderness' of the desert- plain, whether on the western or eastern side, is the most marked in the whole country, and never has been inhabited, except for the purposes of ascetic seclusion, as by tlie E-'senes and the hermits of later times. Wide as was the moral and spiritual difference between the two great Prophets of the Jordan wilderness, and the wild ascetics of later times, yet it is for this very reason important to bear in mind the outward likeness which sets off this inward contrast. Travellers know well the startling appearance of the savage figures, who, whether as Bedouins or Dervishes, still haunt the soli- tary places of the East, with a 'cloak' — the usual striped Bedouin blanket — ' woven of camel's hair, thrown over the shoulders, and tied in front on the bi-east ; naked, except at the waist, round which is a girdle of skin ; the hair flowing loose about the bead.' This was precisely the description of Elijah, whose last appearance had been on this very wilder- ness before he finally vanished from the eyes of his disciple. This, too, was the aspect of his great representative when he came, in the same place, dwelling, like the sons of the pro- phets, in a leafy covert woven of the branches of the Jordan forest, preaching, in 'raiment of camel's hair,' with a 'leathern girdle round his loins,' eating the 'locusts' of the desert, and the ' wild honey,' or ' manna,' which dropped from the tamarisks of the desert-region, or which distilled from the palm-groves of Jericho." — Stanley, ' Sinai and Palestine,' p. 313. " The Wilderness in which John the Baptist dwelt rmtil his thirtieth year, and into which Jesus, when His time arrived, passed for His forty days of prayer and watching, begins at the gates of Hebron and Jerusalem, spreads beyond and below these cities to the south and west, and covers the mountain slopes of Judah from the crest of the high table- land of Ramah and Olivet down to the Fountain of Elisha and the shores of the Dead Sea. It is a tract of country about the size and shape of Sussex, not being a mere waste of scorching sands, herbless and waterless all the year, Iilare the way of this king, is to repent of their sins. This, of course, implies repentance in its perfect sense, sorrow for sin, forsaking -of sin, and reparation of sin. After the Baptist's message, S. Matthew and S. Mark describe his dress, and his mode of life. 4. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair," and a leathern girdle about his loins ; and his meat was locusts ^ and wild honey.*^ See Cornelius a Lapide, in Malt. TertulUan de Pcenitentia, ii. vol. [Ronsch, " Baiment of Camel's Hair. — " Coming upon the dead carcase of a camel, which two men were flaying for t:ie sake of its flesh and skin, our guide remarked that, besides these, the hair also is valuable, being used in making rough cloaks for the Bedouins. No doubt these are the same as the hairy garments worn by Elijah, and the ' raiment of camel's hair ' worn by John the Baptist. All the Ar.abs wore also a broad leathern girdle about the loins." — 1 ' Mission to the Jews from Scotland, 1839,' p. 76. •• Locusts . — " In this desert there are many caroub trees, which ] boar a fruit like a bean, but it is flatter and has small seeds in it, I they eat the shell of it when it is dry, which is very agreeable. It | is supposed that this is the locust on which St. John fed, and not ! the cassia fistula which has been shewn for it, and does not grow j in this country. There are, however, some who are of opinion, | that the locust's he fed on, were those insects preserved with salt, as, they say the Arabs eat them in some parts at this time : and confirm their opinion by the Arabic's translation of this passage ; though there might be a tree of that name."— PococK, ' Travels,' vol. ii. p. 46. Lightfoot shows by quotations from the Rabbinical writers that it was customary to eat the insect locust. " He that by vow tieth himself from flesh, is forbidden the flesh of fish .and of locusts." (Hicros. Nedarim fol. 40, 2.) See the Baljyiouiau Talmud (Oholin, Ronsch, New Testament, TertuU. p. 59. ^ Maldonatus, in Matt. iii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 45. fol. 65, 1) concerning locusts fit for food. — Lightfoot, 'On S. Matthew,' iii. 4; vol. ii. p. 116. '^ Wild Honey. — Josephus speaking of this same region says, "The better sort of the palm trees, when they are pressed, yield an excellent kind of honey, not much inferior in sweetness to other honey. This country withal produces honey from bees : This place (Jericho) is one hundred and fifty furlongs from Jeru- salem, and sixty from Jordan. The country, as fer as Jerusalem, is desert and stony : but that as far as Jordan and the lake Asphal- tites lies lower indeed, though it be equally desert and barren." —Wars, iv. 8, 3 ; Whistox's Trans, p. 697. " Bee-Keeping also (at El Bussah, a little to the east of Tyre), is not an unimportant item of industry, and every house possesses a pile of bee-hives in its yard. Though similar in its habits, the hive-bee J)f Palestine is a different species from our own. We never found Apis mcUijica L. our domestic species, in the country, though it very possibly occurs in the North : but the common Holy Land insect. Apis ligustica, is amazingly abundant, both in hives, in rocks, and in old hollow trees. It is smaller than our bee, with brighter yellow bands on the thorax and abdomen, which is rather wasp-like in shape, and with very long antenna. In its habits, and especially in the immense population of neuters, in each com- munity, and in the drones cast forth in autumn, it resembles the CHAPTER III. Vers. 5-7. 91 Tlic raiment of camel's liair would bo a cloak or long garraeiit woven of camel's hair, not the skin of a camel. The Law of Moses allowed tliem to eat the locust, " Even these of them ye may eat : the locust alter his kind," &:c. (Levit. xi. 22). 'J'he "wild honey" would be either honey from wild bees, or that distilled from the trees. (Josephus sjieaks of both as found in this district.) 5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judjea, and all the region round about Jordan. 6. And were baptized of him in Jordan, con- fessing their sins." S' mnits of bim • S.V. in the river of Jordan. Vulg. tt ba]»tizabaDtur ab eo io lordane. Such was John's reputation for holiness, such was the fervour of his preaching, and the impression produced by his ascetic life, that multitudes flocked to his baptism, from Jerusalem, from all parts of Juda», and from both sides of the Jordan. They were required to confess their sins, as a proof of their penitence for them, and Hot with any idea that John's baptism would convey forgiveness for them. John was now, so to speak, instituting a new order among men, the order of penitents. The qualification for admission into this, was confession of their past sins. Their badge was baptism by John. The object of it was to prepare men for the coming of the Messiah, and for admission into the new kingdom, which He should found, the kingdom of heaven. In this kingdom they should obtain remission of the sins which they now confessed. 7. ^ But when he saw many of the Phari- sees and Sadducees come to his baptism," he said unto them, O generation of vipers,'' who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come } S*.V. to the baptism. Vulg. Veriientcs ad baptismum suum. other species. Its sting, also, is quite as sharp. The hives are very simple, consisting of large tubes of sun-dried mud, lilce gas- pipes, about four feet long, and closed with mud at each end, leaving only an aperture in the centre, large enough for two or three bees to pass at a time. The insects appear to frequent both doors equally. The tubes are laid in rows horizontally, and piled in a pyramid. I counted one of these colonies, consisting of seventy-eight tubes, each a distinct hive. Coolness being the great object, the whole is thickly plastered over with mud, and covered with boughs, while a branch is stuck iu the ground at each end, to assist the bees in alighting. At first, we took these singular structures for ovens or hen-houses. The barbarous practice of destroying the swarms for their honey is unknown. When the hives are full, the clay is removed from the ends of the pipes, and the honey extracted with an iron hook ; those pieces of comb which contain young bees being carefully replaced, and the hives then closed up again. Everywhere during our journey, we found honey was always to be purchased ; and it is used by the natives for many culinary purposes, and especially for the preparation of sweet cakes. It has the delicate aromatic flavour of the thyme — scented honey of Hybla or Hymettus. ** But however extensive are the bee colonies of the villagers the number of wild bees of the same species is far greater. The innu- merable fissures and clefts of the limestone rocks, which every- where flank the valleys, aftbrd in their recesses secure shelter for any number of swarms ; and many of the Beilouin, particularly in the wilderness of Judaa, obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem jars of that wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness ; and which Jonathan had long before unwittingly tasted, when the comb had dropped on the ground from the hollow tree in which it was suspended. The visitor to the Wady Kurn, when he sees the busy multitudes of bees about its clilis, cannot but recall to mind the promise, * With honey out of the stony rock would 1 have satisfied thee.' There is no epithet of the land of promise more true to the letter, even to the present day, than this, that it was a land flowing with milk and honey." — Ttti.TrR»M, 'Land of Israel,' p. 87. ' Baptism. — " Baptism had been in long and common use among them many generations before John Baptist came, they using this for admission of proselytes into the Church, and baptizing men, women, and children for that end." In confirmation of this, Lightfoot then quotes several passages from the Rabbinical writers. Talm. in Jebamoth, cap. 4, and JIaym. in Issurebiah, cap. 13 : "A person is not a proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptized." Id. in Chettuboth, cap. i. : "A little one they baptize, by the appointment of the Consistory." — And Maym, in Avadim, cap. 8 : "An Israelite that takes a little heathen child, or that finds a heathen infant and baptizeth him for a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte. " Hence a ready reason may be given, why there is so little men- tion of baptizing infants in the New Testament, that there is neither plain precept nor example for it, as some ordinarily plead. The reason is, because there needed no such mention, baptizing of infants having been as ordinarily used in the Church of the Jews, as ever it hath been in the Christian Church. It was enough to mention that Christ established Baptism for an ordinance under the gospel ; and then, who should be baptized, was well enough known, by the use of this ordinance of old. Therefore it is a good plea, ' Because there is no clear forbidding of the baptizing of infants in the Gospel, ergo, they are to be baptized.' For that having been in common use among the Jews, th.at infants should be baptized as well as men and women, our Saviour would have given some special prohibition if He intended that they should have been excluded : so that silence in this case doth necessarily conclude ajiprobation to have the practice continued, which had been used of old before. *' John's baptism differed from that before, only in this; that whereas that admitted proselytes to the Jewish religion, this ad- mitted and translated .lews into the Gospel religion ; that was a baptism binding them over to the jierformance of the law, as their circumcision did, but this was a baptism of repentance for the re- mission of sins." — LiGUTFOOT, ' Harmony of the New Testament,' sect. ix. vol. i. p. 209. '' 0 generation of Vipers {yewrinara fX'Sj-iii/). — "They were ^ot only -yerea gi-ueration. but yfvv-qfxara an clTspring, of vipers, serpents sprung from serpents. Nor is it wonder, if they were rejected by God, when they had long since rejected God, and God's word by their traditions." — LiGHTFOOT, ' On S. Matthew,' iii. 3; vol. ii. p. 128. ''This the English reader invariably takes to be a parallel ex- pression to a wicked and adulterous fjencration {^evta) though the Greek words are quite diflerent, and generation in the first passage signifies ' offspring ' or ' brood ' — two good old English words, either of which might advantageously le substituted for it." — Cason I.IGIITFOOT, ' On Revision of New Testament,' p. 177. COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. y generation,- or brood, of vipers, the Baptist implies that their vices were the result of their principles of action, and did not arise merely from the weakness of their reso- lution ; that they were inbred in their very nature, of long standing, and therefore most difficult to be eradicated. Cm- Saviour uses the same terms to express the same radical depravity, when addressing the Scribes and Pharisees, " Ye serpents, ye generation of vijicrs, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" (Matt, xxiii. 33.) He bids them bring forth the fruits of repentance, and not trust to their supposed privilege, as children of Abraham. 9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. The privilege of being children of Abraham, great as it was, did not give them immunity from the duty of a repent- ance adequate to their sins. God, it is true, promised the blessings of the covenant to Abraham and to his seed after him: but if they continued disobedient and unfruitful, God would reject the Jews as a nation from being His peculiar people : and in rejecting them, the children of Abraham after the flesh. He would not necessarily be breaking his promise to Abraham, because He would raise up the Gentiles to ha Abraham's children. At present the Gentiles were so dead in sin and in ignorance of the One true God, that to cause them to live in the fear of God, would be giving life to stones. Nevertheless, God had the power to do this.' 10. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees : therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. S.V. omit, also. Vulg. Jam enim securis. Some interpret this verse in a general sense, as an indepen- dent proposition, unconnected with the preceding verse, and with no special reference to the Sadducees and Pharisees. The tree they explain as men in general, the axe as death, and the root as the life of man : and every tree which does not bring forth fruit, as cut down. But this was as true before the coming of John as after, and it has in this sense no particular reference to the subject of John's preaching, the coming of the Messiah, and the kingdom of heaven. Others,* and with greater probability, interpret this verse as having a peculiar application to the Sadducees and Phari- sees, whom John saw coming to his baptism : they think that John is here speaking of God's rejection of the Jews as a nation, and of their exclusion from the kingdom of heaven, the Church of God Incarnate. In this view this verse is in- timately connected with the verse before it, and is a continu- ation of the same argument. The reasoning is to this efiect: ^f the Jews continue disobedient and unfruitful, God will reject them as a nation, and will raise up the Gentiles to be His people. Nay moie. He has already begun to do this. The dispensation of God's judgment against the Jewish nation has now begun, the axe is already laid unto the root of the trees. All will not be rejected, but as a nation they ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iii. 7 ; vol. viii. p. 84. - S. Jerome, in Isaiah xxx. 6 ; vol. iv. p. 341. S. Gregory Magnus, Homil. in Evang. xx. 7; vol. ii. p. 1163. ' S. Hilary Pict. in JIatt. iii. 8; vol. i. p. t-26. S. Ambrose, in Luc. iii. 8; vol. ii. p. 1579. S. Jerome, in Matt. iii. 8 ; vol. vii. p. 29. S. Gregory Magnus, Homil. in Evang. xx. 9 ; vol. ii. p. 1163. ■* Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iii. 10; vol. viii. p. 87. 94 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. ■will. Each will be tried liy his own imlividual belief or unbelief, barrenness or fruitfulness. S. Paul, when describing (Rom. xi.) the rejection of the Jews and the election of the Gentiles, uses much the same metaphor, and compares the Church of God to a tree, from which some branches should be broken off, and into which others should be grafted in their place. But S. Paul's object was chiefly to set forth the election of the Gentiles, the graftincr in of the branches; while the Baptist's object is to foretell or rather to threaten, the rejection of the Jews, that the unfruitful branches shall be hewn down, and cast into the fire. S. Luke represents the Baptist, in answer to the inquiries of the people, the publicans, and the soldiers, as going on to give special directions to each of these classes, applicable to their peculiar temptations. S. Matthew omits this. JOHN BAPTISTS FIRST TESTIMONY TO JESUS AS THE MESSIAH OR CHRIST. S. Mattuew iii. 11, 12 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 1 am notiworthy to bear : He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with tire : 2 whose fan is in His hand, and He will throughly purge His Hour, and gather His wheat into the garner : but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. S. Mark i. 7, 8. And preached, saying There coraeth one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water ; but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. S. Luke iii. 15-18. And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or no John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire : 17 whose fan /s in His hand, and He will throughly purge His floor and will gather the wheat into His garnei but the chafl" He will burn with fire unquenchable. 18 And many other things in His exhortation preached he unto the people. 1 1. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, wliose shoes I am not worthy to bear :" He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and ivith fire : S. For I indeed baptize. Vulg. Ego quideni baptizo. These words are not closely connected in sense with those that have gone before, and it is probable that the}' were not uttered at the same time, but after a little interval.' Of the three Evangelists who record them, S. Luke is the only one who indicates the circumstances under which they were spoken. He says (iii. 15), " And as the people were in ex- pectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John whether he were the Christ or not: John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize," &c. From the sanctity of John's life, from the fervour of his p. Similar varieties of expression in the different reports of the same language are found in the fol- lowing passages, as well as m.iny others : Matt. iii. 11 ; M.irk i. 7 ; Luke iii. 16;° John i. 27 — Matt. ix. 11 ; Mark v. 16; Luke v. 30 —Matt. XV. 27 ; Mark vii. 28— Matt. x\n. 6-9 ; Mark viii. 17-19 —Matt. XX. 33; Mark x. 51 ; Luke xviii. 41— Matt. xxi. 9; Mark xi. 9 ; Luke xix. 38 — Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Mark xiv. 36 ; Luke xxii. 42 — Matt, xxviii. ^, 6; Mark xvi. S; Luke xxiv. 5. 6. All these examples go only to shew, that where the Evangelists profess to record the expressions used by our Lord and others, they usually give them according to the sense, and not according to the Icltar. As Le Clerc expresses it : Apostoli magis sententiam, quam locu- tiones, exprimcre volunt " (Harm. p. 518).— RoEISSOX, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' p. 187. H COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. the Holy Spirit would bestow on them. The tona;ues of fire might symbolize the zeal, the fervour in preaching, with which the Holy Spirit thereby inspired them. Here we have presented to us Jesus, the Second Person in the Godhead, coming out of the water; the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove, descending from heaven and light- ing upon Him; and a voice in the Person of the Father, saying, This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. For the first time the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,' Three Persons" in One Godhead, was plainly revealed to man. This " The Holy Trinity. — " Plainly therefore, and without doubt, it is to ha believed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Alniightj' God, eternal, unchangeable ; and every one of these is God, and all of them but one God ; and every one of them is a full and perfect eternal substance, and altogether but one substance ; for whatsoever the Father is, as He is God, as He is substance, as He is eternity, that is the Son, that is the Holy Ghost ; and so whatsoever the Son is, as He is God, as He is substance, as He is eternity, that is the Father, that is the Holy Ghost ; and whatso- - ever the Holy Ghost is, in that He is God, in that He is substance, in th.at He is eternity, that is the F.ither, that is the Son; .and therefore in all three there is but one Divinity, one essence, one omnipotence, and what else can be spoken substantially of God. " Neither hath this truth been affirmed by particular Fathers only, but decreed also in several councils, as by the first general council at Constantinople, the second council at Carthage, the fourth council at Aries, the siith at Toledo, the Lateran council anno Dom. 6+9 ; yea, and by an ancient council here in England held under Archbishop Theodorus, about the year of our Lord 670. But the fourth council at Toledo speaks the substance of them all : ' .