The Divine Lamp

I posted this on my other blog some time back.

FIRST REASON

HOLY WRIT

Of the many signs that tell of the adversaries' mistrust of their
own cause, none declares it so loudly as the shameful outrage
they put upon the majesty of the Holy Bible. After they have
dismissed with scorn the utterances and suffrages of the rest of
the witnesses, they are nevertheless brought to such straits that
they cannot hold their own otherwise than by laying violent hands
on the divine volumes themselves, thereby showing beyond all
question that they are brought to their last stand, and are
having recourse to the hardest and most extreme of expedients to
retrieve their desperate and ruined fortunes. What induced the
Manichees to tear out the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the
Apostles? Despair. For these volumes were a torment to men who
denied Christ's birth of a Virgin, and who pretended that the
Spirit then first descended upon Christians when their peculiar
Paraclete, a good-for-nothing Persian, made his appearance. What
induced the Ebionites to reject all St. Paul's Epistles? Despair.
For while those Letters kept their credit, the custom of
circumcision, which these men had reintroduced, was set aside as
an anachronism. What induced that crime-laden apostate Luther to
call the Epistle of James contentious, turgid, arid, a thing of
straw, and unworthy of the Apostolic spirit? Despair. For by this
writing the wretched man's argument of righteousness consisting
in faith alone was stabbed through and rent assunder. What
induced Luther's whelps to expunge off-hand from the genuine
canon of Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, and, for
hatred of these, several other books involved in the same false
charge? Despair. For by these Oracles they are most manifestly
confuted whenever they argue about the patronage of Angels, about
free will, about the faithful departed, about the intercession of
Saints. Is it possible? So much perversity, so much audacity?
After trampling underfoot Church, Councils, Episcopal Sees,
Fathers, Martyrs, Potentates, Peoples, Laws, Universities,
Histories, all vestiges of Antiquity and Sanctity, and declaring
that they would settle their disputes by the written word of God
alone, to think that they should have emasculated that same Word,
which alone was left, by cutting out of the whole body so many
excellent and goodly parts! Seven whole books, to ignore lesser
diminutions, have the Calvinists cut out of the Old Testament.
The Lutherans take away the Epistle of James besides, and, in
their dislike of that, five other Epistles, about which there had
been controversy of old in certain places and times. To the
number of these the latest authorities at Geneva add the book of
Esther and about three chapters of Daniel, which their
fellow-disciples, the Anabaptists, had some time before condemned
and derided. How much greater was the modesty of Augustine (_De
doct. Christ. lib._ 2, _c._ 8.), who, in making his catalogue of
the Sacred Books, did not take for his rule the Hebrew Alphabet,
like the Jews, nor private judgment, like the Sectaries, but that
Spirit wherewith Christ animates the whole Church. The Church,
the guardian of this treasure, not its mistress (as heretics
falsely make out), vindicated publicly in former times by very
ancient Councils this entire treasure, which the Council of Trent
has taken up and embraced. Augustine also in a special discussion
on one small portion of Scripture cannot bring himself to think
that any man's rash murmuring should be permitted to thrust out
of the Canon the book of Wisdom, which even in his time had
obtained a sure place as a well-authenticated and Canonical book
in the reckoning of the Church, the judgment of ages, the
testimony of ancients, and the sense of the faithful. What would
he say now if he were alive on earth, and saw men like Luther and
Calvin manufacturing Bibles, filing down Old and New Testament
with a neat pretty little file of their own, setting aside, not
the book of wisdom alone, but with it very many others from the
list of Canonical Books? Thus whatever does not come out from
their shop, by a mad decree, is liable to be, spat upon by all as
a rude and barbarous composition. They who have stooped to this
dire and execrable way of saving themselves surely are beaten,
overthrown, and flung rolling in the dust, for all their fine
praises that are in the mouths of their admirers, for all their
traffic in priesthoods, for all their bawling in pulpits, for all
their sentencing of Catholics to chains, rack and gallows. Seated
in their armchairs as censors, as though any one had elected them
to that office, they seize their pens and mark passages as
spurious even in God's own Holy Writ, putting their pens through
whatever they cannot stomach. Can any fairly educated man be
afraid of battalions of such enemies? If in the midst of your
learned body they had recourse to such trickster's arts, calling
like wizards upon their familiar spirit, you would shout at
them,--you would stamp your feet at them. For instance I would
ask them what right they have to rend and mutilate the body of
the Bible. They would answer that they do not cut out true
Scriptures, but prune away supposititious accretions. By
authority of what judge? By the Holy Ghost. This is the answer
prescribed by Calvin (_Instit. lib._ I, _c._ 7), for escaping
this judgment of the Church whereby spirits of prophesy are
examined. Why then do some of you tear out one piece of
Scripture, and others another, whereas you all boast of being led
by the same Spirit? The Spirit of the Calvinists receives six
Epistles which do not please the Lutheran Spirit, both all the
while in full confidence reposing on the Holy Ghost. The
Anabaptists call the book of Job a fable, intermixed with tragedy
and comedy. How do they know? The Spirit has taught them. Whereas
the Song of Solomon is admired by Catholics as a paradise of the
soul, a hidden manna, and rich delight in Christ, Castalio, a
lewd rogue, has reckoned it nothing better than a love-song about
a mistress, and an amorous conversation with Court flunkeys.
Whence drew he that intimation? From the Spirit. In the
Apocalypse of John, every jot and tittle of which Jerane declares
to bear some lofty and magnificent meaning, Luther and Brent and
Kemnitz, critics hard to please, find something wanting, and are
inclined to throw over the whole book. Whom have they consulted?
The Spirit. Luther with preposterous heat pits the Four Gospels
one against another (_Praef. in Nov. Test._), and far prefers
Paul's Epistles to the first three, while he declares the Gospel
of St. John above the rest to be beautiful, true, and worthy of
mention in the first place,--thereby enrolling even the Apostles,
so far as in him lay, as having a hand in his quarrels. Who
taught him to do that? The Spirit. Nay this imp of a friar has
not hesitated in petulant style to assail Luke's Gospel because
therein good and virtuous works are frequently commended to us.
Whom did he consult? The Spirit. Theodore Beza has dared to carp
at, as a corruption and perversion of the original, that mystical
word from the twenty-second chapter of Luke, _this is the
chalice, the new testament in my blood, which_ (chalice) _shall
be shed for you_ [Greek: potaerion ekchunomenon], because this
language admits of no explanation other than that of the wine in
the chalice being converted into the true blood of Christ. Who
pointed that out? The Spirit. In short, in believing all things
every man in the faith of his own spirit, they horribly belie and
blaspheme the name of the Holy Ghost. So acting, do they not give
themselves away? are they not easily refuted? In an assembly of
learned men, such as yours, Gentlemen of the University, are they
not caught and throttled without trouble? Should I be afraid on
behalf of the Catholic faith to dispute with these men, who have
handled with the utmost ill faith not human but heavenly
utterances? I say nothing here of their perverse versions of
Scripture, though I could accuse them in this respect of
intolerable doings. I will not take the bread out of the mouth of
that great linguist, my fellow-Collegian, Gregory Martin, who
will do this work with more learning and abundance of detail than
I could; nor from others whom I understand already to have that
task in hand. More wicked and more abominable is the crime that I
am now prosecuting, that there have been found upstart Doctors
who have made a drunken onslaught on the handwriting that is of
heaven; who have given judgment against it as being in many
places defiled, defective, false, surreptitious; who have
corrected some passages, tampered with others; torn out others;
who have converted every bulwark wherewith it was guarded into
Lutheran "spirits," what I may call phantom ramparts and parted
walls. All this they have done that they might not be utterly
dumbfounded by falling upon Scripture texts contrary to their
errors, texts which they would have found it as hard to get over
as to swallow hot ashes or chew stones. This then has been my
First Reason, a strong and a just one. By revealing the shadowy
and broken powers of the adverse faction, it has certainly given
new courage to a Christian man, not unversed in these studies, to
fight for the Letters Patent of the Eternal King against the
remnant of a routed foe.

