2 Sunday before Theophany

"And on the first of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." The first of the week is what Christian practice now calls the Lord's day, because of the resurrection of the Lord.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24) Mary Magdalene, undoubtedly the most fervent in love, of all the women that ministered to our Lord; so that John deservedly mentions her only, and says nothing of the others who were with her, as we know from the other Evangelists.

(Tr. cxx) Una sabbati is the day which Christians call the Lord's day, after our Lord's resurrection. Matthew calls it prima sabbati.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24.) What Mark says, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:1), does not contradict John's words, when it was yet dark. At the dawn of day, there are yet remains of darkness, which disappear as the light breaks in. We must not understand Mark's words, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, ἡλίου ἀνατεέλαντος to mean that the sun was above the horizon, but rather what we ourselves ordinarily mean by the phrase, when we want any thing to be done very early, we say at the rising of the sun, i. e. some time before the sun is risen.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Now took place what Matthew only relates, the earthquake, and rolling away of the stone, and fright of the guards.

Una sabbati, i. e. one day after the sabbath.

Now on the first day of the week, etc. The Evangelist treated above of those things which pertain to the Lord's incarnation and passion; from this place to the end he treats of those things which pertain to his resurrection. Therefore in this part is treated the manifestation of Christ's resurrection. And because the solicitude of the disciples preceded this manifestation, and our instruction or the certitude of faith followed, the solicitude of the disciples and women is first described, to whom he manifested himself.

The solicitude of Mary is noted both in her vigilance in seeking and in her diligence in reporting. She was indeed vigilant in seeking, because she came at the earliest dawn; therefore he says: Now on the first day of the week, namely the Lord's day, which is the first, that is, the first day of the week, that is, of the seven-day period, according to that passage in Luke 18: "I fast twice in the week." Sabbath is also the name of the seventh day; Exodus 20: "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day." Mary Magdalene came early, as one anxious to see the Lord's body, and therefore she did not wait for daylight; and therefore he adds: While it was still dark, to the tomb. Chrysostom: "Mary, being wholly lovingly disposed toward the Master, because the Sabbath had passed, could not bear to rest, but came at deep dawn to the tomb, wishing to find a certain consolation from the place." And because it was early, therefore she found; Proverbs 8: "Those who watch for me early shall find me."

And she saw the stone: here is noted her diligence in reporting, in this, that she reports the opening of the tomb she had seen to the disciples; whence: And she saw the stone rolled away from the tomb. This removal of the stone was signified in Judges 16, where it is said that "Samson seized both doors of the gate with the posts and bars, and placing them on his shoulders, carried them to the top of the mountain."

Question. Since other women had come to the tomb with Magdalene, why does John speak only of her? Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "Mary Magdalene," he says, "was far more fervent than the other women who had ministered to the Lord; on account of which John not undeservedly mentioned her alone, passing over in silence the others who were with her, as the other Evangelists attest."

Question. Concerning what he says: She came to the tomb in the morning. On the contrary: In Matthew 28 it is said that they came in the evening to see the sepulcher. Augustine responds saying that "in the evening of the Sabbath" is the same as "in the night of the Sabbath"; and he proves that it ought to be understood thus by the following text: "which dawns on the first day of the week," which cannot be the case if we understand only the beginning of the night; but evening by synecdoche gives us to understand the night, which begins to end at daylight. Others respond that this was said because in the evening they prepared themselves by buying spices, but in the morning at dawn they came, as John says.

Question. What is meant by what is said: While it was still dark, since in Mark 16 it is said: The sun having already risen? I respond: As Augustine says in the book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, Mary came twice: first, before she called the disciples, and afterward she returned again; and the first time she came while it was still dark; afterward, when the sun was shining.

Question. Concerning what he says: She saw the stone rolled away, etc. Would it not have been of greater power to go out with it closed? It seems so. And it must be said that the Lord rose while the tomb was closed, and it was opened afterwards by the Angel. Chrysostom: "Jesus indeed rose while the stone and the seals remained in place. But because it was necessary for others to be assured, the tomb is opened after the resurrection, and thus what had happened is believed."

No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers disagree or that they fix the time of the resurrection differently. But anyone who chooses to investigate the meaning of the indications they give of the time will find that their accounts add up. For early dawn and late night fix the same point of time, that is, the very dead of night, so to say. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between them. For the one, taking as his starting point the end of night, and the other the beginning, both reach the middle watch and meet at the same point, that is, as I just now said, the dead of night.

No very exact account seems to be offered in the Scriptures of the hour at which Jesus rose. For the Evangelists have given different descriptions of the parties who came to the sepulcher one after another, and all have declared that they found the Lord risen already. It was "in the end of the sabbath," as Matthew has said. It was "early, when it was yet dark," as John writes. It was "very early in the morning," as Luke puts it. And it was "very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun," as Mark tells us. And so, no one has shown us clearly the exact time when he rose. It is admitted, however, that those who came to the sepulcher in the end of the sabbath found him no longer lying in it, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. And let us not suppose that the Evangelists disagree or contradict each other. But even though there may seem to be some small difficulty as to the subject of our inquiry, if they all agree that the light of the world, our Lord, rose on that one night, while they differ with respect to the hour, we may well seek with wise and faithful mind to harmonize their statements.

The reading of the holy Gospel which you have just heard, brothers, is very clear on the surface of its historical meaning, but we must seek out its mysteries in brief. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. According to the historical account, the hour is noted; but according to the mystical understanding, the intelligence of the one seeking is signified. For Mary was seeking at the tomb the author of all things, whom she had seen dead in the flesh; and because she did not find him, she believed he had been stolen. Therefore it was still dark when she came to the tomb.

(Hom. in Ev. xxii.) It is well said, When it was yet dark: Mary was seeking the Creator of all things in the tomb, and because, she found Him not, thought He was stolen. Truly it was yet dark when she came to the sepulchre. And seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Hidden first in a womb of flesh, he sanctified human birth by his own birth. Hidden afterward in the womb of the earth, he gave life to the dead by his resurrection. Suffering, pain and sighs have now fled away. For who has known the mind of God, or who has been his counselor if not the Word made flesh who was nailed to the cross, who rose from the dead and who was taken up into heaven? This day brings a message of joy: it is the day of the Lord's resurrection when, with himself, he raised up the race of Adam. Born for the sake of human beings, he rose from the dead with them. On this day paradise is opened by the risen one, Adam is restored to life and Eve is consoled. On this day the divine call is heard, the kingdom is prepared, we are saved and Christ is adored. On this day, when he had trampled death under foot, made the tyrant a prisoner and despoiled the underworld, Christ ascended into heaven as a king in victory, as a ruler in glory, as an invincible charioteer. He said to the Father, "Here am I, O God, with the children you have given me." And he heard the Father's reply, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." To him be glory, now and for ever, through endless ages. Amen.

How can I recount for you these hidden realities or proclaim what goes beyond any word or concept? How can I lay open before you the mystery of the Lord's resurrection, the saving sign of his cross and of his three days' death? For each and every event that happened to our Savior is an outward sign of the mystery of our redemption. Just as Christ was born from his mother's inviolate virginal womb, so too he rose again from the closed tomb. As he, the only-begotten Son of God was made the firstborn of his mother, so, by his resurrection, he became the firstborn from the dead. His birth did not break the seal of his mother's virginal integrity. Nor did his rising from the dead break the seals on the sepulcher. And so, just as I cannot fully express his birth in words, neither can I wholly encompass his going forth from the tomb.

"The first day of the week" (that is, the Lord's day) "cometh Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." For He arose while both stone and seals lay over Him; but because it was necessary that others should be fully satisfied, the tomb was opened after the Resurrection, and thus what had come to pass was confirmed. This then was what moved Mary. For being entirely full of loving affection towards her Master, when the Sabbath was past, she could not bear to rest, but came very early in the morning, desiring to find some consolation from the place. But when she saw the place, and the stone taken away, she neither entered in nor stooped down, but ran to the disciples, in the greatness of her longing; for this was what she earnestly desired, she wished very speedily to learn what had become of the body.

To the Sun, before sun, once he had set in the tomb The young women bearing incense hastened at dawn, As though seeking the day and saying to one another, "O friends, come Let us anoint with spices The body, life-bearing and buried, The flesh which resurrects the fallen Adam That lies here in this tomb. Let us go, let us hurry like the magi, And let us kneel down and bring with us The myrrh as gifts— Not to him in swaddling clothes But to him wrapped in burial cloths. And let us weep and cry out: 'O Master! Arise! You who offer resurrection to the fallen.' " While these godly women were discussing These things among themselves, They considered another idea, which is full of wisdom, And they said to one another: "Women, why are we fooling ourselves? For surely the Lord is not in the tomb! Could it have held in subjection this long One who controls the breath of living beings? Would he still be lying there as a putrid corpse?… Let Mary go and see the tomb, And let us follow whatever she tells us, For most certainly, as he foretold, The immortal one has arisen, He who offers resurrection to the fallen." The wise women, giving due consideration to this idea, As planned, sent forward Mary Magdalene To the tomb, as the Theologian says. It was dark, but love lighted the way for her; And so she saw the great stone rolled away From the entrance to the tomb.

It seems to those who dissent that here also the words of the Evangelists do not agree with one another. On the contrary, it seems to me that on the basis of their accounts their words are perfectly consistent.… Indeed, John says, "Early … while it was dark." The word early is not referred here to the morning. In fact, he does not say while it was "still" dark, which should have been said with regard to morning. But he wrote, "while it was dark," that is, on the next day when the night began, by designating with the term early the entire day so that he might say the day after the sabbath. The holy Scripture usually defines both day and night with the word day, because the sun, after its course throughout the night and the day, makes the beginning of the next day by returning to its place in the west. And this is confirmed by Moses, who says, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day," which he also says about the second and third days, and all the rest.… John says, "Early on the first day of the week," indicating the next day, that is, "on the first day of the week, when it was dark," in order to signify that when the night began, the women came, in order to perform the proper honor according to customs.

"The first day of the week" the Evangelist calls that day which we call the Lord's Day. For he calls the week of days "sabbath," and "the first day of the week" means the first day. In essence, every day is one. But one, taken many times and added together, makes up many. Thus, the first day is one; taken twice, it is the second; three times, the third; and so on. Such a day is an image of the future age, which is one day, neither interrupted by night nor having a midday. God is its Sun, never setting. Just as the Lord rose on this day, making His corruptible body incorruptible, so also shall we in the future age receive incorruption. So, on the first day of the week "Mary Magdalene comes." Since the Sabbath had passed, and movement was no longer forbidden by the law, she sets out, wishing to find some consolation from the place of the Lord's burial.

Or thus: The Jews called the days of the week sabbath, and the first day, one of the sabbaths, which day is a type of the life to come; for that life will be one day not cut short by any night, since God is the sun there, a sun which never sets. On this day then our Lord rose again, with an incorruptible body, even as we in the life to come shall put on incorruption.

But how came they to the sepulchre, while the soldiers were guarding it? an easy question to answer. After our Lord's resurrection and the earthquake, and the appearance of the angel at the sepulchre, the guards withdrew, and told the Pharisees what had happened.

2470 Having related the mysteries of the passion of Christ, the Evangelist now speaks of the resurrection. First, he says the resurrection was made known to certain women; secondly, to the disciples (v 19). The revelation of Christ's resurrection to the women went in stages: first, there is the open tomb; secondly, the appearance of the angel (v 11); thirdly, the sight of Christ (v 14). In regard to the first, he first mentions the sight of the open tomb; secondly, this news is reported to the disciples (v 2); and thirdly, they see for themselves (v 3).

2471 Four things can be noted about the first. First, the time: it was one day of the sabbath, that is, the first day of the week. The Jews considered the sabbath as a very sacred day, and all the other days were described in reference to the sabbath. Thus they spoke of the first day of the sabbath, the second day of the sabbath, and so on. Matthew [28:1] speaks of the "first day of the sabbath". But John speaks of "one day of the sabbath" because he is referring to a mystery, for this day of the resurrection was the beginning of a new creation: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground" (Ps 104:30); "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15). In Genesis (1:5), when Moses is speaking of the first day of creation he says "one day." "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." And so the Evangelist uses these words of Moses because he wants to express a newness. And also because this day begins the day of eternity, which is one day, no night interrupting it, because the sun which makes this day will never set. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23); "There will be one day, which is known to the Lord, not day and night, for at evening time there will be light" [Zech 14:7].

2472 Secondly, the person who saw the tomb is given, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. A question arises here because Mark (16:1) makes mention of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; and Matthew (28:1) also mentions "the other Mary." According to Augustine the resolution is that Mary Magdalene was more ardent and more devoted to Christ than the other women. Thus we read that "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). And for this reason the Evangelist mentions her by name. This is also the reason why the Lord appeared to her first, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene" (Mk 16:9); "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

2473 Thirdly, the time is given, early, while it was still dark. Luke (23:55) tells us that the women who had come with Christ from Galilee saw his tomb and how his body was laid, and they prepared spices and ointments for it. They rested on the sabbath according to the commandment. As soon as the sabbath was over, on the first day of the week, before daylight, she [Mary Magdalene] came to the tomb, incited by her exceedingly great love: "Its flashes," the flashes of love, "are flashes of fire" (Song 8:6).

2474 The question arises why Mark says "very early, after the sun had risen" [Mk 16:2], while the Evangelist says, while it was still dark. The answer is that what Mark says should be understood as referring to the breaking of the day, so that the sun had risen, but had not yet appeared in the sky.

2475 Fourthly, we are told what Mary saw, she saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. This was a sign that either someone had taken Christ away, or that he had arisen. When Matthew (28:2) says that "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone," we should not think the stone was rolled away before Christ arose, but only after. For since Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin even though his body was not glorified, it is not surprising if he passed through the tomb with his glorified body. The stone was taken away so that people could see that Christ was not there, and more easily believe in his resurrection.

"She ran, therefore, and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him." Some of the Greek codices have, "They have taken my Lord," which may likely enough have been said by the stronger than ordinary affection of love and handmaid relationship; but we have not found it in the several codices to which we have had access.