\ccording to the Holy Scriptures, say they, and the doctrine which we have receivSl from the holy Fathers, we confess the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be of one Divinity and substance, believing a Trinity in the diversity of persons, and preaching unity in the Divine nature, we neither confound the Persons nor separate the substances.'" — BiSHOP Beveridge, 'On 39 Articles,' art. i. p. 70. " To gather into one sum all that hitherto hath been spoken touching this point, there are but four things which concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord Jesus Christ; His Deity, His manhood, the conjunction of both, and the distinction of the one from the other being joined in one. Four principal heresies there are which have in those things withstood the truth ; Arians by bending themselves against the Deity of Christ; Apolli- narians by maiming and misinterpreting that which belongeth to His human nature; Nestorians by rending Christ asunder, and dividing Him into two persons; the followers of Eutyches by con- founding in His person those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there have been four most famous ancient general councils; the council of Nice to define against Arians, against Ai)ollinarians the council of Constantinople, the council of Ephesus against Nestorians, against Eutychians, the Chalcedon council. In four words, a\Tj0wy, TeAeoJS, aSiatpeVwy, aavyxuTus^ i''^^!/, pcr- fi'ctly, indivisihly^ distinctly; the first applied to His being God, and the second to His being Man, the third to His being of both One, and the fourth to His still continuing in that one Both ; we may fully by way of abridgment comprise whatsoever antiquity hath at large handled either in declaration of Christian belief, or in refutation of the foresaid heresies. Within the compass of which four heads, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch but the person of Jesus Christ, whether they have risen in these later days, or in any age heretofore, may be with great facility brought to confine themselves." — HooKEE, ' Eccles. Polit.' v. 54, 10 ; vol. ii. p. 237, Keble's ed. " Three Persons. — The following will show in what sense the Early Church used the word Person with respect to the Trinity. "The Lord our God is but One God. In which indivisible IJuity notwithstanding we adore the Father as being altogether of him- self, we glorify that consubstantial Word which is the Son, we bless and magnify that co-essential Spirit eternally proceeding from both which is the Holy Ghost. Seeing therefore the Father is of none, the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of both, they are by these their several properties really distinguishable each from other. For the substance of God with this property to he of none doth make the Person of the Father ; the very selfsame sub- stance in number with this property to be of the Father maketh the Person of the Son ; the same substance having added unto it the property o{ proceeding from the other two maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost. So that in every Person there is implied both the substance of God which is one, and also that property which causeth the same person really and truly to dift'er from the other two. Every person hath his own subsistence which no other besides hath, although there be others besides that are of the same substance. As no man but Peter can be the person which Peter is, yet Paul hath the selfsame nature which Peter hath. Again, angels have every one of them the nature of pure and invisible spirits, but every angel is not that angel which appeared in a dream to Joseph." — HoOKER, ' Eccles. Polit.' v. 51, 1 ; vol. ii. p. 220. " The word Person which we venture to use in speaking of those three distinct .and real modes in which it has pleased Almighty God to reveal to us His being, is in its philosophical sense too wide for our meaning. Its essential signification, as applied to ourselves, is that of an individual intelligent agent, answering to the Greek hypostasis or reality. On the other hand, if we restrict it to its etymological sense of persona or prosopon, that is character^ it, evi- dently means less than the Scripture doctrine, which we wish to define by means of it, as denoting merely certain outward manifes- tations of the Supreme Being relatively to ourselves, which are of an accidental and variable nature. The statements of Revelation then lie between these antagonistic senses in which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity may be erroneously conceived, between Tritheism and what is popularly called Unitarianism. " In the choice of difficulties, then, between words which say too much and too little, the Latins, looking at the popular and practi- cal side of the doctrine, selected the term which properly belonged to the external and defective notion of the Son and Spirit, and called Them Persona}, or Characters ; with no intention, however, of infringing on the doctrine of their completeness and reality as distinct from the Father, but aiming at the whole truth, as nearly as their language would permit. The Greeks, on the other hand, with their instinctive an.xiety for philosophical accuracy of expres- sion, secured the notion of Their existence in Themselves, by calling them Hypostases or Realities ; for which they considered, with some reason, that they had the sanction of the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Moreover, they were led to insist upon this internal view of the doctrine, by the prevalence of Sabellian- ism in the East in the third century ; a heresy, which professed to resolve the distinction of the Three Persons, into a mere distinction of character. Hence the prominence given to the Three Hypo- stases or Realities, in the creeds of the Semi-Arians (for instance, Lucian's and Basil's, A.D. 341-358), who were the special anta- gonists of Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, and kindred heretics. It was this praiseworthy jealousy of Sabellianism, which led the Greeks to lay stress upon the doctrine of the JJyjyostafic Word (tiie Word in real existence), lest the bare use of the terms. Word, Voice; Power, Wisdom and Radi.mce, in designating our Lord, should lead to a forgetfulness of His Personality. At the sainr time, the word ^tsia (substance') was adopted by them, to express the simple individuality of the Divine Nature, to which the Greeks, as scrupulously as the Latins, referred the sep.arate Personalities of the Son and Spirit." — Dr. Newman, 'Arians of the Fourth Century,' p. 376. [" Looking CHAPTER III. Ver. 17. 99 had already been symbolized, and shadowed out in various degrees of fulness, but never un'til now had it been plainly revealed.' Jesus is the Son of God as distinguished from all other sons, whether angels or men. He is the Son by nature, they by adoption ; He is consubstantial with the Father, they are His sons by imitation. He is the Beloved Son, through whom, for whose sake, and through whose influence, all other sons of God are beloved. He it is who reconciles God and man together. S. Matthew differs from S. Mark and S. Luke in the exact vording of the voice, but in substance and meaning it is the same in all three. S. Matthew gives it, "This is;" S. Mark and S. Luke, " Thou art." As addressed to Jesus Himself, the latter would seem to be more likely to be the more correct form, and it is given by two of the Evangelists.^ When a similar voice came from heaven at the Transfiguration, the addition, "Hear ye Him" was made to it. The early writers were accustomed to discuss with con- siderable interest two questions, to which the last few verses of this chapter gave rise. The first of these was, whether Jesus did actually baptize John. On one side it was urged, that John himself acknowledged that he had need of Christ's Baptism, thiit is, in order to wash away the sins and frailties of which he had been guilty, and to impart to him a greater degree of grace. Jesus, according to the then commonly received opinion, baptized the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, as well as His twelve Apostles, and why not therefore John the Baptist?' On the other side it is said, that Jesus may have baptized John with the Holy Spirit, without the Sacrament of Baptism. It is also said that, if Jesus had baptized John, His disciples could scarcely have come to him and said, " Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to Him" (John iii. 26). K Jesus did baptize John, it must have been after this report of His discii'les. .The other question was, whether Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Baptism now, or at some later time. The general opinion was that, when John baptized Him in the Jordan, Jesus thereby in one sense instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, that is, by His act, but not in expn ss words ; by His example then, and by a positive command at a later period, after the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost.'' By His Baptism and by the attendant circumstances it is very probable that Jesus meant to teach mankind, that as it was when He, the Head of the Church, was baptized, so it should be in the Baptism of every one, who thereby buoarae a member of Him. Frail man shoidd administer the Baptism, which should be in the element of water, with the sanction, or in the name, of the Three Persons in the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit should descend, and abide \j-ith the person so baptized. Such is the doctrine of the Church Catholic, and such it has been from the beginning.' Soon after this we find ' S. Augustine, Sermo Hi. (alias 63); vol. v. p. 354. in Joan. Tract, vi. ; vol. iii. p. 1425. Cornelius a Lapide, in ilatt. iii. 17 ; vol. viii. p. 95. ' S. Augustine, de Consens. Evang. ii. 14 ; vol. iii. p. 1092. Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. xiv. p. 122. Maldonatus, in Matt. iii. 17 ; vol. i. p. 54. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iii. 17 ; vol. viii. p. 96. " Looking then at the literature of Christianity from the time of St. John to the time of St. Athanasius, as a whole — as a whole, because proceeding from a whole, that is, from that one great all- encompassing religious association called the Catholic Church, which was found wherever Christianity was found, and represents Christianity historically — (one, however, divided by time and place, by reason of the mutual recognition and active intercom- munion of its portions, and of their common claims to an apo- stolical tradition of doctrine, to an absolute agreement together in faith and morals, and to a divine authority to teach and to denounce dissentients,) — I say, looking at the Christian literature as a whole, in which what one writer says may be fairly inter- preted, explained, and sujiplemented by what others say, we may reasonably pronounce, that there was during the second and third centuries a profession and teaching concerning the Htily Trinity, not vague and cloudy, but of a certain determinate character ; moreover that this tciching w.as to the effect that God was to be worshipped in Three distinct Persons (that is, a distinct Three, of whom severally the personal pronoun could be used), each of whom was the One Indivisible God, Each dwelt in Each, Each was really distinct from Each, Each was united to Each by definite cor- relations; moreover, that such a teaching was contradictory and destructive of the Arian hypothesis, which considered the Son of God, and a fortiori the Holy Ghost, simply and absolutely creatures of God, who once did not exist, however exalted it might a.ssert ^ S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qua^st. 33, art. 6 ; vol. iv. p. 350. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iii. 14 ; vol. viii. p. 91. * S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qua^st. 66, art. 2; vol. iv. p. 603. ' S. Augustine, in Joan. Tract, vi. vol. iii. p. 1425, &c. them to be in nature and by grace." — Dr. Xewmax, 'Theological Tracts,' p. 116. " What is the Catholic course, as it was explained in ancient times, and is still maintained in all Chuj-ches of the Saints ? No attempt is made to explain the nature of the Divine Being. Since Revelation is assumed to be the entrance of Divine realities into this lower world, it is not supposed that human conceptions can give them adequate expression. The Church docs not aim, there- fore, at such logical completeness on this subject, as may be required from those who consider that every thing is brought down to the level of their faculties. She is content to state that the Supreme Being is one in some true and real sense. For this is revealed as the original law of God's nature. Such is the doctrine of the Unity in Trinity. On the other hand, the Church te.iches tljat in the Blessed Trinity are Three Persons. In neither case does she atlirm that the principle of existence which belongs to the Supreme Being, is identical with that which we call personality in mankind, or that our consciousness of our own being qualifies us to fathom the depths of that Being which is Infinite. But th.at the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity have a real existence in them- selves— that in the Deity there is an original, objective triplicity, independently of us, and of the world of creation — she grounds on the declarations of Holy Writ. And this is the mystery of the Trinity in Unitv." — R. L WlLBERFORCE, 'On the Incarnation,' p. 162. H 2 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Jesus instructing Nicodemus in the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism, of Baptism by water and the Spirit (John iii.) ; and a little later we read, that He and His disciples had begun to baptize. But Jesus did not institute the Sacrament of Baiitism, in the sense of commanding the absolute necessity of it, until after the descent of the Uoly Spirit at the day of Pentecost. Then it was, that in the fullest sense Christ can be said to have instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, as the medium of salvation for all men : when He, through His Apostles, said, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts ii. 38.) On this subject see also Commentary on S. John, 1. 32. CHAPTER IV. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. The Pinnacle of the Temple (to Trrepvyiov toC Upov). — "There is no woril, on the meaoing of which the commentators are more at variance, than TvTepvyiov in this and the parallel place in S. Luke. One thing, however, appears certain; viz., that the article shows Trrepvyioii to be something Monadic. Had there been several nripvyta, we should probably have read ti Trrepvyiov. It cannot, therefore, be " a pinnacle," as the English version renders it. To determine what is really- meant is, perhap.', impossible ; since no instance can be found in any author, in which TTTfpvyiov is applied to a building. It is probable, however, from the meaning of the cognate term TTTfpov, that a ridged or pointed roof is intended. . For from some of the passages collected by Wetstein, it is evident that irrepov is synonymous with acros or aeraifia, a term appro- priated to the roofs of temples. See Aristoph. Aves 1110, and his Scholiast : Dion. Hal. Antiq. Eom. edit. Eeiske, vol. ii. p. 789 ; Josephus i. p. 109, edit. Huds., in which last place it is spoken of the Tabernacle, and so applied, as it should scorn, on account of the figure, which the transverse section of a pointed roof, or the gable, presents. Kow if this be vTfpov, analogy would lead us to infer, that Trrepvyiov was the same thing, only of smaller dimensions ; and therefore, if the pointed roof of the Temple be TTTfpov, nrepvyiov may be the same kind of roof of the great eastern porch : and this is the spot 6xed upon by Lightfoot. The height of this roof was 385 feet, and therefore it is not ill adapted to the circum- stances of the narration. However, Wetstein and Michaelis (Anmerk. ad loc.) understand it of the Royal Porch, which overlooked the precipice to the east and south of the Temple. This situation is, perhaps, even better suited to the history ; but the difficulty is to account how the roof of this detached building could be called to irrepvyiov toC Upov. Michaelis, indeed, in his Introduction (vol. i. p. 144, edit. Marsh) sup- poses in-fpvyiov to have been a kind of side-wall enclosing the Temple. But then there were several such iJorches or colonnades, each of which might thus be called nrepvyiov : but the irrepvyiov, as was shown, could be only one. On the whole I have nothing more plausible to offer, than what has been suggested above. The extreme difficulty of the ques- tion is admitted by Mr. Herbert Marsh on the first part of Mich.aehs, vol. i. 420." — Bishop Middletox, 'On the Greek Article,' p. 135. " TO jTTepiryioi' toC ifpoO. This is understood variouslj', but it seemeth to mean the battlements of the Temple where- withal it was ledged round about ; as Deut. xxii. 8, called there ni"VO, an hedge, or enclosure, as K. Sol. renders it. The Chaldee expvesseth it by the Greek word BrjKTj, a case. The Seventy, by (TTe(f>dvr], a crown. The Vulgar and Erasmus use Pinnaculum here, as our English doth, meaning some spire or broach that shot up from the roof. Camerarius in- differently takes it for the top or highest part of the Temple, be it pinnacle, battlement, spire, fane, or what else it would. The Priests used to go to the top of the Temple. (Talm. in Taaueth, R. Sol. on Isaiah, 22-lJ." — Lightfoot, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' sec. xi. vol. i. p. 497. " What part of the Temple it was that Christ was set upon at this time, it is in vain to go about to determine, whether on some turret of it, as is conceived by some, or on the battlement ledge, as by others ; or on some of the flying fanes, as by a third sort ; or on the shai-p broaches that were set there to keep off birds, as by a fourth ; it is as little material, as it is little determinable." — Ibid. i. 507. " Whether he placed Him upon the Temple itself, or upon some building within the holy circuit, it is in vain to seek, because it cannot be found. If it were npon the Temple itself, I should reflect upon the top of the nSlX porch of the Temple; if upon some other building, I shoidd reflect upon the oroai' ^aaiXiKriv, the Royal Gallery. The Priests were wont sometimes to go up to the top of the Temple, stairs being made for this purpose, and described in the Talmudick book entitled ' Middoth,' chap. iv. hal. 5. " Above all other parts of the Temple, the Q^IX porch of the Temple, yea, the whole npovaov, space before it, may not unfitly be called ro nTcpiytou tov Upov, the wing of the Temple, because, like wings, it extended itself in breadth on each side, far beyond the breadth of the Temple. " If, therefore, the devil had placed Christ in the very preci- pice of this jiart of the Tem))le, he may well be said to have placed Him upon the wing of the Temple, both because this part was like a wing to the Temple itself, and that that preci- pice was the wing of this part. " But if you suppose Him placed tVi aroav ^acriXiKTjv, upon the Royal Gallery, look upon it thus pointed out by Josephus (■Antiq. xv. 11, 5), ' On the south part (of the Court of the Gentiles) was the erroa Paa-iktKr), the King's Gallery, that deserves to be mentioned among the most magnificent things under the sun. For upon a huge depth of a valley, scarcely to be fathomed by the eye of him that stands above, Herod erected a gallery of a vast height ; from the top of which, if any looked down, he would grow dizzy, his eyes not being able to reach to so vast a depth.'" — Lightfoot, 'On S. Matthew,' iv. 5, vol. ii. p. 130. COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. CHAPTER IV. nto Him. 13. ITc dwdkth Caper , \1. hegirmeih to preach, 18. calleth Peter and [1. Christ fasteth, and is templed. 