Note: This translation of the Proem and Encomium of Cornelius a Lapide should be read together with his commentary on the book of Ruth, which can be found here.
Cornelius a Lapide (Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen), S.J., was born in the Flemish town of Bocholt in 1567. He studied humanities and philosophy at the Jesuit colleges of Maestricht and Cologne, and pursued theological studies at Douai and Louvain. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1592 and was ordained a priest in 1595. He spent the next twenty years teaching Hebrew and Holy Scripture at Louvain; in 1616, he was called to Rome, where he spent the remainder of his life. He died there on March 12, 1637. During his life, Fr. Cornelius acquired such a reputation for sanctity that his body was buried in a separate place, in the event that he should become a candidate for beatification.
Fr. Cornelius wrote detailed commentaries of all the books of the Bible, with the exception of Job and Psalms. His first productions were commentaries on the letters of St. Paul (1614), followed by a volume on the Pentateuch (1616). After moving to Rome, he published additional volumes on Acts, the Canonical Epistles and Apocalypse, and Ecclesiasticus and Proverbs. The remaining commentaries were published after his death. The entire collection, eventually augmented by the comments of more recent scholars, was printed in numerous editions throughout the next three centuries. A four-volume collection of extracts appeared in French and Italian translations in the nineteenth century. Most of the New Testament commentaries were translated into English beginning in 1867.
We learn a great deal about Fr. Cornelius’ exegetical method from the concluding paragraphs of the first part of his Proeemium et Encomium Sacrae Scripturae, which is translated here. Like the other great apostolates of the Society of Jesus, scriptural exegesis is conceived as a specific mission from the Church, which had recently been articulated by the Council of Trent. “The Council,” he writes, “…bases the reformation of the Church on Holy Scripture, and in the entirety of its first decree On Reformation speaks with urgency and at length about the need to institute or restore the reading of scripture in every place [page 6].” He adds that pastors and teachers have a particular obligation to nourish themselves with the Word of God. “Accordingly, the Council of Trent, at the beginning of the second session, mandates the reading of the divine scriptures at the tables of bishops. Nor should theologians omit this practice, which is prescribed by the laws of the most learned men, so that they may become more familiar with scripture through daily reading [p. 12].”
The need for this daily nourishment was especially evident to Fr. Cornelius. Living on the front lines, as it were, of controversies about the authority of scripture and the Church, he had to deal with two formidable adversaries. On one side were Protestant reformers, who made Biblical Studies the touchstone of their theology: “Surely, when our sectarian enemies toil exclusively at prattling about the scriptures alone, a Christian and orthodox theologian should be ashamed to concede even this much to them; he should be ashamed of being overcome and defeated by them [p. 12].” On the other side were Catholic theologians in the scholastic tradition, who regarded biblical studies as ancillary to a “systematic” exposition of the faith. Against the latter challenge, Fr. Cornelius applies all of the force of his rhetorical training. “Theology,” he writes, “is nothing other than the science of conclusions drawn from certain principles by faith, and so it is the most prestigious, as well as the most certain, of sciences; but the principles of faith and faith itself are comprehended by Holy Scripture…. Therefore, anyone who thinks that he can sunder scholastic theology from the serious study of holy scripture is vainly hoping for a child without a mother, a house without foundations and suspended, as it were, over the ground; an aqueduct without a source, a harvest without seeds, and a conclusion without principles. Such thinking is not merely superficial, but delusional, as well [p. 2].”
While the Council of Trent provided the broad parameters of Fr. Cornelius’ approach, his comments demonstrate a knowledge of ancient languages, classical literature, and both secular and ecclesiastical history. The proem, in fact, might be considered a tour de force of humanistic learning. Composed in the style of an academic oration, it opens with a quotation from Hermes Trimegistus, “the near contemporary of Moses,” which lays the foundation of all studies, both scriptural and scientific: “The universe is the book of God, and this glimmering world is the mirror of divine things [p. 1].” A Christian version of the philosophia perennis informs the remainder of the proem, which is filled with quotations from the most classicizing of the fathers: Dionysius the Areopagite, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Jerome. Citations of secular authors also pepper his commentary on Ruth, including lines from Varro, Columella, and Pliny on absentee landlords (2:4), Plutarch’s advice on marriage (3:1), and a line from Lucan on the seductive charms of Cleopatra, in contrast with the wholesome attractions of Ruth (3:3).