(Tr. cxx) This is the way in which he usually mentions himself. Jesus loved all, but him in an especial and familiar way. And saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.

(Tr. cxx) Some of the Greek copies have, taken away my Lord, which is more expressive of love, and of the feeling of an handmaiden. But only a few have this reading.

She ran therefore and came to Simon Peter, who above all others loved Christ, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, that is, to John, who does not name himself out of humility; and she says to them: They have taken the Lord from the tomb: in the Greek "my" is added to express her affection. They have taken, namely indefinitely, either the Jews or the guards, and I do not know where they have placed him, which was for her a cause of greater sorrow. For since she still knew and loved him carnally, therefore, with his flesh taken away, no consolation remained.

This excellent and pious woman would never have endured remaining at home and leaving the sepulcher [after the burial] if she had not had respect for sabbath law and the penalty that was incurred by those who transgressed it. This fear curbed her excessive zeal, allowing ancient custom to prevail, and to withdraw her thoughts from the object of her most earnest longings for awhile. But when the sabbath was already past and the dawn of the next day was appearing, she hurried back to the spot. And then, when she saw the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, well-grounded suspicions seized her mind and, calling to mind the ceaseless hatred of the Jews, she thought that Jesus had been carried away. And so she accuses them of this crime in addition to their other misdeeds. While she was thus engaged and mulling over the possibilities in her mind, the woman returned to the men who loved the Lord, anxious to obtain the cooperation of the most intimate of his disciples in her quest. And so deep-rooted and impregnable was her faith that she thought no less of Christ because of his death on the cross but even when he was dead called him Lord, as she had always done, thereby showing a truly God-loving spirit.

Question: How is it that in John the disciples hearing Mary, and then coming to the sepulcher, believed. But in Luke it is said that "their words appeared in their sight as an idle tale and they did not believe?Answer: Mary, in John, told what she had seen to the chief apostles Peter and John alone, as declaring some secret. And they again, unknown to the other disciples, ran to the sepulcher, saw and believed. And there was nothing strange in the chief apostles having seen and believed while the rest to whom the women reported, not having received with their own eyes, did not believe them. Indeed, when the Savior appeared to the assembled disciples themselves, according to John, those who saw him rejoiced. But Thomas, since he was not with them and did not see, was not persuaded. But if he disbelieved the apostles, one would scarcely blame the rest because, not having as yet beheld him, they disbelieved the women. The Scripture shows much examination and carefulness on the part of the disciples, not readily assenting to their words but at first suspending judgment until they recognized the truth fully and clearly.

And therefore she ran to tell the disciples, that they might seek Him with her, or grieve with her: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved.

She ran quickly and announced it to the disciples. But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John.

(iii. Mor. ix.) She puts the part for the whole; she had come only to seek for the body of our Lord, and now she laments that our Lord, the whole of Him, is taken away.

This was the meaning of her running, and her words declare it. "They have taken away," she saith, "my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Seest thou how she knew not as yet anything clearly concerning the Resurrection, but thought there had been a removal of the body, and tells all simply to the disciples? And the Evangelist hath not deprived the woman of such a praise, nor thought it shame that they should have learnt these things first from her who had passed the night in watching. Thus everywhere doth the truth-loving nature of his disposition shine forth.

And, having seen the stone rolled away from the tomb, she goes with great haste to Peter and John. The Lord rose at the time when the stone was still lying in its place and the seals were intact. But since someone needed to be witnesses of the resurrection and enter the tomb, the stone was rolled away by an Angel. Mary, not yet knowing anything about the resurrection, calls this event a theft and a removal.

2476 Next the Evangelist mentions that this was reported. Because of Mary's exceeding love she could not delay telling what she had seen to the disciples, so she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved: "This day is a day of good news; if we are silent and wait until the morning light, punishment will overtake us" (2 Kgs 7:9). And so one who hears the words of God should tell it to others without delay: "Let him who hears say, 'Come'" (Rev 22:17). Mary came to those who were the more important, and who loved Christ more ardently, so that they might either look for Jesus with her or share her sorrow.

She said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. Mary saw the empty tomb, and not yet having it in her heart that Christ had risen, she said, and we do not know where they have laid him. We can see from this that Mary had not been alone at the tomb, and that she still had doubts about the resurrection. So it was not without reason that the Evangelist wrote that it was still dark, for this indicated the condition of their minds, in which there was the darkness of doubt: "They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness" (Ps 82:5). Note that in the Greek manuscripts it reads, my Lord, which shows the impetus of her love and her affectionate devotion: "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you.... God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever" (Ps 73:25).

"Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre." The repetition here is worthy of notice and of commendation for the way in which a return is made to what had previously been omitted, and yet is added just as if it followed in due order. For after having already said, "they came to the sepulchre," he goes back to tell us how they came, and says, "so they ran both together," etc. Where he shows that, by outrunning his companion, there came first to the sepulchre that other disciple, by whom he means himself, while he relates all as if speaking of another.

(Tr. cxx) After saying, came to the sepulchre, he goes back and tells us how they came: So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre; meaning himself, but he always speaks of himself, as if he were speaking of another person.

Simon Peter therefore went out. Here is noted the solicitude of the disciples, both in the swiftness of running and in the carefulness of examining. They were therefore solicitous, because, having heard that he had been taken away, they came quickly; whence he says: Simon Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the tomb; this is said by anticipation, that is, they set out on the journey to come to the tomb.

Question. Why is it that these alone ran, and not the others? It must be said that either because it was reported to these alone; or, as Gregory says, "those ran before the rest who loved before the rest."

Peter and John seem to come to the sepulcher in broad daylight (an opportune time). By not coming during the night and in darkness, no one can suspect them of what the chief priests falsely accused them, that is, that they came by night and stole him. Therefore the men did not come by night or while it was still dark but while it was broad daylight. But if the Gospel says that the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, someone may object, "How then did those who were shut up visit the sepulcher in broad daylight?" We respond that it was natural that those who were living in the city in the midst of the Jews would be closed in, gathered together in one house. But those who came to the tomb, since they were outside the city, were far from fear of the Jews since they were going to a place deserted and empty of people. But perhaps it may also be the case that Peter and John, being above the fear of the other disciples, ventured more boldly to go out from the house while the others were too scared. In other matters it was recorded that they were considered worthy of more honor than the other apostles.

Be a Peter or a John; Hasten to the sepulcher, Running together, Running against one another, Vying in the noble race. And even if you are beaten in speed, Win the victory of showing who wants it more— Not just looking into the tomb, but going in.

But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John. Now the two were running together, but John ran ahead more quickly than Peter and arrived first at the tomb, but did not presume to enter. Peter came later, and entered. What, brothers, what does this running signify? Surely this very subtle description by the evangelist is not to be thought devoid of mysteries? Not at all. For John would not have said that he both arrived first and did not enter, if he had believed that mystery was absent from his very hesitation. What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church?

(xxii. in Evang.) But Peter and John before the others, for they loved most; Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

When then she came and said these things, they hearing them, draw near with great eagerness to the sepulcher, and see the linen clothes lying, which was a sign of the Resurrection. For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead; in order that when thou hearest that the napkins lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the clothes? and how could he have escaped detection if he had done so? since he would probably have spent much time in so doing, and be found out by delaying and loitering. But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. From this they believed in the Resurrection. On this account Christ afterwards appeared to them, when they were convinced by what they had seen. Observe too here again the absence of boastfulness in the Evangelist, how he witnesses to the exactness of Peter's search. For he himself having gotten before Peter, and having seen the linen clothes, enquired not farther, but withdrew; but that fervent one passing farther in, looked at everything carefully, and saw somewhat more, and then the other too was summoned to the sight. For he entering after Peter, saw the grave-clothes lying, and separate. Now to separate, and to place one thing by itself, and another, after rolling it up, by itself, was the act of some one doing things carefully, and not in a chance way, as if disturbed.

Then the disciples come to the tomb and see the linens lying there alone; and this was a sign of the true resurrection. For if someone had moved the body, he would not have stripped it bare; and if someone had stolen it, he would not have taken care to roll up the napkin and place it separately in a special spot, but would have taken the body simply, as best he could. For this reason the evangelist said beforehand that the body of Christ was buried with much myrrh, which adheres the linens to the body no worse than pitch, so that when we hear that the napkin lay in a separate place, we would in no way believe those who say that the body of Christ was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to expend so much effort on a superfluous matter, without suspecting that the longer he occupied himself with it, the sooner he might be caught. At what hour the resurrection took place, no one knows, just as the time of the second coming is also unknown. If the evangelist Matthew says that the earthquake occurred late in the evening, and John says that Mary came and saw the stone rolled away in the morning, when it was still dark, there is no contradiction in this. For, first, according to Matthew, the women came late on the Sabbath, while in John the women are not mentioned now—since Matthew had already spoken of this, it would have been superfluous for John to speak of the same thing as well; but Mary Magdalene comes in the morning. The visits to the tomb are different: sometimes Mary comes with the other women, sometimes she alone. From this the appearance of disagreement among the evangelists arises, in that they are speaking of different visits, each of his own. Thus, first, we say that Matthew speaks of one visit—that of the women—while John speaks of another, the visit of a woman—the Magdalene. Then, late in the evening and morning, "when it was still dark," which one might call early morning, coincide as one and the same, so that all this time is the middle of the night. If you ask how Peter and John and the women entered the tomb when there were guards there, the answer is simple: when the Lord rose and with an earthquake an Angel appeared at the tomb, the guards went off to report this to the Pharisees, and thus the tomb was freed from the military guard, and the disciples could come without fear.

2477 The Evangelist next shows how this was investigated. First, he indicates the eagerness with which Peter and John acted, for they left the place where they were, Peter then came out with the other disciple. Those who want to look into the mysteries of Christ have in a sense to come out from themselves and from their carnal way of living: "Come out, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon" [Song 3:11].

And they both ran together, quickly, namely, but in this swiftness unequally. And that other disciple outran Peter and came first to the tomb — therefore quickly, because they wished to apprehend: First Corinthians 9: "Those who run in a race all indeed run, but one receives the prize: so run that you may apprehend" — or because he was younger and could run faster, or because he was more fervent in seeing: but nevertheless Peter was more diligent in examining; whence there follows a disparity in the diligence of examination.

What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church? Nor should it seem strange that the Synagogue is said to be signified by the younger and the Church by the elder, because even if the Synagogue is prior to the Church of the Gentiles in the worship of God, nevertheless the multitude of the Gentiles is prior to the Synagogue in the practice of the world, as Paul attests when he says: "Because what is spiritual is not first, but what is natural." Therefore by the elder Peter is signified the Church of the Gentiles, but by the younger John the Synagogue of the Jews. Both ran together, because from the time of its origin until its setting, the Gentile world ran with the Synagogue by a common and equal path, even if not with a common and equal understanding.

But this account of the Evangelist must not be thought to be without some mystical meaning. By John, the younger of the two, the synagogue; by Peter, the elder, the Gentile Church is represented: for though the synagogue was before the Gentile Church as regards the worship of God, as regards time the Gentile world was before the synagogue. They ran together, because the Gentile world ran side by side with the synagogue from first to last, in respect of purity and community of life, though a purity and community of understanding they had not.

Or thus: Peter is practical and prompt, John contemplative and intelligent, and learned in divine things. Now the contemplative man is generally beforehand in knowledge and intelligence, but the practical by his fervour and activity gets the advance of the other's perception, and sees first into the divine mystery.

2478 Secondly, we see the details of their search. First, it is said that they ran, they both ran, they who loved Christ more than the others: "I will run in the way of your commandments" (Ps 119:32); "So run that you may obtain it," the prize (1 Cor 9:25).

2479 Secondly, we see how the disciples arrived, the other disciple outran Peter. John arrived first, and Peter followed.

"And he stooping down," he says, "saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in one place by itself." Do we suppose these things have no meaning? I can suppose no such thing. But we hasten on to other points, on which we are compelled to linger by the need there is for investigation, or some other kind of obscurity. For in such things as are self-manifest, the inquiry into the meaning even of individual details is, indeed, a subject of holy delight, but only for those who have leisure, which is not the case with us.

And when he had stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in: and so in seeking he was swift, but in examination remiss, while Peter on the contrary.

The cloths lying within seem to me at once to furnish also a proof that the body had not been taken away by people, as Mary supposed. For no one taking away the body would leave the linens, nor would the thief ever have stayed until he had undone the linens and so be caught. And at the same time they establish the resurrection of the body from the dead. For God, who transforms the bodies of our humiliation so as to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory, changed the body as an organ of the power that dwelt in it, changing it into something more divine. But he left the linen cloths as superfluous and foreign to the nature of the body.

The Synagogue came first to the tomb, but did not enter, because although it received the commandments of the law and heard the prophecies concerning the incarnation and passion of the Lord, it refused to believe in the one who died. For John saw the linen cloths lying there, yet did not enter, because the Synagogue both recognized the mysteries of sacred Scripture and yet delayed entering through faith by believing in the Lord's passion. The one whom it had long prophesied from afar, it saw present and rejected; it despised him as a man and refused to believe that God had been made mortal in flesh. What does this mean, except that it both ran more quickly and yet stood empty before the tomb?

The synagogue came first to the sepulchre, but entered not: it knew the commandments of the law, and had heard the prophecies of our Lord's incarnation and death, but would not believe in Him who died.

(Hom. lxxxv) On coming he sees the linen clothes set aside: And he slooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying. But he makes no further search: yet went he not in.

Note, if you will, the humility of the evangelist, with which he testifies to the thoroughness of Peter's investigation. He himself arrived first, saw the linen cloths lying there, and investigates nothing further, but waits for Peter.

2480 It is not without reason that the Evangelist is careful to tell us the smallest details. For these two disciples signify two peoples, the Jews [by John] and the Gentiles [by Peter]. Although the Jews were the first to have knowledge of the one true God, the Gentiles were an older people, because even the Jews originated from the Gentiles: "Go from your country and your kindred" (Gen 12:1). These two people were both running over the course of this world: the Jews using the written law, the Gentiles using the law of nature. Or, they were both running by their natural desire for happiness and for a knowledge of the truth, which all men desire to know by their very nature. But the other disciple, that is, the younger one, outran Peter, because the Gentiles came to a knowledge of the truth more slowly than the Jews, since formerly God was known only in Judea. So the Psalm says, "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20).