11. The angels mi7us, Andrew, 21. James and John, 23. and Itcaleth all the diteased. [Vulg. Christas in deserto post jejunium quadraginta dierum vincit dialjoli tentati^mes : et capto Joannt secedens in Caphai-naum pcsnitentiam pro'dicat ; piscatores Petrum et Andream, lacobum et loannem Zebedoii ad se vocat ; annuntians quoque Galilccis evangelium, varias curat infirmitates, turbis ipsum contitantibus.'] The beginning of this chapter is a continuation of tlia- last. The connection of the narrative is rather broken, and the sense rendered obscure by tlie division into chai)ters here. For the Evangelist having related that Jesus was baptized, that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and that a voice came to Him from heaven, goes on to say, " Then," or as S. Mark expresses it, " immediately after," Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness. The connection between tliis and the former part is accord- ingly best seen in S. Mark's Gospel, because the division of the chapter does not occur there. Before entering on*a consideration of each separate tempta- tion, it will be interesting to consider, as far as can be as- certained from the words of the Evangelists — 1st. The locality of the temptations ; and 2nd, The order of them. 1st. What wilderness was this ? Was it the wilderness on the west side of the Jordan, or the wilderness on the east of Jordan ? Some have supposed, that because the Evangelist says " the wilderness " (17 epf/juos), without any distinctive name, that he means the great wilderness on the east of the Jordan ? But it seems fairest to conclude, that by the " wil- derness " the Evangelist means the same wilderness which he had mentioned in the last chapter, and which was the scene of John Baptist's preaching, that is, the wilderness of Judaea, which lay on the west side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, north and south of Jerusalem. This agrees with the early local tradition, and it is well suited by its wild, rugged, solitary character for such a pui-jMse. So strong was the conviction in the Primitive Church, that the wilderness of Judrea was meant, tliat it was no uncommon thing for men to retire to a certain mountain in this wilderness, which they named Quarantania, under the impression, that here was the very spot, where Jesus had fasted forty days, and where He was afterwards tempted by the devil. Here by a life of self-dis- cipline and prayer, they endeavoured to conform themselves to the e.xample of Jesus. The first notice we have of Jesus, on His re-appearing among men after the Temptation, is on the east side of the Jurdan (John i. 28, 29). Jt may be, therefore, that the mountain, to which the devil carried Him after he had set Him on the pinnacle of the Temple, was one of the lofty mountains, that abound in the wilderness to the east of Jordan. Here, too, it was, on Mount Sinai, that Moses had already fasted forty days and forty nights. (Exod. xxxiv. 28.) Here, too, on Mount Horeb, Elijah had fasted forty days and forty nights. 2nd. S. Matthew (iv.), and S. Luke (iv.), both record the three temptations ; but not in the same order. S. Matthew gives the temptation to cast Himself down from the pin- nacle of the Temple, as the second, while S. Luke gives it, as the third in order in his narrative. There is reason to believe — with some early writers' — that S. Luke's is not the order, in which the temptations' took ])Iace, and also that he did not intend to imply, tliat it was. S. Luke uses no words before each temptation, that indicate sequence in order of time. He merely connects the three temptations together by the word, and (vv. 3, 5, 9). On the other hand, S. Matthew's account has every appearance of being intended as a record of these temptations in the order in which they occurred. Before the first temptation, he says, " And when the tempter came to Him he said," &c. ; before the second, " Then (totc) the devil," &c. ; and before the third, " Again (n-dXii') the devil," &c. The words, too, with which Jesus brings the Temptation to an end, " Get thee hence, Satan," seem to belong better to his request, that " Jesus should fall down and worship him," than to his otlier request, " that He should cast Himself down from the Temj^le." The first of these was a more audacious pitch of impiety than even the second. Several reasons have been suggested why S. Luke gives the three temptations in the order in which he does. One is, that he wished to show how much alike the temptations, with which Satan assailed the second Adam, were to the temptations by which he overcame the first Adam ; that he therefore set the temptations of the first Adam and the temptations of the second Adam, that most resemble each other, side by side, without regard to the order in which the temptations of the second Adam actually occurred. ' See Justin Martyr, Dialog, p. 361. S. Augustine, de Consensu Evang. ii. IG ; vol. iii. p. 1093. S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qusest. 4!, art. 4; vol. iv. 380. Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. xv. p. 130. Maldonatus, in Matt. iv. 5 ; vol. i. p. 59. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 5 ; vol. viii. p. 103. Bengel, in Matt. iv. T> ; p. 31. CHAPTER IV. Vers. i-ii. S. JlATTIlEW iv. 1-11. Then was .Tcsus Ic.l uji of the Spirit into the wililerness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But He answered and said, It is written, " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proccedeth ort of the mouth of God." 5 Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, G And saith unto Him, If thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down : for it is written, "He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee : and in their hands they shall bear Thee itp, lest at any time Thou dash thy foot against a stone." 7 Jesus said unto him. It is written again, " Thou shalt not tempt 'the Lord thy God." 8 Ag.ain, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them : y And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him. Get thee hence, Satan : for it is written, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." 1 1 Then the devil le.aveth Him, and behold angels came and ministered unto llim. TUE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. S. Make i. 12-13. And immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan : and was with the wild beasts : S. Luke iv. 1-13. 1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jord.an, and was led by the S))irit into the wilderness, 2 being forty days tempted of the devil. and in those days He did eat nothing : and when they were ended, He afterward hungered. 3 and the devil said unto Him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4 And Jesus answered him, saying. It is written that " man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." 9 And he brought Him to Jerusalem, and set Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down from hence : lu for it is written, "He shall give His angels charge over Thee to keep Thee : 1 1 And in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dasli Thy foot against a stone." 12 And Jesus answering, said unto him. It is said, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," 5 And the devil taking Him up into an high mountain, shewed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. G And the devil said unto Him, all this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them : for that is delivered unto me : and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If Thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be Thine. 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan : for it is written, "Thou shalt worshiji the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." 13 And when the devil h.ad ended all the temptation, he departed from Him for a season. .and the angels lini-torcd unto Him. 104 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. I. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." V. into the wilderness by the Spirit. A'ulg. in desert um a spiiilu. Here we have distinctly staled the time, when Jesus was led up into the wilderness, immediately after the descent of the Holi Spirit upon Him ; the Person, under whose influence He acted, the Holy Kiiirit;' and the ohject, with which He went into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil, to enter on the combat with the Serpent, which had been foretold from the very first (Gen. iii. 15). " The seed of the woman," having been publicly appointed to His office, goes to wage war with the Serpent, and we here see what is the prepara~ tion which He makes for it, retirement and fasting. 'i'he three Evangelists use different verbs to express the action of the Holy Spirit in this matter. S. Matthew says He was led up (dvrjx^T]) of the Spirit ; S. Luke, He was led (j/yero), and S. Mark says, the Spirit driveth (cV;3aXXei) Him. Comjiaring these words together, we may fairly con- clude, that the meaning conveyed by thein is, that the Temp- tation was ordained by tlie Godhead, and that the flesh )iaturally shrank from it, as afterwards from the cup of suffering, at His Passion. These three expres^ons, " the Si)irit " to Ilvevfxa (S. Mark), "of the Spirit" vtto tov Uveviiaros (S.Matthew), and ''by the Spirit" iv ra Tli/ivfi.aTi (S. Luke), all mean the same thing, that His going into the wilderness was a real, not a visionary action ; that He was led by a Personal agency ; and not that He was led up in spirit or in vision, as when Ezekiel was carried into the valley of dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1).^ 2. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward an hungred. Jesus ' by His own divine power could fast forty days and forty nights. Mere human nature unassisted could not do this ; and wfien it is recorded that Moses and Elijah fasted forty days and forty niglits, they were both in close inter- course with God, and were doubtless enabled, by power super- natui'ally imparted to them, to endure this strain on the flesh. After the forty days were ended. He allowed Him- self to feel the hunger which in the course of nature followed such a fast, probably hunger in its fiercest form, the hunger of a man who had fasted forty days, hunger so intense, as to be as much beyond the power of mere man to experience, as it would be for him to fast forty days. As every man, in his degree, has to enter into conflict with the same enemy, that Jesus here did, so the Church from the beginning,* has called on all her members to imitate Him in the preparation that He made for this conflict. In memory of this forty daj's' fast and temptation, and as a meafis of sharing in the benefits of it, she year by year requires all the S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xiii. ; vol. i. p. 162. S. Jerome, in Matt. iv. 1, vol. vii. p. 31. S. Hilary Piet. in M:itt. iv. 1, vol. i. p. 928. S. Gregory Magnr ■, in Evang. Homil. xvi. vol. ii. p. 1135. " Jesus led up of the Spirit. — " Each Evangelist hath his pecu- liar expression, and each expression its peculiar meaning; though some translators do not mnch mind their difierences ; as the Syriac, that useth the same word in Matthew and Luke, and the Arabic the same in Matthew and Mark, only either of them take it actively in the one, and passively in the other, 1. Luke saith, ^yero. He was acted or moved, actus est, and agebatur, in Beza and the Vulgar, intending the internal moving of the Spirit witliin Him ; for so the manner of speech is used, Rom. viii. 14, Gal. v. 18. 2. Mark saith eKjSoAAei, the Spirit casteth, bringeth, or driveth Him out, for in these senses is the word used, Matt. xii. 35, Luke ix. 40, John .x. 4, Gal. iv. 30, &c. And he implieth by it : First, His parting Him from the company at Jordan. Secondly, His sending Him out upon His office and function; for so the word is also used, Matt. ix. 38. And thirdly, it seemeth to denote some visible vehemency and rapture wherewithal the Spirit separated Him from the company, as Philip was taken away from the Eunuch, Acts viii. 39. 3. Matthew saith av-rjx^V, He was led up, as our English hath well rendered it, from the low grounds about Jordan, to the high mountains of the wilderness ; some conceive He was rapt up into the air, and there carried aloft till He came into the wilderness ; which if it were so, the evil spirit imitated this act of the Holy Siiirit, when he carrieil Him in the air to the pinnacle of the Temple." — Lightfoot, ' Harmony of the Four Evangelists,* sect. xi. ; vol. i. p. 495. Mount Quarantania. — " Directly west, at the distance of a mile and a half (from Jericho) is the high and preci])itous moun- tain called Quarantania, from a tr.adition that our Saviour here fasted forty days and nights, and also that this is the * high moun- tain ' from whose top the tempter exhibited ' all the kingdoms of ' S. Gregory Magnus, Homil. in Evang. xvi. vol. ii. p. 1135. Grotius, in Matt. iv. 1 ; Cidtici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 119. ^ Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 2, vol. viii. p. 99. ' See the proofs of this in Gunning's Lent Fast, Oxford edition, 1845. the world, and the glory of them.' The side facing the plain is as perpendicular, and apparently as high as the rock of Gibraltar, and upon the very summit are still visible the ruins of an ancient con- vent. Midway below are caverns hewn in the perpendicular rock, where hermits formerly retired to fast and pray in imitation of the forty days." — Tnojisos, ' The Land and the Book,' p. 617. The Three Temptations. — "The manner of His temptations was twofold. First, invisibly, as the devil is wont to tempt sinners; and this for forty days, while the tempter endeavoured with all his industry to throw in his suggestions, if possible, into the mind of Christ, as he does to mortal men. Which when he could not com- pass, because he found nothing in Him, in which such a temptation might fix itself (John xiv. 30), he attempted another way, namely, by appearing to Him in a visible shape, and conversing with Him, and that in the form of an angel of light. Let the Evangelists be compared. Mark saith. He was tempted forty days, so also doth Luke. But Matthew, that the tempter came to Him after forty days, that is, in a visible form." — LiGUTFOOT, ' On S. Matthew,' iv. 1 ; vol. ii. p. 130. " That the temptation of Jesus to'ok place immediately after His baptism, appears from the evSis of Mark i. 12 ; and also from a comparison of John i. 29, 35, 44. According to Mark and Luke, Jesus was subjected to temptation during the forty days. Matthew and Luke specify three instances of temptation, but in a different order. Of these, that founded on our Lord's hunger, must have occurred at the end of the forty days, while that which included the promise of all temporal power was obviously the final one. The order of Matthew is therefore the most natural of the two." Robinson, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' p. 187. CHAPTER IV. Vers. 3-7. 105 faithful to give up a tenth of their Jays to preparation, more or less strict, for their life-long fight with Satan. The words of the Evangehsts do not imply that Jesus was forty days in the wilderness before He was tempted by the devil, but that He was forty days before the tempter came to Him in a visible ibrni, and tempted Him by the three follAviiig temptations. During these forty days it is pro- bable, that He was tempted in other w.ays, perhaps by internal suggestions.' 3. And when the tempter came to Him, he said. If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." S. came, he paid unto liim. Vulg. Kt accedeus tentator dixit ei. 4. But He answered and said, It is written, " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Vulg. nori in solo pane vivit homo. In this the first of the three temptations, Satan's object seems to have been to induce Jisus, through the weakness of the body from the long fast, and from the longing for fijud cousequent on that fast, not to rely on God the Father's l)ruvision for Him, but to act independently for Himself, and by a miracle, to provide the food, which was not sup- plied to Him in the ordinary course of God's providence, and that too at the command or suggestion of him the enemy of God.^ Many, both in ancient and in modern times have thought, and it would seem, with some degree of probability, that before these temptations Satan was not fully convinced, th;'! Jesus was the Son of God.^ The words of the angels at His birth (Luke ii. 10-14), the voice from heaven at His ba|itism, this fast of forty days, as well as many other pas- sages in His life, may have suggested to Satan, that Jesus was not an ordinary Man. Whether he was fully aware of the Mystery of the Incarnation, stems doubtful. It seems scarcely possible to believe, that Satan would have ventured to tempt Ji'sus, had he known for certain, that He was God of God, very God of very God, that He was One with the Father, and equal to the Father. He would have known that the consequence of such a temptation would be a repulse, and a diminution of his power by such repulse, a bruising of his head. Many have, therelbre, thought that, besides tempt- ing Jesus to a distrust of God's provision for Him, and to independency of action, Satan also wished to discover, whether He really were the Son of God or not. To create, or to change one object into another by a word (Gen. i.), was the act of God only ; Satan, therefore, proposes to Jesus to change stones (S. Matt.), or a stone (S. Luke), into bread. If He attempted and failed, He would be proved not to be the Son of God ; if He succeeded. He would be acting on the sugges- tion of him the enemy of God, and in distrust of God the Father's care.* Jesus resists the tempter's suggestion on the ground that He is Man, and that as Man, He must conform in that in which He is the representative of men, to the laws laid down by God for the preservation of man's life. He repels Satan's command by a quotation from the words of Moses when he reasoned with the . peojile of Israel in the wilderness, and showed them that the object of God in His various dealings with them hitherto had been to try them. "And He hum- bled thee, and sufl'ered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know ; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every M'ord that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." Dent. viii. 3. 5. Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, S.V. and set bini. Vulg. Tunc assumpsit . . . . et statuit cum. 6. And saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down : i"or it is written, " He shall give his angels charge concerning thee ; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Vulg. scriptnm est enim : Quia angelis Buis mandavit de te. TeituUian.5 Scriptum est enim, quod mandavit angelis suis super te. 7. Jesus said unto hini; It is written again, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." The scene of the Temptation now changes from the vpildcr- ness tenanted only, as S. Mark notes to intimate the extreme solitariness and wildness of the place,* by wild beasts, to the crowded city of Jerusalem. So great is this change, that we naturally look for some reason for it, especially ' S. Tliomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. qu!Est. 41, art. 3; vol. iv. p. 377. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 3 ; vol. viii. p. 102. ' S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. 19, )>. 79. — ^ Corpus Ignatianum (Cureton), p. 36. Oiigen, in Luc. Homil. vi. ; vol. iii. p. 1815. S. Chrysostom. in Matt. Homil. siii. ; vol. i. p. 165. S. Jerome, in Matt. iv. 6 ; vol. vii. p. 32. ' The Temptation.— " As the doctrine of our Lord's humilia- I which it is contained is mysterious also, as exciting wonder, and tion is most mvsterious, so the vejy surface of the narrative in ' impressing upon us our real ignorance of the nature, manner, and [causes Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. xv. p. 129. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 3 ; vol. viii. p. 102. Grotius, in Matt. iv. 3 ; Critici Sacri, vol. vi. p. 119. * Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 3, vol. viii. p. 102. * Tertullian, adv. Prax. i. vol. ii. p. 155. « Theophylact, in Marc. i. 13; vol. i. p. 176. Euthymius, in Marc. i. 13 ; vol. iii. p. 21. io6 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. when we know that there were in the wilderness heights as high as any part of the Temple. The most probable reason why Satan brought Jesus to the Temple, appears to be, that there might be witnesses of the act, when at the command of Satan He should cast Himself down. From a height in the wilderness there would be no spec- tators; from the Temple at Jerusalem there would be many. The priests would be ministering, and the people would be worshipping, or crowding in the Temple courts, as usual. Though it is not stated, it is not imi^rohable that Satan urged Jesus to cast Himself down, and to claim from the assembled crowd the worship due to Him as God, and as God who had descended from Heaven.' Some suppose that Satan perverts the Scripture which he" quotes, and applies a passage to Christ which was not in- tended for Him.