Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist

ON ST. MATTHEW THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST,

IN ETHIOPIA.

Sect. I.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist, in Ethiopia (S.)

BHL Number: 5693

BY J. S.

§ I. The Saint's memory announced in the calendars of various nations on different days: several Acts and other monuments concerning the Saint are enumerated.

[ ] Since few things concerning the deeds of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist are ascertained and beyond doubt, The Saint's memory and cult among the Latins on the XXI of September; and since for that reason more things fall to be examined about him than simply to be narrated, it seems good first to enumerate the more ancient Martyrologies in which the Saint's memory is found inserted; and then not merely to assign but also in some measure to weigh the various documents from which the deeds of St. Matthew must be drawn. The Latin Church celebrates St. Matthew chiefly on the XXI day of September, on which day his memory is inserted in nearly all the Latin Martyrologies and Calendars. For on this day he is read in the Hieronymian Martyrologies, in the Little Roman, in Bede, Florus, Rabanus, Wandelbert, Ado, Usuard, Notker, in most of the Martyrologies and Calendars of particular churches, and finally in the Roman Martyrology and Breviary, and everywhere in all the more recent ones. I bring forward no eulogies here, because I shall produce each in its own place, where it shall seem expedient for the elucidating of the preaching, the death, or other matters pertaining to the Saint. With the Martyrologies agrees the book of the Sacraments published by Ménard and attributed to St. Gregory, in which at this day is read a Mass of St. Matthew, and on the day before a vigil is noted, just as his vigil is announced in many more recent Calendars and Martyrologies.

[2] Yet St. Matthew is celebrated on other days also in some Latin Martyrologies. and on other days; a translation commemorated at the VI of May: For in the Hieronymian he is also read at the 1st of May, again at the VI of May, and at the IX of October. In some codices too, namely in the Epternach, the Corbie and others, mention is made of St. Matthew at the XXI of May, where in Florentinius is read Mathias; nor can it be said with certainty which reading is the more genuine, since we do not even know for what cause the memory of St. Matthew has been so often repeated in the other calendars. We may suspect that earlier translations of the body, and the festivals arising from them, are designated; but neither is the time of the earlier translations sufficiently established, nor can that translation be designated by which the people of Salerno received the Saint's body, since this is far later than the Martyrologies named. Nevertheless the Salernitan translation has been inserted in more recent calendars. In the manuscript Florarium Sanctorum it is commemorated at the XXVIII of April, as was said there among the Prætermissi. In the Hagenau codex of Usuard's Martyrology the same translation is announced at the VI of May, as also in the Vatican codex, which has it thus: At Salerno, the translation of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist. Baronius followed, who has it thus in the Roman Martyrology: At Salerno, the translation of St. Matthew the apostle, whose sacred body, once carried from Ethiopia to various regions and at last to that city, was there laid up with the highest honor in a church dedicated in his name. With this agree the proper Offices of the church of Salerno, which we have printed in the XVI century: for in them the Office of the translation with an Octave is noted at the VI of May. In the aforesaid manuscript Florarium the translation of St. Matthew is noted on the same day, but it is not added that it is the Salernitan one, as it is added at the XXVIII of April. More about the translations I shall discuss in its place.

[3] among the Greeks and other Orientals at the XVI of November. The Greeks, and the Muscovites who generally follow them, celebrate St. Matthew chiefly at the XVI of November. On this day the memory of this holy Apostle is recalled and a solemn festival celebrated in all the Greek calendars which I have consulted. The printed Menæa exhibit a very prolix eulogy, but a fabulous one, from which we shall bring forward in their places those things which seem conducive to our purpose, just as also from the less prolix eulogy which is inserted in the Basilian Menology. The Greeks also venerate Matthew together with the rest of the Apostles on the XXX day of June, where they exhibit brief eulogies in the Menæa and in the Menology just praised. With the Greeks in celebrating the festival of St. Matthew on the XVI day of November the Armenians also agree, as I have it from the Perpetual Order of celebrating the Offices and festivals among the Armenians, which the most learned Assemani rendered into Latin and published in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, tom. 3, pag. 645. The Egyptians finally and the Ethiopians have chosen the same XVI day of November, on which St. Matthew is announced in the calendars of the Copts published by Ludolf, and in two other manuscript Menologies or Synaxaries of the same. In Ludolf mention is likewise made of Matthew the apostle at the IX of October; but I do not find it on that day in the aforesaid manuscript calendars. Let these things for the present suffice concerning the Martyrologies.

[4] The Acts of St. Matthew the apostle, which have been known in the Latin Church for many centuries, The Acts of St. Matthew written out in very many codices, and from which more recent writers have drawn what they have committed to writing about St. Matthew, are extant in very many manuscript codices, and those very ancient; not however in exactly the same manner in all. We have them in seven different codices, of which the older seem to have been written in the IX century. I have collated those codices in order to examine whether the chief faults from which the Acts suffer are found in all; and I have found none among our codices in which the faults presently to be mentioned are not read — faults which are likewise read in the transcript which we have from the Utrecht codex, and in several others with which that transcript was once collated. The author of those Acts, as of those of the other Apostles, is commonly called Abdias, who falsely gave himself out to be the first bishop of Babylon. In St. Bartholomew, tom. V of August, pag. 32, I showed sufficiently that the whole History of the Apostles of pseudo-Abdias is not worthy of credit, and there I adduced the words of Bellarmine, who pronounces thus concerning him: The Lives of the Apostles which are circulated under his name are more like fables than a true narrative. This is now the common consent of the learned concerning that entire History. Yet it is pleasant to add the censure of John Hessels of Louvain, which is printed after Molanus' Usuard. The Passion, he says, of St. Matthew does not please. Then he gives the beginning of the prologue: Since God has a care for men: and next of the Acts: There were, then, two magi, Zaroes and Arfaxat. In all the codices

of ours, with one exception in which the prologue is omitted, both openings are plainly the same. In the Utrecht codex likewise both openings are found; but a few words about the name of Matthew are prefixed, which there make a second prologue. Now let us hear the reasons of Hessels.

[5] He says that the eunuch whom Philip baptized is called Candace, and are defiled with many errors and fables: whereas Luke, Acts 8, says that the queen of the Ethiopians was called Candace. For Candace is a name of the queens of Ethiopia, as Pharaoh of the kings of Egypt. It is said in the same History that Christ opened the earthly paradise to the thief and to the souls of the saints departing from the body; but on the last day, to those who rise again, the kingdoms of the heavens: whereas according to Paul and the Catholic faith the souls of the Saints go to the heavens even now, before the resurrection. He says also that the first man was able to speak in paradise with all the animals. It is of the same authority as the Life of St. Bartholomew, as is plain from its philosophizing about the virginity of the earth from which man was made. Thus far Hessels, who joins to these the authority of Bede, who reproves that History of pseudo-Abdias. Bede, in his book of Retractations on the Acts of the Apostles, chap. 1, cites the said History concerning the apostles Simon and Jude, and speaks thus to our purpose: These, the Histories in which the Passions of the Apostles are contained — and which by very many are reckoned apocryphal — relate to have preached in Persia, and there to have been slain by the pontiffs of the temples in the city of Suanir. These things are read in Abdias, chap. 6, near the end. After a little Bede again writes thus: Whereas he who wrote the aforesaid Passions of the Apostles has himself most certainly betrayed that he wrote uncertain and false things. For he says that the eunuch of Candace, whom Philip had baptized in Judæa, was at that time in Ethiopia when Matthew was teaching there, and brought him aid in his teaching; whereas it is manifest that Candace is the name not of a man but of a woman, that is, not of the eunuch but of his mistress, namely the queen of the Ethiopians, who, as we learn from the monuments of the ancients, were all in antiquity wont to be so called. Thus Bede, holding the Acts not merely as apocryphal, but convicting their author of falsehood. Many other things too could be alleged from the Acts to take away credit from them, since the author from beginning to end narrates things marvelous rather than credible; and trifles far more about the earthly paradise than Hessels observed; and expounds the conception of the most blessed Virgin in an incongruous and unseemly manner — to say nothing of other matters. But what has been said suffices to abrogate all credit from the counterfeit Abdias: yet from these things another doubt arises in my mind.

[6] in a certain Vatican codex they have been purged of the grosser errors In the year 1753 we found in the Vatican library other Acts of St. Matthew in the Latin codex 1188, and we had them transcribed, and ourselves collated them with the codex. These Acts are free from all the faults just related, on account of which Hessels reproved the Acts of pseudo-Abdias, but they contain the same account of the deeds of St. Matthew. Wherefore it may be doubted whether pseudo-Abdias interpolated older Acts of the holy Apostle and filled them with many absurdities; or whether rather someone wished to purge Abdias' lucubration on St. Matthew of the grosser errors, and so to render this Apostle's Acts in some measure probable. Either could have happened; but the second is the more likely, for various reasons. First, from the words of Bede alleged, we have it that that apocryphal History of the deeds of the Apostles is certainly older than the VIII century, since Bede flourished at the beginning of that century and cites that History, not as new or lately fabricated, but as apocryphal in the judgment of many. From this I further gather that already in the VI century, in which Venantius Fortunatus flourished, that History seemed ancient, since he says, probably out of it, that the body of St. Matthew is at Naddaver. Certainly the Vatican codex, in which the more tolerable Acts of St. Matthew are extant, is not of such antiquity. Wherefore it seems that in that codex some things were corrected and the more absurd faults purged away — especially since the rest of the codices everywhere contain the Acts such as they are in Abdias, and I have not yet seen another codex agreeing with that Vatican one. Besides, in this codex the common preface is omitted and another substituted, which conflicts with the Acts themselves. For according to the preface St. Matthew suffered in Persia, according to the Acts in Ethiopia. To the Acts themselves another opening has been stitched, about the Gospel written by Matthew, and after that follow the Acts of the counterfeit Abdias, but somewhat purged. Therefore I can scarcely doubt that these are more recent, and the same as the others, but in some measure amended.

[7] Nevertheless not so great a correction was applied as to make the deeds related in them sufficiently probable, even if their origin from an impure source were not established. thus purged, yet do not become probable, For first, it is said that upon Matthew's arrival in Ethiopia there met him at once the eunuch of queen Candace who had been baptized by Philip, Acts 8; so that the author altogether asserts that Matthew came to the city in which queen Candace was reigning when the said eunuch was converted. But there it is then said that the king was Egyppus and the queen Eufenissa. Of Candace, who had reigned a little before, no mention is made. Therefore the name of the queen, Eufenissa, seems contrary to the words of Bede just given, since he asserts that the name Candace was common to them all. Pliny agrees, lib. 6 chap. 29, teaching that a woman, Candace, reigns, which name has for many years now passed to the queens — namely in that kingdom of Ethiopia whose metropolis was Meroë. And the aforesaid Pliny asserts that these things about the kingdoms of Ethiopia and Meroë were learned and reported through the scouts of Nero. A queen Candace therefore was reigning while Nero was emperor, and some Candace had reigned there long before, at least from the times of Augustus, as is gathered from Strabo, who flourished under Augustus. For Strabo, lib. 17 pag. 820, relates the war in which Candace, who in our times, he says, ruled the Ethiopians, attacked the Romans, masters of Egypt, in the reign of Augustus. Therefore queens named Candace reigned in Ethiopia at least from Augustus down to the times of Nero; nor does Pliny add that in his own times the kingdom of Ethiopia was governed in any other way. But St. Matthew, if he preached in Ethiopia, came there in all probability before the reign of Nero, or certainly when Nero had not long been reigning. All the things therefore which are handed down in the Acts about the state of the kingdom of Ethiopia seem utterly fictitious, and deserve no credit.

[8] No less fictitious seem the things which the Acts hand down about the progress of the Christian faith in Ethiopia. and contain many things For if anyone should wish to believe the Acts, St. Matthew converted king Egyppus, queen Eufenissa, and their son (previously raised from death), who is called Eufranon, and their daughter Ephigenia, commonly now called Iphigenia. A church too is said to have been built, in which Matthew sat for XXIII years. In this time he built many churches, appointed presbyters and deacons … and ordained bishops throughout the cities and strongholds. Besides, all the idols and all the temples are asserted to have been destroyed. The king's daughter Ephigenia, having professed virginity, was set over more than two hundred virgins. All these things are said to have been done while king Egyppus was living. When he had died, and St. Matthew had been slain because Ephigenia refused marriage with the new king Hyrtacus, the affairs of the Christians were for a short time less prosperous. But when Hyrtacus had been punished and had slain himself with his own sword, Ephigenia's brother is said to have gained the kingdom and to have held it for sixty-three years. And all the provinces of the Ethiopians, filled with Catholic churches unto the present day, says the author, bless God through Ephigenia, and great wonders are wrought at the confession of the blessed apostle Matthew. Therefore, if we believe the Acts, about the middle of the II century the church of Ethiopia flourished more in the Catholic faith than any other in the whole world.

[9] But these things are utterly incredible, from the silence of all the ancient writers. wholly incredible. For since Ethiopia borders upon Egypt, the fathers and other Christian writers who flourished in the earlier centuries of the Church in Egypt, in Palestine, in Africa, or even in provinces more remote from Ethiopia, could not have been ignorant of a church of so vast a kingdom so flourishing, and have been altogether silent about it. And then, if the Christian faith had been so well founded in Ethiopia, it could not have been eliminated save by the gravest persecutions and over a long time. But of these persecutions something at least would have become known to the writers of those times, who would not have kept silence about them, just as they did not all keep silence about the persecutions of the Christians in Persia, where the faith was never so well established as the author of the Acts has feigned it to have been established in Ethiopia. Yet I would not have the reader turn this argument against the preaching of St. Matthew in Ethiopia itself, of which I shall treat in its place: for there is a great difference between a simple preaching of the faith with even some fruit, and the conversion of a whole kingdom, which according to the Acts would have continued for nearly an entire century without persecutions, and so been excellently confirmed. For the rest, many other things too in the Acts are improbable, which I shall briefly point out in the Annotations: for these Acts, fabulous though they be, I have determined to publish, because the more recent Latin writers who treat of St. Matthew have drawn nearly everything of theirs from them.

[10] The Greek Acts wholly fabulous and ridiculous, The Greek Acts, from which certain more recent writers have treated of St. Matthew, are likewise at hand for us, transcribed from the Vatican codex 808 among the Greeks. These have nothing in common with the Latin ones just disapproved; but they are even more shapeless than these and more ridiculous, since they contain the deeds of hardly more than a few days, and relate nothing but a few facts and prodigies plainly incredible. An epitome of these Acts is given by Nicephorus Callistus, lib. 2 of his History, chap. 41. Of this epitome Baronius in the Annotations to the Martyrology speaks thus: Nicephorus writes some things about Matthew, lib. 2 chap. 41; but such as are confirmed by the testimony of no one at all. Even so, however, Nicephorus' epitome is at least less ridiculous than the Acts themselves, since he has omitted many circumstances more openly fabulous, and at the beginning has prefixed a few things about St. Matthew known from elsewhere. From the same Acts has been drawn together the eulogy which the printed Menæa exhibit at the XVI of November; but there too some things at the beginning are said to have been taken from other documents. Since I should not be doing anything worth the labor if I published these Acts, I shall give from our transcript a very brief epitome, which will suffice to take credit from them.

[11] so that by a brief St. Matthew is set before us as it were abruptly, alone on a mountain praying, and seeing many children with the child Jesus singing in paradise. Presently Jesus is at hand while he prays, and the Apostle, seeing the most beautiful Child, betrays much anxiety as to how he can nourish him in a desert place, being destitute of all food and drink. But Jesus explains who he is

and, after many discourses by no means probable, in which among other things he says that Herod is in hell for having slain eleven thousand children, he gives Matthew a rod, which he bids him plant beside the door of the church founded by himself and the apostle Andrew in the city of the Anthropophagi. He says that the rod will grow into a tree, and that from it a spring will arise, concerning which, as also concerning the tree, very many little fables are added; and at last, Matthew's martyrdom by fire having been foretold, the Child suddenly returns to heaven. Matthew hastens to the city, when there meet him queen Phulbana, her son Phulbanus, and his wife Erba, all possessed, and threatening Matthew not to plant the rod. But laying his hands upon each of them, he cast out the demons, and presently met bishop Plato with all his clergy. Then, the people being gathered, he delivers a sermon and plants the rod; and, at the Apostle's bidding, Plato baptizes the queen and her son and daughter-in-law. On the next day the rod had grown into a tree, and a river issued from the tree. But the people, eating the fruit of the tree, knew that they were naked, and each blushing ran home to procure clothing. I pass over like trifles, that we may come the more quickly to the catastrophe of the fable.

[12] King Phulbanus, stirred up by a demon, long tries in vain to seize Matthew, it is shown by a brief epitome and at last, when he had summoned him, is struck with blindness. Healed by the Apostle, he seizes him even so, and bids him be fastened to the ground with long nails, and much easily combustible material to be gathered around him, and so to be burned. But while the material placed around him was indeed burned, the Apostle was not hurt. The king therefore ordered twelve gods of gold and silver to be set about the pyre, lest the force of the flame be hindered; and he himself came to the place. But when the pyre was kindled, presently the fire withdrew from Matthew and burned up all the gods of gold and silver, and, pursuing the fleeing king in the shape of a serpent, kept him from entering his own palace until he should return to Matthew and beg mercy of him. Then, at Matthew's prayer, the fiery dragon vanished; but the Apostle, praying, gave up his spirit to God — and that on the XVI day of November, if we believe the fabulist. But there is not yet an end of the fables. The king orders the body of the deceased, laid upon a golden bier, to be carried to his palace: then, enclosed in an iron chest, weighted also with lead, to be cast into the sea, that he might believe if the body should return unharmed from the sea. These things being done, St. Matthew appears to bishop Plato and warns him to go forth to the sea in solemn procession with his clergy. When they were there, about the sixth hour of the day the bishop sees from afar St. Matthew walking upon the sea between two men: after an hour he sees a cross emerging from the sea, and at the end of the cross the chest in which was the Saint's body. And this followed the cross as far as the land.

[13] The matter being understood, the people run up, and the king himself, laying aside all unbelief, it is shown. approaches, prostrate begs pardon, and embraces the faith. Wherefore the body of St. Matthew is carried with honor to the church. To the baptized king St. Matthew appeared by night, and bade him be called Matthew, and ordained him presbyter, and his son deacon, and the wives of both deaconesses, the names of all being likewise changed. The king therefore ordered all in his kingdom to be Christians, and, having appointed another king, and Plato having died after three years, he became bishop, as also his son after him. Thus far the Acts, prolix enough but far more fabulous, which I have patiently read through and reduced to an epitome, omitting however the visions and not a few other marvels, so that anyone may see that what is handed down in Nicephorus, in the Menæa, and perhaps elsewhere, is likewise of no credit. The city Myrmene, which is named in only one place of the Acts, is as fictitious, I think, as all the rest; and the region of the Anthropophagi, even though Anthropophagi, that is, eaters of human flesh, have not been lacking, seems likewise to have been invented by the author. Bishop Plato and his successor Phulbanus and the latter's son seem no less fictitious persons. Certainly of that Plato I find nothing elsewhere, much less of the others; so that it becomes altogether probable that Plato is commemorated out of these Acts too in the eulogy of St. Matthew which is found in the Basilian Menology, and that several things in that eulogy are drawn from these Acts, although not everything agrees.

[14] Yet other Acts of St. Matthew were composed by Simeon Metaphrastes, which in Greek I do not have at hand, nor are they to be reckoned of such worth that I should think them now to be sought out with study: for Lipomanus published them in Latin, tom. 5, fol. 137 and 138, Acts by Metaphrastes, to be published: and Surius at this day. These are less fabulous, but altogether brief and meager, so that they bring forward hardly anything about the Saint which is not known from elsewhere. And those few things which are said of the Saint's preaching are not of undoubted credit, but only of such authority as Metaphrastes' authority is wont to be in other matters. Surius published the same lucubration of Metaphrastes, but rendered into Latin in another manner, whence it came about that Baronius believed them to be different lucubrations, whereas there is but one and the same Greek text, which Allatius, On the writings of the Simeons, pag. 126, mentioned among the Lives written by Metaphrastes, reciting the beginning of the Greek Acts, ἤδη μὲν τὸν παρὰ τοῦ πλάσαντος ἡμᾶς δοθεῖσαν φυλάττοντες ἐντολήν, which is thus expressed in Lipomanus: Now indeed we, keeping the precept which had been given by him who had fashioned us. But in Surius: If we had been willing to keep that precept which was enjoined upon us by him who formed us. Either rendering is apt, and comes to the same thing, as do all the rest, with two exceptions, in places where one or the other translator has erred, or had a corrupt codex — as I shall say more at large where the preaching of St. Matthew is treated, to which both places pertain, or in the Annotations. I shall give these Acts, even though they are not of the highest authority, because we have nothing better concerning St. Matthew; and I shall follow Surius' edition, which is plainer and better than the other, as I judge, and indeed was given even by Lipomanus himself in tom. 7, where at fol. 256 he teaches that Sirleto was the translator. From these Acts, moreover, the prudent reader will be able to gather that Metaphrastes is not the inventor of fables, as some critics frequently assert, and Baillet most of all. For if he had wished to invent, he could have done it no less about St. Matthew and the other Apostles, of whose deeds he has recorded only a few things, because he found no more in the older writers. Metaphrastes therefore did not invent fabulous Lives, but adopted some, and set them forth in his own style.

[15] An encomiastic Oration of Nicetas: other Acts: An encomiastic Oration on St. Matthew the apostle and Evangelist was also written by Nicetas David, or the Paphlagonian, who lived at nearly the same time as Metaphrastes, yet seems a little older. This Oration of Nicetas, in Greek and Latin, Combefis published in his Auctarium novissimum, pag. 401. To reprint it is by no means to my liking, since it has almost nothing about the deeds of St. Matthew beyond his calling and the writing of his Gospel. Of his preaching it has related fewer things than Metaphrastes, although the Oration is much more prolix on account of its rambling praises. I shall therefore bring forward from it in the Commentary whatever seems useful for our purpose. The aforesaid Allatius, pag. 122, among the Lives of the Saints which are not by Metaphrastes, reckons the Acts of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, of which he gives this beginning: Ματθαῖος ἀπόστολος καὶ εὐανγελιστὴς ἦν μὲν ἐκ πόλεως Ιἑρουσαλήμ. Matthew the apostle and evangelist was of the city of Jerusalem. The author is unknown, and probably later than Nicetas and Metaphrastes. He betrays by the words already alleged how little he is to be esteemed, when he makes St. Matthew a man of Jerusalem, whereas there is scarcely any doubt that he was a Galilean, as will be said in its place, and certainly there is no reason which could persuade us that he was of Jerusalem. I have not these Acts at hand, and the beginning alleged makes me judge that they are not to be sought out with study. There are extant also several sermons on St. Matthew, but such as contribute nothing to the examining or narrating of his deeds. Three Sermons of this kind St. Peter Damian has in tom. 2 of his Works.

[16] The Latin writers of later centuries who have wished to narrate the deeds of St. Matthew more recent writers on the deeds of St. Matthew. have drawn nearly everything from the Acts to be published in the first place, which are certainly more ancient than probable. Vincent of Beauvais gives them almost entire in the Speculum, lib. 9 chap. 74 and following. James of Genoa, chap. 135, drew everything from the same Acts except what he added by way of reasoning about the Saint's virtues. The same Acts again Peter de Natalibus generally follows, lib. 8 chap. 100; yet he does not cling to the Acts so closely as not now and then to add something or to change it according to what he had read elsewhere. Baronius in the Annotations to the Martyrology reckons two writers of his own time on St. Matthew in these words: Perionius lately composed other things — namely Acts. But most recently the Reverend Lord Mark Anthony Colonna, archbishop of Salerno, gathered them from ancient monuments and the writings of the holy Fathers, and indeed with real learning. Both had the first Acts before their eyes and followed them without scruple: or rather Perionius gave the very Acts of pseudo-Abdias, only a very few things being omitted and a few added at the beginning, according as he perhaps found the Acts in some codex: for in the edition of the History of the Apostles which John Faber gave in the year 1571 also, not a few things are omitted which are read in most codices. The most illustrious Colonna gathered his materials from every side without sufficient criticism, which may be pardoned to his age. Yet he seems to have preferred to the other Acts the History of the counterfeit Abdias, to which he joined some things from Metaphrastes and more from the Greek Acts, or from the epitome of Nicephorus. Yet he gave better things too from the sacred Scriptures and the Fathers. I shall therefore examine, and now and then commend, the assertions of Colonna, as also those of Baronius in the Annals, of Tillemont in the Monuments of the Church, tom. 1, and of other more recent writers who profess a more accurate criticism.