The other disciple reached the tomb first, because he [John, the younger, representing the Jews] was the first to look upon the mysteries of Christ, and the promise was first made to the Jews: "They are the Israelites, and to them belong the... promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom 9:4).

And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. And stooping, under the yoke of the law, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Ex 24:7), he saw the linen cloths lying there, that is, the figures or foreshadowings of all the mysteries, "But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains uplifted" (2 Cor 3:14). But he did not go in, for as long as he was unwilling to believe in the one who was dead he had not yet come to the knowledge of the truth. Another who did not go in was the brother of the prodigal son, for when he heard the celebrations, the music and the dancing, he "refused to go in" (Lk 15:28). Nevertheless, David promised that they would enter: "I will go to the altar of God" (Ps 43:4).

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered the tomb, not content merely to look from outside, as John. And so that saying of Matthew 19 was verified: "The last shall be first, and the first last." And he saw the linen cloths lying there, separately.

But Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb, because the Church of the Gentiles, coming after, both recognized the mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, dead in the flesh, and believed him to be the living God.

Then cometh Simon Peter, and enteredinto the sepulchre: the Gentile Church both knew Jesus Christ as dead man, and believed in Him as living God.

(Hom. lxxxv) Peter on the other hand, being of a more fervid temper, pursued the search, and examined every thing: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Which circumstances were proof of His resurrection. For had they carried Him away, they would not have stripped Him; nor, if any had stolen Him, would they have taken the trouble to wrap up the napkin, and put it in a place by itself, apart from the linen clothes; but would have taken away the body as it was. John mentioned the myrrh first of all, for this reason, i. e. to show you that He could not have been stolen away. For myrrh would make the linen adhere to the body, and so caused trouble to the thieves, and they would never have been so senseless as to have taken this unnecessary pains about the matter.

2481 Now the Evangelist recounts the arrival of Peter. As for the literal meaning, the fact that they ran together was a sign of their passionate devotion. John arrived first because he was a younger man than Peter. But considering the mystical sense, Peter follows John because the Gentiles who were converted to Christ were not joined to another church different from the church of the Jews, but were grafted on to the already existing olive tree and church. The Apostle praises them saying, "For you brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea" (1 Thess 2:14).

2482 Thirdly, we see the order in which they entered, Peter first, and then John.

And the napkin that had been over his head, not placed with the linen cloths, as though this had been done in haste: but rolled up separately in one place: the linen cloths for covering the body: above in chapter 19: "They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths"; the napkin for covering the face: above in chapter 11: "And his face was bound with a napkin." And so he examined all things diligently before John, who had preceded him, but nevertheless in diligent examination he follows him.

He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord's head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation? And it should be noted that it is said to be found not only separately but also rolled up in one place. For when a cloth is rolled up, neither its beginning nor its end can be seen. Rightly therefore was the cloth from his head found rolled up, because the majesty of divinity neither began to exist nor ceases; it is neither born through a beginning nor confined by an end.

And rightly is it added: "In one place," because God is not in the division of minds. For God is in unity, and those merit to have His grace who do not divide themselves from one another through the scandals of sects. But because sweat is usually wiped away from workers by a cloth, the labor of God can also be expressed by the name of cloth—He who indeed always remains quiet and unchangeable in Himself, yet nevertheless declares that He labors when He bears the harsh depravities of men. Whence He also says through the prophet: "I have labored in enduring." Now God appeared in the flesh, He labored from our infirmity. When unbelievers saw this labor of His passion, they refused to venerate Him. For they disdained to believe that He whom they saw mortal in the flesh was immortal in His divinity. Whence Jeremiah also says: "You will render to them their recompense, O Lord, according to the works of their hands; You will give them as a shield for the heart Your labor." For lest the darts of preaching should penetrate their hearts, since they disdained the labor of His passion, they held that same labor of His as if it were a shield, so that by the very fact that they saw Him labor even unto death, they would not permit His words to pass through to them.

But what are we except members of our Head, that is, of God? Therefore by the linens of the body are signified the bonds of labors which now bind all the elect, that is, His members. The cloth, therefore, which had been upon His head is found separately, because the passion itself of our Redeemer is far removed from our passion, since He without guilt bore what we endure with guilt. He willingly chose to succumb to death, to which we come unwilling.

The napkin about our Lord's head is not found with the linen clothes, i. e. God, the Head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of the Godhead are removed from our poor knowledge; His power transcends the nature of the creature. And it is found not only apart, but also wrapped together; because of the linen wrapped together, neither beginning nor end is seen; and the height of the Divine nature had neither beginning nor end. And it is into one place: for where there is division, God is not; and they merit His grace, who do not occasion scandal by dividing themselves into sects. But as a napkin is what is used in labouring to wipe the sweat of the brow, by the napkin here we may understand the labour of God: which napkin is found apart, because the suffering of our Redeemer is far removed from ours; inasmuch as He suffered innocently, that which we suffer justly; He submitted Himself to death voluntarily, we by necessity.

The fiery Peter entered inside the tomb and carefully examined everything. But understand how Peter is active and fervent, while John is perceptive and capable of comprehending Divine matters. The purely contemplative one arrives first through knowledge and giftedness, while the active one falls behind, yet through diligence and effort he overcomes the other's sharpness, and the active one is the first to discern some Divine mystery. Does not something similar happen in the sciences as well? Here too, of two boys, the less gifted and slower one surpasses through diligence the one who is by nature quicker and more talented. So also in spiritual matters, the active one who is unskilled in speech often understands better than the contemplative one.

2483 The Evangelist says that Peter entered the tomb. According to the literal meaning, although John arrived first, he did not enter because of his respect for Peter. But considering the mystical interpretation, this signifies that the Jewish people, who were the first to hear of the mysteries of the incarnation, would be converted to the faith after the Gentiles: "That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness have attained it... but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based in law did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Rom 9:30). John saw only the linen cloths. He, Peter, also saw the linen cloths because we [Gentiles] do not reject the Old Testament, for as Luke says, "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Lk 24:45). But in addition Peter saw the napkin which had been on his head: "The head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Thus to see the napkin which had been on the head of Jesus is to have faith in the divinity of Christ, which the Jews refused to accept. This napkin is described as not lying with the linen cloths, and rolled up, having a place by itself, because the divinity of Christ is covered over, and it is apart from every creature because of its excellence: "God who is over all be blessed for ever" (Rom 9:5); "Truly, you art a God who hides yourself" (Is 45:15). He saw the napkin rolled up, to form a circle. And when linen is rolled this way one can not see its beginning or end, for the eminence of the divinity neither begins nor ends: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8); "You are the same, and your years have no end" (Ps 102:27). The napkin was in one place, a place by itself, because God does not dwell where minds are divided; those who merit his grace are those who are one in charity: "His place is in peace" [Ps 76:2]; "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33).

2484 Or, in another interpretation, the napkin, which workers use to wipe the sweat off their faces can be understood to indicate the labor of God. For while God always remains tranquil, he presents himself as laboring and burdened when he endures the stubborn depravity of mankind: "They have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them" (Is 1:14). Christ took on this burden in a special way when he took on a human nature: "Let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (Lam 3:30). This napkin is found separate and apart from the other cloths because the sufferings of our Redeemer are far apart and separate from our sufferings. The other linen cloths, which are related to the members of the body as the napkin is to the head, indicate the sufferings of the saints, which are separate from the napkin, that is, the sufferings of Christ, for Christ suffered without fault what we suffer because of our faults: "For Christ also died... the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet 3:18). He went to his death willingly ‑"No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2) ‑ while the saints go to their death reluctantly, "Another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (21:18).

2485 Why was the Evangelist so careful to mention all these details? Chrysostom says this was done to counter the false rumor spread by the Jews that the body of Christ had been secretly taken away, as we see from Matthew (28:13). For if Christ's body had been stolen away as they said, the disciples would surely not have removed the wrappings, especially since they had to work fast because the guards were near. Nor would they be so careful to lift off the napkin and roll it up and place it in a separate place. They would simply have taken the body as they found it. This was why he allowed himself to be buried with myrrh and aloes: they glue the cloths to the body so that they cannot be quickly removed.

"Then went in also that other disciple who had come first to the sepulchre." He came first, and entered last. This also of a certainty is not without a meaning, but I am without the leisure needful for its explanation. "And he saw, and believed." Here some, by not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately adding, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead"? He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had been taken away from the tomb? "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." Thus also when they heard of it from the Lord Himself, although it was uttered in the plainest terms, yet from their custom of hearing Him speaking by parables, they did not understand, and believed that something else was His meaning.

(Tract. cxxii) i. e. That Jesus had risen again, some think: but what follows contradicts this notion. He saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said: For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. If he did not yet know that He must rise again from the dead, he could not believe that He had risen. They had heard as much indeed from our Lord, and very openly, but they were so accustomed to hear parables from Him, that they took this for a parable, and thought He meant something else.

Then therefore that other disciple also entered, who had come first to the tomb, namely by the example of Peter, and he saw the things which have been mentioned, and he believed. But it is expounded differently according to Chrysostom and differently according to Augustine. For Chrysostom expounds: he believed, namely that He had risen; and he drew his argument from this, that if someone had taken Him away, he would not have left everything so orderly arranged, things which were more useful than the body. But Augustine expounds it differently: he believed, namely that the body had been taken away, as the woman had said; and he proves this by the following text.

Question. Since Luke says in the twenty-fourth chapter that Peter went to the tomb, speaking only of Peter, what does it mean that John here says two ran? And further, what necessity was there for John here to make mention of himself? It seems that he would have done better by keeping silent. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that Luke mentioned Peter alone because Mary Magdalene first announced it to him; and yet he himself mentions both; whence Cleophas said: Some of our own went to the tomb, etc. To the other point that is asked: why does he make mention of himself? There is a twofold reason: the literal reason, namely, because he wished to place Peter before himself, so as to praise Peter and humble himself: because, although he himself arrived first, he entered after. The allegorical reason is that by John the Jewish people is signified, and by Peter the elder the Gentile people is designated. John ran first but did not enter: because the Jew first received the Law but did not believe; the Gentile, however, arriving later, believed.

When these men (I mean Peter and John, the writer of this book, for he gives himself the name of the other disciple) heard this news from the woman's mouth, they ran with all the speed they could and hurried to the sepulcher. They saw the marvel with their own eyes, being in themselves competent to testify to the event, for they were two in number as the Law enjoined. As yet they did not meet Christ risen from the dead, but they infer his resurrection from the bundle of linen clothes, and from that time on they believed that he had burst the bonds of death, as holy Scripture had long ago proclaimed that he would do. When, therefore, they looked at the issues of events in the light of the prophecies that turned out true, their faith was from that time forward rooted on a firm foundation.

Then therefore that disciple who had come first to the tomb also entered. After Peter entered, John also went in. He who had come first entered later. It should be noted, brothers, that at the end of the world Judea too will be gathered to faith in the Redeemer, as Paul testifies when he says: "Until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter, and so all Israel should be saved." And he saw and believed. What, brothers, what are we to think he believed? Was it that the Lord whom he was seeking had risen? Certainly not, because there was still darkness at the tomb, and the words that follow also contradict this when it says: "For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." What then did he see, and what did he believe? He saw the linen cloths lying there, and he believed what the woman had said, that the Lord had been taken from the tomb.

But after Peter entered, John entered too; for at the end of the world even Judaea shall be gathered in to the true faith.

(Hom. lxxxv) After Peter however, John entered: Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Then he too (John), having entered after him (Peter), saw the burial linens lying separately from one another, and believed — not, however, that the Lord had risen, but that He had been stolen. He believed the words of Mary, that they had taken the Lord.

2486 When the Evangelist says, Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, he tells of John's entrance. John did not remain outside but entered after Peter, because when the world is ending, the Jews will also be gathered into the faith: "A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25); "A remnant will be saved" [Is 10:21].

2487 Or, another interpretation, in the mystical sense. These two disciples stand for two kinds of people: John represents those who are devoted to the contemplation of truth, and Peter stands for those whose main interest is to carry out the commandments. In fact, "Simon" means "obedient." Now it very often happens that contemplatives, because they are docile, are the first to become acquainted with a knowledge of the mysteries of Christ ‑ but they do not enter, for sometimes there is knowledge, but little or no love follows. While those in the active life, because of their continuing fervor and earnestness, even though they are slower to understand, enter into them more quickly, so that those who are later to arrive, are the first to penetrate the divine mysteries: "So the last will be first, and the first last" (Mt 20:16).

For he did not yet know the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead: therefore he did not believe that He had risen, but that He had been taken away. Nevertheless, if we wish to hold the exposition of Chrysostom, the following text is continued thus: He saw and believed, that is, then for the first time he believed from seeing, because before he did not believe; for he did not yet know the Scripture.

"For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead." In this matter the greatness of divine providence must be considered, that the hearts of the disciples are both kindled to seek and yet delayed from finding, so that the weakness of the soul, tormented by its own sorrow, might become purer for finding, and might hold on more firmly when it found, the later it found what it was seeking.

Do you see that they clearly understood nothing about the resurrection? The Evangelist pointed out this very thing when he said, "As yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." In addition to their failure to understand this, they were in much deeper ignorance about other things, such as the kingdom of heaven, that we are chosen as the first fruits, and his ascension into heaven. They were still confined to the ground and not yet able to fly.Such was the understanding they had. They expected that the kingdom would come to him immediately in Jerusalem because they had no better grasp of what the kingdom of heaven really is. Another Evangelist hinted at this when he said that they thought of it as a human kingdom. They were expecting him to enter into it but not to go to the cross and death. Even though they had heard it ten thousand times, they could not clearly understand.

Because he believed Mary and did not think of the resurrection? Because they did not yet know "the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead," and they believed Mary, who suspected that the body had been stolen and moved.

