2 Sunday before Theophany

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than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain.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.

"And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre." Why she did so I know not. For she was not ignorant that He whom she sought was no longer there, since she had herself also carried word to the disciples that He had been taken from thence; while they, too, had come to the sepulchre, and had sought the Lord's body, not merely by looking, but also by entering, and had not found it. What then does it mean, that, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked again into the sepulchre? Was it that her grief was so excessive that she hardly thought she could believe either their eyes or her own? Or was it rather by some divine impulse that her mind led her to look within?

(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.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) She then saw, with the other women, the Angel sitting on the right, on the stone which had been rolled away from the sepulchre, at whose words it was that she looked into the sepulchre. (Mat. 28:5.)

(Tr. cxxi) In her too great grief she could believe neither her own eyes, nor the disciples'. Or was it a divine impulse which caused her to look in?

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.

And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him.

But Mary stood at the tomb outside, "that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulchre," and she remained perseveringly: therefore she found: Luke 11: "But if he shall continue knocking, I say to you, even though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many loaves as he needs"; Colossians 4: "Continue steadfastly in prayer, watching in it," etc. Weeping: Augustine: "The eyes which had sought the Lord and had not found him were now given over to tears, and the woman grieved more that the Lord had been taken away from the tomb than that he had been slain upon the wood."

It should be noted that Mary wept from compunction, Luke 7; she wept from compassion, above, chapter 11: "Jesus, when he saw her weeping"; she wept from devotion, as here, concerning which the Psalm says: "My tears have been my bread day and night, while it is said to me daily: Where is your God?"

While therefore she wept. Here consolation is offered to the desolate one, both in vision and in speech, but she is consoled by neither. In vision she is consoled by the sight of the Angels; whence he says: While therefore she wept, as one desolate, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, so that she might at least receive some consolation from the sight of the place: but she received a greater one. She stooped down, through humility: Job 22: "He who has been humbled shall be in glory, and he who has lowered his eyes, he himself shall be saved."

Question. Concerning what he says, that while Mary wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb. Why was she looking, since she knew he was not there? Gregory responds: "For one who loves, to have looked once does not suffice, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching." And Augustine says that "because she loved vehemently, therefore she thought that neither her own nor others' eyes should easily be believed."

Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner in the city, by loving the truth, washed away the stains of her sin with tears: and the voice of Truth is fulfilled, by which it is said: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much." For she who had previously remained cold through sinning, afterward burned ardently through loving. For after she came to the tomb, and did not find the Lord's body there, she believed it had been taken away, and announced this to the disciples. They came and saw, and believed that it was as the woman had said. And of them it is immediately written: "The disciples therefore went away to their own homes." And then it is added: "But Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping."

In this matter it should be considered how great a force of love had kindled this woman's mind, who did not depart from the Lord's tomb even when the disciples departed. She was seeking the one she had not found, she wept while seeking, and inflamed by the fire of her love, she burned with desire for him whom she believed had been taken away. Hence it happened that she alone then saw him, she who remained to seek, because indeed the virtue of a good work is perseverance, and by the voice of Truth it is said: "He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved." And by the precept of the law, the tail of the victim is commanded to be offered in sacrifice. In the tail, of course, is the end of the body; and he sacrifices well who brings the sacrifice of a good work to the end of the required action. Hence Joseph is described as having had a full-length tunic among the rest of his brothers. A tunic reaching to the heel is a good work carried through to completion.

But Mary, as she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb. Certainly she had already seen the tomb empty, had already announced that the Lord had been taken away; why is it that she stoops down again, desires to see again? But for one who loves, to have looked once is not enough, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching. Therefore she sought first, and did not find; she persevered in seeking, whence it happened that she found, and it came about that desires delayed grew, and growing, grasped what they had found. Hence it is that the Church says of the same bridegroom in the Song of Songs: "In my bed through the nights I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, and did not find him. I will arise and go about the city; through the streets and squares I will seek him whom my soul loves." She also repeats the failure of finding, saying: "I sought him, and did not find him." But because discovery does not delay itself long if the search does not cease, she adds: "The watchmen who guard the city found me. Have you seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed a little beyond them, I found him whom my soul loves."

For we seek the beloved in bed when in some little rest of the present life we sigh with longing for our Redeemer. We seek by night, because even if the mind is now awake in him, nevertheless the eye still grows dim. But whoever does not find his beloved, it remains that he arise and go about the city, that is, traverse the holy Church of the elect with mind and inquiry; let him seek him through streets and squares, that is, let him observe those walking through narrow and broad ways, so that if he can find any traces of him in them, he may search them out, because there are some, even of secular life, who have something to imitate in the practice of virtue. But as we seek, the watchmen who guard the city find us, because the holy fathers who guard the state of the Church meet our good endeavors, that they may teach us by their word or their writing. When we pass a little beyond them, we find him whom we love, because our Redeemer, though by humility a man among men, was nevertheless by divinity above men. Therefore when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is found, because when we perceive that the prophets and apostles are beneath him, we consider that he who is God by nature is above men.

First, therefore, he is sought without being found, so that afterward, when found, he may be held more tightly. For holy desires, as we have said, grow by delay. But if they fail by delay, they were not desires. With this love burned whoever was able to reach the truth. Hence David says: "My soul has thirsted for the living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?" Hence he admonishes us, saying: "Seek his face always." Hence the prophet says: "My soul has desired you in the night, but also with my spirit in my inmost heart I will watch for you from early morning." Hence again the Church says in the Song of Songs: "I am wounded with love." For it is just that she should reach health from the sight of the physician, who bears the wound of love in her breast through the heat of her desire for him. Hence again she says: "My soul melted when the beloved spoke." For the mind of a person not seeking the form of its Creator is badly hardened, because it remains cold in itself. But if it has now begun to burn with desire to follow him whom it loves, melted by the fire of love it runs. It becomes anxious with desire, all things in the world that pleased grow worthless, there is nothing that delights outside the Creator, and things that formerly delighted the soul afterward become grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles its sadness, as long as he who is desired is not yet seen. The mind grieves, the very light is wearisome; and by such fire the rust of guilt is refined in the mind, and the kindled soul, as if in the manner of gold, because through use it lost its appearance, becomes bright through burning.