This is the third of four discourse the Cardinal gave on the subject of the Antichrist.  The two previous discourses I have posted can be viewed HERE and HERE.

The Angel thus interprets to St John the vision of the Great Harlot, the enchantress, who seduced the inhabitants of the earth.  He says, “The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”  The city spoken of in these words is evidently Rome, which was then the seat of empire all over the earth,-which was supreme even in Judea.  We hear of the Romans all through the Gospels and Acts.  Our Savior was born when His mother the Blessed Virgin, and Joseph, were brought up to Bethlehem to be taxed by the Roman governor.  He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.  St Paul was at various times protected by the circumstance of his being a Roman citizen; and on the other hand, when he was seized and imprisoned, it was by the Roman governors, and at last he was sent to Rome itself, to the emperor and eventually martyred there, together with St Peter.  Thus the sovereignty of Rome, at the time when Christ and His Apostles preached and wrote, which is a matter of historical notoriety, is forced on our notice in the New Testament itself.  It is undeniably meant by the Angel when he speaks of ‘the great city which reigneth over the earth.”

The connection of Rome with the reign and exploits of Antichrist, is so often brought before us in the controversies of this day, that it may be well, after what I have already had occasion to say on the subject of the last enemy of the Church, to consider now what Scripture prophecy says concerning Rome; which I shall attempt to do, as before, with the guidance of the early Fathers.

Now let us observe what is said concerning Rome, in the passage which the Angel concludes in the words which I have quoted, and what we may deduce from it.

That great city is described under the image of a woman, cruel, profligate, and impious.  She is described as arrayed in all worldly splendor and costliness, in purple and scarlet, in gold and precious stones, and pearls, as shedding and drinking the blood of the saints, till she was drunken of it.  Moreover she is called by the name of “Babylon the Great,” to signify her power, wealth, profaness, pride, sensuality, and persecuting spirit, after the pattern of that former enemy of the Church.  I need not here relate how all this really answered to the character and history of Rome at the time St John spoke of it.  There never was a more ambitious, haughty, hard-hearted, and worldly people than the Romans; never any, for none else had ever the opportunity, which so persecuted the Church.  Christians suffered ten persecutions at their hands, as they are commonly reckoned, and very horrible ones, extending over two hundred and fifty years.  The day would fail to go through an account of the tortures they suffered from Rome; so that the Apostle’s description was as signally fulfilled afterwards as a prophecy, as it was accurate at the time as an historical notice.

The guilty city, represented by St John as an abandoned woman, is said to be seated on “a scarlet-colored monster, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”  Here we are sent back by the prophetic description to the seventh chapter of Daniel, in which the four great empires of the world are shadowed out under the figure of four beasts, a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a nameless monster, “diverse” from the rest, “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly;” “and it had ten horns.”  This surely is the very same beast which St John saw: the ten horns mark it.  Now this fourth beast in Daniel’s vision is the Roman Empire; therefore “the beast,” on which the woman sat, is the Roman Empire.  And this agrees very accurately with the actual position of things in history; for Rome, the mistress of the world, might well be said to sit upon, and be carries about triumphantly on that world which she had subdued and tamed, and made her creature.  Further, the prophet Daniel explains the ten horns of the monster to be “ten kings that shall arise” out of this Empire; in which St John agrees, saying, “The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.”  Moreover in a former vision Daniel speaks of the Empire as destined to be “divided,” as “partly strong and partly broken.”  Further still, this Empire, the beast of burden of the woman, was at length to rise against her and devour her, as some savage animal might turn upon its keeper; and it was to do this in the time of its divided or multiplied existence.  “The ten horns which thou sawest upon him, these shall hate” her, “and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.”  Such was to be the end of the great city.  Lastly, three of the kings, perhaps all, are said to be subdued by Antichrist, who is to come up suddenly while they are in power; for such is the course of Daniel’s prophecy: “Another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first,and he shall subdue three kings, and he shall speak great words against the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hands until a time, times, and the dividing of atime.”  This power, who was to rise upon the kings, is the Antichrist; and I would have to observe how Rome and Antichrist stand towards each other in prophecy.  Rome is to fall before Antichrist rises; for the ten kings are to destroy Rome, and Antichrist is then to appear and supersede the ten kings.  As far as we dare judge from the words, this seems clear.  First, St John says, “The ten horns shall hate and devour” the woman; secondly, Daniel says, “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn,” vuz., Antichrist, “before whom” or by whom “there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.”

Now then, let us consider how far these prophecies have been fulfilled, and what seems to remain unfulfilled.

In the first place, the Roman Empire did break up, as foretold.  It divided into a number of separate kingdoms, such as our own, in France, and the like; yet it is difficult to number ten accurately and exactly.  Next, though Rome certainly has been desolated in the most fearful and miserable way, yet it has not exactly suffered from ten parts of its former empire, but from barbarians who came down upon it from regions external to it; and, in the third place, it still exists as a city, whereas it was to be “desolated, devoured, and burned with fire.”  Fourthly, there is one point in the description of the ungodly city, which has hardly been fulfilled at all in the case of Rome.  She had “a golden cup in her hand full of abominations,” and made “the inhabitants of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication;” expressions which imply surely some seduction or delusion which she was enabled to practice upon the world, and which, I say, has not been fulfilled in the case of that great imperial city upon seven hills of which St John spake.  Here then are points which require some consideration.