2488 Next when he says, he saw and believed, we see the effect of the investigation. At first glance it seems to mean that he saw the situation and believed that Christ had arisen. But according to Augustine this is not correct, because the next thing the Evangelist says is, for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Therefore, one must say that he saw the empty tomb and believed what the woman had said, which is that someone had taken the Lord. Then we read, for as yet they did not know the scripture, because the meaning of the Scripture was not yet opened to them so they could understand it (Lk 24:45).

But certainly Christ had foretold his passion and resurrection? "I will rise on the third day" [Mt 20:19]. I answer that we should say that in keeping with the way they heard his parables, they failed here also to understand many things which he had said plainly, thinking that he meant something else.

2489 Or, according to Chrysostom's understanding, he saw the linen cloths so folded and arranged which would not have been the case if the body had been furtively snatched away; and believed, with a true faith, that Christ had risen from the dead. What follows, for as yet they did not know the scripture, refers to the statement, he saw and believed. It was like saying: before he saw these things he did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead; but when he saw he believed that he had risen from the dead.

Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping." For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

The intense desolation of Mary is therefore intimated, which in its restlessness did not allow her to depart from the sepulcher, even when the other disciples were departing; therefore he says: The disciples therefore went away to their own homes, "that is, where they had been dwelling" before they had come to the tomb, so that they might receive some consolation.

Question. Since Peter loved the Lord so fervently, why did he not remain at the tomb weeping, as Mary did, but departed? And Chrysostom responds: "The female sex is in a certain way more given to compassion"; and therefore do not marvel that Mary wept bitterly at the sepulcher, while Peter felt no such compassion. Others take the reason from the side of faith: for because the woman hoped less concerning the resurrection, therefore she grieved more over the body having been taken away; but Peter, although not fully, nevertheless in some way had confidence: whence it is said in Luke that "he went away wondering to himself." Others take the reason from the side of love, namely because at that time she burned more vehemently than the disciples and was more fervent, therefore she was also more solicitous.

The wise disciples, after having gathered sufficiently satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of our Savior, were unsure, as it were, what to do with their confirmed and unshaken faith. Comparing the events as they had actually occurred with the prophecies of holy Scripture, they went back home and most likely hurried to see their fellow workers to recount the miracle and afterward consider what course should be pursued. They may have also had another motive in doing what they did. For the passion of the Jews was at its height, and the rulers were thirsting eagerly for the blood of every person who marveled at the teaching of the Savior and confessed his divine and ineffable power and glory. But most of all they thirsted for the blood of the holy disciples themselves, who then had good reason for shrinking from an encounter with them. This is why they left the sepulcher before it was quite light, since they could not have done so without risk if they were seen leaving in the daytime—the sun's rays revealing them to everyone. We are far from saying that they were cowards as a reason for their cautious flight. Rather, it is more likely that the knowledge of what was expedient for them was instilled in the minds of the saints by Christ who did not permit these who were destined to be lights and teachers of the world to run unnecessary risks.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang.) Mary Magdalene, who had been the sinner in the city, and who had washed out the spots of her sins by her tears, whose soul burned with love, did not retire from the sepulchre when the others did: Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, "The disciples," it saith, "went away unto their own home"; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay.

So they returned to themselves, that is, by themselves, having learned nothing more.

2490 Having told how Mary Magdalene came to the opened tomb, the Evangelist now tells how she came to see the angels: first, we see her devotion; secondly, she sees the angels (v 12); thirdly, we have her conversation with them (v 13). Her devotion, which made her fit to see the angels, is praised for three things.

Note that Mark mentions nothing of the nativity or infancy or youth of the Lord. He has made his Gospel begin directly with the preaching of John.

The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet. The beginning of the Gospel of Mark should be compared to the beginning of Matthew, where he says: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, etc. And from both, our one Lord Jesus Christ is to be understood as the Son of God and man. And fittingly the first evangelist calls him the Son of Man, the second the Son of God, so that our understanding may gradually rise from the lesser to the greater, and through faith and the sacraments of assumed humanity, ascend to the recognition of divine eternity. Fittingly, he who was to describe human genealogy began with the Son of Man, namely David or Abraham, from whose lineage he assumed the substance of flesh. Fittingly, he who was to start his book from the beginning of the evangelical preaching wished to call our Lord Jesus Christ more as the Son of God, because it was in accordance with both aspects: the human nature from the lineage of patriarchs or kings of flesh, and the divine power to preach the Gospel to the world. Indeed, the Gospel is called the good news. And what is better news than: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. III)? Therefore, it is human to be born humanly, but it is of God to preach the entry of the heavenly kingdom to the repentant. And thus Matthew rightly calls him the Son of David, whom he asserts to come in the flesh. Mark rightly calls him the Son of God, whom he designates at the very front of his writing as the author of the Gospel and the sponsor of the eternal kingdom. It is noteworthy that the holy Evangelists, who left us the written dispensation of the Lord's incarnation, were indeed fired by one spirit in their approach to their writing duty, but each set a different beginning and a different endpoint for their narrative. Matthew, taking his beginning from the nativity of the Lord, carried the sequence of his narration up to the time of the Lord's resurrection. Mark, starting from the beginning of the evangelical preaching, reached up to the time of the Lord's ascension and the preaching of his disciples to all nations over the world. Luke, beginning from the nativity of the forerunner, ended his Gospel in the ascension of the Lord, when the disciples returning to Jerusalem were expecting the advent of the Holy Spirit in divine praises. John, taking his beginning from the eternity of the Word of God, by whom all things were made, himself reached up to the time of the Lord's resurrection by evangelizing. Therefore, intending to write the Gospel, Mark aptly first of all puts forth the testimonies of the prophets by whom this was long ago foretold to happen. So that he might indicate to all that the things he was writing were to be received as true and without a scruple of doubt, because he showed them to have been foreseen and foretold by prophets filled with the Holy Spirit, and at the same time in the same beginning of his Gospel instructs both the Jews, who had received the Law and the Prophets, to also receive the sacraments of the Gospel which their prophets had foretold, and the Gentiles, who had come to the Lord through all the proclamations of the Gospel, to also receive and venerate the authority of the Law and the Prophets, lest anyone, like the heretics, should accept either only the Old Testament or only the New, and thus remain alien to the testament of God.

(in Marc. i. 1) The beginning of this Gospel should be compared with that of Matthew, in which it is said, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. But here He is called the Son of God. Now from both we must understand one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, and of man. And fitly the first Evangelist names Him Son of man, the second, Son of God, that from less things our sense may by degrees mount up to greater, and by faith and the sacraments of the human nature assumed, rise to the acknowledgment of His divine eternity. Fitly also did He, who was about to describe His human generation, begin with a son of man, namely, David or Abraham. Fitly again, he who was beginning his book with the first preaching of the Gospel, chose rather to call Jesus Christ, the Son of God; for it belonged to the human nature to take upon Him the reality of our flesh, of the race of the patriarchs, and it was the work of Divine power to preach the Gospel to the world.

Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.

With baptism the old covenant ends and the new begins. This is seen in the fact that the inaugurator of the New Testament is John the Baptist. "Among those born of women there is none greater than John." He is the crown of all the prophetic tradition: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Of the gospel dispensation he was the firstfruits, for we read "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" and after some words "John did baptize in the wilderness."

And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son." [1 Peter 5:13]

(de Trin. iii. 11) He has testified, that Christ was the Son of God, not in name only, but by His own proper nature. We are the sons of God, but He is not a son as we are; for He is the very and proper Son, by origin, not by adoption; in truth, not in name; by birth, not by creation.

Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets." Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, "the messenger of great counsel of the Father;" through whom God caused the day-spring and the Just One to arise to the house of David, and raised up for him an horn of salvation, "and established a testimony in Jacob;" as David says when discoursing on the causes of His birth: "And He appointed a law in Israel, that another generation might know [Him,] the children which should be born from these, and they arising shall themselves declare to their children, so that they might set their hope in God, and seek after His commandments." And again, the angel said, when bringing good tidings to Mary: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of His father David;" acknowledging that He who is the Son of the Highest, the same is Himself also the Son of David. And David, knowing by the Spirit the dispensation of the advent of this Person, by which He is supreme over all the living and dead, confessed Him as Lord, sitting on the right hand of the Most High Father.

Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon "She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son." So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example. Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.

(in Prolog.) Mark the Evangelist, who served the priesthood in Israel, according to the flesh a Levite, having been converted to the Lord, wrote his Gospel in Italy, showing in it how even his family benefited Christ. For, commencing his Gospel with the voice of the prophetic cry, he shows the order of the election of Levi, declaring that John the son of Zachariah was sent forth by the voice of an angel, and saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The way of the Lord must be prepared within the heart; for great and spacious is the heart of man, as if it were a whole world. But see its greatness, not in bodily quantity, but in the power of the mind which enables it to encompass so great a knowledge of the truth. Prepare, therefore, in your hearts the way of the Lord, by a worthy manner of life. Keep straight the path of your life, so that the words of the Lord may enter in without hindrance.

The gospel is primarily concerned with Christ Jesus, who is the head of the whole body of those who are being saved. Mark conveys this point when he says, "The beginning of the gospel concerning Christ Jesus." … In its unfolding the gospel has a beginning, a continuing middle and an end. The beginning can be viewed either as the entire Old Testament, with John the Baptist being its summarizing type, or (because he stands at the juncture of the new with the old) the final stages of the old covenant. This runs counter to those who would assign the two covenants to two different Gods.

Those who deepen in the knowledge of Christianity do not treat the things written in the law with disrespect.… In saying: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah," Mark shows that the beginning of the gospel is intrinsically connected with the Old Testament.

This also the presbyter [John] said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.

The Greek word 'Evangelium' means good tidings, in Latin it is explained, 'bona annunciatio,' or, the good news; these terms properly belong to the kingdom of God and to the remission of sins; for the Gospel is that, by which comes the redemption of the faithful and the beatitude of the saints. But the four Gospels are one, and one Gospel is four. In Hebrew, His name is Jesus, in Greek, Soter, in Latin, Salvator; but men say Christus in Greek, Messias in Hebrew, Unctus in Latin, that is, King and Priest.

The Life of the Evangelist Mark Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and, at the urging of the brethren in Rome, Mark wrote his short Gospel, following exactly what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter saw it, he gave it his approval, and directed that it be read in the Church, as Clement says in Book VI of his Outline. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, makes mention of this same Mark. Peter, in his first Epistle, refers to Rome metaphorically by the name "Babylon": The church that is at Babylon, chosen together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son (I Pet. 5:13). Taking with him the Gospel which he himself had written, Mark went to Egypt, and was the first to preach Jesus Christ in Alexandria, where he established the Church. So highly did he excel both in teaching and in a life of steadfast endurance, that all those who came to believe in Christ, followed his example. And Philo [an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of the first century AD], the most eloquent of the Jews, was so impressed when he saw the first church in Alexandria while it was still made up primarily of Jews, that he wrote a book about the life of those Christians, praising, as it were, his own race. Luke relates that the believers in Jerusalem held everything in common; likewise Philo preserved the memory of what he had seen occurring in Alexandria under the guidance of Mark. Mark reposed in the eighth year of Nero's reign [63 A.D.]. He was buried in Alexandria, where Ananias succeeded him as bishop.

The Gospel According to St. Mark was written ten years after the Ascension of Christ. This Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom Peter calls his son, that is, his spiritual son. He was also called John (Acts 12:12), and the nephew of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), and the companion of Paul (Philemon 24). But eventually he accompanied Peter the most, and was with him in Rome. The believers in Rome begged Mark not only to preach orally, but also to give them a written account of Christ's life. He agreed, and composed it immediately. God revealed to Peter that Mark had written this Gospel, and when he saw it, Peter confirmed its truth, and sent Mark as bishop to Egypt. There Mark preached and established the Church in Alexandria, enlightening all those in that sunny land to the south. The character of this Gospel, therefore, is unclouded and clear, containing nothing that is hidden.

Mark's Gospel agrees with Matthew's in every respect, except that Matthew goes into greater detail. And while Matthew begins with the Nativity of the Lord according to the flesh, Mark begins with the prophet and forerunner John. Therefore, though it may appear incomprehensible, some have given this understanding of the four Evangelists: God, Who sits upon the four-faced Cherubim, as Scripture says (see Ezekiel 1:10, 10:14; also Rev. 4:7) gave us the Gospel which likewise appears in four forms, but is held together by one Spirit. Just as one of the Cherubim had the face of a lion, and another the face of a man, and another the face of an eagle, and another the face of a bullock, so it is with the preaching of the Gospel.

The Gospel of John has the face of a lion, for the lion is royal and princely; and John began his Gospel with the royal and lordly dignity of the divine Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. But the Gospel of Matthew is in the likeness of a man, for it begins with the Nativity according to the flesh and the incarnation of the Word. The Gospel of Mark is likened to an eagle, for it begins with the prophet and forerunner John. And the prophetic gift, by which one can foresee and keenly perceive things that are a great way off, is like an eagle. For it is said that the eagle is the most keen sighted of all the animals, and can even gaze at the sun without shutting its eyes. The Gospel of Luke is like the bullock, because it begins with the priestly service of Zacharias, in the course of which he made sacrifice for the sins of the people, sacrificing a bullock.

But Mark begins his Gospel by describing the way of life of the Forerunner. Listen then to what he says.

John, the last of the prophets, is presented by the evangelist as the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God, because the end of the Old is the beginning of the New Testament.

The efficacy of John's baptism is attested by the holy way he lived as a person. His baptism was in accord with the justice of a just man, yet still a mere man, but one who had received extraordinary grace from the Lord, a grace so great that he was deemed worthy to precede the final Judge of history, and to point him out with his finger, and to fulfill the words of that prophecy: "The voice of one crying out in the desert, prepare the way for the Lord."

Behold, I send my angel, etc. The angel is called John, not by the association of nature according to the heresy of Origen, but by the dignity of the office. For angel in Greek is called messenger in Latin. By which name, rightly, that man could be called who was sent by God to bear witness to the light (John I), and to announce to the world the Lord coming in the flesh. Nor should it be wondered at mystically that one who is greater than all born of women (Matt. XI) should be called an angel, when it is universally accepted that all who rightly perform the duty of the priestly rank can be called angels because of their duty to evangelize, as the prophet says: The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts (Mal. II).