(Hom. xxv. ut supr.) For to have looked once is not enough for love. Love makes one desire to look over and over again.

(Hom. xxv.) She sought the body, and found it not; she persevered in seeking; and so it came to pass that she found. Her longings, growing the stronger, the more they were disappointed, at last found and laid hold on their object. For holy longings ever gain strength by delay; did they not, they would not be longings. Mary so loved, that not content with seeing the sepulchre, she stooped down and looked in: let us see the fruit which came of this persevering love: And seeth two Angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

(Hom. lxxxvi) Be not astonished that Mary wept for love at the sepulchre, and Peter did not; for the female sex is naturally tender, and inclined to weep.

(Hom. lxxxvi) The sight of the sepulchre itself was some consolation. Nay, behold her, to console herself still more, stooping down, to see the very place where the body lay: And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre.

Mary, with the sensitivity and love of tears characteristic of women, stands at the tomb and weeps. Not finding Jesus, she gazes at the place where the beloved body had been laid, and in this alone finds consolation. For this she is also deemed worthy to see more than the disciples.

2491 First, it was constant, and it deserves praise, especially considering that the disciples left, the disciples went back, not yet understanding the scripture "that he must rise from the dead," back to their homes, where they were staying and from where they had run to the tomb. Their fear was so great that they did not stay together: I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter" [Zech 13:7]; "The holy stones lie scattered at the head of every street" (Lam 4:1). Further, she stood there, lingering near the tomb, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. The disciples had left, but a stronger and more burning affection fixed the weaker sex to the spot.

2492 A question arises here, because Mark (16:5‑8) says that the women "went out and fled from the tomb." Therefore, they must have been within it. Why then does John say that Mary stood outside? We should say to answer this that the tomb of Christ was hewn out of rock and surrounded by a garden, as was stated before. Sometimes, therefore, the Evangelists calls only the place where the body of Christ had been laid the tomb, and at other times the entire enclosure is called the tomb. Thus when the women are said to enter into the tomb [as in Mark 16:5], this should be understood to mean the entire enclosure. But when it says here that Mary stood outside, the Evangelist is referring to the tomb hewn out of rock. But this rock‑hewn tomb was within the enclosure they had already entered. Mary was standing here because of the unwavering love which had inflamed her heart "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Cor 15:58); "Our feet have been standing within your gates" (Ps 122:2).

2493 Secondly, Mary's devotion is admired because it issued in tears, for she stood there weeping: "She weeps bitterly in the night" (Lam 1:2). There are two kinds of tears: tears of compunction, to wash away sins ‑ "Every night I flood my bed with tears" (Ps 6:7) ‑ and tears of devotion, from a desire for heavenly things ‑ "He goes forth," hastening towards heavenly things, "weeping, bearing the seed for sowing" (Ps 126:6). Mary Magdalene had copious tears of compunction at the time of her conversion, when she had been the village sinner. Then, in her love for the truth, she washed the stains of her sins with her tears: "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). She also shed abundant tears of devotion over the passion and resurrection of Christ, as we see here.

2494 Thirdly, her devotion is admired because of her earnest search for Christ, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. This weeping of Mary came from the desire of love. For it is the nature of love to want its beloved present; and if the beloved cannot be really present, it at least wants to think of the beloved: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Mt 6:21). Mary shed these bitter tears because the eyes which had sought her Lord and did not find him were now freed for tears, and she grieved the more because he had been taken from the tomb. The life of such a Teacher had been destroyed, but his memory remained. Since Mary could not have him present, she wanted at least to look at the place where he had been buried, so she stooped to look into the tomb. We learn from this that we should look at the death of Christ with a humble heart: "You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes" (Mt 11:25). She stooped to look, giving us the example to look continually on the death of Christ with the eyes of our mind, for one look is not enough for one who loves, for the force of love increases the desire to explore: "Looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame" (Heb 12:2). She stooped to look, pressed down by the love of Christ: "The love of Christ presses us" [2 Cor 5:14]. Or again, according to Augustine, by a divine impulse in her soul she was made to look about, and saw something greater, the angels: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14).

For look she did, "and saw two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." Why is it that one was sitting at the head, and the other at the feet? Was it, since those who in Greek are called angels are in Latin nuntii [in English, news-bearers], that in this way they signified that the gospel of Christ was to be preached from head to foot, from the beginning even to the end?

(Tr. cxxi) But why did one sit at the head, the other at the feet? To signify that the glad tidings of Christ's Gospel was to be delivered from the head to the feet, from the beginning to the end. The Greek word Angel means one who delivers news.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv) Here the Angels must be understood to rise up, for Luke describes them as seen standing.

And she saw two Angels in white, sitting. Therefore they sit in white, because they had come to announce the splendor of our solemnity, namely the resurrection. One at the head and another at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. Gregory explains why they were positioned thus. "He," he says, "was to be announced through his passion, who is God before the ages and man at the end of the ages: as it were, the Angel sits at the head, when through the Apostle John it is preached that In the beginning was the Word, etc.; and as it were at the feet, when it is said: The Word was made flesh." And thus consolation was made for her from the vision: Luke, the last chapter: "Certain women from among us amazed us, who before dawn were at the tomb, and not finding his body, came saying that they had also seen a vision of Angels, who say that he is alive."

Question. Concerning what he says, that after the departure of the disciples she saw Angels: because it is said in Luke 24 that the women reported to the Apostles that they had seen Angels; and then it is said that the disciples went to the tomb. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that "Luke says this by way of recapitulation; for they ran to the tomb when it had only been announced concerning the body having been taken away; and afterward the vision of the Angels occurred, which they subsequently reported."