Just about any available commentary was grist for his mill—not only the vast productions of the Church Fathers and medieval writers, but also the Protestant exegesis of Luther and Calvin, who were accessible to him through anthologies. In the Ruth commentary, he also makes use of Jewish authorities, some of whom he encountered indirectly. Thus, the “rabbis” who claimed that Elimelech was the cause of the plague in Ruth 1 can be traced to a spurious work of St. Jerome; the comments of “R. Solomon” (Rashi) appear to be mediated by Nicholas of Lyra. In matters of chronology, Fr. Cornelius cites the Seder Olam, which was available in a Latin translation by Gilbert Genebrard and indirectly through Talmudic sources, and the Juchasin (Yuḥasin) of Abraham Zacutto (d. 1510). Like other Christian exegetes, he found grist for his mill in cabalistic commentaries, particularly where they probe the mystical significance of Hebrew etymologies (e.g, in reading the name Ruth “by anastrophe” as tur, “turtle dove”, 1:4). The Jewish doctors do not merely serve as foils for Christian exegesis, but occasionally shed light on a passage or furnish tacit support for Catholic doctors, “especially St. Jerome, as has often been discovered.” Fr. Cornelius refers approvingly to the reverence with which devout Jews handle the sacred books, contrasting it with the carelessness of contemporary Christians. Nevertheless, he cannot be described as an ecumenist avant la lettre, especially when he characterizes the Jewish rabbis as “a vulgar race of men, abject, stupid, and unlettered after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the whole nation was bereft of its kingdom, city, judges, temple, and literature…[p.15].“
One of the thornier issues for any Catholic exegete is the authority of the Latin versions, especially when they ill accord with the received Hebrew and Greek texts. Here, Fr. Cornelius was obliged to follow the declaration of Trent that the Latin Vulgate was “authentic and true scripture” and thus infallible. Nevertheless, following Augustine, he insisted that consulting the text in the original languages was often necessary to illuminate the “genuine sense and mind of sacred scripture” (cf. Murray 2017:82). With respect to the Old Testament, he writes, “I have always assumed that the Vulgate edition, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, should be upheld. If the Hebrew text appears to disagree with it, in order to respond to heretics, I will show it as it agrees with the Vulgate, and if the Hebrew suggests some other devout and learned understanding which is not at variance with our text, I will bring it forth…[p.15].” In practice, he often cites the Hebrew text of Ruth to illuminate the Vulgate and the Targum (“Chaldee”) paraphrase to illuminate both.
As we have seen, Fr. Cornelius makes extensive use of patristic commentators; his favorites include Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome. He also cites medieval exegetes such as Peter Damien, Hugh of St. Victor, and Nicholas of Lyra, as well with many moderns, including Bellarmine, Maldonado, and Feuardent. As a Catholic interpreter, he accepts the traditional five “senses” of Scripture, but he is critical of allegories not firmly grounded in the literal and moral sense. “I know, following [St. Gregory] the Nazianzene…that a middle way must be taken between those who cling with duller minds to the letter, and those whose constant delight is in allegorical speculation alone. The first habit, which is lowly and characteristic of the Jews, and the second, which is inept and typical of dream-interpreters, are equally worthy of reproach.” In many of the patristic sermons and commentaries, he adds, the mystical and literal are so closely interwoven that “one needs more than a Lydian stone to find the historical sense, which is foundational.” Cornelius compares his work to the labor of bees, who “make a selection of honey from the more suitable flowers [p.15].”
In addition to the literal and allegorical meaning of scriptural texts, Fr. Cornelius frequently elucidates the moral or “tropological” sense of Scriptural passages, which were then (as now) the bread and butter of Sunday homilies. For example, Ruth’s sister-in-law, Orpha, is an object lesson in the perils of associating with infidels, while Ruth herself is a model of the gratitude and fidelity required of daughters-in-law (1:15) and of the humility desired in leaders (2:13). Similarly, Noemi’s “bitterness” is associated with the humility and spirit of penitence later exemplified by St. Gregory the Great (1:20). In addition to his celebrated kindness and chastity (3:13), Booz furnishes a lesson in estate-management (2:4). The moral sense of the entire book is supported by a typological reading of Ruth as presaging the conversion of gentiles to the Christian faith. Likewise, in the third part of the proem, Moses is presented as the most perfect type of Christ himself, as well as a paragon of the Christian virtues. Fr. Cornelius also sheds incidental light on liturgical and devotional practices, such as the greeting, Dominus vobiscum (the Lord be with you), which makes its first scriptural appearance in Ruth 2:4. Following William of Mende, he explains that with the response, et cum spiritu tuo, the people indicate their participation in the sacrificial act which the priest is about to perform.
Apart from its instrumental value, the study of scripture is shown to be a means of direct communion with God. The Proem is replete with anecdotes from the lives of the saints, illustrating their devout and indefatigable study of the holy books. Cornelius, however, adds a curiously personal and ascetical dimension to this familiar theme. Knowing the Bible is hard work, he writes; it requires a lengthy preparation, countless hours of tedious study, and the sorting of difficult problems. “The amount of untiring labor and study, along with keen judgement, that is required to consult the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, and Chaldaean texts with their variant manuscript readings; to read the Geek and Latin Fathers and more recent interpreters as they go in various directions and at such great length; to form a judgment in each matter as to what is certain, what is probable, what is improbable, what is literal, what is most authentic, what is allegorical, tropological, and anagogical; to distill all these things and combine them into three words; to be obliged often to find the genuine sense oneself and break the ice for the first time--this is known only to one who has experienced it.” Thus, Biblical scholarship becomes for Cornelius a species of martyrdom—a generous expense of one’s vital energies in witness to revelation of God. “Let the doctor long for martyrdom, and in place of his blood consecrate and exhaust his energies, and let him use up his eyes, mind, mouth, bones, fingers, hands, blood, and every vital spirit--indeed, life itself--and by slow martyrdom render it to him who first gave his own, as God, for us men [p. 15].”