(ubi sup.) Being about to write his Gospel, Mark rightly puts first the testimonies of the Prophets, that he might notify to all, that what he should write was to be received without scruple of doubt, in that he showed that these things were beforehand foretold by the Prophets. At once, by one and the same beginning of his Gospel, he prepared the Jews, who had received the Law and the Prophets, for receiving the grace of the Gospel, and those sacraments, which their own prophecies had foretold; and he also calls upon the Gentiles, who came to the Lord by publishing of the Gospel, to receive and venerate the authority of the Law and the Prophets; whence he says, As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, &c.

(ubi sup.) Or otherwise, we must understand, that, although these words are not found in Isaiah, still the sense of them is found in many other places, and most clearly in this which he has subjoined, The voice of one crying in the wilderness. For that which Malachi has called, the angel to be sent before the face of the Lord, to prepare His way, is the same thing as Isaiah has said is to be heard, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, saying, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. But in each sentence alike, the way of the Lord to be prepared is proclaimed. It may be, too, that Isaiah occurred to the mind of Mark, in writing his Gospel, instead of Malachi, as often happens; which he would, however, without doubt correct, at least when reminded by other persons, who might read his work whilst he was yet in the flesh; unless he thought, that, since his memory was then ruled by the Holy Spirit, it was not without a purpose, that the name of one prophet had occurred to him instead of another. For thus whatsoever things the Holy Spirit spoke by the prophets, are implied each to have belonged to all, and all to each.

(ubi sup.) But John is called an angel not by community of nature, according to the heresy of Origena, but by the dignity of his office; for angel in Greek is in Latin, nuntius, (messenger,) by which name that man is rightly called, who was sent by God, that he might bear witness of the light, and announce to the world the Lord, coming in the flesh: since it is evident that all who are priests may by their office of preaching the Gospel be called angels, as the prophet Malachi says, The lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they seek the law at his mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts. (Mal. 2:7)

(ubi sup.) But as John might be called an angel, because he went before the face of the Lord by his preaching, so he might also be rightly called a voice, because, by his sound, he preceded the Word of the Lord. Wherefore there follows, The voice of one crying, &c. For it is an acknowledged thing that the Only-Begotten Son is called the Word of the Father, and even we, from having uttered words ourselves, know that the voice sounds first, in order that the word may afterwards be heard.

(ubi sup.) What he cried is revealed, in that which is subjoined, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. For whosoever preaches a right faith and good works, what else does he but prepare the way for the Lord's coming to the hearts of His hearers, that the power of grace might penetrate these hearts, and the light of truth shine in them? And the paths he makes straight, when he forms pure thoughts in the soul by the word of preaching.

He emerged from the desert clothed in a strange garment, refusing all ordinary social intercourse. He did not even share their common food. For it is written that from childhood John was in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel. Indeed, his clothing was made of camel's hair! His food locusts and wild honey! … It is understandable that they should have been alarmed when they saw a man with the hair of a Nazarite of God, and a divine face, suddenly appearing from the lonely wilderness dressed in bizarre clothing, who after preaching to them, he disappeared again into the wilderness, without eating or drinking or mingling with the people? Must they not have suspected that he was a little more than human? For how could a human being go without food? And so they understood him to be a divine messenger, the very angel foretold by the prophet.

(de Trin. iii. 11) He has testified, that Christ was the Son of God, not in name only, but by His own proper nature. We are the sons of God, but He is not a son as we are; for He is the very and proper Son, by origin, not by adoption; in truth, not in name; by birth, not by creation.

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias," "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father...

(ad Pammach. Epist. 57) But this is not written in Isaiah, but in Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets.

By Malachi, therefore, the voice Πνεύμκτος Ἅγιου of the Holy Spirit resounds to the Father concerning the Son, who is the countenance of the Father by which He has been known.

(Quæst. nov. et vet. Test. lvii.) For knowing that all things are to be referred to their author, he has brought these sayings back to Isaiah, who was the first to intimate the sense. Lastly, after the words of Malachi, he immediately subjoins, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, in order to connect the words of each prophet, belonging as they do to one meaning, under the person of the elder prophet.

(Vict. Ant. c. Cat. in Marc.) But it may be said that it is a mistake of the writer. Otherwise it may be said, that he has compressed into one, two prophecies delivered in different places by two prophets; for in the prophet Isaiah it is written after the story of Hezekiah, The voice of one crying in the wilderness; but in Malachi, Behold, I send mine angel. The Evangelist therefore, taking parts of two prophecies, has put them down as spoken by Isaiah, and refers them here to one passage, without mentioning, however, by whom it is said, Behold, I send mine angel.

(Vict. Ant. e. Cat. in Marc.) But the prophecy, by saying, In the wilderness, plainly shows that the divine teaching was not in Jerusalem, but in the wilderness, which was fulfilled to the letter by John the Baptist in the wilderness of Jordan, preaching the healthful appearing of the Word of God. (non occ.). The word of prophecy also shows, that besides the wilderness, which was pointed out by Moses, where he made paths, there was another wilderness, in which it proclaimed that the salvation of Christ was present.

Or, the way of the Lord, by which He comes into men, is penitence, by which God comes down to us, and we mount up to Him. And for this reason the beginning of John's preaching was, Repent ye.

But it is called the voice of one crying, for we are wont to use a cry to deaf persons, and to those afar off, or when we are indignant, all which things we know applied to the Jews; for salvation is far from the wicked, and they stopped their ears like deaf adders, and deserved to hear indignation, and wrath, and tribulation from Christ.

Or else the voice and the cry is in the desert, because they were deserted by the Spirit of God, as a house empty, and swept out; deserted also by prophet, priest, and king.

Or else, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, that is, act out repentance and preach it; make his paths straight, that walking in the royal road, we may love our neighbours as ourselves, and ourselves as our neighbours. For he who loves himself, and loves not his neighbour, turns aside to the right; for many act well, and do not correct their neighbour well, as Eli. He, on the other hand, who, hating himself, loves his neighbour, turns aside to the left; for many, for instance, rebuke well, but act not well themselves, as did the Scribes and Pharisees. Paths are mentioned after the way, because moral commands are laid open after penitence.

Now he called him an "angel" on account of the great consequence of the mighty deeds which he was to accomplish, comparable to those mighty deeds of Joshua the son of Nun about whom you have read. John served in the office of a prophet to announce God's will, as the forerunner of the Anointed One. The Spirit, speaking in the voice of the Father, called John an "angel" in accord with the promise declared by Malachi: "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me." It is not a novelty that the Holy Spirit would call those he has appointed ministers of his power "angels."

Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"-that is, Christ's-"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power.

As for the testimony concerning the Forerunner, it is taken from two prophets — from Malachi: "Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me" (Mal. 3:1), and from Isaiah: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness" (Isa. 40:3) and so forth. These are the words of God the Father to the Son. He calls the Forerunner an Angel on account of his angelic and nearly bodiless life and on account of his announcing and pointing out the coming Christ. John prepared the way of the Lord, making ready the souls of the Jews through baptism for the reception of Christ. "Before Thy face" means that Thy Angel is close to Thee. By this is signified the kinship of the Forerunner to Christ, since before kings as well it is chiefly relatives who are honored.

The Forerunner of Christ, therefore, is called an angel, on account of his angelic life and lofty reverence. Again, where he says, Before thy face, it is as if he said, Thy messenger is near thee: whence is shown the intimate connection of the Forerunner with Christ; for those walk next to kings, who are their greatest friends. There follows, Who will prepare thy way before thee. For by baptism he prepared the minds of the Jews to receive Christ.

Or, the way is the New Testament, and the paths are the Old, because it is a trodden path. For it was necessary to be prepared for the way, that is, for the New Testament; but it was right that the paths of the Old Testament should be straightened.

Quaest. nov. et vet. Test.lvii: For knowing that all things are to be referred to their author, he has brought these sayings back to Isaiah, who was the first to intimate the sense. Lastly, after the words of Malachi, he immediately subjoins, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness," in order to connect the words of each prophet, belonging as they do to one meaning, under the person of the elder prophet.

A voice crying out in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, etc. It is clear that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father, as John attests, who says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1). And we know from our speech itself that the voice sounds first, so that the word can be heard afterward. Therefore, John is called a voice by the prophet because the word precedes. Thus, the voice is said to precede the Lord's coming because through his ministry the Word of the Father is heard by men. He also cries out in the desert because he announces the consolation of redemption to the forsaken and desolate Judah. What he cries out, however, is revealed when it is added: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. Whoever preaches true faith and good works, what else does he do but prepare the way for the Lord to enter the hearts of the listeners, so that the power of grace may penetrate, the light of truth may shine, and make straight paths for God, by forming pure thoughts in the mind through the word of good preaching? Indeed it must be noted that from the prophetic testimonies which Mark has placed, one is only found in Isaiah, while the other is found in Malachi. Yet the evangelist should not be thought to have erred or been deceitful, who says this was written in Isaiah which Isaiah did not write, but rather it should be understood that even if the words placed from Malachi are not found in Isaiah, the sense of them is found in Isaiah, and in several other places, and more clearly in what he himself added here: A voice crying out in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. For who does not see how great the agreement is in both statements? For what Malachi said, that an angel should be sent before the face of the Lord who would prepare his way, is indeed the same as what Isaiah said, that a voice crying out should be heard in the desert, who said: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. Because just as John could rightly be called an angel, because he preceded the face of the Lord by preaching, so he could rightly be called the voice, because he preceded the Word of God by sounding it, as was stated above. But in both statements the way of the Lord is similarly preached to be prepared. Therefore, the evangelist is not mistaken, who writes this said by Isaiah: which even if not in the same words, nevertheless he finds written by him in the same sense. However, it could have happened that in the mind of Mark writing the Gospel, Isaiah occurred instead of Malachi, as happens. But he would without any doubt correct this, at least being admonished by others who could read this while he was still living in the flesh, unless he thought that the name of another prophet occurred to his memory, which was governed by the Holy Spirit, not without reason, because the Lord ordained it to be written thus. But why the Lord ordained it so, that most useful cause should be easily thought of, namely, that it is thus hinted that all the holy prophets spoke by one spirit in wonderful agreement, which is much greater than if all the sayings of all the prophets were spoken by the mouth of one man. And therefore, whatever the Holy Spirit said through them should be undoubtedly accepted, and each one's words belong to all, and all to each one. Therefore, what has been said through Isaiah is as much Malachi's as Isaiah's, and what has been said through Malachi is as much Isaiah's as Malachi's, what need was there for Mark to correct when reading to himself what name occurred for another? And rather, following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he certainly more than us felt his mind was governed, thus he would leave this written as it is? For the Lord had ordained to instruct him in this way to show us that there is such great harmony in his words among the prophets, that we should most fittingly even attribute what is found said by Malachi to Isaiah.

"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said." You know, dearest brothers, that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father, as John testifies when he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And from your own manner of speaking you recognize that the voice sounds first, so that the word may afterward be heard. Therefore John asserts that he is the voice, because he precedes the Word. And so, going before the coming of the Lord, he is called a voice, because through his ministry the Word of the Father is heard by men. He also cries out in the wilderness, because he announces the comfort of the Redeemer to abandoned and forsaken Judea. But what he cries out he indicates when he adds: "Make straight the way of the Lord." The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart when the word of truth is humbly heard. The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart when one's life is prepared according to his commandment.

As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Indeed, the same John the Baptist, when asked who he was, answered, saying: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He, as was said by us before, was called a voice by the prophet because he preceded the Word. But what he cried out is revealed when it is added: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Everyone who preaches right faith and good works, what else does he do but prepare a way for the coming Lord into the hearts of his hearers? So that the power of grace may penetrate, so that the light of truth may illuminate, so that he may make straight paths for God, while he forms pure thoughts in the mind through the word of good preaching.

Hierom. ad Pammach, Epist 57: But this is not written in Isaiah, but in Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets. The Evangelist therefore, taking parts of two prophecies, has put them down as spoken by Isaiah, and refers them here toone passage, without mentioning, however, by whom it is said, "Behold, I send mine angel.". By Malachi, therefore, the voice of the Holy Spirit resounds to the Father concerning the Son, who is the countenance of the Father by which He has been known. Or, "the way of the Lord, "by which He comes into men, in penitence, by which God comes down to us, and we mount up to Him. And for this reason the beginning of John's preaching was, "Repent ye.". But it is called "the voice of one crying," for we are wont to use a cry to deaf persons, and to those afar off, or when we are indignant, all which things we know applied to the Jews; for "salvation is far from the wicked," and they "stopped their ears like deaf adders," and deserved to hear "indignation, and wrath, and tribulation" fromChrist.The word of prophecy also shows, that besides the wilderness, which was pointed out by Moses, where he made paths, there was another wilderness, in which it proclaimed that the salvation of Christ was present. Or else the voice and thecry is in the desert, because they were deserted by the Spirit of God, as ahouse empty, and swept out; deserted also by prophet, priest, and king. Or else, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," that is, act out repentance and preach it; "make his paths straight," that walking in the royal road, we may love our neighbours as ourselves, and ourselves as our neighbours. For he who loves himself, and loves not his neighbour, turns aside to the right; for many act well, and do not correct their neighbour well, as Eli. He, on the other hand, who, hating himself, loves his neighbour, turns aside to the left; for many, for instance, rebuke well, but act not well themselves, as did the Scribes and Pharisees. "Paths" are mentioned after the "way "because moral commands are laid open after penitence.

The quotation is made up from two prophets, Malachi and Isaiah. From the first part: "Behold I send my messenger to prepare the way before me," occurs at the close of Malachi. But the second part: "The voice of one crying," etc., we read in Isaiah. On what ground then has Mark in the very beginning of his book set the words: "As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold I send my messenger," when, as we have said, it is [in part] not written in Isaiah at all, but in Malachi, the last of the twelve prophets? Let ignorant presumption solve this nice question if it can. I will ask pardon for being in the wrong.… The apostle has not rendered his original word for word, but using a paraphrase, he has given the sense in different terms.