^ Others* think that though the passage did apply to Christ, it was not intended for Him in the sense in which Satan quotes it; and that he quotes it imperfectly, but a small portion of it, leaving out a part of the verse which applied to himself. The words of the Psalmist (xci. 10-13) are, " There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. ThcAi shalt tread upon the lion and adder, the young Hon and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet," &c. Jesus does not accuse Satan of misquoting, or misapplying the words of Scripture. He simply corrects his app)lication of them by another quotation. " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Man is not to presume on God's care over him beyond the hounds which reason and revelation have set to it. His answer to the first temptation was that man was not to despair of God's care over him, or to act in distrust of such care. His answer to the second was, that man was not to presume on God's care over him, or to act in such pre- sumption. Both these temptations were addressed to Jesus with reference to His divine nature, to induce Him to do works which He could only do as God ; and to both of them ho replies as a man, as the representative of men. If Satan were in doubt as to the Incarnation, or as to the real nature of Jesus, nothing that He has as yet said reveals the mystery to him. S. Matthew says, " Then the devil taketh Him up {wapa- Xn^/3aVei) into the Holy City," and S. Luke " he brought Him (rjyayev) to Jerusalem ;" but a comparison of the Evan- gelists throws no light as to the way in which Satan con- veyed Jesus to Jerusalem ; whether it was through the air, as some have thought, and if so, whether this was visible to the assembled multitudes. A bodily movement is undoubt- edly implied. Neither does the expression the pinnacle (to wrepvyLov) of the Temple indicate what part of the Temple this was. Those who think that the devil intended Jesus to throw Himself down at his command in the sight of the people, suppose that the roof of the eastern porch was meant. This was directly over the Court of the Israelites, and was about 385 feet high. But those who think that the devil merely wished to persuade Jesus to an unnecessary act of wanton presumption on the care of God, find a place more suitable for such a purpose in the o-roa fiaa-CKiKj), the Koyal Porch, which was very high itself, and which was also built on the top of an immense precipice (see Introductory Note). 8. Again, the devil taketh Him up into an ex- ceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them'; Vulg. iterum assumpsit eum dUIxilus. 9. And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Vulg. et dixit ei. 10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan : for it is written, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Two principal explanations have been given of this tempta- tion. Satan had prefaced the first two temptations with the ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 6 ; Tol. viii. p. 104. - Origen, in Luc. Homil. xxsi. vol. iii. p. 1881. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xiii. ; vol. i. p. 167. S. Jerome, in Matt. iv. 6 ; vol. vii. p. 32. causes of it. Take, for instance. His temptation. Why was it undergone at all, seeing our redemption is ascribed to His death, not to it? Why was it so long? What took place during it? What was Satan's particular object in tempting Him ? How came Satan to have such power over Him as to be able to transport Him from place to place ? And what was the precise result of the temptation? These and many other questions admit of no satis- factory solution. There is something remarkable too in the period of it, being the same as that of the long fasts of Moses and Elij:'.h, and of His own abode on earth after His resurrection. A like mystery again is cast around that last period of His earthly mission. Then He was engaged we know not how, except that He appeared, from time to time, to His Apostles ; of the forty d.iys of His temp- tation we know still less, only that ' He did eat nothing ' and was ' with the wild beasts,' Luke iv. 2 ; Mark i. 13. S. Gregory Nazianz., Orat. in S. Baptism, ch. x., vol. ii. p. 372. S. Hilary Pict. in Matt. iv. 6, vol. i. p. 930. S. Ambrose, in Luc. iv. 10, vol. ii, p. 1619. " Again, there is something of mystery in the connexion of this temptation with the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him on His baptism. After the voice from Heaven had proclaimed, ' This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,' ' immediately,' as St. Mark says, ' the Spirit drivcth Him into the wilderness.' As if there were some connexion, beyond our understanding, between His baptism and temptation, the first act of the Holy Sjiirit is forth- with to^ ' drive Him ' (whatever is meant by the word) into the wilderness. Observe, too, that it w,as almost from this solemn recognition, ' This is My beloved Son,' that the Devil took up the temptation. ' If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread,' Matt. iv. 3. Yet what his thoughts and designs were we cannot even conjecture. All we see is a renewal, apparently, of Adam's temjitation, in the person of the * second man.' " — Newman, ' Parochial -Sermons,' vol. iii. p. 174. CHAPTER IV. Vers, io, ii. 107 words, "If Thou be the Son of God," because he was anxious to ascertain that. But in both eases Jesus had foiled him by declining to work the miracle suggested, and by giving a satisfactory reason which applied to Him as Mau. In the third temptation he does not make use of the phrase, and some have tlierefore supposed that Satan had come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that he therefore assumed that claim for himself, as well as the power which it implied, that is, the right to bestow the king- doms of the world, and the glory of them, to induce Jesus to fall down and worship him. Others, again, have supposed that Satan did know that Jesus was the Sou of God, and that he nevertheless tempted Ilira to idolatry by the offer of worldly grandeur, which was his of right to dispose of. ■ Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and S. Luke indicates that this was done iu some supernatural way, by adding "in a moment of time." The way in which Jesus repulses Satan after the third temptation, is related in S. Luke in a slightly diilercnt form from that by S. Matthew. The latter relates that after the third temptation, Jesus said to Satan, "Get thee hence" (viraye), and S. Luke says, " Get thee behind me" (C?raye dn-i'o-to /xou). This difference has been explained as owing to the different order in which these Evangelists have related the three temptations. S. Matthew, giving this as the last of the temptations, expresses Christ's rebuke to Satan by vnaye. " Get thee hence," get thee away Satan ; while S. Luke, recording this as the second of the three temptations, says only, Get thee behind Me, Satan (ijnaye on-iVm fio^), thus expressing the same outburst of indignation, but implying that Satan did not leave Him as yet ; that there was, accord- ing to his relation, still a third temptation. The tliree temptations were different, probably so different as to include in them every possible species of temptation. The first had been to distrust of God's care ; the second, to wanton presumption on His care ; and the third, to Idolatry. The baits that were offered in these temptations were also different. In the first temptatiun, the bait offered by Satan to Jesus was the instant relief of His intense hunger; iu the third it was the unlimited grasp of worldly grandeur: what the inducement offered in the second was, it is not so easy to see, unless it were the admiration and the worship of tlie crowd assembled below, and who would he the spectators of His miraculous descent. When Satan had exhausted all the modes of assaulting Jesus of which he was capable, or as S. Luke expresses it when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from Him for a season or until a season («xp' Kaipov). Satan had learnt in the Garden of Eden that he should have the power to bruise His heel, that is, to accomplish His Death, and he now retires until that season approaches. But he had not been content with attacking His heel, with wounding Him, as it were, in His Human nature, he had assaulted His head, he had attempted to induce Him to rebel against God the Father. In this he had signally failed, and he now withdrew, vanquished and enfeebled. II. Then the devil leaveth Him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him." Vulg. Tuuc reliquit eum diabolus. In general when Scripture speaks of angels coming or going, it means in some visible and apparent form, as iu Gen. six. 1, and xxxii. 12 ; Jude 6 ; and in such sense it is doubt- less to be understood here. The Prince of the evil spirits, of the angels of darkness, dejiarted from Jesus, and good angels came in an equ.ally visible form, and ministered unto Him (fiirjKofouv aira). Besides acts of worshij^, this ministration would probably include the supplying of food to relieve His hunger. It is probably not without meaning that three different * The Ministry of Angels. — " When the evil angels more vio- lontly assault the taitht'iil hy their temptations, the good angels presently stejj in, to succour, aiil, and assist them, that they sink not under these temptations. Uur Saviour, who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, Heb. iv. 15, is our example in this. He was tempted in the wilderness in a very astonishing manner, the devil violently seizing His body and hurrying it up to a pinnacle of the Temple, and then again into an exceeding liigh mountain, and impetuously assaulting His mind with the most horrid temptations to tempt God, to commit idolatry, and the worst sort of it, the worship of the devil himself. But the good angels were all the while ready at hand, and when they saw their time appeared .and ministered to Him, .xs we read JIatt. iv. 11. Then the devil leaveth Him, and behold angels came and minis- tered to Him. 'Tis true the good angels seem not by those words to have come in to our Saviour till after He had single and alone vanquished all the assaults of the devil, because they knew His virtue to be impregnable, and in no danger of being overcome by temptations so foul and horrid. But yet as man and in the state of humiliation, He was subject to the pure natural infirraities of mankind ; and therefore needed food for His body after so long an abstinence, and refreshment to His mind after so dismal a contlict with the devil, for both these purposes we may well suppose the good angels came and ministered to Him. They ministered to Him when tempted by the devil, all needful help and aid, and so they will to all the faithful His members, who .as they stand in need of a more timely assistance of God's holy angels in their tem])tatioDs, so they shall never fail to receive it. Our Saviour again, a little before His death, was in a most dreadful agony; His soul being exceeding sorrowful, the anguish of His mind overflowing the channels of His body, and causing Him to sweat great drops of blood, Mark xiv. 34 ; Luke xxii. 44. There is little reason to doubt but that Satan had some hand in this last anguish of our ySaviour. For we must not think that the devil after he had tempted our Lord in the wilderness, so left llim as never to return again to trouble Him any more. Nay, St. Luke cijiressly obviates this con- ceit, when he tells us the devil then departed from Him for a season, Luke iv. 13. If he then departed from Him only for a season, we may be sure that this w.as not his last assault upon our Saviour. He set upon Him again afterwards, but especially and in the most pressing manner (as is most probable) in His last agony in the garden. But, behold, then there appeared an angel unto Him from Heaven strengthening Him, .as St. Luke assures us, ch.ap. sxii. 43." — Bisuof Bill, 'Sermon on Hebrews,' i. 14; vol. ii. p. 515. COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. names are given to the devil in this account of the Tempta- tion, 6 BidjioKos, the Accuser; 6 Triipi^av, the Tempter: and ^aravas Q^^), the Adversary. Four times he is spoken of as the Devil, once as the Tempter, in the first temptation, and once as the Adversary, in the third temptation. These terms are well suited to represent his character, and the nature of his actions and intentions towards men. S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke omit all reference to events between the Baptism of Jesus and the imprisonment of John, with the exception of His temptation. They make no mention of the deputation from the Sanhedrin at Jeru- Balem to John, to question him on the nature of his ofBce. None of the three records our Lord's first visit into Galilee after His baptism. His miracle at the marriage at Cana, His visit to Capernaum, His going up to Jerusalem to keep the first Passover after His baptism, driving out the buyers and sellers, &c., from the Temple, His conversation with Nicodemus, and with the woman of Samaria. All this is fully related by S. John, but by none of the other Evan- gelists. S. John alone relates His acts during the first year of His ministry. JESUS PREPARES TO ENTER ON HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY. S. Matthew iv. 12-17. 12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee : 13 And leaving Nazareth He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is npon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim : U * That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet saying, 15 The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. 16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light : and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent : for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 17 S. Mark i. 14, 15. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye and believe the Gospel. 12. ^ Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into GaHlee ;^ Margin, delivered up. S.V. When he had heard. Vulg. Cum autem audisset Je.sus quod Joannes tmditns ceset. If we compare the four Evangelists together, it will be plain that this is the second visit that Jesus made to Galilee after His baptism, and that there is a considerable interval between this verse and the last, that is, between the Temptation and His second visit into Galilee,' of probably not less than ei^ht ' S. Augustine, de Consens. Evang. ii. 18, vol. iii. p. 1097. Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. xxiii. p. 169. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 12, vol. viii. p. 109. Lightfoot, Harmony of the New Testament, sec. xvi. vol. i. p. 215. ' JesnB departed into Galilee. — " A specification of time is given in John iv. 35, which is tolerably definite. Say ye not, There are yet four months, and the harvest cometh ? According to Lev. xxiii. 5-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and Josephus, Ant. iii. 10, 5, the Dean Alford on Matt. iv. 12, Greek Testament. Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangclica, p. xxv. 18. Eobinson, Harmony of the Four Gospels, p. 19, McClellan, New Testament, p. 545, 648. first fruits of the barley-harvest were presented on the second day of the paschal festival ; while the wheat-harvest was two or three weeks later ; see Bibl. Res. in Palest, ii. p. 99, &c. Hence this journey of our Lord must have been made in the latter part of CHAPTER IV. Vers. 13-15. 109 months. For after His first visit to Galilee, He went up to Jerusalem to the Passover. In S. John, when recording this second visit into Galilee, in consequence of the imprison- ment of Johu the Baptist, Jesus is related to have said that it wanted four months to harvest, that is, to the Pass- over. This would leave at least eight mouths between His two visits into Galilee. Jesus would probalily be more free from molestation in Galilee, where Herod reigned, than in Juda;a, where the Pharisees lived. If He remained in the neighbourhood of the Pharisees, and under their eyes, they would be sure to represent to Herod that there was danger to the public peace in the crowds that daily resorted to Him. 13. And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim : '' S.V. Capbamaum. Vulg. Capbarnaum. 14. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, VuIg. quod dictum est per Isaiam propbc-tam. ■ 15- " The land of Zabulon, and the land of Neph- thalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles :" November or in December, about eight months after the preceding passover. It follows, that the public ministry of John the Baptist had continued for at least a year and six months, before his imprisonment." — RoBissoN, ' Harmonv of the Four Gospels,' p. ISO. ' Jestis came and dwelt in Capernaum. — " Why He left Nazareth, after He hail passed six or seven and twenty years there, the reason appears Luke iv. 28, &c. We do not read that He returned thither again, and so, unhappy Nazareth, thou perishest by thine own folly and perverseness. Whether His father Joseph had any inheritance at Capernaum, which He possessed as his heir, or rather dwelt there in some hired house, we dispute not. This is certainly called His city, Matt. is. 1, &c., and here, as a citizen. He paid. the h.ilf-shekel. Matt. xvii. 24, where it is worth remarl;ing what is said by the Jews : ' How long does a man dwell in some city before he be as one of the citizens ? Twelve months ' (' 15ava Bathra,' cap. i. hal. 6). The same is recited else- where. The Jerusalem Gemara thus explains it : 'If he tarry in the city thirty days, he becomes as one of the citizens in respect of the alms-chest ; if six months, he becomes a citizen in respect of clothing ; if twelve months, in respect of tributes and taxes.' The Babyloni.an adds, ' if nine months, in respect of burial.' That is, if auy abide in a city thirty days, they require of him alms for the poor J if six months, he is bound with the other citizens to clothe the poor; if nine months, to bury the dead poor; if twelve months, he is bound to undergo all other taxes with the rest of the citizens." — Lwutfoot, 'On S.Matthew,' iv. 13; vol. ii. p. l:u. Zabulon and Nephthalim. — " In the coasts of Zabulon and Naptliali captivity had tirst begun (2 Kings xv. 29), and there Christ tirst beginneth, more publicly and evidently to preach the near approach of the kingdom of heaven and redemption. In the first plantation of the land after the captivity, Galilee escaped from being Samaritan, and was reserved for this happy privilege, of being the first scene of Christ's preaching the Gospel. And as that country was inhabited by a good part of the ten tribes before their captivity, so upon the return out of Babel in the ten tribes of Zorobabel and Ezra, it may well be held to have been planted with some of the ten tribes again. For 1. Observe in Ezra i. that there is a proclamation from Cyrus, that any of the blood of the Jews wlieresoever within his dominions, should have liberty to go up to Jerusalem, vers. 3, 4, H. Now undoubtedly the ten tribes were then residing within his dominions, and it is harsh to conceive that they had all so far utterly forgot God and their country, as none of them to desire to go to their own land again when permitted. 2. There is a summa totalis in Ezra ii. of forty-two thousand three hundred and threescore, ver. G4, that returned out of captivity upon that proclamation, and there are the number of several families reckoned, as making up that sum ; whereas if the total of these particulars be summed up, it rcachcth not, by sixteen thou- sand or thereabout, to that number of forty-two thotisand, three hundred and threescore. Where then must we find those sixteen thousand, since they arise not in the number of the families there named? The families there named are of Juda and Benjamin, aaij then certainly those sixteen can hi0\Tjtnpoi', the same kind of net which we had seen used at Lake Bourlos, in Egypt '' The fishermen on shore (Lake Bourlos) were using the a^(/>i- &\-narTpoVj a net resembling the poke-net used in tlie isles of Scotland. It is circular, and weights are placed round the circum- ference. The fisherman holds it by the ceu'^re, gathers it up in his hand, and casts it into the water : he theiS. draws it slowly to shore by a line fastened to the centre. This isXprobably the very kind of net used by the disciples." — ' Mission yof Enquiry from Scotland,' p]). 