Question. There is a doubt: because in Mark 16 it is said of one Angel only: Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, covered with a white robe. Likewise, Mark says Mary entered, but this one says she only looked in. To this Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "On the first day of the week," he says, "that is, on the Lord's day, at dawn the women came to the tomb, as all the Evangelists narrate; and when they saw the stone taken away, before they looked more carefully, they ran and announced it to Peter and John, who ran to the tomb and afterward returned. But Mary with others stood at the tomb outside weeping, that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulcher, but nevertheless within that space into which they had already entered. Then they saw an Angel sitting on the right upon the stone rolled away from the tomb, of which Angel Matthew 28 and Mark 16 narrate. Then he said to them: Fear not, etc., which Matthew and Mark say. At these words Mary, while she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb, as is said here; where she saw two Angels in white sitting, who say to her: Woman, why do you weep? And then it is to be understood that the Angels rose and stood, as Luke says, that two men stood beside them in shining garments." Whence the contradiction is resolved from the fact that one says what the other omits; and from the fact that Mark calls the tomb a certain space before the sepulchre enclosed by a wall, while John means the very place in which the body of Jesus lay.

The angels appeared sitting at the head and at the feet where the Body of Jesus had lain; thereby, as it were, signifying to the woman, who thought that the Lord had been taken away, that no one could have done despite unto the holy Body while angels kept watch and holy powers encompassed the Temple of God, for they knew their Lord. One may raise the question, not unreasonably, how it was that the blessed angels said nothing to the holy disciples, and did not even appear unto them, but were both seen by the woman and also spake unto her. We reply, then, that it was the object of the Saviour Christ to instil into the minds of those who loved Him the perfect knowledge of the mystery concerning Him; but that this perfect knowledge was in different ways given unto them, and adapted to the requirements of those who stood in need of it. The course of events itself, as compared with the expectations raised in Holy Writ, sufficed to give the holy disciples adequate knowledge, and begat in them a confidence that did not admit of doubt. For they went home trusting in the Holy Scriptures, and it would have been superfluous for those, whose faith was thus firmly grounded, to be taught by the mouth of the holy angels; but it was very necessary to the woman, who knew not the Holy and Divine Scripture, and by no other means could apprehend the deep mystery of the Resurrection.

And so she who loves thus, who bends down again to the tomb she had looked at, let us see by what fruit the force of love redoubles in her the work of seeking. It follows: "She saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid."

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord's body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And it is as if the angel sits at the feet, when he says: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

We can also understand the two Testaments by the two angels, one earlier and the other following. These angels are joined to one another through the place of the Lord's body, because indeed both Testaments, while they announce with equal meaning that the Lord became incarnate and died and rose again, sit as it were the earlier Testament at the head, and the later Testament at the feet. Hence also the two cherubim that cover the mercy seat look upon one another with their faces turned toward the mercy seat. For cherubim means "fullness of knowledge." And what is signified by the two cherubim except both Testaments? And what is figured by the mercy seat except the incarnate Lord? Of whom John says: "For he is the propitiation for our sins." And while the Old Testament proclaims that this was to be done which the New Testament declares was done concerning the Lord, it is as if both cherubim look upon one another, while they turn their faces toward the mercy seat, because while they see the incarnate Lord placed between them, they do not disagree in their view, for they narrate the mystery of his dispensation in harmony.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang. c. 1, 14) The Angel sits at the head when the Apostles preach that in the beginning was the Word: he sits, as it were, at the feet, when it is said, The Word was made flesh. By the two Angels too we may understand the two testaments; both of which proclaim alike the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The Old seems to sit at the head, the New at the feet.

By all these circumstances, as though a door was being opened for her, she was led by little and little to the knowledge of the Resurrection. And the manner of their sitting invited her to question them, for they showed that they knew what had taken place; on which account they did not sit together either, but apart from one another. For because it was not likely that she would dare at once to question them, both by questioning her, and by the manner of their sitting, they bring her to converse.

And therefore she received no small reward for this her great zeal. For what the disciples saw not, this saw the woman first, Angels sitting, the one at the feet, the other at the head, in white; even the dress was full of much radiance and joy. Since the mind of the woman was not sufficiently elevated to accept the Resurrection from the proof of the napkins, something more takes place, she beholdeth something more; Angels sitting in shining garments, so as to raise her thus awhile from her passionate sorrow, and to comfort her. But they said nothing to her concerning the Resurrection, yet is she gently led forward in this doctrine. She saw countenances bright and unusual; she saw shining garments, she heard a sympathizing voice.

She saw what they did not see, namely: two Angels. The vision of the Angels was for her the greatest consolation. And their bright garments, and their sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, showed that they knew something greater, and, if asked, could instruct. Every soul that has mastery over the passions is called Mary. Having been purified through dispassion, she sees in Jesus both God and Man. For one of the Angels, sitting at the head, points to the Divinity, and the other, sitting at the feet, to the humble incarnation of the Word.

2495 Next the Evangelist describes the sight of the angels (v 12). He mentions four things.

2496 First, what Mary saw, which was that she saw two angels, which goes to show that all orders of angels, both those "assisting" and those "ministering," were in service to Christ: "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 6:1).

A question arises here because Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) say that Mary and the other women saw one angel on the right side of the tomb, while here we have two angels and they are inside. Each one is correct, for Matthew and Mark tell what occurred first, when the women first came, and believing that Christ was taken, returned to the disciples. But John recounts what happened after Mary returned with the disciples and remained after they had left.

2497 Secondly, he mentions their raiment, in white. This shows the splendor of the resurrection and the glory of the risen Christ: "They shall walk with me in white" (Rev 3:4). Indeed, we read that the armies of heaven followed him and were clothed in white, that is, raised to heavenly glory (Rev 19:14).

2498 Thirdly, we see that they were sitting. This indicates the calmness and power of Christ, who being now at rest from all afflictions, reigns in immortal flesh and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "Sit at my right hand" (Ps 110:1); he will sit "upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom" (Is 9:7).

2499 Fourthly, we see how they were positioned, one at the head and one at the feet. We can refer this to three things. First, to the two Testaments. The word "angel" in Greek means "messenger," and both Testaments brought messages about Christ: "And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!'" (Mt 21:9). So the angel sitting at the head signifies the Old Testament, and the angel at the feet the New Testament.