I say the Roman Empire has scarcely yet been divided into ten.  The Prophet Daniel is conspicuous among the inspired writers for the clearness and exactness of his predictions; so much so, that some unbelievers, overcome by the truth of them, could only take refuge in the unworthy, and at the same time, unreasonable and untenable supposition, that they were written after the events which they profess to foretell.  But we have had no such exact fulfillment in history of the ten kings; therefore we must suppose that it is yet to come.  With this accords the ancient notion, that they were to come at the end of the world, and last bur for a short time, Antichrist coming upon them.  There have, indeed, approximations of that number, yet, I conceive, nothing more.  Now observe how the actual state of things corresponds to the prophecy, and to primitive interpretation of it.  It is difficult to say whether the Roman Empire is gone or not; in one sense, it is not, for the date cannot be assigned at which it came to and end, and much might be said in various ways to show that it may be considered still existing, though in a mutilated and decayed state.  But if this be so, and if it is to end in ten vigorous kings, as Daniel says, then it must one day revive.  Now observe, I say, how the prophetic description answers to this account of it.  “The wild Beast,” that is, the Roman Empire, “the Monster that thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and go into perdition.”  Again mention is made of “the Monster that was, and is not, and yet is.”  Again we are expressly told that the ten kings and the Empire shall rise together; the kings appearing at the time of the monster’s resurrection, not during its languid and torpid state.  “The ten kings…have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.”  If, then, the Roman Empire is still prostate, then the ten kings have not come; and if the ten kings have not come, the destined destroyers of the woman, the full judgments upon Rome, have not yet come.

Thus the full measure of judgment has not fallen upon Rome; yet her sufferings, and the sufferings of her Empire, have been very severe.  St Peter seems to predict them, in his First Epistle, as then impending.  He seems to imply that our Lord’s visitation, which was then just occurring, was no local or momentary vengeance upon one people or city, but a solemn and extended judgment of the whole earth, though beginning at Jerusalem.  “The time is come,” he says, “when judgment must begin at the house of God (at the sacred city); “and, if it begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?  And if the righteous scarcely be saved,”-(i.e., the remnant who should go forth of Zion, according to the prophecy, that chosen seed in the Jewish Church which received Christ when He came, and  the new name of Christians, and shot forth and grew far and wide into a fresh Church, or, in other words, the elect whom the Savior speaks of as being involved in all the troubles and judgments of the devoted people, yet safely carried through); “if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear,”the inhabitants of the world at large.

Here is intimation of the presence of a fearful scourge which was then going over the entire ungodly world, beginning at apostate Jerusalem, and punishing it.  Such was the case: vengeance first fell upon the once holy city, which was destroyed by the Romans: it proceeded next against the executioners themselves.  The Empire was disorganized, and broken to pieces by dissensions and insurrections, by plagues, famines, and earthquakes, while countless host of barbarians attacked it from the north and east, and portioned it out, and burned and pillaged Rome itself.  The judgment, I say, which began at Jerusalem, steadily tracked its way for centuries round and round the world, till at length, with unerring aim, it smote the haughty mistress of the nations herself, the guilty woman seated upon the forth monster which Daniel saw.  I will mention one or two of these fearful inflictions.

Hosts of barbarians came down upon the civilized world, the Roman Empire.  One multitude-though multitude is a feeble word to describe them,-invaded France, which was living in peace and prosperity under the shadow of Rome.  They desolated and burned town and country.  Seventeen provinces were made a desert.  Eight metropolitan cities were set on fire and destroyed.  Multitudes of Christians perished even in the churches.

The fertile coast of Africa was the scene of another of these invasions.  The barbarians gave no quarter to any who opposed them.  They tortured their captives, of whatever age, rank, and sex, to force them to give over their wealth.  They drove away the inhabitants of the cities to the mountains.  They ransacked churches.  They destroyed even the fruit trees, so complete was the desolation.

Of judgments in the course of nature, I will mention three out of a great number.  One, an inundation from the sea in all parts of the Eastern Empire.  The water overflowed the coast for two miles inland, sweeping away houses and inhabitants along the line of some thousand miles.  One great city (Alexandria) lost fifty thousand persons.

The second, a series of earthquakes; some of which were felt all over the empire.  Constantinople was thus shaken above forty days together.  At Antioch 250,000 persons perished in another.

And in the third place a plague, which lasted (languishing and reviving) through the long period of fifty-two years.  In Constantinople, during three months, there died daily 5,000, and at length 10,000 persons.  I give these facts from a modern writer, who is neither favorable to Christianity, nor credulous in matters of historical testimony (Newman is referring to Edward Gibbons).  In some countries the population was wasted away together, and has not recovered to this day.

Such were the scourges by which the fourth monster of Daniel’s vision was brought low, “the Lord God’s sore judgments, the sword, the famine, and the pestilence.”  Such was the process by which “that which withholdeth,” (in St Paul’s language) began to be “taken away;” though not altogether removed even now.

And, while the world itself was thus plagued, not less was the offending city which had ruled it.  Rome was taken and plundered several times.  The inhabitants were murdered, made captives, or obliged to fly all over Italy.  The gold and jewels of the queen of the nations, her precious silk and purple, and her works of art, were carried off or destroyed.

These are great and notable events, and certainly form part of the predicted judgment upon Rome; at the same time they do not adequately fulfill the prophecy, which says expressly, on the one hand, that the ten portions of the Empire itself which had almost been slain, shall rise up against the city, and “make her desolate and burn her with fire,” which they have not yet done; and, on the other hand, that the city shall experience a total destruction, which has not yet befallen her, for she still exists.  St John’s words on the latter point are clear and determinate.  “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hole of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird;” words which would seem to refer us to the curse upon the literal Babylon; and we know how that curse was fulfilled.  The prophet Isaiah  had said, that in Babylon “wild beasts of the desert should lie there, and their houses be full of doleful creatures, and owls should dwell there, and satyrs,” or wild beasts ‘dance there.”  And we know that all this has in fact happened to Babylon; it is a heap of ruins; no man dwells there; may, it is difficult to say even where exactly it was placed, so great is the desolation.  Such a desolation St John seems to predict, concerning the guilty persecuting city we are considering; and in spite of what she had suffered, such a desolation has not come upon her yet.  Again, “she shall be utterly burnt with fire, for strong is the Lord God, who judgeth her.”  Surely this implies utter destruction, annihilation.  Again, “a mighty Angel took up a stone, like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, ‘thus with violence, shall the great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.”