294 and 63. ' ', Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 2.52. Bishop of Lincoln, Greek Testament, Ltike v. 1. Robinson, Harmony of the Four Gospels, pp. 23, 189. McClellan, New Testament, p. 438. S. Augustine, de Consens. Evang. ii. 17; vol. iii. p. 1094. Dean Alford, Greek Testament, Luke v. 1. ' Jesus calls Disciples. — "The three acoounts all evidently refer to the same transaction. Luke relates more particularly the former part, including the putting off upon the lake in Simon's boat, and also the miraculous draught, and passes lightly over the latter part. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, narrate the former part only generally, but the latter part with more detail. In the one part, Luke introduces circumstances which the iitbers omit ; in th^ other part, Matthew and Mark mention facts which Luke has not noted. The remark of Spanheim is here just ; Quae nar- rantur a Luca, ilia non negantur a Matthaio, sed pramittuntur tantum. Nihil vero frequentius, quam qua^dam praitermitti ab his suppleri ab aliis ; iie vel scriptores sacri ex comp'-icto scripsissc vidcrcniur, vel lectores uni ex illis reliquis spretis hiererent " (Dubia Evang. tom. iii. Dub. 72, vii.). — RojiINSON, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' p. 189. CHAPTER IV. Ver. 25. 113 25. And there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Dccapolis, ?iX\i\ from Jerusalem, and from Judrea, and from beyond Jordan. The principal means that Jesus used for the conversion of the people, as the Evangelist here intimates, were two, teach- ing and healing. He convinced their reason ; He proved to them out of their own Scriptures, and by arguments drawn from other sources, that He was tlie Christ, the Son of God ; and He predisposed thcra to receive His teaching favourably by healing the various maladies with which they were afflicted. Few of the cures that Jesus wrought are related at length, very few in comparison with the great number that He wrought. The Evangelist uses general terms, so as to imply not individual cases but different classes of diseases. 1. He healed all manner of sickness {iraa-av votrov). The term voam would probably comprise all who were afflicted with any form of disease that was incurable by human skill ; as, for instance, the blind, the lame, the withered, &c. 2. He healed all manner of disease (Traaav jiaKaKuiv'). The term fiaKaKia would denote all who were sufiering from failure of strength, and might comprise consumption, and every other kind of wasting. 3. He healed those who were taken with torments ((Sao-aVoir). This term ^dcravos would include all who were racked with pain, whose existence was one continued tor- ture. Three kinds of diseases the Evangelist specifies — palsy, lunacy, and demoniacal possession. The first is a bodily affliction, the second mental, and the third m \y include both. Such were the various kinds of diseases that Jesus cured. But to form an idea of the n\imber of individual cases there might be, we must take into account the extent of country from which they came to Him: "From Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Juda;a, and from beyond Jordan." Josephus says' there were 240 cities and villages, or inhabited places, in Galilee alone. Of the district called Dec apolis, Lightfoot' quotes Pliny as saying, " The region of Decaixilis is joined to Judaia on the side of Syria. It was so called from the number of the ten cities in it, about which all are not agreed. Most writers reckon them as follows : Damascus and Opotos, both watered by the river Chrysor- rhoas, fruitful Philadelphia and Kaphana, all lying towards Arabia ; Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Gelasa, Cana- tha. Among and about these cities there lie tetrarchies, every one like whole countries, and they are divided into kingdoms, Trachonitis, Paneas, in which is Ca!sarea." Some writers' have thought that by Decapolis is meant a district com- prising ten cities which lay more in the neighbourhood of the Sea of Galilee, the names of which were Tiberias, Sephet, Asor, Cedes, Ca'sarea Philippi, Capharnaum, Jotapata, Bethsaida, Corazin, Bethshan or Scythopolis. Whiclipver of these lists of cities be the real district of Decapolis, it is plain that a very wide extent of country is here indicated, and that the number of cases which Jesus healed would be in like proiX)rtion. ' Josephus, Vita, 45 ; vol. ii. p. 927. Whiston's Trans. Life, p. 1.5. 2 Lightfoot, Chorograph. Decart. ch. vii. vol. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. iv. 20 ; vol. v , p. 314. . p. 114. 114 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO CHAPTER V. The Mount of Beatitudes. — "Twelve miles north-north-' east from Nazareth, we came to the Mount of Beatitudes, wliere our Saviour delivered His remarkable sermon : it is about ten miles north of Mount Tabor. From the plain to the south, it appeai-s like a long low hill, with a mount at the cast and west end, from which it seems to have the name of Kern-el-Hutin (the horns of Hutin), the village of Hutin being under it. At the first sight, the whole hill appears to be rocky and uneven, but the eastern mount is a level surface, covered with fine herbage : and here, they say, it was that those blessings proceeded out of the mouth of the Redeemer of mankind. The mount is ninety paces long,' and sixty wide. About the middle of this eastern mount are the foundations of a small church, twenty-two feet square, on a ground a little elevated, which probably is the place where they supposed our Saviour was, when He spake to His disciples. To the west of it there is a cistern underground, which might serve for the use of those who bad the care of the church." — PococKE, ' Travels,' vol. ii. p. 67. "The undulating table-land which skirts the hills of -%airiee~ on the ^t> '^ broken by a long low ridge rising at its northern extrenj.'y ™^o * square-shaped hill with two tops, which "ive itV''^^ modern name of ' the Horns of Hattin,' Hattin beini^'J'^^ village on the ridge at its base. This mountain or hiU-^^o'' '* °°'y "^''^ ^'^'y ^^^^ ^^°'^*' the plain— is that knowA^*° pilgrims as the Mount of the Beatitudes, the supposed ^^oene of the Sermon on the Mount. The tradition canno* '^y o'^™ *° ^^ ^'^'"^y ^*'^- it was in all probability suggek'^'^ ^''^' '° ^^'^ Crusaders, by its remarkable situation. Bnt r^* situation so strikingly coincides with the intimations oC ^^'^ ^°^P'^^ narrative, as almost to force the inference that in this instance the eye of those who selected the spot was for once rightly guided. It is the only height seen in this direction from the shores of the Lake of Gennesareth. The plain on which it stands is easily accessible from the lake, and from that plain to the summit is but a few minutes' walk. The platform at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds precisely to the ' level place ' (tottou TreSivov), to which He would ' come down ' as from one of its higher horns to address the people. Its situ.ation is central, both to the peasants of the Galilean hills and the fishermen of the Gali- lean lake, between which it stands, and would therefore be a natural resort both to Jesus and His disciples when they retired for solitude from the shores of the sea, and also to the crowds who assembled from Galilee, ' from Decaixjlis, from Jerusalem, from Juda;a, and from beyond Jordan.' None of the other mountains in the neighbourhood could answer equally well to this description, inasmuch as they are merged into the uoiform barrier of hills round the lake ; whereas this stands separate — ' the mountain,' which alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the exception of the one height of Tabor, which is too distant to answer the requirements." — Stanley, ' Sinai and Palestine,' p. 3G8. " The tradition which makes Kurn Hattin the Mount of Beatitudes is of Latin origin, and not older than the twelfth or thirteenth century ; but the place is so well adapted for the delivery of a discourse to a large multitude, that in this case we may well believe it was correctly chosen by those who first selected it.'" — "Wilson and Waheen, ' Recovery of Jerusalem,' vol. ii. p. 356. ( I': CHAPTER V. [1. Christ Uginneth His sermon m the mount .- 3. declaring who are blessed, 13. who are the salt of llie earth, 14. the light of tte world, the citii on an h ill, 15. U,e candle : 11. that He came ioft:lfd th' law. 21. What it is to kill, 27. to commit adultery, 33. to smear : 33. exlun tdh to suffer wrong, 44. to love even our enemies, 48. and to labour after perfcctness.\ [Vulg. Octo tradit beatitudines : Apostalos Salem terrm et lucem mundi dicit : nee venit ut S'llvat legem aut pmphetas, sed adimpleat, docens de non iras- rendo fratri, sed ut ci reconciliemur, de non concupiscenda muliere, de membro scamlalizante abjiciemlo, de uxore extra casum aduUerii non Uimiltenda : noil jurandttm, ncc malo resistendum, inimicos diUgtndos, et de male meritis bene merendum } Two questions arise in connection with S. Mattliew's account of our Saviour's ' sermon on tlie mount. 1. Is S. Matthew here and S. Luke vi. 20 giving an account of the same sermon ? 2. If so, which of the two gives the sermon in the order of events in which it was delivered? I. After a minute examination of the points of agreement and dift'erence in the sermon of our Lord, as recordeil hy S. Mat- thew and S. Lulie, S. Augustine' was scarcely able to make up iiis mind whether they were relations of two diflerent dis- coiu'ses, or diflerent accounts of one and the same discourse. On the whole, he seemed rather to lean to the opinion, that they were the relations of two discourses delivered at ditferent times. He seems to think it not improbable that they were two discourses delivered on the same day, part to His disci|ile8 and part to the general multitude. On the other hand, many eminent commentators have held that the two Evangelists are referring to one and the same sermon." Some of the early writers' appear, from their remarks, to imply that the two accounts are relations of one and the same discourse, though they have not said so in as many words. At first sight, it might appear that the two Evangelists are giving an account of two different discourses, because S. Luke expressly states that Jesus chose His twelve Ajostles before He delivered His sermon, while S. Matthew does not make any mention of the twelve Apostles until long after the delivery of His sermon. But a little examination will show that the two Evangehsts may still be relating the same discourse. Because S. Matthew nowhere records the election of the twelve Apostles ; when he first mentions them it is to relate how Jesus endued them with miraculous power, and sent them to preach the Gospel and to heal the sick, and he uses words which rather imply that He had chosen them some time before. An inspection of the two accounts can scarcely fail to strengthen the impression, that they refer to one and the same sermon. It will also show that S. Matthew's is much the fuller account, extending as it does over one hundred and seven verses, while S. Luke's is contained in thirty ; that S. Luke's account, as far as it goes, is identical in subject-matter with S. Matthew's, and almost in the very same words ; and that the beginuing and the conclusion of the sermon is alike in both the Evangelists. Why S. Luke omitted so large a portion of the sermon it may be impos- sible to say. It has been suggested that a great part of that which he omits has a special reference to Jewibh customs and to Jewish feelings, and that, as S. Luke was writing for Gentiles, he passed over that which had a special reference to the Jews. II. Supposing that the accounts of the tw^o Evangelists refer to the same sermon, there can be no question that S. Luke's is the one which is given in the order of events in which it was delivered.* The motive that influenced S. Matthew in placing the Sermon on the Mount by anticipation heie, though in the proper course of the narrative it should not come in until chapter viii. 4, in all probability was that love lor classification according to subjects which he has show^n in other parts of his Gospel. S. Blatthew often puts things together that are alike in their nature, or that hajipened in the same place, without much regard to the time when they took place. Hence his Gospel caimot be called, as it was not intended to be, a strictly chronological arrangement of events. In verse 23 of the last chapter, S. Matthew says that " Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and hcaUng a\[ manner of sickness." He then goes on to give specimens of' these subjects, and in the order in which he has here ' S. Augustine, de Consens. Evang. ii. 19 ; vol. iii. p. 1098. * Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. ix.\ix. p. 261. Maldonatus, in Matt. v. i. ; vol. i. p. Go. Cornelius a Lapide, in JIatt. v. i. ; vol. viii. p. 116. Grotius, in Luc. vi. 17 ; Critici Sac. vol. vi. p. 1267. Bishop of Lincoln, Greels Testament, Luke vi. 17. Tischendorf, Synopsis Evang. pp. xsxi. and 33. Robinson, Harmony of the Four Gospels, p. 192. Stroud, Harmony of the Four Gospels, p. c.-sliii. McClellan, New Testament, p. 443. ' S. Ambrose, in Luc. vi. 20; vol. ii. p. 1649. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xv. ; vol. i. p. 187. ' Jansenius, in Concord. Ev.ing. cap. ij.xix. p. 261. Maldonatus, in Matt. v. i. ; vol. i. p. 65. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. v. i. ; vol. viii. p. 116. Robinson's Harmony of the Four Gospels, pp. 34, 192. Tischendorf, Svnopsis Evangelica, p. xxxi. McClellan, New Testament, p. 445. I 2 ii6 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. classed tliem. Having first mentioned His teaching in the synagogues and pieacljing the Gospel of the kingdom, in- stead of narrating the events which happened next in order, he first gives the substance of what He tau>;ht, and on both the subjects on which He taught — that is, on both the Law and the Gospel — in the Sermon on the Mount ; and he then records instances of His healing. By this arrangement he is also enabled to bring together several instances of heal- ing, all of which were wrought at the same place, either in Capernaum itself, or in the immediate neighbourhood of it.' Whether this be the right key to explain the meaning of S. Matthew's arrangement or not, the fact remains that hiS~ arrangement here is exceedingly like the way in which he groups events together in other parts of his Gospel, and with the same disregard of time. There is no difSculty as to the place in which the sermon is said to have been delivered by the two Evangelists. S. Matthew says. He went up into " a mountain," or into " the mountain" (f(i-T-6o/jof): "and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him." S. Luke says that He came down with them ; that is, from the mountain (to Spos) which he had mentioned just before, and stood in the plain (eVl ronov TveStvov), or, as it is rendered, on a level place. By refer- ence to the introductory note to this chapter, it will be seen that the mountain and the level place on the moun- tain exactly correspond with the description which tra- vellers give of the mountain supposed to be the Mount of Beatitudes. The time assigned by commentators to the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, will vary according as they regard the sermon recorded by S. Matthew to be the same as that by S. Luke or not. For instance, Cornelius a Lapide thinks they are the same, while Greswell thinks they were delivered at different times and to different audiences. The time which a Lapide assigns to the delivery of the sermon, is about the middle of May ;' and so after the second Passover of our Saviour's ministry. This is about the same time that Gres- well gives to the delivery of the discourse which S. Luke relates; but he makes the date of the Sermon on the Mount by S. Matthew earlier by several months, and places it in February — that is, some time before the second Passover. The Sermon on the Mount divides itself into three great divisions — I. The sermon, from verse 1 to 16, contains various quali- fications for the exalted position and the great responsibility to which He had called the Apostles. These verses appear to have been addressed primarily to the Twelve. n. From verse 17 to 48, it contains His condemnation of the glosses and interpretations of the Law of Moses, by which they had rendered it of no effect. Very little of tliis is re- corded by S. Luke. IIL The rest of the sermon, chapters vi., vii., is taken up with various duties towards God and man. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. v. 1 ; vol. viii. p. 116. ' The Sermon on the Mount. — The following is a concise sum- mary in favour of S. Luke's position of the Sermon on the Mount. " The Sermon on the Mount follows here, in accordance with the order of Luke. The correctness of this order, so far as it respects Matthew, depends on the question : Whether the discourse as reported by the two Evangelists is one and the same, and was delivered on the same occasion ? This question is answered at the present day by interpreters, with great unanimity, in the affirma- tive ; and mainly for the following reasons : — " 1. The choice of the Twelve by our Lord, as His ministers and witnesses, furnished an appropriate occasion for this public declara- tion respecting the spiritual nature of His kingdom, and the life and character required of those who would become His true followers. Luke expressly assigns this as the occasion; and although Matthew is silent here and elsewhere as to the selection of the Apostles, yet some passages of the discourse, as reported by him, seem to presuppose their previous appointment as teachers : see Matt. v. 13, 14; vii. 6. " 2. The beginning and the end of both discourses, and the gene- ral course of thought in both, exhibit an entire accordance one with the other. " 3. The historical circumstances which follow both discourses are the same, viz. the entrance into Capernaum, and the healing of the centurion's servant. " The main objection which has been felt and urged against the identity of the two discourses, is the fact that Matthew's report contains much that is not found in Luke, while, on the other hand, Luke adds a few things not found in Matthew, as v. 24-26, 38-40, 45 ; and further, his expressions are often modified and different. as in v. 20, 29, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46. But this objection vanishes, if we look at the different objects which the two Evangelists had in view. Matthew was writing chiefly for Hebrew Christians ; and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of His dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the Jewish law and the teaching and practice of the Scribes and Pharisees. This he does particularly, and with many examples, in Matt. v. 18-38, vi. 1-34. Luke, on the contrary, was writing mainly for Gentile Christians ; and hence he omits the long passages of Matthew above referred to, and dwells only upon those topics which are of practical importance to all. In other respects, the discourses as given by the two writers do not differ more than is elsewhere often the case in different reports of the same discourse *' Augustine, in order to avoid the like difficulty, supposed that our Lord first held the longer discourse in Matthew before His disciples on the top of the mountain ; and afterwards descended and delivered the same in the briefer form of Luke to the multi- tudes below (de consensu Evangelistarum, ii. 45). But this is unnecessary; and the order of circumstances would seem rather to have been the following; — Our Lord retires to the mountain and chooses the Twelve ; and with them descends to the multitudes on the level place or plain, where He heals many. As they press upon Hini, He again ascends to a more elevated spot, where He can over- look the crowds and be heard by them ; and here, seating Himself with the Twelve around Him, He addresses Himself to His dis- ciples in particular, and to the multitudes in general. See Matt. V. 1, 2 ; Luke vi. 20 : also Matt. vii. 28 ; Luke vii. 1." — RoBIKSON, ' Harmony of the Four Gospels,' p. 192. CHAPTER V. Vers, i- 117 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. S. Matthew v. AuJ seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him : And He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn : for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek : for they shall inherit the earth. (j Blessed arc' they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness : for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart : for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers : fur they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when ineji shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in heaven : for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. S. Luke vi. And He came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of His disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judiea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases ; And they that were ve.