[17] The aforesaid archbishop Colonna not only published a Commentary on the deeds and martyrdom of St. Matthew, A manuscript History of the Translation, which Marsilius followed, but also narrated the various translations of the body in a discourse more prolix than probable. Baronius doubtless saw that Colonna's account does not hold together, since he was not ignorant of it, and yet inserted nothing from it in his Annals; although at the year 954 he treats, out of Leo of Ostia, and at the year 1080 out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory VII, of the finding and translation of the body. Wherefore by his very silence that most eminent writer declared that the circumstances of places, persons and times which are found in the History of the translations in Colonna were to him suspect of falsehood. I have manuscript Acts, once transmitted from Salerno to our Elders, from which I see that the aforesaid Mark Anthony Colonna Marsilius drew his materials. I could indeed have wished that he had rather chastised them with a severe criticism,

or had altogether cast them aside as improbable. But since he has not done this, I see that it must be done by me in keeping with the plan of our Work. The writing is twofold, the one a little more prolix than the other; but the same facts are related in both. The one which is shorter has this title: A discourse of the venerable Paulinus, bishop of the British city of Léon, on the translation of St. Matthew the apostle from Ethiopia into Britain, and likewise from Britain into Italy. Again, past the middle, this title is read: Miracles of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, by the same Paulinus. In the more prolix one there is a single title at the beginning, thus expressed: Here begins the translation of the Blessed Matthew, apostle and evangelist. In both there is prefixed an epitome of the Acts taken from the History of pseudo-Abdias in such a way that only a very few things, and those no better, have been added or changed.

[18] it labors under very many faults and anachronisms, Then follows a translation from Ethiopia into Britain so ridiculously fabricated that from it alone it is plain that the author was utterly destitute of historical criticism. For, to pass over other improbabilities, the author brings British merchants into Ethiopia and in a few days brings them back into Britain. And among the nations by which he feigns Ethiopia to have been laid waste about the IV century he names the Sarmatians. Both will certainly seem so improbable to any historian in any way skilled in geography, that there is no need to belabor the other plainly ridiculous circumstances of the affair — especially since the author certainly did not live before the X century, nor does he name any ancient witnesses from whose writings he might have drawn his materials. Nay, Paulinus himself, bishop of Léon in Armorican Britain, to whom that writing is attributed, seems a fictitious person, since the Sainte-Marthe brothers, in tom. 2 of the Gallia Christiana, where they give the catalogue of the bishops of Léon, exhibit no Paulinus among them, nor do I find him elsewhere. The chronology is no better than the historical criticism: for he is stated to have died under Galba, that is, in the year of the Christian era 68 or 69. Then the Christian religion is said to have flourished in Ethiopia for three hundred years and more. Presently follows the devastation of the kingdom and the translation, so that this would have to be fixed at the end of the IV century or in the V. And yet the author asserts that the body came into Armorican Britain while Salomon was reigning there, who began to reign after the middle of the IX century according to the chronology of Lobineau in his History of Armorica, at the year 857. Again, he reckons forty-nine years from the translation of the body into Britain to the time when king Salomon was slain by his own people. But the aforesaid Lobineau assigns not twenty whole years to the reign of Salomon.

[19] [and therefore it will not be published: some things nevertheless will be given from it.] Presently the inept patcher-together of fictions brings in Flavius, patrician of the Romans, father-in-law of the slain Salomon, writing about his death to the emperor Valentinian; and he asserts that Valentinian gathered a huge fleet in Italy and put an army aboard it, and thus stormed the kingdom of Britain, and that on that occasion the body was translated into Italy. But how inept these things are, no one will fail to see who considers that the last of the three Valentinians died more than four centuries before Salomon king of Britain. I pass over very many circumstances equally inept, and proceed to the finding of the body, related only in the more prolix writing. It is said to have taken place in the year 954, when Gisulph held the principality of Salerno. This epoch will fall to be confirmed in its place. Meanwhile I give warning that many improbable and inept things are again mingled with the history of the finding. For these causes I have determined to omit that whole History of the translation, as being defiled with six hundred fables or absurdities. Since, however, the later portions appear at least less faulty, because the writer was nearer to them, I shall now and then compare them with other documents and with what is related by the most illustrious Colonna Marsilius, so that in the Commentary the studious reader will find whatever appears tolerable in those writings. Ughelli, tom. 7 of the Italia sacra, among the archbishops of Salerno, treats in various places of the translation and finding of St. Matthew, and much praises the little Work of Marsilius, which was put together out of the manuscripts of which we are speaking. Wherefore we shall studiously endeavor to examine each point in its place out of the writers of the middle age.

§ II. The calling of St. Matthew from the Gospel, with the observations of the Fathers: some controversies pertaining to the Saint.

[ ] The calling of St. Matthew as he sat at the toll-booth near Capharnaum, Very few things about St. Matthew have become known from the Gospel, in which only the Saint's calling with the banquet that followed, and then his election to the Apostolate, are narrated — excepting however some things which are related in general of all the Apostles. Matthew himself in chap. 9, after relating the healing of the paralytic at Capharnaum, narrates his own calling at ℣ 9 in these words: And when Jesus passed on from thence, he saw a man sitting in the custom-house, named Matthew; and he said to him: Follow me. And he arose up and followed him. Mark, chap. 2 ℣ 13, narrates the same in this manner: And (Jesus) went forth again to the sea; and all the multitude came to him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him: Follow me. And rising up, he followed him. Both subjoin those things which were done when Jesus reclined at table in Matthew's house. But it will be enough if we give of that banquet the words of Luke, who in chap. 5 from ℣ 27 speaks thus of the calling and the banquet that followed: And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican named Levi sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him: Follow me. And leaving all things, he rose up and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house; and there was a great company of publicans and of others that were at table with them. And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured, saying to his disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance. Thus far the Evangelists concerning the calling.

[21] Now upon the alleged words of the Evangelists we may observe where Jesus was then dwelling: that St. Matthew was called near the city of Capharnaum by the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, otherwise called in the Scriptures the lake of Genesareth, where the tolls were to be paid. For Mark clearly says at ℣ 1 that Jesus came to Capharnaum, and there healed the paralytic, and then went forth again and called Matthew, or Levi. Matthew, however, says that Jesus came into his own city, where namely he then dwelt, as the same Matthew testifies in chap. 4 ℣ 13 in these words: And when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he retired into Galilee; and leaving the city Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum on the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was said by Isaias the prophet: Land of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people that sat in darkness hath seen great light; and to them that sat in the region of the shadow of death, light is risen. Rightly does Chrysostom, Homily 29 or 30 on Matthew, say of the words alleged: He here calls Capharnaum his own city: for the city which bore him was Bethlehem, that which brought him up, Nazareth; that which had him as inhabitant, Capharnaum. Jesus therefore dwelt at Capharnaum, where Matthew doubtless had often seen him and had heard of many miracles which had been wrought by Jesus partly at Capharnaum and partly in the neighboring places, before he called him, as Chrysostom again observes, Homily 30 or 31. And the observations given, and the healing of the paralytic wrought a little before, show how ineptly Julian and Porphyry objected the calling of Matthew to the Christians as incredible, as St. Jerome rightly notes on the IX chapter of Matthew, where he answers them at length.

[22] the obedience of Matthew in following promptly, Even so, however, nothing is to be taken from the prompt obedience of Matthew, of which the aforesaid Chrysostom reasons thus: As thou hast learned the power of him who calls, so learn the obedience of him who is called. For he did not resist, nor did he say doubtingly: What is this? Does he call a man such as I am by way of guile? For such humility would certainly have been unseasonable. But he obeyed at once: nor did he ask leave to go home, that he might share the matter with his own people, as even the fishermen did: for as they left their nets, their boat, and their father, so he too left the toll-gatherer's table and his gain, that he might follow, showing a mind prepared for all things: and cutting himself off at once from all secular affairs, he testified by a perfect obedience how seasonably he had been called. St. Basil, in the Rules treated at large, question 8, magnifies still more the prompt obedience of him who followed, writing thus: But Matthew, when he rose from the very toll-booth and followed the Lord (taught us:) he who not only left the emoluments of the toll-booth, but also despised the perils which threatened both himself and his kinsmen from the magistrates, because he had left the accounts of the tolls unfinished. An ancient anonymous writer to Præsidius, whose Epistle is found among the Works of St. Jerome in Martianay's edition, tom. 5 col. 146, observes other things also, speaking thus: Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, hears: Follow me. Did he first reckon up his accounts, and returning home suffer the tears of his household, and, anxious about the auction of his estates, was he by no means able to follow the Lord's footsteps unless he first freed himself of the world's burden? Thus indeed this anonymous writer seems, with St. Basil, to hint that accounts were to be rendered by St. Matthew of the money received from the tolls, and that nevertheless he was not solicitous about rendering them. But that observation appears to me as uncertain and as little probable as it has already seemed to others, unless we understand it only of a prompt will to do whatever the Lord should command, since he could know well enough that he would command nothing evil. But as regards the accounts of his office to be rendered to the magistrates, we may conjecture either that Matthew was not obliged to render them, because perhaps his father Alpheus was still living, or, if Matthew was altogether the head of his family and set over the tolls, that the Lord commanded him after his first obedience either to render his accounts quickly or to hand over that charge to another. Certainly the banquet which Matthew set up in his own house for Christ and many publicans abundantly hints that he could easily transfer to others whatever obligation he had contracted from his office.

[23] the humility and candor of one who calls himself a publican. Further, the aforesaid Chrysostom and Jerome observe with praise the candor and humility of St. Matthew, in that he himself confessed in the Gospel that he had been a publican, and used his own more commonly known name, whereas Mark and Luke name him Levi when they write of the calling, but Matthew when they reckon him among the Apostles. If Matthew himself had done the same, and had likewise not named himself a publican in the catalogue of the Apostles, no one afterward could have learned from the Gospel that Matthew had been a publican, or that he was the same as Levi. Let us hear the words of St. Jerome: The other Evangelists, he says, out of respect and honor for Matthew,

were unwilling to call him by his common name, but said Levi: for indeed he had a twofold appellation. But Matthew himself, according to that which is enjoined by Solomon, The just man is his own accuser at the beginning of his discourse, and in another place: Tell thou thy sins, that thou mayest be justified — names himself Matthew and a publican, that he may show his readers that no one ought to despair of salvation if he has turned to better things, since he himself was suddenly changed from a publican into an Apostle. Nearly the same things Chrysostom observes, who adds also what follows: Why moreover did he say that he sat at the receipt of custom? Showing the force of him who called, in that when he had not yet desisted, and was still clinging to that wicked toll-booth, he drew him out of the midst of evils. And presently he declares his mind thus about the office of the publicans: This manner of gain was full of shamelessness and wantonness, an unjust profit and an illiberal trade. Hence St. Gregory, Homily 24 on the Gospels, notes that Peter indeed at one time returned to fishing, but Matthew never to the publican's office, so full of peril. Because it is one thing, he says, to seek a living by fishing, and another to increase one's money by the gains of the toll-booth. For there are many trades which can either scarcely or not at all be carried on without sins. To those things therefore which entangle a man in sin, it is necessary that the mind should not run back after conversion. The aforesaid Gregory, lib. 18 of the Morals on Job, chap. 27, speaks thus of the great change in St. Matthew: Was not Matthew found in the earth, who, entangled in earthly business, served the uses of the toll-booth? But, lifted from the earth, he grew strong into the strength of iron: by whose tongue, as by a most sharp sword, the Lord pierced through the hearts of unbelievers in the administration of the Gospel; and he who before had been weak and despised through earthly business was afterward made strong for heavenly preaching.

[24] What was said above by Jerome about the twofold name of the Apostle, Matthew called by another name Levi, as Origen with others acknowledged. who was called Matthew and Levi — as all have everywhere noted, and as the Gospels most clearly hint — Origen seems to have denied in lib. 1 against Celsus, num. 62, where he has these words: Let there be also Levi the publican, who followed Jesus. But he was not of the number of the Apostles, save according to certain copies of the Gospel according to Mark. The most recent editor of the Works of Origen, Charles Delarue, tom. 1 pag. 376, adds others in the Annotations, writing thus: Levi is distinguished from Matthew also by Heracleon the Valentinian heretic in Clement of Alexandria, 4 Stromata pag. 502, and among more recent writers by Hugo Grotius, a great name among the Calvinists and other heterodox. He premises about Origen that in the preface of his exposition on the Epistle to the Romans he seems to hold Levi and Matthew to be entirely the same man. I subjoin the very words of Origen from the old edition (for we do not yet have tom. 4 of the new). Origen observes that many men had two or three names, and among them he names Matthew, writing thus: For Matthew himself also relates of himself that, when Jesus passed by, he found a certain man sitting at the receipt of custom, named Matthew. But Luke says of the same man that, when Jesus passed by, he saw a certain publican named Levi, and said, Follow me … Now it is certain that the Evangelists did not err in the names of the Apostles; but because it was the custom of the Hebrews to use two or three names, each of them set down different appellations of names for one and the same man. Here Origen not only declares Matthew and Levi to be the same, but also shows him to be the same, since Luke, as also Mark, has related plainly the same thing of Levi which Matthew related of himself. Wherefore, if Origen, when writing against Celsus, really believed Levi to be other than Matthew, he afterward corrected the error by a more frequent use of sacred Scripture. But perhaps Origen brought forward the words alleged only according to the mind or sayings of Celsus, against whom he was disputing about quite another matter. As for Heracleon and Grotius, we shall leave them their improbable opinion, already refuted by various men, and shall pass on to another and more ambiguous controversy.

[25] The Greeks believe that Matthew is the brother of James son of Alpheus, The more recent Greeks, or those who flourished in the middle age, judge that St. Matthew is the brother of St. James the son of Alpheus, the apostle; and they have some of the Fathers favoring them, but some modern scholars resist. Our Henschen at the 1st of May examined the opinion of the Greeks in his treatment of St. James, that is, tom. 1 of May, pag. 19, where in favor of that opinion he cites the Basilian Menology, a very ancient Constantinopolitan Synaxary, the printed Menæa, and various Greek manuscript codices, Nicetas David the Paphlagonian, a writer of the IX century, and others. He shows besides that Chrysostom and Theodoret plainly seem to be of the same opinion, because the former reckons among the Apostles two publicans, Matthew and James, whereas there is no reason why we should say that James the son of Alpheus was a publican, unless because he seems to have been the brother of Matthew; while the latter calls both of them men of Capharnaum, which likewise he could say on no ground unless he had believed him to be the brother of Matthew, who dwelt at Capharnaum: for nowhere in the Scriptures is it said where James the son of Alpheus was born, or what office he bore before the apostolate. Our Papebroch, in tom. VI of May, in his treatment of Alpheus, whom he makes the father of both, at pag. 354 embraced and confirmed the same opinion. The reason of the Greeks is doubtless that James no less than Matthew had Alpheus for father, and that there is no reason for saying that one Alpheus was the father of Matthew and another the father of James. Tillemont, in his Matthew, acknowledges that Chrysostom, Theodoret and all the more recent Greeks conspired in that opinion, believing SS. Matthew and James to be brothers, because both are called "of Alpheus," that is, sons. Yet he asserts with Laconic brevity that in this matter there is no appearance of truth. Tillemont's Laconism Calmet adopted at the beginning of his preface on Matthew, saying plainly the same things, and citing in exactly the same manner a place of our Work faultily cited in Tillemont, so that he does not even seem to have read Henschen's arguments in our Work.

[26] nor do they believe it without a suitable reason, If I say with the same brevity that that criticism of Tillemont's, which Calmet adopted, is inept, no one will be able to take it ill; for as the opinion of our Elders seemed to him to lack an appearance of truth, so to me that assertion seems destitute of all reason, and therefore most inept. Yet I would not merely assert and prove nothing. Wherefore I briefly explain the reasons, to be seen at greater length in the places named above. Tillemont admits that St. Matthew has the surname "of Alpheus" probably from his father. But James in all four catalogues of the Apostles, that is, Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, and Acts 1, is constantly named James of Alpheus, nor is he ever in the sacred Scriptures designated by another name. I should like to know whence James so constantly has the name of Alpheus, if not from his father. Certainly no suitable reason will be given except this. And now I note that the name of Alpheus is nowhere found in the sacred Scriptures except where Matthew or James is treated of, so that we can by no means say that the name was common to many; and for this cause it is so much the more probable that the Alpheus who was the father of Matthew and of James was the same, as all the Greeks judge after Chrysostom and Theodoret. That reason drawn from the surname of both ought certainly not to have seemed so feeble to Tillemont, who chose to use the same in Note 2 on St. Jude of James, or Thaddeus, where he argues against Chrysostom, who distinguishes between St. Jude Thaddeus the apostle and Jude the brother of James the Less. If in that place the argument seemed suitable and of the highest moment, where nevertheless it had no force, because it was applied to the inquiry after a brother, it ought not here to seem lacking in appearance of truth, when it is applied to investigating the common father of both: for the father is wont to be signified by such surnames placed in the genitive, as Simon of John, that is, son of John; James of Zebedee, that is, son of Zebedee; not the brother — or at any rate Tillemont has produced no example of a brother indicated by such a surname.

[27] Therefore the argument ought by no means to seem contemptible: so that that opinion seems highly probable, nor do I believe that it seemed so to Tillemont. But he had another reason for denying that Matthew and James of Alpheus were brothers, and this, as I judge, he was unwilling to indicate. He had maintained, against the authority of most of the Fathers and against arguments of sacred Scripture which seem clear enough, that James of Alpheus is the same as James the brother of the Lord. Wherefore, since it is certain that Matthew is not the brother of James the brother of the Lord, he could no longer say that he was the brother of James of Alpheus; and therefore he preferred contemptuously to cast aside Henschen's arguments rather than to satisfy them by a difficult answer. But that question, both for this cause and on account of St. Cleophas, who is connected with it, I have examined in the Preliminary Dissertation, and I believe that I have sufficiently shown that Tillemont's opinion can neither be reconciled with the sacred Scriptures nor is certainly other than contrary to the Fathers, so that plainly nothing can be drawn from it against the brotherhood of Matthew and James. I seek therefore a suitable reason why Matthew and James of Alpheus cannot be brothers, and I find absolutely none. For since Matthew set up a banquet for Christ, at which the Lord deigned to be present along with many publicans, it is probable enough that some of the guests were converted and drawn to the discipleship of Christ, and by name that James of Alpheus followed him on that occasion. To the Pharisees murmuring about that banquet Christ answered, I came not to call the just, but sinners. Why therefore may we not suspect that at that banquet, or on occasion of it, James of Alpheus was called, who in the Catalogue of the Apostles in Matthew 10 follows immediately after Matthew, as also happens in Acts 1? In the two other catalogues Thomas alone is set between them. Thus everywhere in the catalogues of the Apostles James of Alpheus follows not long after Matthew, so that it becomes most probable that James was called by Christ to follow him not long after Matthew.

[28] Perhaps someone will say that Matthew and James of Alpheus are nowhere in the Gospel called brothers, and rejected without any argument by some moderns. as Peter and Andrew, John and James are now and then called brothers. But this cannot be objected by Tillemont and Calmet, nor by any who call James of Alpheus the brother of Jude Thaddeus. For if they believe that these could be brothers, even though in the Catalogues of the Apostles they are never called brothers, they will deny the same without warrant of Matthew and James of Alpheus. Nay, there will not be lacking a reason why the Evangelists might have omitted their brotherhood. For Matthew was known from his own Gospel as a publican. Wherefore if the Evangelists had called James of Alpheus the brother of Matthew, they would at the same time have hinted that he was a publican, or at least the brother of a publican. But, as Chrysostom and Jerome observed, Mark and Luke, when they narrate Matthew's calling, call him Levi, lest they should indicate that Matthew

had been a publican. Why therefore could not all of them have been equally solicitous for the honor of St. James of Alpheus, and therefore have kept silence that he was the brother of a publican? The opinion therefore of Chrysostom, of Theodoret and of the whole Greek church appears to me highly likely and probable, both because it rests on a solid argument drawn from the surname "of Alpheus" borne by each Apostle, and because it suffers no difficulties. Calmet indeed in his Biblical Dictionary posits two Alpheuses, one the father of St. Matthew, the other the father of St. James of Alpheus, and he would have the latter called by another name Cleophas. But I answer that there is no necessity of positing two Alpheuses, or of saying that Cleophas was called by another name Alpheus, except for those who against the holy Fathers confound James of Alpheus with James the Brother of the Lord; and that I in no way doubt that they would at once acknowledge that Matthew and James of Alpheus seem brothers, if they did not wish the latter to be the Brother of the Lord.

[29] Matthew seems to have been called seventh or eighth among the Apostles. The year and month in which St. Matthew's calling took place I do not inquire into, lest I be forced to handle other questions. Of the order alone in which he was called among the twelve it pleases me to say a few things. St. Matthew was not called among the first: for certainly Andrew, Peter, James, John, Philip and Nathanael or Bartholomew had preceded, who in all the catalogues of the Apostles also are reckoned before Matthew. Of Thomas it may be doubted whether he was reckoned among the disciples of Christ before or after Matthew. Matthew himself sets Thomas before himself, and in Acts 1 Thomas is set not only before Matthew but even before Bartholomew. But in Mark and Luke, in the Gospels, Thomas follows Matthew. Therefore, since the calling of Thomas is not set forth in the Gospels, and since he is now set before and now after Matthew, it is plainly doubtful and uncertain which of them was called first. But the remaining four, namely James of Alpheus, Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Chananæan, and Judas Iscariot the traitor, since they are constantly reckoned in all the catalogues after Matthew, were also probably called after him, so that Matthew seems to have been the seventh or eighth among the twelve Apostles: for in two catalogues he is placed seventh, in the other two eighth. Further, the election of the twelve Apostles is related by three Evangelists not long after the calling of Matthew, the calling of the four latter being passed over, as also that of Thomas. Then nothing particular about St. Matthew is narrated in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles. Various things, however, are related of all the Apostles in general — namely, that Christ endowed them with the power of expelling demons and healing the sick, and, having furnished them with excellent admonitions, sent them to preach throughout Judæa; that they were with Christ at the last supper, and went out to the country place of Gethsemani, and then, when he was taken, fled; that they saw Christ at various times after the resurrection, and at last beheld him ascending into heaven; that with one mind they persevered in prayer with Mary the Mother of God and certain others, where also Matthias was substituted for Judas, until in the same place they received the Holy Spirit. These things are certainly narrated of the Apostles in general, and are true of St. Matthew. So too it seems to be narrated of all the Apostles in Acts 5 that they were cast into prison by the prince of the priests, but led out by an angel; and again taken and beaten, and so dismissed. After which is subjoined at ℣ 41: And they (the Apostles) indeed went from the presence of the council rejoicing, that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple and from house to house to teach and preach Christ Jesus. I pass over other things said less certainly of them all.

§ III. The writing of the Gospel: matters pertaining to it are examined.

[ ] Matthew first wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, Concerning the Gospel written by St. Matthew before he departed from Judæa, being about to preach to other nations also, Eusebius, lib. 3 chap. 24, speaks thus: Matthew, when he had first preached the faith among the Hebrews, being about to set out thence to other nations also, wrote his Gospel in his native tongue, and thus by writing supplied to those whom he was leaving what seemed still to be wanting from his presence. By the words alleged Eusebius hints that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue, such as was then in use among the Jews — not indeed the pure and ancient one, but somewhat corrupted from the Chaldee and the Syriac, as others have already observed. He hints besides that Matthew wrote first of all the Evangelists; for he presently adds that afterward Mark and Luke wrote, and at last John. Then in chap. 38 he alleges these words of Papias, who had lived with the disciples of the Apostles, about St. Matthew: Matthew indeed, he says, wrote the divine oracles in the Hebrew tongue: and each man interpreted them as he was able. The words of St. Irenæus the aforesaid Eusebius adduces, lib. 5 chap. 8, about Matthew in this manner: Matthew, he says, published among the Hebrews a Gospel written in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. The words given are read in Irenæus, lib. 3 against Heresies, chap. 1, where likewise it is hinted that Matthew was first among the Evangelists; although in other respects they are not without some difficulty as to the time at which the Gospel was written by Matthew, as we shall see later. Eusebius, lib. 6 chap. 25, adduces also the words of Origen, saying from tradition that the first Gospel, namely, was written by Matthew, … who published it, written in the Hebrew tongue, for the Jews converted to the faith.