To these passages I would add this reflection.  Surely Rome is spoken of in Scripture as a more inveterate enemy of God and His saints even than Babylon, as the great pollution and bane of the earth: if then Babylon has been destroyed wholly, much more, according to all reasonable conjecture, will Rome be destroyed one day.

It may be farther observed that holy men in the early Church certainly thought that the barbarian invasions were not all that Rome was to receive in the way of vengeance, but that God would one day destroy it by the fury of the elements.  “Rome,” says Pope Gregory, at a time when a barbarian conqueror had possession of the city, and all things seemed to threaten its destruction, “Rome shall not be destroyed by the nations, but shall consume away internally, worn out by storms of lighting, whirlwinds, and earthquakes.”  In accordance with this is the prophecy of St Malachi of Armagh, a medieval Archbishop (A.D. 1130), which declares, “In the lastt persecution of the Holy Church, Peter of Rome shall be on the throne, who shall feed his flock in many tribulations.  When these are past, the city upon seven hills shall be destroyed, and the awful Judge shall judge the people.”

This is what may be said on the one side, but after all something may be said on the other; not indeed to show that the prophecy is already fully accomplished, for it certainly is not, but to show that, granting this, such accomplishment as has to come has reference, not to Rome, but to some other object or objects of divine vengeance.  I shall explain my meaning under two heads.

First, why has Rome not been destroyed hitherto? how was it that the barbarian left it intact?  Babylon sank under the avenger brought against it-Rome has not: why is thins? for if there has been a something to procrastinate the vengeance due to Rome hitherto, peradventure that obstacle may act again and again, and stay the uplifted hand of divine wrath till the end come.  The cause of this unexpected respite seems to be simply this, that when the barbarians came down, God had a people in that city.  Babylon was a mere prison of the Church; Rome had received her as a guest.  The Church dwelt in Rome, and while her children suffered in the heathen city from the barbarians, so again they were the life and the salt of that city where they suffered.

Christians understood this at the time, and availed themselves of their position.  They remembered Abraham’s intercession for Sodom, and the gracious announcement made him, that, had there been ten righteous men therein, it would have been saved.

When the city was worsted, threatened, and at length overthrown, the Pagans had cried out that Christianity was the cause of this.  They said they had always flourished under their idols, and that these idols or devils (gods as they called them) were displeased with them for the numbers among them who had been converted to the faith of the Gospel, and had in consequence deserted them, given them over to their enemies, and brought vengeance upon them.  On the other hand, they scoffed at the Christians, saying in effect, “Where is now your God?  Why does he not save you? You are not better off than we;” they said, with the impenitent thief, “If thou be the Christ, save Thyself and us;” or with the multitude, “If He be the Son of God, let Him come down from the Cross.”  This was during the time of one of the most celebrated bishops and doctors of the Church, St Augustine, and he replied to their challenge.  He replied to them, and to his brethren also, some of whom were offended and shocked that such calamities should have happened to a city which had become Christian.  He pointed to the cities which had already sinned and been visited, and showed that they had altogether perished, whereas Rome was still preserved.  Here, then, he said, was the very fulfillment of the promise of God, announced to Abraham;-for the sake of the Christians in it, Rome was chastised, not overthrown utterly.

Historical facts support St Augustine’s view of things.  God provided visibly, not only in His secret counsels, that the Church should be the salvation of the city.  The fierce conqueror Alaric, who first came against it, exhorted his troops, “to respect the Churches of the Apostles St Peter and St Paul, as holy and inviolable sanctuaries;” and he gave orders that a quantity of plate, consecrated to St Peter, should be removed into his Church from the place where it had been discovered

Again, fifty years afterwards, when Attila was advancing against the city, the Bishop of Rome of the day, St Leo, formed one of a deputation of three, who went out to meet him, and was successful in arresting his purpose.

A few years afterwards, Genseric, the most savage of the barbarian conquerors, appeared before the defenseless city.  The same fearless Pontiff went out to meet him at the head of the clergy, and though he did not succeed in saving the city from pillage, yet he gained a promise that the unresisting multitude should be spared, the buildings protected from fire, and the captives from torture.

Thus form the Goth, Hun, and Vandal did the Christian Church shield the guilty city in which she dwelt.  What a wonderful rule of God’s providence is herein displayed which occurs daily!-the Church sanctifies, yet suffers with, the world,-sharing its sufferings, yet lightening them.  In the case before us, she has (if we may humbly say it) suspended, to this day, the vengeance destined to fall upon the city which was drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.  That vengeance has never fallen; it is still suspended; nor can reason be given why Rome has not fallen under the rule of God’s general dealings with His rebellious creatures, and suffered (according to the prophecy) the fullness of God’s wrath begun in it, except that a Christian Church is still in that city, sanctifying it, interceding for it, saving it.  We in England consider that the Christian Church there has been in process of  time become infected with the sins of Rome itself, and has learned to be ambitious and cruel after the fashion of those who possessed the place aforetimes.  Yet, if it were what many would make it, if it were as reprobate as heathen Rome itself, what stays the judgment long ago begun? why does not the Avenging Arm, which made its first stroke ages since, deal its second and its third, till the city has fallen? Why is not Rome as Sodom and Gomorrah, if there be no righteous men in it?

This then is the first remark I would make as to that fulfillment of the prophecy which is not yet come; perhaps through divine mercy, it may be procrastinated even to the end, and never fulfilled.  Of this we can know nothing one way or the other.

Secondly, let it be considered, that as Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in turn may be a type also, whether of some other city, or of a proud and deceiving world.  The woman is said to be Babylon as well as Rome, and as she is something more than Babylon, namely, Rome, so again she may be something more than Rome, which is yet to come.  Various great cities in Scripture are made, in their ungodliness and ruin, types of the world itself.  Their end is described in figures, which in their fullness apply only to the end of the world; the sun and moon are said to fall, the earth to quake, and the stars to fall from heaven.  The destruction of Jerusalem in our Lord’s prophecy is associated with the end of things.  As then their ruin prefigures a greater and wider judgment, so the chapters, on which I have been dwelling, may have a further accomplishment, not in Rome, but in the world itself, or some other great city to which we cannot at present apply them, or to all the great cities of the world together, and to the spirit that rules in them, their avaricious, luxurious, self-dependent, irreligious spirit.  And in this sense is already fulfilled a portion of the chapter before us, which does not apply to heathen Rome;- I mean the description of the woman as making men drunk with her sorceries and delusions; for such, surely, and nothing else than an intoxication, is that arrogant, ungodly, falsely liberal, and worldly spirit, which great cities make dominant in a country.