\ed with unclean spirits: and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch Him : for there went virtue out of Him, and healed them all. And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor : for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now : for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now : for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. Eejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy : for, behold, your reward is great in heaven : for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are rich ! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full ! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now ! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto vou, when all men shall speak well of yc for so d'id their fathers to the false prophets. 1. And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain : and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him : V. m}iiu iintp Him. Vulg. Videus iiuttm lesus turbas .... accesserunt ad eum discipuli ejus. 2. And He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying, 3. Blessed arc the poor in spirit : for theii's is the kingdom of heaven. ^ The Baptist bad come iireaching, " Repent ye : for tlie kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus Himself had gone about all Galilee, saying, " Repent ye : for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Here He declares what must be the dispositions of those who are to compose tliis kingdom. The kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, may be looked at in its two separate conditions, as (1) Christ's kingdom, or Christ's Church, on earth preparing for heaven; or (2) as having already reached heaven. Whilst on earth they are 118 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. commanded to show this poverty iu spirit as a disposition becoming citizens of this kingdom ; and in heaven they will receive the rewai'd of having shown this spirit while on earth. Most of the conditions which our Saviour here pronounces blessed, had hitherto been regarded as indications of misery and misfortune. Henceforward, and under certain restrictions, they were to be signs of blessedness present and future. The chief point indicated in the words " Blessed are the poor in spirit" is the inward temper, and not any external condition ; the state of their heart, and not the nature of their worldly circumstances. Neither necessary poverty, nor poverty voluntarily embraced, in itself is the condition here— • pronounced "Blessed," but humility of spirit, a desire to walk humbly before God. It is true that Jesus has elsewhere depicted the deceitfulness of riches in such strong colours as almost to imply that a fear of offending God was rarely found combined with riches. Under the impression that poverty iu worldly goods was the best way to ensure this poverty or humility in spirit, many in ancient times distributed their worldly goods among the poor, and voluntarily embraced a stite of poverty. By this they freed themselves from the distraction of mind which the possession of money or pro- prrty always entails, land they were enabled to give them- selves up more unreservedly to the nuinterrupted worship of God, and they avoided the temptations to worldliness, to grasp as much as possible of what this world has to offer. So far the}' were on the road to blessedness. 4. Blessed are they that mourn : for they shall be comforted. 5. Blessed are the meek : for they shall in- herit the earth. Vulg. 4. Beat! mites : quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram. 5. Beati qui lugeDt : quoniam ipsi consolabuBtur. The Vulgate places " Blessed are the meek " next to " Blessed are the poor in spirit," and before " Blessed are they that mouru." This is also the order that is generally followed by the Latin commentators." But S. Leo, oomment- iug on these verses, places " Blessed are they that mourn " before " Blessed are the meek." But the Greek MSS., the Syriac, and the Arabic arrange the Beatitudes in the order in «hich we have them. This is also the order followed by the Greek commentators.^ It has been observed that the reward annexed to all the Beatitudes is the kingdom of heaven,* either expressly stated. as in the first and eighth Beatitudes, or virtually so, as in the rest. In the other six the reward promised corresponds with the grace that is pronounced " blessed." The expression "in the spirit" (tm nviv^uni)* may pro- bably be understood to belong to all the Beatitudes as well as to the first, Thus restricted, the comfort here promised would not be to all who mourn, to every kind of sorrow, but to them who mourn " iu the spirit" (™ jri'tiV"'"')' what- ever may be the precise meaning of those words. It would doubtless include all mourning in sorrow for sin, and mourn- ing of all kinds, even for loss of worldly goods, borne pa- tiently and with resignation to the will of God. To the eyes of man the meek and unresisting aiipcar to be the prey of the strong, the lawless, and the violent. In all acts of aggression the meek appear to be the sufifenrs. But this meekness is so far from entailing on them any loss, that it actually entitles them to a possession, and not to an acci- dental possession, but to a rightful inheritance ((cXij^ofo/ii/- (Touo-i). " they shall inherit the earth." In consequence of this their conduct they shall possess that which, as being the most substantial and the most lasting of all, is rightly called " the land :" they shall inherit the land where tliey live for ever.^ 6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness : for they shall- be filled. 7. Blessed arc the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy. To hunger and thirst after righteousness is to have the same longing, the same craving for righteousness, that we have for meat and drink. The term righteousness {ti]v biKaioavi'Tjv) in its largest sense implies our duty both to God and to man. In its more limited signification, it applies to our duty to man only, to our conduct to each other, and it is then generally termed justice. In this latter sense righteous- ness is closely allied to mercy. For mercy is what we do to each other over and above that which we are bound to do by the law of the land. 8. Blessed are the pure in heart : for they shall see God. 9. Blessed are the peacemakers : for they shall be called the children of God. Vulg. quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. Few terms embrace a wider field than the words " pure in heart," or " a pure heart :" for the heart is the source of all ' S. Jerome, in Matt. v. ; vol. vii. p. 3+. S. Augustine, de Serm. in Monte, i. 2 ; vol. iii. p. 1232. S. Hilary Pict. in Matt. v. ; vol. i. p. 932. ' S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xv. ; vol. i. p. 190. Theophylact, in Matt. v. ; vol. i. p. 23. Euthj-mius, in Matt. v. ; vol. i. p. 147. Jaijsenius, in Concord. Evangel, cap. xsxix. p. 2G8. MalJonatus, in Matt. v. 4 ; vol. i. p. 68. Cbvnelins a Lapide, in Matt. v. 4; vol. viii. p. 121. S. Augustine, de Serm. in Monte, i. 4, 12; vol. iii. p. 1235. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. v. 10; vol. viii. p. 128. Cornelius a bapide, in Matt. v. 4 ; vol. viii. p. 123. S. Basil, in Psalm sxxiii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 355. S. Gregory Nyssen, de Beatit. orat. ii. ; vol. i. p. 1212. S. Cyril Alex, iu Isaiah Iviii. 14; vol. iii. p. 1302. S. Jerome, in Matt. v. 5 ; vol. vii. p. 34. CHAPTER V. Vers. ic^i2. 119 action, and actions partake of the nature of the heart, from which they proceed. They whose }ieart is pure shall have the most uurestricted intercourse with God hereafter which it is possible for man to enjoy : they shall see God. Wliat the eUect of seeing God is, S. John has shown (1 John iii. 2) : it is to transform them into His likeness. To create peace between man and man, and peace between God and man, has been the distinguishing mark of the most eminent servants of God in all ages. But, besides the reward which their very employment will yield them in this world, they shall be recognised and owned as sons of God in the life to come. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Vulg. qui persecutionem patiuntur, 1 1. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute yi.m, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Margin, lying. Vulg. et di.xennt omne malum adversum vos mentient«s. 12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in heaven : for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. They were to rejoice, when sufiFering persecution, and false accusation of every description, in the service of God, for two reasons : (1) Because the reward which God would hereafter bestow on them for this, would be great ; and (2) because they in this resembled the prophets of old. 'I'he audience to which our Saviour delivered His sermon ou the mount consisted of the multitudes and His disciples. or His Apostles : for S. Luke relates, that He had chosen His twelve Ajxistles before He delivend this sermon. It is also probable that He uttered the Beatitudes, and the four verses that follow them, with .special reference to the Ajwstles, to encourage and support them in the career on which they were about to enter, and to instruct them in the responsibility of the office to which they had been called. Their life would henceforth be one of poverty, of sorrow, of oppression, and of persecution. All these conditions of suflering, borne for His sake, in His service, would meet with their appropriate reward, but not in this life. They must also be gentle, pure, merciful, and the promoters of peace among men. Thus, in the Beatitudes, He w-arns them of the hardships which they would have to endure, and the dispositions which they must show in His service. S. Matthew gives eight Beatitudes, while S. Luke gives only four. S. Luke relates that He pronounced blessedness on foiu conditions, and woe on the four conditions opposed to these. The latter is omitted by S. Matthew. As a rule it may be said that S. Matthew is fuller than S. Luke in the description of the incidents or events which he relates, while S. Luke relates a greater number of those events. In the four verses that follow the Beatitudes, He points out to them by three different similes the exalted station to which He had raised them by choosing them as His Apostles, and the responsibility which this entailed on them. They were the salt of the earth, the lights of the world, as a city set on a hill. Henceforth they were not mere hearers, like the rest of the crowd : they were the salt to season the rest ; they were the lights to give light to the rest. These words could scarcely apply to any in that whole multitude but to the newly-electi;d Twelve, and to such as bear an office in some degree similar to theirs. S. Matthew v. Ye are the salt of thn earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shdU it be salteJ ? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, ami to be trodik-n under foot of men. Ve are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it iinder a bushel, but on a candlestick ; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. No man, whcu he hath lighted a candle putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 13. f Ye are the salt of the earth : but if the salt have lost his savour," wherewith shall it be salted ? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill ^ cannot be hid. 15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick ; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Vulg. nt luceat. 16. Let your light so shine before men,'^ that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. v.* your good things. Vulg. ut videant opera vestra bona. " Salt having lost its savour. — " It is plainly implied that salt, under certain conditions so generally known as to permit Him to found His instructions upon them, did actually lose its saltness ; and our only business is to discoTer these conditions, not to question__ their existence. Nor is this difficult. I have often seen just such salt, and the identical disposition of it that our Lord has mentioned. A merchant of Sidon having farmed of the Govern- ment the revenue from the importation of salt, brought over an immense quantity from the marshes of Cyprus- — enough, in fact, to supply the whole province for at least twenty years. This he had transferred to the mountains, to cheat the Government out of some small percentage. Sixty-live houses in June — Lady Stanhope's village — were rented and filled with salt. These houses have merely earthen floors, and the salt next the ground in a few years entirely spoiled. 1 saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and beasts. It was ' good for nothing.' Similar magazines are common in this country, and have been from remote ages, as we learn from history, both sacred and profane ; and the sweeping out of the spoiled salt and casting it into the street are actions familiar to all men. " It should be stated in this connection, that the salt used in this country is not manufactured by boiling clean salt water, nor quarried from mines, but is obtMiued from marshes along the sea- shore, as in Cyprus, or from salt lakes in the interior, which dry up in summer, as the one in the desert north of Palmyra, and the great lake of JebbCil, south-east of Aleppo. The salt of our Sidon merchant was from the vast marshes near Larnaca. I have seen these marshes covered with a thick crust of salt, and have also visited them when it h.ad been gathered into heaps like haycocks in a meadow. The large winter lake south-east of Aleppo I found dried up by the last of August, and the entire b.asin, further than the eye could reach, was white as snow with an incrustation of coarse salt. Hundreds of people were out gathering and carrying it to Jebbul, where the Government stores were kept. " Maundrell, who visited the lake at Jebbul, tells us that he found salt there which had entirely ' lost its savour :' and the same abounds among the debris at Usdum, and in other localities of rock- salt at the south end of the Dead Sea. Indeed, it is a well known fact that the salt of this country, when in contact with the ground, or exposed to rain and sun, does become insipid and useless. From the manner in which it is gathered, much earth and other impuri- ties are necessarily collected with it. Not a little of it is so impure that it caunot be used at all ; and such salt soon effloresces and turns to dust — not to fruitful .soil, however. It is not only good for nothing itself, but it actually destroys all fertility wher- ever it is thrown; and this is the re.ason why it is cast into the street. There is a sort of verbal verisimilitude in the manner in which our Lord alludes to the act— ' it is cast out' and 'trodden under foot :' so troublesome is this corrupted salt, that it is care- fully swept up, carried forth, and thrown into the street. There is no place about the house, yard, or garden where it can be tolerated. No man will allow it to be thrown on to his field, and the only place for it is the street: and there it is cast, to be trodden under foot of men." — Thomson, 'The Land and the Book,' p. 381. "■ A city set on a hill. — " Maundrell, Jowet and others, throw out the hint that Sated was the city set on a hill which could not be hid ; and if that greatest of sermons was preached on the horns of Huttin, or near them, as tradition affirms, and if any particular * city was referred to, there would be plausibility enough in the suggestion. These ancient parts of the castle render it all but V certain that there was then a city or citadel on this most conspicu- \ ous 'hill' top; and our Lord might well point to it to illu>trate and confirm His precept. The present Hebrew name is Zephath, and may either refer to its elevation like a watch-tower, or to the beauty and grandeur of the surrounding prospects. Certainly they are quite sufficient to suggest the name. There lies Gennesaret, like a mirror set in a framework of dark mountains and many- faced hills. Beyond is the vast plateau of the Hauran, faintly shading with its rocky ranges the utmost horizon eastward. Thence the eye sweeps over Gilead and B.ashan, Siimaria and Carmel, the plains of Galilee, the coasts of Phcenicia, the hills of Naphtali, the long line of Lebanon, and the lofty head of Hermon — a vast panorama, embracing a thousand ]»oints of historic and sacred interest. Safed is truly a high tower on which to set the watchmen of Zion. Jly aneroid makes it 26'50 feet above the Mediterranean. Tabor looks low, and Huttin seems to be in a valley." — Thomson, 'The Land and the Book,' p. 273. " We turn to the glorious panorama, and we do not wonder as we look that imaginative interpreters should have made Safed ' the city set on a hill, which cannot be hid' (Matt. v. 14). The whole land is before us, from the Haurin mountains on the eastern horizon to the ridge of Samaria on the south-western. The most striking features of the scene are, /rsf, the plateau of the Jaulan and Hauran, stretching from the high eastern bank of the Jordan valley far into the Arabian desert. This is the ancient kingdom of Bashan. Beyond it is a blue mountain-ridge, with one conspicuous peak near its centre, called by the Arabs cl-Kuleib, ' the Little Heart ;' and juiit at the southern end of the ridge we can easily make out with a glass a conical hill surmounted by a castle — it is Salcah, and it marks the eastern boundary of Bashan (Josh. xiii. 11). Second, the deep basin of the Sea of Tiberias, lying nearly 2,500 feet below us ; and third, the rounded top of Tabor." — ' Hand- book of Palestine,' p. 415. " Safed is said to be alluded to by our Lord as ' the city set upon a hill, which cannot be hid ;' and certainly, if it had then existed, visible from the shores of the lake. We very soon lost the basalt, and crossed a limestone district, bare, but well cultivated wher- ever there was soil. Safed is clustered all round the sides of a limestone peat, 3335 feet above the lake. On the summit of the hiii are the ruins of a large fortress, with deep moat and a triple line of walls, utterly destroyed by the earthquake of January 1, 1837, and separated from the town by a narrow belt of gardens and orchards. On the west face of the hill rises the Jewish quarter (a set of terraces), and on the east and south faces are the Moslem quarters. From the top of the ruins we enjoyed a glorious view, especially to the north-east, unfolding to us the plateau of Bashan, from the distinctly-marked gorge of the Yar- mah,.with the outline of the Lejah (Trachonitis). and its many extinct craters showing their black cones against the horizon. At our feet was spread out the Lake of Galilee, looking so near that it seemed one might almost have leaped into it, yet ten miles distant ; Tiberias was distinctly seen beyond the plain of Genne- saret, and to the south we commanded a sight of Hattin, Tabor, Gilboa, and even Carmel." — Tristram, ' Land of Israel,' p. 581. ' Let your light so shine. — " An instance where the connection CHAPTER V. Ver. 17. In Palestine salt had a twofold office : (1) It was used for domestic purposes, to season tlie food, to give taste to it, anS>t) of the world. He is the Light of the world, as being the centre, the source of light ; they were the light of the world, as drawing their light from Him, and as being sent by Him. They were sent to shed light and heat on hearts darkened by sin. Tliat their light is a borrowed light and lit by Him may be inferred from the next verse, where they are compared to a candle (Xvxvov) that is lighted. They were called to be as a city set on a hill, to be the example of the world. On them. His Apostles, all eyes would be fixed. As a light was only lit in order to give light, and not to be hid, so they had been called in order to give light to others, by their example and by their instruction. The principles laid down in the Beatitudes, if acted on, would render them in reality, what He by His call had made them officially : they would be the salt of the earth ; they would be the light of the world ; they would be a city set on a hill. Having explained to the newly-elected Apostles the exalted nature of the office to which He had called them, and the responsibility which this office carried with it, as well as the various dispositions with which they must meet the suffering and the persecution to which it would expose *hem, and the reward to which such dispositions would entitle them ; He then, as it were, turns to the multiiude, and refutes the charge which the Scribes and Pharisees made against Him, that He could not be the Christ, because He broke the Law. II. What may be called the second part of our Lord's sermon on the mount extends from verse 17 to 48, and contains His expo.sition of the Law, both the corrupt interpretation of it which they had received by tradition from their fathers, and its meaning in that highest degree of perfection of which it was capable ; and to which He, by His authority and sanc- tion, now raises it. These two meanings He exemplifies in five different cases. In these He exposes both their imper- fect and tlieir radically corrupt interpretation of it. When cleared of their traditional glosses and explanations. He re- publishes the moral Law of Moses as the foundation of His Gospel. He extends its application almost indefinitely, and enforces it by new sanctions, by eternal rewards and eternal punishments. But before He enters on these jiarticular in- stances, He declares that the object of the Incarnation, the object of His coming in the flesh, was to fulfil the Law ; to fulfil it in His own Person, and to fulfil it by imparting grace to men, to enable them to obey it. Ho fulfillf;d the Law in three senses especially ; (1) in being the Person fore- shadowed by all the types of the Law, and in having in His own Life and Death fulfilled all that the typical ceremonies of the Law foretold ; (2) in having given to the Law an immeasurably wider scope and higher tone of interpretation than belonged to it before ; and (3) in giving men strength to enable them to keep the Law. Before the coming of Christ, the Law of Moses commanded certain duties to be done, but did not give men power to perform these. But in the economy of the Incarnation, grace, or supernatural strength, was imparted to men through the Sacraments, to enable them to fulfil the Law.' 17. ^ Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfiL" Vulg. Xolite putare quoniam solvere, sed adimplere. legem, aut prophetas: non ^ S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. i. 2, quiest. 