[31] St. Jerome in his Catalogue of ecclesiastical Writers has this about St. Matthew: as the holy Fathers hand down by common consent: Matthew, who is also Levi, an apostle from a publican, first in Judæa, for the sake of those who had believed from the Circumcision (that is, from the Jews), composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. Who afterward translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. Moreover the Hebrew text itself is preserved to this day in the library of Cæsarea, which Pamphilus the martyr most studiously put together. I too had the opportunity of copying it from the Nazarenes, who use this volume in the city of Berœa in Syria. In which it is to be noted that, wherever the Evangelist, whether in his own person or in the person of the Lord and Savior, makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but the Hebrew. Of which are these: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son." And: "For he shall be called a Nazarene." Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Matthew, writes this of the same matters: It is related, moreover, that Matthew, when the Jews who had believed came to him and asked it, left with them in writing the things which he had delivered in words, and wrote the Gospel in Hebrew. The same writer in Homily 4 notes that Matthew wrote first of the Evangelists. St. Augustine, lib. 1 on the Agreement of the Evangelists, chap. 2, agrees with the rest that the Gospel was written first by Matthew, and of the tongue in which he wrote it says: Of these four, Matthew alone is reported to have written in the Hebrew speech. Passing over others who affirm the same, I add only the words of St. Epiphanius, Heresy 51 chap. 5, writing thus: Matthew therefore first obtained the province of writing the Gospel, as we have said; and this befell him by right and merit. For it was fitting that he who had come to procure salvation for the human race, and who had said thus: "I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance," should, for the example of those who were to be saved, lay the office of preaching salvation especially upon that man who had been converted from innumerable sins and raised up from the toll-booth, and had called himself back from every crime and injustice; that from him mortals might learn how great a kindness had been conferred upon them by the coming of Christ … This Matthew therefore wrote and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, etc.

[32] which nevertheless some heterodox have denied as regards the Hebrew tongue. That the Gospel was written by Matthew, and indeed before the other Evangelists wrote, all have so agreed, at least in the later centuries, that it is not necessary to say more of it. But however great also is the authority and antiquity of the Fathers who agree that it was written in the Hebrew tongue, there have been some heterodox who did not hesitate to attack that so common opinion of the Fathers, and preferred to judge that the Gospel was rather written in Greek by Matthew. Among these is Samuel Basnage, who in the Politico-ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of the Lord 64, num. 13, confesses the consent of the ancients in these words: Great is the conspiracy of all the ancients that Matthew's Gospel was published in the Hebrew tongue. Then he subjoins: Which tradition, still pleasing to a good many learned men, is certainly not heard by us with unbiased ears. Basnage therefore confesses that what pleased all antiquity is not heard by him even with unbiased ears. Let us hear on this matter the judgment of another heterodox writer, namely William Cave, in his Literary History, cent. 1 pag. 6, on St. Matthew. And indeed that he wrote his evangelical History in Hebrew, he says, the ancients hand down with truly wonderful consent, so that it is impious to gainsay the testimony of almost all antiquity in this matter. But I shall not weigh how great is the rashness of departing from all sacred antiquity, since I know that the heterodox are wont to do so in matters far graver; but I shall only examine whether Basnage's reasons are such as are fitted to inspire a prudent doubt: while others who before or after Basnage rejected in like manner the ancient opinion of the holy Fathers I shall leave altogether unnamed, lest the disputation become more prolix than is necessary, and because I have not the Works of all of them at hand.

[33] The authority of Papias in this matter is not to be despised, Receive then, reader, the objections of Basnage: The source, he says, of this tradition is Papias, a writer of very slender wit and credulous … Report also holds that Pantænus found in India the Gospel of Matthew, which Bartholomew had left written in Hebrew letters, "which is related to have been preserved down to the aforesaid times." It pleased Jerome to arm that tradition with embellishments unknown to Eusebius: "Pantænus," he says, "returning to Alexandria, brought back with him the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew letters." Thus Basnage, out of his reverence — not to say his foolish self-assurance — toward the holy Fathers. He hints that all the Fathers were drawn into error by Papias, and calls Papias a writer of very slender wit, so as to suggest that he too could easily have erred in that matter. But Papias, who lived with the disciples of the Apostles and was wont to inquire of them what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, what James, what John, what Matthew, what the rest of the Lord's Disciples were wont to say, as he himself speaks in Eusebius, lib. 3 chap. 38, had at least wit enough to ask in what tongue Matthew had written his Gospel, and honesty and judgment enough to relate it as he had understood it from the disciples of the Apostles. Truly, if Basnage believed that great wit was needed for a man about the end of the first century — a man who had conversed not seldom with the disciples of the Apostles, and now and then even with the daughters of Philip — to know in what tongue St. Matthew had used in writing, whether Hebrew or Greek, which Papias himself used, he will deservedly seem of far slenderer judgment than Papias was of wit. Wherefore the authority of Papias is by no means to be despised

in a matter of such easy knowledge, but is rather to be esteemed most highly on account of the man's antiquity, especially since no one contradicted him: for there were not lacking other ecclesiastical writers who could have contradicted, if he had said what was false. Yet even so we ought not to judge that everything which the Fathers handed down about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew flowed from the testimony of Papias alone, as I shall show below.

[34] But first I shall clear up the argument drawn from the Gospel found by Pantænus. nor yet is it to be said that all the Fathers drew from that source. Pantænus flourished with a notable reputation for learning, and presided over the Alexandrian school at the beginning of the III century. Eusebius, lib. 5 chap. 10, says that he set out for the Indians, and there found the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew letters, left there by St. Bartholomew the apostle. But he does not add that it was carried to Alexandria by Pantænus on his return; he only says: Which indeed is related to have been preserved down to the aforesaid times, that is, to the times of Pantænus. St. Jerome, in the Catalogue of Writers, chap. 36, asserted somewhat more when he wrote of Pantænus: Which, written in Hebrew letters, he brought back with him on his return to Alexandria. These embellishments of Jerome's, unknown to Eusebius, that most modest Basnage calls them. But I do not see why Jerome could not have known somewhat more of these matters than had been written by Eusebius. Certainly it is highly probable that the Hebrew Gospel was not left in India by Pantænus but carried to Alexandria; and that Jerome learned this either from the Commentaries of Pantænus himself or from elsewhere. And from whatever source the holy Doctor understood it, he was of such integrity that we ought to give credit to him when he speaks, and only by the utmost impudence could we say that this was invented by Jerome. Now if Pantænus found in India the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew letters, as Eusebius and Jerome agree, then it had been written in Hebrew by Matthew, as the Fathers affirm by common consent.

[35] But for many reasons, Basnage rejoins, that tradition of the ancients does not obtain credit from us. The objections of Samuel Basnage are given in summary: Let us therefore examine the reasons. First of all, he says, there is none of the Fathers who assuredly and with certainty testifies that he has handled with hands or eyes that Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which nevertheless, copied out by the Hebrew Christians for reading, would have been scattered in every place where men knew Hebrew. This is Basnage's first argument. He objects secondly that in emending the Latin text of the Gospels St. Jerome was guided not by a Hebrew copy of Matthew but by a Greek one. Thirdly, he proves at length that the Greek tongue was more common and used by far more nations than the Hebrew, and thence strives to infer that Matthew ought rather to have written in Greek than in Hebrew, since the Apostles were commanded to teach all nations. Fourthly he observes that Matthew seems to have used the tongue then in use among the Jews, not the old and pure tongue, if he wrote in Hebrew. He suspects, however, that the Fathers were thinking of the pure Hebrew tongue. From which it is understood, he says, that in the testimony of the ancients on that matter there is not much support. Fifthly he suspects that the Fathers were deceived by the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and that it was taken by them for the authentic Gospel of Matthew. Sixthly and last he says that Matthew's autograph would have been most diligently guarded by the church of Jerusalem, if Matthew had written in Hebrew for the sake of the Jews; but that nothing was preserved except the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and this he suspects to have been nothing but an ancient version made from the Greek text of Matthew. These are the reasons, or the imaginations, of Basnage, who does not hesitate frequently to accuse the Fathers of error, that he may procure some probability for his dreams. Let us therefore see whether Basnage's acuteness was so great that he could himself perceive many things which had not come into the minds of the most learned Fathers, far nearer in place and time to the matters disputed; and let us set about discussing his arguments, which for brevity's sake I have proposed only in summary.

[36] answer is made to the first four. I answer therefore that Basnage's first argument is absolutely false: for St. Jerome, cited at num. 31 and presently to be cited more fully, testifies that he saw the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew and translated it, and affirms the same, that it was of use to Origen and was seen by Pantænus. Receive, studious reader, another passage from St. Jerome, from the Epistle to Damasus on the Two Sons (which was formerly the 146th, and in the Verona edition is the 21st): Finally Matthew, he says, who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew Speech, put it thus: Osanna barama, that is, Hosanna in the highest. How does he recite Hebrew words of Matthew, if he had not seen his Hebrew Gospel? To the second I answer that St. Jerome did not correct the Latin text from the Hebrew but from the Greek, because he was less certain of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew text than of the Greek. To the third I say that in Matthew's time the Greek tongue was indeed more in use in the world than the Hebrew; but that the Hebrew was the tongue of the Jews. Wherefore, since Christ the Lord willed that the Apostles should first preach the faith to the Jews and then to the nations, as in fact they did, it was fitting that the first Gospel should be written for the sake of the Jews, and consequently in that tongue which all understood, at any rate in Judæa. What he says fourthly, irreverently against the Fathers, is certainly false as regards Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, Pantænus, Papias and Eusebius, who were not ignorant, nor could be ignorant, what tongue the Jews used when St. Matthew wrote the Gospel. Nay, none of the Fathers, I think, judged that Matthew used any other Hebrew tongue than the one in use in his own time. But what Basnage next objects, fifthly and sixthly, about the Gospel of the Nazarenes, must be explained a little more at length, because it belongs to our purpose, and in that exposition I shall answer other doubts as well.

[37] St. Jerome believed the Gospel which the Nazarenes used Of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which elsewhere he calls the Gospel according to the Hebrews, St. Jerome speaks not seldom, and adduces from it in various places various things which are not read in the common Gospel of Matthew. Nevertheless there seems to be no doubt that St. Jerome judged that the Gospel of the Nazarenes, or of the Hebrews, had been written by St. Matthew, but had been in some measure corrupted by them. In the Catalogue of Writers, chap. 2, he cites it in these words: The Gospel also which is called according to the Hebrews, and was lately translated by me into the Greek and Latin tongue, which Origen too often uses, etc. Jerome could not but know it excellently well, if he had turned it into the Greek and Latin tongue, as he affirms. And presently, in chap. 3, on Matthew, he is not speaking of another Gospel when he says: Moreover the Hebrew text itself (of Matthew) is preserved to this day in the library of Cæsarea … I too had the opportunity of copying it from the Nazarenes, who use this volume in the city of Berœa in Syria. Here he calls "the Hebrew of Matthew" what above he affirms to be "according to the Hebrews," and likewise the Nazarenes'. This is clear from what he has in other places. For in lib. 3 against the Pelagians, near the beginning, he speaks thus: In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac speech but in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to this day, according to the Apostles, or, as very many judge, according to Matthew; which is also preserved in the library of Cæsarea, etc. The assertion about the library of Cæsarea clearly hints that this is the very one which above he calls the Hebrew of Matthew.

[38] Again, on chapter 12 of Matthew, he cites the same Gospel thus: to be the Hebrew text of Matthew, but not pure or uncorrupted; In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use (which we lately translated into Greek out of the Hebrew speech, and which is called by very many the authentic Gospel of Matthew, etc.). Since here he testifies to his own translation, it is clear that he is again speaking of the same Gospel. He says that he translated that very one, on chapter 7 of Micah, where he calls it the Gospel published according to the Hebrews. Finally, on chapter 7 of Isaiah, in the same place, Jerome clearly hints at his own mind when he writes thus: According to the Gospel which the Nazarenes read, written in the Hebrew speech, "There shall descend upon him (Christ) the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit." And presently: In the same volume of Matthew we read that which is written in what follows: "Behold my Servant, whom I have chosen," etc. Here he most openly calls the same Gospel which the Nazarenes read "the volume of Matthew." Therefore the mind of St. Jerome is established, who held the Gospel which the Nazarenes used, and which elsewhere he calls the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to be St. Matthew's own Hebrew Gospel, but not the pure one, as we shall presently see.

[39] The opinion of St. Epiphanius is no other than Jerome's. the same was the opinion of St. Epiphanius: For in Heresy 29, which is that of the Nazarenes, chap. 9, he has this: There is among them (the Nazarenes) the Gospel according to Matthew written in Hebrew, and indeed most complete. For most certainly they preserve it to the present time just as it was at first written in Hebrew letters. On these words it is to be noted that St. Epiphanius does not call that Gospel most complete, or fullest (as his Greek words sound), because he judged that no corruption at all had crept into it, but because he believed that the copies of the Nazarenes were less corrupted than those of the other heretics. For presently he subjoins these words: But this I do not know, whether they have cut away those genealogies which are carried from Abraham down to Christ. And such a doubt clearly hints that the Nazarenes too were suspected by Epiphanius of a corruption introduced into the Gospel of Matthew — less, however, than the Ebionites or other heretics, who had corrupted the same more. The aforesaid Epiphanius had said in chap. 7 that the sect of the Nazarenes flourished chiefly in the city of Berœa. Whence I gather that that very Hebrew copy of which he speaks was transcribed by Jerome and endowed with a Greek and Latin dress: for Jerome had received his own at Berœa from the Nazarenes. Again Epiphanius, in Heresy 30, which is that of the Ebionites, chap. 3, affirms that these too used the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and indeed it alone, like the Cerinthians or Merinthians, and that they called it "according to the Hebrews." Then in chap. 13 he speaks thus of the greater corruption of that Gospel among them: Therefore in the Gospel of Matthew which is among them — although they do not have it entire, but adulterated and mutilated, and this very one they call the Hebrew — it is thus written, etc. Thus far Epiphanius, from whose words it is manifest that he did not doubt that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was preserved among the Nazarenes, but held it suspect of some corruption, just as he certainly knew that of the Ebionites to be most corrupt.

[40] to whom Basnage arrogantly and foolishly opposes himself, Likewise St. Jerome, although he not seldom cites the Gospel of the Nazarenes, never yet attributed to it so great authority as to the Greek or Latin text received by the Church. He himself hints this in lib. 3 against the Pelagians, where he alleges some things from that Gospel and a certain passage of St. Ignatius the martyr, and presently subjoins: If you do not use these testimonies for authority, use them at least for antiquity, as to what all ecclesiastical men have thought. For this cause St. Jerome, when, at the bidding of the holy Pope Damasus, he corrected the Latin text of the four

Gospels for correction, he did not use any Hebrew copy, since he knew none sufficiently uncorrupted; but ancient Greek codices, as he himself writes to Damasus. In the same preface to Damasus, however, he teaches that Matthew used Hebrew letters, writing thus: I speak now of the new Testament: which there is no doubt is Greek, excepting the apostle Matthew, who first in Judæa published the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. Now let the studious reader judge of Basnage's reasonings and of his assertions in reasoning. St. Jerome saw the Hebrew Gospel which the Nazarenes used, and rendered it in Greek and Latin, and after so exact an examination judged with St. Epiphanius that it was Matthew's own Hebrew Gospel, but corrupted in some places, and therefore lacking due authority; while Basnage, who never saw it, contends that that Gospel was a mere version from the Greek text of Matthew — this, I say, he contends against the authority of all the Fathers, and without the testimony of any ancient writer. I truly do not grasp with what judgment he could conceive it, with what effrontery he dared to publish it; since he all but openly pronounces that he could judge better of a Gospel never seen than the most learned Jerome could of the same, often read through and collated with Greek and Latin copies.

[41] supported by no reasons whatever. Lest, however, Basnage should seem to have alleged nothing from the ancients, he adduces a passage from Epiphanius, Heresy 30 chap. 3, to prove that the New Testament was rendered into Hebrew from the Greek. I shall bring forward the whole passage, of which he recited the middle, that the reader may see that this very passage is most contrary to Basnage. For, says Epiphanius, we can truly affirm this, that of all the writers of the New Testament Matthew alone wove the Evangelical history in Hebrew and in Hebrew letters. Nor have there been lacking those who affirmed of John's Gospel that it, translated into Hebrew, is kept at Tiberias in the treasuries of the Jews, and stored in certain more secret inner chambers: which some who had passed over from Judaism to the faith of Christ declared to me most accurately. Nay, it has become widely spread in the talk of many that the Acts of the Apostles likewise, turned from Greek into the Hebrew speech, are kept in the same treasuries: and those who told us these things took thence the occasion of embracing the Christian faith. Thus Epiphanius. And from that passage Basnage ought to have learned that the Fathers distinguished between the books first written in Hebrew and those which were rendered into Hebrew from the Greek; and that they are far too accurate in narrating facts for their authority to be rashly cast aside. For to infer from the passage alleged that the Gospel of Matthew too was rendered into Hebrew from the Greek is the part of a madman rather than of one who reasons. Such too is what he adds, that the tradition of the Gospel's having been written in Hebrew arose from a most ancient Hebrew version: for unless we are willing to despise all the Fathers with an intolerable arrogance, we shall not even be able to suspect that all were so far deceived that neither could the most ancient, and nearest to the times of the Apostles, know in what tongue Matthew used in writing, nor could the most learned of them, and those most skilled in the Hebrew tongue (such as Jerome and Origen certainly were, and Epiphanius too), be able to detect that the Hebrew Gospel which the Nazarenes had was struck off from the Greek of Matthew. But more than enough of Basnage's absurdities.

[42] Of the year in which St. Matthew wrote the Gospel The Saint wrote the Gospel before he went far from Judæa, nothing certain is brought forward. This, however, is certain, that he wrote first of all the Evangelists, and composed the Gospel before he departed from Judæa to preach to other nations. St. Irenæus, lib. 3 against Heresies chap. 1, seems to fix the writing of the Gospels later than the rest of the Fathers do, unless perhaps his words can be expounded in another sense. The Latin translation in the most recent edition has it thus: So Matthew among the Hebrews published a writing of the Gospel in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. Irenæus will certainly be contrary to all the Fathers, if he is to be so explained that Matthew wrote at the same time at which Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome. But I suspect that Irenæus did not wish to indicate this, but only to hint who were the authors of the Gospels and who of the tradition of the Roman Church, and for that cause spoke thus. Certainly in that book he refutes the heretics first from the tradition of the Roman Church, of which he makes Peter and Paul the authors; and from the Scriptures of the New Testament, of which he names first the Gospel of Matthew. And indeed the Greek text is not necessarily to be expounded in the sense that the Gospel is said to have been written at exactly the same time at which Peter and Paul preached at Rome. I subjoin the words with a literal explanation: ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ηεβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Matthew indeed among the Hebrews brought forth a Scripture of the Gospel in their own tongue, Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. These words can easily be so understood that St. Irenæus did not mean to say that both were done at the same time. But I gladly confess that the words of Irenæus which presently follow concerning the other Evangelists can be expounded with more difficulty: for he seems to say that they all wrote after the death of SS. Peter and Paul, unless the text be corrupt, as Tillemont suspects, tom. 2, Note 3 on St. Mark. However that may be, if such is St. Irenæus' opinion as it appears, I should prefer to believe that he attended less to the exact chronology of all these matters, because that contributed little to his purpose, than to the things themselves which he had set before him; and thus reverently to depart from him rather than from all the rest.

[43] and before the division of the Apostles, but in an uncertain year. Baronius in the Annals refers the writing of Matthew's Gospel to the year of Christ 41; but since he reckons that the third of the emperor Caius, by the chronology of Pagi and others the thirty-ninth year of the Christian era is designated. Baronius cites for the designated third year of Caius the Chronicle of Eusebius, in which it is so read, as it had been published in Latin before Baronius. But, as Tillemont observed, this is not read in the Greek edition, nor in Scaliger's Latin, nor even in the manuscript Latin Chronicle of Eusebius which is preserved in our Museum. Wherefore it may at least be doubted whether Eusebius ever wrote this about Matthew's Gospel, or even his translator Jerome; and consequently it is much more uncertain still whether it was written in that year. Tillemont, tom. 1, in the chronological Index, fixes both the dispersion of the Apostles and the Gospel of Matthew about the year 36. Others prefer to confess that the year is uncertain, inasmuch as the year of the division of the Apostles cannot be assigned by certain arguments. With us, at the XV of July, the Division of the Apostles has been treated, and there it was fixed at the fortieth year of the common era according to the chronology of our Henschen, by which the death of Christ the Lord is fixed under the consulate of the two Gemini, that is, in the XXIX year of the common era, so that the division of the Apostles is placed in the twelfth year after Christ's Ascension. What has been said on the Division of the Apostles may be consulted, and the Diatribe of Henschen before tom. 1 of April: for this place does not require that I repeat what has been disputed elsewhere. Let it suffice to have said that about the same time the Gospel was written by Matthew, or a little before, before the Apostles had been separated.

[44] It was rendered into Greek in the time of the Apostles, Further, it is equally uncertain who was the first Greek translator of the Gospel according to Matthew. In the Synopsis commonly attributed to St. Athanasius, tom. 2 of the Works of St. Athanasius in Montfaucon's edition, pag. 202, these things are read: The Gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew himself in the Hebrew dialect, and published at Jerusalem, and was translated by James the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, who was also appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the holy Apostles. This opinion does not please Tillemont, Note 2 on Matthew. First he says that this is read only in an addition appended to the Synopsis. But he alleges no reason why he judges that it is not a part of the same Synopsis: nor do I find any in Montfaucon. Secondly he says that the Greek word ἡρμηνεύθη can be expounded equally of a bare explanation as of a translation into another language. That this is truly said of the Greek word I gladly acknowledge; but since all the circumstances and what follows a little after show that a translation into the Greek language is meant, that objection is not well founded, nor is the suspicion just that the word is here so to be understood: for the same word frequently recurs of translation into another language, and of that alone is there question in that place. Thirdly Tillemont says: St. James, to whom the care of the Jews of Jerusalem had been committed, was of all the Apostles the one who had the least opportunity and necessity of translating St. Matthew's Gospel into another language. But I do not see which of the Apostles could have discharged that office more opportunely and conveniently. For James remained at Jerusalem; all the Apostles were setting out for other provinces, nor could they know how long they might remain in particular cities or even provinces. But for one dwelling constantly in one city it is more convenient to write or translate a book than for one passing from city to city and perpetually traveling. Therefore that opinion is at least no less probable than that of others, who have attributed the Greek version either to St. John the apostle, or to St. Paul, or to St. Barnabas, or to St. Luke, or to Matthew himself, as Calmet testifies in the preface to Matthew, pag. 26. For the author of the Synopsis, even if perhaps he is not Athanasius, was at least highly learned, and seems older than the patrons of the other opinions. But whoever the translator was, it seems certain that the Greek translation was made in the time of the Apostles.