To sum up what I have said.  The question asked was, is it not true (as is commonly said and believed among us) that Rome is mentioned in the Apocalypse, as having an especial share in the events which will come at the end of the world by means, or after the time, of Antichrist?  I answer this, that Rome’s judgments have come on her in great measure, when her Empire was taken from her; that her persecutions of the Church have been in great measure avenged, and the Scripture predictions concerning her fulfilled; that whether or not she shall be further judged depends on two circumstances, first, whether “the righteous men” in the city who saved her when her judgment first came, will not, through God’s great mercy, be allowed to save her still; next, whether the prophecy relates in its fullness to Rome or to some other object or objects of which Rome is a type.   And further, I say, that if it is in the divine counsels that Rome should still be judged, this must be before the Antichrist comes, because Antichrist comes upon and destroys the ten kings who are to destroy Rome.  On the other hand, so far would seem to be clear, that the prophecy itself has not been fully accomplished, whatever we decide about Rome’s concern in it.  The Roman Empire has not yet been divided into ten heads, nor has it yet arisen against the woman, whomever she may stand for, nor has the woman yet received her ultimate judgment.

We are warned against sharing in her sins and in her punishment;-against being found, when the end comes, mere children of this world and of its great cities; with tastes, opinions, habits, such as are found in its cities; with a heart dependent on human society, and a reason molded by it;-against finding ourselves at the last day, before our Judge, with all the low feelings, principles, and aims which the world encourages; with our thoughts wandering (if that be possible then), wandering after vanities; with thoughts that rise no higher than the consideration of our own comforts, or our gains; with a haughty contempt for the Church, her ministers, her lowly people; a love of rank and station, and admiration of of the splendor and the fashions of the world, an affection of refinement, a dependence upon our powers of reason, an habitual self-esteem, and an utter ignorance of the number and the heinousness of the sins which lie against us.  If we are found thus, when the end comes, where, when the judgment is over, and the saints have gone up to heaven, and there is silence and darkness where all was so full of life and expectation, where shall we find ourselves then?  And what good could the great Babylon do us then, though it were as immortal aw we are immortal ourselves?

THE THEOLOGY OF THE BODY IN JOHN PAUL II What It Means, Why It Matters-By Father Richard Hogan.  I’m also continuing to crawl my way through the two Summas of St Thomas, focusing primarily on the Summa Contra Gentiles.  For Lent I will be reading the Father Donald Senior’s four volume set THE PASSION OF JESUS.

But immediately after the oppression of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken; and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. He will send out his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Mt 24:29-30 WEB Bible)

Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads because your redemption is drawing near. (Luke 21:28 RSV)

Many of the early Church fathers believed that the sign of the Son of Man would be the cross appearing in the sky:

“That sign by which the heavenly things were made, that is, the power which the Son of Man wrought when he hung upon the cross. And the sign shall appear in the heaven, that men of all tribes who before had not believed in Christianity when preached, then by that sign, acknowledging it is made plain, shall grieve and mourn for their ignorance and sins… But as, at the dispensation of the Cross (the crucifixion), the sun was eclipsed, and darkness was spread over the earth; so when the sign of the Son of Man appears in heaven, the light of the sun, moon, and stars, shall fail, as though waning before the might of that sign. This we understand to be the sign of the cross… as Zechariah and John speak of: “they shall look on him whom they have pierced,” and the sign of victory. (see Zech 12:10 and John 19:37) (Origin, quoted in THE CATENA AUREA by St Thomas Aquinas, pg 501)

“But because the sun will be darkened, the cross would not be seen, if it were not far brighter than the rays of the sun. That the disciples might not be ashamed, and grieve over the cross, he speaks of it as a sign, with a kind of distinction. The sign of the cross will appear to overthrow the shamelessness of the Jews, when Christ shall appear in judgment, showing not only his wounds, but his most ignominious death, “and then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn.” For when they shall see the cross, they shall bethink them how they have gained naught by his death, and that they have crucified him whom they ought to have worshiped.” (St John Chrysostom, Quoted in CATENA AUREA)

“You will ask, what is the sign of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ Incarnate? I answer, it is the Cross. For this is the sign, because it is the standard of Christ, and the cause of the victory of believers. And as it was in times past the scandal of unbelievers and the impious, so will it be in the Day of Judgment their condemnation and punishment. So the Fathers, almost universally taught. Yea, the Church herself gives this meaning he r sanction, when she sings in the office for the Holy Cross: This sign of the Cross shall be in heaven when the Lord shall come to judge.” There are three reasons why the Cross shall appear: 1st. To signify that Christ by the Cross has merited this judicial power and glory. 2nd. To show that Christ was crucified for the salvation of all men, and that therefore they are ungrateful and without excuse who have neglected so grat grace and love. 3rd. To show that all worshipers of Christ crucified shall be then exalted with Him to Heaven, and all who hate and despise Him cast down to hell.” (The Great Commentary Of Cornelius a Lapide, The Holy Gospel According To Matthew, volume 3)

(The crucifixion of Jesus and the darkening of the sun. A woodcut by Gustav Dore)

HOW BEAUTIFUL YOUR DWELLING

Biblical Musings on the Responsorial Psalm (95) used at todays Mass. 9:27

On the Gospel John 5:4-42 by Monsignor Daniel Muggenberger 1:00:51

RCIA Podcast  contains Mass readings, reflection on the first scrutiny.  Time unknown but I guess an hour

Morning Office 11:14

Evening Office 8:05

Text: Isaiah 1:2-31 

The Prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, was born in the Kingdom of Judah during the profitable but immoral reign of King Uzziah, who appears to have reigned from about 783 to 742 BC.  At about the time of Isaiah’s call to prophecy he contracted leprosy as punishment for an attempted usurpation of the priestly office and became one of “the lving dead,” and this forced him to step down from his throne and install his son as regent, Uzziah would die in 733 BC.

A statesman saint, Isaiah is the Thomas More of the Old Testament.  Like More he is a family man, a counselor of kings, a skilled writer, and in the end a martyr for his faith at the hands of his king.  His response to his call, (probably narrated in chapter 6) shows a generous, spontaneous, and naturally courageous nature in contrast to Moses and Jeremiah.  His poetry and preaching reflect a soul sensitive and refined and endowed with extraordinary power of expression.

Isaiah was born during the prosperous but immoral reign of King Uzziah.  He was a contemporary of Amos and Hosea, prophets in the northern kingdom, and of Micah in Judah.  He preached during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.  His position as a counselor to Ahaz and Hezekiah, his knowledge of political affairs, his poetic language and exquisite Hebrew style, all indicate a cultured nobleman of high rank in the royal court.  Married and the father of two sons with prophetic names, Shear-yashub and Maher-shallal-hash-baz, he appears to have done most of his preaching in Jerusalem.  According to Hebrew tradition he died a martyr for the faith around 687, when, by order of the infamous King Manasseh, he was placed in a hollow tree and sawn in half. Excerpted from THE MEN AND MESSAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT by Peter Ellis. 