107, art. 2 ; vol. ii. p. 887. is not indeed wholly broken (for the contest will not suffer this), but greatly impaired, is Matt. v. 15, 10, AauTrct -jrao-iv toU eV rrj oiKia* oiirufs Aa,uv|/aTw to <^cij$ u^a>y ejUTrpOfrSef twc audpwiruvy which shouLI run, 'It sUinct'i upon all th;it are in the house : Even so let your light shine before men,' &c. But iu our translation, * It giteth iiyht unto all that are in the house : Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works,' &c., the two sen- tences are detached trom each other hv the double error of ren- dering KaixjTKiy Kafi^aruy by different words, and of misunder- standing ovTw. I say misunderstanding, because the alternative that ' so ' is a mere ambiguity of expression seems to be precluded by the fact that in our Commuuion Service the words ' Let vour light so shine before men,' &c., detached from their context,' are chosen as the initi it sentence at the Offertory, where the correct meaning, ' iu like manner,' could not stand.'* — Canon Lightfoot 'On the Revision of the X. T.,' p. 42. ' ■ Jesus came not to destroy the Law. — *• I. It was the oj)iDion of the nation concerning the Messias that He would bring in a new COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 1 8. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle " shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Vulg. iot-ii unum, aut uuils apex non prceteribit a lege. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach tJiem, the same shall be called great in the king- dom of heaven. 20. For I say unto you. That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of_ the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Vulg. non intrabltis in regnum ca?lorum. So far was He from being a breaker of the Law, that heaven and earth should sooner pass away than that He should omit fulfilling the smallest particular predicted of Him by the Law and the prophets. Kay more, even their ob.'^crvance of the Law, their righteousness {hiKmoaivrj), if they would enter His kingdom, must be greater than that prescribed by the lawful and recognised interjireters of the Law, the Scribes and Pha- risees. • Jod (ISyra) was the name of the least letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle (j<.(pala) was a dash or stroke added to the end of one letter to distinguish it from other similar letters. These would indicate the smallest possible precept of the Law down to the very form of its wording. The office of the Apostles, like that of the Scribes and Pharisees, was to do and to teach, to observe the Law them- selves and to teach others to observe it. As the reward for the fulfilment of their office would be great, so would their punishment for the abuse of it. The teaching of the vScribes and Pharisees on the Law was faulty in three respects : (1) I'hey held that sin, or a breach of the moral law, consisted in the external action only, and not at all in the indulgence of the internal aflcction, as in the ca.se of the Seventh Commandment. (2) By their glosses and distinctions they explained away the plain meaning of the Law, as in the case of the Corban. (3) They made the ob- servance of the Law to consist in ceremonial acts, such as frequent washings of the body, and failed to see that this was intended to indicate, and as it were bound them to, purity of heart, and that these washings of the body fulfilled, the Law only in so far as they were accompanied with purity of heart. Their righteousness, their observance of the Law, must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, not only in these particulars, but also in that which the Law of Moses only ushered in, and prepared men for, that which He should further reveal of Himself and of His kingdom, the Incarnation and its kindred doctrines.' 21. H Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment : Margin, to them. Vulg. Audistis quia dittum est antiquis. 22. But I say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment : and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,'' shall be in danger of the council : but whosoever shall saj-. Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.'^ Margin, vain fellow. S.V. (miit without a cause. Vulg. omits without a cause. ' Cornelius a Lapide, in Jhitt. v. 21 ; vol. ' 135. L.1W, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Jloses and the prophets ; but that He would advance the Jlosaic Law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the prophets ; and that according to the letter, even to the greatest pomp. "II. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore snatch an occasion of cavilling against Christ, and readily objected that He was not the true Messias, because He abolished the doctrines of the traditions, which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the prophets. '* III. He meets with this prejudice here, and so onwards, by many arguments, as namely: — 1. That He abolished not the Law when He abolished the traditions, for therefore He came, that He might fulfil the Law. 2. That He asserts that not one iota should perish from the Law. 3. That He brought in an observation of the Law, much more pure and excellent than the Pharisaical observation of it was; which He confirms even to the end of the chapter, explaining the Law according to its genuine and spiritual sense." — LiGIlTFOOT, on Matt. v. 17 ; vol. ii. p. 137. * One tittle. — "It seems to denote the little heads or dashes of letters, whereby the difference is made between letters of a form almost alike .... "That our Saviour by IStra koI Kepala, *jot and tittle,' did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that dis- tinguish them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where He renders it 'one of these least commands;' in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara, of Solomon's rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept ' He shall not multiply wives.' And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the Law to the end of it." — Ligiitfoot, on Matt. v. 18; vol. ii. p. 138. ' Saca ('Poica)^ — " A word used by one that despiseth another in the highest scorn ; very usual in the Hebrew writers, and very common in the mouth of the nation." — LiGHTFOOT, on Matt. V. 22; vol. ii. p. 141. ' Hell-fire (t))>/ yicvfav toO raipiij). — "The valley of Hinuom, otherwise called ' the valley of the son ' or ' children of Hinnom,' a deep and nan'ow ravine, with steep, rocky sides, to the south and wpst^of Jerusalem, separating Mount Sion to the north from the ' Hill of Evil Counsel,' and the sloping rocky plateau of the ' plain of Rephaim' to the south. The earliest mention of the valley of Hinnom in the sacred writings is in Josh. xv. 8 ; xviii. 16, where the boundary-line between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin is described as passing along the bed of the ravine. On the southern brow, overlooking the valley at its eastern extremity, Solomon erected high places for Molech (1 Kings xi. 7), whose horrid rites CHAPTER V. Vers. 23, 24. 123 The first instance that He gives that He came to fulfil the Law is iu the case of the Sixth Commandment, " Tliou shalt not kill." By this commandment the Law of Moses forhade the outward act of killing another. Jisus, by His authority, as the Lawgiver who had first given this command with its limited meaning, now extends its meaning, and forbids by it not only the actual slaying of a man, but also the feeling of anger which leads up to this. He describes the several stages in this anger, with the appropriate punishment due to each. (1) Anger without a cause was liable to the judgment of God. (2) Anger which showed itself in using terms of scorn and contempt towards another was taken cognizance of by the Council, or the Sanhedrin, the great Court of the land. (3) Anger which consigned another to hell was itself guilty of similar punishment. The fire in the valley of Hiunom is now for the first time used as the type of hell-fire,' and that by our Saviour Himself. The word is nowhere used in this sense in the Old Testament. In other words, to unjust anger He assigned the just anger and judgment of God ; to public reproach a public trial ; and hell-fire to the censure that adjudges another there. This division of the punishment, due to various degi-ees of anger, may have in some measure coiresponded with the various degrees of guilt wliich they attributed to murder. Lightfoot- quotes many passages from rabbinical writers to show that they dis- tinguished between murder which a man committed by em- ploying another, or by setting on a beast, and murder which he committed by his own hands. In the latter ca.se he was tried by the Council or Sanhedrin, while in the former he was liable to the judgment of God only, but could not be tried by the Sanhedrin.^ Three derivations are given of the word raca* but all from words expressing the utmost scorn and contempt, such a-s was calculated to injure a man in the eyes of his fellow-men, or which might lead to a breach of the public peace, and which therefore naturally came within the cognizance of the civil authorities. The expression " Thou fool " (/xwpe), thus used, may have had reference to a man's future condition, and did not lessen the estimation in which he was held by his fellow-citizens; it was expressive of his reprobate state before God, without implying that he had been proved unworthy of the confidence of men. It may be that raca implied depreciation in a social, civil point of view, and /iapt in a religious point of view. The word jxcopos is used by Solomon to describe a wicked, reprobate person, and by the Scribes to denote the jieople who from their ignorance of the Law were lost before God. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rcmemberest that thy brother hath ought against thee ; 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar," and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. From the mention of anger and injury. He goes on to correct another misconception in connection with this subject. He shows them that if one man was unjustly angry with another, or in any way injured another, it was not enough, ' S. Jerome, in Matt. z. 28; vol. vii. p. 66. * Lightfoot, in Matt. v. 2^1 ; vol. ii. p. 1-iJ. were revived from time to time in the same vicinity by the later idolatrous kings. Ahaz and Man;isseh made thdr children * pass through the fire ' in this valley (2 Kings xvi. 3 ; 2 Ohron. xxviii. 3, x.xxiii. 6), and the fiendish custom of infant s.icrilice to the fire- gods seecns to have been kept up in Tophet, at its south-east eitremity, for a considerable period (Jer. vii. 31 ; 2 Kings xxx. 10). To put au end to these abominations, the place was polluted by Josiah, who rendered it ceremonially unclean bj spreading over it human bones and other corruptions (2 Kings xxiii. 10, 13, 14; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4, 5), from which time it appears to have become the common cesspool of the ciiy, into which its sewage w.as conducted, to be carried otl' by the waters of the Kidron, as well as a laystall, where all its solid filth was collected. From its ceremonial defile- ment, and from the detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not from the supposed ever-burning funeral piles, the later Jews applied tlie name uf this valley, Gc Hiim^m, Gehenna, to denote the place nf eternal torment." — Smith, ' Biblical Dictionary.' • The gift brought to the altar. — " Our Lord spake to the Jews in their common language. But then it is to be observed that those Jews were His disciples, ,ind that this precept of recon- ciliation was therefore intended by Him for an ordinance of the New Testament, like many others which He gave His disciples, while He instructed them in the doctrines relating to the fcinsilom of God. Thus He spoke, by way of anticipation, of baptism and baptismal regeneration to Nicodemus (John iii. 3-5), and of the Holy Eucharist (John vi. 50-58). JIany other doctrines and pre- cepts of Christian perfection were given by way of anticipation for •* S. Augustine, de Serm. in Monte, cap. ix. 22, &c. ; vol. iii. p. 1240. * Cornelius a Lapide, in M,att. v. 22; voh viii. p. 136. the Gospel state, which are to he found in His sermon on the mount, and other pl.aces of the Evangelists : as that wherein He told His disciples that their righteousness was to exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ; that of not calling our brother a fool ; that of not looking upon a woman with a lustful eye ; that whereby He forbid divorce in other places, as well as in His sermon ; that of not resisting evil ; of loving our enemies ; and of forgiving others their otfences and trespasses against us, as a condition without which God would not forgive us ours against Him. To these we may add the special beatitudes promised to those who mourn ; to the poor, meek, and humble in spirit ; and to those who are reviled and persecuted for His sake. All which were given to them, as well as the precept of being reconciled before thev offered at the altar, as to His disciples, and for the future Christian Church, to renew the Divine likeness and image in us, and make us partakers of the Divine perfections, by conforming our lives and our whole selves to His instruction and will. And as the primitive Church conceived this precept of reconciliation to be intended, among those I have mentioned, for a Gospel precept, so they always applied it to the Eucharist, as the Gospel sacritice or oblation, not thinking (as Mr. Mede well observes) that our Lord would make a new law, or, let me add, enforce an old one, concerning legal sacrifices, which He was presently to abolish, but that it had reference to that oblation which was to be instituted by Him for the Gospel dispensation, and to continue with and under it for ever." — Dr. Hickes, 'On the Christian Priesthood,' ch. ii. 6 ; vol. ii. p. 42. 124 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. ill order to obtain pardon, to be sorry for this, and to offer sacrifice to God for it, but restitution and compensation must also be made to the person injured, so that a reconciliation may be effected between them. The restitution and com- pensation may vary according to the circumstances of each case, but it must be sufficient to produce a reconciliation. He implies that sacrifice is only acceptable to God, on the con- dition that a reconciliation has been already effected. These words might apply to the Jews and to their sacrifices ; but as Jesus was formally delivering the Gospel of the kingdom of heaven, many of the early writers' thought, as it would seem with great probability, that He had, by anticipa- tion, especial reference to the Christian Altar and the Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist. As applied to the Jews, His pre- cept could be in force but a very short time indeed, a few years at the longest. With the present generation both the Jewish sacrifices aud altar would be swept away for ever, while the Christian Altar and the Christian Sacrifice would remain for all time. 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. « S. V. witti him in the way : and the judge to the (omit, deliver thee). Viilg. dum es in via cum eo; ne forte tradat te adversarius judici, et judex tradat te ministro. 26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." The various terms here used, "the adversary "(6 di/Ti'Sixor), "the judge" (6 Kpirrji), and " the officer" (6 vimpiTrjs), aud the process in law alluded to, were no doubt taken from the Jewish customs with regard to cases of debt aud disputes in money matters. Jesus had before counselled reconciliation from motives of piety, now He urges it from motives of self- interest and common prudence. As it was wiser to compound a debt, and so to stay all further proceedings, than to be dragged into court, and from one court to another, until execution be finally carried into effect, so to make restitution for an injury committed, and thus to gain reconciliation with the person injured, and at the same time pardon from God, is better than to remain unreconciled and unpardoned, and so to suffer punishment, the full punishment, hereafter. As thus understood, it may be impossible to show the application of each particular term in this simile, but of the general sense there can be no doubt. The following may be the explana- tion of the separate words.^ " The adversary " may mean the person injured; "the way" this life; "the judge" Christ Himself, who will be the judge at the day of judgment; and " the prison " the place of future punishment. This parable was also delivered on another occasion, and with a different object (S. Luke sii. 59). 27. *\ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. Thou shalt not commit adultery : S. V. omit by them of old time. Vulg. Audistis quia dictum est antlquis. 28. But I say unto you, That whosoever look- eth on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. .S». omits after her. Vulg. ad concupiscendum eam. 29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Margin, do cause thee to offend. Vulg. t^uod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te . . . . quam totum corpus tuum mittatur in gebennam. 30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast // from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. .S*. rather than. Vulg, quam totum corpus tuum eat in gebennam. 1'he second instance in wliich to the words of the old Law Jesus imparts a new perfection of meaning, is in the case of the Seventh Commandment. He thereby forbids not only the act of adultery, but also the indulgence of every feeling that would eventually lead to it. As a wise physician would not hesitate to sacrifice any single member of the body, however valuable, even the right eye or the right hand, in order to secure the health and safety of the rest of the body, so a wise Cliristian will refuse no sacrifice, however great or however painful to make, in order to preserve the soul from the sin of adultery and its punish- ment. The eyes and the hands may have been specially selected for mention, because these are the instruments through which the feelings here Ibrbidden are generally produced. ' Const. Apost. lib. ii. cap. 53. S. Irenseus, adv. Hares, iv. 18 ; p. 1024. Eusebius, tie Vita Constant, iv. 41 ; vol. ii. p. 1189. S. Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. v. 3 ; p. 1111. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xvi. ; vol. i. p. 231. Tertullian, de Patientia, 12 ; vol. i. p. 1267. S. Jerome, in Matt. v. 23 ; vol. vii. p. 37. S. Augustine, Sermo Ixxxii. (16 de verbis Dom.) 5 ; vol. p. 508. See also Dr. G. Hicltes on the Christian Priesthood, vol. p. 45. ^ S. Jerome, in Matt. v. 25 ; vol. vii. p. 37. S, Hilary Picl. in Matt. v. 25 ; vol. i. p. 937. S. Ambrose, in Luc. xii. 58 ; vol. ii. p. 1739. Maldonatus, in Matt. v. 25 ; vol. i. p. 82. Cornelius a Lapide, in Matt. v. 25 ; vol. viii. p. 139. * Farthing. — .See note on chap. x. CHAPTER V. Vers. 31, 32. 