Commentarii in sacram Actuum Apostolicorum historiam, facili et perspicua methodo conscripti a Benedicto Aretio bernensi theologo. Cum indice rerum et verborum memorabilium quae in hisce continentur.

his own Gospel? We answer that histories are called λόγοι accounts by the Greeks; a custom which this very pure writer followed, and thus said λόγον. Then, this title also served the following work, which could not be called a Gospel. He wished, however, to propose both works to us under one common title. It can be added, as the Greek Scholiast holds, that he might flee from τὸ κομπῶδες the boastful, that is, the suspicion of arrogance and the mark of an affected title, especially in a preface.

II. The work is dedicated to Theophilus, about whom we said more in the Gospel of Luke. Some call him a bishop, others a prince, others make it a general address to the faithful. He is called ἡγεμὼν excellency/leader. St. Luke advises us of modesty; for when he could have sent the new work to a new patron, he did not, but being pleased by the piety and the elegance of the former name, he remained content with the same and transmits the other work to him. Furthermore, he wanted us to be certain about the author. For you see that everything here agrees with the prologue of the Gospel of St. Luke.

III. The argument of the previous work is "concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." That is, concerning the whole life and doctrine of Christ, he has encompassed the entire sum of the matter in a brief sentence. Moreover, he has elegantly divided the history concerning Christ into two members: into deeds and doctrine. Let us consider both.

To ποιεῖν do/make encompasses unusual deeds, and those proper to Christ; not those which are common to us, such as living in a civilized manner, doing good to a neighbor, performing natural actions, and the like. But it pertains to unusual actions, such as his θαύματα miracles: that is, healing the lame, the blind, the paralytic, the demon-possessed; likewise, those actions that were proper to the Messiah, such as suffering and dying for the race of mortals, rising from the dead, and conversing with his own for 40 days. And as far as miracles are concerned, they were referred to doctrine as an end. The remaining works, however, proper to the Messiah, looked to the redemption of the human race; yet all looked to the salvation of his own. For ποιεῖν is also done for a certain end, just as πράττειν to act is; for it is to ἐνεργεῖν πρὸς τὸ τέλος act towards the end. Hence, ποιήματα poems/works are the effects of art, and πράξεις acts are the effects of moral actions.

To διδάσκειν teach pertains to the dogmas of the doctrine of Christ, such as in Matthew 5, 6, 7, 22, and John 6: that he is the bread of life, that he who believes in him is going to have eternal life. John 6: that he is the good shepherd, that he is the best bread. John 15: that he is the true vine, etc., and many others.

Moreover, in Christ, doing comes before teaching; he does things throughout, even when he does not teach with words; and it is true indeed that doctrine is also in deeds. Nevertheless, when the two, doctrine and deeds, are considered together, doing is first, teaching is later; because this is proper to God, who first made all things, then finally taught men about his will. Thus, Christ begins his public duty with a miracle in John 2, and in Luke 3, after baptism, before he taught, he fasted and engaged with the tempter, Satan. However, the fact that it is written in Luke 2 that Christ taught in the temple when he was 12 years old does not detract from this order. For if we consult the same Luke, chapter 1, the deed comes first, when at his presence the infant Baptist leaped in the maternal womb. These things must be considered in the person of Christ, as it concerns order, for the confirmation of his divinity. Then, we should consider the same in ministers and hearers, whose duty it is both to do and to teach. Nor does it matter here whether they do first or teach, or perform both jointly. Yet it is to be wished that these two be joined in all people, but especially in teachers of piety. A fourfold order occurs here. Some neither do nor teach, which is the worst kind of men and to be banished far from the Church, since they do nothing that befits their profession. Such are the overtly profane, the willfully impious, the pigs of Epicurus's herd. Others both do and teach; that is, they express in their morals and life what they approve and teach with words. Thus Christ, thus the Apostles, thus the pious martyrs confirmed with doctrine and morals; thus pious hearers adorn the profession of Christianity with good morals. Others do but do not teach; that is, they live piously, although they are not teachers of piety; for many can be sheep who cannot be shepherds. Thus the one says, "I can be a hearer, I cannot be a teacher." Others, finally, teach and do not do, such as the hypocrites in Matthew 23, the Pharisees, and are depicted with this mark by the Lord Christ: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses; all things whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not do according to their works. For they say and do not." That is, they teach others pious things, but they themselves perform none of these. This is the worst and most pernicious kind of teachers. Let us therefore weigh how necessary an integrated life and the candor of morals is. Christ promises a precious reward to those who not only teach but also do. Matthew 5: "Whoever shall do and teach men so, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." James 2: "So speak, and so do, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." "When you have known these things, blessed are you if you do them." For life must not be idle in either state of men. Regarding this matter, Chrysostom says elegantly in the explanation of this place: "Nothing is colder than a teacher who philosophizes only in words; for he is then not a teacher, but a mime and a hypocrite."

How did St. Luke write about "all" things, when John 21 testifies that the world could not contain the books that would be written if one wished to pursue all the miracles of Christ? We answer, as Chrysostom and the Greek commentaries have it, that Luke did not write everything. This was indeed impossible; but he wrote "concerning all" (περὶ πάντων), that is, he touched upon the main chapters, such as the principal miracles, the principal places of doctrine, the principal parts of the passion, and he explained them in such a way that they could suffice for our salvation. Thus John speaks truly, and yet Luke also truly affirms that he made a narrative "of all" things.