Today’s text is taken from the opening prophecy of the book which bears Isaiah’s name.  The sermons and events narrated in this book do not appear to always be in chronological order; rather, they were compiled according to a theological/thematic ordering.  Some scholars believe that the prophecy of chapter 1, verses 2-31, describe the situation facing Judah at the end of Jotham reign, or perhaps at the beginning of his successor, Ahaz’s reign.  Thus they date the text to about 735 and the beginning of the Syro-Ephramite war.  This war began when Syria, also called Damascus, formed and alliance with the northern kingdom of Israel, sometimes called “Ephraim” because that was the name of the largest northern tribe.  The purpose of this alliance was to oppose the rising power and expansion of the Assyrian Empire.  The two nations sought an alliance with Judah but, when that kingdom refused, they foolishly attacked it, hoping to set up a puppet king on the throne.  Judah, in spite of Isaiah’s warnings to the contrary, appealed to Assyria for help instead of to God.  Assyria moved quickly, destroying the Kingdom of Syria/Damascus and devastating Israel, taking land and captives.  They then proceeded to invade Judah, forcing that kingdom into vassalage and the payment of heavy tribute.

More scholars, and I believe they are correct, attribute this sermon to the period of King Sennacherib of Assyria and his invasion of Judah in 701 BC.  The circumstances are as follows:

In 705 BC King Sargon of Assyria was murdered and a civil war ensued which required Sargon’s son, Sennacherib to gain his inheritance by force of arms.  At this time, and as a result of this situation, King Merodach-baladan of Babylon, long a trouble-maker to Assyria, sought to free his kingdom from Assyrian domination by beginning a rebellion.  Toward this end he sought the aid of other subjected peoples and kingdoms, including the tiny Kingdom of Judah.  King Hezekiah of Judah resisted for a while, giving heed to the Prophet Isaiah, but then, in 702 BC, he joined the anti-Assyrian alliance after receiving assurance of help from Egypt.  By this time, however, Sennacherib had consolidated his power at home and was ready to move against his enemies; this he did with a brutal efficiency and methodology seldom seen in the annals of ancient warfare.  He first occupied Babylon and then moved against the western kingdoms.  As Isaiah had predicted, Egypt turned out to be an untrustworthy and worthless ally, Sennacherib invaded the kingdom of Judah in 702 BC.      He began to systematically lay siege to the fortified towns and cities surrounding Jerusalem and demanded that the city of Jerusalem itself surrender or suffer the consequences.  However, in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah given in 2 Kings 19, a plague struck the Assyrian army, forcing its withdrawal.

Since the New American Bible text is under copyright, I’ll be quoting from the RSV. See the copyright statement below. The text is taken from the first reading of the day, Joel 2:12-18.

2:12 “Yet even now,” Says the Lord, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;
2:13 And rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

Yet even now indicates that the situation is dire, the day of the Lord is looming (2:1). it will be a day of destruction (1:15), of darkness and gloom (2:2; cf, Amos 5:17-20), for the sun and moon will be darkened, and an invading army will bring “blackness…spread upon the mountains” (2:2). Joel is unclear concerning the specific sins of the people but it is rather evident that they are guilty of grievous covenant infidelity. Locust plagues (1:4), destruction of the produce of the land (1:7, 9-12), military invasion and the destruction it brings (2:1-11), were all punishments which God threatened the people with if they broke his covenant (Deut 28:15-68).

What covenant infidelities are you guilty of? What do you need to repent of in this season of covenant renewal? “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:6-78).

Would you put off this conversion for a more opportune time? For a day more to your liking? Would you presume to know when the day of the Lord and the establishment of his Kingdom will happen? God is not on your timetable; and if you act thus, are you any better than those who mock his coming?

“…you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation. They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forebearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night…What sort of persons ought you to be? Living lives of of holiness and godliness.” All this St Peter tells us in his second letter. And the Lord himself says: But of theat day and hour no one know, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in a field; one is taken, one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Not without reason then, my brothers and sister, does Holy Mother Church give us the words of St Paul in the second reading for today: Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” “Be reconciled with God.”

Yet even now, exhorts the prophet Joel, return to the Lord with all your heart, with fasting, and weeping, and with mourning, rending your heart rather than your clothes, for conversion is a matter for the inner man, for sin is not outside of us. We are carnal, says St Paul, sold under sin:

17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:17-24). In such a condition what can man possibly do to begin to repair the damage done to his relationship with God? The catechism answers “nothing.” The initiative belongs wholly to God (grace), who is, the prophet tells us, “gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil. Who knows whether he will not turn and repent, and leave a blessing behind him?…” If such is the case in the Old Covenant, how much more gracious is the New one. The law, the Old Covenant, says St John, was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17). “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death,” St Paul had asked. He himself knew the answer: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!…There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh could not do, : sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Rom 7:24-8:9).

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God! yet you would still put off the season of repentance? The season that reaches its culmination with a renewal of your baptismal vows?

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin…? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For he who has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace (Rom 6:1-14).

Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. Be reconciled with God.

From the RSV copyright statement (which I think I’ve understood correctly):

Source: Transcribed from: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the original tongues: being the version set forth A.D. 1611, revised A.D. 1946-52.-2nd ed. of New Testament A.D. 1971. There should be enough in the rest of the description to identify the text.

Language: English.

Availability: Freely available for non-commercial use provided that this header is included in its entirety with any copy distributed.

A tip of the hat to Argent by the Tiber for the following.
The Congregation for the Clergy has as part of its website this feature:

READING THE WORD OF GOD WITH THE CHURCH :

This program offers Sacred Scripture, its interpretation in light of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, with appropriate theological commentary and exegesis.
The downloadable version allows you to connect Sacred Scripture to the complete works of many Doctors of the Church, Councils, Encyclicals, teachings of the Popes, Catechisms, as well as commentaries from secular literature, etc.
Note: At the moment, the content may differ according to the language used. You are invited to expand your inquiry by researching in other languages.

The Gospel in the Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions, has for its title, “The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew.”  That is, this is the book which contains the most excellent and joyful message of the advent of Christ, the Messiah promised to the patriarchs, of His Incarnation, Birth, Life, Preaching, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, of the grace of His salvation, and the glory flowing from it and given to the whole world, of which things St Matthew was the writer, the Holy Spirit the dictator.