125 31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement : 32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of forni- cation, causeth her to commit adultery : and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced com- mitteth adultery. S.V. Whosoever putteth away, V. and whosoever marrieth her. Vulg. quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam . . . et qui dlmissam duxerit. The third instance in which He corrects and reforms the Law of Moses, is the subject of divorce. The Law of Moses hud allowed the man to put away liis wife at his own will, on giving her a writing of divorcement. This was not enacted by Moses as a wise and proper thing for them to do, but it was permitted as a concession to the hardness of their hearts, and probably with a view to prevent a greater evil, the sin of wife-murdtr. This permission Jesus, by His own authority, now withdraws ; and henceforth He allows a man to put away his wife for one cause, and for one cause only, adultery. A very important question arises with respect to this sub- ject. After a divorce on the ground of adultery, would our Lord's words allow the innocent husband, or the innocent wife, as the case may be, to contract a second marriage ? All are agreed that He forbids the guilty party to contract a second marriage ; but the question is, how are His words to be understood with res|icct to the innocent party? The in- terpretation of our Lord's words, as received in the Primitive Church,' was that, on the divorce of a wife by her hus- banil on account of adultery, it was forbidden the husband, gniltleas though he might be, to marry another; and that what was forbidden to an innocent husband was also for- bidden to an innocent wife. Though it would appear never to have been possible to enforce on the whole Church the practice of what was confessed to be the right interpretation of our Lord's own words, several attempts were made, both in early and late times, and by councils representing larger and smaller portions of the Christian Church.^ This is not the only passage in which our Lord touches on this subject. He recurs to it more than once. His teaching would seem to have caused surprise to His disciples, and to have given ofience to the Pharisees (Mark x. 2) ; and when questioned by them, He lays down one principle as the foundation of all interpretation and explanation of the future law of divorce. He says that a man and his wife are one flesh, joined together by God ; and that this union can only be dissolved by death, and that no regulation of man can dissolve it before. It is the continued existence of this union which causes the wife who has been divorced, to commit adultery if she marries again; because she is still married, in the eyes of God, to her first husband, and only socially separated from him — that is, se|iarated from him by the law of man. A woman's union, after divorce, with another man under the name of marriage is by our Saviour termed adul- tery, no less than her unfaithfulness to her husband before her divorce. Thus, whether it be the husband or the wife, whether it be the one guilty of unfaithfulness, or the one that is innocent, who marries again after their divorce or legal separation, he or she, in the eyes of God, is guilty of adultery ; and that on the ground that a man and a woman once married are made one flesh, and will remain so until death. Death only can put an end to the relationship between a father and his child. So when Jesus commanded a man to leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, because they were no more twain but one flesh. He in fact showed that the relationship between a husband and wife is as real and as indissoluble as is the relationship between a father and his child. No regulation of man can undo this relation- ship— death alone can dissolve it. So the husband may divorce his wife guilty of adultery, but he cannot contract a second marriage, because his relationship between himself and his wife is of such a nature that it can never be dissolved except by death. This may seem hard on the unoffending husband or wife. But it is in entire harmony with God's universal law, that the punishment of sin committed by one member of a house- hold is partly shared by the other members, though they may be guiltless of all share in the sin. Besides, to have allowed the innocent husband to contract a second marriage after he had divorced his wife on the ground of adultery, would have been to strike at the root of all social morality, and virtually to offer a premium for adultery. For in that case, and in that case only, could a husband's desire for change be gratified, viz. by encouraging his wife to sin : a fearful alternative to leave in the hands of frail man. * Canon. Apostol. xlviii. ; Bishop Beveridge, vol. xi. p. li. Clemens Alex. Strom, ii. 23 ; vol. i. p. 109G. Origen, in Matt, tomus xiv. ; vol. iii. p. 124G. S. Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil. xvii. ; vol. i. p. 246. S. Jerome, in Matt. xix. 9; vol. vii. p. 135. Epist. de morte Fabioiae, Ixxvii. (alias 30) ; vol. i. p. C91. Epist. ad Amandum, Iv. (alias 147) ; vol. i. p. 560. S. Augustine, de Conjug. Adult, lib. i. cap. 1 and 22 ; vol. vi. pp. 452 and 467. — de Nuptiis ct Concup. i. 10 ; vol. x. p. 420. de Bono Conjugal, cap. vii. ; vol. vi. p. 378. V. Bede, in Mavc. x. 11 ; vol. iii. p. 230. S. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. iii. Supplement, quaest. Ixii. art. 5 ; vol. iv. p. 1183. Jansenius, in Concord. Evang. cap. si. p. 293. Maldonatus, in Matt. xix. 9 ; vol. i. p. 258. Cornelius a I.apide, in Matt. xix. 9; vol. viii. p. 363. - See Concilium Milevitanum, Can. 17. Africanum, Can. 69. Forojuliense, Can. 10. Nannetense, Can. 10. Trident. Se-is. 24, Can. 7 ; p. 215. 126 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. It has been siipjwsed that the cause of the difference in the interpretation given to our Lord's words, was the excessive fulness of S. Matthew's language; from his having thrown into one sentence answers to two separate questions : (1) For what cause a man might divorce his wife; and (2) whether, after he had divorced her, he might marry another. If we compare S. Matthew's words with a corresponding passage in S. Mark (s. 2) and S. Luke (xvi. 18), we shall find that the sum of our Lord's teaching is (1) that a man may not divorce or legally separate from his wife, except for the cause of adultery ; (2) that the man who divorces his wife on the ground of adultery, and marries another, is guilty of adultery ; (3) that the wife who is divorced from her husband and is married to another is guilty of adultery ; and (4) that the man who maiTies the woman divorced from, her husband is guilty of adultery. The cause of adultery in all these cases is the same, viz. because the first marriage continues in force, and cannot be dissolved except by death. Man's laws may separate a man from his wife, but they cannot aft'ect the union, the oneness, that exists between them, any more than they can the relationship that exists between a father and his child. See also comment on S. Matthew xix. 9. 33. fl Again, ye Jiave heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not for- swear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : Vulg. Iterum audistis quia dictum est antiquis. 34. But I say unto you. Swear not at all ; " neither by heaven ; for it is God's throne : 35. Nor by the earth ; for it is His footstool :'' neither by Jerusalem ; for it is the city of the great King. VuIg. Neque per terram quia scabeUum est pedum ejus. 36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37. But let your communication be. Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Vulg. Sit autem seimo vaster, Est, est ; Non, non. After laying down the new law of marriage and divorce, He then refutes two grave errors, which seem to have per- vaded the practice and the teaching of the Jews on the sub- ject of swearing. (1) Tbey held that to swear by God was binding on a man, while to swear by one of His creatures was not binding. He shows them that as all God's creatures exist for God, and are upheld by Him ; so to swear by one of His creatures, whether it be the heaven, or the earth, or Jerusalem, is really to swear by Him, the Creator of them. In the same way that which appears to belong more nearly to a man's own self, as his head for instance, is ultimately referred to God. A man may swear by his head, but he has in reality no power independent of God, not only over his head, but even over one hair of his head. (2) They indulged in a multiplicity of oaths, and on trifling occasions. Modern travellers tell us that so deeply engrained was this custom, that it still exists in the same land at this very day to a most frightful extent. Jesus lays down the rule that their communication should consist of a simple affirmation and a simple denial, and that whatever there is beside this, comes as a temptation from the devil, in the shape of levity and irreverence in himself, or of disbelief in others. Interpreted by the general tenor of Scripture, and by our Saviour's own practice, of using the strong asseveration Amen, Amen, and by the example of S. Paul (Rom. i. 9 ; Philip, i. 8 ; 1 Cor. XV. 31), it would appear that Jesus did not forbid men ever to swear, but that He forbade them ever to swear except when the occasion wananted it. Such occasion there would always be in the administration of justice, when an oath would enable the civil magistrate to execute justice between man and man. The objections to swearing have been well summed up in the saying that false swearing is death to the soul, and that sincere truthful swearing cannot be often repeated without danger: "Falsa juratio exitiosa est, vera juratio periculosa est, nulla juratio secura est." ' ' S. Augustine, Sermo clxx.t. (alias 28 de verb. Apostoli) ; vol. v. p. 974. Swear not at all. — See note on Matt. xsvi. 74. i' For it is His footstool — See note on Mark ii. 4. CHAPTER V. Vers. 38-42. 127 S. Matthew v. 38 Ve have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : 3y But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat Qrhi/ xiTaJva), let him have thy cloke (rh (/iCiTtof) also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 4ii Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ve have heard that it hath beea said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you : 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven : for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 4G For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye ? do not even the publicans the same ? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others i do not even the publicans so ? Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek ofier also the other ; and him that taketh away thy cloke (rh Ifidriov) forbid not to take thy coat (jhp x^'^^^°) ^'so. Give to every man that asketh of thee ; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not attain. But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate yon. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use yf>u. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye ? for sinnei's also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to vou, what thank have ye ? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have yc? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again ; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest : for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 38. ^ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : 39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have t/if cloke also. Vulg. ft tunlcam tuam tollcre, ilimitte ei et pjilliuni. 41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Vulg. Et quicuoque te augariaverit mille passns, vade cum iUo et alia duo. 42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Retaliation for an injury was allowed by the Law of Moses, but it was not left to the will of each individual. It was regulated and limited by law, and thus it was in a manner taken out of the domain of private revenge. The object of the Law was not to encourage reta.Uation, but to repress it, and keep it within due bounds. An eye for an eye, and a 128 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. tooth for a tooth, is a sample of the righteousness which per- vaded all its provisions. But just and fair as was the Law of Moses, it was not to be the law of Christ's new kingdom. The distinguishing marks of His kingdom were to be patience and love. Nothing allied to retaliation and revenge was to have a home there. He first lays down the general law that no follower of Him was to rise up and resist (avTLo-TTJpat) an injurious person, so as to require the law of retaliation to be put in force against him. He then specifies three special instances as specimens of the various kinds of wrong in which they were to show this forbearance. (1) Acts done to the person of an insulting and painful nature, and for whicli there could be no pretence. (2) Acts of injustice, for which some right in law might be pleaded. (3) Acts of violence", and compulsion done under the authority of tlie rulers. 1. According to some, in using the words "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," our Saviour was refer- ring to a well-known saying, often discussed in the Rabbinical writings, the compensation for which they carefully assessed in proportion to the supposed amount of suffering and in- dignity of the act. All this the follower of Cln-ist was to forego, and to accept the blow with such meekness, as would turn the anger of the assailant into admiration and repentance. 2. If one was intending to sue a diimon on the mount, speaking of alms, 5. prayer, 14. forgiving our brethren, 16. fasting, 19. where our treasure is to be laid up, 24. of serving O'od and mammon: 25. exhorteth not to be careful for worldly t'lings: 33. but to seek God's kingd/^m.] [Vulg. Docet Christus quomodofacienda 8inteleimosynaetoratio,traditque discipulis for}nani orandi, et vffensas aliis condonandi : item qoo modo sit jejunandum : quod non in terra sed in ceelo tftesauri2andum, oculus mundandus, non servieruium duobus dominis : vital itaque solUcitudinem de victu, vestitu, et dc crasttno.} In the last few verses Jesus hail taught that His followers are not to act ou the law ofretaliation, and to repay like with like, but on the law of loving-kindness, and to return good fur evil. The Pattern in all their actions is to be their heavenly Father, who maketb His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. He then goes ou to teach them a further lesson, that the best of actions may be performed, and yet may be so far marred in the doing of them as to be fruitless to the person who performs them. If the object for which they are done be ostentation, or to gain the applause of their fellow-men, how- ever good the. actions may be in themselves, they will fail to gaiu any reward from their heavenly Father. I. Take heed that ye do not your alms" before men, to be seen of them : otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Morgin. your right* " " 3.V. your rightpciisness. boniinibus ali S. But taki Vulg. Atteodite quill mercedem no S.V. your rightpciisness. lejustitiam veslram faciatis i habebitls. He first lays down the general principle, and then in the seventeen verses following He specifies three several kinds of actions, in which it is to be observed, and in the performance of which there is an especial temptation to display and vain- glory. These are almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. He re- cognises the temptation incident to these ; He points out the imperfection to which they are alway.s liable. But He nowhere implies that the perversion of these duties is so common, and the temptation to it so strong, that it were better to omit them altogether. He commands the duties, or rather He speaks of them as actions which His followers will naturally perform, saying, " When thou doest alms," and prescribes the ctiution that is to be used in the performance of them. 2. Therefore when thou doest t/iine alms, do not sound a trumpet'' before thee, as the hypo- crites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Margin, cause not a ti-umpet to be tonnded. Vulg. noli tuba canere ante te. . . - S*. verily, verily. Vulg. Amen dico vobie. ' Alma.— " It is questioned, whether Matthew Vfnt 4\ertiiocrii'riv, •ilms, or SiKaiocTvvTjv, righteousness. I answer, " I. That our Saviour certainly said HplV, righteousness (or in Syriac Nnpll) : 1 make no doubt at all, but that that word could not be otherwise understood by the common people than of alms, there is as little doubt to be made. For although the word DpTV, according to the idiom of the Old Testament, signifies nothing else than righteousness, yet now, when our Saviour spoke those words, it signified nothing so much .is alms. '•II. Christ used also the same word Xnpll, righteousness, in the three verses ne.\t following, and Matthew used the word eAeTj- MoffWT), alms. But by wh.it right, I beseech you, should he call it SiKaioam-qi', righteousness, in the first verse, and 4\er\iiO(Tvvr\, alms, in the following, when Christ everywhere used one and the same Word? Matthew might not change in Greek, where our Saviour had not changed in Syriac. •• Therefore we must say, that the Lord Jesus used the word HpHV or NnpTS in these four fii-st verses: but that, speaking in the dia- lect ot common people, lie was understood by the common people to speak of alms. '• Now they called alms by the name of HplV. rightco>,.,„=oo, .„ th.1t the fatheis of the Ti-aditions taught, and the common people believed that alms confei-red very much to jusiification." — Cason LlOHTi-ooT. -On S. Matth.-w,' vi. 1 ; vol. ii. p. 153. " Somidiug a Trumpet.—- It is just scruple, whether this sound- ing a lruuii>cl be to be uudci-stood according to the letter, or in a bor- rowed sense. I have not found, although I have sought for it much and seriously, even the least mention of a trumpet in Almsgiving. I would most willingly be taught this from the more learned. *' You may divide the ordinary alms of the .Jews into three parts. '* I. The Alms Dish. They gave alms to the public dish or basket. Tanichui was a certain vessel in which bread and food was gathered for the poor of the world. You may not improperly call it the alms-basket. By the poor of the world are to be understood any beggars begging from door to door, yea even heathen beggars. The Alms Dish was for every man. This alms was gathered daily by three men, and distributed by three. It was gathered of the townsmen by collectors within their doors. . . . Here was no pi'o- bability at all of a Trumpet, when this Alms was of the lowest degree, being to be bestowed upon vagabond strangers, and they Kery often heathen. "II. The Poor's Chest. They gave alms also in the public poor's- bo.v, which was to be distributed to the poor only of that city. The alms dish is for the poor of the world, but the alms chest for the poor only of that city. "This alms was collected in the synagogue on the Sabbath (coni- p.are 1 Cor. svi. 2), and it was distributed to the poor, on tlie Sabbath Eve. The Alms chest is from the Sabbath Eve to the Sabbath Eve : the Alms dish every day. " Whether, therefore, the Trumpet sounded in the Synagogue, when Alms were done it again remains ob.scure, since the .Jewish Canonists do not openly mention it, while yet they treat of thc^e 134 COMMENTARY ON S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 3. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth : 4. That thine alms may be in secret : and thy Father which seeth in secret Himself shall re- ward thee openly. S.V. 01 Vulg. it Himself, openly. t Paler tuus, qui videt in abscoudito, rcddet tibi. Either Jesus used the words, "Do not sound a trumpet before thee," &c., meta|ihorically, and with a general refer- ence to their ostentation in alms-giving, or he referred to some custom which they had of calling the poor together to a distribution of ahns by means of a trumpet, or He may have referred to the custom common among actors of calling their audience together by means of a trumpet. Though each synagogue possessed a trumpet, which was used on various occasions, no reference has been found in the Eabbinical writings of sounding a trumpet before the distribution of alms. If the words are used in the third of these senses Jesus may have implied by the word hypocrites, viroKpiTaX, that in giving alms they, like professional actors, were merely acting a part, laying claim to a character which did not really belong to tliem.^ In the wor'ls, " Let pot thy left hand know what thy linht han