Voice and crying go together: the voice preaches faith; the cry calls for repentance; the voice, comfort; the cry, danger; the voice sings mercy; the cry announces judgment.

Mark took two prophecies spoken in different places by two prophets and conflated them into one, so as to declare: "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet …" "The voice of one crying in the wilderness," which is indeed recorded immediately after the narrative about Hezekiah's recovery from his sickness. This is then conflated with "Behold I send my messenger to prepare the way before me," from Malachi. Both John and Mark compress in various ways the quotation from Isaiah, Mark by reading "His paths" for "the paths of our God" and by omitting "before me."

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness," that is, in the wilderness of the Jordan, and even more so in the Jewish synagogue, which was a wilderness with respect to good. "The way" means the New Testament, "the paths" mean the Old, as repeatedly violated by the Jews. For the way, that is, for the New Testament, they had to prepare themselves, and the paths of the Old they had to make straight, for although in ancient times they had received them, afterwards they turned aside from their paths and went astray.

"The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, failing down before the throne, adored God." The four and twenty elders arethe twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers-twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs.And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declareto us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet; " The voice of one crying in the wilderness," -has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, "The hook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: " this is the form of a man. But Luke said, "There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron: " this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion's whelp. And when for man's salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those bring creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

John was baptizing in the desert, etc. It is known by all peoples that John not only preached the baptism of repentance but also administered it to some, yet he could not grant baptism for the remission of sins. For the remission of sins is granted to us solely in the baptism of Christ. Therefore, it must be noted what is said, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, because he could not grant the baptism that absolves sins, he preached it, so that just as he preceded the incarnate Word of the Father with the word of preaching, so he might precede the baptism of repentance, by which sins are absolved, with his own baptism, by which sins cannot be absolved. And they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. An example of confessing sins and promising a better life is given to those who desire to receive baptism, just as while Paul was preaching in Ephesus, many believers were coming confessing and proclaiming their deeds, so that, having renounced their old life, they might merit to be renewed in Christ. Hence, also, it was said to blessed Peter, when various kinds of animals were shown to him in a heavenly sheet: Rise, Peter, kill and eat (Acts X). Which is clearly to say: Kill the unbelievers from what they were before, from renunciation of sins and the promise of pious religion, and thus, having been imbued with the sacraments of the Christian faith, convert them into the members of the holy Church.

(in Marc. i. 2) It is evident that John not only preached, but also gave to some the baptism of repentance; but he could not give baptism for the remission of sinsc. For remission of sins is only given to us by the baptism of Christ. It is therefore only said, Preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; for he preached a baptism which could remit sins, since he could not give it. Wherefore as he was the forerunner of the Incarnate Word of the Father, by the word of his preaching, so by his baptism, which could not remit sins, he preceded that baptism, of penitence, by which sins are remitted.

The Lord was baptized by his servant. The holy One who was destined to grant remission of sins did not himself disdain to submit his body to be cleansed with the water of regeneration.

And he came into all the region of Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It is clear to all readers that John not only preached the baptism of repentance, but also gave it to some, yet nevertheless he was not able to give his baptism for the remission of sins. For the remission of sins is granted to us only in the baptism of Christ. Therefore it must be noted what is said: Preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, because the baptism that would loose sins, since he was not able to give it, he preached: so that just as he preceded the incarnate Word of the Father with the word of preaching, so he might precede the baptism of repentance, by which sins are loosed, with his own baptism, by which sins cannot be loosed; so that because his speech preceded the presence of the Redeemer, his baptism also by preceding might become a shadow of the truth.

Since the Victim had not been offered, nor had the Holy Spirit yet descended, of what kind was this remission of sins?… Fittingly therefore, when he had said that he came "preaching the baptism of repentance," he adds, "for the remission of sins"; as if to say: he persuaded them to repent of their sins, so that later they might more easily receive pardon through believing in Christ. For unless brought to it by repentance, they would not seek for pardon. His baptism therefore served no other end than as a preparation for belief in Christ.

According to the above-mentioned prophecy of Isaiah, the way of the Lord is prepared by John, through faith, baptism, and penitence; the paths are made straight by the rough marks of the hair-cloth garment, the girdle of skin, the feeding on locusts and wild honey, and the most lowly voice; whence it is said, John was in the wilderness. For John and Jesus seek what is lost in the wilderness; where the devil conquered, there he is conquered; where man fell, there he rises up. But the name John means the grace of God, and the narrative begins with grace. For it goes on to say, baptizing. For by baptism grace is given, seeing that by baptism sins are freely remitted. But what is brought to perfection by the bridegroom, is introduced by the friend of the bridegroom. Thus catechumens, (which word means persons instructed,) begin by the ministry of the priest, receive the chrismb from the bishop. And to show this, it is subjoined, And preaching the baptism of repentance, &c.

John called for the baptism of repentance to prepare the way for the Lord. He himself led in that way by means of the sign and seal of repentance for all whom God was calling through grace to inherit the promise surely made to Abraham.… He called us to purge our minds of whatever impurity error had imparted, whatever contamination ignorance had engendered, which repentance would sweep and scour away, and cast out. So prepare the home of your heart by making it clean for the Holy Spirit.

Those who sought the baptism of repentance were dealt with as if candidates preparing for the baptismal remission and sanctification that were soon to follow in the ministry of Christ. When John preached baptism for "the remission of sins," the declaration was made with reference to a future remission. If so, John's call to repentance is to lead the way, and actual remission is to follow. This is what is meant by "preparing the way." But one who prepares does not himself perfect, but rather makes ready for another to perfect.

John holds not his peace, saying, "Enter upon repentance, for now shall salvation approach the nations" -the Lord, that is, bringing salvation according to God's promise.

And so "the baptism of repentance" was dealt with as if it were a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach "baptism for the remission of sins," the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is, ) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is "preparing the way.

John's baptism did not have the remission of sins, but introduced only repentance for the people. But how then does Mark say here: "for the forgiveness of sins"? To this we answer that John preached the baptism of repentance. And to what did this preaching lead? To the remission of sins, that is, to the baptism of Christ, which already contained within itself the remission of sins as well. When we say, for example, that so-and-so came before the king, commanding that food be prepared for the king, we mean that those who carry out this command are rewarded by the king. So it is here as well. The Forerunner preached the baptism of repentance so that the people, having repented and accepted Christ, would receive the forgiveness of sins.

The baptism of John had not remission of sins, but only brought men to penitence. He preached therefore the baptism of repentance, that is, he preached that to which the baptism of penitence led, namely, remission of sins, that they who in penitence received Christ, might receive Him to the remission of their sins.

(ubi sup.) An example of confessing their sins and of promising to lead a new life, is held out to those who desire to be baptized, by those words which follow, confessing their sins.

Let us here treat briefly of the different kinds of baptism. Moses baptized, but in water, in the cloud and in the sea; but this he did figuratively. John also baptized, not indeed in the rite of the Jews, not solely in water, but also for the remission of sins; yet not in an entirely spiritual manner, for he had not added: "in the spirit." Jesus baptized, but in the Spirit; and this is perfection. There is also a fourth baptism, which is wrought by martyrdom and blood, in which Christ himself was also baptized, which is far more venerable than the others, in as much as it is not soiled by repeated contagion. There is yet a fifth, but more laborious, by tears; with which David each night bedewed his bed, washing his couch with tears.

The baptism of John did not so much consist in the forgiveness of sins as in being a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, for a future remission, which was to follow through the sanctification of Christ.

Now by John as by the bride-groom's friend, the bride is brought to Christ, as by a servant Rebecca was brought to Isaac; wherefore there follows, And there went out to him all, (Gen. 24:61) &c. For confession and beauty are in his presence, (Ps. 95:6. Vulg.) that is, the presence of the bridegroom. And the bride leaping down from her camel signifies the Church, who humbles herself on seeing her husband Isaac, that is, Christ. But the interpretation of Jordan, where sins are washed away, is 'an alien descent.' For we heretofore aliens to God by pride, are by the sign (symbolum) of Baptism made lowly, and thus exalted on highd.

He esteemed the high priestly garment woven of gold cloth of less value than a garment made of camel's hair, girded with a leather belt. Why? Was it not that he who, by reason of a more perfect justice, had received for himself authority to preach, that he might show, even by the neglect of his ancestral right to the high priesthood, how certainly he was the herald and precursor of a more excellent high priesthood?

And John was clothed with camel's hair, etc. He says, with hair, not wool. One is a sign of austere clothing; the other of softer luxury. But the leather belt with which Elijah was girded is a sign of mortification. Furthermore, the following: And he ate locusts and wild honey, is fitting for an inhabitant of solitude, so that he might fulfill the necessity of human flesh, not the pleasures of food. His clothing and his diet can also suitably express the quality of his internal conduct through their significance. For he used harsher garments, just as the Lord bore witness in his praises, saying to the Jews: What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses (Matthew XI), because he did not foster the life of sinners with flattery, but rebuked them with the vigor of harsh exhortation, saying: O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come (Matthew XXIII)? He had a leather belt around his loins, because he crucified his flesh with its vices and desires, which we have learned to be characteristic of those who are of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle attests. He ate locusts and wild honey, for his preaching seemed indeed sweet to the crowds, with the people imagining and all thinking in their hearts about him, whether he might be the Christ. But that opinion quickly vanished, when his listeners learned that he was not the Christ, but the precursor and prophet of Christ. For in honey there is sweetness, in locusts there is an energetic flight, but one that is quickly fleeting.

It says, clothed in a garment of hair, not in woollen clothes; the former is the mark of an austere garb, the latter of effeminate luxury. But the girdle of skins, with which he was girt, like Elias, is a mark of mortification. And this meat, locusts and wild honey, is suited to a dweller in the wilderness, so that his object in eating was not the deliciousness of meats, but the satisfying of the necessity of human flesh.

(ubi sup.) The dress and food of John may also express of what kind was his inward walk. For he used a dress more austere than was usual, because he did not encourage the life of sinners by flattery, but chid them by the vigour of his rough rebuke; he had a girdle of skin round his loins, for he was one, who crucified his flesh with the affections and lusts. (Gal. 5:24) He used to cat locusts and wild honey, because his preaching had some sweetness for the multitude, whilst the people debated whether he was the Christ himself or not; but this soon came to an end, when his hearers understood that he was not the Christ, but the forerunner and prophet of Christ. For in honey there is sweetness, in locusts swiftness of flight; whence there follows, And he preached, saying, there cometh one mightier than I after me.

The blessed John, despising the locks of sheep as savouring of luxury, chose "camel's hair," and was clad in it, making himself an example of frugality and simplicity of life. For he also "ate locusts and wild honey," sweet and spiritual fare; preparing, as he was, the lowly and chaste ways of the Lord. For how possibly could he have worn a purple robe, who turned away from the pomp of cities, and retired to the solitude of the desert, to live in calmness with God, far from all frivolous pursuits-from all false show of good-from all meanness?

He fed on locusts to make his soul grow wings. Sated with honey, the words he spoke were sweeter than honey and of more profit. Clothed in a garment of camel's hair, he exemplified in his own person the holy life.… For every snake puts off its signs of age by pushing through some narrow place, and gets rid of its old apparel by squeezing it off. From then on it is young again in body. So "enter in at the straight and narrow gate," squeeze yourself through by fasting, break yourself away from perishing, "put off the old nature with its deeds."

(Moral. xxxi. 25) Or, by the kind itself of his food he pointed out the Lord, of whom he was the forerunner; for in that our Lord took to Himself the sweetness of the barren Gentiles, he ate wild honey. In that He in His own person partly converted the Jews, He received locusts for His food, which suddenly leaping up, at once fall to the ground. For the Jews leaped up when they promised to fulfil the precepts of the Lord; but they fell to the ground, when by their evil works they affirmed that they had not heard them. They made therefore a leap upwards in words, and fell down by their actions.

John the Baptist had a religious mother and his father was a priest. Yet neither his mother's affection nor his father's affluence could induce him to live in his parents' house at the risk of the world's temptations. So he lived in the desert. Seeking Christ with his eyes, he refused to look at anything else. His rough garb, his girdle made of skins, his diet of locusts and wild honey were all alike designed to encourage virtue and continence. Later the spiritual descendants of the prophets, who were the monks of the Old Testament, would build for themselves huts by the waters of Jordan and forsaking the crowded cities live in these on pottage and wild herbs. As long as you are at home, make your cell your paradise, gather there the varied fruits of Scripture, let them be your favorite companions, and take its precepts to your heart.

John, too, wears a leather girdle about his loins; and there was nothing soft or effeminate in Elijah, but every bit of him was hard and virile. He, too, certainly was a shaggy man.

You may ask, why did he wear a leather girdle?… Elijah also was so clothed, and likewise many others among holy men, either because they were engaged in heavy labor, or were upon a journey, or in any other necessity that involved labor, and because they despised ornament, and followed an austere way of life.… Let us, putting away all excess, and drinking the healthy cup of moderation, live in a manner that is becoming and temperate. Let us give ourselves in earnest to prayer. And if we do not receive that for which we pray, let us persevere that we may receive it. And if we do receive it, then let us persevere all the more for what we have received. For it is not his will to withhold the gift we ask for, but in his wisdom, to encourage our perseverance by delaying it.

It was necessary that the precursor of the One who was to undo the age-long burdens of men, such as toil, malediction, pain and sweat, should in his own person give some token of the gifts to come, so as to stand above these tribulations. And so it was that he neither tilled the earth, nor plowed the furrow, nor did he eat bread of his own sweat, for his table was easily prepared, and his clothing more easily than his table, and his dwelling more easily than his clothing. For he had need neither of roof, nor bed, nor table, nor any such thing. But even while still within this flesh of ours he lived an almost angelic life. His clothing was put together from the hair of camels, so that even from his garments he might teach us that we free ourselves of human needs, and need not be bound to this earth, but that we may return to the pristine dignity in which Adam first lived, before he had need of garments or of clothing.

The dress of John, his food, and employment, signifies the austere life of preachers, and that future nations are to be joined to the grace of God, which is John, both in their minds and in externals. For by camel's hair, is meant the rich among the nations; and by the girdle of skin, the poor, dead to the world; and by the wandering locusts, the wise men of this world; who, leaving the dry stalks to the Jews, draw off with their legs the mystic grain, and in the warmth of their faith leap up towards heaven; and the faithful, being inspired by the wild honey, are full-fed from the untilled wood.

We have already spoken about this in the Gospel of Matthew; now we shall say only what was omitted there, namely: that John's clothing was a sign of mourning, and the prophet was showing in this way that one who repents ought to weep, since sackcloth customarily serves as a sign of lamentation; and the leather belt signified the deadness of the Jewish people. And that this clothing signified lamentation, the Lord Himself speaks of this: "We sang dirges for you, and you did not weep," calling the life of the Forerunner a lamentation, because further He says: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He has a demon" (Matt. 11:17–18). Likewise John's food, pointing here of course to abstinence, was at the same time a figure of the spiritual food of the Jews of that time, who did not eat the clean birds of heaven, that is, they did not contemplate anything lofty, but fed only on words that were elevated and directed upward, yet fell back down again. For the locust is an insect that leaps upward and then falls back to the ground again. In like manner the people also ate honey produced by bees, that is, by the prophets; but it remained with them uncultivated and was not increased by deeper study and right understanding, although the Jews thought that they understood and grasped the Scripture. They had the Scriptures as a kind of honey, but they did not labor over them and did not search them out.

Or else; The garment of camel's hair was significative of grief, for John pointed out, that he who repented should mourn. For sackcloth signifies grief; but the girdle of skins shows the dead state of the Jewish people. The food also of John not only denotes abstinence, but also shows forth the intellectual food, which the people then were eating, without understanding any thing lofty, but continually raising themselves on high, and again sinking to the earth. For such is the nature of locusts, leaping on high and again falling. In the same way the people ate honey, which had come from bees, that is, from the prophets; it was not however domestic, but wild, for the Jews had the Scriptures, which are as honey, but did not rightly understand them.

So that there can neither be penitence without Grace, nor Grace without penitence, for penitence must first condemn sin, that Grace may abolish it. Wherefore John, fulfilling the type of the Law, baptized unto repentance, Christ unto Grace.

John therefore was a foreteller of Christ, nearer to him in time than all who went before him. And because all the righteous ones and prophets of former times desired to see the fulfillment of what, through the revelation of the Spirit, they foresaw should come to pass—so also the Lord himself says that "many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them." Therefore it was said of John that he was more than a prophet, and that among all that were born of women there was none greater than he, because to the righteous who went before him it was only granted to foretell the coming of Christ, but to John it was given both to foretell him in his absence and to behold him in his presence, so that it should be found that to him was made manifest what the others had desired.

And he preached, saying: One mightier than I is coming, etc. Among the ancients, it was customary that if one did not wish to take as a wife the one who corresponded to him, the one who would be closest by kinship would loose the shoe strap of that man. What then did Christ appear among men, except as the bridegroom of the holy Church? About whom the same John also says: He who has the bride is the bridegroom (John 3). But since men thought that John was the Christ, which the same John denies, he rightly announces himself to be unworthy to loose the strap of his shoe. As if he openly says: I am not able to uncover the footsteps of the Redeemer, because I unworthily do not assume the name of bridegroom. However, this can be understood in another way. For who does not know that shoes are made from dead animals? The incarnate Lord, coming, indeed appeared as if shod, who in his divinity assumed our mortal decay. But the mystery of this incarnation the human eye cannot penetrate. It can by no means be investigated how the Word is embodied, how the highest and life-giving Spirit is animated within the mother's womb, how he who has no beginning and exists is conceived. The strap of the shoe, therefore, is the binding of the mystery. John, therefore, is not able to loose the strap of his shoe, because even he cannot investigate the mystery of the incarnation, which he recognized through the spirit of prophecy. I baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. John does not yet openly proclaim the Lord as God or the Son of God, but rather only a man stronger than himself. For their listeners, being still unrefined, were not yet capable of grasping such great mysteries, that the eternal Son of God, taking on man from the Virgin, was born again into the world, but they had to be gradually introduced through the recognition of glorified humanity to faith in divine eternity. However, in a certain hidden and veiled manner, he declares this one to be the true God, while confirming that he will baptize with the Holy Spirit. For who can doubt that no other than God can give the grace of the Holy Spirit? But as time went on, when he saw that his listeners were more capable of understanding, he also openly preached him as the Son of God, saying: "But he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God." We are baptized by the Lord in the Holy Spirit, not only when on the day of baptism we are washed in the font of life for the remission of sins, but also daily when we are kindled by the grace of the same Spirit to do the things pleasing to God.

(ubi sup.) Thus then John proclaims the Lord not yet as God, or the Son of God, but only as a man mightier than himself. For his ignorant hearers were not yet capable of receiving the hidden things of so great a Sacrament, that the eternal Son of God, having taken upon Him the nature of man, had been lately born into the world of a virgin; but gradually by the acknowledgment of His glorified lowliness, they were to be introduced to the belief of His Divine Eternity. To these words, however, he subjoins, as if covertly declaring that he was the true God, I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. For who can doubt, that none other but God can give the grace of the Holy Ghost.

As a witness for simplicity in shoes let John suffice, who avowed that "he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of the Lord's shoes." For he who exhibited to the Hebrews the type of the true philosophy wore no elaborate shoes. What else this may imply, will be shown elsewhere.

This, then, is the type of "the law and the prophets which were until John;" while he, though speaking more perspicuously as no longer prophesying, but pointing out as now present, Him, who was proclaimed symbolically from the beginning, nevertheless said, "I am not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord's shoe." For he confesses that he is not worthy to baptize so great a Power; for it behooves those, who purify others, to free the soul from the body and its sins, as the foot from the thong. Perhaps also this signified the final exertion of the Saviour's power toward us-the immediate, I mean-that by His presence, concealed in the enigma of prophecy, in as much as he, by pointing out to sight Him that had been prophesied of, and indicating the Presence which had come, walking forth into the light, loosed the latchet of the oracles of the [old] economy, by unveiling the meaning of the symbols.

Even though Elijah the Tishbite was taken up to heaven, he was not greater than John. Enoch too was translated but was not greater than John. Moses was the greatest of lawgivers and all the prophets were admirable, but none greater than John. It is not I who would dare to compare prophet with prophet, but their Master and ours who himself declared "Among those born of women there is none greater than John." Not "born of virgins," observe! but "born of women."

(non occ.) He said this to do away with the opinion of the crowd, who thought that he was the Christ; but he announces that Christ is mightier than he, who was to remit sins, which he himself could not do.

"He who comes after me was made before me." For it is said thus: "Made before me," as if it were said, "Placed before me." Therefore he comes after me, because he was born afterward; but he was made before me, because he was preferred to me. But saying these things a little earlier, he also opened the reasons for his preference when he added: "Because he was before me." As if he openly said: Hence he surpasses me even though born after me, because the times of his birth do not confine him. For he who is born in time through a mother was begotten without time from the Father. He shows by adding with what great reverence of humility he is indebted to him: "Whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie." The custom among the ancients was that if someone did not wish to take as wife the one who was suited to him, he who came as bridegroom by right of kinship to her would untie his sandal. What then did Christ appear as among men, if not the bridegroom of holy Church? But because men thought John was the Christ, which the same John denies, he rightly declares himself unworthy to untie the strap of his sandal. As if he openly said: I am unable to uncover the footsteps of our Redeemer, because I do not undeservedly usurp for myself the name of bridegroom.

(Hom. in Evan. vii.) Shoes also are made from the skins of dead animals. The Lord, therefore, coming incarnate, appeared us it were with shoes on His feet, for He assumed in His divinity the dead skins of our corruption. Or else; it was a custom among the ancients, that if a man refused to take as his wife the woman whom he ought to take, he who offered himself as her husband by right of kindred took off that man's shoe. Rightly then does he proclaim himself unworthy to loose his shoe-latchet, as if he said openly, I cannot make bare the feet of the Redeemer, for I usurp not the name of the Bridegroom, a thing which is above my deserts.

As he himself bodily preceded Christ as his forerunner, so also his baptism was the prologue to the Lord's baptism.

"One mightier than I is coming after me, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie." The meaning of the words: "He must increase, I must decrease," is that the gospel must increase, but I, the law, must decrease. John, that is, the law in John, was clothed, therefore, in the hair of a camel, for he could not wear a tunic of the lamb of whom it is said: "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world;" and again: "He is led like a lamb to the slaughter." In the law, we cannot wear a tunic from that Lamb.

John was setting forth the anticipatory and ancillary value of his own baptism, showing that it had no other purpose than to lead to repentance. He did not say he baptized with water of forgiveness, but of repentance. He pointed toward Christ's baptism, full of inexpressible gifts. John seems to be saying: "On being told that he comes after me, you must not think lightly of him because he comes later. When you understand the power of Christ's gift, you will see that I said nothing lofty or noble when I said 'I am unworthy to untie the thong of his sandal.' When you hear, 'He is mightier than I,' do not imagine that I said this by way of comparison. For I am not worthy to be ranked so much as among Christ's servants, no, not even the lowest of his servants, nor to receive the least honored portion of his ministry." Therefore John did not simply say, "his sandals," he said "the thong of his sandals," the part counted the least of all.

(Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) But lest he should be thought to say this by way of comparing himself to Christ, he subjoins, Of whom I am not worthy, &c. It is not however the same thing to loose the shoe-latchet, which Mark here says, and to carry his shoes, which Matthew says. And indeed the Evangelists following the order of the narrative, and not able to err in any thing, say that John spoke each of these sayings in a different sense. But commentators on this passage have expounded each in a different way. For he means by the latchet, the tie of the shoe. (non occ.). He says this therefore to extol the excellence of the power of Christ, and the greatness of His divinity; as if he said, Not even in the station of his servant am I worthy to be reckoned. For it is a great thing to contemplate, as it were stooping down, those things which belong to the body of Christ, and to see from below the image of things above, and to untie each of those mysteries, about the Incarnation of Christ, which cannot be unravelled.

Who again is mightier than the grace, by which sins are washed away, which John signifies? He who seven times and seventy times seven remits sin. Grace indeed comes first, but remits sins once only by baptism, but mercy reaches to the wretched from Adam up to Christ through seventy-seven generations, and up to one hundred and forty-four thousand. (Mat. 18:22)

The shoe is in the extremity of the body; for in the end the Incarnate Saviour is coming for justice, whence it is said by the prophet, Over Edom will I cast out my shoe. (Ps. 60:9)

I, He says, am not worthy to be even the lowest servant of His, one who would untie the strap, that is, the knot on the strap of His sandals. However, it is also understood this way: all who came and were baptized by John were loosed through repentance from the bonds of their sins when they believed in Christ. Thus, John loosed the straps and bonds of sin in everyone, but in Jesus he could not loose such a strap, because in Him he did not even find this strap, that is, sin.

Some persons also understand it thus; all who came to John, and were baptized, through penitence were loosed from the bands of their sins by believing in Christ. John then in this way loosed the shoe-latchet of all the others, that is, the bands of sin. But Christ's shoe-latchet he was not able to unloose, because he found no sin in Him.

The baptism which was handed down through Moses recognized, first, a distinction among sins, for the grace of pardon was not accorded all transgressions. It also required various sacrifices, laid down precise rules for purification, and segregated for a time those who were in a state of impurity and defilement. It appointed the observance of days and seasons, and only then baptism was received as the seal of purification. The baptism of John was far more excellent: It recognized no distinction of sins, nor did it require a variety of sacrifices, nor did it appoint strict rules for purification or any observance of days or seasons. Indeed, with no delay at all, anyone who had confessed his sins, however numerous or grave, had access at once to the grace of God and his Christ.

The baptism of the Lord, however, surpasses all human powers of comprehension. It contains a glory beyond all that humanity hopes or prays for, a preeminence of grace and power which exceeds the others more than the sun outshines the stars. More than this, if the words of the righteous are recalled to mind, they prove even more conclusively its incomparable superiority. Yet, we must not therefore refrain from speaking of it, but, using the very utterances of our Lord Jesus Christ as our guides, we grope along the way, as with a mirror, or through the maze of an enigma. We must speak, not so as to diminish the greatness of the subject, by an exposition made in weakness of body and with the aid of a form of reasoning that is set at naught. We must speak to magnify the greatness and the long-suffering benevolence of the good God in tolerating our stammering attempts to speak about the prodigies of his love and grace in Christ Jesus.

(ubi sup.) Now we are baptized by the Lord in the Holy Ghost, not only when in the day of our baptism, we are washed in the fount of life, to the remission of our sins, but also daily by the grace of the same Spirit we are inflamed, to do those things which please God.

"I baptize in water; but there has stood in your midst one whom you do not know." John baptizes not with the Spirit, but with water, because, not being able to forgive sins, he washes the bodies of the baptized through water, but nevertheless does not wash the mind through pardon. Why then does he baptize who does not remit sins through baptism, unless, preserving the order of his role as precursor, he who had preceded by being born the one who was to be born, might also precede by baptizing the Lord who was to baptize; and he who by preaching became the precursor of Christ, might also become his precursor in baptizing through imitation of the sacrament?

He is drawing a comparison, therefore, between the law and the gospel. Farther, he says: "I have baptized you with water," that is, the law; "but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," that is the gospel.

No baptism can be called perfect except that which depends on the cross and resurrection of Christ.

For what is the difference between water and the Holy Ghost, who was borne over the face of the waters? Water is the ministry of man; but the Spirit is ministered by God.

The Messiah therefore does not baptize in water, but his disciples do. He reserves for himself the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire.

After speaking the foregoing parable, our Lord censures the ungrateful...