[45] Theodore the Lector, lib. 2 pag. 557 of Valesius' edition, writes this under Zeno: [and thus was found with the body of St. Barnabas in Cyprus, in the reign of Zeno,] The relics of Barnabas the apostle were found in Cyprus under a carob tree. Upon his breast was the Gospel of Matthew, written out by the hand of Barnabas himself … That Gospel Zeno laid up in the palace, in the shrine of St. Stephen. More of these matters is written by Alexander the Cyprian monk in the Acts of St. Barnabas, published by us at the XI of June. For at pag. 450 St. Barnabas is said to have appeared to Anthemius bishop of Salamis, and to have shown him where his body had been laid with the Gospel of St. Matthew. Some words which St. Barnabas is written to have said to Anthemius I transfer hither: Dig beneath the carob tree: for thou shalt find a cave and a chest, since there my whole body is laid up, and the Gospel written with my own hand, which I received from the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew. And presently the finding of the body is related, and of the Gospel it is added: They found also the Gospel placed upon the breast of Barnabas. And then, when Anthemius had set forth the matter to the emperor Zeno, and had obtained that Cyprus

should not be subject to the patriarch of Antioch, Zeno in turn requested that the Gospel of Matthew which had been found should be sent to him. The bishop assented to his request, says Alexander, num. 44, and sent one of those whom he had with him (at Constantinople) together with the emperor's most faithful minister, and these brought that Gospel to the city of Constantinople. Now the leaves of the book were composed of thyine wood. That Gospel the emperor took into his hands and kissed, and, having adorned it with much gold, laid it up in his own palace, where it is preserved to the present day; and on the great fifth day of the Pasch every year the Gospel is recited from that book in the oratory of the palace. This reading demonstrates that that copy was written in Greek, since the Greek tongue alone was current at Constantinople; and from this it is confirmed that the Greek version was made in the time of the Apostles.

[46] Our Papebroch, in the Annotations to the words just given of the appearing Barnabas, observes the following: Papebroch's conjecture about the Greek translation: The native sense of the words seems to be that Barnabas took down with his own hand from the mouth of St. Matthew himself the Gospel first published in Hebrew, while Matthew dictated it in Greek, and carried it away with him — as St. Bartholomew also is said to have done (namely, with the Hebrew), and perhaps several others, at one and the same tenor and time, without any difference; which difference would have to be found if each had made a version for himself on his own authority — of which difference there exists nowhere any indication. And hence it may have come about that some made James, others John, others even Luke or Paul the translator, according, that is, as each church read the Gospel from the autograph of this or that Apostle. This conjecture appears probable indeed, especially since the Apostles do not seem to have set out for distant provinces before Matthew's Gospel was written, so that it can scarcely be doubted that each of them carried with him some copy of that Gospel. And since not a few of them were setting out for provinces in which the Greek tongue alone was in use, it is most probable that they took a Greek copy rather than a Hebrew, as is established of Barnabas, so that they might be able to give it to be read and copied in the churches they were founding. Yet these are only conjectures; nor can anything certain be brought forward concerning uncertain matters.

[47] the words of Papias are expounded. Indeed the words of Papias given at num. 30 also seem contrary to the said conjectures, if they are to be understood in the sense in which they are commonly expounded. Matthew indeed, he says, wrote the divine oracles in the Hebrew tongue: and each man interpreted them as he was able. These words I see expounded by various men as though Papias had said that each man according to his own ability attempted a Greek translation. But that exposition of Papias' words seems to me by no means necessary, nay not even sufficiently probable: for the word each only hints at the number of interpreters, so that it does not become probable that Papias was speaking of an interpretation of the whole Gospel, or of a translation into the Greek language. Wherefore he only says that the divine Oracles were handed down in writing by Matthew, but were expounded by others, according to each man's capacity, in word or in writing. Therefore he seems in no way to be speaking of a translation of the Gospel into the Greek language, but either only of the preaching of the Gospel, or of the exposition of the more difficult things which occurred in Matthew's Gospel. That each of the teachers did this we readily believe: but that each wished according to his own ability to make Matthew's Gospel Greek is neither probable, nor does Papias say it. The exposition of the moderns alone attributes that opinion to Papias, although the Greek word ἡρμήνεύσε, he interpreted, by no means requires that exposition, but rather refuses it on account of the circumstances. It must therefore be certain that the Greek version was made in the time of the Apostles; and that one alone was approved, since no one has made mention of several. The rest of the matters pertaining to Matthew's Gospel I leave to the interpreters of sacred Scripture to examine.

§ IV. The preaching and Martyrdom of St. Matthew.

[ ] [The assertions of Nicetas about the bodily weakness of St. Matthew do not seem to be admitted:] Of the preaching of the Gospel in Judæa, before the Apostles departed into the provinces assigned to them, there is no doubt. Nicetas the Paphlagonian, in the encomiastic Oration in Combefis, pag. 404, shows that little or nothing about Matthew's preaching was ascertained by him. For he names no province or city in which Matthew preached the faith, except Hierapolis of Syria, in which he believed him to have been crowned with martyrdom. For this cause, I think, at pag. 404 he says, probably from mere conjecture, that he was somewhat weak in body, and wrote the Gospel while the others preached among various nations. The Orator pursues this at some length, but a few words will suffice, since the writing of the Gospel is established: And those things which the rest (the Apostles) had delivered unwritten to the nations by the office of the tongue, these the great Matthew, gathering them in a written composition with the utmost care, wove into his sacred preachings as the whole mystery of the Word. Thus he, in Combefis' rendering, brings in Matthew writing while the other Apostles ran through the world and everywhere scattered the sacred seeds of the Gospel. But I think that neither was weakness of body — of which there is nothing in the older writers — a hindrance to Matthew's preaching the Gospel; nor do I assent to Nicetas that the Gospel was written by Matthew at the time when the other Apostles had set out for distant provinces; but, since Nicetas himself at pag. 406 says that he omits his illustrious deeds — namely of preaching and of miracles — I should prefer to believe that the orator found nothing certain about them, rather than that Matthew did not preach: for the writing of the Gospel need not have detained the Saint so long a time that he could not set out at the same time as the others for the province assigned to him.

[49] Now the province which in the Acts to be published, and by the testimony of others, was assigned to St. Matthew Ethiopia is said to have fallen to him for preaching, is Ethiopia, a very wide kingdom of Africa, if the word Ethiopia is to be understood in the most obvious sense. Rufinus, lib. 10 chap. 9, writes this: In that division of the earth which was made by lot among the Apostles for the preaching of the word of God, when different provinces fell to different men, Parthia is said to have been allotted to Thomas, and Ethiopia to Matthew, and Hither India adjoining it to Bartholomew. In nearly the same manner Socrates, lib. 1 chap. 19: When the Apostles, about to set out to the nations for the sake of preaching, divided them among themselves by lot, Thomas obtained by lot the apostolate of Parthia, but Matthew that of Ethiopia. To Bartholomew fell India, which borders upon Ethiopia. To these is added Fortunatus, to be cited below, with several others, among whom Milo the monk in the Metrical Life of St. Amandus, given in tom. 1 of February, pag. 874, sings thus:

Matthew, as the excellent Gehon with its consecrated stream washes the Ethiopians scorched by burning heat, and makes them, once bathed, gleam with a snowy hue.

[50] Florentinius in his Notes on the Indiculus of the Apostles, on Matthew, pag. 158, says: which is to be understood of the Ethiopia bordering upon Egypt: But the more common opinion seems to be that Matthew preached in Hither Ethiopia, which is nearer to Egypt and which is today called Sonnar, and that he died in the city of Luch (in a Lapide, Luach), where Cornelius a Lapide, chap. 3 of the Proem to Matthew, holds from the traditions of the Ethiopians (and from letters of the missionaries, although he does not cite them) that churches in honor of St. Matthew are extant to this day. That kingdom of Ethiopia which they call Sonnar, and others Sennar, is situated between Egypt and the present kingdom of Abyssinia. Job Ludolf in his Ethiopic History, lib. 1 chap. 2, says that the kingdom of Sennar is a part of ancient Nubia. La Martinière in his geographical Dictionary makes the kingdom of Sennar the same as the kingdom of Nubia. But it is not necessary for our purpose to investigate this more at large. It is enough to have indicated that the kingdom of Sennar lies in the northern part of Ethiopia and nearest to Egypt. That in the same part of Ethiopia there reigned in the times of the Apostles queen Candace, whose eunuch was baptized by St. Philip the deacon, is abundantly gathered from what was said in §1; but again I do not inquire whether she reigned over a wider or narrower domain. The opinion, however, of those who judge that St. Matthew preached in that part of Ethiopia appears to me highly probable and likely: both because it was nearest to the Roman empire on the side of Egypt, and because the eunuch of queen Candace had been converted, and his conversion was certainly known to the Apostles; and because churches of St. Matthew found there hint at an ancient tradition of the people; and finally because writers testify that Ethiopia was assigned to Matthew, and no region was more properly called Ethiopia than that to which all the ancient geographers gave the name of Ethiopia.

[51] Nevertheless that opinion displeased Tillemont: for he, in Note 2 on Matthew, having alleged the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide, which Florentinius rather reported than followed, roundly declares that St. Matthew did not preach in Northern Ethiopia. Tillemont denies it, manifestly contrary to himself, Baillet faithfully followed Tillemont. The single reason of both, and that born of an error, is this: that Northern Ethiopia, and that nearest to Egypt, did not receive the Christian faith until the IV century, through St. Frumentius. And each of them promises that he will show this in the Life of St. Frumentius. But I do not hesitate to answer with the same brevity that the objection of both proceeded from mere ignorance and error, in that they confounded the kingdom of Abyssinia with Northern Ethiopia; and that the history of St. Frumentius is so far from standing in the way of St. Matthew's preaching in Northern Ethiopia that rather this preaching becomes more probable from that history. Before, however, I discuss his argument, it pleases me to show in a few words how prettily he hangs together with himself. Tillemont, tom. 2, in his St. Philip the deacon, sets forth the deeds of the Eunuch of queen Candace, whom Philip the deacon taught the Christian faith and baptized, Acts 8. He there cites St. Irenæus, lib. 3 chap. 12, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 17, Jerome, Eusebius and others, teaching that that Eunuch was sent into Ethiopia to preach the Gospel; and Tillemont assents to them, or at any rate does not contradict them. But it is certain that the kingdom of queen Candace was nearest to Egypt and bordering upon it, since Candace once led an army out of her own kingdom into Egypt without passing through another dominion, and the Romans likewise in turn invaded her dominion from Egypt. By what reasoning therefore could he deny that the faith was preached in Northern Ethiopia before the IV century?

[52] and confounding the empire of Abyssinia with that Ethiopia in which reigned Let us now hear by what reasoning Tillemont proves, in his Frumentius, tom. 7, Note 2, that the faith was not preached in Northern Ethiopia before the IV century. St. Frumentius in the IV century, on the testimony of Rufinus lib. 10 chap. 9, of Socrates and others, announced the faith to nations whom they call the Farther Indians, and to whom they testify that the faith had never before been preached. And from the letters of the emperor Constantius in St. Athanasius' Apology to Constantius, tom. 1 pag. 315, it is shown that Frumentius was bishop of Auxume or Axum in Ethiopia. By the Indians therefore the Ethiopians are to be understood, and it follows that the faith had never before

been preached before the IV century, as we may say. I answer that this whole reasoning would be tolerable, if Axum were in Northern Ethiopia. But Axum is in Abyssinia, of which it was once the metropolis, and is not in the northern part of Ethiopia, of which we are disputing. The whole kingdom of Sennar, as it is called today, or the Nubian kingdom, or the kingdom of Meroë, where once queen Candace ruled far and wide, lies between Egypt and the Auxumite or Axumite kingdom, just as now the kingdom of Sennar lies between Abyssinia and Egypt. Wherefore Tillemont's argument is altogether such as if a man had proved that the faith was not preached in Frisia before the VII century, and thence wished to infer that it was not preached in Gaul before the said century. The prince of Auxume, among whom in the time of Constantius and Athanasius St. Frumentius preached the faith, could indeed cultivate peace with the Romans or wage enmities, because his dominion reached to the Arabian gulf; but otherwise he was far distant from the borders of the Roman empire. But these matters will fall to be examined more at large in St. Frumentius at the XXVII of October, where it will at the same time be inquired whether the region converted by St. Frumentius was rightly called India.

[53] What Tillemont's argument does in some measure prove, and what Job Ludolf proves at greater length in his Ethiopic History, or history of the kingdom of the Abyssinians, lib. 3 chap. 2 — [queen Candace, where once was the Nubian kingdom, and now the kingdom called Sennar.] namely that the faith was not preached in the time of the Apostles in the kingdom of the Auxumites or Abyssinians — makes St. Matthew's preaching in the Ethiopia bordering upon Egypt more probable. Hence the aforesaid Ludolf in the Annotations to lib. 3 chap. 2, pag. 280, adduces and follows these words from the Ethiopic History of Balthasar Tellez, whom he most frequently cites: That some say St. Matthew preached the Gospel in Ethiopia is a new thing among the Abyssinians and lacks foundation. When our religious related this to them out of our histories, they answered (and rightly, says Ludolf) that this is to be understood of Lower Ethiopia (namely, properly so called, adds Ludolf) which extends from Suakin as far as Egypt. Since they have never any knowledge that St. Matthew or any other Apostle entered Abyssinia (before St. Frumentius, as Ludolf again adds), as their books certainly teach, and their learned men, who think themselves best acquainted with antiquity. Ludolf subjoins: Those therefore seem to come nearest to the truth who have assigned the conversion of Nubia to the apostle Matthew, which is undoubtedly a part of ancient Ethiopia properly so called. From these things therefore it is clear that the Ethiopia nearest to Egypt, which in the most proper sense was called Ethiopia in St. Matthew's time, and where the inhabitants are of a blacker color than in Abyssinia, has been excluded by no argument from the preaching of St. Matthew.

[54] Further, that Ethiopia was converted long before the Council of Nicæa But that Matthew preached in this Ethiopia is most probable. seems to be proved from the Arabic canons of the Council of Nicæa, which we have in Labbe, tom. 2 of the Councils: for in these, chap. 36 col. 302, it is thus read: That the Ethiopians may not create nor elect a patriarch; but rather that their prelate be under the power of him who holds the see of Alexandria. Let him, however, be among them in place of a patriarch, and be called Catholicus. Yet let him not have the right of appointing archbishops, as a patriarch has: since he has neither the honor nor the power of a patriarch. But if it should happen that a council be held in Greece, and this prelate of the Ethiopians be present, let him have the seventh place after the prelate of Seleucia. And when power shall have been given him of appointing archbishops in his own province, it shall not be lawful for him to appoint any one of them; and whoever shall not obey, the synod excommunicates him. I should not, however, wish to contend that this canon was made by the Council of Nicæa, since I am not ignorant that the Arabic canons are commonly rejected by the learned. This one thing I observe, that the canon, if it has any force, has force only for Nubia, that is, for the Ethiopia lying midway between Abyssinia and Egypt. Ludolf had adduced the same in his History to prove the conversion of Abyssinia; but afterward in the Annotations, pag. 282, he saw and indicated the anachronism, since Abyssinia was converted after the Council of Nicæa, as he himself acknowledges. Le Quien, tom. 2 of the Oriens Christianus, pag. 641, produces the same canon for the conversion of the Abyssinians, and even so attributes their conversion to Frumentius, ordained after the Council of Nicæa. But that canon, if it be believed Nicene, can no more be adduced for the faith of the other Ethiopians than for the Ethiopians nearest to Egypt, and best known among the ancients under that name. And that these were once Christians is established, nor has it become sufficiently known by whom they were converted. Many Fathers make the eunuch of queen Candace, who certainly reigned in that part of Ethiopia, the apostle there: but certainly that eunuch alone, being a layman, could not institute churches there. Rufinus and Socrates, with whom agree St. Gregory, Fortunatus, Eucherius, Ado, Usuard and Rabanus, hand down that Matthew preached in Ethiopia, and this I think most probable, if one need not also call it historically certain.

[55] Some affirm that the Saint preached in Persia or in Parthia, Nevertheless other provinces too are named in which St. Matthew preached or met his death. St. Ambrose on Psalm 45, num. 20, says that Persia lay open to Matthew, and India to Thomas, hinting that the faith was preached by St. Matthew in Persia. St. Paulinus of Nola in Poem 19 says: Parthia embraces Matthew. With him agree the Hieronymian Martyrologies to be cited below, in which the Saint's death is fixed in Persia. Others seem to say that the Saint died in Parthia; but they must be judged not to have distinguished Parthia from the empire of the Persians, because the Parthians held dominion in Matthew's time. The Indiculus of Hippolytus in Combefis, tom. 2 col. 831, has it thus: Matthew, when he had written the Gospel in Hebrew, published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierea, a city of the Parthians. But the authority of that Indiculus can be slight, defiled as it is with some open errors, and its author uncertain. Combefis adds in the Annotations: Dorotheus too hands down that he died at Hieropolis of Parthia. But pseudo-Dorotheus is no better than Hippolytus. Freculph in his Chronicle, lib. 2 chap. 4, after the eulogy of Matthew given from St. Jerome, adds this: He first preached the Gospel in Judæa, afterward preached in Macedonia; he rests in the mountains of the Parthians. What is said of Macedonia does not seem to me probable enough, because it would have been better known to the Greeks if it had happened. For the same cause I doubt whether Matthew's preaching at Hierapolis in Syria is probable enough, which Nicetas the Paphlagonian maintains, writing that he also died in the same city.

[56] or in yet other provinces, which are uncertain. Metaphrastes attributes the Parthians to his preaching, but makes Ethiopia the last arena of Matthew's preaching and of his martyrdom. In Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, tom. 3 part 2 pag. 5, Amrus, a writer of the XIV century, says of Matthew: They relate that Matthew the evangelist went to India, and preached there. But the authority of that Amrus is not so great as to be able to persuade us that St. Matthew came as far as India. Assemani himself at pag. 3 observes that by the Syrians and Chaldees also Matthew is reckoned among the Apostles who preached in Syria and Chaldæa; yet he is not reckoned among the chief Apostles of those provinces. That Nicephorus, with the Menæa, says that Matthew preached and fell at Mirmene among the Anthropophagi, scarcely deserves to be reported, since it arises from a fabulous and plainly ridiculous history. The studious reader sees, I suppose, that all those things about Matthew's preaching are too uncertain for anything to be safely affirmed; that several, however, agree on Persia or Parthia, which provinces, although distinct, could easily be confounded, both because they are neighbors to each other, and because in St. Matthew's time the empire was among the Parthians, which afterward the Persians took over.

[57] [The place of his death is variously assigned by various writers, chiefly in the Persian empire;] Of the place of his death or martyrdom there are found things no less various and mutually contradictory. In the Hieronymian Martyrologies the memory of St. Matthew is announced on four days; but on two the place is omitted, while on the other two it is added. At this day the text of Florentinius has it thus: In Persia, in the city Tarseum, the birthday of St. Matthew, apostle and evangelist. In the Corbie: In Persia, in the city Tarrium. In the Epternach, older than the others, only In Persia is read, the city being omitted; as also happens in the Rhinau codex among us. But the Reichenau agrees with the Corbie, and has in the city Tarrium, as also the shorter Corbie. The rest of the Hieronymian codices either indicate Persia alone or omit the place altogether. So at the VI of May St. Matthew is announced In Persia, the place of his martyrdom not being more closely designated. Florentinius in the Annotations at this day gives the following conjecture: Tarsiana is a city of Carmania or Persia in Ptolemy, and Tarsium a promontory of Carmania or Persia, of which Arrian in the Indica. Carmania borders on Persia properly so called, toward the Persian gulf in the direction of India, and was a province of the Persian empire, having Parthia on its northern side, so that the Martyrologies which place the Saint's death in Persia or in the mountains of the Parthians — whose then was the Persian empire — could easily be so explained. A like conjecture might be made about the city Tariana or Tarsiana, which Cellarius in his Ancient Geography, pag. 488, reckons in Susiana, another province of the Persian empire. Neither conjecture will be opposed by those who have said that Matthew fell in the mountains of the Parthians, as Freculph above, and Peter de Natalibus, lib. 8 chap. 100. The anonymous writer in Oecumenius, who writes that Matthew died in the city Hiera of Parthia, on the testimony of Florentinius pag. 159, as also Hippolytus above, and Dorotheus, who says Hieropolis of Parthia, name a place plainly unknown in the empire of the Parthians. Nor do I think that those are greatly to be listened to who write that Matthew died at Hierapolis in Syria near the Euphrates, as Nicetas the Paphlagonian and the author of the Basilian Menology. For it does not seem that Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret and the other Fathers who flourished in Syria or Palestine would all have been ignorant of, or silent about, the place of St. Matthew's death, if he had died at Hierapolis in Syria.

[58] The Acts to be published have it that St. Matthew was crowned with martyrdom in Ethiopia, yet more writers, and better ones, in Ethiopia, in the royal city, which is there written Natdaber, elsewhere Naddaber. And this opinion concerning the preaching and death of St. Matthew in Ethiopia seems to have more patrons, and better ones, than any other. For besides Rufinus and Socrates, St. Eucherius of Lyons, a writer of the V century, in his Work on Questions of the new Testament, tom. 6 of the Bibliotheca Patrum, Lyons edition, pag. 852, speaks thus: Bartholomew went to the Indians, Thomas made for the Parthians: Matthew softened the Ethiopians by his preaching, Andrew the Scythians, etc. St. Gregory, on the first book of Kings, lib. 4 chap. 4 num. 13, calls St. Matthew the preacher of Ethiopia. St. Venantius Fortunatus

a contemporary of Gregory, lib. 5 chap. 2, sings thus:

Matthew tempers with his mouth the vapors of the Ethiopians, and poured living rivers upon the parched field.

The same again, lib. 8, poem 4:

Thence India bears Bartholomew in triumph, and lofty Naddaver Matthew, that excellent man.

In the following poem Fortunatus again makes mention of Naddaver, hinting that Matthew died and was buried there, just as Andrew died and was buried at Patras and John at Ephesus. The verse is this:

Whom Patras, whom Ephesus, whom Naddaver holds in its citadel.

Thus Fortunatus, who doubtless believed Naddaver to be a city of Ethiopia, since in the place first alleged he brings in Matthew teaching none but Ethiopians.

[59] Yet of the contrary opinion is Muratori in the Annotations to St. Paulinus, col. 451, where he says: I should think the city Naddaver to be situated in Parthia, whither the bones of St. Matthew were translated after his death. in which Fortunatus, with the Acts, places the city of Naddaver, This he says in order to reconcile St. Paulinus with St. Venantius Fortunatus, believing that Matthew preached in both kingdoms, but died in Ethiopia, and that his body was translated from Ethiopia into Parthia or Persia by his disciples. But with the leave of that most learned man, dead these few years, that conjecture seems to me destitute of every appearance of probability and to lack all foundation. If Fortunatus had believed the city Naddaver to be situated in Parthia, then, after he had exhibited Matthew teaching the Ethiopians, he would also have made mention of the translation of the body, lest he lead his readers into error. It can therefore be said more easily and more probably that St. Paulinus is speaking only of Matthew's preaching among the Parthians, as St. Ambrose affirms only his preaching among the Persians; or that to both of them the regions lying outside the Roman empire were less well known, and that therefore both could believe that Matthew fell in some province of the most famous Persian or Parthian empire. This is certain, that neither declares in what part of that vast empire St. Matthew was; and therefore their authority is not here to be reckoned of so much weight as it would be if they spoke less vaguely.

[60] they believed Matthew to have died, and that opinion seems the more probable. Ado in his little book on the Festivals of the Apostles, pag. 34, likewise places St. Matthew's martyrdom in Ethiopia, saying: Who first in Judæa wrote the Gospel of Christ in the Hebrew speech. But afterward, preaching among the Ethiopians, he suffered martyrdom. Rabanus and Usuard agree as to the preaching and martyrdom in Ethiopia, and very many more recent writers. And all things being considered and weighed, this opinion seems to me more probable than that which holds that he died in Persia or Parthia. The first reason is that Ethiopia bordered upon Egypt, and therefore does not seem to have been passed over by the Apostles, especially since the conversion of the eunuch of queen Candace could give great hope of converting Ethiopia. Therefore, since there is no evidence of the preaching of any other of Christ's disciples in Ethiopia, while several Fathers make the eunuch himself the herald of the faith there, it seems altogether that we must assent to those who assert that Matthew was sent thither: for the efforts of the eunuch alone, as being a layman, when he had returned there, could not suffice for the raising of churches, unless an Apostle, or at least some priest, were added. And that this was Matthew, writers sufficiently ancient and weighty for obtaining credit in this matter hand down. The other reason is that the Persian or Parthian preaching of the Saint is only briefly and vaguely asserted by Ambrose and Paulinus, from whom it may have passed into the Hieronymian calendars. He may however have preached there also, and afterward have set out for Ethiopia: for of his death or martyrdom the aforesaid Fathers affirm nothing. As regards the city which is called Naddaver in the Acts and in Fortunatus, no place of that name at all is known in Ethiopia. There was however in the time of Augustus a city called Napata in Strabo, pag. 820, which Petronius, prefect of the Roman army, took and destroyed in the war against queen Candace. At Napata, on Strabo's testimony, was Candace's royal seat. Now let others consider whether the Ethiopian city which the Greeks called Napata may not have been expressed by another rendering of the Ethiopic word, or at least by a corruption, as Naddaver. Cellarius observes in his Ancient Geography, lib. 4 chap. 8 pag. 156, that the same city is elsewhere written Naggata.

