THeophilus of Antioch has written upon St. Mark, and St. Matthew. We have heretofore sufficiently explain’d ourselves as to what is believed to be by Theophilus of Antioch. We shall only add, in this Place, that he has written nothing Catena Græcorum Patrum, Interp. P. particularly on St. Mark; and what is at- Possino; Rom. 1673, in fol. This Catena is tributed to him, is not so much a Comment, collected from three different Manuscripts; as a mere Explanation of some Passages in the first belonging to the Vatican Library, the four Evangelists. the other to the late M. de Montchal, Archbishop of Toulouse, and the last to the Duke of Bavaria’s Library. It contains the several Expositions of seventeen Fathers on this Evangelist. He was the only one on whom we had not, till then, seen a Work of this nature. For, in 1628, F. Cordier had put out a Collection at Antwerp; wherein he had gathered the Works of sixty-five Fathers on St. Luke’s Gospel, but without inserting the Greek Text. Two Years after, he published another on St. John. It is above forty Years since a Work of this sort, on St. Luke, was printed at Toulouse in two Tomes; containing divers Expositions of above fifty different Authors. We are obliged therefore to F. Poussines, for having finished what was wanting.
Victor, a Priest of Antioch, who lived in the beginning of the 5th, or at the end of the 4th Century, wrote a Comment on St. Mark; which was translated out of Greek into Latin by Peltanus, and printed at Ingolstadt in 1550. The Latin is in the fourth Volume of the Bibliotheca PP. of the Lyons Edition. This is rather Scholia, inserted by F. Poussines in the Catena we have been speaking of. Richard Simon is of opinion that they are not by Victor of Antioch, and that they are only a Collection extracted out of several Authors. M. Du Pin thinks otherwise; and says, that Victor having first explain’d the Letter, adds moral Reflections.
See likewise Bede, Theophylact, Zachary of Chrysopolis, Euthymius, and others, who have written on the four Gospels.
Among St. Chrysostom’s Works, in the second Volume of the Latin Edition, there is a Comment on St. Mark; but it is agreed to be by some more modern Author.
There is also a Comment on St. Mark published in St. Jerom’s Name, which is unworthy of this Father. It is printed in the fifth Volume, p. 886. of the new Edition. It is different from the Comment on the four Evangelists, printed in the same Volume; and said, as this is, to be written by St. Jerom.
There are likewise Fragments on St. Mark, printed under the name of John of Jerusalem: They are among the other Works whereof he is reputed to be the Author; and printed at Brussels, 1643, in two Volumes in fol. This Comment is attributed to St. Chrysostom, in St. Thomas’s Catena.
Among the Moderns we have the two Jansenius’s of Ghent and Ypres, Maldonat, Contzen, Cornelius à Lapide, Barradius, Didacus de Baeza, in what they have published on the four Evangelists.
We have likewise the Homilies of John Suarez upon St. Mark; printed separately at Paris, 1604, in 4to. the third Edition. He was of Portugal, of the Order of St. Augustin, made Bishop of Coimbra; and died in 1580. He appeared with honour at the Council of Trent.
John Gerson made only two Lectures upon St. Mark, which are in the fourth Tome of his Works, of the new Edition printed at Amsterdam, 1706, in five Volumes in fol.
Angelus de Paz; in the second Tome of his Works, printed at Rome, in 1623, and 1628. at Cologn, in 1646, in fol. Luke of Bruges, Erasmus, Laurentius Valla, in their Notes upon the New Testament. Of these we have said something in the second Article of this Part.
Socolovius’s Notes upon St. Mark were printed with those written by him on St. Matthew, in the second Tome of his Works; at Cracow, 1594, in fol. He was a Polonian, Canon of Cracow; and died Preacher to King Stephen.
Joan. Hofmaister in Lucam & Marcum; Lovanii, 1562, in fol. It was printed also at Cologn, 1572, in 8vo. He was a German of Colmar, an Augustinian Monk; and died in 1547. Lipenius takes notice of others likewise, both Catholicks and Protestants, who have written on this Evangelist. See tom. 2. of his Bibliotheca Theologica, in the Article St. Mark.