(de Quæst. Ev. l. ii. qu. 40.) The lepers may be taken mystically for those who, having no knowledge of the true faith, profess various erroneous doctrines. For they do not conceal their ignorance, but blazen it forth as the highest wisdom, making a vain show of it with boasting words. But since leprosy is a blemish in colour, when true things appear clumsily mixed up with false in a single discourse or narration, as in the colour of a single body, they represent a leprosy streaking and disfiguring as it were with true and false dyes the colour of the human form. Now these lepers must be so put away from the Church, that being as far removed as possible, they may with loud shouts call upon Christ. But by their calling Him Teacher, I think it is plainly implied that leprosy is truly the false doctrine which the good teacher may wash away. Now we find that of those upon whom our Lord bestowed bodily mercies, not one did He send to the priests, save the lepers, for the Jewish priesthood was a figure of that priesthood which is in the Church. All vices our Lord corrects and heals by His own power working inwardly in the conscience, but the teaching of infusion by means of the Sacrament, or of catechizing by word of mouth, was assigned to the Church. And as they went, they were cleansed; just as the Gentiles to whom Peter came, having not yet received the sacrament of Baptism, whereby we come spiritually to the priests, are declared cleansed by the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Whoever then follows true and sound doctrine in the fellowship of the Church, proclaiming himself to be free from the confusion of lies, as it were a leprosy, yet still ungrateful to his Cleanser does not prostrate himself with pious humility of thanksgiving, is like to those of whom the Apostle says, that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, nor were thankful. (Rom. 1:21.) Such then will remain in the ninth number as imperfect. For the nine need one, that by a certain form of unity they may be cemented together, in order to become ten. But he who gave thanks was approved of as a type of the one only Church. And since these were Jews, they are declared to have lost through pride the kingdom of heaven, wherein most of all unity is preserved. But the man who was a Samaritan, which is by interpretation "guardian," giving back to Him who gave it that which he had received, according to the Psalm, My strength will I preserve for thee, (Ps. 59:9.) has kept the unity of the kingdom with humble devotion.

And it came to be, etc., ten leprous men met him. Leprous men can not unreasonably be understood as those who, not having the knowledge of true faith, profess various doctrines of error. For they do not hide their ignorance, but present it as supreme expertise to the light and display the boasting of their speech. And indeed there is no false doctrine which does not mix some truths among the false things. Hence true things mixed irregularly with false ones, appearing in one argument or narration of a man, as in the color of one body, signify leprosy, diversifying and staining human bodies with places of true and false colors. These therefore are to be avoided by the Church, so that if possible, being far removed, they may invoke Christ with a loud voice. Wherefore it is aptly added:

Second, with respect to the calamity of disease, he adds: And when he entered a certain village, there met him ten men who were lepers. In the literal sense, leprosy is a disease of wretched calamity, because it takes away the remedy of medicine, deprives of the solace of companionship, and afflicts with the burden of infirmity.

And such desolate ones ought to have recourse to the Father of mercies; therefore he adds: Who stood afar off, recognizing their uncleanness.

Spiritually, however, by the ten lepers is understood the universality of sinners sinning against the Decalogue; whence the Gloss: "Those who sin against the Decalogue, neither loving God, about whom they think wrongly, nor their neighbor, from whom they are divided, cry out to God under the number ten." Now the universality of sinners arises from four causes, namely from love that wrongly humiliates: and thus it is designated by the leprosy of Miriam in Numbers twelve, where it is said that after she murmured against Moses, "there appeared a leprosy shining white as snow."

Second, from love that wrongly inflames to the concupiscence of the flesh: and this is signified by the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian, of whom it is said that "he was a mighty and wealthy man, but a leper," in 4 Kings five.

Third, from love evilly inflaming to the concupiscence of the eyes: which is understood through the leprosy of Gehazi, Fourth Kings 5. For it was said to him on account of his covetousness and simony: "The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your seed," etc.

Fourth, from love evilly inflaming to the pride of life: and this is understood through the leprosy of Uzziah, of whom it is said in Second Paralipomenon 26 that when he wished to place incense in the house of the Lord and usurp the priestly dignity, he was struck with leprosy.

As a figure of these four causes of leprosy, it is said in Fourth Kings 7 that "four leprous men were at the gate of Samaria," to designate the fourfold nature of the cause: and here there are ten to designate the universality of fault.

Spiritually, however, by leprosy is understood the vice against the Christian religion, which can come about in four ways; whence the Gloss: "Whoever, cleansed by the grace of God, has been freed from heretical depravity, or gentile superstition, or Jewish perfidy, or fraternal schism: it is necessary that he return to the Church."

Now by these four aforesaid vices the law of truth is especially assailed, which consists in the observance of the Decalogue: and therefore they are fittingly figured by four and by ten. Now sinners of this kind, although they walk through dark ways, according to that saying of Proverbs 4: "The way of the wicked is darksome; they know not where they fall," yet when the Lord enters the village, that is, comes in the flesh, they are illuminated to see the way, according to that saying of Isaiah 9: "To those dwelling in the region of the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." And they meet him, through repentance, which causes the face that was turned away to be turned back; Jeremiah 31: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted." "After you converted me, I did penance." Now this repentance causes one to stand afar off, through the humility of self-abasement: below, chapter 18: "The publican, standing afar off," etc.; it causes one to lift up the voice, through the bitterness of compunction; Habakkuk 3: "The deep uttered its voice," that is, the sinner; it also causes one to seek healing, through the confidence of prayer, according to that saying of the Psalm: "I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul."

The Saviour next manifests His glory by drawing over Israel to the faith. As it follows, And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, men who were banished from the towns and cities, and counted unclean, according to the rites of the Mosaic law.

Behold, "ten leprous men" met Jesus when He was about to enter a certain city. They met Him outside the city, for since they were considered unclean, they were not permitted to live inside the city (Lev. 13:46). They stood "afar off," as if ashamed of their supposed uncleanness and not daring to approach, thinking that Jesus too would be disgusted by them, as others did.

They therefore stand afar off as if ashamed of the uncleanness which was imputed to them, thinking that Christ would loathe them as others did.

They associated together from the sympathy they felt as partakers of the same calamity, and were waiting till Jesus passed, anxiously looking out to see Him approach. As it is said, Which stood afar off, for the Jewish law esteems leprosy unclean, whereas the law of the Gospel calls unclean not the outward, but the inward leprosy.

Those who stood afar off, and lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And well, that they may be saved, they call Jesus Master. For indeed, in his words, they show they have erred, calling him the humble teacher of salvation, and when they return to the knowledge of the teacher, they immediately recur to the form of salvation. For it follows:

And they lifted up their voice, expressing their misery: saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us, imploring divine mercy, according to that which the Prophet says in the Psalm: "I am afflicted and humbled exceedingly; I roared from the groaning of my heart."

Spiritually, however, by the ten lepers is understood the universality of sinners sinning against the Decalogue; whence the Gloss: "Those who sin against the Decalogue, neither loving God, about whom they think wrongly, nor their neighbor, from whom they are divided, cry out to God under the number ten." Now sinners of this kind, although they walk through dark ways, according to that saying of Proverbs 4: "The way of the wicked is darksome; they know not where they fall," yet when the Lord enters the village, that is, comes in the flesh, they are illuminated to see the way, according to that saying of Isaiah 9: "To those dwelling in the region of the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." And they meet him, through repentance, which causes the face that was turned away to be turned back; Jeremiah 31: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted." "After you converted me, I did penance." Now this repentance causes one to stand afar off, through the humility of self-abasement: below, chapter 18: "The publican, standing afar off," etc.; it causes one to lift up the voice, through the bitterness of compunction; Habakkuk 3: "The deep uttered its voice," that is, the sinner; it also causes one to seek healing, through the confidence of prayer, according to that saying of the Psalm: "I said: Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul."

And they raised their voices and asked for mercy. In place they stood afar off, but through prayer they drew near. For the Lord is near to all who call upon Him in truth (Ps. 145:18). They ask for mercy not as from a mere man, but as from one who is above man. For they call Jesus Master, that is, Lord, Guardian, Overseer, which is very close to calling Him God.

Thus they stood afar off, but were made nigh unto Him by their prayers. For the Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him in truth. (Ps. 145:18.) Therefore it follows, And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy upon us.

They do not merely supplicate or entreat Him as if He were a man, but they call Him Master or Lord, as if almost they looked upon Him as God.

They pronounce the name of Jesus, and gain to themselves the reality. For Jesus is by interpretation Saviour. They say, Have mercy upon us, because they were sensible of His power, and sought neither for gold and silver, but that their bodies might put on again a healthful appearance.

Today, the Lord rebukes those who keep the Passover the way the Jews did, just as he rebuked certain lepers he had cleansed. You recall that he loved the one who was thankful, but he was angry with the ungrateful ones, because they did not acknowledge their Deliverer. They thought more highly of their cure from leprosy than of him who had healed them.… Actually, this one was given much more than the rest. Besides being healed of his leprosy, he was told by the Lord, "Stand up and go on your way. Your faith has saved you."You see, those who give thanks and those who glorify have the same kind of feelings. They bless their helper for the benefits they have received. That is why Paul urged everybody to "glorify God with your body." Isaiah also commanded, "Give glory to God."

One of them, etc. This one, who returned glorifying God, signifies the devoted humility of the one Church to Christ. Who, well falling at the feet of the Lord, gave thanks. For he truly gives thanks to God, who, by repressing the thoughts of his own presumption, humbly sees how weak he is in himself, who attributes no virtue to himself, who acknowledges that the good deeds he performs come from the mercy of the Creator. Hence it is rightly added:

But one of them etc. After the cure of the incurable disease or infirmity, there is described here secondly the commendation of praiseworthy gratitude, concerning which three things are introduced, namely the giving of thanks, the rebuke of ingratitude, and the approval of gratitude.

First, therefore, as regards the giving of thanks, it is premised: But one of them, when he saw that he was cleansed, through the recognition, namely, of the benefit; Romans eleven: "See therefore the goodness of God toward you, if you shall continue in goodness."

He returned, with a loud voice glorifying God, through the glorification of the benefactor, according to that passage of Tobit twelve: "Bless the God of heaven and confess to him before all the living, because he has shown his mercy to you"; and the Psalm: "I will sing to the Lord, who has bestowed good things upon me" etc.

Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified God; for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should be interpreted.

But see, as we also said at the beginning, out of ten men nine, although they were Israelites, remained ungrateful.

But out of the ten, the nine Israelites were ungrateful, whereas the Samaritan stranger returned and lifted up his voice in thanksgiving, as it follows, And one of them turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God.

When he found that he was cleansed, he had boldness to draw near, as it follows, And fell down on his face at his feet giving him thanks. Thus by his prostration and prayers showing at once both his faith and his gratitude. It follows, And he was a Samaritan.

And he was a Samaritan. Indeed, Samaritan is interpreted as custodian. By this name, that people who, by giving thanks to Him from whom they received, attributes everything they received, is most aptly signified, in a manner singing from the Psalm: My strength I will guard for You, because You, O God, are my protector; my God, His mercy will precede me (Psalm LVIII). He falls moreover on his face, because he blushes from the evils he remembers having committed. For there man falls where he is ashamed. Hence also Paul, as if saying to some lying on their face, said: What fruit then did you have in those things of which you are now ashamed (Rom. VI)? On the other hand, concerning the rider of the horse, that is, about him who is lifted up in the glory of this world, it is said: His rider shall fall backward (Gen. XLIX). And again concerning the persecutors of the Lord it is written: They went backward and fell to the ground (John XVIII). What is this, that the chosen fall on their face and the reprobate fall backward, except that everyone who falls backward falls where he undoubtedly does not see; but he who falls forward falls where he sees? Therefore, the wicked, because they fall into things unseen, are said to fall backward, because they collapse where they cannot currently see what follows them. But the just, because they willingly cast themselves down in these visible things in order to be raised in the invisible, as if they fall on their face, because pierced by fear while seeing, they are humbled.

He fell upon his face, because he blushes with shame when he remembers the evils he had committed.

And he fell on his face before his feet, giving thanks to him, namely through the display of reverence and honor: Ezekiel 2: "I saw and fell upon my face"; and Revelation 1: "When I had seen him, I fell at his feet as though dead."

And this one was a Samaritan, to express the figure and signification. For this man, because he was a Samaritan and a foreigner, signifies the gentiles returning to the worship of Christ, just as that Samaritan woman, John 4. Moreover, he designates not only because he was a gentile, but also because he was one: in which is understood ecclesiastical unity. Whence the Gloss: "The one who returned signifies the devout humility of the one Church toward Christ." In designation of which, Song of Songs 6: "My dove is one"; and 1 Corinthians 9: "All indeed run, but one receives the prize." For this reason one is introduced here as having returned, just as in that multitude one is healed: John 5: "The water was stirred, and one was healed"; and Christ healed only one there, so that, as Augustine says, he might show that no one can be healed except within ecclesiastical unity: concerning which unity, Ephesians 4: "Being solicitous to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," etc. But this one is said to fall on his face, because the Church not only has unity through love, but also humility through gratitude and fear. This is what the falling on the face itself signifies: for falling on the face signifies reverence, according to that passage of Revelation 7: "And all the Angels stood round about the throne," etc.; but falling backward signifies ruin: John 18: "They went backward and fell to the ground"; and 1 Kings 4: "Eli fell from the seat backward." Whence the Gloss: "He who falls on his face sees where he falls; he who falls backward does not see. The good therefore fall on their face, because they humble themselves in these visible things, where they see what follows them, so that they may be raised to invisible things. The wicked fall backward, because they fall in invisible things, where they do not see what follows them." Moreover, one falls on his face in the revelation of heavenly wonders, as is said in Daniel 10: "I heard the voice of his words, and hearing I lay prostrate upon my face, and my countenance cleaved to the ground." In the petition for divine charisms: Judith 6: "All the people fell on their face, adoring God, and with common lamentation and weeping poured forth their unanimous prayers to the Lord," etc. In the reception of benefits: Genesis 17: "Abraham fell on his face and laughed," etc.

But the Samaritan, although he was of a foreign race, returned and expressed his gratitude (for the Samaritans were Assyrians), so that none of the Gentiles would despair, and none of those descended from holy ancestors would boast of this.

We may gather from this that a man is not one whit hindered from pleasing God because he comes from a cursed race, only let him bear in his heart an honest purpose.