[61] As regards the martyrdom of St. Matthew, this very thing seems doubtful. The Hieronymian Martyrologies and the Latin Acts, with all the martyrologists of the middle age, hint The Saint's martyrdom not altogether certain, but more probable: that Matthew died a martyr. But the Basilian Menology at the XVI of November does not at least speak clearly of martyrdom, but uses the word τελειοῦται, he is consummated, by which word, however, martyrdom can be hinted, especially since a little before he is said to have endured many torments among the Anthropophagi. In the same Menology at the XXX of June he is said to have been overwhelmed with stones. Metaphrastes and Nicetas the Paphlagonian assert martyrdom in general terms. In the Menæa at the XVI of November it is first asserted that he was consummated by fire; then a fabulous eulogy is given, in which, unharmed by the fire, he is said presently to have died in prayer, as Nicephorus too has it. Heracleon, the Valentinian heretic, in Clement of Alexandria, lib. 4 of the Stromata, seems to deny the martyrdom not only of Matthew but also of Philip, Thomas and Levi, whom he wrongly distinguishes from Matthew — unless perhaps he meant to designate Lebbæus or Thaddeus by that name. Yet the phrase is rather obscure, and it is ambiguous to me whether Heracleon really meant to deny that the aforesaid Apostles were martyrs. But if he really meant this, that saying ought to be of small authority with everyone, since Clement himself says a little after: Whom (Christ) the Apostles imitating, as men who were truly endowed with knowledge and perfect, suffered for the churches which they founded. Wherefore to me the common opinion, by which Matthew is believed a martyr, appears far more probable: for neither has the Basilian Menology anything clearly contrary, nor Heracleon in Clement; nor would the authority of these be equal to that of all the rest, if they had something altogether contrary. Of the time of the martyrdom there is no certainty. Chrysostom however, Homily 76 (al. 77) on Matthew, hints that the Saint died before the destruction of Jerusalem, which is fixed in the year 70 of the Christian era.

[62] For the rest, of the manner of life and the virtues of St. Matthew few things are found in the ancients. of his character only a few things are known. Clement of Alexandria, lib. 2 of the Pædagogue chap. 1, praises the sobriety of his diet, writing thus: Matthew therefore the apostle used seeds, berries and vegetables without flesh. Chrysostom, Homily 47 (al. 48) on Matthew, wove together thus a eulogy gathered from the sacred Scriptures: Consider for me (he says) this very Evangelist: even though we have not his whole life described, yet from the few things which remain one may see his image shining forth. That he was humble and contrite, hear him in the Gospel calling himself a publican; that he was merciful, see him stripped of all things following Jesus. That he was godly is plain from his doctrines. His understanding and charity may be seen from the Gospel which he wrote: for he took thought for the whole world. Of his good works you have proof from the throne on which he is to sit; of his fortitude, that he returned rejoicing from the presence of the council. Thus far Chrysostom. The most eminent Bona, lib. 1 of the Rerum liturgicarum chap. 8 num. 2, reports that there is extant also under the name of St. Matthew a certain Liturgy, which is said to be that of the Ethiopians. I find a Liturgy of the Ethiopians published by various men; but I do not see it attributed to St. Matthew. Certainly Renaudot in his Work on the Oriental Liturgies published the Ethiopic ones also: yet I have seen none there marked with the name of Matthew. Wherefore I judge that it was not long attributed to St. Matthew.

§ V. On the translations of the body, which, found in Lucania, is translated to Salerno, and thereafter an arm to Benevento.

[ ] [The Saint's body is believed to have been translated first into Armorica, thence into Lucania] Since we have no Acts of the translation of St. Matthew which merit the credit of learned men, or can obtain it in this age; and since the more ancient writers gave only a vague and uncertain notice of the place in which the body was preserved before the translation into Europe, it will be hard to find anything certain about the occasion and time at which it was first carried into Italy. The most illustrious Colonna, already praised, who employed more faith than criticism in following the manuscript Relations, which I showed in §1 to be improbable, has given a History of the translation by no means probable. For in chap. 5 he narrates that the Saint's body was carried from Ethiopia into Armorican Britain by British merchants in the time of king Salomon, who reigned after the middle of the IX century (for the other Salomon, whom some once believed to have reigned some centuries earlier in Armorica, is now held fictitious), and was laid in the city of Léon. But all the Gallic writers of those times, or of a little later, would not have been ignorant of this, nor have kept silence about it, had it happened. Then in chap. 6 he relates that king Salomon was slain by his own Britons in the fiftieth year from the translation of the body; and that for this cause the emperor Valentinian, who died some centuries before Salomon, sent from Italy a huge fleet to storm Britain, and thus, the city of Léon being taken, the body of St. Matthew was translated into Lucania. To have reported these things — even omitting the improbable circumstances of the translation — is to have refuted them.

[64] it was found in Lucania Presently in chap. 7 the author confesses that all memory of the body of St. Matthew preserved in Italy gradually perished; and he says that the finding took place about the thousand and fiftieth year from the birth of Christ. With this account of the body long hidden and at length found, writers worthy of credit agree, but they fix that fact nearly a whole century earlier, as I shall presently show. Meanwhile I observe that all the earlier matters which are related of the twofold translation, namely from Ethiopia into Britain and from Britain into Lucania, could have been fabricated out of uncertain conjectures; but they have been set forth so improbably that I should prefer to be ignorant how and at what time that sacred body came into Lucania, rather than to adopt even the least part of that account. Of the Saint's head, which the Armoricans claim for themselves, we shall treat afterward in its place. Leo of Ostia in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, lib. 2 chap. 5, writes this to our purpose: In the fifth year of this abbot (Aligernus), which is the nine hundred and fifty-fourth from the Nativity of the Lord, the body of the most blessed apostle and evangelist Matthew, which had first rested in Ethiopia, where also he had suffered, but afterward in Britain through divers times, was at length found by a revelation of the same holy Evangelist, and translated to Salerno. Baronius, who alleged the words of Leo here given at the year 954, num. 2, noted in the margin that for the words in Britain others read in Bithynia.

[65] The anonymous writer of Salerno in his Chronicle, chap. 143, that is, tom. 2 of the Writers of Italy, part 2, col. 280, speaks thus of the finding: In his times the most sacred body of the Blessed Matthew was found in

the borders of Lucania, in the year 954, and not long after translated to Salerno, and with due honor, by the command of the aforesaid prince, is conducted to Salerno. But how many signs and miracles there were, and in what manner it was found, we now omit to unfold in every particular. Afterward, God granting, let us faithfully make it known and cause it to be annexed to this History. Thus the Anonymous writer, recording the finding under Gisulph prince of Salerno, although this does not appear in the passage alleged, because the whole chapter in which Gisulph is treated is omitted in that place. In the Excerpts which are held under the name of Herempert, tom. 5 of the Writers of Italy, pag. 32, the same things are read more clearly and better. Receive the words: In the times of that same prince Gisulph the most sacred body of the Blessed Matthew was found in the borders of Lucania, and with due honor, by the command of the aforesaid prince Gisulph, is conducted to Salerno. But how many signs and miracles came to pass, and in what manner it was found, we now omit to unfold in every particular: afterward, God granting, we shall make it known, and shall cause it to be annexed to this History. Thus far the author, whoever he be, which I do not inquire.

[66] Concerning the year of the finding, which Leo of Ostia said was 954, where the festival of the translation is kept on the VI day of May. even though perhaps it is not altogether certain, I judge that no dispute is to be raised; since certainly in that year Gisulph the son of Guaimar held the principality of Salerno, under whom the Anonymous writer of Salerno says the finding took place. Ughelli, tom. 10 col. 157, among the Bishops of Pæstum, and Antonio Mazza in his History of the city of Salerno, chap. 5 num. 15, agree as to the year also. Of the place Ughelli says that the body was found in the ruins of the overthrown city (of Pæstum). Mazza only says that it was found in the borders of Lucania. The translation, however, he narrates in these words: Gisulph the son of Guaimar, though still a small child, reigned in succession to his father. The body of the blessed apostle, evangelist and martyr Matthew, found in the borders of Lucania … he translated from the city of Pæstum in the year CMLIV, in the time of the prelacy of Bernard II, with the utmost veneration into the city of Salerno; whose coming St. Grammatius II, bishop of Salerno, foretold in the last hours of his life in these words: "Not after many a time shall the church of Salerno be adorned with a heavenly treasure, and be led to the highest summit of honor." And the feast of the said translation is celebrated solemnly every year on the day before the Nones of May for eight days, with hymns, roses and flowers, and a very great concourse of people; and the whole clergy, the abbots, and all the bishops of the province are required to be present at the first Vespers and at the solemn Mass. Thus Mazza. As regards the prediction of St. Grammatius, Ughelli also reports it in the Archbishops of Salerno, that is, tom. 7 col. 352, in St. Grammatius, who is there said to be venerated on the XI day of October; at which day it may be examined more at large among us. As to the rest, Ughelli likewise assents to Mazza in Bernard II, col. 362, and adds that the body was carried into the greater church of holy Mary. Gaspar Musca in his Compendium of the life of St. Matthew says of these matters: But in the year CMLIV, under Agapetus the second (Pope), Bernard the second of that name, bishop, and Gisulph prince of the Salernitans, on the sixth day of May took care that the body of the Apostle should be translated from the city of Pæstum to Salerno, into the cathedral church under the title of holy Mary of the Angels, in which it rested CXXI years. Of this translation therefore there seems to be no doubt.

[67] Yet certain other things fall to be examined, which Marsilius narrates concerning the finding of the body and before the Salernitan translation, and which the aforesaid Musca briefly touches in these words: At which time the most blessed Apostle, manifesting his body in a dream to a certain aged nun Pelagia, The finding of the body, which various apparitions preceded, she to her son Athanasius a monk; who, finding the sacred body in a certain altar overthrown by the barbarians and covered on every side with brambles, thence laid it in a small church near the city of Pæstum. And from there John, bishop of Pæstum, carried it with exceeding pomp to the cathedral under the title of Holy Mary. Marsilius in chap. 7, together with the manuscript account, has it that St. Matthew appeared to Pelagia on three successive nights, and pointed out to her various signs by which the sacred body might be found, and bade her indicate all to her son Athanasius and to seek the body with him. On the third night, however, if the author has related the matter rightly, the same vision appeared to Athanasius the monk also, and the appearing Apostle threatened both with punishment unless they should gird themselves to seek the sacred body. Wherefore in the morning they go out together by the way indicated, seek the signs given, and quickly find them. Digging therefore they uncover an altar, and, the marble table being removed, find the sacred body. This Athanasius carries to his mother's house and orders it to be kept there, says Marsilius, until he should be admonished by some divine revelation what was thereafter to be done about it by them. Nothing is read in the manuscript about this awaited revelation, nor anything about the Apostle's command, which Marsilius maintains in chap. 8, that the body should be translated to Salerno.

[68] related from the manuscript. He who had found it, Athanasius the monk, After the apparitions made to Pelagia and Athanasius, in the last of which threats were added, in the manuscript the finding is thus related: Compelled by which threatening, Athanasius, seizing a bill-hook (an instrument like a sickle for cutting away brambles), began to search out with curious inquiry the place foretold him. But that place was covered with so great a thickness of brambles that no approach lay open by which he might enter. And when with all his effort he had cut down the thicket of brambles, at length the overthrown church, as it had been shown him by revelation, appeared to his eyes: but the altar, because it was thoroughly covered with a heap of thorns and nettles, he could by no means behold. Then, the remaining thorns and briars being cut away, he found also the very altar, upon which he was now bent with burning desire; and, having found it, he tried with great caution to open it: and when he had moved from its place the marble with which that altar was covered, straightway there appeared a space built up of squared bricks, in which the body of the most holy Apostle and Evangelist was resting. Then Athanasius, trembling, uncovering the body of the Apostle, wrapped it with much diligence in a clean linen cloth, and, laying it upon his shoulders, returned to his own dwelling, and gave the precious treasure to his mother to keep. Presently in the manuscript it follows that Athanasius wished to sail with the sacred body first to Constantinople, then to Rome; but that he was hindered from both journeys. The same things Marsilius narrates in chap. 8, but not without some added circumstances by which the facts related in the manuscript become more improbable, and Athanasius is accused more than is necessary.

[69] since he could not carry it to Constantinople or Rome, hid it in a church. Wherefore I bring these things too hither from the manuscript: Meanwhile he was secretly planning to carry the most holy body to the city of Constantinople, not truly for religion's sake, but enticed by greed of gain. Without his mother's knowledge therefore, taking up the body of the Apostle, he attempted to go to Amalfi, hoping that he would find there some ship in which he might hasten to Constantinople. And when he had hastily entered a skiff, while the sailors strove with sail and oar, he proceeds to go to the place he had appointed. But when the ship had gone a little way from the land, hosts of winds rush down, rain and tempest arose, and to such a degree indeed that he barely returned to the harbor which he had left. Frustrated of this plan, he again thought within himself how he might hasten to Rome with the most holy body: but he was in no way able to withstand the will of God, who has deigned to send such a gift into these parts. For, a ship being again made ready, and men strong at the oar being taken aboard, he entered upon the calm waters. But before he had scarcely lost the shore from his eyes, a huge storm suddenly broke out, so that they hardly escaped the gulf of the deep. At length, though with great sorrow, half alive he returns to his own borders: and when he had truly perceived that God was withstanding him, and that even the insensible elements were fighting against him, he hid the most sacred treasure in a church which was situated not far from his cell. Thus in the manuscript; from which it cannot be certainly gathered that Athanasius wished to sell the sacred body at Constantinople or at Rome, as Marsilius writes. For he could hope for gain even if he did not sell the body, from the goodwill and liberality of those to whom he should give it. Marsilius' other additions I pass over.

[70] After the words given, the author of the manuscript narrates that the finding of the body of St. Matthew became known to John, bishop of Pæstum; and that he went with some clerics through rainy and windy weather to the place The body is translated to the church of Capaccio; where it had been laid; and there ordered Athanasius to be summoned. When he had come, he questions him about the body found, and, as he shuffles, presses him with threats, and so obtains that he be led to see the sacred body, and sees it with his clerics. But the bishop, says the author, sealed the sacred body (now seen), wrapped again in the linen cloth, with the impression of his ring, and, thus sealed, laid it in a chest secured with locks, and likewise sealed with seals. These things being done, if we believe the author, the bishop asked that Athanasius the monk should seek and set food before them, as they were hungry. But he had food indeed, yet was altogether without wine. The bishop therefore, while they were eating, ordered an empty vessel to be brought, which poured forth wine sufficient for all, if the Anonymous writer relates truly, who sets these things forth at greater length. Marsilius indeed adds still more. To me, that I may confess it, all those things are too suspect of falsehood for it to please me to transfer the very words hither. More openly a fiction is what follows, as though by night Athanasius had wished to break into the church through a window and secretly to carry the sacred body elsewhere. Equally fabulous seem all the circumstances of the translation to the city of Capaccio. Therefore, the rest being omitted, I subjoin only the last words: They went up to the stronghold whose name is Caput-Aquis, and in the church of the holy Virgin Mary, in which the aforesaid bishop governed his prelacy, they laid it down with all reverence. From these words, if they have any force, it is rightly gathered that the bishops of Pæstum already in the X century had their seat in the city of Capaccio, and consequently that the bishops of Capaccio arose from those of Pæstum — of which Ughelli doubts. But let us return to the matter.

[71] Gisulph, prince of Salerno, had heard of the finding and translation of the sacred body, thence to the cathedral of Salerno. and for that cause, rejoicing exceedingly at the finding of so great a treasure, says the Anonymous writer in the manuscript, he sent John, an abbot of venerable life, and other honorable men to the bishop of Pæstum, commanding that he should with all speed transmit to him the protection of the Salernitan fatherland which had been found. And on the following day the venerable abbot, and those who were sent with him, return laden with the inestimable treasure. But before they came nearer to the city, the whole city, together with Bernard the venerable prelate, goes forth to meet them. And when they had obtained the Apostolic body, they were filled with so great joy that by gesture and by voices they displayed their exulting gladness. But the prelate, having taken up the venerable body wrapped in silken coverings, returned into the city with hymns and praises: and laid it with due reverence in the hall of the Mother of God, in which the most holy Evangelist declared the presence of his body by the miracles of his powers. Presently there follow in both manuscripts certain benefits granted to wretched men by the patronage of St. Matthew, which I shall communicate to my readers as they are read there,

though with some superfluities cut away, which I shall hand down in epitome.

[72] Certain benefits A certain man, Andrew by name, whose daughter lay languishing under a long infirmity, so that the whole house was already awaiting her death close at hand, moved with a father's bowels and weeping long, at last, worn out, was seized by sleep. And he dreamed that his daughter was snatched from his arms by a foul spirit; but presently there stood by a venerable man, who restored the daughter to her grieving father. The father asks who he is, and offers a gift. But he with a placid countenance answered: "I need no gift of thine; but know that I am Matthew the apostle and evangelist, whose body was yesterday translated to Salerno." And saying this, he was taken from his eyes. Andrew, awaking with great trembling, sought his daughter: but finding her already restored to health, he related to all who were present what had been shown him in his sleep. And at the first dawn he went to the venerable prelate, and recited in order the marvelous deed of the Apostle which he had wrought in his daughter. It is probable that the father had on the day before implored the aid of St. Matthew for his daughter: this, however, the author has passed over.

[73] by the patronage of St. Matthew, At the same time a certain woman had an only daughter, whose bowels were racked with such grievous pains that the physicians, laboring to apply a remedy, could bring no relief. The mother, not enduring her torments, carried her daughter to the body of the Apostle, where, having offered tearful prayers, she deserved to obtain the health of her child which they were seeking with vast desire, so that she who had been brought by others' hands returned home with her mother on her own feet.

[74] as is believed, obtained. A third benefit is said to have been granted to a certain servant of Rothilda, sister of Gisulph prince of Salerno, and widow of Athenolph prince of Benevento. Muratori found mention of that Athenolph in the Annals of Italy down to the year 940, so that he conjectures from this that he died in that same year 940. It is not necessary for me to inquire more closely into the time of Athenolph's death. I only observe that his widow Rothilda could easily have survived to the year 954, in which all these things are said to have happened, especially since she is asserted in the manuscript to have been continuing in widowhood, that is, long a widow. But Rothilda's servant, Stephen by name, is said to have asked for water with impatience and with the invocation of the devil, and, when he had drunk the water he received, to have been possessed by a demon. The matter at once became known not only to Rothilda but also to prince Gisulph, and to all the nobles and to the bishop of Salerno. The possessed man was kept bound with chains in the chapel of the palace, and the bishop exhorted all to pour forth prayers for him. While these things were doing, says the author, there was present Athanasius the monk (the finder of the body), who, as we have already said, had received from the hand of the prelate of Pæstum a tooth of the most holy Evangelist (namely, when he handed over the body to him, where the author affirms it). He, coming near, put it into the ears of the aforesaid Rothilda, saying: "I have with me a tooth of Matthew the apostle and evangelist. Let this be put by the prelate's hand into blessed water, and when the demoniac has taken it, thou shalt see the wonders of God." And saying this, with Rothilda's assent and at her demand that it should be done, he handed the tooth to the prelate with his own hands. Water therefore being brought, the same prelate made the sign of the Cross, put the tooth into the water, and, the tooth being taken out, offered the water with threats to him who was vexed by the malignant spirit, and commanded him to drink. When he had taken it, he began to be violently vexed. And because the wicked enemy, the sacred draught withstanding him, was not able to go out by the mouth, he went out by the hinder parts with a huge stench. Wherefore all alike gave thanks to God the Savior, who deigned to work such a miracle through his Apostle. But Athanasius, striving to recover the tooth which he had given for the expelling of the malignant enemy, though he poured forth many prayers in vain, was by no means able to obtain it. Thus far the earlier benefits conferred on the people of Salerno.

[75] In both manuscripts there is subjoined the translation of an arm to Benevento, The translation of an arm to Benevento, of which however I find nothing in Vipera and the other writers of Benevento. What the cause may be I cannot divine, unless perhaps that that arm did not long remain at Benevento. I shall nevertheless subjoin what I find in the manuscripts, and what Marsilius also narrated from the same in chap. 10. But when the fame of the signs and miracles was spread far and wide, and Landulph prince of Benevento had heard that the people of Salerno, by Christ's gift, possessed the body of the most blessed Matthew, calling together his magnates and wise men he said: "Know that a salvation given by God has come to the Salernitans, and that they, with hymns and praises, have placed within the walls of their city the body of the most holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, found by his own revelation in the borders of Lucania. Wherefore, if it please you, let us send word, entreating alike the prince and the pontiff of Salerno, that for the protection of our city also they may deign to bestow some part of that same most holy body." And when they approved the prince's words, illustrious men were straightway sent to Salerno, bearing most humble petitions for a great gift. These the prince and the pontiff kindly received, and, assenting to their petitions, hand over to them with the utmost reverence an arm of the sacred body, to be carried to their fellow citizens. Which having received, rejoicing greatly and rendering immense thanks to God and to the Apostle of Christ, and exulting in the incomparable gift, they returned to Benevento with hurried step. But before they had reached the walls of the city, the same prince and bishop, who then presided over that city, went out to meet them with all the people of either sex and age, and with hymns and praises honorably translated the arm of the sacred body, and reverently placed it within the walls of the city.

[76] To these is added a benefit which Landulph surnamed the Greek is asserted to have received, at whose coming a benefit is said to have been granted to a captive. who was shut up in prison at Benevento and bound hand and foot. For while he heard the festive sounds and understood that they were made because of the arm of St. Matthew that had been brought, he commended himself to that same Saint, and presently saw all his bonds burst asunder, to the wonder of all who were present. And when this had been reported to the prince, says the author, he ordered him to be led out of prison with all speed, and to be brought before his sight: whom, having rebuked him with kindly words, he at once restored to his former honor, and gave him back his former favor. Thus far the anonymous author, who probably flourished in the X century, since he hands down nothing of those things which we shall see done in the following century; nay, I strongly suspect that he is no other than the Anonymous writer of Salerno, who in the words given at num. 65 promised that he would write of these matters more fully.

* when he had manifested it

§ VI. The body found again at Salerno, and translated to a new church: various benefits of the Saint.

[ ] The body, which had perhaps been hidden, Although we do not know well enough at what time or by whose agency the body of St. Matthew was carried into Lucania, yet that it was found there in the year 954 and translated to Salerno by the agency of prince Gisulph and Bernard bishop of Salerno, writers so ancient testify — namely the Anonymous writer of Salerno, who seems to have lived at nearly the same time, and Leo of Ostia — that we cannot deny them credit. But how easily the memory of that body could have perished in Lucania, where it had been laid in a church near Pæstum, a city utterly destroyed by the commotions of war, we shall clearly perceive from what happened in the following century in the city of Salerno itself, where likewise it was first lost through forgetfulness and afterward happily found. Baronius, at the year 1080, says by a most probable conjecture that it had been hidden on account of the various hazards of wars, and, as he believed, had already slipped from the memory of men; but perhaps only the place where it had been laid was unknown. And this has not seldom happened with the bodies of other Saints also, which through excessive fear lest they be carried off by anyone had been laid in a place known to few, and thus either lay hidden a long time or lie hidden even now.

[78] found again at Salerno It is certain too that in the time of St. Pope Gregory VII the body of St. Matthew was found at Salerno, and that this is the second finding of that sacred treasure in the kingdom of Naples, although Marsilius in chap. 9 confounds the second finding with the first. The year of the second finding I find assigned nowhere. But since that finding took place in the times of Gregory VII and of Alphanus archbishop of Salerno, and while Robert Guiscard held Salerno, as is gathered from the letters of Gregory to Alphanus presently to be recited, it cannot be far from the year 1080, to which it is referred by Baronius. For Muratori in the Annals of Italy, at the year 1077, judges that Salerno was occupied by Robert Guiscard in the year 1077. Others refer the storming of that city to 1075 or 1076. And the aforesaid Robert died in the year 1085, as also Gregory VII, and indeed archbishop Alphanus too according to Ughelli. The finding therefore certainly took place between the year 1075 and 1085, and therefore at the least a hundred and twenty years after the first, so that it can on no account be confounded with it. Rightly therefore does Gaspar Musca distinguish both findings in his Compendium on the Life and translations of St. Matthew and in the Archbishops of Salerno.

[79] in the time of St. Pope Gregory VII, The Epistle of St. Gregory VII, from which the things already said are gathered, is recited in Baronius at the year 1080 in this manner: Gregory bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his brother and fellow bishop Alphanus of Salerno, greeting and Apostolic benediction. We render vast thanks to the regard of the divine mercy, whose condescension has mercifully revealed in our times a great treasure, and one that shall profit the whole world. Not without cause do we also congratulate thy love, which solicitously took care to make us partakers of so great a gladness, truly shown from heaven. For we believe, and unhesitatingly assert, that at the finding of so great a body not only the blessed apostle Matthew himself, but also the rest of his fellow apostles with all the Saints and the heavenly spirits themselves, and the glorious Mother of God Mary, rejoice together with mortals, and that the endeavors of all of them toward the human race are at this time far more favorable and far more abundant than at others. For if at other times the holy patronages of the Saints do not desert us, most certainly their aids are then above all to be hoped for, when their most holy bodies are manifested to us by the divine will as it were restored to life: and as by the gaze of bodily sight faith is as it were discerned and hope already held, so it is to be believed that their benefits toward the devout are then renewed and more richly abound. Whence also let the holy universal Church, long driven by great whirlwinds and divers storms, not doubt that her cry has been heard by the Lord; but, turning eager eyes from near at hand toward the security of a quiet shore, let her behold close by the protection of the blessed apostle Matthew; since now without doubt he acts in the harbor, to whom the ancient Helmsman has shown his presence. Wherefore let thy fraternity exult in the Lord over the revelation of so great a treasure, and, embracing the most blessed relics with worthy observances of due veneration, let it exhort and admonish the glorious duke Robert and his most noble consort that, fittingly showing reverence and honor to so distinguished a Patron, who has deigned to show himself to them, they may strive with efforts of the highest devotion to merit his favor and aid for themselves and theirs. Given at Rome, the XIII Kalends of October. Thus far Gregory, whose Epistle was doubtless given

after he had entered upon peace with Robert Guiscard, which was done in the year 1078, as I showed at the XVI of September in Bl. Victor III, §8, since he makes honorable mention of Robert. Again, Gregory's epistle was certainly written before he departed from Rome in the year 1084, and probably before the church of St. Matthew founded by Robert, of which I shall presently treat, so that it is necessary to fix both the finding and the writing of Gregory's Epistle about the year 1080: for it took place in that very year, or one or two years earlier or later.

[80] Of the temple of St. Matthew built after the storming of Salerno, the following is read in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, lib. 3 chap. 45: and translated to a new basilica built by duke Robert, And having gained possession of the city, Robert ordered the church of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew to be built there, in which also he placed the sacred body of that Apostle with the utmost veneration, keeping back a whole bone of his arm, laid up in a silver case, for the protection of himself and his sons. Of the building of this church the most illustrious Marsilius, chap. 9 pag. 71, writes these things: In the reign therefore of Robert Guiscard, and while Gregory VII sat, about thirty years had passed from the finding (nay, about a hundred and twenty-five from that finding of which he speaks, in the parts of Lucania) and a most magnificent temple is built to the holy Apostle at Robert's own charge, in which by a new translation as it were the sacred relics were at last laid up, and are today too most religiously preserved; and every year on the day before the Nones of May the feast of that divine translation is solemnly celebrated, on which the whole clergy, the abbots and all the bishops of the province are bound, under a fixed penalty, to assemble and to be present, vested in pontificals, at the first Vespers and at the solemn Mass. Which without interruption has hitherto been most diligently observed and is unremittingly observed. After these things the aforesaid author proceeds to a description of the region of the Picentini and of the city of Salerno, which is its metropolis, situated on the Tyrrhenian sea and the gulf of Salerno. Then he describes at length the temple already named, which is the metropolitan church, and says that it is ninety paces in length, thirty in breadth, and of a proportionate height as well.

[81] and there laid beneath an altar in the crypt. The subterranean crypt of the temple, in which the body of St. Matthew is laid, he likewise describes, and speaks thus of the body preserved there, pag. 80: But what is more venerable in that crypt, and draws Christian men from the whole world: there rests the most holy and most glorious body of Matthew the apostle and evangelist, most religiously placed there; for there is in the middle of the crypt a square space, which walls of stone and lattice-work two cubits high enclose to twelve ells on every side, and by this enclosure as it were is girt a most ancient altar, beneath which that treasure is laid up, in such a way that the place itself may conveniently be seen through the iron lattices. And so great was once, and is today too, the celebrity of this place, that not only the people of Salerno, but the inhabitants of all the provinces round about, unremittingly flock together; nay, even the most remote nations from all Europe frequently gather, both to see so vast a blessedness, and to ask of the Lord God, through the merits of this Apostle, riches, honor, length of life, and finally the desired happiness in this world, and (chiefly indeed, if they are wise, the grace of serving God well and obtaining it) perpetual glory in the world to come. There increases devotion, together with wonder, a precious and holy liquid (commonly called MANNA) which flows from the most blessed body, a most present antidote for driving off all evils, as the frequent experience of many centuries has taught. Let these things suffice concerning the latest translation of the sacred body, says the author, who passes on to set forth certain miracles. But some of these I have already set forth, and certain others seem to pertain to other Saints rather than to St. Matthew. Wherefore I bring hither briefly only those which can prudently be ascribed to the patronage of St. Matthew.

[82] Certain I pass over therefore what Marsilius relates in chap. XI about the bodies of SS. Fortunatus, Caius and Anthes, martyrs, translated to the church of St. Matthew: for they do not pertain to St. Matthew, and the said martyrs have been treated by us at the XXVIII of August, where that translation is more accurately set forth. What he subjoins about a pious old woman whose name was Polisena cannot certainly be attributed to a benefit of St. Matthew. Yet I transfer hither most of the author's words. She frequented most diligently, as he relates at length, the church of St. Matthew, coming daily to the sacred Office. It came to pass, he says, that when on a certain solemn day, having entered the temple, she saluted the glorious Apostle with all her heart and sprinkled herself with holy water, all the drops which had touched her cloak and linen were turned into purest gold, which the whole people also beheld with great wonder, and from the occurrence gave a name to the family, which is called de Aurofino, as by the traditions of the fathers the report has continued to this day. But that fact does not appear to me sufficiently certain from tradition alone, much less certainly to be attributed to St. Matthew. Perhaps also from tradition alone Marsilius wrote what he subjoins about Salerno divinely defended against Ferdinand Sanseverino, prince of Salerno. Yet I subjoin the fact briefly. Vaudémont, brother of the princeling of Lorraine, he says, had with easy work occupied Salerno, as Muratori narrates at length in the Annals of Italy at the year 1527. Prince Ferdinand, on learning the matter, straightway gathers a troop of soldiers to recover the city and punish the citizens. So far was he, says the author, from gaining his wish, that he was both straightway repulsed and lost very many of his soldiers in the space of one hour. Nor indeed did the townsmen render so happy and brave a service, who were both very few and unarmed: but there stood, and in great number, in the enemy's sight on behalf of the citizens, helmeted and cuirassed soldiers of the heavenly host under four distinguished leaders, whom there was surely no doubt to have been the most glorious Matthew and the three tutelary Saints (Fortunatus and his Companions); since it was a spectacle seen by the people, and the prince himself and every soldier proclaimed the same afterward when things were at peace. Thus far the author, who wrote in the same century, but was not present at the events, being not yet born.

[83] He subjoins another fact, which he says happened at nearly the same time. wonders A few words about it will suffice for us. A sacrilegious thief plundered the place of St. Matthew's tomb. He was arrested for another cause, and on that occasion confessed this crime too of his own accord. And after some days, he says, he was seized with so great a foulness (a stench, I suppose) and sorrow, that the corruption contracted in his own flesh was gradually turned into lice, of which so great a force sprang up that they not only filled all his garments, but plainly gnawed his whole body everywhere. Wherefore he quickly rotted with those most foul vermin, and by the just anger of the divine Majesty (as he himself openly confessed to all) vomited out his wretched soul in that very disease. I shall likewise compress into few words what the author affirms to have happened in 1525 and 1526. A certain Bernardino of the family of the Naccarelli, while he was in the church of St. Matthew on the sixth feria, Good Friday, of the former year, doubted about a particle of the most sacred Cross set forth for veneration, and uttered these impious words: Alas! what if the cross of Christ had been Mount Vesuvius itself? Having said this, he was straightway struck dumb, and remained mute until the same day of the following year; although he grieved much for his sin. On the day before that day, as he was going to church, he is admonished by a beggar to implore the aid of St. Geminianus bishop of Modena. And when on the next day he was present at divine service in the church of St. Matthew, as the bishop uttered those words, Behold the wood of the cross, says the author, Bernardino, who had fallen down with the utmost devotion, moved by the divine Spirit, cried out with a great voice: Behold the wood of the Cross, and thereafter set forth each of the other words which were spoken by the bishop, and straightway fell as if dead. Then indeed, because he was known to the citizens, and no one was ignorant that he had before been unable to speak, the whole people cried out: A miracle! a miracle! And although at that season there is no use of bells in the churches, but by the ancient rite of the Church a mournful noise is wont to be raised with wooden instruments so long as the Savior lay in the tomb, yet for the novelty of this miracle all the bells were straightway rung, and all the other instruments which are kept in the churches for chanting.

[84] Meanwhile Bernardino, having come to himself, made plain to all and benefits, what hitherto he had turned over in his heart only: namely that a year before, on that very day, he had been impious and unbelieving, in that he had believed the particle of the most sacred Cross to be spurious and counterfeit; and that therefore he had deservedly been deprived of the faculty of speech: but that now, on the preceding night, blessed Geminianus of Modena had spoken with him in a dream, and had admonished him that at that very hour which was then, with the return of the year, close at hand, he should in the same place bewail his sin before the most glorious apostle Matthew; and should believe that that was a true portion of the Cross on which Jesus the Savior hung for the human race: that he had done a little before whatever that holy man had admonished, and had besought the most holy Matthew to deign to offer to Christ the Lord the protestation of his faith, and had straightway recovered the lost power of speech. All these things he himself set forth openly at greater length and with many groans; and he asked the prelate to see that this miracle be entered in the records for a perpetual memory of the matter. Wherefore he ordered this to be diligently comprised in public documents: which were confirmed both by Bernardino's own oath and by the solemn attestation of all the canons who had been present.

[85] which by the patronage of St. Matthew After these things the author proceeds to the benefit of Salerno's being divinely defended against a fleet of the Turks. This happened at least during his own lifetime, but while he was not yet dwelling at Salerno. According to Muratori's Annals the thing was done in the year 1544. Let us hear Marsilius, some unnecessary circumstances being cut away: At which time … Charles V, emperor of the Romans, and Francis I, king of the French, were contending for the primacy of nearly all Italy, the Frenchman obtained from Solyman prince of the Turks a strong and numerous fleet, with Hariadenus Barbarossa as commander, to harass and plunder the maritime coasts which were of the imperial faction. This was done in the year 1543. But when in the following year Francis I, on better counsel, sent back that terrible fleet, which had brought no advantage, Barbarossa on his passage partly attempted in vain, partly took and plundered, various maritime cities and islands, as the author sets forth at length. He wished to invade Salerno likewise. Plainly when he came into sight of it, says Marsilius, terrible with the flash of arms and the fierceness of his look, he threatened chains and fetters for all the citizens and barbarous devastation for the city. Wherefore, at the savage sound of the drums and the menacing strains of the pipes, the whole people so greatly took fright that the inhabitants, removing with consternated mind and in the utmost trembling, nearly all fled to the mountains. Summer was then at its height, under the seventh

Kalends of Quintilis, and so great was the calm of sky and sea that the deep seemed plainly motionless: but Barbarossa, now approaching with a very dense line of ships, his guns set in front, gave the word for the soldiers to make a landing and to set about plunder and burning: when behold, a most turbulent tempest suddenly arises, and as though by a prodigious and horrible earthquake the sea is shaken between Amalfi and Salerno: and moreover, by an unwonted conspiracy of divers winds, it swelled so far in commotion that the fleet, tossed by immense waves, was driven upon the shore, and all the ships, with reeling masts and running together prow against stern, dashed and broken apart in vast calamity, sank in mournful shipwreck.

[86] were ascribed. There was added to the miracle an old man seen in the sky, of the greatest stature and conspicuous by the very whiteness of his long beard, who seemed to be stirring up that storm and to be fighting as it were for his own city: there were seen also very strong cohorts of most ready soldiers and citizens, with helmets and cuirasses gleaming along the crown of the wall, defending the city as by a perpetual garrison. Whence it is established that that monstrous barbarian trembled on that day, and with a very few triremes, which barely escaped unharmed, was swept beyond Palinurus by strengthening winds. The rest of the vessels of every sort were either utterly shattered and gradually swallowed up, or settled on that fatal shore, and all the booty which the barbarian had gathered from every quarter by right and wrong, cast up on the shore of Salerno, was claimed by the inhabitants who seized it. Since therefore not human strength but God the Best and Greatest had averted the impending disaster with so happy an outcome, the Salernitans set it down to the prayers and merits of the apostles Matthew and Andrew: the latter had defended the region of Amalfi, the former that of Salerno. Wherefore on the following day the people of Salerno gave vast thanks to God: and thereafter every year on that very day the memory of the miracle is renewed, since both a proper Office is on that account celebrated in the choir of the greater church, and a solemn procession passes through the city, in which by alternate prayers all the Saints, men and women, are propitiated, and the sacred solemnity of the Mass is performed. Thus far Marsilius, about thirty-five years after the event, when doubtless many Salernitans were living who had seen that fact and could judge of all its circumstances. The same things are related more briefly by Musca, who lived with Marsilius, in the Archbishops of Salerno, pag. 56; by Mazza in his Salernitan History, chap. 6; and by Ughelli, tom. 7, in the Archbishops of Salerno, under Nicholas Ridolfi, who then presided over the church of Salerno. I return to Marsilius.

[87] Lastly it pleases me not to keep silence about that which happened to ourselves two years ago while we sat in this church. and by Marsilius For although from that day on which that place was defiled by sacrilege, where the most glorious Apostle lies, the divine liquid has always come forth very scantily, so that scarcely in the space of many days could a modest quantity of it be drawn; yet when there came illustrious men out of Sarmatia, George Radziwiłł, coadjutor of the bishopric of Wilna, and Albert Radziwiłł his brother and duke in Olyka, and devoutly asked that we would grant them opportunity both of seeing the place and of carrying some of the manna itself to their country, we gladly granted both: and we found that very flask, which the day before had been nearly dry, so filled and dripping [] with the sacred moisture that we were able liberally to distribute it to those princely men themselves and to their companions. Nay, we even took care that two phials full of the same liquid should be carried to Gregory XIII, Supreme Pontiff, which we have learned by letters were most welcome to him. We therefore greatly marveled at the novelty of so great a thing; and, fearing lest the most blessed Apostle be angered against this people on account of their many crimes, we never cease to entreat him that he would deign, according to his accustomed goodness, to protect this city and all its citizens.*

[88] At last it pleases me to reckon this too among the miracles, that from the whole province men of either sex are very frequently brought who are most bitterly vexed by evil spirits: and all of these, being set before the very altar of St. Matthew, a single priest by the laying on of his hand delivers. the archbishop, Which indeed, although it has been unremittingly done from the very beginning of the translation, yet because it perseveres to these very times, and has sometimes been performed while we ourselves looked on, was by no means to be passed over in silence. So the author. From the last words I gather that many of St. Matthew's benefits were not committed to writing: for I do not find the deliverances of the possessed written down.

[89] Of these, one benefit of the Saint granted to the Salernitans is related by Romuald II, archbishop of Salerno, and by others who could see everything as one present, since he was a Salernitan by birth, and according to Ughelli's chronology was already archbishop presiding over his own country when the thing was done, or became archbishop four years after, by the chronology of Gaspar Musca. The fact is referred by Muratori in the Annals of Italy to the year 1162, and is thus set forth by Romuald, tom. 7 of the Writers of Italy, col. 205. William I, king of Sicily, surnamed the Bad, after the commotions of rebellion in the kingdom of Naples had been crushed and the whole land thus recovered, came with an army to Salerno. And because he was indignant against the citizens of Salerno, he would not enter the city, but pitched his tents beside it. And he began to demand a great sum of money from the citizens. And when they could not pay it at once, taking occasion thereof and being greatly indignant, he caused some of them to be hanged, threatening the others that unless they quickly paid the money he would destroy the city. But the blessed apostle Matthew, who was given by God to the city of Salerno as patron and defender, did not forsake his city in so great a hazard. For when the king was of that purpose, to inflict many evils upon the Salernitans, at midday, when there was so great a clearness that no cloud appeared in the air, suddenly from the north a strong wind with a vast rain and an impetuous whirlwind broke forth, which threw down all the tents of the whole army, and so struck and shook the royal tent, set on a height, from the place in which it had been fixed, that it almost laid low the sleeping king. The king, awakened and astounded by so great a flood, began to flee and to invoke the Apostle's aid, and in his flight barely took refuge in a certain small tent.

[90] related. And although the king dissembled the fear of his mind over this matter, yet the magnates of the court and prudent men clearly knew that this miracle was wrought by Apostolic power. For the Apostle in this deed manifestly took counsel both for the people committed to him and for the king, since he both rescued the people committed to him from peril and hindered the king from accomplishing the evil he purposed. The king therefore, turning over in his mind what had been done, and greatly fearing the Apostle's indignation, though he had disposed to stay a little while about Salerno, changed his purpose, and on the next day boarded the galleys (that is, the triremes) and returned in haste to Sicily. Hugh Falcandus, who also wrote in the same century, in his Sicilian History, published in the same place after Romuald's Chronicle, plainly agrees about the prodigious fact; but he attributes the cause of the prodigy to the death of a certain innocent Salernitan who by the king's order had been hanged with others. Of the whirlwind that arose, as he believes, for this cause, he speaks thus, col. 299: For when the air was so clear that no trace of cloud at all appeared in it, so great a tempest suddenly arose, with thunders, lightnings and a flood of rains following, that throughout the whole army the water ran down like a most rapid torrent, and the storm overthrew the tents both of the king himself and of all the rest, the pegs being torn out and the ropes broken: and so great a terror invaded the king and the whole army that, the loss of all their goods being set aside, they were forced to despair of their own safety. This, as I said, he thinks to have happened on account of the slaying of an innocent citizen; Romuald, for the preservation of the city and of many innocent persons from the injuries to be inflicted. The hidden counsels of God neither could know; but to me Romuald's conjecture seems preferable, because that terrible whirlwind did in fact produce this effect, that no further harm was done to the Salernitans; but it did not restore life to the man slain.

perhaps undantemque* (welling up)

§ VII. Relics preserved in various places: some sacred places dedicated to St. Matthew.

[ ] The Saint's arm and tooth in the sacristy of Salerno: There remain some things to be said about the relics of St. Matthew which are preserved separated from the rest of the body. Mazza indeed in his Salernitan History, chap. 6, says that the body of St. Matthew the apostle is preserved entire, except for a tooth and an arm, in the altar dedicated to him, of which I treated at num. 81. But I could wish that this were proved by a more certain testimony or by inspection of the bones; and certainly it is not to be taken so strictly that we must believe that no relics of St. Matthew came to other places also. Meanwhile the aforesaid author testifies that one tooth and an arm of the Saint are preserved in the upper sacristy of the same church. Of both Marsilius also speaks, chap. 9 pag. 79, where he sets forth the things preserved in the sacristy, and says that that tooth is placed in a silver cross enriched with various relics. On the right (part of the Cross) is another tooth of the most glorious Matthew, of which we also, he says, have spoken above. He hints therefore that it is that very tooth which had been granted to Athanasius the monk, the finder of the body, as was said at num. 74; and which was afterward taken from him, as was set forth at num. 74. Of the arm the aforesaid Marsilius speaks thus: There is also that arm of St. Matthew which the prince of Benevento once obtained from Gisulph by his prayers: and although it is enclosed in silver, yet through the lattice-work the sight of the flesh and bones lies open to beholders. Thus Marsilius, not explaining on what occasion the arm, which is asserted to have been translated to Benevento in the X century, was afterward brought back to Salerno. But just as the body of St. Januarius was translated in the IX century from Naples to Benevento, and thence again carried elsewhere, and at last brought back to Naples, in such or a like manner the arm of St. Matthew could have returned to Salerno. Certainly that it is now at Salerno, as also the tooth, Musca too asserts in the Compendium already praised.

[92] But if this is the very arm which was at Benevento in the X century, another bone of an arm, which Robert Guiscard had kept for himself, a second arm too seems to have been separated from the rest of the body in the XI century. For Robert Guiscard kept for himself a whole bone of an arm from the body that had been found, as we saw at num. 80. Of that bone the following is read in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, lib. 3 chap. 57, after the death of Robert has been related: Meanwhile he (Robert), on the day of his death, left the arm of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew to his chaplains, to be carried back to Salerno and rendered to his son. But they, poor in substance and poorer in faith, divide among themselves the silver case in which the holy arm was laid up, and thence, going on to Jerusalem, kept the holy relics hidden with them until the day of their death. And coming to their death, they hand over the aforesaid relics, without their companions' knowledge, to their servants, who, in what manner they brought the holy arm to this place in the times of abbot Girard, we shall write in its own place. Then

in lib. 4 chap. 73 the aforesaid author writes this: Meanwhile this abbot (of Monte Cassino, Girard), while he was remaining at Benevento in the service of the Apostolic See, and had learned with the surest certainty that the arm of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew was laid up in that same city, calling to himself the keepers of the said arm, began most studiously to inquire in what manner or by what order they had come by the arm of that same holy Apostle. And when they had related how duke Robert had carried it with him in the expedition which he had made against the emperor Alexius, and had at last left it to his chaplains at his death, and how these had afterward on the day of their death bequeathed it to them, the abbot began to admonish them more earnestly to confer so great pledges upon the monastery of Cassino.

[93] translated to various places, and at last to Cassino. But they declare that they will fulfill this the sooner, if the abbot would receive them into this monastery without any price whenever they might wish to come to conversion. And when the abbot had most gladly promised that he would fulfill this, they at once hand over the holy relics to that same abbot to be carried to this place. Receiving therefore the holy relics, and long kissing them, the same abbot took care to transmit them to this monastery by the Brethren of this our Congregation. At whose coming all who inhabited this land went forth to meet them with vast devotion and joy. Indeed, when these things had come to the knowledge of this our Congregation, filled with inestimable exultation and clothed in solemn vestments, with lamps and incense they went out as far as the old gate, and, prostrate on the ground, adored the holy Evangelist: and rising, with the greatest reverence they kissed it, and, bringing it with hymns and praises into the monastery, and enclosing the holy arm in a silver casket fashioned in the likeness of towers, they hung it on a silver beam before the altar of blessed Benedict, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand one hundred and twenty-two. In the Annotations of the editor Angelo de Nuce it is added that that arm is now preserved in a silver case in the form of an arm. Our Papebroch in the manuscript Itinerary, which he composed from his stay at Rome down to his return to Belgium, at pag. 108 reckons that bone of St. Matthew's arm among the relics which he saw in the sacristy of Monte Cassino.

[94] The church of St. Matthew at Rome, Rome exhibits in various churches some relics of St. Matthew. And among the numerous churches of the City there is one dedicated to St. Matthew, which is surnamed in Merulana, for in Mariana, because it is near the trophies of Marius, as various writers assert. Martinelli in Roma sacra, pag. 257, treats of this church of St. Matthew in Merulana, otherwise Mariana, in the region of the Hills, going from the Basilica of St. Mary Major to the Lateran. It has a monastery annexed, and, as the aforesaid author observes, was once of the Brethren who are called Crucifers, and is now under the care of the Brethren of St. Augustine, namely the Irish, as a most recent author adds. Authors observe besides that that church is reckoned among the Cardinalitial titles, and indeed among the older ones, as most add. Some also assert that it was built about the year 600, which I do not care to examine. This is more certain, that it was dedicated by Paschal II, whether this was done after the first building or after a restoration. For the aforesaid Martinelli recites a long inscription in which that consecration is asserted in this manner: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCX, Indiction III, on the VI feria of the fourth Sunday in Lent, the day of the Incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, in the XI year of the pontificate of the lord Pope Paschal II (all the notes agree with the year 1110), this venerable church was dedicated in honor of God, of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, and of the blessed apostle and evangelist Matthew, with the four altars which are in it. Which consecration was performed by the aforesaid lord and most venerable Pontiff Pope Paschal II. At the greater altar indeed the same lord Pope celebrated Mass in honor of the Blessed Matthew. And his coadjutors were seven, namely Rainerius of Ostia, Richard of Porto, Peter of Tivoli, Julian of Ferentino, Anastasius of Alba, Peter of Tusculum, Antonius of Amelia, all the Cardinal priests and deacons of the Holy Roman Church being present, and also an innumerable multitude of the Roman clergy and people.

[95] And in the greater altar, consecrated by the aforesaid lord Pope, and his relics there in various places: at which the aforesaid bishops also assisted, these relics were placed: and first of the wood of the holy Cross, an arm of St. Matthew, of the stone of Christ's sepulchre, etc. … And I, Paschal, Pope of the universal Church, with the aforesaid bishops, saw these relics of the Saints with my own eyes, and handled them with my own hands, and laid them up with the ancient title in a marble chest beneath the greater altar. He adds indulgences for those visiting that church from the day of consecration, XXV March, until the Octave of Pentecost; and on the feast of St. Matthew, XXI September. For the rest, by the "arm of St. Matthew" laid up in the altar I think some bone of an arm is to be understood, not a whole arm. Panciroli in his Italian Work on the hidden Treasures of Rome, in the church of St. Matthew, pag. 137, asserts that another arm of St. Matthew is preserved in the basilica of St. Mary Major, and yet another in the church of St. Marcellus the Pope: and in the index of relics he adds that a rib of St. Matthew is kept in the church of St. Nicholas in Carcere. With all these agrees Piazza in his Hemerologium sacrum at this day, where he adds that some relics of St. Matthew are also preserved in the Vatican basilica of St. Peter, and in the churches of the Holy Apostles and of St. Cecilia; and he enumerates various chapels of St. Matthew at Rome, which for brevity's sake I pass over.

[96] Masini in his Bononia perlustrata, pag. 460, testifies [likewise a church at Bologna, and there and at Naples relics: at Venice a church and relics:] that at Bologna there is a parish church dedicated to St. Matthew, in which his festival is chiefly celebrated; and that in another parish church, sacred to St. Nicholas, some arm of the same Apostle is preserved, and his solemnity is there celebrated with plenary indulgences. Laurence Beyerlinck in the Theatrum vitæ humanæ, tom. 6, under the word Relics, reckons at pag. 303 many relics preserved at Naples, and among them assigns relics of St. Matthew to the church of St. Mary of Wisdom, and at pag. 304 bones of St. Matthew to St. Mary of the Virgins. Among the very many churches of the city of Venice there is also one parish church sacred to St. Matthew, as that most illustrious writer and our very great friend, Flaminio Corner, senator of Venice, sets forth accurately in his elegant Work on the Churches of Venice, Decade 4 pag. 173, where he recites the letters of foundation from the autograph. From these he rightly deduces that the foundation was made in the month of February of the year 1155 after the Venetian manner and that of others of that time, as is clear from the Indiction IV added in the letters, by which the year 1156 is designated; but in the month of February the year 1155 was then still running until Easter, or at any rate until the feast of the Annunciation, that is, the XXV day of March. The founder of the church was Leonard Cornaro, whose letters are recited, as also another donation which was added to the first in the year 1166. Then the church, decaying with age, is restored in the year of the Lord MDCXV, as we are taught by a marble inscription fixed to the wall, says Corner, reciting it. The same writer says a little after: At last, when in these our own times it was tending to ruin, it is restored from the foundations in a more elegant form by the zeal of Nicholas Milesi the parish priest, and is abundantly furnished with sacred furniture and ornaments, in the year of the Lord MDCCXXXV: and thereafter on the XXIII day of September in the year MDCCXLIII it is consecrated by Alvise Foscari, patriarch of Venice. Of the relics of the same church the author writes at pag. 175: It is enriched with some relics of the Saints, namely with bones of the holy Apostle its Patron, etc. More things about that church, diligently observed in the same place, may be seen.

[97] other places sacred to him and relics in Italy and Sicily. Corner, moreover, in the little Work on the Churches of Torcello, which he added to the former, assigns two monasteries of nuns consecrated to St. Matthew. The first is the monastery of St. Matthew of Mazzorbo of the Cistercian Order, which had before been built on another island, namely on Costanziaco, and thence with the consent of the bishop of Torcello was translated to the island of Mazzorbo, as is set forth at length in part 1 of that little Work, pag. 299 and following. The first foundation is noted as made in the year 1218 at Costanziaco, pag. 316; but before the end of the same century the nuns translated their monastery to the island of Mazzorbo. The other is the monastery of nuns of the Order of St. Benedict on the island of Murano in the same diocese of Torcello, as Corner sets forth in part 2 from pag. 201. The foundation is noted at pag. 204 as made in the year 1280, and there was then given to the nuns an ancient oratory dedicated to St. Matthew, as may there be seen more at large. In the catalogue of relics of both monasteries I find none of St. Matthew. But relics of St. Matthew were in the year 1554 enclosed in the altar of St. Abundius, which Andreas Crucius, bishop of Tivoli, then consecrated at Subiaco in Latium, as the inscription has it, given in tom. VI of August, pag. 635. Rocco Pirri in the Sicilia sacra, tom. 2 pag. 474, where he enumerates the relics of the cathedral church of Cefalù, says that it rejoices in a whole foot with the skin of the Blessed Matthew. Scicli, a notable town of Sicily in the val di Noto and the diocese of Syracuse, not far from the city of Noto, venerates St. Matthew as its titular patron, to whom the chief parish church is dedicated. I do not doubt that other particles too of St. Matthew's relics are preserved in Italy and Sicily; but to enumerate them all is not of so great necessity as of difficulty. I therefore pass over into Germany, meaning to assign some there also.

[98] Relics of St. Matthew in various places in Germany, The people of Prague in Bohemia attribute many relics of St. Matthew to their church. Thomas John Pessina in the Phosphorus Pragensis, pag. 518, enumerates them thus: A whole foot of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist, and an arm with the skin: a rib encircled with silver, and a tooth. Likewise four other bones, placed together in a silver case: and again another notable portion. This is called a part of the shoulder in the printed Catalogue of the relics of Prague which in the year 1645 were translated from the royal castle of Karlstein to the metropolitan church, in which the rest also are reckoned. Nay, there too in the seventh order, num. 56, the following are added — I know not whether rightly enough: Both arms of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist, with skin and flesh. But in the manuscript catalogue of relics extracted from the Calendar of the church of Prague, which in the year 1647 Fr. Theodore Moretus sent hither, only these things are read at the XXI of September: Of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist, who, preaching among the Ethiopians, suffered martyrdom. Whose relics, namely a great image adorned with silver and gold, holding his rib in its hands, which the most pious prince found

Charles IV, etc., gave to the church of Prague. Thus far there: but I shall gladly leave it to the people of Prague themselves to examine how many relics of St. Matthew they possess. Bucelinus in the Sacrarium Benedictinum, which he published in the year 1656, hands down this about the relics of St. Matthew at the XXI of September: A notable portion of this great Evangelist is preserved at Andechs (a monastery of Bavaria), where two other parts of him also are shown. A tooth at Elnone (otherwise called the monastery of St. Amandus in Flanders). Two molar teeth and some other things at Weingarten; which is a monastery of Swabia with a town of the same name. Very many relics of St. Matthew Gelenius also attributes to Cologne in his Work: namely at pag. 264 two particles to the collegiate church of St. Gereon; at pag. 372 something of the head of St. Matthew to the abbatial church of St. Pantaleon; at pag. 412 something of the relics to the parish church of St. Lupus, as also at pag. 442 to the church of St. Catherine of the Teutonic Order; at pag. 456 to the church of the Carthusians; at pag. 483 to the church of the Carmelites; at pag. 547 to the church of St. Maximin of the nuns of the Augustinian Order; at pag. 560 to the church of the nuns of the same Order in the greater Nazareth; at pag. 584 to the church of St. Vincent of the third rule of St. Francis; and finally at pag. 627 to the chapel of St. Margaret. But all these seem to be small particles, so that the number causes no difficulty.

[99] In our Belgium too relics of St. Matthew are shown in very many places, the head, and other relics in Belgium. and among them one highly notable. And indeed it would be a wonder to no one if more of this Apostle's relics had fallen to Belgium than to other provinces, since the emperor Charles V was born in Belgium and was often wont to reside there, and the same was at one time at Salerno, where he could have received them and thence carried or transmitted them to Belgium. In other ways too the relics of St. Matthew could have been transferred to Belgium long before. But how they were brought I do not find in Raissius, who reckons them in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum. The first place certainly is deserved by the Saint's head, which at pag. 394 he attributes to the oratory of the court of Brussels in these words: This place is besides adorned in a wonderful manner by that rare pledge, namely the whole head of the most holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, enclosed at the greatest cost and worth in a silver image representing the same Apostle down to the breast, exceeding the natural height of a man, about whose shoulders an angel, hovering, holds out to him a little ink-vessel. It is set up upon a very rich stand of ebony most skillfully wrought, in which are comprised the chief miracles of the said Apostle engraved on silver plates and sheets, and adorned with various elegance of art. The same writer at pag. 463 ascribes bones of St. Matthew, that is, something of the bones, to the collegiate church of St. Saviour at Bruges in Flanders; again at pag. 314 to the cathedral church of Tournai two bones of the holy apostle and evangelist Matthew, one large, the other of middling size; at pag. 451 to the Charterhouse of Rettel on the Meuse (read Moselle) in the duchy of Luxembourg a great bone of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist; at pag. 430 to the abbey of Phalempin of the Order of St. Augustine in Flanders a silver arm, in which, he says, a notable part of the arm of St. Matthew … is preserved; and at pag. 216 he says that something of the relics of St. Matthew, obtained by the gift of Margaret princess of Flanders, is kept in the abbey of Flines of the Cistercian virgins. The abbeys of Lætia and Maricolles, both Benedictine in Hainault, believe likewise that they possess something of the bones of St. Matthew. To the former, at pag. 279, Raissius attributes part of a finger of St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist together with the flesh; to the other, at pag. 296, something of his rib. The canons of the Order of St. Augustine in the abbey of St. Nicholas of Oignies on the Sambre have, on the same testimony, pag. 387, the portable altar of James de Vitry, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, and in it, with other relics, something of St. Matthew; of whom finally he attributes something at pag. 401 to the abbey of Parc of the Premonstratensian Order in Brabant near Louvain. Thus the aforesaid Raissius, who also reckons among the rest the tooth at Elnone, that is, in the monastery of St. Amandus, already mentioned above.

[100] I pass into Gaul, where in various places they believe they have the head of St. Matthew. Albert le Grand in his French Work on the Saints of Armorican Britain, pag. 600, in the Life of St. Tanguy the abbot, relates that the head of St. Matthew was in the VI century secretly carried off from Egypt by Armorican merchants, A monastery dedicated to the Saint in Armorica, to which the head is attributed, and translated into Armorican Britain, and that there in the diocese of Léon a monastery was built in which the Saint's head was laid. He adds a twofold prodigy: namely that a rock standing out in the sea was broken through by the ship while the head was being conveyed; the other wrought in the building of the monastery; but each needs documents far more ancient than can be brought forward, if it is to find credit. The very bringing of the head from Egypt does not seem more certain than the translation of the body from Ethiopia mentioned before. Nevertheless the said translation of the head is narrated also by Charles le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 555 num. 21, and by Louis Bulteau in the Historical Compendium of the Order of St. Benedict, lib. 2 chap. 28 num. 2, as also the building of the monastery dedicated to St. Matthew, of which there can be no doubt. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, tom. 1 pag. 152, at the year 563 sets forth the foundation of the monastery, but speaks doubtingly of the translation of St. Matthew's head in this manner: Then the monasteries built by Paul (bishop of Léon, of whom we have treated in tom. 2 of March from pag. 108), and first of all that of Gerber, over which was set abbot Tanguy — he who is reported to have built the monastery of St. Matthew about the middle of the sixth century on the farthest promontory of Armorica among the people of Léon, and for that reason surnamed "at Land's End." As the occasion they hand down that the head of the holy Apostle was brought from Egypt by certain merchants of Léon. Paul consecrated the new monastic house, and thither Tanguy led a colony from the monastery of Gerber, in which he was succeeded by Relec. The monastery of St. Matthew endures to our own time under the congregation of St. Maur, situated, as I said just now, in the diocese of Léon, not far from Le Conquet, a little further from the most celebrated harbor of Brest. Scarcely any ancient monuments of this monastery survive after the various disasters inflicted by the English; although its ancient splendor is proved by its notable basilica, which is adorned with various relics of the Saints. For the rest, the persuasion about the head of St. Matthew preserved in that monastery flourished at least from the XIII century: for Matthew of Westminster, at the year 1295, writes this of a fleet of the English carried thither, the inhabitants of the monastery fleeing: After this a good many, entering the abbey of St. Matthew, carried off the ecclesiastical utensils with the head of that same Saint, and conveyed them to lord Edmund, the leader of the army. All which lord Edmund caused to be sequestered and restored to the men of the church. From these things, however, it cannot rightly be deduced that the head which is there held for the head of St. Matthew is entire: for the Westminster writer does not assert this. But whether that head which is there is St. Matthew's, I do not inquire.

[101] which others write is preserved both at Beauvais and at Chartres, Andreas Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology at the XXI of September agrees with the almost common opinion about the Saint's body translated to Salerno; and adds: From which (body) the venerable head, taken out, was long ago carried into Gaul, and laid up in the chief basilica of Beauvais, in which it is preserved with excellent honor — except the crown of the head, which is held with great veneration at Chartres in the sacristy of the noble church of the Virgin Mother of God. In the Necrology of Beauvais, which is cited in tom. 9 of the Gallia Christiana, col. 742, under Milo I bishop of Beauvais, among other things the following are read: He (Milo) gave the head of the Blessed apostle Matthew and the rod of Aaron. But whence he received that head is not added in the aforesaid Gallia Christiana. Milo was in Egypt with the crusaders, and was likewise for a notable time in Italy. But whether he was also at Constantinople, and there received that head, as Baillet relates at this day in his St. Matthew, and indeed in the time of Philip Augustus, who died in the year 1223, I find nowhere. But Baillet seems to have wished to reconcile the Necrology with the writings of Du Cange, and so to have said what no one had said before. Certainly Du Cange, whom he also cites in the Historical treatise on the Head of St. John the Baptist, says something altogether different, when at pag. 104 he reckons the relics sent to the West by the Latins after the occupation of Constantinople. For of the head of St. Matthew he speaks thus: Gervase de Chasteau-neuf, canon of Chartres and afterward bishop of Nevers, gave to the church of Chartres the head of St. Matthew. With him agrees Sébastien Rouillard in his History of Chartres, chap. 8 pag. 207. Therefore the people of Chartres believed that they received that head at Constantinople; but they cannot prove that the head of St. Matthew was ever at Constantinople, so that the tradition of the church of Chartres, as well as that of Beauvais, seems highly uncertain.

[102] We have now seen the head of St. Matthew assigned to three places in Gaul. and in the abbey of Rangéval, others write that it is preserved. There is added a fourth in Lorraine, namely the Premonstratensian abbey in the diocese of Toul called Rangéval (Rengis-vallis), not to be confounded with the other which is called Riéval (Regia vallis), and is of the same Order and in the same diocese. Saussay in the Supplement to the Gallican Martyrology at the XXI of September announces the veneration of today's St. Matthew in the convent of Rangéval, as it is also sometimes called, and adds: Whose … part of the laureled head … is most honorably preserved in the said monastery, and is today most religiously set forth for veneration. He says "part of the head," I suppose, because he had already assigned the head to Beauvais and Chartres. Certainly Calmet in the History of Lorraine, tom. 2 of the first edition, col. 22, attributes the head of St. Matthew to the abbey of Rangéval, and at col. 275 says that it was brought from Palestine by Gobert lord of Aspremont. Hugo in the Premonstratensian Annals, tom. 2 col. 649, writes the following of that head in the abbey of Rangéval: The head of St. Matthew enclosed in a silver casket, celebrated by the concourse of the peoples from the XIV century: for before this we read nothing in the ancient monuments whence a greater antiquity could be adjudged to it. The studious reader will sufficiently observe that all those cannot be heads of St. Matthew, if they are entire or nearly entire. Wherefore they will be able themselves to examine whether perhaps they have a small particle of the head set upon an artificial head, and the name of "the head" has been imposed upon it — as I have learned by plainly certain experiments to have been done elsewhere; or whether they have the relics of some uncertain Saint, which by error have been believed to be St. Matthew's, as also not seldom happens.

[103] Other particles of relics too are recorded in other places. Other relics in Gaul and Portugal Among the several relics which in the year 894 were carried from Reims into the district of Vermandois, and laid in the village of Memnicum in a church dedicated to St. Martin, there is reckoned also something of the relics of St. Matthew, as may be seen in tom. 1 of January, pag.

180. In tom. III of February, pag. 99, in the Life of St. Angilbert, abbot of Centula in Ponthieu (now commonly called the abbey of St. Riquier), who flourished in the time of Charlemagne, there is related the building and dedication of the church of the Blessed Mary at Centula with thirteen altars and the relics which are placed in each. And to our purpose these words are read there: The altar of St. Matthew, in which are his relics, and those of Mark and Luke. Again at pag. 103, where a writing is given under the name of Angilbert enumerating the relics which by the help of Charlemagne and of others he had obtained from various regions, relics of St. Matthew are reckoned with very many others. It is not added, however, whether it was something of the Saint's bones or only of his garments. In the prolix Catalogue of relics which in the year 1585 were translated to Lisbon and there given to the professed house of the Society of Jesus, relics of St. Matthew the apostle are also enumerated, in our tom. 2 of January, pag. 612. But let this enumeration suffice, since by no human industry can all the particles of relics be enumerated which churches or private persons possess, especially since by donations they are frequently transferred from one place to another. A particle of this kind I have by me while I write these things, received in the year 1753 at Venice from the most excellent lord Flaminio Corner, senator of Venice, praised above, who kept another for himself.

[104] The celebrated monastery of St. Matthew in Mesopotamia. Places sacred to St. Matthew, besides those hitherto recorded in the West, certainly exist in greater number, and some also in the Eastern provinces. Of the celebrated monastery of St. Matthew in Mesopotamia, which is now called Diarbekir, near the city of Mosul or new Nineveh, Assemani frequently makes mention in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, tom. 2. And from what he relates at pag. 408 about that monastery it clearly appears that it existed at least from the V century. The same writer, tom. 2 pag. 403, makes mention of the convent of Chuchta, which is called the monastery of St. Matthew on mount Elpheph. And from that monastery twelve monks with the bishop of Nineveh are said to have been slain by the order of Pheroz king of the Persians in the city of Nineveh or Mosul. The same history is narrated in Assemani, tom. 3 pag. 393, where it is likewise called the convent of Cuchta, that is, of St. Matthew on mount Elpheph; and the monks in that monastery are said to have been arrested with the metropolitan of Nineveh and led to Nineveh, where afterward they were slain because they would not consent to the Nestorian heresy. And from the fact that the metropolitan of Nineveh was arrested in the monastery, and that all were led to Nineveh, it is gathered with sufficient certainty that this is the same monastery as the preceding one near Mosul or Nineveh. Assemani also held it for the same, in whom more about that monastery may be seen, since those things pertain less to St. Matthew.

ACTS

From the Vatican codex 1188 among the Latin manuscripts.

By an uncertain Author.

ON ST. MATTHEW THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST,

IN ETHIOPIA.

BHL Number: 5691

By an Uncertain Author.

PROLOGUE

A preface afterward added to the Acts, and not agreeing with them. Matthew the apostle and evangelist, who in Latin is called Donatus ^a, who also took his surname Levi ^b from his own tribe, in which he was born. But in Latin he received his name from the public office; who was chosen by the Lord from among the Publicans and transferred into the apostolate. He wrote in Judæa the Gospel in Hebrew letters and speech ^c, beginning from the human nativity of Christ, saying: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, signifying that Christ descended [*] bodily from the seed of the Patriarchs, as was promised by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. For announcing by these things the same Redeemer born and suffering, he is compared to the first living creature ^d in the likeness of a man. First indeed he preached the Gospel in Judæa; afterward in Macedonia ^e, and suffered in Persia. He rests in the mountains of the Portians. On the eleventh of the Kalends of October ^f.

ANNOTATIONS.

* that Christ descended

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's preaching in Judæa, then in Ethiopia, where he is said to have converted the king and nearly the whole region to the faith.

The Saint's preaching in Judæa and the Gospel written there. The blessed Matthew, apostle and evangelist, had first preached Christ the Lord to the Hebrews. But when he was preparing to pass over to Ethiopia, which had fallen to him in the lot of preaching, he composed the Gospel in his native tongue, that is, in Hebrew: and, comprising in it the things which he had preached, he left it to those from whom he was departing, for a memorial ^a.

[3] At that time therefore there were two magi, Zaroes and Arphaxat, among the Ethiopians in their great city Since two magi were in Ethiopia, which is called Natdaber ^b, in which there was a king named Egyppus ^c. Him therefore these two magi deluded, so that they said that they were gods, and all the people believed them, and even the king of the aforesaid city; and their fame went through all Ethiopia, so that from far regions of Ethiopia men came and adored them. For they made men suddenly fixed in their step and stand motionless as long as they themselves wished: likewise they restrained by their agency the sight and hearing of men. They commanded serpents to strike, which they are wont to do by their bites: and they themselves cured by incantation; and, as is commonly said, the greater reverence was shown to the more malignant magicians.

[4] Having therefore, as has often been said ^d, a care for men, God sent the apostle Matthew against these. St. Matthew opposes them, He, having entered the city, began to lay bare their tracks: for all whom they fixed in place, he loosed in the name of Jesus Christ; those whom they blinded, he gave light to; those from whom they had taken hearing, he restored it; the serpents also which they roused to strike men, he turned to sleep; and their strokes he cured by making the sign of the Lord.

[5] to whom comes the eunuch of queen Candace, and many are converted. When the Ethiopian eunuch of queen Candace ^e, who had been baptized by Philip, had seen him, he cast himself at his feet, adoring and saying: God has looked upon this city, to free it from the hand of these two magi, whom foolish men think to be gods: and he received him into his house. There came to him all the friends of the eunuch of queen Candace, and, hearing the word of life, they believed in Christ Jesus our Lord, and very many were baptized, seeing that all the things which the magi did evilly to men, this Apostle of God made void. For those men wounded whomever they could, that the wounded might entreat them. And they were therefore thought to cure, because they ceased from injuring. But Matthew the apostle of Christ cured not only those whom they injured, but also all who were brought to him, beset by divers infirmities. And he preached to the people the truth of God, so that all marveled at his eloquence.

[6] The Apostle, at the eunuch's question, sets forth the confusion of tongues, Then the eunuch of Candace, who had received him with all affection, questioned him, saying: I beseech thee to deign to tell me how, since thou art a Hebrew, thou knowest the Greek and the Egyptian and the Ethiopic ^f speech, so that those who were born among them cannot so speak. The Apostle answered: The whole world is known to have had one speech of all men. But there arose such a presumption of men as urged them to make a tower of so great a size that its summit should reach to heaven. This presumption God regarded in such a way that none of those laboring at it could understand one speaking to him. And there were made very many kinds of tongues, and that conspiracy was seen to be an evil presumption, which wished to go to heaven not by holy merits. But the Son of almighty God, coming and wishing to show in what order we may reach the heavens by building, sent to us his twelve disciples the Holy Spirit from heaven, while we were sitting in one place; and he came upon each one of us, and we were kindled, as iron is kindled by fire.

[7] and the mission of the Holy Spirit with the gift of tongues. But after these things, when both the fear and the splendor had departed from us, we began to speak in divers tongues to the nations the mighty works of Christ's nativity: in what order God was born, who has no origin; how God was born man of an untouched Virgin, suckled and nourished, tempted and suffering, buried, and on the third day rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God the Father almighty: whence he shall come to judge the whole world by fire. Not therefore, as thou thinkest, these four, but the tongues of all nations we the XII disciples of his know, not indifferently, but perfectly. Now therefore a tower is built, not of stones, but of the virtues of Christ. For to all who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the tower which Christ built is opened.

[8] He first lulls to sleep the dragons brought by the magi, While he was discoursing on these and many like things with mystical speech, there came one to say that the magi were coming, each with a dragon. And the dragons were helmeted, their breath poured forth a flame-bearing heat, they scattered sulphur from their ears and nostrils, the smell of which infected men. Then Matthew the apostle, signing himself, began to go out. But the eunuch tried to keep him back with the doors shut [*], saying: Speak to those magi, if thou wilt, through the window. The Apostle says to him: Do thou open for me, and through the window do thou observe the audacity of those magi. And the Apostle, opening the door, presently went out. And behold those two magi came, each having a dragon before him: and presently, as they came, both dragons before the Apostle's feet

fell asleep. Then the Apostle says to them: Where is your art? Can you rouse them? But I, had I not entreated my Lord Jesus Christ, they would have turned back upon you all the fury which you have now [*] whetted. But until all the people assemble, since no one will dare to approach hither, I shall rouse them, and shall bid them return to their own place with all mildness. They tried by their magic art to rouse them, and were utterly unable either to open their eyes or to rouse themselves.

[9] And the peoples entreated, saying to the Apostle: We beg thee, then, having roused them, bids them depart: Lord, that thou free the people and the city from these beasts. Matthew the apostle says to them: Fear not: for I will make them withdraw hence with all mildness: and turning he said: In the name of my Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the [*] Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who after the cross was buried and on the third day rose from the dead, in his name and power I adjure you, dragons, that, touching no one at all, you return to your own places with all mildness. At this voice the serpents, lifting their heads, began to go: and, the gates being opened, they went out of the city and appeared nowhere.

[10] Then the blessed apostle Matthew addressed all the people thus: The Apostle's discourse on the fall of man, the Incarnation of Christ, Hear me, brethren and sons, and all you who wish to free your souls from the dragon, the devil. For your salvation God has sent me to you, that, leaving the vanity of idols, you may be converted to him who created you. For God, when he made man, placed him in the paradise of delights together with the woman whom he had made from his rib. But by the persuasion of a malignant angel (they had fallen from heaven ^g on account of pride), when they had tasted of the fruit of the forbidden tree — they who would have been immortal for ever, had they kept God's command — not only did they themselves, driven out from that same place of delights, incur death, but they transmitted it also through the whole race of men which sprang from them. But in these last days God sent his Son for the restoration of men, born of a Virgin, who by the flesh which he had taken from an untouched Virgin should succor men.

[11] He therefore, when he had appeared in the world, chose us twelve Apostles. his passion, resurrection, and the mission of the Apostles, etc. And when he did signs unheard of in the world, by the envy of the Jewish people he was crucified, and on the third day rose again. And when he had abode with us for XL days, he ascended into the heavens while we looked on and were amazed. And to us who believed in him he granted so great a power that not only do we cure all diseases and infirmities, but we even raise the dead themselves. Whence, brethren, you ought to believe in this true God, and in his Father, and likewise in the Holy Spirit, we who in three Persons worship one God; that, washed in the baptism of purification, you may both escape eternal death and come to joys that abide for ever.

[12] And while the Apostle was speaking these and like things, behold, a mournful tumult suddenly arose, The king's dead son, at the queen's request, in which the king's son was being lamented as dead. At whose funeral the magi had stood two days: and when they could not raise him, they were seeking to persuade [*] the king that he had been caught up by the gods into their college, so that he was one of the gods, for whom both an image and a temple ought to be made. Then the eunuch of Candace, entering, said to the queen: Command that those magi be kept under guard, and ask that Matthew the apostle of God come to you: and if he raise him for you, command that these be burned alive; because all evils come upon your city through them. Then there were sent with the eunuch honored men from the king's side to entreat the Apostle, and with honor they brought him in to the king. And as Matthew entered, Eufenissa ^h, queen of the Ethiopians, prostrated herself at his knees and said: I have known thee to be an Apostle sent by God for the salvation of men, and to be the disciple of him who raised the dead and drove all sicknesses from men by his command ⁱ. Now therefore come, and invoke his name over my dead son, and I believe that, if thou do this, he will live again.

[13] he recalls to life. The Apostle says to her: Thou hast not yet heard from my mouth the preaching of my Lord Jesus Christ; and thou sayest, I believe. Therefore know that thy son is restored to thee alive. The Apostle, entering, spread out his hands to heaven and said: God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, who for our restoration didst send thine only-begotten Son from heaven to the earth, that he might turn us from error and show thee to us as the true Lord; be mindful of our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son saying: Amen I say to you, that all things which you shall ask of my Father in my name shall be given you. That the nations therefore may know that beside thee there is no other, and that the assertion of my mouth is true, let this boy be raised up: and, taking the hand of the dead, he said: In the name of my Lord Jesus Christ crucified, arise, Eufranan [*]; and straightway the boy rose.

[14] At this sign the king's heart was struck with fear: and at once he ordered crowns and purple to be brought to him, Many of the people being converted, a church is built, and sent heralds through the cities and through the various provinces of Ethiopia, saying: Come to the city, and see God ^k hidden in the likeness of a man. And when the whole multitude had come with tapers and lamps, and with divers kinds of incense, and with divers rites of sacrifice, holy Matthew addresses them all with this voice: I am not God, but a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of almighty God, who sent me to you, that, leaving the error of your images, you may be converted to the true God. But if you think me, a man like yourselves, to be God, how much more ought you to believe him to be God, whose servant I confess myself to be: in whose name I have raised this dead son of the king. And now all you who are capable of so most evident a reason, take away gold and crowns and silver from my eyes: but go and build a temple to the Lord, that we may assemble there to hear his word. On hearing which, within XXX days sixty thousand men completed a holy church, and Matthew called the name of the church Resurrection, because it had been the cause of their building it.

[15] then several others, and Matthew peacefully advances the faith. And Matthew sat in this church XXIII years, and appointed presbyters and deacons, and built many churches, and ordained bishops throughout the cities and strongholds. And king Egyppus was baptized, and queen Eufenissa with her sons — Eufranan, who was raised — and her daughter Ephigenia ^l, who remained a virgin. But Zaroes and Arphaxat, those two magi, from the hour in which Matthew raised the king's son in the name of Jesus Christ, fleeing from Ethiopia, drifted away into Persia, doing there nonetheless worse things. And since it would be long to narrate one by one how many blind were given light, how many paralytics cured, how many lepers cleansed, how many freed from demons, how many dead also raised; how most Christian the king was, how most religious his wife proved, how devout the whole army; how all the images and all the temples were destroyed: passing over all these things, as I said, on account of their multitude ^m, we shall relate in what order the Apostle of God celebrated his holy passion.

ANNOTATIONS.

ostiis* (doors)

elsewhere, in me*

* an incongruous expression.

in our manuscript, suadebant*

in our manuscript, Eufranon*

CHAPTER II.

The king being dead, his successor Hirtacus, having sought Ephigenia's hand in marriage in vain, troubles the church and slays Matthew. But, he being dead, the church again flourishes in Ethiopia.

[ ] The king being dead, when king Hirtacus wished Ephigenia for his wife, King Egyppus, his old age being fulfilled, went to the Lord, and Hyrtacus his cousin ^a received his empire. When he wished to take to wife Effigenia, the daughter of the deceased king, already dedicated to Christ, who had received the sacred veil from the Apostle's hand, and who was moreover set over more than two hundred virgins, king Hyrtacus hoped that through the Apostle he might be able to move her mind. He began therefore to treat with holy Matthew, saying: Take the half of my kingdom, only persuade her that I may join Effigenia to me in matrimony. To whom the Apostle says: According to the purpose

of thy predecessor the king, who every Sabbath day used to assemble where I preached the word of the Lord, there bid all the virgins who are with her to assemble together with her, and thou shalt hear before the people how many good things I shall speak concerning a good marriage; since marriages are sufficiently acceptable to God. On hearing which, Hyrtacus rejoiced, and ordered Effigenia to be present at that assembly, as though she were to hear from the Apostle's mouth that she should become the wife of Hyrtacus and should consent to him.

[17] but Matthew praised her purpose of preserving virginity, And when a great silence had been made in the assembly, the Apostle, opening his mouth, said: Hear my discourse, all you sons of the Church: hear, and understand all the things which you hear, that they may remain written in your hearts. For our God has blessed marriage: and he himself has commanded that a man love his wife, and a woman love her husband. For behold, we see that it has frequently happened that a wife contrives her husband's destruction, even to poison and the sword and repudiation; and likewise that a man contrives the destruction of his wife. As Matthew was pursuing this, king Hyrtacus ^b with his companions resounded with clamorous praises, thinking that he said these things in order that he might quickly incline Effigenia's mind to marriage with him: but after it had been shouted a very long while in his praise, they resume the discourse. And silence being made, the Apostle said: And marriages, when they are joined, are adorned with the honorableness of a good work, if they are joined holily and justly and uprightly and blamelessly. For if a king's servant should dare to usurp a woman betrothed to the king, he is known to have incurred not only an offense but so grave a crime that he is deservedly given alive to the burning of flames. So also thou, most dear son king Hyrtacus, knowing Effigenia, the daughter of thy predecessor the king, to have been made the bride of the heavenly King and consecrated with the sacred veil, how canst thou take the bride of one more powerful than thyself, and join her to thee in matrimony?

[18] and taught that the anger of an earthly king is not to be feared, At this discourse Hyrtacus, who at each of the Apostle's divisions had shown himself a praiser, went away kindled with anger. But the Apostle, undaunted and constant, and by so much the more eager, went on, saying: Hear me, you who fear God: an earthly king is known to have a dominion of little time; but the heavenly King an eternal empire, and as he makes those to have unspeakable ^c joys who keep their faith to him, so he inflicts unspeakable torments on those who depart from his faith and holiness. But if a king's anger is to be feared, whose anger is the more to be feared, man's or God's? For man's anger, whether it constrain by punishments or by fires or by the sword, ceases within moments of time; but the anger of God kindles for sinners the eternal flames of Gehenna. Whence the Lord and master of truth Jesus Christ, foreknowing things to come, said: You shall stand before kings ^d, who, when they have scourged or killed you, have nothing further that they can do: and therefore I say to you, fear them not; but fear him who, after he has killed, has power to destroy in Gehenna. I say to you, fear him.

[19] Then Effigenia prostrated herself before all the people at the feet of the apostle Matthew, and for this end to her and to the other virgins saying: I beseech thee by him whose Apostle thou art, that thou lay thy hands upon me and upon all these virgins consecrated to the Lord by thy word, that we may escape; for even while my father and mother were living he threatened much, and terrified me with many threats, and enticed me with many gifts: and if he dared and attempted this while they were living, what dost thou think he will do now? Then the Apostle, having confidence in his God and utterly not fearing Hyrtacus, laying the veils upon the head of all the virgins who were with her, said this blessing: God, fashioner of bodies, breather of souls, who despisest no age, rejectest no sex, judgest no condition unworthy of thy grace, but art the equal redeemer of thy whole creation: do thou cover about with the shield of thy protection these handmaids, whom out of the whole number of the flock thou, the good Shepherd, hast deigned to choose for the keeping of the crown of perpetual virginity and the chastity of the soul; that, overcoming the allurements of the flesh and refusing unlawful wedlock, they may deserve the indissoluble union of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

[20] For these, Lord, we ask that thou supply arms not carnal, he prayed well; but spiritual, by the power of thy might, that, thou fortifying their senses and members ^e, sin may not be able to have dominion in the body; and that, as they desire to live under thy grace, the defender of evils, the enemy of goods, may prevail to claim nothing for himself out of these vessels now consecrated to thy name: let also the shower of thy heavenly grace quench every heat of Gehenna, but kindle the light of perpetual chastity. Let a modest face lie not open to scandals, nor by unguarded occasions give room for negligence in sinning: and let there be in them chaste virginity, and adorned and armed alike an entire faith, a sure hope, a sincere charity; that to minds prepared for continence there may be granted so great a virtue as may overcome all the devil's devices; and that, despising things present, they may pursue things to come. Let them prefer fasts to carnal feasts, and set holy readings before banquets and drinkings; that, fed with prayers and polished with instruction, enlightened by vigils, they may exercise the work of virginal grace. Fortifying these thy handmaids within and without with these arms of the virtues, grant them to fulfill the course of virginity without stumbling; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee and with the same Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth unto the eternal ages of ages.

[21] And when all had answered Amen, and the mysteries of the Lord had been celebrated, he slays Matthew in the church by an assassin. and the whole church had received the dismissal ^f, and each had returned to his own house, Christ kept Matthew his apostle in the church beside the altar, where the Body of Christ had been consecrated by him, that there he might exalt the apostolic martyrdom. For, as he prayed with hands outspread, an executioner sent by Hyrtacus, striking the Apostle of God from behind with a thrust and a blow of the sword, made him a martyr of Christ: on hearing which, all the people came to the palace with fire. To the raging people there came out all the presbyters and all the deacons and all the clerics and all the religious men, together with the disciples of the deceased apostle Matthew, saying: Do not, brethren, act against the command of God: but let us all celebrate with joy the martyrdom of the Apostle, and let us await what God shall be pleased to ordain.

[22] Hyrtacus, having tried Ephigenia's constancy in various ways, But Effigenia, the most sacred virgin of Christ, whatever she could have in gold and silver and gems, conferred all upon the priests and all the clergy, saying: I beseech you, after you have built a church worthy of the Apostle of Christ, distribute whatever is left over to the poor: but I must have a contest with Hyrtacus. And it came to pass after this, according to Effigenia's word, that he made the wives of all the nobles come to her, hoping that by some means he might come at her consent. And when he could by no means at all effect this, he called together magicians, that they might take her by the ministry of demons. And when they were by no means able to do this, he caused fire to be set about the residence in which she, dwelling with the virgins of Christ, served her God day and night. But when the fire burned round about, an angel of the Lord appeared with the apostle Matthew, and said to her: Effigenia, be firm, and be not afraid of these fires: for they shall return upon him by whom they have been set beneath thee.

[23] at last kills himself: Therefore, while the flames roared about the circuit of holy Effigenia's residence, the Lord stirred up a most mighty wind, and cleared all that conflagration away from the house of his virgin; and so consumed the palace of Hyrtacus that nothing of the king's goods could be saved from it. But Hyrtacus himself with his only son barely escaped: yet it had been better to have perished in the fire. For a most violent demon filled his son, who, bringing him at a most rapid run to the tomb of the apostle Matthew, with his hands bound behind him by the devil himself, compelled him to confess his father's crimes. And Hyrtacus himself he filled with the sores of elephantiasis from his head to the very soles of his feet. And when the physicians could not cure him, he, setting the sword against himself, fell; so that he who had ordered the Apostle of the Lord to be struck from behind should himself pierce his own belly.

[24] and Ephigenia's brother becomes king, under whom the church again flourishes. But the whole people, exulting over his death, took with the whole army Effigenia's brother, named Ugor, who through his sister Effigenia had obtained the grace of the Lord at Matthew's hand, that he might, with the Lord's help, reign over them. He, being a young man, began to reign in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and reigned sixty-three years. And all the years in which he lived were eighty-eight: and while he lived he appointed one of his sons leader of the whole army, and the other king, and saw the sons of his sons unto the fourth generation, and had a most firm peace with the Romans and the Persians. And all the provinces of the Ethiopians, filled with Catholic churches ^g, bless God unto the present day through Effigenia, and great wonders are wrought at the confession of the blessed apostle Matthew in the virtue and power of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the most blessed Matthew, apostle and martyr, suffered on the eleventh of the Kalends of October, in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory with God the Father and the Holy Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

OTHER ACTS

By Metaphrastes, translated by Sirleto.

From the Latin edition of Lipomanus and Surius.

ON ST. MATTHEW THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST,

IN ETHIOPIA.

By Metaphrastes.

God, wishing to raise up fallen man, took flesh, and chose Apostles: If we had been willing to keep that precept which was enjoined upon us ^a by him who formed us, it would have been permitted us to enjoy that blessed dwelling and life of paradise, and, neglecting all bodily advantages, we should have had our mind occupied with divine things alone, and should always have meditated upon them with unremitting thoughts. But since he who fell away at once from the divine familiarity and from the glory in which he was before, envied the human race, and for that reason strove with every engine to hurl it down with himself to his own ruin, he prompted man to forget that first precept. And so man himself, who was formed by God first of all, was in a manner pitiable — alas! — deprived of paradise. Yet the kindness of him who formed us did not suffer that we, fallen into so great a ruin, should be despised, nor that, having lost that first dignity, we should be left condemned to so ignoble a state. He therefore, who was from the beginning always with the Father, who is coeternal, descending from the paternal bosom, emptied himself, and for the salvation of the human race took a Virgin mother, bore flesh, and endured all things human except sin: for he took upon himself all things human, that he might take away the sin of the world and prepare for those who are on earth a certain new access to the heavens. And since it was needful to have ministers of that work, through whom God should lay open the teaching of the divine dispensation and of the mysteries, and should lead men themselves to the way of salvation, for that cause were called Andrew, Peter, James, John, and Matthew, of whom we must speak in this place.

[2] among these Matthew, being called, promptly follows, This disciple of Christ, I say, had once been a publican, an exactor and reckoner of moneys, as one who knew all the ways and arts of making gain, so excelling in sharpness of mind and in much experience of affairs that he held the first place ^b among the publicans. But after Christ the Lord had begun for the world's salvation to dwell on earth (see, I pray, the sudden, swift, admirable and plainly divine conversion of the man), when he was once passing by and looked into the inmost parts of the heart of the man sitting at the toll-booth, and, as the knower of hidden things and the searcher of the heart, knew well the zeal and ardor for virtue lying hid in his soul, and most excellently foresaw what he was afterward to be from what he then was, he called him and bade him follow him. For thus we read written of him: When Jesus was passing by, he saw a publican named Levi sitting at the toll-booth, and said to him: Follow me. But he was held back neither by abundance of money, nor by the multitude of those who stood about, nor by the earthly and frail glory of this world: in short he cared for none of all those things which on earth are wont to subject the human mind to servitude and draw it to themselves; but just as he was, he at once rose and followed the Lord. He needed no long discourse, nor much time, nor the sight of miracles, nor finally a more careful or more lasting acquaintance; but as soon as he heard that desirable and pleasant voice, Follow me, he straightway left the toll-booth, and cast away his partners in the exacting of money, and all desire of his former honor, and with all that silver and gold which he formerly possessed he purchased the precious pearl.

[3] and cleaves constantly to Christ. Thus he who was formerly called Levi, having wonderfully changed his former manners, changed his former appellation also and was called Matthew ^c, who thereafter dwelt with Jesus himself, so that when afterward Christ himself reclined in his house, Matthew reclined at table together with him. And when the Pharisees were in doubt about this matter, and asked his disciples why their Master took food with publicans, he, hearing this, answered: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are ill. And likewise: Go and learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. By which he declared that he had come to invite, not the just at all, but sinners to penance. From that time Matthew so forsook the world that, taking up the cross, he renounced both the world itself and all worldly desires, living for God alone and following his footsteps, and was made a beholder and partaker of all his signs and miracles: as one who through the whole time of the divine dispensation dwelt together with Jesus, numbered among his chief disciples, and with the progress of time making progress in virtue. And when that saving time had come in which Jesus suffered the cross, and the Lord's body after the Cross itself was delivered to burial, and he after the resurrection appeared at times to his Disciples, but more often was hidden from their eyes, at last he was taken up into heaven, and sent thence to his Apostles the Paraclete Spirit under the form of fiery tongues, that by the inbreathing of that same Spirit he might announce grace to the nations. Then the Disciples set out, one to one place and another to another, to the nations of the whole world ^d, as each was led by that same Spirit.

[4] Since therefore these things were so, and the Disciples had gone forth, one to one region and another to another, He writes the Gospel, then the admirable and great apostle Matthew was unwilling to be alone a partaker of so great goods, but imparted the benefit to others also. And so, gathering himself wholly together, he consigned his Gospel and the doctrine of religion and piety to the monuments of letters, that, namely, what others had taught by mouth and tongue, he himself should commit to writing. Beginning therefore higher up, from Abraham himself, the origin of Christ, and so proceeding onward, he first announced to us the origin of Christ according to the flesh; then how he was baptized, chose disciples, overcame temptations, and how he himself was called by Jesus; how also he taught the sacred mysteries of divine things, declaring them to the disciples and the crowds partly in parables, partly openly. The same writer wrote the miracles beyond the grasp of human nature wrought by the same Jesus, likewise the cures of the sick, the deliverances of those who were vexed by demons, those loaves which he blessed and with which he fed many, how he walked on foot upon the sea, and how on mount Thabor he transformed himself into another shape. Then he wrote of his second coming in a more careful discourse; and he touched upon the things which had been done concerning his mystical supper and his betrayal. Besides these, that false judgment of Pilate, and the iniquitous condemnation of him who came to judge others justly, his burial and resurrection; and how he appeared in Galilee to the Apostles, at which time he said that all power in heaven and on earth had been given him.

[5] Since therefore, to speak summarily, he had unfolded the whole dispensation of Christ, and preaches it to various nations, he went to the Parthians, who were not yet joined to the empire of the Persians ^e, and, salvation having been announced to them, he traversed the borders of the region of Palestine, where he met with a vast multitude endowed with divers tongues, wrestling with hunger, thirst and frequent hardships and perils, of which some were most cruelly inflicted by the governors of superstitious impiety, others by the most bitter tribunes of the peoples. But he none the less preached Christ the Savior with free mind and voice, and led those who had been deceived by error to the knowledge of God, removed from the deceit of error and translated to the knowledge of truth. The impious superstition of the nations therefore being taken away, he joined all men to the true and only God; nor did he wish the teaching of his preaching to be confined to those borders alone, but he came to Ethiopia ^f, which had fallen to him by lot: and when he had brought the men of that region to the knowledge of the truth, and had established for them a school of the Christian faith, and had enclosed in the nets of his preaching all whom he could, and had, aided by Christ's help, wrought many miracles, and had joined to Christ by water and the spirit those who were converted to the faith of God, he took care to have a holy church built for him, and appointed presbyters and deacons, holding an assembly every day, partly exhorting them to hold fast the truth, partly delivering the mysteries: and those who, oppressed by weaknesses and diseases or by the malice of demons, were in peril of life, he straightway freed from all their troubles by a word and the touch of his hand.

[6] But after he had accomplished a work worthy of his calling, and is crowned with martyrdom. and had completed the work due, to which he had been called, he rested in the Lord through martyrdom, and left to us who dwell on earth a body adorned with glory and hymns, adorning in turn with much splendor and making holy those who celebrate his memory: which many of the number of those who through the Apostle himself were made worthy of salvation have handed down to memory, having most honorably followed his accustomed and holy solemnity with sacred prayers. But he himself without any interval contemplates with pure gaze the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, and is adorned with the crown of his immense glory, and, dwelling together with him, exults perpetually: to whom belongs all glory, honor, adoration and magnificence, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

time preached in the empire of the Parthians, then returned into Palestine, and at last set out for Ethiopia. And this order of his preaching is not improbable, as the prudent reader will gather from what was disputed about St. Matthew's preaching in the Commentary, §4.