Secondly, we can relate this to those who preach Christ. There are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human: the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3), and the feet of Christ are his human nature: "We will adore in the place where his feet stood" [Ps 132:7]. So, those who preach the divinity of Christ ‑ as in "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1) ‑ are sitting at the head; those who preach his humanity ‑ as in "And the Word became flesh" (1:14) ‑ are sitting at the feet.

Thirdly, we can refer this to the time when the mysteries of Christ are announced. Then one angel sits at the head and the other at the feet because they signified that the mysteries of Christ would be announced from the head or beginning of the world to its end: "You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26).

"They say to her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." The angels forbade her tears: for by such a position what else did they announce, but that which in some way or other was a future joy? For they put the question, "Why weepest thou?" as if they had said, Weep not. But she, supposing they had put the question from ignorance, unfolded the cause of her tears. "Because," she said, "they have taken away my Lord:" calling her Lord's inanimate body her Lord, meaning a part for the whole; just as all of us acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord, who of course is at once both the Word and soul and flesh, was nevertheless crucified and buried, while it was only His flesh that was laid in the sepulchre. "And I know not," she added, "where they have laid Him." This was the greater cause of sorrow, because she knew not where to go to mitigate her grief. But the hour had now come when the joy, in some measure announced by the angels, who forbade her tears, was to succeed the weeping.

(Tr. cxxi) But she, thinking that they wanted to know why she wept, tells them the reason: She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord. The lifeless body of her Lord, she calls her Lord, putting the part for the whole; just as we confess that Jesus Christ the Son of God was buried, when only His flesh was buried. And I know not where they have placed Him: it was a still greater grief, that she did not know where to go to console her grief.

They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? Not only does the Lord console her by sight, but also by the speech of the Angels: whence he says: They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? as if to say: do not weep. For it was no longer a time for weeping, but for joy, since the Lord was rising. But she refused to be consoled, recalling the cause of her grief: Because they have taken away my Lord, that is, his body, is said by synecdoche: and I do not know where they have laid him. Augustine: "This was the greater cause of grief, because she did not know where to go to console her grief." Whence she could say that verse of the Psalm: "My soul refused to be consoled" etc.; Lamentations 1: "Therefore my eye weeps and sheds tears, because my consoler has departed from me, he who converts my soul."

Observe that the tears shed for Christ do not lose their reward, nor is it long before love for him bears fruit. Rather, his grace and rich restitution will follow closely in the wake of pain. Notice how—as Mary was sitting there, her cheeks bedewed with mourning for her beloved Lord whom she had lost—notice how the Savior granted to her the knowledge of the mystery about him through the mouth of holy angels. They tell her to stop crying because this was no occasion for tears. She was making a subject for rejoicing a cause of grief. Why, indeed, they say, when death has been subdued, and corruption has lost its power and our Savior Christ has risen again and made a new pathway for the dead back to incorruption and to life—why would you misunderstand what is going on now? Why are you so distraught with pain when what is actually going on calls for rejoicing? You should be glad, even ecstatic! And so, why then are you crying and, in effect detracting from the honor due to what amounts to a celebration?

His body too is called "the Lord" on account of the inherent Godhead.

The angels seek Mary, saying: "Woman, why do you weep?" And she says to them: "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." For indeed the sacred words which stir up tears of love in us also console those same tears, since they promise us the sight of our Redeemer.

But it should be noted according to the historical sense that the woman did not say: "They have taken away the body of my Lord," but "They have taken away my Lord." For it is the usage of sacred Scripture sometimes to signify the whole from a part, and sometimes a part from the whole. For it signifies the whole from a part, as it is written concerning the sons of Jacob: "That Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls." For souls did not descend into Egypt without bodies; but through the soul alone the whole person is signified, because the whole is expressed from a part. And only the Lord's body had lain in the tomb, and Mary was not seeking the body of the Lord, but the Lord who had been taken away, evidently designating a part from the whole.

(Hom. fin.) The very declarations of Scripture which excite our tears of love, wipe away those very tears, by promising us the sight of our Redeemer again.

"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." She speaks very warmly and affectionately. "What sayest thou? Knowest thou not yet anything concerning the Resurrection, but dost thou still form fancies about His being laid?" Seest thou how she had not yet received the sublime doctrine?

And the words "why are you weeping?" are full of sincere sympathy. So that Mary would not be troubled, as a woman, by this question they calm her distress. They ask with such sympathy and gentleness: "Woman! why are you weeping?" And she answers with fervor and love: "They have taken away my Lord, and that is why I weep; I do not know where they have laid Him; I would go there and anoint His body, and in this, at least, I would find some consolation."

2500 Next, the Evangelist gives the greeting of the angels (20:13): first their question; and then Mary's answer.

2501 Concerning the first, the angels knew that Mary was uncertain about the resurrection and so as if beginning anew they asked her the reason for her tears: they, the angels, said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? This was like saying: Do not cry for there is no need for it, because "Weeping may tarry for the night," of the passion, "but joy comes with the morning," of the resurrection (Ps 30:5); "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded" (Jer 31:16). In this regard we can recall to mind that Gregory said that the very same sacred words which excite our tears of love console those same tears when they promise us hope in our Redeemer: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19).

2502 Mary thought that they were questioning her because of their ignorance, and regarded them not as angels but as men; so she gave the reason for her tears: They have taken the Lord, that is, the body of my Lord. Here she was referring to a part by mentioning the whole, just like we profess that the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God was buried, although only his flesh was buried, because his divinity was never separated from his flesh. And I do not know where they have laid him. This was the reason for her desolation: she did not know where to go to find him to soothe her sorrow.

2503 Is it a consolation for one who loves to have something that belonged to the beloved? According to Augustine, in his Confessions, this would be more a cause of sorrow. For this reason he said that he fled from all the places where he had formerly spent time with his friend. Still, Chrysostom says that this would be a cause of consolation. Each of these is true. In all cases where there is a mixture of joy and sadness, the hope for the thing desired brings pleasure ‑ "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation" (Rom 12:12) ‑ and also brings sorrow ‑ "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Prv 13:12). But hope does not cause these from the same point of view. Hope causes joy because it regards the thing loved as able to be obtained; but insofar as this thing is actually absent it produces sorrow. It is like that here: something belonging to a friend, because it stands for the friend, is pleasant to the lover; while inasmuch as it recalls the absence of the one loved it produces sadness.

This was foretold in the Song of Songs: "On my bed I sought the one my soul loves. I sought him in the night and did not find him." Of those also who found him and held him by the feet, it is foretold, in the same book, "I will hold the one my soul loves and will not let him go."

Lastly, "when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, If thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master." Let no one speak ill of the woman because she called the gardener, Sir (domine), and Jesus, Master. For there she was asking, here she was recognizing; there she was showing respect to a person of whom she was asking a favor, here she was recalling the Teacher of whom she was learning to discern things human and divine. She called one lord (sir), whose handmaid she was not, in order by him to get at the Lord to whom she belonged. In one sense, therefore, she used the word Lord when she said, "They have taken away my Lord; and in another, when she said, Sir (lord), if thou hast borne Him hence." For the prophet also called those lords who were mere men, but in a different sense from Him of whom it is written, "The Lord is His name." But how was it that this woman, who had already turned herself back to see Jesus, when she supposed Him to be the gardener, and was actually talking with Him, is said to have again turned herself, in order to say unto Him "Rabboni," but just because, when she then turned herself in body, she supposed Him to be what He was not, while now, when turned in heart, she recognized Him to be what He was.

(Tr. cxxi) The hour was now come, which the Angels announced, when sorrow should be succeeded by joy: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back.

(Tr. cxxi) Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favour; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if Thou have borne Him away.

When she had said these things. Here, to her who is unwilling to be consoled, the manifestation of Christ occurs: and first he manifests himself to the senses of the flesh, then of the mind: to the senses of the body, namely to sight through appearance and to hearing through conversation. She first beholds Jesus, whence he says: When she had said these things, by which she was showing that she did not wish to be consoled; she turned around and saw Jesus standing. She turned because love did not allow her to stand still, but rather she looked now here, now there. Or, as Chrysostom says, "Christ, appearing silently behind her, struck the Angels with awe, and they by their movement and gesture showed that they had seen something great: and this turned the woman around." And she saw Jesus, with the eyes of the body, not of the heart: whence: And she did not know that it was Jesus.

The woman, or rather all womankind, is slow of understanding. For she does not understand the hidden meaning of what met her gaze, but rather announces it as the cause of her grief. But as she ceased not to call Christ Lord, and thereby signified her love towards Him, she is justly permitted to enjoy the sight of the object of her desire. For she beholds |655 Jesus, though she did not think Him to be at her side; and why? Either her ignorance was caused by our Saviour Christ still concealing Himself by His Divine power, and not allowing Himself very easily to be recognised by the eye of the beholder; or, as it was still early in the morning, she could not readily distinguish what was before her eyes, as night somehow prevented her from so doing, and scarcely revealed the Figure of Him Who was drawing nigh. Therefore, also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Song of Songs, makes mention of His walk on this night, and the moisture of the morning dew, in the words: For My Head is filled with dew, and My Locks with the drops of the night.

When she had said these things, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and she did not know that it was Jesus. It should be noted that Mary, who still doubted about the Lord's resurrection, turned around to see Jesus, because evidently through that very doubt of hers she had, as it were, turned her back to the Lord's face, since she did not at all believe that he had risen. But because she both loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognize him, and love both showed him to her and doubt hid him. Her continued ignorance is expressed when it is added: "And she did not know that it was Jesus."

(Hom. xxv.) We must observe that Mary, who as yet doubted our Lord's resurrection, turned back to see Jesus. By her doubting she turned her back, as it were, upon our Lord. Yet inasmuch as she loved, she saw Him. She loved and doubted: she saw, and did not recognise Him: And saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Was he one person when he was not known and another when he was known? He was surely one and the same. Whether, therefore, they knew him or not depended on their sight. It did not depend on him who was seen. And yet, it did depend on him in this sense, that he held their eyes so that they might not know him. And finally, in order that you may see that the mistake that held them was not to be attributed to the Lord's body but to the fact that their eyes were closed, we are told, "Their eyes were opened, and they knew him." This is why, as long as Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus and sought the living among the dead, she thought he was the gardener. Afterward she recognized him, and then she called him Lord.

And by what kind of consequence is it, that she having spoken to them, and not having yet heard anything from them, turned back? Methinks that while she was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the Angels with awe; and that they having beheld their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord; and this drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn herself backwards. To them then He appeared on this wise, but not so to the woman, in order not at the first sight to terrify her, but in a meaner and ordinary form, as is clear from her supposing that He was the gardener. It was meet to lead one of so lowly a mind to high matters, not all at once, but gently.

"Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Again she speaks of laying down, and taking away, and carrying, as though speaking of a corpse. But her meaning is this; "If ye have borne him hence for fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take him." Great is the kindness and loving affection of the woman, but as yet there is nothing lofty with her. Wherefore He now setteth the matter before her, not by appearance, but by Voice. For as He was at one time known to the Jews, and at another time unperceived though present; so too in speaking, He, when He chose, then made Himself known; as also when He said to the Jews, "Whom seek ye?" they knew neither the Countenance nor the Voice until He chose. And this was the case here. And He named her name only, reproaching and blaming her that she entertained such fancies concerning One who lived.

Why did Mary turn around? When she was conversing with the Angels, what prompted her to turn back? Probably, while she was speaking with the Angels, Jesus, suddenly appearing behind her, astonished them, and they, having seen the Master, by their appearance, movement, and gaze immediately revealed that they had seen the Lord, and this woman (Mary), having noticed this, turned around.

2504 Now the Evangelist shows how Mary came to see Christ: first, he tells how she saw Christ; secondly, how he was recognized by her. Concerning the first, we see her seeing Christ; and then what Christ said to her.

2505 Firstly, then, Saying this, that is, when Mary said this to the angels, she turned round. Chrysostom wonders why Mary, who was speaking to the angels, whom she considered to be at least men deserving of respect, turned around before they had a chance to answer her. The answer is that while Mary was responding to the angels' question Christ arrived and the angels stood out of reverence. When Mary saw this, she was puzzled and turned around to see what had made them stand up. Thus in Luke (24:4) mention is made that the two angels were seen standing.

Having turned around, Mary saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus, for he did not appear glorious to her, although the angels saw him as glorious and were honoring him. We see from this that if anyone desires to see Christ, they must turn round to him: "Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you" (Zech 1:3). Those come to the point of seeing him who entirely turn themselves to him by love: "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

Mystically, this signifies that at one time Mary had turned her back to Christ by her disbelief, but when she turned her soul to knowing him, she turned round to him.

2506 Why didn't Mary recognize Christ, since he was the same person as before? We should say that it was either because she did not believe that the one she had seen dead had risen, or else her eyes were held so that she would not recognize him, like the two disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:16).

While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, "Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him." So we gather that there were two visions of angels. We also understand that our Lord too was seen twice: once when Mary took him for the gardener and again when he met them by the way. In this way, by repeating his presence, he strengthens their faith and calms their fears.… And so Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, not alone but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv. 69) She then went away from the sepulchre, i. e. from that part of the garden before the rock which had been hollowed out, and with her the other women. But these, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and amazement, and said nothing to any man: Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 25) While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. (Matt 28:9) So we gather that there were two visions of Angels; and that our Lord too was seen twice, once when Mary took Him for the gardener, and again, when He met them by the way, and by this repeating His presence confirmed their faith. And so Mary Magdalen came and told the disciples, not alone, but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

Mystically, Mary, which name signifies, mistress, enlightened, enlightener, star of the sea, stands for the Church, which is also Magdalen, i. e. towered, (Magdalen being Greek for tower,) as we read in the Psalms, Thou hast been a strong tower for me. (Ps. 61:3) In that she announced Christ's resurrection to the disciples, all, especially those to whom the office of preaching is committed, are admonished to be zealous in setting forth to others whatever is revealed from above.

Mary Magdalene therefore came. Here the fifth point is noted, namely the report of the manifestation made by Magdalene: whence it says: Announcing to the disciples: Because I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me, supply: which have been said above: Chrysostom says: "She announces both the vision and the words, so that they might be instructed in both."

Question. Concerning the order of this manifestation. For if the disciples were more worthy, it seems that the Lord ought to have appeared to them first, and again that the disciples should teach the women rather than the women the disciples. I respond: It must be said that this was done by the order of divine dispensation and by the merit of human solicitude: the order of divine dispensation: on account of which Gregory says: "Because in paradise the woman served death to the man, from the sepulcher the woman announces life to men, and she narrates the words of the life-giver, she who had narrated the words of the death-dealing serpent." The merit of human solicitude, because, when the disciples withdrew, the woman remained afflicted and desolate: and therefore she more quickly merited to be consoled and refreshed by the Lord's appearance.

That race which is specially subject to weakness----I mean the race of women----is restored by the loving-kindness of our Saviour, Who, in a manner, rolled up in one the source and origin of our infirmities, and ameliorated them for the future. For Mary announced that she had seen the Lord, Who had escaped from the bonds of death, and had heard His Voice, and brought to the disciples the words of life, and the firstfruits of the Divine Gospel.

"Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and he said these things to me." Behold, the guilt of the human race is cut off from where it proceeded. For because in paradise a woman served death to man, from the tomb a woman announces life to men; and she narrates the words of her life-giver who had narrated the words of the death-bearing serpent. As if the Lord says to the human race not in words but in deeds: From the same hand by which the drink of death was brought to you, receive the cup of life.

(Hom. xxv.) So the sin of mankind is buried in the very place whence it came forth. For whereas in Paradise the woman gave the man the deadly fruit, a woman from the sepulchre announced life to men; a woman delivers the message of Him who raises us from the dead, as a woman had delivered the words of the serpent who slew us.

So great a good is perseverance and endurance. But how was it that they did not any more grieve when He was about to depart, nor speak as they had done before? At that time they were affected in such a way, as supposing that He was about to die; but now that He was risen again, what reason had they to grieve? Moreover, Mary reported His appearance and His words, which were enough to comfort them.

Mary, having been deemed worthy of such words, departs and announces this to the disciples. See how good are zeal and perseverance. Be zealous yourself as well, and perhaps you will learn something higher, and from a disciple of the Word you will become a teacher.

2522 Mary was quick to obey, as we see from Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples etc. "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23); "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God is Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10).

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.

That ruler tempting Him said, Good Master, he ought to have said, Good God. For although goodness exists in divinity and divinity in goodness, yet by adding Good Master, he uses good only in part, not in the whole. For God is good altogether, man partially.

(Quæst. Ev. lib. ii. qu. 63.) It may seem that the account given in Matthew is different, where it is said, "Why askest thou me of good?" which might apply better to the question which he asked, What good shall I do? (Matt. 10.) In this place he both calls Him good, and asks the question about good. It will be best then to understand both to have been said, Why callest thou me good? and, Why askest thou me of good? though the latter may rather be implied in the former.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? I believe this ruler had heard from the Lord that only those who want to be like children will enter the kingdom of God, and therefore, concerned with obtaining clear guidance, he asks to be told openly, not in parables, by what merits of works he may gain eternal life.

A certain ruler having heard our Lord say, that only those who would be like little children should enter the kingdom of heaven, entreats Him to explain to him not by parable but openly by what works he may merit to obtain eternal life.

Second, curiosity in possessing is refuted in two ways.

And a certain one asked him etc. After the refutation of curiosity in investigating, there follows here the second part of this section, in which the refutation of curiosity in possessing takes place; and this he does in two ways, first by commending poverty, second by approving liberality, below in the nineteenth chapter: And having entered, he was passing through Jericho.

First, by commending poverty in four ways, He shows poverty to be commendable and worthy of approval on four grounds: first, by reason of perfection in its merit; second, by reason of imperfection in its contrary, at the passage: When he heard these things, he was sorrowful; third, by reason of consummation in its reward, at the passage: And Peter said: Behold etc.; fourth, by reason of the condescension of Christ in his example, at the passage: And Jesus took the twelve disciples.

In explaining the merit of perfect poverty, four things are introduced, namely the interrogation, by which it is asked what is to be done; the response, by which it is shown whither one must tend; the instruction, by which the way of salvation is declared; the exhortation, by which the way of perfection is urged.

First, therefore, as regards the interrogation, by which it is asked what is to be done, he says: And a certain ruler asked him.

Here it seems that Ambrose and Bede contradict each other. For Ambrose says that this man questioned Jesus with a testing and inquisitive question, and this is gathered both from the fact that the Lord rebuked him, and from the fact that he did not accept the Lord's counsel. Hence Ambrose in the Gloss: "The question was crafty, and therefore the response was shrewd." But Bede says that he questioned with a faithful and earnest question, which he draws from the fact that the Lord Jesus is said especially to have loved him; hence Bede in the Gloss: "This man should not be thought, as some say, to have either tempted God or to have lied about his life; otherwise, as Mark says, having gazed into the secrets of his heart, Jesus would not be said to have loved him."

But this is resolved by a certain saying of John Chrysostom: "This man," he says, "was rich and a tempter and proud, but Jesus looked upon him with eyes of mercy." And so he did not love in him what he formerly was through pride, but what he began to be through grace.

But whatever intention he may have had in doing this, he made a useful question: and therefore he adds: Saying: Good Master, what shall I do to possess eternal life? This is a right and useful question, according to that passage of Jeremiah 6: "Stand upon your ways and see and ask about the ancient paths, which is the good way, and walk in it"; and this by the counsel of the Lord, Matthew 6: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice," through which the kingdom is acquired; and Tobit 4: "Always seek counsel from a wise man"; and especially saving counsel must always be sought from the one most wise Christ and supreme Master. And therefore he calls him Master, from whom as from the most expert he seeks sound counsel, according to that passage of Ecclesiasticus 6: "Let many be at peace with you, but let your counselor be one in a thousand." And this is Christ, of whom Song of Songs 5: "My beloved is white and ruddy, chosen out of thousands"; and Ecclesiastes 7: "One man among a thousand I have found." From him therefore, who alone is the Master, according to that passage of Matthew 23: "One is your Master, Christ," who alone is wisdom: First Corinthians 1: "We call Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God," who alone is the true counselor, according to that passage of Isaiah 9: "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor" etc.; this counsel and instruction must be sought, according to that passage of Isaiah 48: "I am the Lord who teaches you profitable things, who governs you in the way in which you walk."

Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake.

The Jewish crowds … with their princes and teachers … looked at Christ as being a mere man like one of us, and not as God who had become man. They approached him to test him and lay the nets of their cleverness for him.…He is called here a ruler. He fancied himself to have learned the law and supposed that he had been accurately taught it. He imagined that he could convict Christ of introducing laws of his own and of dishonoring the commandment spoken by most wise Moses. It was the Jews' goal to prove that Christ opposed and resisted the former commandments and established new laws by his own authority, in opposition to those previously existing. Their wicked conduct toward him had a false pretext. He comes near and makes a pretense of speaking kindly. He calls him "Teacher," designates him "good," and professes himself desirous of being a disciple. He says, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Observe how he mixes flattery with fraud and deceit, like one who mingles vinegar with honey. He supposed that he could deceive him in this way.

Now he thought to detect Christ in blaming the law of Moses, while He introduced His own commands. He went then to the Master, and calling Him good, says that he wishes to be taught by Him, for he sought to tempt Him. But He who takes the wise in their craftiness answers him fitly as follows, Why callest thou me good? there is none good, save God alone.

But the ruler expected to hear Christ say, Forsake the commandments of Moses, and listen to Mine. Whereas He sends him to the former; as it follows, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The ruler was not able to contain the new word, but being like an old bottle, burst with sorrow.

And to the person who said to Him, "Good Master," He confessed that God who is truly good, saying, "Why callest thou Me good: there is One who is good, the Father in the heavens;" and they assert that in this passage the Aeons receive the name of heavens.

For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as 'Good Master': 'Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.'

And Peter said: "I shall explain to you how goodness itself is just. Our teacher Himself first said to the Pharisee who asked Him, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Do not call me good; for one is good, even the Father who is in the heavens;' and straightway He introduced these words, 'But if thou shalt wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.' And when he said, 'What commandments?' He pointed him to those of the law. Now He would not, if He were indicating some other good being, have referred him to the commandments of the Just One. That indeed justice and goodness are different I allow, but you do not know that it is within the power of the same being to be good and just. For He is good, in that He is now long-suffering with the penitent, and welcomes them; but just, when acting as judge He will give to every one according to his deserts."

Now, undoubtedly, He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; " sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards "a certain man asked him, `Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired. Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

That rich man did go his way who had not "received" the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion. Nor will "harshness" be on this account imputed to Christ, the Found of the vicious action of each individual free-will.

This man, in the opinion of some, was a certain evil schemer and sought to trap Jesus in His words. But it is more likely that he was a lover of money, since Christ Himself exposed him as precisely such. And the evangelist Mark says that a certain man, running up and falling on his knees, asked Jesus, and "looking at him, Jesus loved him" (Mk. 10:17, 21). So then, this man was covetous. He comes to Jesus wishing to learn about eternal life. Perhaps in this case too he was driven by a passion for acquisition. For no one desires a long life so much as a covetous man. So he thought that Jesus would show him a way by which he could live forever, possess his property, and thus enjoy himself. But when the Lord said that the means of attaining eternal life is the renunciation of possessions, then he, as though reproaching himself for the question and Jesus for the answer, went away. For he needed eternal life because he had riches for many years. But when he must give up his possessions and live, it would seem, in poverty, then what need has he of eternal life?

When he says then, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? it is the same as if he says, Thou art good; vouchsafe me then an answer to my question. I am learned in the Old Testament, but I see in Thee something far more excellent. For Thou makest no earthly promises, but preachest the kingdom of heaven. Tell me then, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said, "All these I have kept from my youth." Jesus, hearing this, said to him, "You still lack one thing." This prince is not to be thought a liar when he claimed he kept the commandments of the law, but he confessed simply as he had lived. Because if he were guilty of the charge of lying, the evangelist Mark would not have added, writing about him: "Jesus looking at him, loved him, and said to him, 'You lack one thing: Go, sell all that you have' (Mark 10), and so on. For the Lord loves those who keep even the lesser mandates of the law, but nonetheless shows what was lesser in the law to those who desire to be perfect.

Or we must not think him to have lied, but to have avowed that he had lived honestly, that is, at least in outward things, else Mark could never have said, And Jesus seeing him, loved him. (Mark. 10:21.)

And since these commandments do not justify through simple knowledge, but through experiential observance, therefore the Lord was not asking about simple knowledge when He said: You know the commandments, but about experiential knowledge, because, as is said in Romans 2, "not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law are just before God." Therefore this lawyer responds as one who understands, when it follows: Who said: All these things I have kept from my youth: and this indeed according to the counsel of the Wise Man in Proverbs 3: "My son, do not forget my law, and let your heart keep my precepts; for they shall add to you length of days and years of life and peace"; because it is said in Ecclesiastes 8: "He who keeps the commandment shall experience no evil."

(in Matt. 19:19.) The young man speaks false, for if he had fulfilled that which was afterwards placed among the commandments, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, how was it that when he heard, Go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, he went away sorrowful?

Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets.

Hearing this, he was sorrowful, for he was very rich. This is the sadness of the world that works death. These deceptive riches are like thorns that choke the Lord's seed.

Having heard these things, he was saddened, etc. After he showed poverty to be commendable by reason of its perfection in merit, here he shows it to be commendable by reason of the imperfection in its contrary, which is indeed the tenacious clinging to riches. Concerning which four things are introduced by the Evangelist, namely the sign, danger, obstacle, and remedy of human tenacity, which is the gift of divine grace.

First, therefore, as regards the sign of human tenacity, it is said: Having heard these things, he was saddened, because he was very rich. For because he abounded in riches, he shuddered at the destitution of poverty, and therefore he was made sad at the praise and counsel of poverty. And this is the consequence of cupidity and the sign of tenacity, when someone is saddened out of horror of poverty: Ecclesiasticus 14: "The eye of the covetous man is insatiable in his portion of iniquity; he will not be satisfied until he consumes, withering his own soul." "And he who is in want will not be satisfied with bread, and he will be sorrowful at his own table." But this sadness is evil, because it is the sadness of the world, of which Second Corinthians 7 says: "The sadness of the world works death." For it is said in Ecclesiasticus 38: "From sadness death hastens and covers virtue, and sadness of heart bends the neck." Therefore whoever wishes to flee this sadness must hate the cupidity of riches, which prick after the manner of thorns, as is intimated in Matthew 13. For concerning the rich man it is said in Job 15: "The sound of terror is always in his ears, and when there is peace, he suspects treachery." But contrary to these are the just and perfect Christians, to whom it is said in Hebrews 10: "You received the plundering of your goods with joy, knowing that you have a better and enduring substance."

(Hom. 63. in Matt.) Or else; I shall not hesitate to call this ruler covetous, for with this Christ reproaches him, but I say not that he was a tempter.

As the Lord promised the covetous ruler a treasure in heaven, he nevertheless did not heed, for he was a slave to his treasures, and therefore "became sorrowful" upon hearing the Lord urge him to part with his possessions, since he desired eternal life precisely so that with his great abundance of wealth he might also live forever. The ruler's sorrow shows that he was a well-intentioned man, and not a cunning villain. For none of the Pharisees ever became sorrowful; rather, they grew hardened. It is not unknown to me that the great luminary of the universe, Chrysostom, held that this young man desired true eternal life and loved it, but was possessed by a powerful passion—love of money; yet the thought now proposed is also not out of place, that he desired eternal life as a covetous man.

(ut sup.) Seeing that there is an incomparably greater number of poor which might be saved by forsaking their riches, they understood that all who love riches, even though they cannot obtain them, were to be counted among the number of the rich. It follows, And he said to them, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God, which must not be taken as if a rich man with covetousness and pride might enter into the kingdom of God, but that it is possible with God for a man to be converted from covetousness and pride, to charity and humility.

And those who heard it said, "And who can be saved?" What does this answer pertain to unless it is because the far greater multitude of the poor, who could be saved with the rich being lost, understood that all who love riches, even if they cannot obtain them, are reckoned among the rich?

Fourth, regarding the remedy for this very tenacity through divine help, he adds: And those who heard said: And who can be saved? They say this seeking a remedy and dreading the danger. For since very few perfectly despise riches, it seems from this that almost no one can attain perpetual salvation. Hence Augustine: "Since the poor are more numerous than the rich, the Apostles would not have said this unless they understood in the number of the rich all those who desire to obtain riches"; but few are those who are not such, because, as is said in Philippians 2, "all seek the things that are their own, not the things that are of Jesus Christ." All, therefore, seem to be in danger of damnation.

(Hom. 63. in Matt.) These weighty words so far exceeded the capacity of the disciples, that when they heard them, they asked, Who then can be saved? not that they feared for themselves, but for the whole world.

He who has a human way of thinking, that is, is carried away by earthly things and attached to the terrestrial, for him, as it is said, it is impossible to be saved, but for God this is possible; that is, when someone has God as his counselor and takes the ordinances of God and the commandments concerning poverty as his teachers, and calls upon Him for help, for that person it will be possible to be saved. For it is our part to desire the good, but to accomplish it is the work of God. And in another sense: if we, having risen above every human faintheartedness regarding wealth, desire even to make friends for ourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, then we shall be saved and shall be escorted by them into eternal habitations. For it is better if we renounce everything, or if we do not renounce everything, at least make the poor our partners, and then the impossible will become possible. Although without renouncing everything one cannot be saved, yet through the lovingkindness of God it becomes possible to be saved even in the case where several portions are distributed for genuine benefit.

With men therefore whose thoughts creep earthward, salvation is impossible, but with God it is possible. For when man shall have God for his counsellor, and shall have received the righteousness of God and His teaching concerning poverty, as well as have invoked His aid, this shall be possible to him.