The Syriac version prefixes the following title: “In the power of the Lord, and of our God, Jesus Christ, we begin to write the book of the most sacred Evangel, the first Gospel, the preaching of Matthew.”  At the end of the book it is written, “Of the Holy Gospel, the preaching of Matthew, which he preached in the Hebrew tongue, in the land of Palestine, the end.”  The Arabic has, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as Mar (i.e., Lord) Matthew, one of His twelve disciples, wrote it.”

Holy: The Gospel both is, and is called holly, because all the things which it contains are pre-eminently holy; viz., holy is the Birth of Christ, holy is His doctrine, holy are His works.  There is also an allusion to Daniel 9:24, where it is said that seventy weeks of years must be fulfilled until Christ,  that the Holy of Holies may be anointed, because it is shown in this Gospel that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in Christ which was for to come.   For Christ is the Holy of Holies, and therefore as of old to the patriarch Jacob, so now to all Christians, His servants, He will give knowledge of holy things;  for His object is our sanctification, that “we may serve Him in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life” (Lk 1:75).

Gospel: In Greek Evangel, good news, from eauggelizo, “to bring good news.”  So St Chrysostom.   See Budaeus, in Pandectas, where he adds that Evangel, by metonyme, signifies a donation, or an offering given for good news.  Thus Cicero writes to Atticus, “O, thy sweet letters, for which I confess I owe evangelia!” that is, a reward for the good tidings.  In Hebrew, Gospel is called besorah, from basar, “flesh,” because besorah is the most joyful tidings of the Word “being made flesh.”

according to Matthew.  The words, according to, denote that primarily and chiefly its author is the Holy Spirit, and in the second place St Matthew.  For Matthew was as it were the organ, instrument, and pen of the Holy Spirit, writing the things which the Holy Spirit dictated to him, according to those words in the firty-fifth Psalm, “My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.”

According to denotes that the Gospel is one and the same, but was written in a fourfold manner by four Evangelists.  Therefore the words indicate that the Gospel of Matthew is not another Gospel than that of Sts Mark, Luke, and John, but only that there was a different writer, and a different manner of writing the Gospel.

It signifies that the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the nature and disposition of St Matthew.  The Holy Spirit illuminated, stirred him up, and directed him, so as to write the things which he had partly witnessed himself, partly had heard from the other Apostles, and partly God had revealed to him, in such a way as should be in accordance with the method, order style, diction, and genius of Matthew.    For there was no need of a fresh revelation from God for such things as Matthew already knew, by seeing or hearing them, but only of assistance and direction of the Holy Spirit, lest through forgetfulness, or any other human infirmity, he should err from the truth, even in the very slightest point, or write anything else, or in any different manner from what the Holy Spirit willed.

Some are of the opinion that this title was prefixed to his Gospel by St Matthew himself, as were also the titles of St Mark, St Luke, and St John by those Evangelists.  For thus the Prophets prefixed their names to their prophecies, as the Vision of Isaiah, the Vision of Obadiah.

But it is far more probable that the titles of each of the Gospels were attached to them, not by the Evangelists themselves, but by the Church.  The similarity of the titles is an indication that such was the case.  The title of the Syriac Gospel, which I have already cited, makes it still more probable that it was so.  And from thence you may gather an irrefragable argument for the authority of the tradition, that Holy Scripture does not suffice for building up the true faith and morals of the Church, but that there is a need likewise of Apostolic Traditions.  This is one of the false negations of the heretics.  For tell me if you can, from whence you know that this is the Gospel of St Matthew, and Canonical Scripture, and that the Gospels of Thomas, of Barnabas, and the Twelve Apostles, which were formerly in circulation, are not Canonical Scripture, except by the tradition and consent of the Church?  For many books have false titles, and are inscribed with the names of other authors, as is plain by the works of Sts Augustine, Jerome, Cyprian, and other Fathers.  In the same way some of the Gospels which were compiled by heretics, were inscribed with the names of Sts Bartholomew, Thomas, and Barnabas.  By like art and deceit, they might have ascribed a false Gospel to St Matthew, as in effect the Gnostics did, when they changed and corrupted St Matthew’s Gospel by their additions.  In order, therefore, that we may be sure that this Gospel is rightly ascribed to St Matthew, and still more, that the whole of it was really dictated by the Holy Spirit, there must needs be a declaration and definition of the Church, which severs it from Apocryphal writings, and pronounces it Canonical.  Hence St Augustine, in his book against the Epistle of Manes, which they call Fundamental, wisely says, “I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so.”  Not because the authority of the Church is worthier, or of more weight than that of Holy Scripture-for Scripture is the word and the oracle of God Himself-but because it is the office of the Church to separate genuine Scripture from what is false and spurious, and to give its true sense and meaning.  “When, therefore, we say,” says a weighty author, “that the Evangelists and other sacred writers have authority from the Catholic Church, according to the sense in which we say it, no one has the right to be offended, as if we set the Church before God.  For the sense in which we say that the Church confers authority upon Scripture is this, that she declares them to be given by God, and pronounces that they have been dictated by Him.  Do they prefer the servant to his master, who say, as is commonly done, that the king’s letters have the chancellor’s authority, because he has attached the great seal to them?  But the Church has the Seal of God, even the Spirit Himself, who was promised, and has been given to her, that He may abide with her forever.  The Spirit recognizes His own handwriting.   He it was who first dictated these four Gospels.  And now He makes known to us, by the Church, that He did indite them.

Matthew:  Matthew, who was called by Christ from the receipt of custom to the apostolate, was the first who wrote a Gospel.  Blessed Peter Damian, in his sermon on St Matthew, gives him this eulogium:-”Amongst the greatest saints who have gained their titles of victory in celestial glory by their triumph over the world, Matthew seems to me especially glorious and famous, and to obtain a certain primacy of dignity amongst them.  To speak plainly, there is no one after Christ to whom, as it appears to me, the holy universal Church is more indebted.  For this is the very cause of the life of the world, that the Gospel has shown upon us.  Like a captain, he carried a standard for his followers, and by his example stirred them up to write.”

Cajetan and the Anabaptists are of the opinion that St Matthew wrote in Greek, because Hebrew words-such as Emmanuel; Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?-are translated into Greek.  But these may have been added by the Greek translator.  Sts Jerome and Augustine, Eusebius, and the rest of the ancients, unanimously affirm that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and that he did so because he was asked by the Jews, when he was going away amongst the Gentiles, to leave them in writing what he had orally preached to them.  This is asserted by St Chrysostom, in his first Homily.  The Auctor Imperfecti adds, “The cause of St Matthew’s writing was this: at a time of severe persecution in Palestine, when all were in danger of being dispersed, in order that if the disciples were deprived of teachers of the faith, they might not be deprived of teaching, they asked Matthew to write them a history of all the words and deeds of Christ, that wheresoever they might be, they might have with them a statement of all that they believed.  St Jerome declares that he had seen St Matthew’s Gospel, written in Hebrew, in the Library of Pamphilus the Martyr at Caesarea, and from it had transcribed his own copy.  This Hebrew text is now, however, lost.  For what Sebastian Munster, and unfrocked renegade, has offered to us, as though he had received it from the Jews, is suspected to have been written, or else falsified, by heretics or Jewish traitors, and has besides and offensive odor of spuriousness.

St Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, at the bidding of the Apostles, says St Epiphanius, in the same year that they took counsel about seperating, that they might go to the Gentiles.  This was in the year 37 after the birth of Christ, the fourth from the passion.  So that the opinion of Baronius is not so probable that Matthew wrote in A.D. 41.  Still less probable is what St Irenaeus says, that he wrote whilst Sts Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.  For St Peter did not come to Rome before the second year of the Emperor Claudius, and St Paul not before the third year of Nero.  Whence it would follow that St Matthew did not write until the eighteenth or twentieth year after Christ’s ascension, which is evidently untrue.

Certainly St Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel was immediately translated into Greek.  This was done either by St Matthew himself, St John, or St James, or by some such person.  St Athanasius, in his Synopsis of Holy Scripture, says, “Matthew’s Gospel was written by Matthew in the Hebrew dialect, published at Jerusalem, and a translation made by James, the Lord’s brother.”   But Theophylact, in his Preface says, “John, it is reported, translated this Gospel out of Hebrew into Greek.”  Some again are of the opinion that Barnabas was the translator of this Gospel from Hebrew into Greek.  Among others this is asserted by Sixtus Senensis.  But Anastasius Sinaita says that Luke and Paul were the translators.  The Syriac Version of St Matthew was certainly translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek.  St Jerome also, when by the command of Pope Damasus, he corrected the Latin translation of the four Gospels, made St Matthew conform to the Greek rather than the Hebrew, as he tells us in his preface to the Gospels.  I may observe in passing that when St Jerome, at the bidding of Damasus, translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin, he did not translate afresh the New Testament, but brought the existing translation into accordance with the Greek original.

So that the translator of the New Testament was not St Jerome, but some one much earlier, though far from being a good Latinist, as is plain to every reader.

St Jerome says, that when St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, he appears to have followed the Hebrew original in his citations from the Old Testament.  But the Greek translator has preferred to cite them from the Septuagint, as better known to the Gentiles.

Whether St Matthew wrote in pure Hebrew, such as that of Moses and the Prophets, or in the corrupt Hebrew current after the Babylonian captivity, usually called Syriac (today called Aramaic), is not plain.  It is certain that the Jews in the time of Christ did not speak pure Hebrew.  Syriac was their vernacular.  It is very evident that the rest of the New Testament was translated from Greek into Syriac, and the same person apparently translated all the books.  The Hebrew words quoted in the Greek text differ from the Syriac words used in the Syriac version now extant.

In St Matthew 27:8, instead of the Hebrew Haceldama, or field of blood, the present Syriac has agurescadama, an evident Grecism, partly formed from Agros, a field.  Instead of the Hebrew Cephas, the Syriac has Kypho.  For Golgota, it has Golgoulto; for Jacob, Jaacoub, &c.

The Syrians thought that the translator of the New Testament from Greek into their language was St Mark the Evangelist.  But it is difficult to believe this, for both Cyrils, Clement of Alexandria, Sts Athanasius and Damascene, Theodoret, St Ephrem, who lived either in Syria, or else in Egypt, make no mention of it.  I may add that the Version has several things which are little pleasing to learned men.  This translator appears to have lived subsequently to the fathers just named.  He has this good point about him, however, that he was a Catholic opposed to heretics.  For in the headings of his chapters he often makes mention of fasts, vigils, feasts, invocation of saints, &c.

As regards divisions, the Gospel of St Matthew has been variously divided, and parted into sections.  By the ancient Latin Church, according to St Hilary, it was divided into 33 Canons: by others, it was divided into 67 Canons.   By the latter Latins it is divided into 28 chapters.  By Greeks, according to Euthymius, it was divided into 68 chapters; according to Suidas into 68 titles and 355 chapters.

Lastly, St Matthew is pre-eminent amongst the Evangelists in the following respects:-

1.  He was the first who published a Gospel, wherefore Tertullian calls him, “that most faithful exponent of the Gospel.”

2.  Because he dwells upon Christ’s regal dignity more than the others.

3.  Because St Matthew was the Apostle of Ethiopia, and a victim of virginity.  He was slain by King Hirtacus, because he was not willing that Iphigenia, the daughter of the King of Ethiopia, who had consecrated her virginity to God, should be given him to wife.

4.  Because St Matthew, who was perfectly conversant with business affairs, for he was over the tribute, was converted to Christ, not by seeing his miracles, not by hearing His preaching, says St Chrysostom, but by a single word, “Follow me,” obeying this with the utmost promptitude, he was straightway changed into another man, even into an Apostle, so that he left all things, and followed Christ.  I may add, that after this he never left Christ, but was a beholder and a witness of His miracles, an imitator of His life, a companion of His journeys and labors, a partaker of His cares and griefs, and thus was conversant with Him during the whole period of His earthly ministry.

Matthew means in Hebrew, “given,” as Origen and Isidore say-or “a gift,” as Pagninus thinks-from matthan, a gift.  Anastasius of Antioch gives a different interpretation, Matthew, he says, means the “command of the Most High.”  St Gregory makes the following remark about him: “Iron is taken out of the earth.  Was not Matthew found in the earth, when he was immersed in worldly business, and served the custom board.  But when he was taken out of the earth, he possessed the strength of iron.  For by his tongue, and by the dispensation of the Gospel committed to him, the Lord, as by a most sharp sword, transfixed the hearts of unbelievers.”  Clement of Alexandria says of this Evangelist, that he was not wont to eat flesh, but to live on seeds, berries, and herbs.

I pass over what Abdias says, that Matthew on account of the Gospel which he was preaching to the Myrmidons, had his eyes put out by those idolaters, but was restored to sight by the Apostle St Andrew, at the bidding of an angel, who appeared to him, with many other things, for this Abdias is an apocryphal writer.  You may consult Surius, Baronius, John de le Haye, and several other writers for further particulars about St Matthew.

The last thing I will mention is, that St Matthew made himself known to St Brigitt, when she was praying at his tomb in the city of Malphi, and said to her, “When I was writing my Gospel, so intense was the heat of the Divine flame which abode with me, that even if I had wished to keep silence, I could not, because of that burning heat.” (Cornelius A Lapide, COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW)