Bright Monday

"Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said He unto them again, Peace be unto you." Reiteration is confirmation; for He Himself gives by the prophet a promised peace upon peace.

(Tr. cxxi) The nails had pierced His hands, the lance had pierced His side. For the healing of doubting hearts, the marks of the wounds were still preserved.

(de Civ. Dei.) The glory, wherewith the righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father, i. e. in Christ's body, we must believe to have been rather veiled than not to have been there at all. He accommodated His presence to man's weak sight, and presented Himself in such form, as that His disciple could look at and recognise Him.

He is showing two things here, the loftiness of the state of glory, in that, being impassible and immortal, He entered as God while the doors were closed; later, He showed them His hands and side. Consider the progression. First He entered as God while the doors were closed: this is the major proposition. Then He proposed the minor by showing them His hands and His side. Finally, He wrested out the conclusion so that Thomas confessed: "My Lord and my God!"

And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Here is noted Christ's showing of himself, in which he showed that he was the same one who had suffered, not only in spirit but also in body: and therefore he showed his hands and his side, in which there had been wounds, and scars remained: whence in the last chapter of Luke: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." The disciples therefore rejoiced, having seen the Lord. Here is touched upon the rejoicing of the disciples at the sight of the Lord; which joy the Lord had promised them above in chapter 16: "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice."

Hereby, also, the blessed Evangelist testifies to the truth of our Saviour's Words, when he says that the disciples were full of peace and joy of heart when they saw Jesus. For we remember the mysterious utterance that He spake unto them concerning His precious Cross and Resurrection from the dead, saying: A little while, and ye behold Me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me; and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one talceth away from you. The Jews, indeed, whose minds were transported by a frenzy of fury, rejoiced when they saw Jesus nailed to the Cross, while the heart of the holy disciples was heavy laden with an intolerable burthen of sorrow. But as He is by Nature Life, He overcame the power of death, and rose again, and the joy of the Jews was extinguished, while the heaviness of the holy disciples was turned into joy, and nothing could rob or deprive them of their soul's delight. Christ, having died once for all to put away sin, dieth no more, as is written. For He is alive for evermore, and of a surety He will preserve those whose hope is in Him, in joy without ceasing. He once more greets them with the oft-repeated assurance: Peace be unto you; laying down, as it were, this law for the children of the Church. Therefore, also, more especially in the assembling and gathering of ourselves together in holy places, at the very commencement of the blessed mystery of the Eucharist, we repeat this saying to one another. For our being at peace with each other and with God must be accounted a fountain and source of all good. Therefore, also, Paul, when he prays that those who are called may enjoy the highest of all blessings, says: Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; and also, when he invites those who have not yet believed to make their peace with God, he says: We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. None the less, also, the Prophet Isaiah exhorts us, crying out: Let us make peace with Him, let us make peace who come. The meaning of the saying well befits the Dispenser of Peace, or rather the Peace of all men; that is, Christ, for He is our peace, according to the Scripture.

But because the faith of those looking on doubted that body which could be seen, he immediately showed them his hands and side; he offered his flesh to be touched, the same flesh he had brought in through closed doors. In this matter he showed two wondrous things, quite contrary to one another according to human reason: after his resurrection he demonstrated his body to be both incorruptible and yet tangible. For what is touched must necessarily be subject to corruption, and what is not subject to corruption cannot be touched. But in a wondrous and inestimable way our Redeemer presented his body after the resurrection as both incorruptible and tangible, so that by showing it incorruptible he might invite us to the reward, and by offering it as tangible he might strengthen us in faith. He demonstrated himself therefore both incorruptible and tangible, so that he might clearly show that his body after the resurrection was of the same nature and yet of a different glory.

(Hom. xxvi. in Evang.) And because their faith wavered even with the material body before them, He showed them His hands and side: And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side.

In the same manner, therefore, as Christ did rise in the substance of flesh, and pointed out to His disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in His side (now these are the tokens of that flesh which rose from the dead), so "shall He also," it is said, "raise us up by His own power." And again to the Romans he says, "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies." What, then, are mortal bodies? Can they be souls? Nay, for souls are incorporeal when put in comparison with mortal bodies; for God "breathed into the face of man the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Now the breath of life is an incorporeal thing. And certainly they cannot maintain that the very breath of life is mortal. Therefore David says, "My soul also shall live to Him," just as if its substance were immortal. Neither, on the other hand, can they say that the spirit is the mortal body. What therefore is there left to which we may apply the term "mortal body," unless it be the thing that was moulded, that is, the flesh, of which it is also said that God will vivify it? For this it is which dies and is decomposed, but not the soul or the spirit. For to die is to lose vital power, and to become henceforth breathless, inanimate, and devoid of motion, and to melt away into those [component parts] from which also it derived the commencement of [its] substance. But this event happens neither to the soul, for it is the breath of life; nor to the spirit, for the spirit is simple and not composite, so that it cannot be decomposed, and is itself the life of those who receive it. We must therefore conclude that it is in reference to the flesh that death is mentioned; which [flesh], after the soul's departure, becomes breathless and inanimate, and is decomposed gradually into the earth from which it was taken. This, then, is what is mortal. And it is this of which he also says, "He shall also quicken your mortal bodies." And therefore in reference to it he says, in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians: "So also is the resurrection of the dead: it is sown in corruption, it rises in incorruption." For he declares, "That which thou sowest cannot be quickened, unless first it die."

If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth;" then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;-[if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. "For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master." As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege].

The substance of our resurrection bodies will certainly be the same as now, though of higher glory. For the Savior after his descent into hell had the same body in which he was crucified. He showed the disciples the marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side.

Seest thou the words issuing in deeds? For what He said before the Crucifixion, that "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you," this He now accomplished in deed; but all these things led them to a most exact faith. For since they had a truceless war with the Jews, He continually repeated the, "Peace be unto you," giving them, to counterbalance the war, the consolation. And so this was the first word that He spake to them after the Resurrection, (wherefore also Paul continually saith, "Grace be unto you and peace,") and to women He giveth good tidings of joy, because that sex was in sorrow, and had received this as the first curse. Therefore He giveth good tidings suitable respectively, to men, peace, because of their war; joy to women, because of their sorrow. Then having put away all painful things, He telleth of the successes of the Cross, and these were the "peace." "Since then all hindrances have been removed," He saith, "and I have made My victory glorious, and all hath been achieved," (then He saith afterwards,) "As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you." "Ye have no difficulty, owing to what hath already come to pass, and to the dignity of Me who send you." Here He lifteth up their souls, and showeth them their great cause of confidence, if so be that they were about to undertake His work. And no longer is an appeal made to the Father, but with authority He giveth to them the power.

(Hom. lxxxvi) And what He had promised before the crucifixion, I shall see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, is now fulfilled: Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.

He offers to the doubters' eyes the marks of the cross that remained in his hands and feet and invites them to handle him with careful scrutiny. He does this because the traces of the nails and spear had been retained to heal the wounds of unbelieving hearts, so that not with wavering faith but with the most certain conviction they might comprehend that the nature that had been lain in the sepulcher was to sit on God the Father's throne.

He showed the wound in his side, the marks of the nails and all the signs of his quite recent suffering, saying, "See my hands and feet, that it is I. Handle me and see that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me have," in order that the properties of his divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable. He also did this so that we might know the Word was not different from the flesh so that we can also confess that the one Son of God is both the Word and flesh.

And so the reason why the Lord stood in the midst of the disciples, even though the doors were closed, after the passion but not before it, was that you might know that your body was sown as a physical body but raised as a spiritual body. But in order that you might not think that what rises is something different, when Thomas did not believe in the resurrection, he shows him the marks of the nails. He shows him the scars of the wounds. He who healed everybody even before the resurrection could have healed himself—especially after the resurrection, could he not? Yes, but through the marks of the nails that he shows he teaches that it is this [body], while through the closed doors by which he enters, he reveals that it is not such a [body as it was]. It was this [body], in order that he might fulfill the goal of the divine plan by raising that which had died, but it was such a body [as it was], in order that it might not lapse into corruption again and not be subject to death again.

The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. And about this He also foretold them before the Passion: "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice" (Jn. 16:22).

2533 Jesus gives them sure proof that it is really himself by showing them his hands and side. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side, because in them the marks of his passion remained in a special way: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself" (Lk 24:39). And when in glory he will show himself in the same way: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word" (14:23), "and I will manifest myself to him" (14:21).

2534 Now the effect of his appearance is mentioned: this was the joy in the hearts of the disciples when they saw the Lord, as he had promised: "I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice" (16:22). This joy will be complete for the good in their native land, when they have the clear vision of God: "You shall see and your heart shall rejoice; and your bones shall flourish like the grass" (Is 66:14).

Didymus, double or doubtful, because he doubted in believing: Thomas, depth, because with most sure faith he penetrated into the depth of our Lord's divinity.

But why does this Evangelist say that Thomas was absent, when Luke writes that two disciples on their return from Emmaus found the eleven assembled? We must understand that Thomas had gone out, and that in the interval of his absence, Jesus came and stood in the midst.

But Thomas, one of the twelve. Here is set forth the occasion of the third manifestation, which is described with respect to three things, namely the absence of Thomas, the report of the disciples and his own obstinacy. His absence is touched upon, when he says: But Thomas, one of the twelve, that is, one of those specially chosen; above, chapter 6: "Have I not chosen you twelve?" Luke 6: "He chose twelve, whom he also named Apostles." Who is called Didymus, because he was doubtful, was not with them when Jesus came: and so he did not see the Lord coming, because he had withdrawn from the congregation.

Question. Concerning the statement that Thomas was not with the disciples when Jesus came: because in the last chapter of Luke it is said of the two disciples going to Emmaus that they returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together: and while they were narrating what they had seen, it says that Jesus stood in the midst of them: therefore if there were not eleven except with Thomas, it seems that Thomas was there at that time. To this Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "It must be understood," he says, "that Thomas had departed from there before the Lord appeared while they were speaking"; whence it is true that those disciples had found Thomas, but while they continued in conversation, Thomas went out, and the Lord entered.

How, then, someone may not unreasonably inquire, if Thomas was absent, was he in fact made partaker in the Holy Spirit when the Savior appeared to the disciples and breathed on them, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit"? We reply that the power of the Spirit pervaded every person who received grace and fulfilled the aim of the Lord who gave him to them. And Christ gave the Spirit not to some only but to all the disciples. Therefore, if any were absent, they also received him, the munificence of the giver not being confined to those only who were present but extending to the entire company of the holy apostles. And that this interpretation is not strained, or our idea extravagant, we may convince you from holy Scripture itself, bringing forward as a proof a passage in the books of Moses. The Lord God commanded the all-wise Moses to select seventy elders from the assembly of the Jews and plainly declared, "I will take of the Spirit that is on you and will put it on them." Moses, as he was asked, brought them together and fulfilled the divine decree. Only it happened that two of the men who were included in the number of the seventy elders were left behind and remained in the assembly, that is, Eldad and Medad. Then when God put on them all the divine Spirit, as he had promised, those whom Moses had collected together immediately received grace and prophesied. But none the less also the two who were in the assembly prophesied, and, in fact, the grace from above came on them first.

But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. This one disciple was absent; when he returned he heard what had happened; having heard, he refused to believe. The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man's unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith. For thus the Lord permitted his disciple to doubt after his resurrection, yet did not abandon him in his doubt, just as before his birth he willed Mary to have a spouse, who nevertheless did not attain to marriage with her. For thus the doubting and touching disciple became a witness of the true resurrection, just as the spouse had been the guardian of the mother's perfect virginity.

(Hom. xxvi.) It was not an accident that that particular disciple was not present. The Divine mercy ordained that a doubting disciple should, by feeling in his Master the wounds of the flesh, heal in us the wounds of unbelief. The unbelief of Thomas is more profitable to our faith, than the belief of the other disciples; for, the touch by which he is brought to believe, confirming our minds in belief, beyond all question.

With respect, again, to the Decad, they maintain that it is indicated by those ten nations which God promised to Abraham for a possession. The arrangement also made by Sarah when, after ten years, she gave her handmaid Hagar to him, that by her he might have a son, showed the same thing. Moreover, the servant of Abraham who was sent to Rebekah, and presented her at the well with ten bracelets of gold, and her brethren who detained her for ten days; Jeroboam also, who received the ten sceptres (tribes), and the ten courts of the tabernacle, and the columns of ten cubits [high], and the ten sons of Jacob who were at first sent into Egypt to buy corn, and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,-Thomas being absent,-represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.

As to believe carelessly and in a random way, comes of an over-easy temper; so to be beyond measure curious and meddlesome, marks a most gross understanding. On this account Thomas is held to blame. For he believed not the Apostles when they said, "We have seen the Lord"; not so much mistrusting them, as deeming the thing to be impossible, that is to say, the resurrection from the dead. Since he saith not, "I do not believe you," but, "Except I put my hand-I do not believe." But how was it, that when all were collected together, he alone was absent? Probably after the dispersion which had lately taken place, he had not returned even then. But do thou, when thou seest the unbelief of the disciple, consider the lovingkindness of the Lord, how for the sake of a single soul He showed Himself with His wounds, and cometh in order to save even the one, though he was grosser than the rest; on which account indeed he sought proof from the grossest of the senses, and would not even trust his eyes. For he said not, "Except I see," but, "Except I handle," he saith, lest what he saw might somehow be an apparition. Yet the disciples who told him these things, were at the time worthy of credit, and so was He that promised; yet, since he desired more, Christ did not deprive him even of this.

"Thomas" is called Didymus, which means "Twin," because he was a kind of twin in word, writing the divine things in two ways and copying Christ, who spoke to those outside of his circle in parables, but to his own disciples he spoke privately about everything. And it is not improper to say that Christ's genuine disciples achieve this double equipment in word that Thomas perhaps had already but even more so afterward. But it may be said that the interpretation of this alone has been recorded because the Evangelist was concerned that Greeks coming into contact with the gospel should notice the peculiarity of the interpretation of the only name specially interpreted, so as to find the cause of his name being set forth also in Greek.

Thomas was not with the disciples. Probably he had not yet returned to them from the dispersion that had taken place. What does the remark "called the Twin" mean? It is the meaning of the name Thomas. For just as Cephas means rock, so Thomas means twin. The Evangelist mentions this meaning of Thomas's name, incidentally, to show us that he was somewhat incredulous and had such a character from his very birth, as the name itself indicates.

2545 After describing our Savior's appearance, the Evangelist now mentions the doubt of one of the disciples. First, we see that this disciple was absent; secondly, he is told about our Lord's appearance; and thirdly, we see his stubborn doubt.

2546 The disciple who was absent is first identified by his name, Thomas, which means a "twin" or an "abyss." An abyss has both depth and darkness. And Thomas was an abyss on account of the darkness of his disbelief, of which he was the cause. Again, there is an abyss ‑ the depths of Christ's compassion - which he had for Thomas. We read: "Abyss calls to abyss" [Ps 42:7]. That is, the depths of Christ's compassion calls to the depths of darkness [of disbelief] in Thomas, and Thomas' abyss of unwillingness [to believe] calls out, when he professes the faith, to the depths of Christ.

Secondly, the dignity of the disciple is mentioned, for he was one of the twelve. There were not actually twelve at that time, for Judas had died (Mt 25:5), but he was called one of the twelve because he had been called to that elevated rank which our Lord had set apart as twelve in number: "He called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). And God wanted this number to always remain unchanged.

Thirdly, he is described by the meaning of his name, Thomas, called Didymus. Thomas is a Syrian or a Hebrew name and has two meanings: twin and abyss. The English word "twin" is "Didymus" in Greek. Because John wrote his Gospel in Greek, he used the word Didymus. Perhaps he was called the Twin because he was from the tribe of Benjamin, in which some or all were twins. Or, this name could be taken from his doubting, for one who is certain holds firmly to one side, but one who doubts accepts one opinion but fears another might be true.

2547 Thomas... was not with them, the disciples, when Jesus came, for he returned later than the others who had scattered during the day, and so he had missed the comfort of seeing the Lord, the conferring of peace and the breath giving the Holy Spirit. This teaches us not to become separated from one's companions, "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some" (Heb 10:25). As Gregory says, it was not by accident that this chosen disciple was missing, but by God's will. It was in the plans of the divine pity that by feeling the wounds in the flesh of his Teacher, the doubting disciple should heal in us the wounds of disbelief.

Here we have the strongest signs of God's profound pity. First, in this: that he loves the human race so much that he sometimes allows tribulations to afflict his elect, so that from these some good can accrue to the human race. This was the reason he allowed the apostles, the prophets and the holy martyrs to be afflicted: "Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of my mouth" (Hos 6:5); "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted it is for your comfort which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer" (2 Cor 1:6). Even more remarkable is that God allows some saint to fall into sin in order to teach us. Why did God allow some saints and holy men to sin gravely (as David did by adultery and murder) if not to teach us to be more careful and humble? It is so that one who thinks he is standing firm will take care not to fall, and so that one who has fallen will make the effort to rise. Thus, Ambrose said to the Emperor Theodosius: "The one you followed by sinning, try now to follow by repenting." And Gregory says that the disbelief of Thomas was of more benefit to our faith than the faith of the disciples who did believe.

Thomas was charged with being a real curiosity seeker because he thought the resurrection was impossible. Thus, he not only said "unless I see" but also "unless I touch," lest somehow what he saw turned out to be an illusion. Therefore, when Thomas had heard from the disciples that Christ had been injured by a spear, Thomas believed them, even though he had not seen it. However, he did not believe their report of the resurrection, as if it were beyond reason. He did not say this so much out of unbelief but out of grief, because he himself had not been deemed worthy of seeing the risen Christ. It fit God's purpose that Thomas did not believe, so that we all might know through him that the body that had been crucified had been raised. Since Thomas wanted to see the wounds all around Christ's flesh, as well as his flesh itself, to see if he had risen, Thomas was searching for him.

After eight days let there be another feast observed with honour, the eighth day itself, on which He gave me Thomas, who was hard of belief, full assurance, by showing me the print of the nails, and the wound made in His side by the spear.

The other disciples therefore said to him. Here is touched upon the report of the disciples. For they report what they had seen: We have seen the Lord. They reported this so that, hearing the testimony of those who had seen, he might believe the resurrection: but what is written above in chapter 3 was verified: "What we have seen we testify, and you do not accept our testimony." Whence follows the third, namely Thomas's hardening. But he said to them: Unless I shall see in his hands, etc. His hardness is shown in this, that he does not believe through hearing, unless he himself should see, in his hands namely, the mark of the nails. His hardness is also shown in this, that he not only refused to believe through hearing, but not even through sight, unless touch were present: therefore he says: And I shall put my finger into the place of the nails and I shall put my hand into his side, which namely was pierced by a lance; I will not believe. In this he was hard: whence Chrysostom says: "Just as to believe simply, and as it happens, is a mark of easiness, so to scrutinize all around and to investigate much is a mark of a most dull mind." But this hardness was permitted by divine dispensation in the Apostle in order to remove ours; whence Gregory says: "Mary Magdalene, who believed more quickly, benefited me less than Thomas, who doubted for a long time. For he, while he touched the wounds of the flesh in the Master, healed in us the wounds of unbelief."

The greatest marvels are always attended by incredulity, and any action which seems to exceed the measure of probability is ill-received by those who hear of it. But the sight of the eyes succeeds in banishing these doubts, and, as it were, compels a man by force to assent to the evidence before him. This was the state of mind of the wise Thomas, who did not readily accept the true testimony of the other disciples to our Saviour's Resurrection, although, according to the Mosaic Law, in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. I think, however, that it was not so much that the disciple discredited what was told him, but rather that he was distracted with the utmost grief, because he had not been thought worthy to see our Saviour with his own eyes. For he, perhaps, thought that he would never receive that blessing. He knew that the Lord was by Nature Life, and that He was able to escape death itself, and to destroy the power of corruption; for surely He "Who released others from its trammels could deliver His own Flesh. In his exceeding great joy he affected incredulity, and though he well-nigh leapt in his ecstasy of delight, he longed to see Him before his very sight, and to be perfectly satisfied that He had risen again to life according to His promise. For our Saviour said: Children, a little while and ye behold Me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me, and your heart shall rejoice. I think that the disciple's want of faith was extremely opportune and well-timed, in order that, through the satisfaction of his mind, we also who come after him might be unshaken in our faith that the very Body that hung upon the Cross and suffered death was quickened by the Father through the Son. Therefore, also, Paul saith: Because if thou shalt say with thy mouth, Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For since it was not the nature of flesh itself which brought back life, but the deed was rather accomplished by the working of the ineffable Nature of God, in which naturally abides a quickening power, the Father through the Son manifested His power upon the Temple of Christ's Body; not as though the Word was powerless to raise His own Body, but because the Father doeth whatsoever He doeth through the Son, for He is His Power, and whatsoever the Son bringeth to effect proceedeth also of a surety from the Father. We, therefore, are taught, through the slight want of faith shown by the blessed Thomas, that the mystery of the Resurrection is effected upon our earthly bodies, and in Christ as the Firstfruits of the race; and that He was no phantom or ghost, fashioned in human shape, and simulating the features of humanity, nor yet, as others have foolishly surmised, a spiritual body that is compounded of a subtle and ethereal substance different from the flesh. For some attach this meaning to the expression "spiritual body." For since all our expectation and the significance of our irrefutable faith, after the confession of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, centres in the mystery concerning the flesh, the blessed Evangelist has very pertinently put this saying of Thomas side by side with the summary of what preceded. For observe that Thomas does not desire simply to see the Lord, but looks for the marks of the nails, that is, the wounds upon His Body. For he affirmed that then, indeed, he would believe and agree with the rest that Christ had indeed risen again, and risen again in the flesh. For that which is dead may rightly be said to return to life, and the Resurrection surely was concerned with that which was subject unto death.

We are taught by the slight lack of faith shown by the blessed Thomas that the mystery of the resurrection is effected on our earthly bodies and in Christ as the firstfruits of the human race. He was no phantom or ghost, fashioned in human shape, simulating the features of humanity, nor yet, as others have foolishly surmised, a spiritual body that is compounded of a subtle and ethereal substance different from the flesh. For some attach this meaning to the expression "spiritual body." Since all our expectation and the significance of our irrefutable faith, after the confession of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, centers in the mystery concerning the flesh, the blessed Evangelist has very pertinently put this saying of Thomas side by side with the summary of what preceded. For observe that Thomas does not simply desire to see the Lord but looks for the marks of the nails, that is, the wounds on his body. For he affirmed that then, indeed, he would believe and agree with the rest that Christ had indeed risen again, and risen in the flesh.

This one disciple was absent; when he returned he heard what had happened; having heard, he refused to believe. The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man's unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith.

And again, in other words, David in the twenty-first Psalm thus refers to the suffering and to the cross in a parable of mystery: 'They pierced my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones. They considered and gazed on me; they parted my garments among themselves, and cast lots upon my vesture.' For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. And this very Psalm you maintain does not refer to Christ; for you are in all respects blind, and do not understand that no one in your nation who has been called King or Christ has ever had his hands or feet pierced while alive, or has died in this mysterious fashion-to wit, by the cross-save this Jesus alone.

Thomas seems to have had some precision and carefulness about him, which is shown also by what he said. He most likely did not believe those who said they had seen the Lord. It could have been an apparition, like what had happened in Matthew. I think this was the feeling of the other apostles too, but especially of Thomas. That the other apostles had some such thought on seeing Jesus is clear from there being written, "They supposed it was an apparition, and he answered and said to them, "Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see me having."

Why does the hand of a faithful disciple in this fashion retrace those wounds that an unholy hand inflicted? Why does the hand of a dutiful follower strive to reopen the side that the lance of an unholy soldier pierced? Why does the harsh curiosity of a servant repeat the tortures imposed by the rage of persecutors? Why is a disciple so inquisitive about proving from his torments that he is the Lord, for his pains that he is God, and from his wounds that he is the heavenly Physician?…Why Thomas, do you alone, a little too clever a sleuth for your own good, insist that only the wounds be brought forward in testimony to faith? What if these wounds had been made to disappear with the other things? What a peril to your faith would that curiosity have produced? Do you think that no signs of his devotion and no evidence of the Lord's resurrection could be found unless you probed with your hands his inner organs that had been laid bare with such cruelty? Brothers, his devotion sought these things, his dedication demanded them so that in the future not even godlessness itself would doubt that the Lord had risen. But Thomas was curing not only the uncertainty of his own heart but also that of all human beings. And since he was going to preach this message to the Gentiles, this conscientious investigator was examining carefully how he might provide a foundation for the faith needed for such a mystery. … For the only reason the Lord had kept his wounds was to provide evidence of his resurrection.

When the other disciples spoke about the Lord, Thomas did not believe not because he considered them liars, but because he considered the matter of the resurrection impossible. This is also why he is accused of immoderate curiosity. For just as believing too quickly is reckless, so stubbornly persisting is savage and crude. See, he did not say "I do not believe my eyes," but added — "unless I put my hand." But how did he know that there was a wound in the side? He heard this from the disciples.

2548 Thomas is told about our Lord's appearance. Because he had not been with the others, the other disciples told him, We have seen the Lord. This was by the divine plan, which is that what one receives from God should be shared with others: "As each has received a gift, employ it for one another" (1 Pet 4:10); "I have seen the Lord, and I have been saved" [Gen 32:30].

2549 When Thomas said, Unless I see the print of the nails.... we see how stubborn he was in doubting. It would have been justifiable if he had not immediately believed, for we read, "One who trusts others too quickly is light‑minded" (Sir 19:4). But to overdo one's search, especially about the secrets of God, shows a coarseness of mind: "As it is not good to eat much honey, so one who searches into the majesty [of God] is overwhelmed by its glory" [Prv 25:27]; "Seek not what is too difficult for you, nor investigate what is beyond your power. Reflect upon what has been assigned to you, for you do not need what is hidden" (Sir 3:22).

2550 Thomas was difficult to convince and unreasonable in his demands. He was difficult because he refused to believe without some sensible facts, not just from one sense but from two, sight ‑ unless I see in his hands the print of the nails ‑ and touch ‑ and place my hand in his side. He was unreasonable because he insisted on seeing the wounds before believing, although he would be seeing something greater, that is, the entire person risen and restored. And although Thomas said these things because of his own doubts, this was arranged by God for our benefit and progress. It is certain that Christ, who arose as a complete person, could have healed the marks of his wounds; but he kept them for our benefit.

But that the Son of God was not made "from things which are not," and that there was no "time when He was not," the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." For since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father.

Who that hears these words of the Gospel, "the only-begotten Son;" and, "by Him were all things made," will not hate those who declare He is one of the things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him? or how shall He be the only-begotten who, as they say, is reckoned with all the rest, if indeed He is a thing made and created?

For Christ is the interpreter of the Godhead, because "no one has at any time seen God, except the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him."

"The bosom of the Father," then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of his nature in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb. To be sure, we read in different versions, now that it was the Father's womb, again that it was his heart with which he uttered the Word, and again that it was his mouth from which justice proceeded and from which wisdom came forth, as Wisdom says, "From the mouth of the Most High I came forth." Thus, since the One is not limited and all things declare the One, the blessing refers rather to the spiritual mystery of generation from the Father than to some part of the body. But just as we interpret it to mean that generation from the Father, likewise let us interpret it to mean the generation from Mary unto the completion of faith, when the mother's womb is blessed, that virginal womb of Mary that brought forth for us the Lord Jesus.… Here was a twofold nature in Christ, the divine and the fleshly, the former from the Father, the latter from a virgin.

The Word of God is in the bosom of his Father, that is, in the hidden and secret places of God. The fountain of wisdom is there, and from it one may drink the everlasting drink of eternal life in place of death.

After this he comes to the water, and blesses and glorifies the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the only begotten God; and the priest returns thanks that He has sent His Son to become man on our account, that He might save us; that He has permitted that He should in all things become obedient to the laws of that incarnation, to preach the kingdom of heaven, the remission of sins, and the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, he adores the only begotten God Himself, after His Father, and for Him, giving Him thanks that He undertook to die for all men by the cross, the type of which He has appointed to be the baptism of regeneration...

He is Son by nature, we by grace; he is the "only Son," we are many, because he is born, we are adopted. So while God had a one and only Son, "he did not spare," as the apostle says, "his very own one and only Son, but gave him up for us all." What greater medicine could the human race demand or hope for, than that the only Son should be sent, not to live with us, but to die?

We believe in him that he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Each birth of his, you see, must be considered wonderful, both that of his divinity and that of his humanity. The first is from the Father without mother, the second from mother without father; the first apart from all time, the second at "the acceptable time"; the first eternal, the second at the right moment; the first without a body "in the bosom of the Father," the second with a body, which did not violate the virginity of his mother; the first without either sex, the second without a man's embrace.

And lest, perhaps, any one should say, "And did not grace and truth come through Moses, who saw God," immediately he adds, "No one hath seen God at any time." And how did God become known to Moses? Because the Lord revealed Himself to His servant. What Lord? The same Christ, who sent the law beforehand by His servant, that He might Himself come with grace and truth. "For no one hath seen God at any time." And whence did He appear to that servant as far as he was able to receive Him? But "the Only-begotten," he says, "who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." What signifieth "in the bosom of the Father"? In the secret of the Father. For God has not a bosom, as we have, in our garments, nor is He to be thought of sitting, as we do, nor is He girt with a girdle so as to have a bosom; but because our bosom is within, the secret of the Father is called the bosom of the Father. And He who knew the Father, being in the secret of the Father, He declared Him. "For no man hath seen God at any time." He then came and narrated whatever He saw. What did Moses see? Moses saw a cloud, he saw an angel, he saw a fire. All that is the creature: it bore the type of its Lord, but did not manifest the presence of the Lord Himself. For thou hast it plainly stated in the law: "And Moses spake with the Lord face to face, as a friend with his friend." Following the same scripture, thou findest Moses saying: "If I have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself plainly, that I may see Thee." And it is little that he said this: he received the reply, "Thou canst not see my face." An angel then spake with Moses, my brethren, bearing the type of the Lord; and all those things which were done by the angel promised that future grace and truth. Those who examine the law well know this; and when we have opportunity to speak somewhat of this matter also, we shall not fail to speak to you, beloved brethren, as far as the Lord may reveal to us.

But know this, that all those things which were seen in bodily form were not that substance of God. For we saw those things with the eyes of the flesh: how is the substance of God seen? Interrogate the Gospel: "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." There have been men who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, have said, The Father is invisible, but the Son is visible. How visible? If on account of His flesh, because He took flesh, the matter is manifest. For of those who saw the flesh of Christ, some believed, some crucified; and those who believed doubted when He was crucified; and unless they had touched the flesh after the resurrection, their faith would not have been recalled. If, then, on account of His flesh the Son was visible, that we also grant, and it is the Catholic faith; but if before He took flesh, as they say, that is, before He became incarnate, they are greatly deluded, and grievously err. For those visible and bodily appearances took place through the creature, in which a type might be exhibited: not in any fashion was the substance itself shown and made manifest. Give heed, beloved brethren, to this easy proof. The wisdom of God cannot be beheld by the eyes. Brethren, if Christ is the Wisdom of God and the Power of God; if Christ is the Word of God, and if the word of man is not seen with the eyes, can the Word of God be so seen?

(de Trin. xiii. c. 24. [xix.]) Or, we may refer grace to knowledge, truth to wisdom. Amongst the events of time the highest grace is the uniting of man to God in One Person; in the eternal world the highest truth pertains to God the Word.

(Ep. to Paulina [Ep. 147. al. 112. c. 5]) What is that then which Jacob said, I have seen God face to face; (Gen. 32.) and that which is written of Moses, he talked with God face to face; (Ex. 33) and that which the prophet Isaiah saith of himself, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne? (Isa. 6.)

(Ep. to Paulina sparsim.) Now it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; (Matt. 5:8) and again, When He shall appear, we shall be like unto Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2) What is the meaning then of the words here: No man hath seen God at any time? The reply is easy: those passages speak of God, as to be seen, not as already seen. They shall see God, it is said, not, they have seen Him: nor is it, we have seen Him, but, we shall see Him as He is. For, No man hath seen God at any time, neither in this life, nor yet in the Angelic, as He is; in the same way in which sensible things are perceived by the bodily vision.

(xii. on Gen. ad litteram c. 27) For unless any in some sense die to this life, either by leaving the body altogether, or by being so withdrawn and alienated from carnal perceptions, that he may well not know, as the Apostle says, whether he be in the body or out of the body, (2 Cor. 12:2) he cannot be carried away, and borne aloft to that vision.

(to Paul. c. iv.) If we say, that the text, No oned hath seen God at any time, (1 Tim. 6:16) applies only to men; so that, as the Apostle more plainly interprets it, Whom no man hath seen nor can see, no one is to be understood here to mean, no one of men: the question may be solved in a way not to contradict what our Lord says, Their Angels do always behold the face of My Father; (Mat. 18:10) so that we must believe that Angels see, what no one, i. e. of men, hath ever seen.

(to Paulina c. 7) Which indeed is true so far, that no bodily or even mental vision of man hath ever embraced the fulness of God; for it is one thing to see, another to embrace the whole of what thou seest. A thing is seen, if only the sight of it be caught; but we only see a thing fully, when we have no part of it unseen, when we see round its extreme limits.

(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 17) In the bosom of the Father, i. e. in the secret Presence of the Father: for God hath not the folde on the bosom, as we have; nor must be imagined to sit, as we do; nor is He bound with a girdle, so as to have a fold: but from the fact of our bosom being placed innermost, the secret Presence of the Father is called the bosom of the Father. He then who, in the secret Presence of the Father, knew the Father, the same hath declared what He saw.

(Tr. iii. c. 18) Yet have there been men, who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, maintained that the Father is invisible, the Son visible. Now if they call the Son visible, with respect to His connection with the flesh, we object not; it is the Catholic doctrine. But it is madness in them to say He was so before His incarnation; i. e. if it be true that Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. The Wisdom of God cannot be seen by the eye. If the human word cannot be seen by the eye, how can the Word of God?

(in loc.) Farther, if the word declared have reference to the past, it must be considered that He, being made man, declared the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, and how, and by what acts we should prepare ourselves for the contemplation of it. If it have reference to the future, then it means that He will declare Him, when He shall introduce His elect to the vision of His brightness.

Unhesitatingly I answer: "It is the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom who has made it known." But he has made it known, I will say, not to the sorry and unworthy creature that I am, but to John, the Bridegroom's friend, whose words these are; and not only to him but to John the Evangelist also, the disciple Jesus loved. For his soul was pleasing to the Lord, entirely worthy both of the name and the dowry of a bride, worthy of the Bridegroom's embraces, worthy that is, of leaning back on Jesus' breast. John imbibed from the heart of the only-begotten Son what he in turn had imbibed from the Father.

"No one has ever seen God." Here the third reason for knowing is touched upon, which is namely a singular teaching; because Christ alone was able to teach about God and did teach with certainty and openly, because he alone saw; therefore he says: "No one has ever seen God"; 1 Timothy last chapter: "He dwells in unapproachable light"; and Exodus 33: "No man shall see me and live."

"Except the Only-Begotten." Some manuscripts have: "but the Only-Begotten": both readings are good. "No one has seen except the Only-Begotten" should be construed with the preceding verb: if "but" is there, it should be construed with what follows: "But the Only-Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. In the bosom of the Father," because, begotten from him, he does not depart from him; below, chapter 3: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven." "He has declared him," because he saw; below, chapter 3: "What we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify"; Hebrews 1: "In these last days he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the ages."

It is asked: "No one has ever seen God." Against: Numbers twelve: "I speak to him mouth to mouth, and openly and not through figures and enigmas he sees the Lord"; this is said of Moses: therefore he saw the Lord. Likewise, Isaiah six: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up."

The response is that there is knowing God in himself and in his effect. And to know God in his effect, this is to see through a mirror, and this in two ways: either through a bright mirror and eye, and thus the first man saw before the fall; or through a darkened mirror, and thus we see now, because on account of sin both our eyes have grown dim and all creatures have been obscured; whence we now see through a mirror in an enigma, First Corinthians thirteen.

In another way God is known in himself: and this in two ways: either clearly, and in this way by the Son alone and by the Blessed; in another way in darkness, as blessed Dionysius says concerning Mystical Theology; and thus Moses saw, and those contemplating sublimely, in whose vision no image of a creature is fixed. And then truly they experience more than they know. Whence Bernard says that he sometimes experienced something within himself, of which, when he wished to see it, he immediately lost it.

According to this same manner one may also find in the illumination of rational philosophy, whose principal concern turns upon discourse. In which there are three things to consider according to the threefold consideration of discourse itself, namely with respect to the speaker, by reason of the utterance, and with respect to the hearer or by reason of the end.

If we consider speech in relation to the speaker, we see that every speech signifies a concept of the mind, and that interior concept is the word of the mind and its offspring, which is known even to the one conceiving it. But in order that it may become known to the hearer, it puts on the form of voice, and the intelligible word by means of that garment becomes sensible and is heard outwardly and is received in the ear of the hearer's heart, and yet does not depart from the mind of the one uttering it.

According to this mode we see in the eternal Word that the Father eternally conceived it by generating, according to that passage of Proverbs eight: The depths did not yet exist, and I was already conceived. But in order that it might become knowable to sense-bound man, it put on the form of flesh, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and yet remained in the bosom of the Father.

And John the apostle says: "No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,"-calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless.

CHAPTER X. That the Only-Begotten is Alone by Nature the Son from the Father, as being of Him and in Him.

See again herein the vigilance of the Spirit-clad. He was not ignorant that some would surely say, bitterly searching into the things which are spoken of the Only-Begotten: You said, good sir, that you had beheld His Glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father: then when you ought to unfold to us the explanation of this and to tell us some thing God-befitting and due, you made your demonstration from His superiority to Moses and to the measure of John, as though one could not in any other way see His Glory, although the blessed Prophet Isaiah says, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings, with twain he covered his face and with twain he covered his feet and with twain he did fly; and one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory: Bzekiel again cried openly to us that he both saw the Cherubim, having a firmament like a sapphire resting upon their heads, and upon a throne likewise the Lord of Hosts: his words are these, And there was a voice, says he, from the firmament that was over their heads, and above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it: and I saw as the colour of amber, from the appearance of his loins even upwards and from the appearance of his loins even downwards, I saw as it were the appearance of fire and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Since therefore it was not unlikely that not a few of the more unlearned would say some such things to us, needs does the blessed Evangelist hasten to cut short their attempts, saying, No man hath seen God at any time; for the Only-Begotten Himself being God, Which is in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, There shall no man see My Face and live: and sometime to His own disciples, Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Which is of God, He hath seen the Father. For to the Son Alone That is by Nature is the Father visible and that in such wise as one may think that the Divine Nature Divinely sees and is seen, and to none other of things which are. Yet will the speech of the holy Prophets in no way be false when they cry aloud that they saw the Lord of Hosts: for they do not affirm that they saw that very essential Thing that the Nature of God is, but they themselves too openly cry out, This is the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD. Therefore the fashion of the Divine Glory was darkly formed out of things such as are ours, and was rather a likeness giving things Divine as it were in a picture, while the truth of them mounts up to excellence above mind and speech. Most excellently then does the most wise Evangelist saying, And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, bring in the demonstration thereof from His superiority to all. For like as from the beauty of the creatures proportionably is the Power of the Creator of all beheld, and the heavens without voice declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handywork: so again will the Only-Begotten be proved superior in Glory and more resplendent, surpassing apprehension, as regards the power of the eye, as God; and wherein He surpasses the creature, therein deemed of and glorified as being above it. Such thought then and no other I deem that the words now before us are replete with. But we must note again that he both calls the Son Only-Begotten God, and says that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be shown again to be outside of any connaturality with the creature and to have His own proper Being of the Father and in the Father. For if He is verily Only-Begotten God, how is He not Other in nature than they who are by adoption gods and sons? For the Only-Begotten will be conceived of not among many brethren, but as the Only one from the Father. But since, while there are as Paul saith many who are are called gods in heaven and earth, the Son is Only-Begotten God, He will clearly be outside of the rest and will not be reckoned among those who are gods by grace, but will rather be Very God with the Father. For so does Paul conjoin Him, saying to us, But to us One God the Father of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things. For the Father being by Nature One God, the Word That is of Him and in Him will not remain external from being God, eminent in the ownness of Him Who begat Him, and ascending essentially to equal Dignity, because He is by Nature God.

Therefore does he say that He is in the Bosom of the Father, that you may again conceive His being in Him and of Him according to what is said in the Psalms: From the womb before the day-star begat I Thee. For as here he puts From the womb, because of His being of Him and that really, from likeness of things belonging to us (for things born of men proceed from the womb); so too when he says in the bosom, he would plainly show the Son all but in the womb of the Father which begat Him forth, (as it were in some Divine gleaming forth and unspeakable forth-come unto His own Person), but which yet possesses Him, since not by cutting away or division after the flesh, did the Divine Offspring come forth of the Father. And indeed the Son somewhere says that He is in the Father and has again the Father in Him. For the very own of the Father's Essence passing essentially into, the Son, shows the Father in Him, and the Father again has the Son rooted in Himself in exact sameness of Essence and begotten of Him, yet not by division or interval of place, but inherent and ever co-existing; thus rather shall we piously understand that the Son is in the Bosom of the Father, not as some of those who are wont to fight against God have taken it, whose damnation is just: for they pervert all equity, as the Prophet says, undoing the ears of the simpler ones and sinning without heed against the brethren, for whom Christ died.

What it is then that these both think and say and try to teach others, we must needs say. When the holy Evangelist says that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, and the children of the Church think rightly, and affirm that He is therefore of the Father and in the Father, and contend and that aright, that the true mode of Generation must be preserved; straightway they that are drunk with all unlearning laugh outright and even dare to say: Your opinion, sirs, is all nonsense: for not well-instructedly do ye think of God, deeming that because the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, He is therefore wholly of His Essence, and foolishly imagining that He is the Fruit of the Inoriginate Nature. For have ye not heard, say they, in the Gospel parables, when Christ Himself was discoursing of the Rich man and Lazarus, that it came to pass that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom? will ye then grant, because Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham, that therefore he is of him and in him by nature, or will ye not rightly refuse to say this, and yourselves too with us allow that love is meant by the "bosom"? we say therefore that the Son is in the Bosom of God the Father, instead of in His love, as Himself also says, The Father loveth the Son.

But when the fault-finders hit us with these words, though they be zealous to nought but railing, then we too will answer them, arraying against them the right word of the truth: The bosom, good sirs, according to you means love: for this we just now heard you say. Shall we then, since God loved the world, as the Saviour saith, and The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, according to the holy Psalmist, fearlessly say that both the world itself and the gates of Sion are in the bosom of God the Father? And when He says too to the hierophant Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom, does He bid him, tell me, love his hand and not rather keep it hidden? Then how shall we not incur great laughter hereby, yea rather how shall we not behave with impiety towards the Father Himself, if we say that all things are in His Bosom, and make that common to the rest which is the special prerogative of the Only-Begotten, in order that the Son may have nought above the creature?

Hence bidding good bye to their ill-counsel, we will go on the straight road of thoughts of the Truth, when the Son is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, conceiving of Him as of Him and in Him: and accurately taking in the force of the thought, we shall find it thus and not otherwise. The Only-Begotten God, he says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He hath declared. For when he said Only-Begotten and God, he straightway says, Which is in the Bosom of the Father, that He may be conceived of as Son of Him and in Him Naturally, saying Bosom of the Father instead of Essence, as by corporeal simile. For things manifest are types of things spiritual, and things among us lead us by the hand to the apprehension of the things which are above us: and the corporal things are often taken in the way of image and introduce to us the apprehension of subtler thoughts, even though they be in their proper time understood as they were uttered, as I mean that to Moses, Put thine hand into thy bosom. And it will no way hurt our argument to say that Lazarus was laid in Abraham's bosom, but will aid it rather and will go along with our thoughts. For the Divine Scripture says so to speak thus: Lazarus having died and deceased from his life in the body, was carried into Abraham's bosom, instead of "was numbered among Abraham's children." For "I have made thee a father of many nations," said God to him, for so is it somewhere written of him, For a father of many nations have I made thee.

"No one has seen God at any time;" for the "Only Begotten" himself being God, "which is in the bosom of" God "the Father," made this declaration to us, saying most clearly to the hierophant Moses, "No one shall see my face and live." He also said to his own disciples, "Not that any one has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father." For the Father is visible to the Son, who alone is Son by nature, and only in this way may one understand that the divine nature divinely sees and is seen. It is not [visible] to anything else that exists.

From the text "No one has seen God at any time," perhaps it might be thought that the above quotation contradicts the Savior's words, as implying that the invisible is visible. But if they are understood, like our former quotations, of the Word of God, who was seen by the fathers "in many and various ways," no contradiction is involved.

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. [88] rec. 28) It is plainly given us to understand here, that while we are in this mortal state, we can see God only through the medium of certain images, not in the reality of His own nature. A soul influenced by the grace of the Spirit may see God through certain figures, but cannot penetrate into his absolute essence. And hence it is that Jacob, who testifies that he saw God, saw nothing but an Angel: and that Moses, who talked with God face to face, says, show me Thy way, that I may know Thee: (Exod. 33:13) meaning that he ardently desired to see in the brightness of His own infinite Nature, Him Whom he had only as yet seen reflected in images.

(xviii. Moral.) If however any, while inhabiting this corruptible flesh, can advance to such an immeasurable height of virtue, as to be able to discern by the contemplative vision, the eternal brightness of God, their case affects not what we say. For whoever seeth wisdom, that is, God, is dead wholly to this life, being no longer occupied by the love of it.

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. 90. vet. xxxviii.) Some hold that in the place of bliss, God is visible in His brightness, but not in His nature. This is to indulge in over much subtlety. For in that simple and unchangeable essence, no division can be made between the nature and the brightness.

(xviii. Moral. c. 54. [91] vet. xxxviii.) Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God.

It seemed to [John] that the name of Son did not set forth with sufficient distinctness his true divinity, unless he gave an external support to the peculiar majesty of Christ by indicating the difference between him and all others. And so he not only calls him the Son but adds the further designation of the Only Begotten. In this way he cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that he is Only Begotten is proof positive of his right to the name of Son.

In the nature of God, God is one, yet in such a way that the Son also is God, because in him there is not a different nature. And since he is God of God, both must be God, and since there is no difference of kind between them, there is no distinction in their essence. The idea of having a number of titular gods is rejected because there is no diversity in the quality of the divine nature. Therefore he is anathema who says there are many gods, and he is anathema who denies that the Son is God. It is fully shown that the fact that each has one and the same name arises from the real character of the similar substance in each.… In confessing the unborn God the Father, and the only begotten God the Son, with no dissimilarity of essence between them, each is called God. And yet, God must be believed and be declared to be one. So by the diligent and watchful care of the bishops the creed guards the similarity of the nature begotten and the nature begetting, confirming it by the application of one name.

(de Trin. vi. 39) The Truth of His Nature did not seem sufficiently explained by the name of Son, unless, in addition, its peculiar force as proper to Him were expressed, so signifying its distinctness from all beside. For in that, besides Son, he calleth Him also the Only-Begotten, he cut off altogether all suspicion of adoption, the Nature of the Only-Begotten guaranteeing the truth of the name.

If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me." What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are alI one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who "has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father."

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

But as He who worketh all things in all is God, [as to the points] of what nature and how great He is, [God] is invisible and indescribable to all things which have been made by Him, but He is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: "No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him.]"

Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.

If, then, neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, who had all many celestial visions, did see God; but if what they did see were similitudes of the splendour of the Lord, and prophecies of things to come; it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, "No man hath seen God at any time." But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];" and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations...

"No man hath seen God at any time." By what connection of thought does the Apostle come to say this? After showing the exceeding greatness of the gifts of Christ, and the infinite difference between them and those ministered by Moses, he would add the reasonable cause of the difference. Moses, as being a servant, was minister of lower things, but Christ being Lord and King, and the King's Son, brought to us things far greater, being ever with the Father, and beholding Him continually; wherefore He saith, "No man hath seen God at any time."

What then shall we answer to the most mighty of voice, Esaias, when he says, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up"; and to John himself testifying of Him, that "he said these things when he had seen His glory"? What also to Ezekiel? for he too beheld Him sitting above the Cherubim. What to Daniel? for he too saith, "The Ancient of days did sit." What to Moses himself, saying, "Show me Thy Glory, that I may see Thee so as to know Thee." And Jacob took his name from this very thing, being called "Israel"; for Israel is "one that sees God." And others have seen him. How then saith John, "No man hath seen God at any time"? It is to declare, that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled. For had they seen the very Nature, they would not have beheld It under different forms, since that is simple, without form, or parts, or bounding lines. It sits not, nor stands, nor walks: these things belong all to bodies. But how He Is, He only knoweth. And this He hath declared by a certain prophet, saying, "I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the hands of the prophets," that is, "I have condescended, I have not appeared as I really was." For since His Son was about to appear in very flesh, He prepared them from old time to behold the substance of God, as far as it was possible for them to see It; but what God really is, not only have not the prophets seen, but not even angels nor archangels.

But the Son only Beholds Him, and the Holy Ghost. How can any created nature even see the Uncreated? If we are absolutely unable clearly to discern any incorporeal power whatsoever, even though created, as has been often proved in the case of angels, much less can we discern the Essence which is incorporeal and uncreated. Wherefore Paul saith, "Whom no man hath seen, nor can see." Does then this special attribute belong to the Father only, not to the Son? Away with the thought. It belongs also to the Son; and to show that it does so, hear Paul declaring this point, and saying, that He "is the Image of the invisible God." Now if He be the Image of the Invisible, He must be invisible Himself, for otherwise He would not be an "image."

Observe, therefore, with what fullness the Evangelist speaks; for having said that "no man hath seen God at any time," he does not go on to say, "that the Son who hath seen, hath declared Him," but adds something beyond "seeing" by the words, "Who is in the bosom of the Father"; because, "to dwell in the bosom" is far more than "to see." For he that merely "seeth" hath not an in every way exact knowledge of the object, but he that "dwelleth in the bosom" can be ignorant of nothing. Now lest when thou hearest that "none knoweth the Father, save the Son," thou shouldest assert that although He knoweth the Father more than all, yet He knoweth not how great He is, the Evangelist says that He dwells in the bosom of the Father; and Christ Himself declares, that He knoweth Him as much as the Father knoweth the Son.

Wherefore, as I said, the Evangelist mentions "the bosom," to show all this to us by that one word; that great is the affinity and nearness of the Essence, that the knowledge is nowise different, that the power is equal. For the Father would not have in His bosom one of another essence, nor would He have dared, had He been one amongst many servants, to live in the bosom of his Lord, for this belongs only to a true Son, to one who has much confidence towards His Father, and who is in nothing inferior to Him.

Wouldest thou learn also His eternity? Hear what Moses saith concerning the Father. When he asked what he was commanded to answer should the Jews enquire of him, "Who it was that had sent him," he heard these words: "Say, I AM hath sent me." Now the expression "I AM," is significative of Being ever, and Being without beginning, of Being really and absolutely. And this also the expression, "Was in the beginning," declares, being indicative of Being ever; so that John uses this word to show that the Son Is from everlasting to everlasting in the bosom of the Father. For that you may not from the sameness of name, suppose that He is some one of those who are made sons by grace, first, the article is added, distinguishing Him from those by grace. But if this does not content you, if you still look earthwards, hear a name more absolute than this, "Only-Begotten."

"He hath declared Him," saith John. What hath he declared? That "no man hath seen God at any time"? That "God is one"? But this all the other prophets testify, and Moses continually exclaims, "The Lord thy God is one Lord"; and Esaias, "Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." What more then have we learned from "the Son which is in the bosom of the Father"? What from "the Only-Begotten"? In the first place, these very words were uttered by His working; in the next place, we have received a teaching that is far clearer, and learned that "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"; and again, that it is impossible to see God; "that no man knoweth" Him, "save the Son"; that He is the Father of the true and Only-Begotten; and all other things that are told us of Him.

But the word "hath declared" shows the plainer and clearer teaching which He gave not to the Jews only but to all the world, and established. To the prophets not even all the Jews gave heed, but to the Only-Begotten Son of God all the world yielded and obeyed. So the "declaration" in this place shows the greater clearness of His teaching, and therefore also He is called "Word," and "Angel of great Counsel."

Oh, concordant harmony, composed by the Divine Spirit! Oh, the comeliness of those who sing of the mysteries of God! Oh, that I also may join in these songs in my prayer. Let us then also sing the like song, and raise the hymn to the Holy Father, glorifying in the Spirit Jesus, who is in His bosom.

Therefore God alone is celebrated, as the unbegotten, independent, and unwearied nature; being incorporeal, and therefore invisible; for "no man hath seen God." But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression.

For "[he who is] in the bosom of the Father" did not now for the first time make the declarations that he made to the apostles, as though there had been no one fit to receive them previously, since, indeed, in his existence before Abraham was, he teaches us that Abraham rejoiced that he might see his day and was glad. … The prophets too have received their gift from the fullness of Christ, and they have received the second grace for the former, for they too, being led by the Spirit, arrived at the vision of truth after they were initiated in types.

(in Joan. t. vi. §. 2) Heraclcon asserts, that this is a declaration of the disciple, not of the Baptist: an unreasonable supposition; for if the words, Of His fulness have we all received, are the Baptist's, does not the connection run naturally, that he receiving of the grace of Christ, the second in the place of the first grace, and confessing that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; understood here that no man had seen God at any time, and that the Only Begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father, had committed this declaration of Himself to John, and all who with him had received of His fulness? For John was not the first who declared Him; for He Himself who was before Abraham, tells us, that Abraham rejoiced to see His glory.

And Peter answered: "Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe." And Simon answered: "Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?" And Peter said: "Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.

In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten." And Simon said: "Is it not the same on account of its origin?" And Peter said: "He who is not the same in all respects as some one, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person." And Simon said: "This is to assert, not to prove." And Peter said: "Why, do you not see that if the one happens to be self-begotten or unbegotten, they cannot be called the same; nor can it be asserted of him who has been begotten that he is of the same substance as he is who has begotten him? Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? For He has only what all have."

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom." He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak.

Behold, then, I find both in the Gospels and in the (writings of the) apostles a visible and an invisible God (revealed to us), under a manifest and personal distinction in the condition of both. There is a certain emphatic saying by John: "No man hath seen God at any time; " meaning, of course, at any previous time But he has indeed taken away all question of time, by saying that God had never been seen.

And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: "No man hath seen God at any time." What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: "Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.

Well, (I must again ask, ) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him. He was both heard and seen and, that He might not be supposed to be a phantom, was actually handled.

"His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;" not, (observe, ) as of the Father. He "declared" (what was in) "the bosom of the Father alone; " the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom.

He "declared" (what was in) "the bosom of the Father alone; " the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: "No man hath seen God at any time." Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as "the Lamb of God," He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son.

So when we use religious arguments and rely on divine denials that explicitly state that "no one has ever seen God," we are saying that they have seen, not the divine nature but certain visions adapted to their capability. …Let us think about the angels in the same way, then, when we hear, "They see the face of your Father daily." For they do not see the divine substance, which is infinite, unlimited, incomprehensible and embraces all things, but rather a certain glory that is adapted to their own nature.… After becoming human, however, he is also seen by angels, according to the divine apostle, not in a likeness of glory, but using the true and living cloak of flesh as though it were a veil. For he says, "Who was made manifest in flesh, was vindicated in spirit, was seen by angels."

Having said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and wishing to confirm this, the evangelist says: "I have said nothing incredible. For Moses, like no one else, neither saw God nor could communicate to us a clear and vivid concept of Him, but, being a servant, served only for the writing of the law. But Christ, being the Only-begotten Son and dwelling in the bosom of the Father, not only sees Him, but also clearly speaks of Him to all people. Thus, since He is the Son and sees the Father, as being in His bosom, He rightly gave us grace and truth." But perhaps someone will say, "here we learn that no one has seen God"; how then does the prophet say, "I saw the Lord" (Isa. 6:1)? The prophet saw, but not the very essence, rather a certain likeness and a certain mental representation, insofar as he was able to see. Moreover, one saw in one form, another in another. And from this it is evident that they did not see the Truth itself, for they would not have beheld It, which is essentially simple and formless, in different forms. Even the angels do not see the essence of God, although it is said of them that they see the face of God (Matt. 18:10). This indicates only that they always hold God before their mind. Thus, the Son alone sees the Father and reveals Him to all people. Hearing of the bosom of the Father, do not imagine anything corporeal in God. The Evangelist used such a designation with the purpose of showing the intimacy, inseparability, and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its author; here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he does three things. First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the competency of the teacher. Thirdly, the teaching itself.

The need for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the Evangelist implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men, saying: No one has ever seen God. And he does this fittingly, for wisdom consists properly in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine says that wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge of human things.

But this statement of the Evangelist, No one has ever seen God, seems to contradict many passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne." And about the same is found in 2 Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew (5:8), the Lord says: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." If someone were to answer this last statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude this, saying, "He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16).

Because the Apostle says, "no man has seen," someone might say that if he cannot be seen by men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God says, "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father" (Mt 18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way either, because it is said, "The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in heaven" (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it is plain that the sons of the resurrection also see him: "When he appears we shall be like him, and we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).

How then are we to understand what the Evangelist says: No one has ever seen God? To understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: "From the greatness and beauty of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly" (Wis 13:5); "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made," as found in Romans (1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty contemplation.

But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any species.

The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore it cannot represent the infinite as it is. Further, God is his own esse; and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar. "Everyone sees him," in one of the above ways, "from afar" (Jb 36:25), because we do not know what God is by all these acts of knowing, but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis says, in his Mystical Theology, that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life is by taking away all creatures and every thing understood by us.

There have been some who said that the divine essence will never be seen by any created intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the blessed. But this statement is shown to be false and heretical in three ways. First, because it is contrary to the authority of divine Scripture: "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2); "This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (below 17:3). Secondly, because the brightness of God is the same as his substance; for he does not give forth light by participating in light, but through himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to attain perfect happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the natural desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the effects that it knows; but this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it understands and knows the first universal cause of all things, which is a cause that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. Therefore, to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to take away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be happy, it is necessary that the divine essence be seen. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8).

Three things should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate bodily things are perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: "God is spirit" (below 4:24). Secondly, that as long as the human intellect is in the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by the body so that it cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so as long as a man lives in a body which is necessarily subject to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. "Man will not see me and live" (Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine essence it must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says, "We would prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly abstracted by rapture from the senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians (12:3).

Thirdly, no created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the body) which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so it is commonly said that although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and has no parts, yet it is not wholly seen, because this would be to comprehend it. For "wholly" implies a certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend a thing through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is knowable in itself; otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend it. For example, one who knows this proposition, "A triangle has three angles equal to two right angles," by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not know it wholly. But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is a knower according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual substance is finite; hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite in power and being, and as a consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect to the degree that he is knowable. And thus he remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge" (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being. "O most mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought" (Jer 32:18).

Using the above explanations, we can understand, No one has ever seen God. First, No one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of the body or the imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life, has seen the divine essence in itself. Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said that certain ones have seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen through his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said. And thus it was necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.

The Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He shows the competence of this teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular excellence, and by a most perfect consubstantiality.

By natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also follows that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of his natural son; and one knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since knowledge is attained through assimilation. Hence 1 John (3:2) says, "Now we are sons of God," and he immediately adds, "when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is." Therefore, when the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as all aptitude for knowing God.

Because this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, the Only Begotten. As if to say: He knows God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son, having the same nature and knowledge as the Father, he is called the Only Begotten. "The Lord said to me: 'You are my Son'" (Ps 2:7).

Although he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his consubstantiality to the Father, when he says, who is in the bosom of the Father. "Bosom" is not to be taken here as referring to men in their garments, but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we carry in our bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that bosom, i.e., in the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence, which transcends all the power of the creature, is the Only Begotten Son; and so he is consubstantial with the Father.

What the Evangelist signifies by "bosom," David expressed by "womb," saying: "From the womb, before the daystar," i.e., from the inmost secret things of my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, "I begot you" (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, and of the same nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. "What man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends the divine essence, which is his own.

But the soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So the Lord also says: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27); we should understand this as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, about which the Evangelist seems to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine essence except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the competence of the teacher.

We should note that the phrase, who is in the bosom of the Father, rejects the error of those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible, though he was not seen in the Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among the hidden things of the Father, it is plain that he is naturally invisible, as is the Father. So it is said of him: "Truly, you are a hidden God" (Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27), "What is the name of his son, if you know?" as we read in Proverbs (30:4).

Then the Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that it is the Only Begotten Son who has made him known. For in the past, the Only Begotten Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known to the extent that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things like, "The Word of the Lord came to me." But now the Only Begotten Son has made him known to the faithful: "It is I who spoke; here I am" (Is 52:6); "God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the fathers in past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in his Son" (Heb 1:1).

And this teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom. "It was first announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those who heard him" (Heb 2:3).

But what did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one" (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It added the mystery of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor any of the prophets made known.

You have very often heard, holy brethren, and you know well, that John the Baptist, in proportion as he was greater than those born of women, and was more humble in his acknowledgment of the Lord, obtained the grace of being the friend of the Bridegroom; zealous for the Bridegroom, not for himself; not seeking his own honor, but that of his Judge, whom as a herald he preceded. Therefore, to the prophets who went before, it was granted to predict concerning Christ; but to this man, to point Him out with the finger. For as Christ was unknown by those who did not believe the prophets before He came, He remained unknown to them even when present. For He had come humbly and concealed from the first; the more concealed in proportion as He was more humble: but the people, despising in their pride the humility of God, crucified their Saviour, and made Him their condemner.

Yet because He appeared as it were in the night, in a mortal body, He lighted for Himself a lamp by which He might be seen. That lamp was John, concerning whom you lately heard many things: and the present passage of the evangelist contains the words of John; in the first place, and it is the chief point, his confession that he was not the Christ. But so great was the excellence of John, that men might have believed him to be the Christ: and in this he gave a proof of his humility, that he said he was not when he might have been believed to have been the Christ; therefore, "This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" But they would not have sent unless they had been moved by the excellence of his authority who ventured to baptize. "And he confessed, and denied not." What did he confess? "And he confessed, I am not the Christ."

"And this is the testimony of John." Here he treats the manifestation of the incarnate Word in particular. And this part is divided, because he is self-manifesting and is manifested through a voice: therefore this part has two parts. In the first he treats the manifestation made through John, who was the voice running before the Word.

The first part has three parts according to the three testimonies of John, which are distinguished as follows. The first concerns the truth of the two natures: the second concerns the power of baptizing; the third, holiness. Or they are also distinguished in another way: because the first was made to the Pharisees; the second, to the crowds: the third, to John's disciples. In a third way thus: because the first testimony was given with Christ absent; the second, with Christ coming to him: the third, walking before him. The first testimony is noted here: "And this is the testimony": the second there: "The next day": the third there: "Again the next day."

The first part, in which he sets forth the testimony with Christ absent, has two sections, because first he responds to the questioners with the truth about himself: second, about Christ, there: "And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." The truth, then, with which he responded to the questioners about himself, the Evangelist describes in this order: first, in the questioners he indicates authority: second, in John, steadfastness; third, in the questioners, insistence; fourth, in John, humble truth.

He therefore indicates the authority of the questioners: because they were persons of authority and sent with authorization, to whom John bears testimony; therefore he says: "And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem": behold the authority of the persons, because they were sent and they were honorable; below in chapter five: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth"; they sent, I say, "to ask him: Who are you?" namely in the person of all.

But it is asked: since they knew John's origin and life, why do they ask: "Who are you?" It must be said that "who" sometimes asks about substance, as when it is said: who did this or that? Sometimes about the proper designation, as Priscian says: "Who, father, is that man who thus accompanies him as he goes?" Sometimes it specifically asks, among other conditions, about dignity: for worthy and eminent persons are called ecclesiastical persons. Therefore it must be said here that although they knew his origin, life, and name, nevertheless they were in doubt about his dignity.

"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" A Dreadful thing is envy, beloved, a dreadful thing and a pernicious, to the enviers, not to the envied. For it harms and wastes them first, like some mortal venom deeply seated in their souls; and if by chance it injure its objects, the harm it does is small and trifling, and such as brings greater gain than loss. Indeed not in the case of envy only, but in every other, it is not he that has suffered, but he that has done the wrong, who receives injury. For had not this been so, Paul would not have enjoined the disciples rather to endure wrong than to inflict it, when he says, "Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" Well he knew, that destruction ever follows, not the injured party, but the injuring. All this I have said, by reason of the envy of the Jews. Because those who had flocked from the cities to John, and had condemned their own sins, and caused themselves to be baptized, repenting as it were after Baptism, send to ask him, "Who art thou?" Of a truth they were the offspring of vipers, serpents, and even worse if possible than this. O evil and adulterous and perverse generation, after having been baptized, do ye then become vainly curious, and question about the Baptist? What folly can be greater than this of yours? How was it that ye came forth? that ye confessed your sins, that ye ran to the Baptist? How was it that you asked him what you must do? when in all this you were acting unreasonably, since you knew not the principle and purpose of his coming. Yet of this the blessed John said nothing, nor does he charge or reproach them with it, but answers them with all gentleness.

It is worth while to learn why he did thus. It was, that their wickedness might be manifest and plain to all men. Often did John testify of Christ to the Jews, and when he baptized them he continually made mention of Him to his company, and said, "I indeed baptize you with water, but there cometh One after me who is mightier than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." With regard to him they were affected by a human feeling; for, tremblingly attentive to the opinion of the world, and looking to "the outward appearance," they deemed it an unworthy thing that he should be subject to Christ.

Since there were many things that pointed out John for an illustrious person. In the first place, his distinguished and noble descent; for he was the son of a chief priest. Then his conversation, his austere mode of life, his contempt of all human things; for despising dress and table, and house and food itself, he had passed his former time in the desert. In the case of Christ all was the contrary of this. His family was mean, (as they often objected to Him, saying, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James and Joses?"); and that which was supposed to be His country was held in such evil repute, that even Nathanael said, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" His mode of living was ordinary, and His garments not better than those of the many. For He was not girt with a leathern girdle, nor was His raiment of hair, nor did He eat honey and locusts. But He fared like all others, and was present at the feasts of wicked men and publicans, that He might draw them to Him. Which thing the Jews not understanding reproached Him with, as He also saith Himself, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners."

When then John continually sent them from himself to Jesus, who seemed to them a meaner person, being ashamed and vexed at this, and wishing rather to have him for their teacher, they did not dare to say so plainly, but send to him, thinking by their flattery to induce him to confess that he was the Christ. They do not therefore send to him mean men, as in the case of Christ, for when they wished to lay hold on Him, they sent servants, and then Herodians, and the like, but in this instance, "priests and Levites," and not merely "priests," but those "from Jerusalem," that is, the more honorable; for the Evangelist did not notice this without a cause.

And they send to ask, "Who art thou?" Yet the manner of his birth was well known to all, so that all said, "What manner of child shall this be?"; and the report had gone forth into all the hill country. And afterwards when he came to Jordan, all the cities were set on the wing, and came to him from Jerusalem, and from all Judaea, to be baptized. Why then do they now ask? Not because they did not know him, (how could that be, when he had been made manifest in so many ways?) but because they wished to bring him to do that which I have mentioned.

Hear then how this blessed person answered to the intention with which they asked the question, not to the question itself. When they said, "Who art thou?" he did not at once give them what would have been the direct answer, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." But what did he? He removed the suspicion they had formed; for, saith the Evangelist, being asked, "Who art thou?" "He confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ." Observe the wisdom of the Evangelist. He mentions this for the third time, to set forth the excellency of the Baptist, and their wickedness and folly.

Now, therefore, let us consider John's second testimony. Jews from Jerusalem send priests and Levites to inquire who John might be, since they are kinsmen of the Baptist who happens to be from the priestly race. … Note that two embassies come to the Baptist. One consists of "priests and Levites" sent from Jerusalem by the Jews "to ask him, 'Who are you?' " The other comes from the Pharisees, who send also because they are in doubt about the answer that had been given to the priests and Levites. Observe carefully, therefore, how in accordance with the character of priests and Levites, things are said with gentleness and curiosity.… There is nothing self-willed or rash in the inquiry of these men; everything is appropriate to scrupulous servants of God.…These elect ambassadors were sent from Jerusalem, the place chosen above all the earth … and they interrogate John with the greatest respect. Nothing like this, however, has been recorded to have been done by the Jews concerning Christ. It is John who does to Christ what the Jews do to him, when he [respectfully] inquires through his own disciples, "Are you he that is to come, or should we expect another?"

(in Joan. tom. ii. c. 29) This is the second testimony of John the Baptist to Christ, the first began with, This is He of Whom I spake; and ended with, He hath declared Him.

(t. vi. c. 4) The Jews of Jerusalem, as being of kin to the Baptist, who was of the priestly stock, send Priests and Levites to ask him who he is; (c. 6). that is, men considered to hold a superior rank to the rest of their order, by God's election, and coming from that favoured above all cities, Jerusalem. Such is the reverential way in which they interrogate John. We read of no such proceeding towards Christ: but what the Jews did to John, John in turn does to Christ, when he asks Him, through His disciples, Art thou He that should come, (Luke 7:20) or look we for another?

Above the evangelist said that John testifies about Him; then he inserted what John testified about Christ, namely: that He came before me, and that all we prophets received from His fullness; now he adds: "and this is the testimony of John." What testimony? That which he spoke of above, namely: "before me" and so forth. But the words that follow below, "I am not the Christ," also constitute the testimony of John.

(in loc.) Or, after the introduction above of John's testimony to Christ, is preferred before me, the Evangelist now adds when the above testimony was given, And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem.

(in loc.) Or because he declared the truth plainly, while all who were under the law spoke obscurely.

Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles through the testimony of John; here he develops this testimony more fully. First, he presents John's testimony to the people. Secondly, the testimony he gave of Christ to his own disciples (below 1:35). If we carefully consider what was said, we discover a twofold testimony of John to Christ: one which he gave to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence. For he would not have said, "It is he" (below 1:30), unless he had given testimony in Christ's presence; and he would not have said, "of whom I said," unless he gave testimony to him in his absence. So first, the Evangelist develops the testimony John gave to Christ in his absence; secondly, that he gave in his presence (v 29).

Now these two testimonies differ, because the first was given when he was questioned; the other was spontaneous. So in the first instance, we are given not only his testimony, but also the questions. First, he was asked about himself; secondly, about his office (v 24). First we are shown how John stated that he was not what he really was not; secondly, that he did not deny what he was.

As to the first, there are three questions and three answers, as is plain from the text. In the first question there is great respect for John shown by the Jews. They had sent certain ones to him to ask about his testimony. The greatness of their respect is gathered from four facts. First, from the dignity of those who sent the questioners; for they were not sent by Galileans, but by those who were first in rank among the people of Israel, namely, Judeans, of the tribe of Juda, who lived about Jerusalem. It was from Juda that God chose the princes of the people.

Secondly, from the preeminence of the place, that is, from Jerusalem, which is the city of the priesthood, the city dedicated to divine worship: "You people claim that Jerusalem is the place where men must worship God" (below 4:20); "They will worship him with sacrifices and offerings" (Is 19:21). Thirdly, from the authority of the messengers, who were religious and from among the holier of the people, namely, priests and Levites; "You will be called the priests of the Lord" (Is 61:6).

Fourthly, from the fact that they sent them so that John might bear witness to himself, indicating that they put such trust in his words as to believe John even when giving testimony about himself. Hence he says they were sent to ask him, Who are you? They did not do this to Christ; in fact they said to him: "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true" (below 8:13).

"And he confessed." Here John's steadfastness is touched upon, who was not terrified by their authority so as to turn aside from a true confession. Therefore he says: "And he confessed and did not deny," that is, he made a true confession and persevered in it; Second Corinthians 1: "God is faithful, for our word which was among you was not in him 'yes' and 'no': but in him was 'yes'." "And he confessed," the truth, namely, "that I am not the Christ." He responded more to the intention than to the question. Concerning this faithful confession, Matthew 10: "Everyone who shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father." John confessed most greatly, because when he could have been regarded as Christ, he was unwilling. Gregory: "While he did not wish to claim the name of Christ, he became a member of Christ."

The Evangelist recalls his own words and endeavours to explain to us more fully (doing exceeding well) what he had already told us told us briefly as in summary. For having said There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, needs does he bring in the mode also of the witness given by him. For when, he says, the chiefs of the Jewish divisions after the Law, sent priests and Levites to him, bidding them ask him, what he would say of himself, then very clearly did he confess, spurning all shame for the truth's sake. For he said, I am not the Christ. Therefore neither do I, says he, the compiler of this Book, lie saying of him, He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light.

From the words of this reading, dearest brothers, the humility of John is commended to us, who, though he was of such great virtue that he could have been believed to be Christ, chose to stand firmly in himself, lest he be carried away vainly above himself by human opinion. For he confessed and did not deny, and he confessed: "I am not the Christ." But because he said "I am not," he plainly denied what he was not, but did not deny what he was, so that by speaking the truth he might become a member of Him whose name he would not falsely claim for himself. Therefore, because he did not wish to grasp at the name of Christ, he became a member of Christ, since by striving to acknowledge his weakness humbly, he merited to truly obtain His loftiness.

He denied directly being what he was not, but he did not deny what he was: thus, by his speaking truth, becoming a true member of Him Whose name he had not dishonestly usurped.

But we, who know the economy, adore His mercy, because He hath come to save and not to judge the world. Wherefore John, the forerunner of the Lord, who before knew not this mystery, on learning that He is Lord in truth, cried out, and spake to those who came to be baptized of him, "O generation of vipers," why look ye so earnestly at me? "I am not the Christ; " I am the servant, and not the lord; I am the subject, and not the king; I am the sheep, and not the shepherd; I am a man, and not God. By my birth I loosed the barrenness of my mother; I did not make virginity barren. I was brought up from beneath; I did not come down from above. I bound the tongue of my father; I did not unfold divine grace. I was known by my mother, and I was not announced by a star. I am worthless, and the least; but "after me there comes One who is before me" -after me, indeed, in time, but before me by reason of the inaccessible and unutterable light of divinity. "There comes One mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." I am subject to authority, but He has authority in Himself. I am bound by sins, but He is the Remover of sins. apply the law, but He bringeth grace to light. teach as a slave, but He judgeth as the Master. I have the earth as my couch, but He possesses heaven. I baptize with the baptism of repentance, but He confers the gift of adoption: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Why give ye attention to me? I am not the Christ.

This is the part of an honest servant, not only not to take to himself his master's honor, but also to reject it when given to him by the many. But the multitudes arrived at this supposition from simplicity and ignorance; these questioned him from an ill intention, which I have mentioned, expecting, as I said, to draw him over to their purpose by their flattery. Had they not expected this, they would not have proceeded immediately to another question, but would have been angry with him for having given them an answer foreign to their enquiry, and would have said, "Why, did we suppose that? did we come to ask thee that?" But now as taken and detected in the fact, they proceed to another question.

Someone may, perhaps, reasonably raise the question why in the world, when the priests and Levites inquire of John, not if he is the Christ but "Who are you?" the Baptist does not answer, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." … It is likely that John saw from the question the reverence of the priests and Levites. Their question suggested their secret suspicion that he who baptizes might be the Christ, but they were cautious about asserting this more boldly that they might not seem rash. This is why he declares with good reason that he is not the Christ, to remove all their false suspicion about him first, then, in this way, to present the truth.…We should also add that the people were disturbed that the time of the Christ's sojourn might already be imminent from the time slightly preceding the birth of Jesus up to the manifestation of his preaching. In all probability the scribes and lawyers were already expecting the one awaited (deriving his time from the Scriptures). This is why Theodas had sprung up who had gathered no small crowd by claiming to be the Christ, I think. And after him, Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxation, had done something similar. Since therefore Christ's sojourn is rather heatedly expected and discussed, it is with good reason that the Jews send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, intending with the question, "Who are you," to see if he will admit to being the Christ.

(in Joh. tom. vi. c. 6) John, as it appears, saw from the question, that the Priests and Levites had doubts whether it might not be the Christ, who was baptizing; which doubts however they were afraid to profess openly, for fear of incurring the charge of credulity. He wisely determines therefore first to correct their mistake, and then to proclaim the truth. Accordingly, he first of all shows that he is not the Christ: And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. We may add here, that at this time the people had already begun to be impressed with the idea that Christ's advent was at hand, in consequence of the interpretations which the lawyers had collected out of the sacred writings to that effect. Thus Theudas had been enabled to collect together a considerable body, on the strength of his pretending to be the Christ; and after him Judas, in the days of the, taxation, had done the same. (Acts 5) Such being the strong expectation of Christ's advent then prevalent, the Jews send to John, intending by the question, Who art thou? to extract from him whether he were the Christ.

The Jews sent to John people who were, in their opinion, the best, namely priests and Levites, and moreover from Jerusalem, so that they, being more clever than others, might by flattery persuade John to declare himself to be the Christ. Notice the evasiveness. They do not ask directly, "Are you the Christ?" but rather, "Who are you?" And he, seeing their craftiness, does not say who he is, but declares that I am not the Christ, having in mind their purpose and in every way drawing them to the belief that the Christ is another, the One whom they considered a poor son of a poor carpenter father, coming from the poor homeland of Nazareth, from which they expected nothing good. Meanwhile, they held a high opinion of the Forerunner himself, since he had a high priest for a father and led an angelic and almost bodiless life. Therefore it is worthy of wonder how they become entangled in the very thing by which they thought to harm the glory of Christ. They question John as a trustworthy man, so that in his testimony they might have a pretext for unbelief in Christ, in the event that he would not declare Him to be the Christ. But this turned against them. For they find that the one whom they considered trustworthy testifies in favor of Christ and does not claim His honor for himself.

Then when he says, He declared openly, and did not deny, John's answer is given. The Evangelist twice mentioned that John spoke forth to show his humility; for although he was held in such high esteem among the Jews that they believed he might be the Messiah, he, on his part, usurped no honor what was not due him; indeed, he stated clearly, I am not the Messiah.

What of the statement, He declared openly, and did not deny? For it seems that he did deny, because he said that he was not the Messiah. It must be answered that he did not deny the truth, for he said he was not the Messiah; otherwise he would have denied the truth. "A very great iniquity, and a denial of the most high God" (Jb 31:28). Thus he did not deny the truth, because however great he might have been considered, he did not become proud, usurping for himself the honor of another. He stated clearly, I am not the Messiah; because in truth he was not. "He was not the light," as was said above (1:8).

Why did John answer, I am not the Messiah, since those who had been sent did not ask if he was the Messiah, but who he himself was? I answer that John directed his answer more to the mind of the questioners than to their question. And we can understand this in two ways. According to Origen, the priests and Levites came to John with a good intention. For they knew from the Scriptures, and particularly from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time for the coming of the Messiah had arrived. So, seeing John's holiness, they suspected that he might be the Messiah. So they sent to John, wishing to learn by their question, Who are you? whether John would admit that he was the Messiah. And so he directs his answer to their thoughts: I am not the Messiah.

Chrysostom, however, says that they questioned him as a stratagem. For John was related to priests, being the son of a chief priest, and he was holy. Yet, he bore witness to Christ, whose family seemed lowly; for that reason they even said, "Is not this the son of the carpenter?"; and they did not know him. So, preferring to have John as their master, not Christ, they sent to him, intending to entice him by flattery and persuade him to take this honor for himself, and to state that he was the Messiah. But John, seeing their evil intent, said, I am not the Messiah.

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?" For they knew that Elias was to precede Christ. For to no Jew was the name of Christ unknown. They did not think that he was the Christ; but they did not think that Christ would not come at all. When they were hoping that He would come, they were offended at Him when He was present, and stumbled at Him as on a low stone. For He was as yet a small stone, already indeed cut out of the mountain without hands; as saith Daniel the prophet, that he saw a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. But what follows? "And that stone," saith he, "grew and became a great mountain and filled the whole face of the earth." Mark then, my beloved brethren, what I say: Christ, before the Jews, was already cut out from the mountain. The prophet wishes that by the mountain should be understood the Jewish kingdom. But the kingdom of the Jews had not filled the whole face of the earth. The stone was cut out from thence, because from thence was the Lord born on His advent among men. And wherefore without hands? Because without the cooperation of man did the Virgin bear Christ. Now then was that stone cut out without hands before the eyes of the Jews; but it was humble. Not without reason; because not yet had that stone increased and filled the whole earth: that He showed in His kingdom, which is the Church, with which He has filled the whole face of the earth. Because then it had not yet increased, they stumbled at Him as at a stone: and that happened in them which is written, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever that stone shall fall, it will grind them to powder." At first they fell upon Him lowly: as the lofty One He shall come upon them; but that He may grind them to powder when He comes in His exaltation, He first broke them in His lowliness. They stumbled at Him, and were broken; they were not ground, but broken: He will come exalted and will grind them. But the Jews were to be pardoned because they stumbled at a stone which had not yet increased. What sort of persons are those who stumble at the mountain itself? Already you know who they are of whom I speak. Those who deny the Church diffused through the whole world, do not stumble at the lowly stone, but at the mountain itself: because this the stone became as it grew. The blind Jews did not see the lowly stone: but how great blindness not to see the mountain!

They saw Him then lowly, and did not know Him. He was pointed out to them by a lamp. For in the first place he, than whom no greater had arisen of those born of women, said, "I am not the Christ." It was said to him, "Art thou Elias? He answered, I am not." For Christ sends Elias before Him: and he said, "I am not," and occasioned a question for us. For it is to be feared lest men, insufficiently understanding, think that John contradicted what Christ said. For in a certain place, when the Lord Jesus Christ said certain things in the Gospel regarding Himself, His disciples answered Him: "How then say the scribes," that is, those skilled in the law, "that Elias must first come?" And the Lord said, "Elias is already come, and they have done unto him what they listed;" and, if you wish to know, John the Baptist is he. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Elias is already come, and John the Baptist" is he; but John, being interrogated, confessed that he was not Elias, in the same manner that he confessed that he was not Christ. And as his confession that he was not Christ was true, so was his confession that he was not Elias. How then shall we compare the words of the herald with the words of the Judge? Away with the thought that the herald speaks falsehood; for that which he speaks he hears from the Judge. Wherefore then did he say, "I am not Elias;" and the Lord, "He is Elias"? Because the Lord Jesus Christ wished in him to prefigure His own advent, and to say that John was in the spirit of Elias. And what John was to the first advent, that will Elias be to the second advent. As there are two advents of the Judge, so are there two heralds. The Judge indeed was the same, but the heralds two, but not two judges. It was needful that in the first instance the Judge should come to be judged. He sent before Him His first herald; He called him Elias, because Elias will be in the second advent what John was in the first.

For mark, beloved brethren, how true it is what I say. When John was conceived, or rather when he was born, the Holy Spirit prophesied that this would be fulfilled in him: "And he shall be," he said, "the forerunner of the Highest, in the spirit and power of Elias." What signifieth "in the spirit and power of Elias"? In the same Holy Spirit in the room of Elias. Wherefore in room of Elias? Because what Elias will be to the second, that John was to the first advent. Rightly therefore, speaking literally, did John reply. For the Lord spoke figuratively, "Elias, the same is John:" but he, as I have said, spoke literally when he said, "I am not Elias." Neither did John speak falsely, nor did the Lord speak falsely; neither was the word of the herald nor of the Judge false, if only thou understand. But who shall understand? He who shall have imitated the lowliness of the herald, and shall have acknowledged the loftiness of the Judge. For nothing was more lowly than the herald. My brethren, in nothing had John greater merit than in this humility, inasmuch as when he was able to deceive men, and to be thought Christ, and to have been received in the place of Christ (for so great were his grace and his excellency), nevertheless he openly confessed and said, "I am not the Christ." "Art thou Elias?" If he had said I am Elias, it would have been as if Christ were already coming in His second advent to judge, not in His first to be judged. As if saying, Elias is yet to come, "I am not," said he, "Elias." But give heed to the lowly One before whom John came, that you may not feel the lofty One before whom Elias came. For thus also did the Lord complete the saying: "John the Baptist is he which is to come." He came as a figure of that in which Elias is to come in his own person. Then Elias will in his own proper person be Elias, now in similitude he was John. Now John in his own proper person is John, in similitude Elias. The two heralds gave to each other their similitudes, and kept their own proper persons; but the Judge is one Lord, whether preceded by this herald or by that.

(in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 4) For they knew that Elias was to preach Christ; the name of Christ not being unknown to any among the Jews; but they did not think that He our Lord was the Christ: and yet did not altogether imagine that there was no Christ about to come. In this way, while looking forward to the future, they mistook at the present. And he said, I am not.

(in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 8) Or because John was more than a prophet: for that the prophets announced Him afar off, but John pointed Him out actually present.

"And they asked him: What then?" that is, what are you, if you are not the Christ? "Are you Elijah? And he said: I am not." And still they press on: "Are you the Prophet?" that is, some lesser one. "And he answered: No." Therefore they ask generally about other Prophets, but about Elijah specifically, because they believed Elijah would precede Christ; Matthew 17: "Why do the Scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

Concerning John's response it is asked, because he responds to the second interrogation that he is not Elijah. Against: Matthew 11: "If you wish to know, he himself is Elijah." Therefore either the Lord speaks falsely, or John does. Likewise, he responds that he is not a prophet: against: Luke 1: "You, child, shall be called a prophet of the Most High."

It must be said that John was answering more according to the intention of the questioners than according to the question. It must be understood, therefore, that the Jews asking about Elijah were asking about him corporally, about that very same one who existed in the Old Testament; but John responds that he is not Elijah in the proper sense, while the Lord calls him Elijah figuratively, because what John was to the first coming, Elijah will be to the second. Similarly it must be said that they were asking about the prophet and the office of prophesying precisely, insofar as a prophet foretells future things; but John was a prophet and more than a prophet, because he pointed out the one who was present. Therefore, according to their intention, he responds that he is not a prophet.

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to show how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel 13 says of |127 the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite 14 who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? art thou Elias? and on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? and he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

But when the statement of our Redeemer from another reading is brought to mind, a very complex question arises for us from the words of this reading. For in another place, when asked by his disciples about the coming of Elijah, the Lord replied: "Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. And if you wish to know, John himself is Elijah." But when John was asked, he says: "I am not Elijah." What is this, dearest brothers, that what Truth affirms, the prophet of Truth denies? For "He is" and "I am not" are very different from each other. How then is he a prophet of Truth if he does not agree with the words of that same Truth? But if the truth itself is carefully examined, what sounded contradictory between them is found not to be contradictory. For the angel says to Zechariah concerning John: "He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." He is said to be coming in the spirit and power of Elijah because just as Elijah will precede the second coming of the Lord, so John preceded the first. Just as the former will be the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John therefore was Elijah in spirit; he was not Elijah in person. What the Lord therefore declares concerning the spirit, John denies concerning the person, since it was also fitting that the Lord should speak to his disciples a spiritual statement about John, and that John should answer the carnal crowds not about his spirit but about his body. Therefore what John said seems to be contrary to truth, yet he did not depart from the path of truth.

These words gave rise to a very different question. In another place, our Lord, when asked by His disciples concerning the coming of Elias, replied, If ye will receive it, this is Elias. (Mat. 11:14) But John says, I am not Elias. How is he then a preacher of the truth, if he agrees not with what that very Truth declares?

But if we examine the truth accurately, that which sounds inconsistent, will be found not really so. The Angel told Zacharias concerning John, He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias. (Luke 1:17) As Elias then will preach the second advent of our Lord, so John preached His first; as the former will come as the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John was Elias in spirit, not in person: and what our Lord affirms of the spirit, John denies of the Person: there being a kind of propriety in this; viz. that our Lord to His disciples should speak spiritually of John, and that John, in answering the carnal multitude, should speak of his body, not of his spirit.

"What then? art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not." For they expected that Elias also would come, as Christ declares; for when His disciples enquired, "How then do the scribes say that Elias must first come?" He replied, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Then they ask, "Art thou that prophet? and he answered, No." Yet surely he was a prophet. Wherefore then doth he deny it? Because again he looks to the intention of his questioners. For they expected that some especial prophet should come, because Moses said, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet of thy brethren like unto me, unto Him shall ye harken." Now this was Christ. Wherefore they do not say, "Art thou a prophet?" meaning thereby one of the ordinary prophets; but the expression, "Art thou the prophet?" with the addition of the article, means, "Art thou that Prophet who was foretold by Moses?" and therefore he denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was "that Prophet."

Once the priests and Levites, who were sent from Jerusalem, have heard that he is not the awaited Christ, they inquire if he might be Elijah, the person who held the second rank in honor as an object of their hope. He says that he is not Elijah, again confessing the truth through the expression "I am not."

[Someone] might say that John is Elijah who is to come, in one sense, but that he responded to the priests and Levites, "I am not," because he knew what they were really asking. For the earlier question to John from the priests and Levites was not intended to ascertain if the same spirit was in both men, but if John were that very Elijah who had been taken up, now appearing without a birth according to the Jewish expectation. For those who had been sent from Jerusalem may have been ignorant of John's birth. He appropriately answers this question, "I am not," for Elijah who had been taken up had not come, as if he had changed his body and had been named John.

Inasmuch as there were many prophets in Israel—there was one in particular, who had been prophesied by Moses, who was especially expected in accordance with the saying, "The Lord our God shall raise up a prophet like me for you from your brothers; him you shall hear"—they ask a third time, not if he is a prophet but if he is "the prophet."They do not apply this title to the Christ but suppose that he is another in addition to the Christ. Because John knows that he of whom he is the forerunner is both the Christ and this prophet who was prophesied, he says "No." He might have answered, "Yes," if they had asked their question without using the article, for he was not unaware that he was a prophet.

A certain prophet was specially expected who would be similar to Moses in some respect, to mediate between God and humankind, and who would receive the covenant from God and give the new covenant to those who became disciples. And the people of Israel knew so far as each of the prophets was concerned that no one of them was the one announced by Moses. As, therefore, they were in doubt about whether John was the Christ, so also they were in doubt whether he was "the prophet." It is not strange if those who were in doubt about whether John was the Christ did not understand thoroughly that the Christ and the prophet are the same. For not knowing that Christ and the prophet are the same is the consequence of uncertainty about John.

For it has been established that those who sent knew that John had been born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and even more so that those who were sent, since they belonged to the priestly house and would not be unaware of the incredible good offspring of so renowned a fellow kinsman as Zechariah, also knew. What did they have in mind then when they asked, "Are you Elijah?" since they were men who had read that he was taken up as though into heaven and they were waiting for his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the consummation, they seem to ask figuratively, as it were, "Are you the one who announces in advance the word that will precede Christ at the consummation?" He wisely responds to this, "I am not." … It is not strange, therefore, that, just as in the case of the Savior—although many knew of his birth from Mary, others were deceived—so also in the case of John, some were aware of his birth from Zechariah, but others were in doubt whether the awaited Elijah had appeared in the person of John.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) Some one will say that John was ignorant that he was Elias; as those say, who maintain, from this passage the doctrine of a second incorporation, as though the soul took up a new body, after leaving its old one. For the Jews, it is said, asking John by the Levites and priests, whether he is Elias, suppose the doctrine of a second body to be already certain; as though it rested upon tradition, and were part of their secret system. To which question, however, John replies, I am not Elias: not being acquainted with his own prior existence. But how is it reasonable to imagine, if John were a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and had revealed so much concerning the Father, and the Only-Begotten, that he could be so in the dark as to himself, as not to know that his own soul had once belonged to Elias?

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) He answers then the Levites and Priests, I am not, conjecturing what their question meant: for the purport of their examination was to discover, not whether the spirit in both was the same, but whether John was that very Elias, who was taken up, now appearing again, as the Jews expected, without another birthI. But he whom we mentioned above as holding this doctrine of a reincorporation, will say that it is not consistent that the Priests and Levites should be ignorant of the birth of the son of so dignified a priest as Zacharias, who was born too in his father's old age, and contrary to all human probabilities: especially when Luke declares, that fear came on all that dwelt round about them. (Luke 1:65) But perhaps, since Elias was expected to appear before the coming of Christ near the end, they may seem to put the question figuratively, Art thou he who announcest the coming of Christ at the end of the world? to which he answers, I am not. But there is in fact nothing strange in supposing that John's birth might not have been known to all. For as in the case of our Saviour many knew Him to be born of Mary, and yet some wrongly imagined that He was John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the Prophets; so in the case of John, some were not unacquainted with the fact of his being son of Zacharias, and yet some may have been in doubt whether he were not the Elias who was expected. Again, inasmuch as many prophets had arisen in Israel, but one was especially looked forward to, of whom Moses had prophesied, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken: (Deut. 18, 15) they ask him in the third place, not simply whether he is a prophet, but with the article prefixed, Art thou that Prophet? For every one of the prophets in succession had signified to the people of Israel that he was not the one whom Moses had prophesied of; who, like Moses, was to stand in the midst between God and man, and deliver a testament, sent from God to His disciples. They did not however apply this name to Christ, but thought that He was to be a different person; whereas John knew that Christ was that Prophet, and therefore to this question, he answered, No.

Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, "Art thou Elias? " and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, "Behold, I will send you Elijah" the Tisbite? The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body.

On the basis of ancient tradition, the coming of Elijah was expected. Therefore they ask John whether he is Elijah, since his life was also similar to the life of Elijah. But he denied this as well. Are you that prophet? He denies this too, even though he was a prophet. How then does he deny it? Why? Because they did not ask him: are you a prophet? But they posed the question: are you that prophet? That prophet whom they were expecting, of whom Moses said that the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you (Deut. 18:15)? So John denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was that prophet whom they were expecting. And since they knew the words of Moses about a prophet who would arise, they hoped that at some point that prophet would appear.

The second question is stated when they ask him, Who then? Are you Elijah? Here we should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so too they waited for Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: "I will send you Elijah, the prophet" (Mal 4:5). And so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him that at least he state if he were Elijah. And this is what they ask: Who then? Are you Elijah?

There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of Elijah was in John's body, because of the similarity of John's actions to those of Elijah. And they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ's statement, "He is Elijah who is to come," as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John's answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I am not, i.e., Elijah.

They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah.

So this was not the reason John was asked, Are you Elijah? Rather it was because they took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among them.

But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, "What do you think this child will be?" One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John in the manner described. For a similar situation is found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah.

Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, "He is Elijah" (Mt 11:14)? The angel gives us the answer: "He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works.

This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, "He will go before him." Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel's hair. Thirdly, in their zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, "I have been very zealous for the Lord" (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew (14:6).

Then when he says, Are you the Prophet? the third question is presented. Here there is a difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), "And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High," why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a prophet?

There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: "if there is a delay, wait for it" (Hb 2:2). But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out with his finger: "Look, there is the Lamb of God," as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9).

Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you." And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that "greatest of the prophets." And this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is used here as signifying the prophet, as it were, antonomastically.

In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since "I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed" (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, Are you the Prophet? they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called "prophet" in a special way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, "Let him come to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.

"They therefore said to him: Who are you?" Still they press on and state the reason for their insistence: "That we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" It seemed foolish to them to return to those who sent them without a definite answer. For it is the mark of a wise messenger to bring back definite answers; Proverbs 22: "Behold, I have written down wisdom for you, so that you might answer with words of truth to those who sent you."

"Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" Observe them pressing him more vehemently, urging him, repeating their questions, and not desisting; while he first kindly removes false opinions concerning himself, and then sets before them one which is true. For, saith he, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." When he had spoken some high and lofty words concerning Christ, as if (replying) to their opinion, he immediately betook himself to the Prophet to draw from thence confirmation of his assertion.

Then he shows how he declared who he was. First, the question of the messengers is given; secondly, his answer (v 23).

They said, Who are you? We must take back an answer to those who sent us. As if to say: We were sent to learn who you are; so tell us, What have you to say about yourself?

Notice John's devotion. He has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, "It is not I who now live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). And so he does not answer, "I am the son of Zachary," or this or that, but only the way in which he followed Christ.

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he said, No. And they said unto him, Art thou a prophet? and he answered, No! They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He saith, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." That said Isaiah. This prophecy was fulfilled in John, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Crying what? "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God." Would it not have seemed to you that a herald would have cried, "Go away, make room." Instead of the herald's cry "Go away," John says "Come." The herald makes men stand back from the judge; to the Judge John calls. Yes, indeed, John calls men to the lowly One, that they may not experience what He will be as the exalted Judge. "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah." He did not say, I am John, I am Elias, I am a prophet. But what did he say? This I am called, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way for the Lord: I am the prophecy itself."

"He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Here in the response is humble truth: humble, because he did not attribute to himself dignity but office. Therefore he says: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: crying," I say, this: "Make straight the way of the Lord." Literally, John was crying in the wilderness: Matthew 3: "John came preaching in the wilderness of Judea and was crying: Make straight the way of the Lord"; because he was preaching repentance, through which the way of the sinner to the Lord is made straight, which way is crooked as long as he sins, but is made straight through the observance of the commandments: whence below, chapter 14: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Thus the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart: and this office he confirms by the testimony of Isaiah: "As Isaiah the prophet says": Isaiah 40: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord."

It is asked: Why is John called a voice, and why did he say that he was a voice? It must be said that just as the Son of God is most rightly called the Word, so his precursor is most rightly called the voice. The voice has a fourfold property with respect to the word, by reason of which he is rightly so called. The voice precedes the word; so John preceded Christ; Luke 1: "He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." It manifests the word: so John manifested Christ: above in the same chapter: "He came for testimony, that he might bear witness concerning the light." It passes away and leaves the word remaining: so John with respect to Christ: below in chapter 3: "I must decrease, but he must increase." It is useless without the word: so too John's preaching without Christ: below in the same chapter: "I baptize you in water, but there has stood in your midst one whom you do not know."

It is also asked: "Make straight the way of the Lord," since Jeremiah 10 says: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not his own, nor is it for a man to direct his steps." Therefore he exhorts to the impossible. To this it must be said that the direction of the way is through grace and charity, which is from God alone: but the preparation for direction is to be made, according to what is in us. And this is commanded here: whence Gregory: "The way of the Lord is directed to the heart, when life is prepared according to the commandment."

Far higher than they stands that character whom, to the best of my knowledge, the present Christian movement has not yet produced—the preacher in the full sense, the evangelist, the man on fire, the man who infects. The propagandist, the apologist, only represents John Baptist: the preacher represents the Lord Himself. He will be sent—or else he will not. But unless he comes we mere Christian intellectuals will not effect very much. That does not mean we should down tools.

He accuses them sharply as knowing nothing, and accredits the design or purpose entrusted to him by Prophetic testimony. For I come, he says, to say nothing else than that He, The Looked for, is at length at the doors, yea rather the Lord within the doors. Be ye ready to go whatsoever way He bids you, ye have gone the way given you through Moses, take up that by Christ: for this the choir of the holy Prophets foretold you.

A setting forth of sayings concerning the way that is after Christ.

Isaiah. Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.

The same. And an highway shall be there and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; no lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but the redeemed shall walk there.

The same. I will give beginning to Sign, and will exhort Jerusalem unto the way.

The same. And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not: I will lead them in paths that they have not known.

Jeremiah. Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for you souls.

What then is the good way and that purifies those who walk in it, let Christ Himself say: I am the Way.

I come, [John the Baptist] says nothing else than that the one you are looking for is finally at the doors. Indeed, the Lord is within the doors. Be ready to go whatever way he asks you. You have gone the way given you through Moses, [but now] take up the way of Christ. For this is what the choir of the holy prophets told you beforehand.

When he also denies that he is a prophet, because evidently he was able not only to preach the Redeemer but also to demonstrate him, he immediately expresses who he is when he adds: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." 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, as Isaiah the prophet said." 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. Hence it is written: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him." Therefore whoever raises his mind in pride, whoever pants with the fevers of avarice, whoever defiles himself with the pollutions of lust, closes the door of his heart against the truth; and lest the Lord come to him, he condemns the gates of his soul with the bars of vices.

Ye know that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father. Now we know, in the case of our own utterance, the voice first sounds, and then the word is heard. Thus John declares himself to be the voice, i. e. because he precedes the Word, and, through his ministry, the Word of the Father is heard by man.

John crieth in the wilderness, because it is to forsaken and destitute Judaea that he bears the consolatory tidings of a Redeemer.

The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the word of truth is heard with humility; the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the life is formed upon the precept.

But he cries and shouts that both those who are far off may hear him speaking and those who have departed from God and those who have lost keenness of their hearing may understand the greatness of what is said, since it is proclaimed with a loud voice, helping both those who have departed from God and those who have lost keenness of their hearing.… Now the necessity of the voice of one crying in the wilderness is that the soul—which is devoid of God and destitute of truth (for what other wilderness is harder to deal with than a soul that is bereft of God and of all virtue?)—might be exhorted to make straight the way of the Lord, because it is still going in a crooked manner and is in need of teaching.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 12) Heracleon, in his discussion on John and the Prophets, infers that because the Saviour was the Word, and John the voice, therefore the whole of the prophetic order was only sound. To which we reply, that, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? If the voice of prophecy is nothing but sound, why does the Saviour send us to it, saying, Search the Scriptures? (John 5:39) But John calls himself the voice, not that crieth, but of one that crieth in the wilderness; viz. of Him Who stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. (John 7:37) He cries, in order that those at a distance may hear him, and understand from the loudness of the sound, the vastness of the thing spoken of.

(tom. vi. c. 10. 11) There is need of the voice crying in the wilderness, that the soul, forsaken by God, may be recalled to making straight the way of the Lord, following no more the crooked paths of the serpent. This has reference both to the contemplative life, as enlightened by truth, without mixture of falsehood, and to the practical, as following up the correct perception by the suitable action. Wherefore he adds, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet, Esaias.

"He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; " as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer.

Then again they insistently ask: tell us, who are you? Then he answers them: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. "I," he says, "am the one about whom it is written, 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness' (Isa. 40:3). For if one does not add the words 'about whom it is written,' the combination of words will appear strange. What then does the voice cry out? "Make straight the way of the Lord." "I," he says, "am a servant and prepare your hearts for the Lord." So then, you who are crooked and cunning, straighten them and make them level, so that through you there may be a way for the Lord Christ. Then he brings Isaiah as a witness. Having said something great about Christ, that He is the Lord, and about himself, that he fulfills the role of a servant and herald, he turns to the prophet. Perhaps someone might explain the words "I am the voice of one crying out" in this way: I am the voice of Christ "crying out," that is, clearly proclaiming the truth. For all the messengers of the law were not loud-voiced, since the time of the truth of the Gospel had not yet come, and the weak voice of Moses truly indicated the indistinctness and obscurity of the law. But Christ, as self-existent Truth who proclaimed the Father to us all, is "the one crying out." Thus John says: I am the voice of the Word crying out, dwelling in the wilderness. Then another beginning: "make straight the way of the Lord." John, as the Forerunner of Christ, is rightly called a voice, because the voice also precedes the word. I will say it more clearly: a voice is an inarticulate breath coming from the chest; but when the tongue divides it into articulate parts, then it becomes a word. Thus, first the voice, then the Word; first John, then Christ — in manifestation in the flesh. And the baptism of John is inarticulate, for it did not have the action of the Spirit, while the baptism of Christ is articulate, having nothing shadowy or figurative, for it is accomplished by the Spirit (Matt. 3:11).

So he says, I am a voice that cries in the wilderness. And he says that he is a voice because from the point of view of origin, a voice comes after the [mental, interior] word, but before the knowledge it causes. For we know a [mental, interior] word conceived in the heart by means of the voice which speaks it, since it is its sign. But God the Father sent the precursor John, who came to be in time, in order to make known his Word, which was conceived from eternity. And so he fittingly says, I am a voice.

The addition, that cries, can be understood in two ways: as referring to John, crying and preaching in the wilderness; or to Christ crying in him, according to, "Do you want proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3).

Now he cries for four reasons. First of all, a cry implies a showing; and so he cries in order to show that Christ is clearly speaking in John and in himself: "Now on the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, 'If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink'" (below 7:37). But he did not cry out in the prophets because prophecies were given in enigmas and figures; so it is said that he was "wrapped in dark rain-clouds" (Ps 17:12). Secondly, because a cry is made to those who are at a distance; and the Jews were far from God. Thus it was necessary that he cry: "You have taken my friends and neighbors away from me" (Ps 88:19). He cries, in the third place, because they were deaf: "Who is deaf, but my servant?" (Is 42:19). He cries, fourthly, because he speaks with indignation, for they deserved God's wrath: "He will speak to them in his anger" (Ps 2:5).

Note that he cries in the wilderness, because "The word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert," as we read in Luke (3:2). There can be both a literal and a mystical reason for this. The literal reason is that by living in the desert he would be immune from all sin, and so be more worthy to bear witness to Christ, and his testimony would be more credible to men because of his life.

The mystical reason is twofold. For the wilderness or desert designates paganism, according to Isaiah (54:1); "She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband." Accordingly, in order to show that God's teaching would from now on not be in Jerusalem alone, but also among the pagans, he cried in the wilderness. "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits" (Mt 21:43). Again, the desert can indicate Judea, which was already deserted: "Your house will be left to you, deserted" (Mt 23:38). And so he cried in the desert, in the wilderness, i.e., in Judea, to indicate that the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God: "in a desert land, where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary" (Ps 62:3).

Why does he cry, Make a straight way for the Lord? Because this is the task for which he was sent. "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way" (Lk 1:76). The way, prepared and straight, for receiving the Lord is the way of justice, according to Isaiah (26:7): "The way of the just is straight." For the way of the just is straight when the whole man is subject to God, i.e., the intellect through faith, the will through love, and actions through obedience, are all subject to God.

And this was spoken, i.e., predicted, by the prophet Isaiah. As if to say: I am the one in whom these things are fulfilled.

"And they which were sent were of the Pharisees," that is, of the chief men among the Jews; "and they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor a prophet?" As if it seemed to them audacity to baptize, as if they meant to inquire, in what character baptizest thou? We ask whether thou art the Christ; thou sayest that thou art not. We ask whether thou perchance art His precursor, for we know that before the advent of Christ, Elias will come; thou answerest that thou art not. We ask, if perchance thou art some herald come long before, that is, a prophet, and hast received that power, and thou sayest that thou art not a prophet. And John was not a prophet; he was greater than a prophet. The Lord gave such testimony concerning him: "What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?" Of course implying that he was not shaken by the wind; for he who is moved by the wind is blown upon by every seductive blast. "But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?" For John was clothed in rough garments; that is, his tunic was of camel's hair. "Behold, they who are clothed in soft raiment are in kings' houses." You did not then go out to see a man clothed in soft raiment. "But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, one greater than a prophet is here;" for the prophets prophesied of Christ a long time before, John pointed Him out as present.

"And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." John has already spoken the truth about himself: but here he gives testimony concerning Christ. First is set forth the wickedness of the questioners: second, the truth of the testimony: third, the renown of the testimony.

First, then, is touched upon the wickedness of the questioners: because, when they had heard the truth, they seek to calumniate the teacher of truth. And the reason for this was that they were malicious: therefore he says: "Those who had been sent were from the Pharisees," therefore malicious and scrutinizers: Chrysostom: "Those were sent who knew not how to seek the truth, but to envy it."

They who were sent from the Jews (they were Levites and certain of those who belonged to the priesthood) were convicted of asking foolish questions. For supposing that Christ was one person, the Prophet declared by the Law another, they said, after the holy Baptist had said, I am not the Christ, Art thou the Prophet? But lo, the multitude of the Pharisees also is caught in conceit of wisdom rather than having really an accurate knowledge of the Divine oracles. For why, it says, baptizest thou at all, if thou be not the Christ nor Elias neither the Prophet? and they are shown again to be full of no small senselessness against the Baptist. For they do not, it seems, vouchsafe to put him in the number of those expected, but sick with the haughtiness that was their foster-sister, they deem that he is nought, albeit he be fore-announced by the Prophet's voice. For though they heard, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord: receiving not his word, they rebuke him without restraint saying after this sort: There is nought in thee, Sir, worthy of credit, nor wondrous nor great: why baptizest thou even at all? why dost thou, who art absolutely nothing, take in hand so great a thing? It was the habit of the ungodly Pharisees to act thus, to disparage one who was already come, to pretend to honour one who was to come. For in order that they might always procure for themselves honours at the hand of the Jews, and might procure to themselves incomes of money, they desire that none save themselves should appear illustrious. For thus slew they the heir Himself also, saying Come let us kill Him and let us seize on His inheritance.

But still those who were sent inquire further: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" Because this was said not from a desire to learn the truth, but from the malice of pursuing rivalry, the Evangelist silently made known when he added, saying: "And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." As if he openly said: Those men inquire of John about his actions who do not know how to seek teaching, but only how to envy.

"And [saith the Evangelist] they who were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet?" Seest thou not without reason I said that they wished to bring him to this? and the reason why they did not at first say so was, lest they should be detected by all men. And then when he said, "I am not the Christ," they, being desirous to conceal what they were plotting within, go on to "Elias," and "that Prophet." But when he said that he was not one of these either, after that, in their perplexity, they cast aside the mask, and without any disguise show clearly their treacherous intention, saying, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ?" And then again, wishing to throw some obscurity over the thing, they add the others also, "Elias," and "that Prophet." For when they were not able to trip him by their flattery, they thought that by an accusation they could compel him to say the thing that was not.

After the priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to ask John who he was, the Pharisees send to him as well, asking, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the prophet?" After they have examined him, they are the next to be baptized.… The difficulty is solved as follows. The Pharisees … who heard the words "generation of vipers …," although they have not believed him, probably come for baptism because they fear the crowd and, in accordance with their hypocrisy toward them, consider it proper to let themselves be washed that they might not seem to be opposed to such people.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 13) The questions of the priests and Levites being answered, another mission comes from the Pharisees: And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. So far as it is allowable to form a conjecture from the discourse itself here, I should say that it was the third occasion of John's giving his witness. Observe the mildness of the former question, so befitting the priestly and levitical character, Who art thou? There is nothing arrogant or disrespectful, but only what becomes true ministers of God. The Pharisees however, being a sectarian body, as their name implies, address the Baptist in an importunate and contumelious way. And they said, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? not caring about information, but only wishing to prevent him baptizing. Yet the very next thing they did, was to come to John's baptism. The solution of this is, that they came not in faith, but hypocritically, because they feared the people.

Above, we saw John bear witness to Christ as he was being questioned on matters concerning himself; here, on matters concerning his office. Four things are set forth: first, those who question him; secondly, their questions; thirdly, his answer, in which he bore witness; and fourthly, the place where all this happened.

His interrogators were Pharisees. Hence he says, Now these men had been sent from the Pharisees. According to Origen, what is being said from this point on describes a different testimony given by John; and further, those who were sent from the Pharisees are not the same as those priests and Levites sent by the generality of the Jews, but others who were specifically sent by the Pharisees. And according to this it says: Now these men had been sent, not by the Jews, as the priests and Levites had been, but were others, from the Pharisees. So he says about this that because the priests and Levites were educated and respectful, they ask John humbly and respectfully whether he is the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Prophet. But these others, who were from the Pharisees, according to their name "separated" and importunate, used disdainful language. Thus they asked him, Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?

But according to others, such as Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these Pharisees are the same priests and Levites who had been sent by the Jews. For there was among the Jews a certain sect which was separated from the others by reason of its external cult; and for this reason its members were called Pharisees, i.e., "divided." In this sect there were some priests and Levites, and some of the people. And so, in order that the delegates [to John] might possess a greater authority, they sent priests and Levites, who were Pharisees, thus furnishing them with the dignity of a priestly caste and with religious authority.

The Evangelist adds, these men had been sent from the Pharisees, to disclose, first, the reason why they asked about John's baptizing, which was not why they were sent. It is as though he were saying: They were sent to ask John who he was. But they asked, Why do you baptize? because they were from the Pharisees, whose religion was being challenged. Secondly, as Gregory says, in order to show with what intention they asked John, "Who are you?" (1:19). For the Pharisees, more than all the others, showed themselves crafty and insulting to Christ. Thus they said of him: "He casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils" (Mt 12:24). Further, they consulted with the Herodians on how to trap Jesus in his speech (Mt 22:15). And so in saying that these men had been sent from the Pharisees, he shows that they were disrespectful and were questioning him out of envy.

"And they asked him and said to him," as if reproving him: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" You act without authority and foolishly. Whence Chrysostom: "Because they were unable to supplant him by flatteries, they attempt to cast accusations upon him." Whence Chrysostom exclaims: "O what madness! O what arrogance! O what intemperate investigation! You were sent to be instructed by him: 'Who are you?' And you wish to impose a charge of law?" In this, therefore, the wickedness of the questioners is intimated.

But still those who were sent inquire further: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" Because this was said not from a desire to learn the truth, but from the malice of pursuing rivalry, the Evangelist silently made known when he added, saying: "And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." As if he openly said: Those men inquire of John about his actions who do not know how to seek teaching, but only how to envy. But every holy person, even when questioned with a perverse mind, is not changed from his pursuit of goodness. Hence John also responded to the words of envy with proclamations of life.

What folly, what insolence, what ill-timed officiousness! Ye were sent to learn who and whence he might be, not to lay down laws for him also. This too was the conduct of men who would compel him to confess himself to be the Christ. Still not even now is he angry, nor does he, as might have been expected, say to them anything of this sort, "Do you give orders and make laws for me?" but again shows great gentleness towards them.

After they could not entice him (John) with flattery so that he would say what they desired and declare himself to be the Christ, they intimidate him with very stern and threatening words, saying: "Why then do you baptize? Who gave you such authority?" From this statement it is also evident that they considered the Christ to be one person and the expected prophet to be another. For they say "if you are not the Christ, nor that prophet (evidently)," meaning that the Christ is one and that prophet is another. They understood poorly. For that prophet is the very Christ and our God. All this they said, as I have stated, in order to compel John to declare himself to be the Christ. But closer to the truth, one can say that they ask him as if out of envy of his glory. They do not ask "Are you the Christ?" but rather "Who are you?" As if saying: "Who are you, that you undertake such an important matter — baptizing and purifying those who confess?" And it seems to me that the Jews, wanting John not to be accepted by the majority as the Christ, ask him out of envy and ill will, "Who are you?" So then, cursed are those who accept the Baptist but after baptism do not acknowledge him: truly the Jews are a brood of vipers.

Their questions concerned his office of baptizing. Hence he says that they asked him, Why then do you baptize? Here we should note that they are asking not to learn, but to obstruct. For since they saw many people coming to John because of the new rite of baptism, foreign both to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they became envious of John and tried all they could to hinder his baptism. But being unable to contain themselves any longer, they reveal their envy and say, Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? As if to say: You should not baptize, since you deny that you are any of those three persons in whom baptism was prefigured, as was said above. In other words, if you are not the Messiah, who will possess the fountain by which sins are washed away, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, i.e., Elisha, who made a dry passageway through the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8), how do you dare baptize'? They are like envious persons who hinder the progress of souls, "who say to the seers, 'See no visions'" (Is 30:10).

They object to John, "Why then do you baptize, if you are none of these things?" They do not know that not even the Christ—who himself was the prophet—baptized, but rather his disciples. Elijah did not baptize the wood of the altar that needed dousing in the matter of Ahab, but he ordered the priests to do this. Now then, to address the words "Why then do you baptize?" John sets forth his own bodily baptism. But to address the words "if you are not the Christ," he praises the preexisting nature of Christ, saying that he is unseen in his divinity but is present to all the world. He upbraids them for their low opinion about the Christ, and he unites the Word "in the beginning" by his incarnation, as he joins the phrase "whom you do not know" with the words "the one coming after me." He shows the superiority of Christ to himself through the sentence "I am not worthy." And if he is "in the midst" either of the whole world so as to reach every rational creature, or in the midst only of us who have dominion over the world, then in any case the Word is in each person. But if his earlier presence among us remained unperceived, his coming after John would not. As John speaks about the nature of the Word, he also adds some words about his sojourn after him, mentioning that Christ will come after him.

"Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor a prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there standeth One among you whom ye know not." For, very truly, He was not seen, being humble, and therefore was the lamp lighted.

Christ was such a Center in His incarnation. Hence, it is written in John: "In the midst of you there has stood One whom you do not know." The Scriptures call Christ sometimes the Center, sometimes the Head. He is called the Head because all the senses and spiritual motions and charismatic graces flow from Him. This He pours in as being united to the members.

"John answered them." Here the truth of the testimony is touched upon. For John expresses the truth of his office and from this the dignity of Christ. Therefore he says: "I baptize you in water": that is, I wash exteriorly, not as Christ does interiorly: but I prepare for Christ; whence Acts nineteen: "John baptized with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come." Therefore he adds: "But there has stood in the midst of you one whom you do not know": that is, among you; "whom you do not know," according to what the Lord says below in chapter eight: "You know neither me nor my Father." For him I prepare.

It is asked: "I baptize in water." For if the baptism of John only washed the flesh outwardly, it seems that it was done in vain and uselessly. Likewise, John is more perfect than the Law, therefore the baptism of John is more perfect than the Sacraments of the Law; if therefore circumcision confers grace, much more so the baptism of John. It must be said that the baptism of John was not for a remedy, but for a preparation for the remedy; therefore it does not follow from this that it was superfluous, nor does it follow that it ought to confer grace. Now that baptism prepared for the remedy in three ways: on account of the amendment of life, whence it is said in Matthew three: "They were baptized by him, confessing their sins." On account of habituation, so that they would be disposed and would not reject the baptism of Christ; whence Gregory says: "It was fitting that he who by being born had preceded the one who was to be born, should also by baptizing precede the Lord who was to baptize." The third reason, on account of the manifestation of Christ; below in the same chapter: "That he might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water."

It is also asked: "In the midst of you." Whence is it that the Lord always chooses the middle place, since he is the head? It must be said that according to the flesh he was in their midst, that is, in the middle as an ordinary man. Now Christ is said to stand in the midst, or even to choose the middle place especially, because the middle is the place of humility; Luke twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves." The locus of commonality, because it relates uniformly to all: Acts 10: "In truth I have found that God is no respecter of persons." The locus of unity, because extremes are united in the middle: Ephesians 2: "He himself is our peace, who has made both one." The locus of stability, because the center of the world is fixed: 1 Corinthians 3: "No one can lay another foundation besides that which is Christ Jesus." The locus of proximity, because it draws near to all parts: Acts 17: "If perhaps they might grope after him or find him, although he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move and have our being."

That Christ is the Bridegroom, having the Church as His bride, from which spiritual children were to be born. In Joel: "Blow with the trumpet in Sion; sanctify a fast, and call a healing; assemble the people, sanctify the Church, gather the elders, collect the little ones that suck the breast; let the Bridegroom go forth of His chamber, and the bride out of her closet." Also in Jeremiah: "And I will take away from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of the joyous, and the voice of the glad; the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride." Also in the eighteenth Psalm: "And he is as a bridegroom going forth from his chamber; he exulted as a giant to run his course. From the height of heaven is his going forth, and his circuit even to the end of it; and there is nothing which is hid from his heat." Also in the Apocalypse: "Come, I will show thee the new bride, the Lamb's wife. And he took me in the Spirit to a great mountain, and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God." Also in the Gospel according to John: "Ye are my witnesses, that I said to them who were sent from Jerusalem to me, that I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him. For he who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom is he who standeth and heareth him with joy, and rejoiceth because of the voice of the bridegroom." The mystery of this matter was shown in Jesus the son of Nave, when he was bidden to put his shoes from off him, doubt less because he himself was not the bridegroom. For it was in the law, that whoever should refuse marriage should put off his shoe, but that he should be shod who was to be the bridegroom: "And it happened, when Jesus was in Jericho, he looked around with his eyes, and saw a man standing before his face, and holding a javelin in his hand, and said, Art thou for us or for our enemies? And he said, I am the leader of the host of the Lord; now draw near. And Jesus fell on his rice to the earth, and said to him, Lord, what dost Thou command unto Thy servant. And the leader of the Lord's host said, Loose thy shoe from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Also, in Exodus, Moses is bidden to put off his shoe, because he, too, was not the bridegroom: "And there appeared unto him the angel of the Lord in a flame of fire out of a bush; and he saw that the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will pass over and see this great sight, why the bush is not consumed. But when He saw that he drew near to see, the Lord God called him from the bush, saying, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And He said, Draw not nigh hither, unless thou hast loosed thy shoe from off thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. And He said unto him, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This was also made plain in the Gospel according to John: "And John answered them, I indeed baptize with water, but there standeth One in the midst of you whom ye know not: He it is of whom I said, The man that cometh after me is made before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Also according to Luke: "Let your loins be girt, and your lamps burning, and ye like to men that wait for their master when he shall come from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him. Blessed are those servants whom their Lord, when He cometh, shall find watching." Also in the Apocalypse: "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth: let us be glad and rejoice, and let us give to Him the honour of glory; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready."

The Baptist teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing an introductory baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of repentance and teaching them to go up from the lower to the more perfect.

Much enduringly does the blessed Baptist bear with the fault finders: and very seasonably does he make the declaration regarding himself a basis of saving preaching: and teaches those who were sent from the Pharisees now even against their will that Christ was within the doors. For I, he says, am bringing in an introductory Baptism, washing those defiled by sin with water for a beginning of penitence and teaching them to go up from the lower unto the more perfect. For this were to accomplish in act, what I was sent to preach, Prepare ye, I mean, the way of the Lord. For the Giver of the greater and most notable gifts and Supplier of all perfection of good things, standeth among you, unknown as yet by reason of the veil of flesh, but so much surpassing me the Baptist, that I must deem myself not to have the measure even of a servant's place in His Presence. For this I deem is the meaning of, I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet.

And in saying what is true, he works something else that is useful, for he persuades the haughty Pharisee to think lowlily, and brings himself in as an example of this.

For immediately he adds: "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? Who, announcing the mystery amid these things, asserts that he both stood in the midst of men and was unknown, because the Lord appearing through flesh both existed visible in body and invisible in majesty.

A saint, even when perversely questioned, is never diverted from the pursuit of goodness. Thus John to the words of envy opposes the words of life: John answered them, saying, I indeed baptize with water.

John baptizeth not with the Spirit, but with water; not being able to remit sins, he washes the bodies of the baptized with water, but not their souls with pardon. Why then doth he baptize, when he doth not remit sins by baptism? To maintain his character of forerunner. As his birth preceded our Lord's, so doth his baptism precede our Lord's baptism. And he who was the forerunner of Christ in His preaching, is forerunner also in His baptism, which was the imitation of that Sacrament. And withal he announces the mystery of our redemption, saying that He, the Redeemer, is standing in the midst of men, and they know it not: There standeth one among you, whom ye know not: for our Lord, when He appeared in the flesh, was visible in body, but in majesty invisible.

"I," saith he, "baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose." What could the Jews have left to say to this? for even from this the accusation against them cannot be evaded, the decision against them admits not of pardon, they have given sentence against themselves. How? In what way? They deemed John worthy of credit, and so truthful, that they might believe him not only when he testified of others, but also when he spoke concerning himself. For had they not been so disposed, they would not have sent to learn from him what related to himself. Because you know that the only persons whom we believe, especially when speaking of themselves, are those whom we suppose to be more veracious than any others. And it is not this alone which closes their mouths, but also the disposition with which they had approached him; for they came forth to him at first with great eagerness, even though afterwards they altered. Both which things Christ declared, when He said, "He was a burning (and a shining) light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." Moreover, his answer made him yet more worthy of credit. For (Christ) saith, "He that seeketh not his own glory, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." Now this man sought it not, but refers the Jews to another. And those who were sent were of the most trustworthy among them, and of the highest rank, so that they could have in no way any refuge or excuse, for the unbelief which they exhibited towards Christ. Wherefore did ye not receive the things spoken concerning Him by John? you sent men who held the first rank among you, you enquired by them, you heard what the Baptist answered, they manifested all possible officiousness, sought into every point, named all the persons you suspected him to be; and yet most publicly and plainly he confessed that he was neither "Christ," nor "Elias" nor "that Prophet." Nor did he stop even there, but also informed them who he was, and spoke of the nature of his own baptism, that it was but a slight and mean thing, nothing more than some water, and told of the superiority of the Baptism given by Christ; he also cited Esaias the prophet, testifying of old very long ago, and calling Christ "Lord," but giving him the names of "minister and servant." What after this ought they to have done? Ought they not to have believed on Him who was witnessed of, to have worshiped Him, to have confessed Him to be God? For the character and heavenly wisdom of the witness showed that his testimony proceeded, not from flattery, but from truth; which is plain also from this, that no man prefers his neighbor to himself, nor, when he may lawfully give honor to himself, will yield it up to another, especially when it is so great as that of which we speak. So that John would not have renounced this testimony (as belonging) to Christ, had He not been God. For though he might have rejected it for himself as being too great for his own nature, yet he would not have assigned it to another nature that was beneath it.

"But there standeth One among you, whom ye know not." Reasonable it was that Christ should mingle among the people as one of the many, because everywhere He taught men not to be puffed up and boastful. And in this place by "knowledge" the Baptist means a perfect acquaintance with Him, who and whence He was. And immediately next to this he puts, "Who cometh after me"; all but saying, "Think not that all is contained in my baptism, for had that been perfect, Another would not have arisen after me to offer you a different One, but this of mine is a preparation and a clearing the way for that other. Mine is but a shadow and image, but One must come who shall add to this the reality. So that His very coming 'after me' especially declares His dignity: for had the first been perfect, no place would have been required for a second."

We must note that John's baptism was inferior to Jesus' baptism, which was given through his disciples. Those, therefore, in Acts who have been baptized into John's baptism, who have not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit, are baptized a second time by the apostle. For the washing of regeneration did not come about at the hands of John but at the hands of Jesus through his disciples. And the so-called bath of rebirth takes place with the renewal of the Spirit, which even now is borne above the water, since it is from God. But it does not appear in everyone after the water.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 15) For how would the question, Why then baptizest thou, be replied to in any other way, than by setting forth the carnal nature of his own baptism?

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 15) Or thus; Having said, I indeed baptize with water, in answer to the question, Why baptizest thou then?—to the next, If thou be not Christ? he replies by declaring the preexistent substance of Christ; that it was of such virtue, that though His Godhead was invisible, He was present to every one, and pervaded the whole world; as is conveyed in the words; There standeth one among you. For He it is, Who hath diffused Himself through the whole system of nature, insomuch that every thing which is created, is created by Him; All things were made by Him. Whence it is evident that even those who enquired of John, Why baptizest thou then? had Him among them. Or, the words, There standeth one among you, are to be understood of mankind generally. For, from our character as rational beings, it follows that the words exists in the centre of us, because the heart, which is the spring of motion within us, is situated in the centre of the body. Those then who carry the word within them, but are ignorant of its nature, and the source and beginning and the way in which it resides in them; these, hearing the word within them, know it not. But John recognised Him, and reproached the Pharisees, saying, Whom ye know not. For, though expecting Christ's coming, the Pharisees had formed no lofty conception of Him, but supposed that He would only be a holy man: wherefore he briefly refutes their ignorance, and the false ideas that they had of His excellence. He saith, standeth; for as the Father standeth, i. e. exists without variation or change, so standeth the Word ever in the work of salvation, though It assume flesh, though It be in the midst of men, though It stand invisible. Lest any one however should think that the invisible One Who cometh to all men, and to the universal world, is different from Him Who was made man, and appeared on the earth, he adds, He that cometh after me; i. e. Who will appear after me. The after however here has not the same meaning that it has, when Christ calls us after Him; for there we are told to follow after Him, that by treading in His steps, we may attain to the Father; but here the word is used to intimate what should follow upon John's teaching; for he came that all may believe, having by his ministry been fitted gradually by lesser things, for the reception of the perfect Word. Therefore he saith, He it is Who cometh after me.

(tom. vi. in Joan.) The place has been understood not amiss thus by a certain person1; I am not of such importance, as that for my sake He should descend from this high abode, and take flesh upon Him, as it were a shoe.

Note the meekness of the saint and his truthfulness. Meekness in that he does not answer them anything harsh, despite their arrogance; truthfulness in that he testifies to the glory of Christ with great boldness and does not conceal the glory of the Lord in order to earn himself a good name, but declares that I baptize with a baptism that is not perfect (for I baptize in water alone, which has no forgiveness of sins), but one that is preparatory to receiving spiritual baptism, which grants the forgiveness of sins. "There stands among you One whom you do not know." The Lord mingled with the people, and therefore they did not know who He was or where He was from. Perhaps someone might say that in another sense too the Lord stood among the Pharisees, but they did not know Him. Since they apparently studied the Scriptures diligently, and the Lord was proclaimed in them, He was "among" them, that is, in their hearts, but they did not know Him, because they did not understand the Scriptures, even though they had them in their hearts. Perhaps also in the sense that the Lord was the mediator between God and men, He stood "among" the Pharisees, desiring to reconcile them with God, but they did not know Him.

(in loc.) Or it was, that our Lord was in the midst of the Pharisees; and they not knowing Him. For they thought that they knew the Scriptures, and therefore, inasmuch as our Lord was pointed out there, He was in the midst of them, i. e. in their hearts. But they knew Him not, inasmuch as they understood not the Scriptures. Or take another interpretation. He was in the midst of them, as mediator between God and man, wishing to bring them, the Pharisees, to God. But they knew Him not.

His answer is true: and so he says that John answered, I baptize with water. As if to say: You should not be disturbed, if I, who am not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, baptize; because my baptism is not completive but imperfect. For the perfection of baptism requires the washing of the body and of the soul; and the body, by its nature, is indeed washed by water, but the soul is washed by the Spirit alone. So, I baptize with water, i.e., I wash the body with something bodily; but another will come who will baptize perfectly, namely, with water and with the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash the body with water and the spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the spirit will be distributed throughout the body. "For John indeed baptized with water but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (Acts 1:5).

Then he bears witness to Christ. First, in relation to the Jews. Secondly, in relation to himself (v 27).

He relates him to the Jews when he says, But there is one standing in your midst. As if to say: I have done an incomplete work, but there is another who will complete my work, and he is standing in your midst.

This is explained in a number of ways. First, according to Gregory, Chrysostom and Augustine, it refers to the ordinary way Christ lived among men, because according to his human nature he appeared to be like other men: "He, being in the form of God... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6). And according to this he says, there is one standing in your midst, i.e., in many ways he lived as one of you: "I am in your midst" (Lk 22:27), whom you do not recognize, i.e., you cannot grasp the fact that God was made man. Likewise, you do not recognize how great he is according to the divine nature which is concealed in him: "God is great, and exceeds our knowledge" (Jb 36:26). And so, as Augustine says, "The lantern was lighted," namely, John, "so that Christ might be found." "I have prepared a lamp for my anointed" (Ps 131:17).

It is explained differently by Origen; and in two ways. First, as referring to the divinity of Christ: and according to this, there is one standing, namely, Christ, in your midst, that is, in the midst of all things; because he, as Word, has filled all from the beginning of creation: "I fill heaven and earth" (Jer 23:24). Whom you do not recognize, because, as was said above (1:10), "He was in the world... and the world did not know him."

It is explained another way as referring to his causality of human wisdom. But there is one standing in your midst, i.e., he shines in everyone's understanding; because whatever light and whatever wisdom exists in men has come to them from participating in the Word. And he says, in your midst, because in the midst of man's body lies the heart, to which is attributed a certain wisdom and understanding; hence, although the intellect has no bodily organ, yet because the heart is our chief organ, it is the custom to take it for the intellect. So he is said to stand among men because of this likeness, insofar as he "enlightens every man coming into this world" (1:9). Whom you do not recognize, because, as was said above (1:5), "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."

In a fourth way, it is explained as referring to the prophetic foretelling of the Messiah. In this sense the answer is directed chiefly to the Pharisees, who continually searched the writings of the Old Testament in which the Messiah was foretold; and yet they did not recognize him. And according to this it says, there is one standing in your midst, i.e., in the Sacred Scriptures which you are always considering: "Search the Scriptures" (below 5:39); whom you do not recognize, because your heart is hardened by unbelief, and your eyes blinded, so that you do not recognize as present the person you believe is to come.

Moses was not the bridegroom, for to him comes the word, "Loose your shoe from off your foot," that he might give place to his Lord. Nor was Joshua, the son of Nun, the bridegroom, for to him also it was told, saying, "Loose your shoe from off your foot," lest, by reason of the likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the church. None other is the bridegroom but Christ alone, of whom John said, "He who has the bride is the bridegroom." They, therefore, loose their shoes, but his shoe cannot be loosed, even as John said, "I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandal." … To whom else but the Word of God incarnate can those words apply? "His legs are pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold." For Christ alone walks in the souls and makes his path in the minds of his saints, in which, as upon bases of gold and foundations of precious stone the heavenly Word has left his footprints ineffaceably impressed.

And yet, just notice how this forerunner of his Lord, of one who is God and man, how much he humbles himself. No one has arisen greater among those born of women than this man, and here he is, questioned about whether he is himself the Christ. He was so great that people could make this mistake. They wondered whether he was himself the Christ, and they wondered about it seriously enough to question him. Now if he had been a son of pride, not a teacher of humility, he would not have taken steps to make them think that, but he would simply have accepted what they were already thinking. It would possibly have been overreaching himself to wish to persuade people that he was the Christ. If he had tried to do so and had not been believed, he would have been left high and dry, both rejected and dejected, both despised among people and condemned in God's eyes. But there was no need for him to persuade people. He could already see they were thinking this about him. He could simply accept their mistake and boost his own prestige.…Consider how inferior to him he would have been, even if he had been worthy. Consider how much he would have been debasing himself if this is what he had said: "He is greater than I am, and I am only worthy to undo the strap of his sandal." He would have been calling himself worthy at least to stoop down to his feet. But now, as it is, see how exalted he proclaimed him to be when he declared himself unworthy even to touch his feet, or rather his sandals! So John came to teach the proud humility, to proclaim the way of repentance.

"Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor a prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there standeth One among you whom ye know not." For, very truly, He was not seen, being humble, and therefore was the lamp lighted. Observe how John gives place, who might have been accounted other than he was. "He it is who cometh after me, who is made before me" (that is, as we have already said, is "preferred before me"), whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose." How greatly did he humble himself! And therefore he was greatly lifted up; for he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Hence, holy brethren, you ought to note that if John so humbled himself as to say, "I am not worthy to unloose His shoe-latchet," what need they have to be humbled who say, "We baptize; what we give is ours, and what is ours is holy." He said, Not I, but He; they say, We. John is not worthy to unloose His shoe's latchet; and if he had said he was worthy, how humble would he still have been! And if he had said he was worthy, and had spoken thus, "He came after me who is made before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am only worthy to unloose," he would have greatly humbled himself. But when he says that he is not worthy even to do this, truly was he full of the Holy Spirit, who in such fashion as a servant acknowledged his Lord, and merited to be made a friend instead of a servant.

(Tr. iv. c. 9) In His low estate He was not seen; and therefore the candle was lighted.

(Tr. iv) To have pronounced himself worthy even of unloosing His shoe's latchet, he would have been thinking too much of himself.

"He it is who is to come after me," because I precede him as a forerunner. "Who was made before me," that is, more worthy than I: below in chapter three: "I must decrease, but he must increase." And how much more worthy he is, he shows: "The strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten." In the literal sense this is true, because no one, however good, ought to consider himself worthy even to remove Christ's sandals; whence that centurion said in Matthew eight: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

Allegorically, the sandal is the humanity of Christ; the shod foot, the Divinity made human; the strap of the sandal, the union of natures. To loosen the strap of the sandal, therefore, is to explain the mystery of the union, for which John declares himself unworthy, because Isaiah fifty-three says: "His generation, who shall declare it?" As if to say: no one is worthy.

It is also asked concerning that word which he himself says: "Who is to come after me." Against this: In Matthew 11 it is said that he sent two of his disciples, saying to him: "Are you he who is to come, or do we look for another?" There he doubted; how does he assert it here? To this the heretics say that John first believed but afterwards doubted. But they lie, because the Lord then commended John. For this reason it must be said that John knew with certainty that he was the Christ; nor did he then inquire through his disciples as one doubting, but so that he might remedy the doubt of his own disciples, who did not believe in him.

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.

Of whom he also adds: "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? Of whom the same John also says: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom." 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. This however can also be understood in another way. For who does not know that sandals are made from dead animals? But the Lord coming incarnate appeared as if shod, because in his divinity he assumed the dead flesh of our corruption. Hence also through the Prophet he says: "Over Edom I will extend my sandal." For by Edom the Gentile world is signified, and by the sandal the assumed mortality is designated. Therefore the Lord asserts that he extends his sandal over Edom, because when he became known to the Gentiles through flesh, divinity came to us as if shod. But the human eye does not suffice to penetrate this mystery of the incarnation. For it can in no way be investigated how the Word becomes embodied, how the supreme and life-giving Spirit is animated within the womb of a mother, how he who has no beginning both exists and is conceived. The strap of the sandal therefore is the binding of the mystery. And so John is not able to untie the strap of his sandal, because he does not suffice to investigate even the mystery of his incarnation, he who recognized it through the spirit of prophecy. What therefore does it mean to say: "I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal," except openly and humbly to profess one's own ignorance? As if he plainly said: What wonder if he is preferred to me, whom I consider indeed born after me, but whose mystery of birth I do not comprehend? Behold John, filled with the spirit of prophecy, shines forth with wondrous knowledge, and yet he intimates concerning himself that which he does not know.

Made before me, i. e. preferred before me. He comes after me, that is, He is born after me; He is made before me, that is, He is preferred to me.

Or thus: It was a law of the old dispensation, that, if a man refused to take the woman, who of right came to him, to wife, he who by right of relationship came next to be the husband, should unloose his shoe. Now in what character did Christ appear in the world, but as Spouse of the Holy Church? (John 3:29.) John then very properly pronounced himself unworthy to unloose this shoe's latchet: as if he said, I cannot uncover the feet of the Redeemer, for I claim not the title of spouse, which I have no right to. Or the passage may be explained in another way. We know that shoes are made out of dead animals. Our Lord then, when He came in the flesh, put on, as it were, shoes; because in His Divinity He took the flesh of our corruption, wherein we had of ourselves perished. And the latchet of the shoe, is the seal upon the mystery. John is not able to unloose the shoe's latchet; i. e. even he cannot penetrate into the mystery of the Incarnation. So he seems to say: What wonder that He is preferred before me, Whom, being born after me, I contemplate, yet the mystery of Whose birth I comprehend not.

"Is before me," is more honorable, brighter. And then, lest they should imagine that His superiority was found by comparison, desiring to establish His incomparableness, he says, "Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose"; that is, who is not simply "before me," but before me in such a way, that I am not worthy to be numbered among the meanest of His servants. For to loose the shoe is the office of humblest service.

Now if John was not worthy to "unloose the latchet," John, than whom "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater," where shall we rank ourselves? If he who was equal to, or rather greater than, all the world, (for saith Paul, "the world was not worthy" of them,) declares himself not worthy to be reckoned even among the meanest of those who should minister unto Him, what shall we say, who are full of ten thousand sins, and are as far from the excellence of John, as earth from heaven.

He then saith that he himself is not "worthy so much as to unloose the latchet of His shoe"; while the enemies of the truth are mad with such a madness, as to assert that they are worthy to know Him even as He knows Himself. What is worse than such insanity, what more frenzied than such arrogance? Well hath a wise man said, "The beginning of pride is not to know the Lord."

He constantly adds "He who comes after me," in order to show that his baptism is not complete, but preparatory to the spiritual baptism. "He came before me," that is, more honored, more glorious than me, and to such a degree that I do not consider myself even among the least of His servants. For untying sandals is the task of the lowest service. I know, and I have read in one of the saints, the following explanation: "sandals" are everywhere understood as the flesh of sinners, subject to corruption, and the "strap" or band refers to the bonds of sin. Thus, John, with the others who came to him and confessed, was able to untie the strap of sins, for they came to him bound by the bonds of their own sins; and, persuading them to repentance, he showed them the way to the complete casting off of this strap and the sinful sandals; but on Christ, finding no strap or bond of sin, he naturally could not untie it either. Why then did he not find it? Because He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). The "sandal" signifies the Lord's appearing among us, and the "strap" of it signifies the manner of the incarnation and how the Word of God was united with a body. This manner is impossible to untie. For who can explain how God was united with a body?

Then John compares Christ to himself. First, he states the superiority of Christ as compared to himself. Secondly, he shows the greatness of this superiority.

He shows the superiority of Christ in comparison to himself both in preaching and in dignity. Now, as to the order of preaching, John was the first to become known. Thus he says, the one who is to come after me, to preach, to baptize and to die; because as was said in Luke (1:76): "You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way." John preceded Christ as the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; for as is said, "The spiritual is not first, but the animal" (1 Cor 15:46). For the entire life of John was a preparation for Christ; so he said above, that he was "a voice that cries in the wilderness."

But Christ preceded John and all of us as the perfect precedes the imperfect and the exemplar precedes the copy: "If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mt 16:24); "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example" (1 Pt 2:21).

Then he compares Christ to himself as to dignity, saying, who ranks ahead of me, i.e., he has been placed above me and is above me in dignity, because as he says (below 3:30), "he must increase, and I must decrease."

He touches on the greatness of his superiority when he says, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten. As if to say: You must not suppose that he ranks ahead of me in dignity in the way that one man is placed ahead of another, rather he is ranked so far above me that I am nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear from the fact that it is he the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, which is the least service that can be done for men. It is clear from this that John had made great progress in the knowledge of God, so far that from the consideration of God's infinite greatness, he completely lowered himself and said that he himself was nothing. So did Abraham, when he recognized God, and said (Gn 18:27), "1 will speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ashes." And so also did Job, saying, "Now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes" (Jb 42:5). Isaiah also said, after he had seen the glory of God, "Before him all the nations are as if they are not" (Is 40:17). And this is the literal explanation.

This is also explained mystically. Gregory explains it so that the sandal, made from the hides of dead animals, indicates our mortal human nature, which Christ assumed: "I will stretch out my sandal to Edom" (Ps 59:10). The strap of Christ's sandal is the union of his divinity and humanity, which neither John nor anyone can unfasten or fully investigate, since it is this which made God man and made man God. And so he says, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., to explain the mystery of the incarnation perfectly and fully. For John and other preachers unfasten the strap of Christ's sandal in some way, although imperfectly.

It is explained in another way by recalling that it was ordered in the Old Law that when a man died without children, his brother was obligated to marry the wife of the dead man and raise up children from her as his brother's. And if he refused to marry her, then a close relative of the dead man, if willing to marry her, was to remove the sandals of the dead man as a sign of this willingness and marry her; and his home was then to be called the home of the man whose sandals were removed (Dt 25:5). And so according to this he says, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten, i.e., I am not worthy to have the bride, that is, the Church, to which Christ has a right. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the bridegroom of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize only in water. As it says below (3:29): "It is the groom who has the bride."

The meaning of Bethany is, house of obedience; by which it is intimated to us, that all must approach to baptism, through the obedience of faith.

"These things were done in Bethany." Here the renown of the testimony is touched upon, which is noted in this, that he gave this testimony in a public place, where many were gathering. Therefore he says: "These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing"; and thus a great crowd was gathering; below in chapter three: "And John was also baptizing in Aennon near Salim, because there was much water there."

But he says that these things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, putting this too as a sign of accurate and careful narration. For we are all accustomed, so to speak, in our accounts of things that require it to mention also the places where they happened.

Or we must suppose two Bethanies; one over Jordan, the other on this side, not far from Jerusalem, the Bethany where Lazarus was raised from the dead.

Such an one was John, who regarded not the multitude, nor opinion, nor anything else belonging to men, but trod all this beneath his feet, and proclaimed to all with becoming freedom the things respecting Christ. And therefore the Evangelist marks the very place, to show the boldness of the loud-voiced herald. For it was not in a house, not in a corner, not in the wilderness, but in the midst of the multitude, after that he had occupied Jordan, when all that were baptized by him were present, (for the Jews came upon him as he was baptizing,) there it was that he proclaimed aloud that wonderful confession concerning Christ, full of those sublime and great and mysterious doctrines, and that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of His shoe. Wherefore he saith, "These things were done in Bethany," or, as all the more correct copies have it, "in Bethabara." For Bethany was not "beyond Jordan," nor bordering on the wilderness, but somewhere nigh to Jerusalem.

He marks the places also for another reason. Since he was not about to relate matters of old date, but such as had come to pass but a little time before, he makes those who were present and had beheld, witnesses of his words, and supplies proof from the places themselves. For confident that nothing was added by himself to what was said, but that he simply and with truth described things as they were, he draws a testimony from the places, which, as I said, would be no common demonstration of his veracity.

We are not unaware that "Bethany" occurs in nearly all the manuscripts.… But since we have been in these places, so far as historical account is concerned, of the footprints of Jesus and his disciples and the prophets, we have been convinced that we ought not to read "Bethany" but "Bethabara." …Bethabara means house of preparation, which agrees with the baptism of him who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord.… Jordan, again, means, "their descent." … Now what is this river but our Savior, through whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that he came down not for his own sake but for theirs?… This is the river that separates the lots given by Moses from those given by Jesus. "The streams" of this "river" that has descended "make glad the city of God." … As the dragon is in the Egyptian river, so God is in the river that makes glad the city of God, for the Father is in the Son. For this reason those who come to wash themselves in him put away the reproach of Egypt and become more worthy to be taken up. They are cleansed from the most abominable leprosy and receive a double portion of gifts and are prepared to receive the Holy Spirit since the dove of the Spirit has not flown to another river. Since, therefore, we have considered the Jordan in a manner more worthy of God, and the baptism in it, and Jesus who was baptized in it, … let us draw from the river as much of this help as we need.

(tom. vi. c. 24) Bethabara means house of preparation; which agreeth with the baptism of Him, who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord. (c.25. et seq.). Jordan, again, means, "their descent." Now what is this river but our Saviour, through Whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that He came down not for His own sake, but for theirs. This river it is which separateth the lots given by Moses, from those given by Jesus; its streams make glad the city of God. (c. 29). As the serpent lies hid in the Egyptian river, so doth God in this; for the Father is in the Son. Wherefore whosoever go thither to wash themselves, lay aside the reproach of Egypt, (Joshua 5:9.) are made meet to receive the inheritance, are cleansed from leprosy, (2 Kings 5:14.) are made capable of a double portion of grace, and ready to receive the Holy Spirit; (2 Kings 2:9.) nor doth the spiritual dove light upon any other river. John again baptizes beyond Jordan, as the precursor of Him Who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Why did the evangelist say that this took place in Bethany? In order to show the boldness of the great preacher, that he preached thus about Christ not in a house, not in a corner, but at the Jordan, amidst a multitude of people. It is necessary, however, to know that in the most accurate manuscripts it reads: in Bethabara. For Bethany is not on the other side of the Jordan, but near Jerusalem.

The place where these events happened is mentioned when he says, This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the Jordan. A question arises on this: Since Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, as is said in John (11:1) and also in Matthew (26:6), how can he say that these things happened beyond the Jordan, which is quite far from Jerusalem? Origen and Chrysostom answer that it should be called Bethabora, not Bethany, which is a village on the far side of the Jordan; and that the reading "Bethany" is due to a copyist's error. However, since both the Greek and Latin versions have Bethany, one should rather say that there are two places called Bethany: one is near Jerusalem on the side of the Mount of Olives, and the other is on the far side of the Jordan where John was baptizing.

The fact that he mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical reason. The literal reason, according to Chrysostom, is that John wrote this Gospel for certain ones, perhaps still alive, who would recall the time and who saw the place where these things happened. And so, to lead us to a greater certitude, he makes them witnesses of the things they had seen.

The mystical reason is that these places are appropriate for baptism. For in saying "Bethany," which is interpreted as "house of obedience," he indicates that one must come to be baptized through obedience to the faith. "To bring all the nations to have obedience to the faith" (Rom 1:5). But if the name of the place is "Bethabora," which is interpreted as "house of preparation," it signifies that a man is prepared for eternal life through baptism.

There is also a mystery in the fact that this happened on the far side of the Jordan. For "Jordan" is interpreted as "the descent of them"; and according to Origen it signifies Christ, who descended from heaven, as he himself says that he descended from heaven to do the will of his Father (below 6:38).

Further, the river Jordan aptly signifies baptism. For it is the border line between those who received their inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received it from Josue on the other side. Thus baptism is a kind of border between Jews and Gentiles, who journey to this place to wash themselves by coming to Christ so that they might put off the debasement of sin. For just as the Jews had to cross the Jordan to enter the promised land, so one must pass through baptism to enter into the heavenly land. And he says, on the far side of the Jordan, to show that John preached the baptism of repentance even to those who transgressed the law and sinners; and so the Lord also says, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mt 9:13).

One must not dismiss lightly the question concerning the exact hour at which the women came to the tomb. For if Matthew says, "In the evening of the sabbath, at the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Madgalene and other Mary came to see the tomb," what then does it mean that Mark says, "And early in the morning on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb at the rising of the sun"? The other two Gospels, Luke and John, do not disagree with Mark; Luke says "early in the morning," and John says "in the morning when it was still dark." Both statements are consistent with Mark's declaration that it was "early in the morning at the rising of the sun," that is, when the heavens in the east were brightening. But this doesn't occur except when the sun is very close to rising, a phenomenon which customarily is called the dawn. Therefore Mark does not oppose John, who says "when it was still dark," for as day is breaking the remaining shadows of darkness diminish only in proportion to the sun's rising. And Luke's phrase, "early in the morning," need not be understood to imply that the sun had already appeared above the horizon but rather is the kind of expression we normally use when we want to signify that something must be done earlier. For when we say "in the morning," lest we are understood to mean that the sun is already visible, we usually add "very early," so that we will be understood to refer to the dawn.Thus it is said "in the evening of the sabbath," as if he had said "in the night of the sabbath," that is, in the night which follows the day of the sabbath. Matthew's words themselves, however, are sufficient, for he says, "In the evening of the sabbath, at the dawn on the first day of the week." This would be impossible if we understood "in the evening" to signify only the first part of the night. For it is not the beginning of the night which "dawns on the first day of the week" but the night which begins to be terminated by the coming of the light. Now the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second part, but the end of the whole night is the light. Thus we cannot say that the evening is "at the dawn of the first day of the week" unless by "evening" we intend "night," which the light brings to an end. In addition, it is divine Scripture's customary way of distinguishing the whole from the part. Therefore by saying "evening" it signifies the whole night, the end of which is the dawn. Thus the women came to the tomb at dawn, and therefore they came at night, which is signified in Scripture by the designation of evening. For, as I have said, the whole night is included under that name. Therefore, in whatever part of the night they may have come, they came at night; even if they came at the very end of the night, the fact remains without a doubt that they came at night.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 24.) Concerning the hour when the women came to the sepulchre there arises a question not to be overlooked. Matthew here says, On the evening of the Sabbath. What then means that of Mark, Very early in the morning, the first day of the week? (Mark 16:2.) Truly Matthew, by naming the first part of the night, to wit, the evening, denotes the whole night in the end of which they come to the sepulchre. But seeing the Sabbath hindered them from doing this before, he designates the whole night by the earliest portion of it in which it became lawful for them to do whatever, during some period of the night, they designed to do. Thus, On the evening of the sabbath, is just the same as if he had said, On the night of the sabbath, i. e. the night which follows the day of the sabbath, which is sufficiently proved by the words which follow, As it began to dawn towards the first day of the week. This could not be if we understood only the first portion of the night, its beginning, to be conveyed by the word, evening. For the evening or beginning of the night does not begin to dawn towards the first day of the week, but only the night which is concluded by the dawn. And this is the usual mode of speaking in Holy Scripture, to express the whole by a part. By evening therefore he implied the night, in the end of which they came to the sepulchre.

(in loc.) Otherwise; It may be understood that they began to come in the evening, but that it was the dawn of the first day of the week when they reached the sepulchre; that is, that they prepared the spices for anointing the Lord's body in the evening, but that they took them to the sepulchre in the morning. This has been so shortly described by Matthew, that it is not quite clear in his account, but the other Evangelists give the order more distinctly. The Lord was buried on the sixth day of the week, and the women returning from the sepulchre prepared spices and ointments as long as it was lawful to work; on the sabbath they rested, according to the commandment, as Luke plainly declares; and when the Sabbath was past and the evening was come, and the season of labour returned, with zealous devotion they proceeded to purchase such spices as they yet lacked, (this is implied in Mark's words, when the sabbath was past, that they might go and anoint Jesus, for which purpose they come early in the morning to the sepulchre.

(Hom. Æst. i.) For from the beginning of the creation of the world until now, the course of time has followed this arrangement, that the day should go before the night, because man, fallen by sin from the light of paradise, has sunk into the darkness and misery of this world. But now most fitly night goes before day, when, through faith in the resurrection, we are brought back from the darkness of sin and the shadow of death to the light of life, by the bounty of Christ.

(Chapter 28, Verse 1) But on the evening of the Sabbath, which dawns on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. The fact that different times of these women are described in the Gospels is not a sign of falsehood, as the wicked claim, but rather the diligent duty of visitation, as they frequently go and come back, and do not allow themselves to be away from the Lord's tomb for a long time or further.

Or, otherwise; This apparent discrepancy in the Evangelists as to the times of their visits is no mark of falsehood, as wicked men urge, but shows the sedulous duty and attention of the women, often going and coming, and not enduring to be long absent from the sepulchre of their Lord.

"In the evening toward the dawn." Behold, with the Lord's resurrection the evening does not grow dark, it becomes light. What was normally the beginning of night now becomes the break of day. "In the evening of the sabbath toward the dawn of the first day of the week." Even as mortality is transformed into immortality, corruption into incorruption and flesh into the Word of God, the darkness is transformed into light, so that the night itself rejoices that it did not die but is transmuted.…"In the evening of the sabbath toward the dawn of the first day of the week." The sabbath rejoices that it now has a subservient effect. Under the yoke of the law the sabbath had become smugly apathetic and alienated from life-giving power. Through the primacy of the Lord's Day the sabbath is now wonderfully awakened to works of divine power. To paraphrase the Lord: Is it not permitted to heal the sick on the sabbath, to give aid to the afflicted, sight to the blind and life to the dead?

The apostles are preceded in ministry by women, who follow the men by gender and the disciples by order. The apostles are not thereby made masters by these women. These women are bringing to the sepulcher the form and appearance of women, but they together symbolize the wholeness of the Lord's churches. Mary and Mary: one as herself, and herself as the other. Mary, the single maternal name of Christ, is duplicated in two women. Here is symbolized the church coming from two peoples yet made into one from two peoples—that is, from the Gentiles and the Jews. For "the first shall be last and the last shall be first."

(Serm. 75.)g. Because the sabbath is illuminated, not taken away, by Christ, Who said, I am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. (Matt. 5:17.) It is illuminated that it may lighten into the Lord's day, and shine forth in the Church, when it had hitherto burnt dim, and been obscured by the Jews in the Synagogue. It follows, Came Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary, &c. Late runs woman for pardon, who had run early to sin; in paradise she had taken up unbelief, from the sepulchre she hastes to take up faith; she now hastens to snatch life from death, who had before snatched death from life. And it is not, They come, but came, (in the singular,) for in mystery and not by accident, the two came under one name. She came, but altered; a woman, changed in life, not in name; in virtue, not in sex. The women go before the Apostles, bearing to the Lord's sepulchre a type of the Churches; the two Marys, to wit. For Mary is the name of Christ's mother; and one name is twice repeated for two women, because herein is figured the Church coming out of the two nations, the Gentiles and the Jews, and being yet one. Mary came to the sepulchre, as to the womb of the resurrection, that Christ might be the second time born out of the sepulchre of faith, who after the flesh had been born of her womb; and that as a virgin had borne Him into this life present, so a sealed sepulchre might bring Him forth into life eternal. It is proof of Deity to have left a womb virgin after birth, and no less to have come forth in the body from a closed sepulchre.

It is to be known that Matthew designs to hint to us a mystical meaning, of how great worthiness this most holy night drew from the noble conquest of death, and the Resurrection of Our Lord. With this purpose he says, On the evening of the Sabbath. For whereas according to the wonted succession of the hours of the day, evening does not dawn towards day, but on the contrary darkens towards night, these words show that the Lord shed, by the light of His resurrection joy and brilliance over the whole of this night.

The sacred authors of the Gospels did not say whether the Savior was raised "after the sabbath," or when most of the night had passed, or at the dawn or when the sun had already begun to shine. Indeed, it would be contradictory for the authors to say that the same event transpired at different times. However, they did write that some of the women arrived at the tomb at one time and some of the women at another time, but not all at the same time—how could that be possible, since they came separately?—and that each of the women heard the angels say similar things regarding the Savior: "He is risen, he is not here," without adding when his resurrection occurred. It follows that if the resurrection had taken place on that divine night, as all of the Evangelists aver and agree, no one has specified the hour. [That hour] is unknown to the entire world except for the God who was raised and for the Father—who alone knows the Son as he is known by the Son—and except for the Spirit, who "searches everything, even the depths of God." …As for the expression "after the sabbath," it does not refer to the evening which follows the setting of the sun at the end of the sabbath, for Matthew did not use the singular opse sabbatou but the plural opse sabbatōn. The Jews were accustomed to call the entire week sabbata. Thus the Evangelists call the first day opse sabbatōn when they mean the first day of the week. We also use a colloquial expression when we call the second and third days of the week the second and third of the sabbata. Matthew then did not say opse sabbatou, that is, the evening of the sabbath, because he did not intend to denote the evening of that very day. Rather, he used opse sabbatōn so as to indicate that it was very late and well after the end of the week. Similarly, I think, we are in the habit of saying "you came opse tou kairou [well after the time], opse tēs hōras [well after the hour], opse tēs chreias [well after the need]" not in order to indicate the evening or the time after the setting of the sun but in order to suggest that the person arrived too late for the event. In a similar fashion, opse sabbatōn means that the women arrived very late and well after the end of the week. Now each week ends at the setting of the sun after the sabbath.

After the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the guards did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus Who was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy; and did run to bring His disciples word. "After the sabbath" means the same thing that Luke said, "at deep dawn," and that Mark said, "very early in the morning at the rising of the sun" (Lk. 24:1, Mk.l6:2). By "sun" we should understand here "the first dawning rays of the sun." For by the eighth hour of the night it is the beginning of the next day, and it already feels like morning. So it was then, after the sabbath, at the beginning of Sunday which the evangelist calls "the first day of the sabbath." As "sabbath" is the name they gave also to the seven days of the week when considered together, so Sunday, the Lord's day, [in Greek, kyriake] is "the first day of the sabbath," that is, the first day of the week. Following the first day are the Second, the Third, the Fourth and the Fifth. When the Lord rose, the stone was still in place against the tomb. Therefore, after the Lord had risen, the angel came to roll away the stone and give the women entrance into the tomb. There was an earthquake so that the guards would wake up and learn of this new and wondrous occurrence. The Lord rose on the third day; but how are the three days reckoned? He was crucified at the sixth hour on Friday; from then until the ninth hour, there was darkness: to me, this means "night." Again, from the ninth hour, there was light: this means "day." Lo, one day and night. Again, the night of Friday and the day of Saturday, the second day and night. And again, the night of Saturday and the dawn of Sunday, as Matthew says, "as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week;" the dawn is figured as one whole day. Lo, the third day and night. But three days can also be reckoned in another way: on Friday He gave up His spirit; this is the first day. On Saturday He was in the tomb; this is the second day. He rose during the morning hour of Sunday; from the part, Sunday is figured as another day. Behold, three days. So it is with those who have reposed; if one should die about the tenth hour of the day [i.e. 4 p.m.] and another about the first hour of the same day [i.e. 7 a.m.], they are both said to have died on the same day. But I have yet another explanation to give you of how three days and three nights can be reckoned. Attend closely. On Thursday evening the Lord had the supper and said to His disciples, "Take, eat, this is My Body." As He had authority to dispose of His own life, it is clear that from that moment He sacrificed Himself, in that He imparted His Body to His own disciples. For no one eats any meat which has not first been slaughtered. Therefore, reckon the three days as follows: on Thursday evening He imparted to them His own Body; that night and the day of Friday until the sixth hour - lo, the first day and night. Again, from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness, and from the ninth hour there was light until evening - lo, the second day and night. Again, the night following Friday, and the day of Saturday - lo, the third day and night. After the sabbath, He arose. These are three entire days and nights. Matthew says that the angel sat upon the stone, while Mark says that, having rolled away the stone, the angel sat inside the tomb, on the right side. Do they contradict each other? Not at all. It is likely that the angel first appeared seated upon the stone; then when the women entered, the angel preceded them and again appeared inside the tomb seated on the right side. The angel said to the women, "Fear not ye," that is, the guards indeed have reason to be afraid, but you, the women disciples of the Lord, need not fear. After taking away their fear, he announces to them the good tidings of the Resurrection. For it was necessary that he first cast out fear, and then bring the good tidings. He is not ashamed to call the Lord "He Who was crucified"; for the angel boasts in the cross as in a trophy of victory, the source of every good thing for us.

After he has completed the mysteries of the Lord's passion, the Evangelist treats of the triumph of the Lord's resurrection; and it is divided. For first it is shown how the disciples came to know Christ's resurrection through hearing; second, how through sight, so that through hearing and sight a certain testimony might be given. Concerning the first, first it is set forth how it was through hearing from the women; second, how from the guards. The second is at and when they had departed, behold some of the guards came into the city. Concerning the first he does two things. First he tells how the women came to know through the angel; second, through the vision of Christ, at and they went out quickly from the sepulcher. Concerning the first, three things. First the persons to whom the revelation was made are set forth; second, the angel revealing; third, the revelation. The second is at and behold there was a great earthquake; the third is at and the angel answering, said. Concerning the first he does three things. First he designates the time; second, the persons; third, their devotion. The time: and in the evening of the sabbath. And concerning this there is a twofold difficulty. The first concerns what he says, the evening; the second concerns what he says, it began to dawn. Concerning the first there is a difficulty, because Matthew and John seem to contradict each other, since John says that it was still dark. What then does he mean here by and in the evening of the sabbath? There is a threefold solution to this. The first is Jerome's, that they came in the evening and in the morning. And that this one says the evening, while the other says the morning, is not a discrepancy, but shows the diligence of the holy women. Bede resolves it thus, that they began to come in the evening, but arrived in the morning. But was there so great a distance? He says no; but a person is then said to do something when he prepares himself to do it. And this is found in Luke 23:55, that beholding the sepulcher and how his body was laid, returning, they prepared spices. On the day of preparation they bought spices, and on the sabbath they rested, and in the evening they prepared themselves to go. The third solution is Augustine's, who says that it is the customary manner in sacred Scripture to take the part for the whole; hence the evening is understood as the whole night of the sabbath; hence and in the evening of the sabbath, i.e., which is after the sabbath, hence the evening which is the beginning of the first day of the week. A similar usage is found in Gen. 1:5, in the account of the works of God: and there was evening and morning, one day. Hence they came in the evening, because in the last part of the night. And this is which began to dawn toward the first day of the week. The evening does not dawn, because evening grows dark. Hence they came when it was dawning, i.e., in the first hour of the day. Note that the Jews begin all the days of the week from the sabbath; hence the first day of the week is called the Lord's day. And if you were to ask Augustine why Mark uses such a manner of speaking, he will say that in the evening they prepared the spices, and in the morning they came; hence it amounts to the same thing that Bede says. But according to Jerome, how is what he says, which began to dawn, to be understood? Since evening grows dark. It should be known that for the Jews the day begins at evening. And the reason is that they observed their days from the moon; but the moon begins to shine in the evening; therefore that day begins in the evening, but it dawns toward the first day of the week. A similar manner of speaking is found in Luke 23:54: and it was the day of preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And this manner of speaking accords with the mystery: first, with the solemnity of the Lord's resurrection, because that night was luminous; Ps. 138:12: and night shall be as light as the day. Likewise it accords with the restoration of the human race, which was accomplished through Christ: for in the first man there was a progression from the day into the night, namely of sin; and the state was changed, namely from night into day; Eph. 5:8: you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Likewise it is signified that whatever was dark in the law and the prophets, all of it dawns through the resurrection of Christ. Dark water in the clouds of the air, Ps. 17:12. But this is illuminated in the resurrection, as is found in Luke 24:27: beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him. Next he treats of the persons: Mary Magdalene came, and the other Mary; and the mother of James is understood. Mark adds a third, and Salome: hence Salome is a woman's name. But it was not without mystery that two of the same name came; hence he willed to appear first to a woman, because in this the female sex is in a certain way restored: for just as a woman in the place of life first heard of death, so in the place of death, by divine ordination, she first saw life; Ecclus. 25:33: from the woman came the beginning of sin. Likewise they are of the same name, because through these the unity of the Church is signified: for at first one was from the Gentiles and one from the Jews, but now all are one Church; Cant. 6:8: one is my dove. Likewise they are called Marys: for just as Mary received a child from a closed womb, so these merited to see him coming forth from a closed tomb. Hence they came to see the sepulcher; and in this is signified their devotion, because they could not be satisfied; therefore, since they could not see him, they wished at least to see the sepulcher. Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also, above, 6:21.

According to Matthew, the angel sat upon the stone which had been rolled from the tomb, whereas Mark says that upon entering the tomb the women were astounded to see a young man sitting on the right, dressed in a white robe. This discrepancy would be troubling unless we understand that Matthew remained silent concerning that angel whom they saw when they entered the tomb and Mark remained silent concerning that angel whom they saw sitting on the stone outside the tomb. If this be the case, the women saw two angels and heard from them about Jesus progressively; first from the one who sat on the stone outside the tomb and then from the one whom they saw sitting on the right when they entered the tomb. They went into the tomb then because they had been exhorted to do so by the angel sitting outside, when he said, "Come and see where the Lord was placed." Upon entering, as it is written, they saw and heard similar things from the angel sitting on the right side of the tomb, who is mentioned by Mark but ignored by Matthew.If this explanation fails to satisfy, we certainly ought to understand that when they entered the tomb they were in some sort of walled enclosure which, it is reasonable to believe, had been established as a secured location in front of the rock from which the tomb was cut. According to this scenario, the angel whom they saw sitting on the right side of the tomb would have been in the same space as the angel who Matthew says was sitting on the stone which, at the time of the earthquake, had been rolled back from the entrance to the tomb, that is, from the sepulcher cut from the rock.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 24.) It may disquiet some, how it is that according to Matthew the Angel sate upon the stone after it had been rolled back from the sepulchre, whereas Mark says that the women having gone into the sepulchre, saw a young man sitting on the right hand. Either we may suppose that they saw two, and that Matthew has not mentioned him whom they saw within, nor Mark him whom they saw without the sepulchre; but that they heard from each severally what the Angels said concerning Jesus. Or the words, entering into the sepulchre, (Mark 16:5.) may mean entering into some enclosed place, which probably there might be in front of the rock out of which the sepulchre was hewn; and thus it might be the same Angel whom they saw sitting on the right hand, whom Matthew describes as sitting on the stone which he had rolled back.

(ubi sup.) The earthquake at the Resurrection, as also at the Crucifixion, signifies that worldly hearts must be first moved to penitence by a health-giving fear through belief in His Passion and Resurrection.

(ubi sup.) Forasmuch as Christ is both God and man, therefore there lack not amidst the acts of His humanity the ministrations of Angels, due to Him as God. And came and rolled back the stone; not to open the door for the Lord to come forth, but to give evidence to men that He was already come forth. For He who as mortal had power to enter the world through the closed womb of a Virgin, He when become immortal, was able to depart out of the world by rising from a sealed sepulchre.

(ubi sup.) And rightly did the Angel appear standing, who proclaimed the Lord's coming into the world, to show that the Lord should come to vanquish the prince of this world. But the Herald of the Resurrection is related to have been seated, to show that now He had overcome him that had the power of death, He had mounted the throne of the everlasting kingdom. He sate upon the stone, now rolled back, wherewith the mouth of the sepulchre had been closed, to teach that He by His might had burst the bonds of the tomb.

The earthquake is the might of the resurrection, when the sting of death being blunted, and its darkness illuminated, there is stirred up a quaking of the powers beneath, as the Lord of the heavenly powers rises again.

This is an instance of the mercy of God the Father, to supply the ministry of heavenly power to the Son on His resurrection from the grave; and he is therefore the proclaimer of this first resurrection, that it may be heralded by some attendant token of the Father's good pleasure.

(Vers. 2, 3.) And behold, there was a great earthquake. For an Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and approaching, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. And His appearance was like lightning, and His garment like snow. Our Lord, the one and the same Son of God and Son of Man, according to both natures, divinity and flesh, now demonstrates signs of His greatness and humility. Therefore, even in this place, though He is a man who was crucified, who was buried, who was confined in a tomb, whom a stone held back, yet the things that happen outside reveal the Son of God: the sun fleeing, darkness falling, the earth shaking, the veil torn, rocks split, the dead raised, the ministry of angels, which from the beginning of His nativity confirmed Him as God. Gabriel came to Mary, while Joseph speaks with the angel; the same announces it to the shepherds, afterwards the chorus of angels is heard saying: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will (Luke II). He is tempted in solitude, and after victory immediately served by angels. Now also the Angel comes, the guardian of the Lord's tomb, and in white garments signifies the glory of the triumphant. Moreover, as the Lord ascends to heaven, two angels are seen on the Mount of Olives, promising the apostles according to the Saviour's coming (Acts I).

And, behold, there was a great earthquake. Our Lord, Son at once of God and man, according to His twofold nature of Godhead and of flesh, gives a sign one while of His greatness, another while of His lowliness. Thus, though now it was man who was crucified, and man who was buried, yet the things that were done around show the Son of God.

"But in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from Heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door of the tomb, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow."

After the resurrection came the angel. Wherefore then came he, and took away the stone? Because of the women, for they themselves had seen Him then in the sepulchre. Therefore that they might believe that He was risen again, they see the sepulchre void of the body. For this cause he removed the stone, for this cause also an earthquake took place, that they might be thoroughly aroused and awakened. For they were come to pour oil on Him, and these things were done at night, and it is likely that some also had become drowsy.

An angel descended and rolled back the stone. He did not roll back the stone to provide a way of escape for the Lord but to show the world that the Lord had already risen. He rolled back the stone to help his fellow servants believe, not to help the Lord rise from the dead. He rolled back the stone for the sake of faith, because it had been rolled over the tomb for the sake of unbelief. He rolled back the stone so that he who took death captive might hold the title of Life. Pray, brothers, that the angel would descend now and roll away all the hardness of our hearts and open up our closed senses and declare to our minds that Christ has risen, for just as the heart in which Christ lives and reigns is heaven, so also the heart in which Christ remains dead and buried is a grave. May it be believed that just as he died, so was he transformed. Christ the man suffered, died and was buried; as God, he lives, reigns, is and will be forever.

"His appearance," says the Evangelist, "was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow." The brightness of his countenance is distinguished from the brilliance of his clothing. His face is compared with lightning from heaven and his garment to snow falling upon the earth. Listen to the prophet as he says, "Praise the Lord from the earth, you fire, hail and snow!" In the angel's face, then, heaven's brilliance adapts to nature. His clothing symbolizes the grace of human fellowship, and the appearance of this angel as he speaks is so tempered that physical eyes can withstand the peaceful brilliance of his raiment. As they look upon the lightning of his appearance, they tremble and revere the messenger of their Maker.

(Serm. 77 et 74.) If the earth thus quaked when the Lord rose again to the pardon of the Saints, how will it quake when He shall rise again to the punishment of the wicked? As the Prophet speaks, The earth trembled when the Lord rose again to judgment. (Ps. 76:8.) And how will it endure the Lord's presence, when it was unable to endure the presence of His Angel? And the Angel of the Lord descended from heaven. For when Christ arose, death was destroyed, commerce with heaven is restored to things on the earth; and woman, who had of old held communication to death with the Devil, now holds communication to life with the Angel.

(Serm. 74.) He said not 'rolled,' but rolled back; because the rolling to of the stone was a proof of death; the rolling it back asserted the resurrection. The order of things is changed; The Tomb devours death, and not the dead; the house of death becomes the mansion of life; a new law is imposed upon it, it receives a dead, and renders up a living, man. It follows, And sat thereon. He sat down, who was incapable of weariness; but sat as a teacher of the faith, a master of the Resurrection; upon the stone, that the firmness of his seat might assure the sted fastness of the believers; the Angel rested the foundations of the Faith upon that rock, on which Christ was to found His Church. Or, by the stone of the sepulchre may be denoted death, under which we all lay; and by the Angel sitting thereon, is shown that Christ hath by His might subdued death.

The rolling back of the stone signifies the opening of Christ's sacraments, which were covered by the letter of the Law. For the Law having been writen on stones, is here denoted by the stone.

And behold there was a great earthquake. Here the angel revealing is treated. And first the arrival of the angel is touched upon; second, his work; third, his appearance; fourth, the effect. The second is at and coming, he rolled back the stone; the third is at and he sat upon it; the fourth is at and for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror. And concerning the first, first the arrival is foreshadowed; second, the cause of the arrival is touched upon, at and the angel of the Lord descended from heaven. He says therefore and behold there was a great earthquake. This was fitting, and has a literal cause. One reason, according to Chrysostom, is that these women had come by night, and therefore it could have been that they were sleeping; so the earthquake was made in order to rouse them. Jerome says that something had been touched upon regarding the humanity, therefore something should be touched upon regarding the divinity; hence when the sepulcher, which pertained to the humanity, is treated, an earthquake occurs, to signify that such a dead man could not be held beneath the earth. For he was free among the dead, Ps. 87:6. Mystically, the earthquake occurred twice, so that by the one might be signified the movement of hearts, because through his death we were freed from sin; and by the other, the passage to glory; Rom. 4:25: he was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification. And in Ps. 59:4: thou hast moved the earth, and hast troubled it. Likewise, this resurrection is a certain prefiguration of the future resurrection: for in the future resurrection there will be a trembling of the earth; Ps. 75:9: the earth trembled and was still, when God arose in judgment. And why? It is added: the angel of the Lord descended from heaven. If the earth could not sustain an angel, much less will it be able to sustain the coming of Christ for judgment. And he says he descended; for although an angel is not circumscribed by place, nevertheless he is determined to a place according to his operation; therefore a certain movement befits him. Likewise it is fitting that the resurrection be announced by an angel, both on account of the glory of him by whom it was accomplished, as Paul says in Acts 13:30: God raised him up from the dead. For his ministers are the angels. Likewise, to denote the dignity of the one rising. Concerning this one it is said above in chapter 4:11 that angels came and ministered to him. Likewise it is fitting, because through the resurrection heavenly things were joined to earthly things. Next the work of the angel is set forth: and coming, he rolled back the stone, etc. And this according to the letter, in order to open the way for the women, because in truth Christ had already risen: for just as he came forth from a closed womb, so from a sealed sepulcher. Hence this was done to manifest it to the women; hence he rolled back, i.e., he rolled it again, to signify the glory of the one rising; and this rolling back signified the manifestation of the law, which was written on tablets of stone. Next his appearance is set forth. And first, as to his position; second, as to his countenance; third, as to his garments. As to his position, because he sat, not as one weary, but to signify that he was a teacher of the divine resurrection. Likewise, sitting befits those who are at rest: and by this is signified the rest which he had from the resurrection in glory; Rom. 6:9: Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him. Likewise, sitting befits one who rules; Ps. 109:1: the Lord said to my Lord: sit thou at my right hand. And he sits upon the stone, namely the devil, to signify that he now had dominion over both death and the devil.

Hence Matthew also, describing the angel's appearance, says: "His appearance was like lightning, and his garments like snow." For in lightning there is the terror of fear, but in snow there is the gentleness of brightness. Since indeed almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the just, rightly the angel, witness of his resurrection, is shown both with a countenance like lightning and with garments of brightness, so that by his very appearance he might both terrify the reprobate and soothe the devout. Hence also the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day rightly went before the people journeying through the desert. For in fire there is terror, but in cloud there is the gentle comfort of vision; and day is taken as the life of the just, and night as the life of the sinner. Hence Paul also says to converted sinners: "You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord." Therefore by day the pillar was shown through cloud, and by night through fire, because almighty God will appear both gentle to the just and terrible to the unjust. Coming in judgment, he soothes the former through the mildness of gentleness, but terrifies the latter through the severity of justice.

(Hom. in Ev. xxi. 4.) Or otherwise; Lightning inspires terror; snow is an emblem of equity; and as the Almighty God is terrible to sinners and mild to the righteous, so this Angel is rightly a witness of His resurrection, and is exhibited with a countenance as lightning, and with raiment as snow, that by His presence He might terrify the wicked, and comfort the good; and so it follows, And for fear of him the keepers did shake.

The Angel in white raiment signifies the glory of His triumph.

(Serm. 75.) The splendour of his countenance is distinct from the shining of his raiment; his countenance is compared to lightning, his raiment to snow; for the lightning is in heaven, snow on the earth; as the Prophet saith, Praise the Lord from the earth; fire and hail, snow and vapours. (Ps. 148:7.) Thus in the Angel's countenance is preserved the splendour of his heavenly nature; in his raiment is shown the grace of human communion. For the appearance of the Angel that talked with them is so ordered, that eyes of flesh might endure the still splendour of his robes, and by reason of his shining countenance they might tremble before the messenger of their Maker.

(Serm. 77.) But what means this raiment where there is no need of a covering? The Angel figures our dress, our shape, our likeness in the Resurrection, when man is sufficiently clothed by the splendour of his own body.

And his countenance was as lightning. Here he is described by his countenance; and in this it is clear that he appeared in an assumed body. But why as lightning? Because just as lightning has brightness, so also the angels have knowledge; Dan. 10:6: and his eyes as a burning lamp. But Christ is he who enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world, John 1:9. Likewise, lightning causes terror, and so does the countenance of an angel; hence in Luke 1:9 it is said that Zacharias was frightened at the voice of the angel. Likewise he is described by his garments: his raiment was white as snow, by which is signified the brightness of the just. Mystically, however, the glory of the resurrection is signified; Apoc. 3:5: he that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments. Likewise, brightness of life; Eccles. 9:8: at all times let thy garments be white. Likewise, note that he says that his countenance was as lightning and his raiment white as snow, because in the judgment he will be terrible to the wicked and will comfort the good; John 16:22: I will see you, and your heart shall rejoice.

(Vers. 4, 5.) However, because of his fear, the guards were terrified and became like dead men. But the angel, responding, said to the women: Do not be afraid. For I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified: He is not here, for he has risen as he said. The guards, terrified by fear, lie stupefied like dead men, and yet the angel comforts not them, but the women. Do not be afraid. Let them, he says, fear: let fear continue in those in whom unbelief persists. Furthermore, because you seek Jesus who was crucified, listen to the fact that He has risen and fulfilled the promises.

The guards lay like dead men in a trance of terror, but the Angel speaks comfort not to them, but to the women, saying, Fear not ye; as much as to say, Let them fear with whom unbelief abides; but do ye who seek the crucified Jesus hear that He has risen again, and has accomplished what He promised.

The angel mentions the name of Jesus, alludes to his cross, speaks about his Passion and refers to his death. He then proclaims his resurrection and confesses his lordship. After all the punishment and after the sepulcher, the angel heralds the Lord, speaks of his subjection and sees that the full offense of the Passion has been transmuted into the glory of the resurrection. How could anyone judge that God was lessened by becoming human? Or believe that his power was demeaned by the Passion? Or think that his sovereignty was diminished by his servanthood? The angel speaks worthily of the crucified one. He shows the very place where the Lord's body was laid, lest someone else and not he is believed to have risen from the dead.

(Serm. 75.) For they kept watch over Him with a purpose of cruelty, not with the solicitude of affection. And no man can stand who is forsaken by his own conscience, or troubled with a sense of guilt. Hence the Angel confounds the wicked, and comforts the good.

These who had not the faith of love were shaken with a panic fear; and they who would not believe the truth of the resurrection become themselves as dead men.

And for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror. Here the effect of the apparition is set forth, because fear arose in their hearts; and rightly so, because they guarded him out of a bad conscience, and wickedness is always fearful, Wis. 17:10. And they became as dead men, they who wanted to hold Christ in death as far as it was in their power; Isa. 33:3: at the voice of the angel the peoples fled.

But let us hear what he says to the women as they arrive: "Do not be afraid." As if he were saying openly: Let those fear who do not love the coming of the heavenly citizens; let those be terrified who, weighed down by carnal desires, despair of being able to reach their fellowship. But why should you be afraid, who see your fellow citizens? Hence Matthew also, describing the angel's appearance, says: "His appearance was like lightning, and his garments like snow." For in lightning there is the terror of fear, but in snow there is the gentleness of brightness. Since indeed almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the just, rightly the angel, witness of his resurrection, is shown both with a countenance like lightning and with garments of brightness, so that by his very appearance he might both terrify the reprobate and soothe the devout.

And for what intent and cause doth he say, "Fear not ye?" First he delivers them from the dread, and then tells them of the resurrection. And the ye is of one showing them great honor, and indicating, that extreme punishment awaits them that had dared to do, what the others had dared, except they repented. For to be afraid is not for you, he means, but for them that crucified Him.

Having delivered them then from the fear both by his words, and by his appearance (for his form he showed bright, as bearing such good tidings), he went on to say, "I know that ye seek Jesus the Crucified." And he is not ashamed to call Him "crucified;" for this is the chief of the blessings.

(Serm. 77.) For their faith had been bowed by the cruel storm of His Passion, so that they sought Him yet as crucified and dead; I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified; the weight of the trial had bent them to look for the Lord of heaven in the tomb, but, He is not here.

And the angel answering, said to the women, etc. Here follows the announcement of the resurrection. And first he strengthens the women; second, he commends their devotion; third, he declares the joy; fourth, he enjoins upon them the office of announcing. He says therefore and the angel answering, etc. But to what does he respond? To the intention of the women. They are not recorded as having said anything, out of fear: for it is always the case that a person is disturbed at the apparition of an angel, whether a good or bad angel appears; because human nature is fragile. But as blessed Antony says, if the angel is good, he always leaves one consoled, as is clear in the apparition to Zacharias and the Virgin Mary, to both of whom it was said: fear not, etc., Luke 1:30. So also he comforts these women. And if the angel leaves a person desolate, it is certain that it was not a good angel. Therefore he said fear not you; as if to say: it is not for you to fear, because you love Christ. For you have not received the spirit of bondage in fear, Rom. 8:15. For he did not comfort the guards, because they were not worthy. Then he commends their devotion: for I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified. But do the angels know thoughts? It seems not; Jer. 17:9: the heart of man is perverse and unsearchable; who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins. It must be said that they do not, except through divine revelation, or through a sign, because frequently the indications of the will are had through bodily gestures. You seek Jesus. He names him, to signify that he is the same. Likewise, who was crucified: and in this he hints at their small faith, because they were seeking him in the place of death and believed that he could be held by death.

So the angel became an evangelist and herald of the resurrection to the women. "Do not seek," he says, "the one who" always "lives," who in his own nature is life, "among the dead. He is not here," that is, dead and in the tomb, "but he has been raised." He has become a way of ascent to immortality not only for himself but also for us. For this reason he made himself nothing and put on our likeness, that "by the grace of God," just as the blessed Paul says, "he might taste death on behalf of all." And so he has become the death of death.

But now let us hear what the angel adds: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus in the Latin tongue means "salutary," that is, it is interpreted as "Savior." But indeed many at that time could be called Jesus, yet not substantially, but only nominatively. Therefore the place is also added, so that it might be made clear which Jesus is meant: "of Nazareth." And he immediately added the reason: "the Crucified One." And he added: "He has risen, He is not here." "He is not here" is said with respect to the presence of His flesh, though He is nowhere absent with respect to the presence of His majesty.

(Vers. 6, 7.) Come and see the place where the Lord was laid. And quickly going, say to his disciples. That if you do not believe my words, you may believe in the empty tomb, and go with quick steps and announce to his disciples.

Because he has risen, and behold, he goes before you to Galilee: there you will see him: behold, I have told you.

That if my words fail to convince you, the empty tomb may.

"He is risen." Whence is it evident? "As He said." So that if ye refuse to believe me, he would say, remember His words, and neither will ye disbelieve me. Then also another proof, "Come and see the place where He lay." For this he had lifted up the stone, in order that from this too they might receive the proof.

The Lord rises in the same flesh. He brings back the wounds, takes on again the holes from the nails and bears witness by his very body with the signs of his resurrection, which were the ravages of his suffering. If so, how could anyone imagine that he might return in some other body? How could anyone fail to believe that he will return in his own flesh? It is fanciful to think that the servant would by chance disdain his own flesh. Rest assured, my friend, when you arise from the dead it will be you in your own body. Otherwise it would not be you if you should rise in the flesh of another.

(Serm. 76.) Thus the Angel first announces His name, declares His Cross, and confesses His Passion; but straightway proclaims Him risen and their Lord. An Angel after such sufferings, after the grave acknowledges Him Lord; how then shall man judge that the Godhead was diminished by the flesh, or that His Might failed in His Passion. He says, Which was crucified, and points out the place where the Lord was laid, that they should not think that it was another, and not the same, who had risen from the dead. And if the Lord reappears in the same flesh, and gives evidence of His resurrection, why should man suppose that he himself shall reappear in other flesh? Or why should a slave disdain his own flesh, seeing the Lord did not change ours?

After the mockings and scourgings, after the mingled draughts of vinegar and gall, the pains of the cross, and the wounds, and finally after death itself and Hades, there rose again from the grave a renewed flesh, there returned from obstruction a hidden life, health chained up in death broke forth, with fresh beauty from its ruin.

His fleshly presence, that is; for His spiritual presence is absent from no place. He is risen, as he said.

Then he announces the resurrection: he is risen, namely by his own power; Ps. 3:6: I have slept and have taken my rest, and I have risen up, because the Lord hath protected me. And he proves this by the recollection of the word of God: as he said; for above, 20:19, he had said: and the third day he shall rise again. For the word of the Lord cannot fail. Likewise he points to the visible evidence: come and see the place where the Lord was laid; hence they saw the stone rolled back, and they did not see Christ, because he had risen from the closed tomb.

But let us see what mystery it was for the sake of which, according to Matthew and Mark, our Lord when He rose again gave the following command, I will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see me. Which although it was accomplished, yet it was not till after many other things had happened, whereas it was so commanded, that it might be expected that it would have taken place alone, or at least before other things.

(ut sup.) But that which was said by the Angel, that is the Lord, must be taken prophetically, for by the word Galilee according to its meaning of transmigration, it is to be understood that they were about to pass over from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, to whom the Apostles preaching would not entrust the Gospel, unless the Lord Himself should prepare His way in the hearts of men. And this is what is meant by, He shall go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him. But according to the interpretation of Galilee, by which it means "manifestation," we must understand that He will be revealed no more in the form of a servant, but in that form in which He is equal to the Father, which He has promised to His elect. That manifestation will be as it were the true Galilee, when we shall see Him as He is. This will also be that far more blessed transmigration from the world to eternity, from whence though coming to us He did not depart, and to which going before us He has not deserted us.

(Hom. ubi sup.) The Lord is rightly seen by His disciples in Galilee, forasmuch as He had already passed from death to life, from corruption to incorruption; for such is the interpretation of Galilee, 'Transmigration.' Happy women! who merited to announce to the world the triumph of the Resurrection! More happy souls, who in the day of judgment, when the reprobate are smitten with terror, shall have merited to enter the joy of the blessed resurrection!

"But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goes before you into Galilee." We must ask why, when the disciples are named, Peter is designated by name. But if the angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come among the disciples. Therefore he is called by name, lest he despair because of his denial. In this matter we must consider why Almighty God permitted him whom He had determined to place over the whole Church to fear the voice of a servant girl and to deny himself. This we recognize was done by a dispensation of great mercy, so that he who was to be the Pastor of the Church might learn through his own fault how he ought to show mercy to others. Therefore He first showed him to himself, and then set him over the rest, so that from his own weakness he might learn how mercifully he should bear with the weaknesses of others.

It is well said of our Redeemer: "He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." For Galilee is interpreted as "migration accomplished." Indeed, our Redeemer had already migrated from passion to resurrection, from death to life, from punishment to glory, from corruption to incorruption. And he was first seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, because we will joyfully see the glory of his resurrection afterward, if we now migrate from vices to the heights of virtues. Therefore, he who is announced at the tomb is shown in the migration, because he who is recognized in the mortification of the flesh is seen in the migration of the mind.

Mystically; He shall go before you into Galilee, that is, into the wallowing stye of the Gentiles, where before was wandering and stumbling, and the foot had no firm and steady resting-place.

"And tell His disciples, that ye shall see Him in Galilee." And he prepares them to bear good tidings to others, which thing most of all made them believe. And He said well "in Galilee," freeing them from troubles and dangers, so that fear should not hinder their faith.

The angel goes on to say, "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen; and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; you will see him there." The angel here sends not merely the women but the church in the two women. He sends the one so that by sending her he may spread the news far and wide. Here the angel is sending the bride to the bridegroom.

(Serm. 77.) As much as to say, Woman, now thou art healed, return to the man, and persuade him! to faith, whom thou didst once persuade to treachery. Carry to man the proof of the Resurrection, to whom thou didst once carry counsel of destruction.

And this glad tiding is given not to you alone for the secret comfort of your own hearts, but ye must extend it to all who love Him; Go quickly, and tell his disciples.

Then he enjoins upon them the office of announcing: and going quickly, tell his disciples that he is risen. And he enjoins three things. First, that they should announce the resurrection; second, the place; third, that they should promise them a vision. And just as the first woman first spoke with the devil, so a woman first spoke with a good angel, so that all things might be restored. Second, the place is indicated: and he will go before you into Galilee. And why first into Galilee? For he was not first seen in Galilee, but in Jerusalem. But why does he name Galilee rather? To signify that he is the same one who used to dwell in Galilee. Likewise, so that they might be freed from fear, because they dwelt more safely in Galilee than in Judea. Or mystically, Galilee is interpreted as 'passage,' and can signify the passage to the Gentiles. Hence you will see him in Galilee, i.e., you will announce my name to the Gentiles. But they would not do this unless he went before them. There you shall see him, as he foretold you. Hence the word of the Lord is of such power that it cannot be otherwise. But here there is a literal question, because here it is said that they saw him sitting upon the stone; but in another Evangelist it is said that entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side. Augustine resolves this by saying that they saw a vision of angels twice: hence it was possible that they saw one outside and another inside. Or it can be said that the sepulcher does not only mean the hewn stone, but there was some structure there in which the tomb was enclosed; hence what Mark says, entering into the sepulcher, is not to be understood of the stone itself, but of the space in which it was enclosed. And this is clear, because it is said here that they went out quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy, etc.

It may also be asked how it is that Mark says: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid;" whereas Matthew's statement is in these terms: "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring His disciples word." The explanation, however, may be that the women did not venture to tell either of the angels themselves,—that is, they had not courage enough to say anything in reply to what they had heard from the angels. Or, indeed, it may be that they were not bold enough to speak to the guards whom they saw lying there; for the joy which Matthew mentions is not inconsistent with the fear of which Mark takes notice. Indeed, we ought to have supposed that both feelings had possession of their minds, even although Matthew himself had said nothing about the fear. But now, when this evangelist also particularizes it, saying, "They departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy," he allows nothing to remain which can occasion any question of difficulty on this subject.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 23.) They departed forth of the tomb, that is, from that spot of the garden which was before the tomb hewn in the rock.

(Hom. ubi sup.) The Lord is rightly seen by His disciples in Galilee, forasmuch as He had already passed from death to life, from corruption to incorruption; for such is the interpretation of Galilee, 'Transmigration.' Happy women! who merited to announce to the world the triumph of the Resurrection! More happy souls, who in the day of judgment, when the reprobate are smitten with terror, shall have merited to enter the joy of the blessed resurrection!

(Verse 8.) And they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples. The women's minds were filled with mixed emotions, fear and joy: one because of the greatness of the miracle, the other out of longing for the risen one; and yet both stirred up a feminine fervor. They went to the apostles, so that through them the seed of faith might be scattered.

A twofold feeling possessed the minds of the women, fear and joy; fear, at the greatness of the miracle; joy, in their desire of Him that was risen; but both added speed to their women's steps, as it follows, And did run to bring his disciples word. They went to the Apostles, that through them might be spread abroad the seed of the faith.

"And they departed from the sepulchre with fear and joy." Why could this be? They had seen a thing amazing, and beyond expectation, a tomb empty, where they had before seen Him laid. Wherefore also He had led them to the sight, that they might become witnesses of both things, both of His tomb, and of His resurrection. For they considered that no man could have taken Him, when so many soldiers were sitting by Him, unless He raised up Himself. For this cause also they rejoice and wonder, and receive the reward of so much continuance with Him, that they should first see and gladly declare, not what had been said only, but also what they beheld.

Above, the resurrection was announced to the women; here they are certified of it through Christ. And the Evangelist does three things. First the women are described; second, the meeting with Christ; third, the office of announcing is enjoined. The second is at and behold Jesus met them; the third is at fear not, etc. In the first there are three notable things to consider. First, the state of the women; second, their feeling; third, their intention. The state is touched upon when it says they went out quickly from the sepulcher. As to the letter, the sepulcher does not mean the hewn stone, but that space which was secured by some fortification. According to the mystery, the sepulcher is the place of the dead: and by this is signified the state of sin; Ps. 87:6: like the wounded sleeping in the sepulchers. Hence to go out of the sepulcher is to go out of sin; 2 Cor. 6:17: wherefore go out from among them, etc. And note that he says quickly, because one must go out of sin quickly; Ecclus. 5:8: delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. Likewise, a twofold feeling is touched upon, namely of fear and joy. Fear at the vision of the angel, joy at the resurrection: fear from human frailty, joy from the divine vision; Ps. 29:6: in the evening weeping shall have place, and in the morning gladness. So the sinner should fear; Ecclus. 5:5: be not without fear about sin forgiven. But he should rejoice in the hope of the resurrection; Ps. 2:11: serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling. Then the intention is touched upon: running to tell his disciples, etc. And this befits penitents, because they should run and hasten to advance in good works; 1 Cor. 9:24: so run that you may obtain. And Heb. 4:11: let us hasten to enter into that rest. Likewise their good intention is touched upon, because he willed that what they had received, they should communicate to others; 1 Pet. 4:10: as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another.

(ubi sup.) We conclude that they had speech of Angels twice at the sepulchre; when they saw one Angel, of whom Matthew and Mark speak; and again when they saw two Angels, as Luke and John relate. And twice in like manner of the Lord; once at that time when Mary supposed Him to be the gardener, (John 20:15.) and now again when He met them in the way to confirm them by repetition, and to restore them from their faintness.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. ult.) That the Lord, both by His own mouth, and by the Angel, directs them to seek for Him, not in that place in which He was to show Himself first, but in Galilee, makes every believer anxious to understand in what mystery it is spoken. Galilee is interpreted 'transmigration,' or 'revelationa'. And according to the first interpretation what meaning offers itself, save this, that the grace of Christ was to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would not believe when the Apostles should preach the Gospel to them, unless the Lord Himself should first make ready their way in the hearts of men. This is the signification of that, He shall go before you into Galilee. There shall ye see him, means, there shall ye find His members, there shall ye perceive His living Body in such as shall receive you. According to the other interpretation, 'revelation,' it is to be understood, ye shall see him no longer in the form of a servant, but in that in which He is equal with the Father. That revelation will be the true Galilee, when we shall be like him, and shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2.) That will be the blessed passing from this world to that eternity.

But the teacher says to her: "Do not touch me." Not because the Lord after the resurrection refused the touch of women, since of the two coming to his tomb it is written: "They approached, and held his feet."

But the reason why she should not touch him is also added when he continues: "For I have not yet ascended to my Father." For in our heart Jesus ascends to the Father when he is believed to be equal to the Father.

The events during which the small band of women first saw the Lord, were greeted by him, fell to their knees and were commanded to announce the good news to the apostles reverse the order present at the beginning of the world. The gender through which death entered the world would also be the first to receive the glory, vision, fruit and news of the resurrection. The guards, who had seen everything, spurned the glory of the resurrection when they accepted a bribe to lie about the theft of Christ's body. They sold their silence regarding the resurrection in exchange for the honor and pleasure of this world, for its honor is in money.

The women having been comforted by the Angel, are straightway met by the Lord, that when they should proclaim His resurrection to the disciples, they should speak rather from Christ's own mouth than from an Angel's.

(Verse 9.) And behold, Jesus met them, saying: Greetings. Those who were searching, those who were running in this manner, deserved to meet the risen Lord, and first to hear, Greetings: so that the curse of the woman Eve would be overturned in women.

But they drew near and held his feet, and adored him. These came near and held his feet, because they adored him. But she, who sought the living among the dead, and still did not know that the Son of God had risen, rightly hears: Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father (John 20:17).

Two different feelings occupied the minds of the women: fear and joy. Fear came from the magnitude of the miracle they had witnessed and joy from their desire for the resurrection. Nevertheless both feelings impelled their steps. They continued on to the apostles so that through them the seed of faith would be scattered."And behold, Jesus met them, saying 'Hail!' " They who sought him out and ran to him deserved to be the first to meet the risen Lord and to hear him say, "Hail." Thus it happened that Eve's curse was undone by these women.

They who thus desired, and who thus ran, merited to have their rising Lord come to meet them; whence it follows, And, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail.

The women ought first to hear this Hail, that the curse of the woman Eve may be removed in these women.

Therefore after then they had departed with fear and joy, "Behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail." But "they held Him by the feet," and with exceeding joy and gladness ran unto Him, and received by the touch also, an infallible proof, and full assurance of the resurrection. "And they worshipped Him." What then saith He? "Be not afraid." Again, He Himself casts out their fear, making way for faith, "But go, tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." Mark how He Himself sends good tidings to His disciples by these women, bringing to honor, as I have often said, that sex, which was most dishonored, and to good hopes; and healing that which was diseased.

Perchance some one of you would wish to be like them, to hold the feet of Jesus; ye can even now, and not His feet and His hands only, but even lay hold on that sacred head, receiving the awful mysteries with a pure conscience. But not here only, but also in that day ye shall see Him, coming with that unspeakable glory, and the multitude of the angels, if ye are disposed to be humane; and ye shall hear not these words only, "All hail!" but also those others, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you before the foundation of the world."

While they were going, the Lord "met them" and said, "Hail!" When he meets them, he does not frighten them with his power but comes before them with the ardor of his love. He does not startle them with his authority but greets them warmly. He binds them by the covenant of the bridegroom, not by the right of the ruler. He honors them with the love of a brother. He greets them with a gracious salutation. At one time he had said to his disciples, "Salute no one on the road." So why is it that here along the way this visitor is so quick to salute them? He does not wait to be recognized. He does not demand to be understood. He does not allow himself to be questioned. Rather, he extends this greeting immediately, enthusiastically. He did this because the force of his love overcomes and surpasses all. Furthermore, by doing so Christ himself greets the church. He makes its very heart to be his own and thus receives its body into his own, as the apostle says, "And he is the head of the body, the church." This greeting itself evidently shows that the full figure of the church abides in these women. They are contrasted with those disciples whom Christ scolds who were wavering over the resurrection. He quells their fears by showing his side and the deep holes from the nails. By taking food, he now restores their faith.

(Serm. 76.) That in these women is contained a full figure of the Church is shown hereby, that Christ convinces His disciples when in doubt concerning the Resurrection, and confirms them when in fear; and when He meets them He does not terrify them by His power, but prevents them with the ardour of love. And Christ in His Church salutes Himself, for He has taken it into His own Body.

(ubi sup.) Then Mary was not suffered to touch Him; now she has permission not only to touch, but to hold Him altogether; they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

(ubi sup.) They hold Christ's feet, who in the Church present the type of Evangelic preaching, and merit this privilege by their running to Him; and by faith so detain their Saviour's footsteps, that they may come to the honour of His perfect Godhead. She is deservedly bid to touch me not, who mourns her Lord upon earth, and so seeks Him dead in the tomb, as not to know that He reigns in heaven with the Father. This, that the same Mary, one while exalted to the summit of faith, touches Christ, and holds Him with entire and holy affection; and again, cast down in weakness of flesh, and womanly infirmity, doubts, undeserving to touch her Lord, causes us no difficulty. For that is of mystery, this of her sex; that is of divine grace, this of human nature. And so also we, when we have knowledge of divine things, live unto God; when we are wise in human things, we are blinded by our own selves.

(Serm. 80.) They held His feet to show that the head of Christ is the man, but that the woman is in Christ's feet, and that it was given to them through Christ, not to go before, but to follow the man.

Hereby He showed that He will meet with His help all those who begin the ways of virtue, and enable them to attain to everlasting salvation.

It was told above how He rose when the sepulchre was closed, to show that that body which had been shut up therein dead, was now become immortal. He now offers His feet to be held by the women, to show that He had real flesh, which can be touched by mortal creatures.

And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Rejoice! And they came and grasped His feet and worshipped Him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell My brethren that they should go into Galilee and there shall they see Me. Jesus says to the women, "Rejoice!" As womankind had been sentenced to sorrow, so the Lord procured joy for womankind by His Resurrection, and blessed them. With extreme reverence and honor for Him they grasped His feet, in their piety not daring to touch any other part of His Body. Some say that they grasped His feet purposely to ascertain if He had truly risen, and was not only an apparition or a spirit. For they suspected that He was a spirit. These two Mary's, therefore, touched His feet; but according to John, Mary Magdalene attempted to touch Him but was not permitted to do so, because she wanted to continue to be with Him as she had before (Jn. 20:17). Or perhaps she was not permitted to touch Jesus, in John's account, because she was being too curious. For since she had already touched His feet, as Matthew says, what need was there for her to touch Him again? So He kept her at arm's length.

And behold Jesus met them. Here the meeting with Christ is set forth. And first the meeting is set forth; second, the greeting; third, the women's reverence. He says therefore and behold Jesus met them. And rightly does he say that he met them, because he met them unexpectedly, giving grace; Wis. 6:14: he preventeth them that covet him, so that he first showeth himself to them; Isa. 64:5: thou hast met him that rejoiceth and doth justice. Likewise he greeted them, saying all hail. In Greek, 'all hail' signifies joy; hence it was said above that they went with joy. Hence spiritual joy is always increased in the just, and this through spiritual speech; Ps. 84:5: I will hear what the Lord will speak in me. And these were words of consolation: for just as the first woman heard the curse, so these women heard the blessing, and a blessing answers to the curse. And then they came up and took hold of his feet, and adored him. Hence they approach, hold his feet, and adore. So the soul of a sinner should not receive the grace of God in vain: and this is signified because they came up; Ps. 33:6: come ye to him, and be enlightened. Likewise they should firmly cling to him: and this is signified in that they took hold of his feet. Deut. 33:3: they that approach his feet shall receive of his doctrine. Likewise their reverence is touched upon in that it says and they adored him, because they recognized him as God; Ps. 131:7: we will adore in the place where his feet stood. But there can be a question, because in John 20:12 she is told: do not touch me; but here it is said that they took hold of his feet. Therefore it must be understood that they saw him twice, and once they saw one angel, as Augustine says, and the other time two; but they also saw Christ twice. First Mary Magdalene saw him weeping, as is found in John 20:14. But afterwards, when the others arrived, he met them, and then they took hold of his feet; but Mary Magdalene at first was not able to hold him; and this, according to Augustine, because at first she doubted, and therefore was not worthy; but already certified, she was made worthy to touch Christ, so that the exterior touch might accord with the interior.

The concealment of the Resurrection, and the false allegation of theft, is purchased by money; because by the honour of this world, which consists in money and desire, Christ's glory is denied.

For the sake of these soldiers that earthquake took place, in order to dismay them, and that the testimony might come from them, which accordingly was the result. For the report was thus free from suspicion, as proceeding from the guards themselves. For of the signs some were displayed publicly to the world, others privately to those present on the spot; publicly for the world was the darkness, privately the appearance of the angel, the earthquake. When then they came and showed it (for truth shines forth, being proclaimed by its adversaries), they again gave money, that they might say, as it is expressed, "that His disciples came and stole Him."

How did they steal Him? O most foolish of all men! For because of the clearness and conspicuousness of the truth, they are not even able to make up a falsehood. For indeed what they said was highly incredible, and the falsehood had not even speciousness. For how, I ask, did the disciples steal Him, men poor and unlearned, and not venturing so much as to show themselves? What? was not a seal put upon it? What? were there not so many watchmen, and soldiers, and Jews stationed round it? What? did not those men suspect this very thing, and take thought, and break their rest, and continue anxious about it? And wherefore moreover did they steal it? That they might feign the doctrine of the resurrection? And how should it enter their minds to feign such a thing, men who were well content to be hidden and to live? And how could they remove the stone that was made sure? how could they have escaped the observation of so many? Nay, though they had despised death, they would not have attempted without purpose, and fruitlessly to venture in defiance of so many who were on the watch. And that moreover they were timorous, what they had done before showed clearly, at least, when they saw Him seized, all rushed away from Him. If then at that time they did not dare so much as to stand their ground when they saw Him alive, how when He was dead could they but have feared such a number of soldiers? What? was it to burst open a door? Was it that one should escape notice? A great stone lay upon it, needing many hands to move it.

They were right in saying, "So the last error shall be worse than the first," making this declaration against themselves, for that, when after so much mad conduct they ought to have repented, they rather strive to outdo their former acts, feigning absurd fictions, and as, when He was alive, they purchased His blood, so when He was dead and risen again, they again by money were striving to undermine the evidence of His resurrection. But do thou mark, I pray thee, how by their own doings they are caught everywhere. For if they had not come to Pilate, nor asked for the guard, they would have been more able to act thus impudently, but as it was, not so. For indeed, as though they were laboring to stop their own mouths, even so did they all things. For if the disciples had not strength to watch with Him, and that, though upbraided by Him, how could they have ventured upon these things? And wherefore did they not steal Him before this, but when ye were come? For if they had been minded to do this, they would have done it, when the tomb was not yet guarded on the first night, when it was to be done without danger, and in security. For it was on the Sabbath that they came and begged of Pilate to have the watch, and kept guard, but during the first night none of these was present by the sepulchre.

And what mean also the napkins that were stuck on with the myrrh; for Peter saw these lying. For if they had been disposed to steal, they would not have stolen the body naked, not because of dishonoring it only, but in order not to delay and lose time in stripping it, and not to give them that were so disposed opportunity to awake and seize them. Especially when it was myrrh, a drug that adheres so to the body, and cleaves to the clothes, whence it was not easy to take the clothes off the body, but they that did this needed much time, so that from this again, the tale of the theft is improbable.

What? did they not know the rage of the Jews? and that they would vent their anger on them? And what profit was it at all to them, if He had not risen again?

So these men, being conscious that they had made up all this tale, gave money, and said, "Say ye these things, and we will persuade the governor." For they desire that the report should be published, fighting in vain against the truth; and by their endeavor to obscure it, by these even against their will they occasioned it to appear clearly. For indeed even this establishes the resurrection, the fact I mean of their saying, that the disciples stole Him. For this is the language of men confessing, that the body was not there. When therefore they confess the body was not there, but the stealing it is shown to be false and incredible, by their watching by it, and by the seals, and by the timidity of the disciples, the proof of the resurrection even hence appears incontrovertible.

Nevertheless, these shameless and audacious men, although there were so many things to stop their mouths, "Say ye," these are their words, "and we will persuade, and will secure you." Seest thou all depraved? Pilate, for he was persuaded? the soldiers? the Jewish people? But marvel not, if money prevailed over soldiers. For if with His disciple it showed its might to be so great, much more with these.

"And this saying is commonly reported," it is said, "until this day." Seest thou again the disciples' love of truth, how they are not ashamed of saying even this, that such a report prevailed against them.

(Hom. xc.) Of the signs which were shown around Christ, some were common to the whole world, as the darkness; some peculiar to the watch, as the wonderful apparition of Angels, and the earthquake, which were wrought for the soldiers' sake, that they might be stunned with amazement, and bear testimony to the truth. For when truth is proclaimed by its adversaries, it adds to its brightness. Which befel now; Some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the Chief Priests all the things that were done.

Simple minds, and unlearned country-folk, often make manifest without guile the truth of a matter, as the thing is; but on the other hand, a crafty wickedness studies how to recommend falsehood by glosing words.

Now when they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we were sleeping. And if the governor should hear of this, we will persuade him, and secure you from trouble. So they took the money and did as they had been directed: and this story is commonly told among the Jews until this day. The guards reported everything: that there had been an earthquake, that the stone had been lifted away of a sudden, and that they themselves had been terrified and had become as ones dead. But the Jews were shamed neither by the miracles which had occurred at His Passion nor by the things which the soldiers had witnessed at the tomb; instead they corrupted the soldiers by their own favorite passion, the love of money, inducing the soldiers to utter the most impious and ridiculous thing of all: that He had been stolen. How, you foolish ones, could the disciples have stolen Him when in fear they had secluded themselves and did not even dare to go out at all? How, if they had stolen Him, would they later die for Him, preaching that He had risen, and be hacked to pieces for a lie?

And when they had departed, behold some, etc. Here the announcement made through the guards is treated. And first the announcement is set forth; second, the impediment, at and being assembled together with the ancients, etc. He says therefore and when they had departed, etc. And why did they wait so long? It must be said that it was stated that for fear the guards were struck with terror. And perhaps the Lord did this lest they should cause trouble for the women. Behold some of the guards came into the city and told the chief priests. And why the chief priests? Because they had familiarity with them; likewise, because they had received payment from them. Nevertheless they announced it to Pilate; hence in a certain letter which Pilate sent to Tiberius, it is written how the guards announced it to Pilate, etc. And they told them. Already it was being signified that through the mouths of the Gentiles the resurrection of Christ was to be made manifest.

(Vers. 12 seqq.) And when they were gathered with the elders, after taking counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying: Tell them that his disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep. And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And the story spread among the Jews to this day. The guards confessed the miracle: they returned to the city and reported to the chief priests all that they had seen and experienced. Those who were supposed to convert to repentance and seek the risen Jesus persist in wickedness, and they turn the money that was given for the use of the temple into the redemption of lies, just as they had previously given thirty pieces of silver to Judas the betrayer. Therefore, all those who misuse the temple offerings and those things that are given for the use of the church for other purposes, in order to fulfill their own desires, are similar to the scribes and priests who bought the lie and the Savior's blood.

Thus the Chief Priests, who ought to have been by this turned to penitence, and to seek Jesus risen, persevere in their wickedness, and convert the money which was given for the use of the Temple to the purchase of a lie, as before they had given thirty pieces of silver to the traitor Judas.

All who abuse to other purposes the money of the Temple, and the contributions for the use of the Church, purchasing with them their own pleasure, are like the Scribes and Priests who bought this lie, and the blood of the Saviour.

Then the malice of those who impeded is set forth. And first the malice of the chief priests is touched upon; second, the corruption of the guards; third, the effect on the people. Concerning the first, four things concur to aggravate the malice of these men. First, the assembly is set forth; hence he says and being assembled together with the ancients, etc., because it was not one man only; Dan. 12:5: wickedness came out from the ancients of the people. Likewise the malice is aggravated, because they did this not from weakness, but from malice, or from a malicious plan; and this is the counsel of the wicked, of which Ps. 1:1 says: blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly. Likewise they used fraud, because they spent the money offered for the purpose of lying; hence they knew that saying of Eccles. 10:19, that all things obey money. As Jerome says, these are like those who spend ecclesiastical goods for pleasure.

How did they steal Him? O most foolish of all men! For because of the clearness and conspicuousness of the truth, they are not even able to make up a falsehood. For indeed what they said was highly incredible, and the falsehood had not even speciousness. For how, I ask, did the disciples steal Him, men poor and unlearned, and not venturing so much as to show themselves? What? was not a seal put upon it? What? were there not so many watchmen, and soldiers, and Jews stationed round it? What? did not those men suspect this very thing, and take thought, and break their rest, and continue anxious about it? And wherefore moreover did they steal it? That they might feign the doctrine of the resurrection? And how should it enter their minds to feign such a thing, men who were well content to be hidden and to live? And how could they remove the stone that was made sure? how could they have escaped the observation of so many? Nay, though they had despised death, they would not have attempted without purpose, and fruitlessly to venture in defiance of so many who were on the watch. And that moreover they were timorous, what they had done before showed clearly, at least, when they saw Him seized, all rushed away from Him. If then at that time they did not dare so much as to stand their ground when they saw Him alive, how when He was dead could they but have feared such a number of soldiers? What? was it to burst open a door? Was it that one should escape notice? A great stone lay upon it, needing many hands to move it.

They were right in saying, "So the last error shall be worse than the first," making this declaration against themselves, for that, when after so much mad conduct they ought to have repented, they rather strive to outdo their former acts, feigning absurd fictions, and as, when He was alive, they purchased His blood, so when He was dead and risen again, they again by money were striving to undermine the evidence of His resurrection. But do thou mark, I pray thee, how by their own doings they are caught everywhere. For if they had not come to Pilate, nor asked for the guard, they would have been more able to act thus impudently, but as it was, not so. For indeed, as though they were laboring to stop their own mouths, even so did they all things. For if the disciples had not strength to watch with Him, and that, though upbraided by Him, how could they have ventured upon these things? And wherefore did they not steal Him before this, but when ye were come? For if they had been minded to do this, they would have done it, when the tomb was not yet guarded on the first night, when it was to be done without danger, and in security. For it was on the Sabbath that they came and begged of Pilate to have the watch, and kept guard, but during the first night none of these was present by the sepulchre.

And what mean also the napkins that were stuck on with the myrrh; for Peter saw these lying. For if they had been disposed to steal, they would not have stolen the body naked, not because of dishonoring it only, but in order not to delay and lose time in stripping it, and not to give them that were so disposed opportunity to awake and seize them. Especially when it was myrrh, a drug that adheres so to the body, and cleaves to the clothes, whence it was not easy to take the clothes off the body, but they that did this needed much time, so that from this again, the tale of the theft is improbable.

What? did they not know the rage of the Jews? and that they would vent their anger on them? And what profit was it at all to them, if He had not risen again?

So these men, being conscious that they had made up all this tale, gave money, and said, "Say ye these things, and we will persuade the governor." For they desire that the report should be published, fighting in vain against the truth; and by their endeavor to obscure it, by these even against their will they occasioned it to appear clearly. For indeed even this establishes the resurrection, the fact I mean of their saying, that the disciples stole Him. For this is the language of men confessing, that the body was not there. When therefore they confess the body was not there, but the stealing it is shown to be false and incredible, by their watching by it, and by the seals, and by the timidity of the disciples, the proof of the resurrection even hence appears incontrovertible.

(ubi sup.) Not content to have put the Master to death, they plot how they may destroy the disciples, and make the Master's power matter of charge against His disciples. The soldiers indeed lost Him, the Jews missed Him, but the disciples crimed Him away, not by theft, but by faith; by virtue, and not by fraud; by holiness, and not by wickedness; alive, and not dead.

But if the guards slept, how saw they the theft? And if they saw it not, how could they witness thereto? So that what they desire to show, they cannot show.

Likewise in that they urged a lie. And first they urge it; second, they promise impunity. They urge a lie: say, his disciples came by night and stole him away. Jer. 9:5: they have taught their tongue to speak lies. In Ps. 26:12: iniquity hath lied to itself. And truly, as Jerome says, a lie, because the disciples were so stupefied that they would not have dared to approach. Likewise, if they had had to approach, they would have approached on the first day, when the guards were not present. Likewise this is clear because the linen cloths remained; hence if they had taken him, they would not have left them. Likewise, it is certain that he was buried with spices, so that the linen cloths adhered like glue, and they could scarcely have removed them. Likewise the stone was great; hence they could not have loosened it without great assistance and without much noise. Likewise Augustine argues thus: either they came while you were awake, or while you were sleeping. If while you were awake, why did you not drive them out? If while you were sleeping, how did you see them? And so it is clear that it was a lie.

(non occ.) That the fear of the Governor might not restrain them from this lie, they promise them impunity.

Nevertheless, these shameless and audacious men, although there were so many things to stop their mouths, "Say ye," these are their words, "and we will persuade, and will secure you." Seest thou all depraved? Pilate, for he was persuaded? the soldiers? the Jewish people? But marvel not, if money prevailed over soldiers. For if with His disciple it showed its might to be so great, much more with these.

Among these misdeeds, we find the priests bribing people and, what is worse, deceiving them by pointing falsely to the misdeeds of others. Meanwhile they were putting a price on sin. They paid money to cover up their manipulations. They buy out Judas who betrayed his Lord. They compensate with money the blood of the Savior of the world. They try to shut up faith in the empty tomb by purchasing silence. With petty theft they deal in the greater crime of denying the resurrection. "They gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, 'Tell people, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." Among the Christians too. What they covered up with gold in Judea would shine brightly and intensely over the whole world. The disciples received Christ; they did not steal him. You purchased treachery, but you did not steal the truth. Christ rose from the dead. You lost money.

Then they promise impunity; for they could say: we will be punished if the governor hears of it. Hence he says and if the governor shall hear of this, we will persuade him and secure you. And how could they do this? It must be said that the governor did not much care. Likewise, they knew that he would not punish them except at their request; therefore they knew that, etc. In this the cunning of the devil is signified.

The guards acknowledged the miracle, returned to the city quickly and described to the chief priest what they had witnessed. Those who should have turned, repented and sought out the resurrected Jesus continued instead in their wickedness. They converted the money which had been given to the temple into a bride for their falsehood, just as they had earlier given thirty pieces of silver to Judas, the betrayer. Everyone therefore who diverts the offerings given to the temple or to the church for other purposes, namely, the satisfaction of his own will, is like these scribes and chief priests who purchased a lie and bought the blood of the Savior.

"And this saying is commonly reported," it is said, "until this day." Seest thou again the disciples' love of truth, how they are not ashamed of saying even this, that such a report prevailed against them.

See how all are corrupted; Pilate persuaded; the people stirred up; the soldiers bribed; as it follows, And they look the money, and did as they were instructed. If money prevailed with a disciple so far as to make him become the betrayer of his Master, what wonder that the soldiers are overcome by it.

(ubi sup.) Among the Jews, not among the Christians; what in Judæa the Jew concealed by his gold, is by faith blazed abroad throughout the world.

But as the guilt of His blood, which they imprecated upon themselves and their children, presses them down with a heavy weight of sin, so the purchase of the lie, by which they deny the truth of the Resurrection, charges this guilt upon them for ever; as it follows, And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

But they, having received the money, did as they were taught. It is not surprising if the soldiers were corrupted by money, because even one of his disciples had been corrupted. Ecclus. 10:9: nothing is more wicked than the covetous man. And this was spread abroad. And not only until this was written, but even until now.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 25.) But it is to be considered, how the Lord could be seen bodily in Galilee. For that it was not the day of the Resurrection is manifest; for He was seen that day in Jerusalem in the beginning of the night, as Luke and John evidently agree. Nor was it in the eight following days, after which John says that the Lord appeared to His disciples, and when Thomas first saw Him, who had not seen Him on the day of the Resurrection. For if within these eight days the eleven had seen Him on a mountain in Galilee, Thomas, who was one of the eleven, could not have seen Him first after the eight days. Unless it be said, that the eleven there spoken of were eleven out of the general body of the disciples, and not the eleven Apostles. But there is another difficulty. John having related that the Lord was seen not in the mountain, but at the sea of Tiberias, by seven who were fishing, adds, This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after he was risen from the (John 21:14.) dead. (Mark 16:14.) So that if we understand the Lord to have been seen within those eight days by eleven of the disciples, this manifestation at the sea of Tiberias will be the fourth, and not the third, appearance. Indeed, to understand John's account at all it must be observed, that he computes not each appearance, but each day on which Jesus appeared, though He may have appeared more than once on the same day; as He did three times on the day of His Resurrection. We are then obliged to understand that this appearance to the eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee took place last of all. In the four Evangelists we find in all ten distinct appearances of Our Lord after His Resurrection. 1. At the sepulchre to the women. 2. To the same women on their way back from the sepulchre. 3. To Peter. 4. To two disciples as they went into the country. 5. To many together in Jerusalem; 6. when Thomas was not with them. 7. At the sea of Tiberias. 8. At the mountain in Galilee, according to Matthew. 9. To the eleven as they sat at meat, because they should not again eat with Him upon earth, related by Mark. 10. On the day of His Ascension, no longer on the earth, but raised aloft in a cloud, as related by both Mark and Luke. But all is not written, as John confesses, for He had much conversation with them during forty days before His ascension, being seen of them, and speaking unto them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3.)

'Beda, in Hom.' non occ.) When Saint Matthew has vindicated the Lord's Resurrection as declared by the Angel, he relates the vision of the Lord which the disciples had, Then the eleven disciples went into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. For when coming to His Passion the Lord had said to His disciples, After I am risen I will go before you into Galilee; (Matt. 26:32.) and the Angel said the same to the women. Therefore the disciples obey the command of their Master. Eleven only go, for one had already perished.

(Verse 16, 17.) However, the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. After the resurrection, Jesus is seen on a mountain in Galilee and is worshipped there; although some doubt, their doubt strengthens our faith. Then he shows himself more clearly to Thomas and shows him the wound in his side from the spear and the nails in his hands.

After His Resurrection, Jesus is seen and worshipped in the mountain in Galilee; though some doubt, their doubting confirms our faith.

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, and some worshipped, and some when they saw Him doubted."

This seems to me to be the last appearance in Galilee, when He sent them forth to baptize. And if "some doubted," herein again admire their truthfulness, how they conceal not even their shortcomings up to the last day. Nevertheless, even these are assured by their sight.

According to John, Jesus was first seen by His disciples on the same day of the Resurrection, when the doors were closed; then eight days later when Thomas also believed. Then, since He intended to meet them in Galilee, they no longer assembled all together, but He next appeared only to those seven who were fishing on the sea of Tiberias. So the events Matthew described here occurred later, while the events in John's account occurred earlier. For forty days Jesus appeared to the disciples many times, coming to them and then withdrawing, but not remaining continually with them.

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, etc. Above it has been heard how knowledge of the resurrection came to the disciples from the revelation of the women; here, how it came from his being seen. And it is divided: because first the apparition of Christ is set forth; second, the instruction of him who appears. The second is at and Jesus coming, spoke to them. Concerning the first he does three things. First the place of the vision is described; second, the vision; third, the response. He says therefore the eleven disciples, because they were obedient to Christ, went into Galilee. That he says eleven is to be understood because Judas had departed; John 6:71: I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil. But two things are to be noted, that Christ is seen in Galilee, and that on a mountain. Galilee is interpreted as 'passage.' By this it is signified that no one can see God unless he is transferred by a twofold passage, namely from vice to virtue; above, 5:8: blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. Likewise, from mortality to immortality; hence the Apostle says in Phil. 1:23: I am straitened between the two, having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Likewise he was seen on a mountain, to signify that whoever wishes to see God must tend toward the heights of justice; Ps. 83:3: they shall go from virtue to virtue. Likewise, that it was on a mountain signifies the excellence to which he was exalted through the resurrection: for while he was in the world, he was in the valley of mortality, and he ascended the mountain of immortality through the resurrection. Isa. 2:2: it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And note that he appears to them in the place where he had appointed, in which is signified obedience, because only the obedient come to the divine vision; John 14:15: if you love me, keep my commandments; and there follows: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Ps. 118:104: by thy commandments I have had understanding; i.e., from the observance of the commandments. Hence in the old law no one was permitted to go up the mountain; the new law supplies what was lacking.

(Hom. Æst. in Fer. vi. Pasch.)b. The Lord appeared to them in the mountain to signify, that His Body which at His Birth He had taken of the common dust of the human race, He had by His Resurrection exalted above all earthly things; and to teach the faithful that if they desire there to see the height of His Resurrection, they must endeavour here to pass from low pleasures to high desires. And He goes before His disciples into Galilee, because Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept. (1 Cor. 15:20.) And they that are Christ's follow Him, and pass in their order from death to life, contemplating Him as He appears with His proper Divinity. And it agrees with this that Galilee is interpreted 'revelation.'

This is more fully told by Luke; how when the Lord after the Resurrection appeared to the disciples, in their terror they thought they saw a spirit.

Therefore the eleven foremost disciples, together with all the others who followed Christ, worshipped Him; "but some doubted." In all likelihood this should be understood in the following sense: the eleven disciples went to Galilee and the eleven worshipped Him. "But some" of the seventy, perhaps, had doubts concerning Christ; but later they also were assured. Some understand it in this manner: Matthew omitted to say who it was that doubted; but John mentioned what Matthew omitted, saying that it was Thomas who doubted (Jn. 20:24-25). Yet perhaps they all doubted, as Luke says (Lk. 24:41). You ought therefore to understand it in this manner, that when they came to Galilee they worshipped Him. But they who worshipped in Galilee had previously doubted in Jerusalem, as Luke says.

And it was necessary that he appear to them, because witnesses had to be given for so great a work. But he himself gave witnesses not only by hearing, but also by sight; 1 John 1:2: what we have seen and heard (...) this we testify. But the question is, when was this apparition made: and according to what Augustine says, it was not on the first day of the resurrection, because in the evening the vision took place where Thomas was not. Likewise, neither within the octave nor on the eighth day, because they were in Jerusalem for eight days. Nor can we say that it was immediately after the eight days: because we would contradict John, who says that when he manifested himself at the Sea of Tiberias, this was now the third time that Jesus was manifested; and this here is not the third, but was made after that third one. And seeing him. It should be noted that there are two kinds of those who contemplate the great works of God: for some hold them in reverence. Hence Abraham said, Gen. 18:27: I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes; and Job 9:14: what am I that I should answer him, and speak with him in my own words? And there follows: therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes. Likewise this reverence is found in the angels. Apoc. 7:11: all the angels fell before the throne upon their faces, and adored God. And this is because the more someone knows him, the more he reveres him. But some are turned to unbelief: for they wish to bring all things to the level of their own understanding; hence whatever they do not understand, they blaspheme. So it was with the disciples, because seeing him they adored him; Ps. 31:7: we will adore in the place where his feet stood. But some doubted; therefore the Lord gave himself to be touched, as is said in Luke 24:39.

In the time of the old covenant, the sabbath was highly revered. Now under the gospel the sabbath has been recast, now viewed as the Lord's resurrection day. The sabbath formerly had pertained to the pedagogy and rudiments of the law. When the great master himself came and fulfilled them all for us, all that had prefigured his coming was transformed. The old sabbath was like a candle lit in the night before the rising and appearing of the sun.

And when the Sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, it is written that returning from the tomb, they prepared spices and ointments, and on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. Therefore, the commandment of the law was that the silence of the Sabbath be maintained from evening to evening; and so the devout women, after the Lord was buried, as long as they were allowed to work, that is, until sunset, were occupied in preparing the ointments, as Luke writes. And because then, due to the shortness of the time, they were unable to complete the work, they hurried soon after the Sabbath had passed, that is, at sunset, when the permission to work had returned, to buy spices, as Mark recounts, so that coming early they might anoint his body. For neither did they wish to visit the tomb in the evening of the Sabbath, with the approach of nightfall already impending.

And Mark follows this, and says: "They had bought sweet spices, in order that they might come and anoint Him. And very early (in the morning), the first day of the week, they come unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." For this evangelist also has used the term "very early," which is just the same as the "very early in the morning" employed by the former; and he has added, "at the rising of the sun." Thus they set out, and took their way first when it was "very early in the morning," or (as Mark says) when it was "very early;" but on the road, and by their stay at the sepulchre, they spent the time till it was sunrise.

(ord. ex Bedâ.) For these religious women after the burial of the Lord, as long as it was lawful to work, that is, up to sunset, prepared ointment, as Luke says. (Luke 23:56) And because they could not finish their work from the shortness of the time, when the sabbath was over, that is, at sunset, as soon as the time for working came round again, they hastened to buy spices, as Mark says, that they might go in the morning to anoint the body of Jesus. Neither could they come to the sepulchre on the evening of the sabbath, for night prevented them. Wherefore it goes on: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

You have heard, most beloved brethren, that the holy women who had followed the Lord came to the tomb with spices, and to him whom they had loved while living, they render service with devoted care even when dead. But this deed signifies something to be done in holy Church. For we must hear what was done in such a way that we may also consider what we ought to do in imitation of them. We therefore, believing in him who died, if we seek the Lord filled with the fragrance of virtues and with a reputation for good works, we indeed come to his tomb with spices. Those women see angels who came with spices, because those souls behold the heavenly citizens who set out toward the Lord with the fragrance of virtues through holy desires.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) But if we believe on Him who is dead, and are filled with the sweet smell of virtue, and seek the Lord with the fame of good works, we come to His sepulchre with spices. There follows: And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

The women were first to honor the risen Christ, the apostles first to suffer for him. The women were ready with spices; the apostles prepared for scourges. The women entered the tomb; the apostles would soon enter the dungeon. The women hastened to express their eulogy; the apostles embraced chains for his sake. The women poured oils; the apostles poured out their blood.

(occ. ap. Chrysologum, serm. 82) The women in this place run abroad with womanly devotion, for they do not bring Him faith as though He were alive, but ointments as to one dead; and they prepare the service of their grief for Him as buried, not the joys of heavenly triumph for Him as risen.

After the sadness of the sabbath, a happy day dawns upon them, which holds the chief place amongst days, for in it the chief light shines forth, and the Lord rises in triumph. Wherefore it is said, And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices.

The women think nothing great or worthy of the divinity of Jesus, as they sit at the tomb and buy myrrh in order to anoint the body according to the Jewish custom, so that it would be fragrant and not give off an unpleasant smell from decay, and so that the body would be preserved unharmed by the power of the myrrh, which dries and absorbs the moisture of the body. This is what the women were thinking.

For they do not understand the greatness and dignity of the wisdom of Christ. But they came according to the custom of the Jews to anoint the body of Christ, that it might remain sweet-smelling, and might not burst forth into moisture, for spices have the property of drying up, and absorb the moisture of the body, so that they keep the body from corruption.

All the Gospels refer to the period when the heavens were just beginning to brighten in the east. This, of course, does not take place until the sunrise is at hand. For it is the brightness which is diffused by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by the name of the dawn. Mark does not contradict the other Evangelist who uses the phrase, "When it was yet dark." For as the day breaks, what remains of the darkness passes away just in proportion as the sun continues to rise.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) What Luke expresses by very early in the morning, and John by early when it was yet dark, Mark must be understood to mean, when he says, very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, that is, when the sky was growing bright in the east, as is usual in places near the rising sun; for this is the light which we call the dawning. Therefore there is no discrepancy with the report which says, while it was yet dark. For when the day is dawning, the remains of darkness lessen in proportion as the light grows brighter; and we must not take the words very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, to mean that the sun himself was seen upon the earth, but as expressing the near approach of the sun into those parts, that is, when his rising begins to light up the sky.

And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having already risen. The first of the Sabbath is the first day after the Sabbath, that is, the days of rest, which now the ecclesiastical custom calls the Lord's Day because of the resurrection of the Lord Savior. It is the same when we read of the "one of the Sabbaths" or "one of the first of the Sabbaths," which means the first day after the Sabbath, that is, the days of rest which were observed among the Sabbaths. The holy women, who had followed the Lord, came to the tomb with spices, and even in death, they showed the devotion of their humanity to Him whom they had loved while alive. So, we too, believing in Him who has died, if we seek the Lord filled with the fragrance of virtues, with the reputation of good works, we indeed come to His tomb with spices. But that the women came very early to the tomb with the rising of the sun, that is, when the sky began to brighten from the eastern part, which surely does not happen except by the proximity of the rising sun, indeed, according to history, shows the great fervor of love in seeking and finding the Lord. According to the mystical understanding, an example is given to us, with an enlightened face, having dispelled the darkness of vices, to offer the fragrance of good works and the sweetness of prayers to the Lord.

(in Marc. 4, 45) As then the women show the great fervency of their love, by coming very early in the morning to the sepulchre, as the history relates, according to the mystical sense an example is given to us, that with a shining face, and shaking off the darkness of wickedness, we may be careful to offer the fragrance of good works and the sweetness of prayer to the Lord.

(ubi sup.) Or else, by this phrase is meant the first day from the day of sabbaths, or rests, which were kept on the sabbath. There follows: And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

By very early in the morning, (Luke 24:1. diluculo Vulg.) he means what another Evangelist expresses by at the dawning. But the dawn is the time between the darkness of night, and the brightness of day, in which the salvation of man is coming forth with a happy closeness, to be declared in the Church, just as the sun, when he is rising and the light is near, sends before him the rosy dawn, that with prepared eyes she may bear to see the graciousness of his glorious brightness, when the time of our Lord's resurrection has dawned; that then the whole Church, after the example of the women, may sing the praises of Christ, since He has quickened the race of man after the pattern of His resurrection, since He has given life, and has poured upon them the light of belief.

He says, On the first of the sabbaths, (μιᾱς σαββάτων.) that is, on the first of the days of the week. For the days of the week are called sabbaths, and by the word 'una' is meant 'prima.'

And they said to each other, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?" And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. For it was very large. How the stone was rolled away by the angel, Matthew explains sufficiently. But the rolling away of the stone mystically suggests the uncovering of the mysteries of Christ, which were covered by the veil of the legal letter. For the law is written on stone, whose covering having been removed, the glory of the resurrection is shown, and the abolition of the ancient death and the eternal life to be hoped for by us began to be proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Is it from the door of the sepulcher, or of your own hearts? From the tomb, or from your own eyes? You whose heart is shut, whose eyes are closed, are unable to discover the glory of the open grave. Pour then your oil, if you wish to see that glory, not on the body of the Lord, but on the eyes of your hearts. By the light of faith you will then see that which through the deficiency of faith now lies hidden in darkness.

(ubi sup.) Matthew shows clearly enough, that the stone was rolled away by an Angel. This rolling away of the stone means mystically the opening of the Christian sacraments, which were held under the veil of the letter of the law; for the law was written on stone. It goes on: For it was very great.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Your breast was darkened, your eyes shut, and therefore ye did not before see the glory of the opened sepulchre. It goes on: And they looked, and saw that the stone was rolled away.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Great indeed by its office rather than its size, for it can shut in and throw open the body of the Lord.

Neither the stone nor the bolts of the tomb could hold Christ a captive; Death lies conquered by him, he has trampled on hell's fiery chasm. With him a throng of saints ascended to heavenly regions, And to many he showed himself, letting them see and touch him.

But while they were pondering this, the Angel rolled away the stone, though the women did not perceive it. So too Matthew says that the Angel rolled away the stone after the women had arrived. But Mark was silent about this, because Matthew had already said by whom the stone was rolled away.

Mark tells us that the women entered the sepulcher, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side, covered with a long white garment, and that they were frightened. In Matthew's version, the stone was already rolled away from the sepulcher and the angel was sitting upon it. The explanation may be that Matthew has simply said nothing about the angel whom they saw when they entered into the sepulcher, and that Mark has said nothing about the one whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone. In this way they would have seen two angels, and have assumed two separate angelic reports.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Either let us suppose that Matthew was silent about that Angel, whom they saw on entering, whilst Mark said nothing of him, whom they saw outside sitting on the stone, so that they saw two and heard severally from two, the things which the Angels said concerning Jesus; or we must understand by entering into the sepulchre, their coming within some inclosure, by which it is probable that the place was surrounded a little space before the stone, by the cutting out of which the burial place had been made, so that they saw sitting on the right hand in that space him whom Matthew designates as sitting on the stone.

And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. Entering from the east into that round house carved in the rock, they saw an angel sitting on the southern part of that place, where the body of Jesus had been laid, for this was indeed on the right side. For surely the body, lying supine with its head towards the west, must have its right side towards the south. Matthew writes that they first saw the angel who rolled back the stone from the door of the tomb sitting upon the stone, who commanded them to enter the place where the Lord had been laid and to see that He had already risen from the dead. Luke writes that entering the tomb, they found two angels standing there. Therefore, the women who came with spices saw the angels, for indeed those minds see the heavenly citizens who, with virtues, travel to God through holy desires. We must note, indeed, what it means that the angel is seen sitting on the right hand. For what is signified by the left but the present life? And by the right but eternal life? Hence it is written: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." (Cant. II). For the Church places the left hand of God, namely the prosperity of the present life, as under the head, which it presses with the intention of supreme love. But God's right hand embraces it, because under its eternal bliss it is wholly contained with devotion. Therefore, because our Redeemer had already passed beyond the corruption of the present life, rightly did the angel who came to announce His eternal life sit at the right. He appeared clothed in a white robe because he announced the joys of our festivity. For the whiteness of the garment signifies the splendor of our festivity. Let us say ours or his? But to more truly confess, let us say both his and ours. For the resurrection of our Redeemer was both our festivity because it restored us to immortality, and the festivity of angels, because by bringing us back to the heavens, it fulfilled their number. Therefore, in his and our festivity, the angel appeared in white garments, because as we are led back to heaven through the resurrection of the Lord, the losses of the heavenly homeland are repaired. But now, let us hear him who addresses the women who come.

(ubi sup.) Now they saw a young man sitting on the right side, that is, on the south part of the place where the body was laid. For the body, which was lying on its back, and had its head to the west, must have had its right to the south.

But we must note what it means that the angel is seen sitting on the right side. For what is designated by the left except the present life, and what by the right except eternal life? Hence it is written in the Song of Songs: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." Since therefore our Redeemer had already passed beyond the corruption of the present life, rightly the angel who had come to announce his eternal life was sitting on the right. He appeared covered with a white robe because he announced the joys of our festival. For the brightness of the garment proclaims the splendor of our solemnity. Should we say ours, or his? But to speak more truly, let us say both his and ours. For that resurrection of our Redeemer was both our festival, because it brought us back to immortality, and the festival of the angels, because by calling us back to heavenly things it filled up their number. Therefore at his own and our festival the angel appeared in white garments, because while we are brought back to heavenly things through the Lord's resurrection, the losses of the heavenly homeland are repaired.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) But the women who came with spices see the Angels; because those minds who come to the Lord with their virtues, through holy desires, see the heavenly citizens. Wherefore it goes on: And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

(ubi sup.) But what is meant by the left hand, but this present life, and what by the right, but everlasting life? Because then our Redeemer had already gone through the decay of this present life, fitly did the Angel, who had come to announce His everlasting life, sit on the right hand.

(ubi sup.) Or else, he appeared covered with a white robe, because he announced the joys of our festivity, for the whiteness of the robe shows the splendour of our solemnity.

Why a "young man"? The resurrection of the dead, as the apostle declares, will be "unto the fullness of the measure of the stature of Christ," that is, in the season of youth, which needs no further development and which is free from all defect, complete in every respect, having fullness of strength.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) The women, then, entered the sepulchre, that being buried with Christ, they might rise again from the tomb with Christ. They see the young man, that is, they see the time of the Resurrection, for the Resurrection has no old age, and the period, in which man knows neither birth nor death, admits of no decay, and requires no increase. Wherefore what they saw was a young man, not an old man, nor an infant, but the age of joy.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) Again, they saw a young man sitting on the right, because the Resurrection has nothing sinister in it. They also see him dressed in a long white robe; that robe is not from mortal fleece, but of living virtue, blazing with heavenly light, not of an earthly dye, as saith the Prophet, Thou deckest thyself with light as with a garment; and of the just it is said, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun. (Ps. 104:2) (Matt. 13:43)

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) The Angel indeed sits on the sepulchre, the women fly from it; he, on account of his heavenly substance, is confident, they are troubled because of their earthly frame. He who cannot die, cannot fear the tomb, but the women both fear from what was then done, and still, as being mortals, fear the sepulchre as mortals are wont.

The white robe is also true joy, now that the enemy is driven away, the kingdom won, the King of Peace sought for and found and never let go by us. This young man then shows an image of the Resurrection to them who feared death. But their being frightened shows that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. (1 Cor 2:9)

If Matthew says that the Angel was sitting on the stone, while Mark says that the women, having entered the tomb, saw him sitting inside, one should not be troubled by this. For they could have seen the Angel sitting outside on the stone, as stated in Matthew, and could have seen him again inside the tomb, as having preceded them and gone in. However, some say that the women mentioned in Matthew were different from those in Mark, and that the Magdalene was the companion of all, as the most zealous and fervent.

Though Matthew says that the Angel was sitting on the stone, whilst Mark relates that the women entering into the sepulchre saw a young man sitting, yet we need not wonder, for they afterwards saw sitting within the sepulchre the same Angel as sat without on the stone.

But some say the women mentioned by Matthew were different from those in Mark. But Mary Magdalene was with all parties, from her burning zeal and ardent love.

The resurrection in which we believe is that which has already been demonstrated in the resurrection of our Lord. For it is he that raised Lazarus after he had been in the grave four days, and Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son. It is he that raised himself by the command of the Father in the space of three days, who is the pledge of our resurrection. For he says: "I am the resurrection and the life." Now the very One who brought Jonah alive and unhurt out of the belly of the whale in the space of three days, and who brought the three children out of the furnace of Babylon and Daniel out of the mouth of the lions, does not lack power to raise us up also.

He died, but he vanquished death; in himself he put an end to what we feared; he took it upon himself and he vanquished it, as a mighty hunter he captured and slew the lion. Where is death? Seek it in Christ, for it exists no longer; but it did exist and now it is dead. O life, O death of death! Be of good heart; it will die in us, also. What has taken place in our head will take place in his members; death will die in us also. But when? At the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead in which we believe and concerning which we do not doubt.

Christ descended into hell to liberate its captives. In one instant he destroyed all record of our ancient debt incurred under the law, in order to lead us to heaven where there is no death but only eternal life and righteousness. By the baptism which you, the newly enlightened, have just received, you now share in these blessings. Your initiation into the life of grace is the pledge of your resurrection. Your baptism is the promise of the life of heaven. By your immersion you imitated the burial of the Lord, but when you came out of the water you were conscious only of the reality of the resurrection.… The grace of the Spirit works in a mysterious way in the font, and the outward appearance must not obscure the wonder of it. Although water serves as the instrument, it is grace which gives rebirth. Grace transforms all who are placed in the font as the seed is transformed in the womb. It refashions all who go down into the water as metal is recast in a furnace. It reveals to them the mysteries of immortality; it seals them with the pledge of resurrection. These wonderful mysteries are symbolized for you, the newly enlightened, even in the garments you wear. See how you are clothed in the outward signs of these blessings. The radiant brightness of your robe stands for incorruptibility. The white band encircling your head like a diadem proclaims your liberty. In your hand you hold the sign of your victory over the devil. Christ is showing you that you have risen from the dead. He does this now in a symbolic way, but soon he will reveal the full reality if we keep the garment of faith undefiled and do not let sin extinguish the lamp of grace. If we preserve the crown of the Spirit, the Lord will call from heaven in a voice of tremendous majesty, yet full of tenderness: Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you since the beginning of the world. To him be glory and power for ever, through endless ages, amen.

Do not be afraid, you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. Do not be afraid, he says. As if he clearly states: Let those who do not love the coming of the citizens of heaven be afraid. Let those who are burdened by carnal desires and despair of being able to reach their company be afraid. But why are you afraid, who see your fellow citizens? Hence also Matthew, describing the angel who appeared, says: His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow (Matthew 28). For there is fear in lightning, but there is comfort in the whiteness of snow. Because Almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the righteous, the angel, witness of his resurrection, is rightly shown both in the lightning of his face and in the whiteness of his clothing, that he might terrify the reprobate by his appearance and console the pious. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus, in the Latin language, is interpreted as "savior." Indeed, many could be called by this name at that time, not substantively, but nominally. Therefore, the place is added to clarify which Jesus is being spoken of: the Nazarene; and the reason is immediately added, who was crucified, and he added, he has risen, he is not here. He is not here in the presence of the flesh, though he is never absent in the presence of majesty.

But let us hear what he says to the women as they arrive: "Do not be afraid." As if he were saying openly: Let those fear who do not love the coming of the heavenly citizens; let those be terrified who, weighed down by carnal desires, despair of being able to reach their fellowship. But why should you be afraid, who see your fellow citizens? Hence Matthew also, describing the angel's appearance, says: "His appearance was like lightning, and his garments like snow." For in lightning there is the terror of fear, but in snow there is the gentleness of brightness. Since indeed almighty God is both terrible to sinners and gentle to the just, rightly the angel, witness of his resurrection, is shown both with a countenance like lightning and with garments of brightness, so that by his very appearance he might both terrify the reprobate and soothe the devout.

But now let us hear what the angel adds: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus in the Latin tongue means "salutary," that is, it is interpreted as "Savior." But indeed many at that time could be called Jesus, yet not substantially, but only nominatively. Therefore the place is also added, so that it might be made clear which Jesus is meant: "of Nazareth." And he immediately added the reason: "the Crucified One." And he added: "He has risen, He is not here." "He is not here" is said with respect to the presence of His flesh, though He is nowhere absent with respect to the presence of His majesty.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) As though he had said, Let them fear, who love not the coming of the inhabitants of heaven; let them fear, who, weighed down with carnal desires, despair that they can ever attain to their company; but why should ye fear, ye who see your own fellow citizens.

(ubi sup.) But let us hear what the Angel adds; Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus means the Saviour, but at that time there may have been many a Jesus, not indeed really, but in name, therefore the place Nazareth is added, that it might be evident of what Jesus it was spoken. And immediately he subjoins the reason, Which was crucified.

(ubi sup.) He is not here, is spoken of His carnal presence, for He was not absent from any place as to the presence of His majesty.

When we worship the likeness of the priceless and life-giving cross, we know that it is made out of a tree. We are not honoring the tree as such (God forbid), but the likeness as a symbol of Christ. For he said to his disciples, admonishing them, "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven," meaning the cross. And so also the angel of the resurrection said to the woman, "You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified." And the apostle said, "We preach Christ crucified." For there are many named Jesus and many who may claim to be the Christ, but we worship the one crucified. He does not say pierced but crucified. It behooves us, then, to worship the sign of Christ. For wherever the sign may be, there also will he be. But it does not behoove us to worship the material of which the image of the cross is composed, even though it is gold or precious stones.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted.

For there is no fear in love. Why should they fear, who had found Him whom they sought?

But the bitter root of the Cross has disappeared. The flower of life has burst forth with its fruits, that is, He who lay in death has risen in glory. Wherefore he adds, He is risen; he is not here.

The Angel who appeared said to the women: "Do not be alarmed." First he frees them from fear, and then proclaims the good news of the Resurrection. He calls Jesus Christ "the Crucified," for he is not ashamed of the Cross, which is the salvation of mankind and the foundation of all blessings. "He is risen"; from what is this evident? From the fact that "He is not here." And do you wish to be convinced? "Behold the place where He was laid." For this reason he rolled away the stone, in order to show this place.

For he does not blush at the Cross, for in it is the salvation of men, and the beginning of the Blessed.

As if he had said, Do ye wish to be certain of His resurrection, he adds, Behold the place where they laid him. This too was the reason why he had rolled away the stone, that he might show the the place.

(Con. Evan. iii. 25) By saying, He will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as he said unto you, he seems to imply, that Jesus would not show Himself to His disciples after His resurrection except in Galilee, which showing of Himself Mark himself has not mentioned. For that which He has related, Early the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene, and after that to two of them as they walked and went into the country, we know took place in Jerusalem, on the very day of the resurrection; then he comes to His last manifestation, which we know was on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. Mark therefore never relates the fulfilment of that which was foretold by the Angel; but Matthew does not mention any place at all, where the disciples saw the Lord after He arose, except Galilee, according to the Angel's prophecy. But since it is not set down when this happened, whether first, before He was seen any where else, and since the very place where Matthew says that He went into Galilee to the mountain, does not explain the day, or the order of the narration, Matthew does not oppose the account of the others, but assists in explaining and receiving them. But nevertheless since the Lord was not first to show Himself there, but sent word that He was to be seen in Galilee, where He was seen subsequently, it makes every faithful Christian on the look out, to find out in what mysterious sense it may be understood.

It is also signified that the grace of Christ is about to pass over from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, by whom the Apostles would never have been received when they preached, if the Lord had not gone before them and prepared a way in their hearts; and this is what is meant by, He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, that is, there shall ye find His members.

But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. We must ask why Peter is specifically named when mentioning the disciples. But if the angel had not explicitly named him, he who had denied the Master would not have dared to come among the disciples. Therefore, he is called by name so that he may not despair because of his denial. In this matter, we must consider why Almighty God allowed the one whom he had planned to place over the entire Church to fear the voice of a maid and deny himself. We recognize that this was done with a great disposition of mercy, that he who was to be the shepherd of the Church might learn from his own fault how he ought to be merciful to others. Therefore, he first revealed himself to him, and then placed him over the others, so that from his own weakness he might understand how mercifully he should bear the weaknesses of others. It is fittingly said of our Redeemer: He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see him, just as he told you. For Galilee is interpreted as 'transmigration.' For indeed our Redeemer had already migrated from passion to resurrection, from death to life, from punishment to glory, from corruption to incorruption. And he is first seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, because we will joyfully see the glory of his resurrection if we now migrate from vices to the height of virtues. Therefore, he is announced in the tomb and shown in the 'transmigration,' because he who is recognized in the mortification of the flesh is seen in the migration of the mind.

There remains indeed a not insignificant question, how the same evangelist wrote that the angel said to the women, "Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you," yet did not report that the Lord was seen by the disciples in Galilee at any point after this in his Gospel. And indeed, Matthew says that the disciples went to Galilee, saw and worshipped the Lord there, and received the command from him to go, teach, and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, considering the writings of the other evangelists, it shows that he was seen by the disciples several times before in Jerusalem, and in the village of Emmaus, especially on the day of his resurrection. Why then did he specially predict that he would go ahead of them to Galilee and be seen by the disciples there, when he was seen neither first nor only there? Let us examine for what mystery he rising said, according to Matthew and Mark, "I will go ahead of you to Galilee, there you will see me." And even if this was accomplished, it was after many other things were completed, since the command was such (though not by necessity) that it might have been expected that either this alone, or this first, should have happened. Therefore, without doubt, since this is the voice not of the evangelist narrating what happened, but of the angel by the command of the Lord, and of the Lord himself, narrated by the evangelist as it was said by the angel and the Lord, it must be accepted as a prophetic statement. For Galilee is interpreted either as "transmigration" or "revelation". So first, according to the meaning of "transmigration", what else occurs to be understood? He will go before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you, unless the grace of Christ was destined to be transferred from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, to whom the apostles would in no way be believed when preaching the Gospel, unless the Lord himself prepared the way in the hearts of men for them? And we understand this: He will go before you into Galilee. But what they joyfully marvel at, with difficulties being broken and conquered, that the door is opened for them in the Lord through the enlightenment of the faithful, is understood thus: there you will see him, that is, there you will find his members. There you will recognize his living body in those who receive you. According to that which Galilee is interpreted as revelation, it is not now to be understood in the form of a servant, but in that in which he is equal to the Father, which he promised to his beloved in John, when he said: I will love him, and will manifest myself to him (John XIV). Certainly not according to that which they now saw, and which, even resurrected with scars, he afterwards showed not only to be seen but also to be touched: but according to that ineffable light, which illuminates every man coming into this world: according to which he shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend him (Ibid.). He has gone before us there, from where, coming to us, he did not precede us, and to where, going before us, he did not abandon us. That will be a revelation, as it were the true Galilee, when we will be like him, there we will see him as he is. That will also be the more blessed migration from this world to that eternity, if we embrace his precepts so as to deserve to be gathered at his right hand. For then the wicked will go into eternal fire, but the righteous into eternal life. From here they will migrate there, and there they will see him as the wicked do not see. For the wicked will be taken away so as not to see the glory of the Lord, and the wicked will not see the light. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (Ibid. XVII), just as he is known in that eternity, where he will lead his own through the form of a servant, so that they may freely contemplate him through the form of the Lord.

"But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goes before you into Galilee." We must ask why, when the disciples are named, Peter is designated by name. But if the angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come among the disciples. Therefore he is called by name, lest he despair because of his denial. In this matter we must consider why Almighty God permitted him whom He had determined to place over the whole Church to fear the voice of a servant girl and to deny himself. This we recognize was done by a dispensation of great mercy, so that he who was to be the Pastor of the Church might learn through his own fault how he ought to show mercy to others. Therefore He first showed him to himself, and then set him over the rest, so that from his own weakness he might learn how mercifully he should bear with the weaknesses of others.

It is well said of our Redeemer: "He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." For Galilee is interpreted as "migration accomplished." Indeed, our Redeemer had already migrated from passion to resurrection, from death to life, from punishment to glory, from corruption to incorruption. And he was first seen by the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, because we will joyfully see the glory of his resurrection afterward, if we now migrate from vices to the heights of virtues. Therefore, he who is announced at the tomb is shown in the migration, because he who is recognized in the mortification of the flesh is seen in the migration of the mind.

(Hom. in Evan. 21) If again the Angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come amongst the disciples; he is therefore called by name, lest he should despair on account of his denial.

(ubi sup.) For Galilee means 'a passing over;' for our Redeemer had already passed from His Passion to His resurrection, from death unto life, and we shall have joy in seeing the glory of His resurrection, if only we pass over from vice to the heights of virtue. He then who is announced at the tomb, is shown in 'passing over,' because He who is first known in mortification of the flesh, is seen in this passing over of the soul.

But immortality is shown to mortals as1 due to thankfulness, that we may understand what we were, and that we may know what we are to be. There follows, But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. The women are ordered to tell the Apostles, that as by a woman death was announced, so also might life rising again. But He says specially unto Peter, because he had shown himself unworthy of being a disciple, since he had thrice denied his Master; but past sins cease to hurt us when they cease to be pleasing to us.

This sentence is but short in the number of syllables, but the promise is vast in its greatness. Here is the fountain of our joy, and the source of everlasting life is prepared. Here all that are scattered are brought together, and the contrite hearts are healed. There, he says, ye shall see Him, but not as ye have seen Him.

"But go, tell His disciples and Peter." He separates Peter from the disciples either as the chief one, naming him specially apart from the others by preeminence, or for this reason: since Peter had denied, if the women had said they were commanded to announce only to the disciples, he would have said: I denied Him, therefore I am no longer His disciple, and so the Lord has rejected me and been disgusted with me. Therefore the Angel also added "and Peter," so that Peter would not be troubled by the thought that he was not deemed worthy even of a word, as one who had denied and was therefore no longer worthy to be numbered among the disciples. He sends them "to Galilee," drawing them away from the turmoil and great fear of the Jews.

There follows: And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed.

(de Con. Evan. iii. 24.) We may however enquire how Mark can say this, when Matthew says, they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word, (Matt. 28:8) unless we understand it to mean, that they did not dare to say a word to any of the Angels themselves, that is, to answer the words which they had spoken to them; or else to the guards whom they saw lying there; for that joy of which Matthew speaks is not inconsistent with the fear which Mark mentions. For we ought to have understood that both feelings were in their minds, even though Matthew had not mentioned the fear. But since he has also said that they came out with fear and great joy, he does not allow room for any question to be raised.

But they went out and fled from the tomb (for trembling and amazement had seized them) and they said nothing to anyone. For they were afraid. It rightly raises the question of how Mark writes: And they said nothing to anyone. Whereas Luke says: And returning from the tomb, they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Similarly, Matthew: And they departed quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28). Unless we understand that they dared not say anything to anyone about the angels themselves, that is, to respond to what they had heard from them; or certainly the guards whom they saw lying down. For that joy which Matthew mentions does not contradict the fear of which Mark speaks. For we must understand both to have happened in their minds, even if Matthew himself did not speak of fear.

(Chrysologus ubi sup.) It is said also in a marked manner, that they said nothing to any one, because it is the part of women to hear, and not to speak, to learn, not to teach.

This also is spoken of the life to come, in which grief and groaning will flee away. For the women prefigure before the resurrection all that is to happen to them after the resurrection, namely, they flee away from death and fear. There follows, Neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.

Then "trembling and astonishment" seized the women, that is, they were struck both by the vision of the Angel and by the awe of the Resurrection, and therefore "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Either they were afraid of the Jews, or they were so gripped by fear from the vision that they had, as it were, lost their senses. And so they said nothing to anyone, having forgotten everything they had heard.

That is, they trembled because of the vision of Angels, and were amazed because of the resurrection.

Either on account of the Jews, or else they said nothing because the fear of the vision prevented them.

Now this place has caused great perplexity to many, because while St. Luke says, Very early in the morning, Matthew says that it was in the evening of the sabbath that the women came to the sepulchre. But you may suppose that the Evangelists spoke of different occasions, so as to understand both different parties of women, and different appearances. Because however it was written, that in the evening of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (Matt. 28:1.) our Lord rose, we must so take it, as that neither on the morning of the Lord's day, which is the first after the sabbath, nor on the sabbath, the resurrection should be thought to have taken place. For how are the three days fulfilled? Not then as the day grew towards evening, but in the evening of the night He rose. Lastly, in the Greek it is "late;" (ὀψὶ) but late signifies both the hour at the end of the day, and the slowness of any thing; as we say, "I have been lately told." Late then is also the dead of the night. And thus also the women had the opportunity of coming to the sepulchre when the guards were asleep. And that you may know it was in the night time, some of the women are ignorant of it. They know who watch night and day, they know not who have gone back. According to John, one Mary Magdalene knows not, for the same person could not first know and then afterwards be ignorant. Therefore if there are several Maries, perhaps also there are several Mary Magdalenes, since the former is the name of a person, the second is derived from a place.

(Lib. de Inc. Fil. Dei.) He might indeed at once have raised His body from the dead. But some one would have said that He was never dead, or that death plainly had never existed in Him. And perhaps if the resurrection of our Lord had been delayed beyond the third day, the glory of incorruption had been concealed. In order therefore to show His body to be dead, He suffered the interval of one day, and on the third day manifested His body to be without corruption.

The Lord's day is called the first of the sabbath. But the first day itself falls away when the second follows it. That day, which both the eighth and the first, represents eternity. It is that day which we abandoned at the beginning by sinning in our first parents and so came down into this mortal state, and also the last and, as it were, the eighth day, to which we again look ahead after the resurrection, once our last enemy death has been destroyed. Only then will this perishable thing put on imperishability and this mortal thing put on immortality. The returning son [prodigal] will receive the first robe, which is to be given back to him on the last and, so to say, eighth day, after the labors of his distant exile and his feeding of pigs, and the other miseries of mortal life, and the sevenfold circulation of the wheel of time.So it was perfectly reasonable that it should have been on the first, which is also the eighth day—Sunday—that our Lord chose to give us an example in his own flesh of bodily resurrection. "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him." To this exalted state of his we must go with humility.

(de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 24.) Or Matthew by the first part of the night, which is the evening, wished to represent the night itself, at the end of which night they came to the sepulchre, and for this reason, because they had been now preparing since the evening, and it was lawful to bring spices because the sabbath was over.

But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. The first day of the week, or the first day after the Sabbath, is the day which Christians call the Lord's Day because of the Lord's resurrection. That the women came to the tomb very early in the morning shows, according to the historical account, the great fervor of love in seeking and finding the Lord. In a mystical sense, it gives us an example of approaching the most holy body of the Lord with an enlightened face and the darkness of vices dispelled. For that venerable tomb had the figure of the Lord's altar, on which the mysteries of His flesh and blood are celebrated. Hence the ecclesiastical custom holds that these mysteries should be consecrated not in silk, not in dyed cloth, but in pure linen similar to the shroud in which Joseph wrapped Him. Just as He offered the true substance of his earthly and mortal nature to death for us, so we also, in commemoration of the same dreadful and venerable sacrament, place pure linen from the earth's produce, white, and, as it were, chastened by many types of mortification, on the altar. Moreover, the spices which the women bring signify the fragrance of virtues and prayers with which we should approach the altar. Hence John in his Apocalypse, having described the golden bowls in the hands of the angels, that is, the pure consciences in the hearts of the elect, full of incense, added explaining, and said: "Which are the prayers of the saints."

According to the Gospel reading, holy women came to see the sepulcher "after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week." This is how we should understand this: they started to come during the evening but reached the sepulcher as the morning of Sunday was dawning; that is, they prepared the spices with which they desired to anoint our Lord's body on [Saturday] evening but brought the spices which they had prepared in the evening to the sepulcher in the morning. Matthew, for the sake of brevity, wrote this more obscurely, but the other Evangelists show more distinctly the order in which it was done. After our Lord had been buried on Friday, the women went away from the tomb and prepared spices and ointments for as long as they were allowed to work. Then they refrained from any activity on the sabbath, in accord with the commandment, as Luke clearly reports. When the sabbath was over, as evening was coming on, one could work again. Being unwavering in their devotion, they bought the spices which they had not prepared [earlier] (as Mark records it) so that they might come and anoint him.

Devout women not only on the day of preparation, but also when the sabbath was passed, that is, at sun-set, as soon as the liberty of working returned, bought spices that they might come and anoint the body of Jesus, as Mark testifies. (Mark 16:1.) Still as long as night time restrained them, they came not to the sepulchre. And therefore it is said, On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, &c. One of the Sabbath, (una Sabbathi) or the first of the Sabbath, is the first day from the Sabbath; which Christians are wont to call "the Lord's day," because of our Lord's resurrection. But by the women coming to the sepulchre very early in the morning, is manifested their great zeal and fervent love of seeking and finding the Lord.

According to the mystical meaning, by the women coming early in the morning to the sepulchre, we have an example given us, that having cast away the darkness of our vices, we should come to the Body of the Lord. For that sepulchre also bore the figure of the Altar of the Lord, wherein the mysteries of Christ's Body, not in silk or purple cloth, but in pure white linen, like that in which Joseph wrapped it, ought to be consecrated, that as He offered up to death for us the true substance of His earthly nature, so we also in commemoration of Him should place on the Altar the flax, pure from the plant of the earth, and white, and in many ways refined by a kind of crushing to death. But the spices which the women bring, signify the odour of virtue, and the sweetness of prayers by which we ought to approach the Altar.

After the Evangelist has treated of Christ's incarnation, preaching, and passion, here in the fourth place he treats of the resurrection. This part is divided into four. In the first of which is treated the revelation of the resurrection; in the second, the apparition of the risen one, at the passage: Behold, two of them; in the third, the certainty of the apparition, at the passage: And rising up that same hour; in the fourth, the proclamation of the certainty of the truth, at the passage: But you are witnesses of these things, etc.

The occasion for Christ's resurrection to be revealed was the coming of the women to anoint Christ; concerning which two things are touched upon, namely the manner of coming to the Lord's sepulchre and the manner of finding the sepulchre empty.

First, therefore, as to the manner of coming to the tomb, he says: Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, carrying the spices which they had prepared, namely the women. And it should be noted that the Sabbath refers to that entire sabbatical week, because for seven days there was to be a feast; Leviticus twenty-three: "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," and "you shall offer sacrifice by fire to the Lord for seven days." And therefore that entire week was called the Sabbath, on whose first day, that is, the Lord's day, they came to the tomb at earliest morning, because it was fitting that on that day on which light was first made, Christ should rise from the darkness of death and hell to the light of life. And therefore this day is called one, because it is the principle of spiritual illuminations just as unity is the principle of numbers; and therefore Genesis one: "And there was evening and morning, one day." On this day, therefore, it was fitting for Christ to rise from the dead; and as to the day, all the Evangelists indeed agree, but as to the hour of the time they seem to disagree.

For in Matthew twenty-eight it is said: "Now in the evening of the Sabbath, which dawns on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to see the sepulchre"; but in Mark sixteen it is said that "they came, the sun having now risen"; yet in John twenty it is said that "Mary Magdalene came early in the morning, while it was still dark, to the tomb." — But in this there is no controversy, because, although they express it in different words, nevertheless all intend to say that they came at the beginning of the day, namely when the sun was beginning to shine upon our hemisphere, and yet the darkness had not yet been completely dispelled.

Nevertheless, concerning the hour of the resurrection, there is a controversy among the doctors, because some say that Christ rose at midnight, while others say at dawn; but God knows who speaks more truly. — But the controversy can be resolved, because the first group says that the resurrection occurred at midnight in reality, but became known at dawn: and "a thing is said to happen when it becomes known." It can, however, be said that just as, when the sun withdrew from our hemisphere, the Sun of Justice hid himself, so when the sun returned to our hemisphere, the Sun of Justice rose again, such that it was neither entirely in the day nor entirely at midnight, but in a middle way. And therefore both groups of doctors speak the truth in their own way.

The women came to the sepulcher, and when they could not find the body of Christ—for he had risen—they were quite perplexed. And what followed? For the sake of their love and zeal for Christ, they were counted worthy of seeing holy angels who then told them the joyful news as the heralds of the resurrection, saying, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen!" The Word of God ever lives and by his own nature is life. Yet, when he humbled and emptied himself, submitting to be made like us, he tasted death. But this proved to be the death of death, for he rose from the dead to be the way by which not so much he himself but rather we could return to incorruption. Let no one seek among the dead him who ever lives. But if he is not here, with mortality and in the tomb, where then is he? Obviously, in heaven and in godlike glory.

And Luke says: "They rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment. Now, upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared; and they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." This phrase "very early in the morning" probably indicates the early dawn of the first day of the week; and thus, when the Sabbath itself was wholly past, and also the whole night succeeding it, and when another day had begun, they came, bringing spices and myrrh, and then it became apparent that He had already risen long before.

You have heard, most beloved brethren, that the holy women who had followed the Lord came to the tomb with spices, and to him whom they had loved while living, they render service with devoted care even when dead. But this deed signifies something to be done in holy Church. For we must hear what was done in such a way that we may also consider what we ought to do in imitation of them. We therefore, believing in him who died, if we seek the Lord filled with the fragrance of virtues and with a reputation for good works, we indeed come to his tomb with spices. Those women see angels who came with spices, because those souls behold the heavenly citizens who set out toward the Lord with the fragrance of virtues through holy desires.

It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be "blessed; " since prophecy does not omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. For of this incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath taken away, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up.

On the first day of the week the women came to the tomb, carrying with them spices. They came very early, which the evangelist Matthew (Matt. 28:1) calls the evening of the Sabbath. For the deep morning is almost the same as the very late evening.

And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, and upon entering, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. How the stone was rolled away by the angel, Matthew has sufficiently explained. But the rolling away of the stone mystically signifies the revelation of the sacraments which were hidden under the veil of the letter. For the Law is written on stone. When its covering is removed, the dead body of the Lord is not found but is proclaimed as living. For even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know Him that way.

Mystically, the rolling away of the stone implies the disclosure of the divine sacraments, which were formerly hidden and closed up by the letter of the law. The law was written on stone. Indeed, in the case of each of us, when we acknowledge our faith in the Lord's passion and resurrection, his tomb, which had been closed, is opened up. We enter the tomb but do not find the body of the Lord, when in our hearts we carefully think back over the order [of events] of his incarnation and his passion and recall that he has risen from the dead and is no longer to be seen in his mortal flesh. But the Jew and the pagan, who ridicule the death of our Redeemer which they believe in but refuse to believe further in the triumph of his resurrection, continue to be like a tomb still closed by a stone. They are not capable of entering to see that the body of the Lord has disappeared by his rising, because by the hardness of their infidelity they are prevented from becoming aware that a dead person, who has destroyed death's right of entry and has already passed into the heights of the heavens, cannot be found on earth.

The rolling back of the stone alludes to the unclosing of the Sacraments which were concealed by the veil of the letter of the law which was written on stone, the covering of which being taken away, the dead body of the Lord is not found, but the living body is preached; for although we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. (2 Cor. 5:16.)

Second, as to the manner of finding the tomb, he adds: And they found the stone rolled away from the monument. Concerning the rolling away of this stone they were anxious, as is said in Mark 16: "And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away the stone for us from the door of the monument? And looking up, they saw the stone rolled away. For it was very great." Now this stone was not rolled away at the resurrection, but after it; whence Bede says: "He who came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin was able to come forth from the closed tomb." But the Angel of the Lord did this for the sake of manifestation; whence Matthew 28: "The Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled away the stone and sat upon it."

The Instrument of the Word lay dead, but a great stone enclosed the sepulchre, as if death had led Him captive. But three days had not yet elapsed, when life again puts itself forth after a sufficient proof of death, as it follows, And they found the stone rolled away.

(Hom. 90. in Matt.) But the stone was rolled away after the resurrection, on account of the women, that they might believe that the Lord had risen again, seeing indeed the grave without the body. Hence it follows, And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, for the Angel had rolled it away, as Matthew says (Matt. 28:2).

An angel had rolled it away, as Matthew declares.

Now he did this as the one manifesting the resurrection of Christ; whence he adds: And entering in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And note that significantly, whereas he had previously called him Christ Jesus, he now calls him Lord Jesus, because now that word of Matthew 28 was verified in him: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth," and that of Philippians 2: "For which cause God also exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name," etc. The body of Christ, therefore, is not found in the tomb, because it had already been raised; whence below in the same chapter it is said: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

According to the spiritual understanding, however, by the tomb is understood Scripture, in which the Lord lies hidden as in a certain sepulcher: whence John 5: "Search the Scriptures, in which you think you have eternal life." — By the stone placed over it is understood the veil of Scripture, on account of which the Law was also written on tablets of stone; and concerning this veil, 2 Corinthians 3: "Until this present day, when Moses is read, a veil is placed over their heart." — This veil is removed through the angelic ministry, because the Angels also communicate illuminations to us, according to that passage in Revelation 22: "The Angel showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." It also occurs through the ministry of teachers, who ought to be angelic men, according to that passage in Malachi 2: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth." And of this sort is to descend from heaven, as Paul, who "was caught up into paradise and heard secret words," 2 Corinthians 12; or, if one cannot ascend to the innermost things of God, let him at least advance on the ladder of Jacob, whose summit touches heaven, as good contemplatives do. In whose figure, Genesis 28: "Jacob saw a ladder standing upon the earth and its summit touching heaven, and the Angels of God ascending and descending by it." This ladder is Christ: whence John 1: "You shall see the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." He therefore who thus removes the veil consequently also repels carnality and death and ascends to contemplate the Divinity and immortality of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer"; not that he did not know the flesh of Christ, but not with a carnal affection or understanding: on account of which, John 6: "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah.

But how is it that Mark has mentioned one young man sitting in white garments, and Matthew one, but John and Luke relate that there were seen two angels sitting in white garments.

(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) We may understand that one Angel was seen by the women, as both Mark and Matthew say, so as supposing them to have entered into the sepulchre, that is, into a certain space which was fenced off by a kind of wall in front of the stone sepulchre; and that there they saw an Angel sitting on the right hand, which Mark says, but that afterwards when they looked into the place where our Lord was lying, they saw within two other Angels standing, (as Luke says,) who spoke to encourage their minds, and build up their faith. Hence it follows, And as they were afraid.

And it came to pass, while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. They were perplexed, because they were astonished at the stone of such immense size having been rolled away, and grieved at not finding the body of such great reverence. Just as when the Lord was tempted in the wilderness, immediately after the completion of victory, angels came and ministered to Him, so also after the Savior had suffered in the flesh, following the contests of conquered death, angels came who announced the glory of the triumphant not only with comforting words but also with shining attire. Just as it is read that when the Savior's body was placed in the tomb, angels stood by, so it is also believed that during the consecration of the most sacred mysteries of His body, angels are present, with the Apostle urging women to wear a veil in the Church because of the angels (I Cor. XI).

But as when the Body of our Lord lay in the sepulchre, Angels are said to have stood by, so also at the time of consecration are they to be believed to stand by the mysteries of Christ.

And it came to pass, while they were perplexed in mind. After describing the occasion for the revelation of the resurrection, he here describes the certainty of the revelation, which is gathered from two things, namely from the assertion of the witnesses and the confirmation of the testimonies.

First, therefore, as regards the assertion of the witnesses, he says: And it came to pass, while they were terrified in mind about this, behold, two men stood beside them in shining garments. These two men were Angels in masculine form, who were in shining garments to signify the splendor of our solemnity; whence also Revelation 7: "Before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palms in their hands." Significantly, however, he says in shining garments, in which there was not only an intensity of brightness but also an excellence of light, so as to soothe the devout and terrify the impious; whence the last chapter of Matthew: "The Angel of the Lord descended from heaven." "And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment like snow."

But then there appears a discrepancy among the Evangelists. For Luke says that there were two, but Matthew that there was one.

Likewise, Matthew says that he was sitting upon the rolled-back stone, but Mark that he was sitting on the right.

Likewise, John says that one was sitting at the head and the other at the feet; but Luke says that they stood beside them.

But it should be understood that, according to the expositors, one appeared first and the other afterward; and at first indeed they were sitting, but afterward they rose and spoke with the women, and thus they are described by the Evangelists in different dispositions. All, however, agree in this, that they were terrible and testifying.

Angels also brought the joyful tidings of the nativity to the shepherds in Bethlehem. Now they tell of his resurrection. Heaven yields its service to proclaim him, and the hosts of the spirits which are above attend the Son as God, even though he is in the flesh.

When then they found not the body of Christ which was risen, they were distracted by various thoughts, and for their love of Christ and the tender care they had shown Him, were thought worthy of the vision of angels. For it follows, And it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

The messengers of the health-bearing resurrection and their shining garments stand for tokens of pleasantness and rejoicing. For Moses preparing plagues against the Egyptians, perceived an angel in the flame of fire. But not such were those who appeared to the women at the sepulchre, but calm and joyful as became them to be seen in the kingdom and joy of the Lord. And as at the Passion the sun was darkened, holding forth signs of sorrow and woe to the crucifiers of our Lord, so the angels, heralds of life and resurrection, marked by their white garments the character of the health-bearing feast day.

But we must note what it means that the angel is seen sitting on the right side. For what is designated by the left except the present life, and what by the right except eternal life? Hence it is written in the Song of Songs: "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." Since therefore our Redeemer had already passed beyond the corruption of the present life, rightly the angel who had come to announce his eternal life was sitting on the right. He appeared covered with a white robe because he announced the joys of our festival. For the brightness of the garment proclaims the splendor of our solemnity. Should we say ours, or his? But to speak more truly, let us say both his and ours. For that resurrection of our Redeemer was both our festival, because it brought us back to immortality, and the festival of the angels, because by calling us back to heavenly things it filled up their number. Therefore at his own and our festival the angel appeared in white garments, because while we are brought back to heavenly things through the Lord's resurrection, the losses of the heavenly homeland are repaired.

For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared there." For just so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes "two witnesses.

When they entered inside, two men appear to them. One, mentioned by Matthew (Matt. 28:2), was sitting on the stone, while these two men stood inside the tomb. These are different visions.

But as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them: Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Do not (they say) seek among the dead, that is in the tomb, which is properly the place of the dead, him who has already risen to life from the dead. And therefore, when we enter the Church following the example of the women devoted to God, and approach the heavenly mysteries, either because of the presence of angelic power or because of the reverence of the holy offering, we ought to enter with all humility and fear. Indeed we bow our faces to the ground in the sight of the angels, humbly remembering that we are dust and ashes, when contemplating the eternal joys of the heavenly citizens. Just as blessed Abraham said: I will speak to my Lord, though I am dust and ashes (Gen. XVIII). And it should be noted that the holy women, with the angels standing before them, are not said to have fallen to the ground, but to have bowed their faces to the ground. And we do not read that any of the saints, at the time of the Lord's resurrection, either when the Lord himself or the angels appeared to them, worshipped prostrate on the ground. From this, the ecclesiastical custom has arisen, that either in memory of the Lord's resurrection or in hope of our own resurrection, on all Sundays and throughout the entire period of Pentecost, we pray not on bended knees, but with faces bowed to the ground.

The holy women, when the Angels stood beside them, are reported not to have fallen to the ground, but to have bowed their faces to the earth; nor do we read that any of the saints, at the time of our Lord's resurrection, worshipped with prostration to the ground either our Lord Himself, or the Angels who appeared to them. Hence has arisen the ecclesiastical custom, either in memory of our Lord's resurrection, or in the hope of our own, of praying on every Lord's day, and through the whole season of Pentecost, not with bended knees, but with our faces bowed to the earth. But not in the sepulchre, which is the place of the dead, was He to be sought, who rose from the dead to life. And therefore it is added, They said to them, that is, the Angels to the women, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Let us then after the example of the devout women, whenever we approach the heavenly mysteries, because of the presence of the Angels, or from reverence to the Sacred Offering, with all humility, bow our faces to the earth, recollecting that we are but dust and ashes.

And therefore Luke adds: But as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth, namely out of fear and reverence, as Daniel, Daniel 10: "When he spoke to me, I cast down my face to the earth and was silent"; and such persons are fit to hear the truth. — Whence he adds: They said to them: Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen; in which they at once reprove unbelief and affirm the truth. This word was of the highest joy; and thus it was fitting that, just as the Angel had announced with joy the nativity of Christ, above in chapter two: "I announce to you a great joy," so also the Angels should now announce with joy the resurrection. And that word of the Psalm was fulfilled: "I have slept and taken my rest, and I have risen, and I am still with you"; and again: "For you will not abandon my soul in hell." Therefore Acts 2: "This Jesus God raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, inasmuch as it was impossible that he should be held by it. For David says concerning him: I foresaw the Lord, etc., down to: You will not give your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life," etc.

[Lewis draws an analogy between his error of seeking Joy in past experiences and the angel's rebuke at the empty tomb, arguing the resemblance is not accidental but reflects a universal spiritual pattern]

In my scheme of thought it is not blasphemous to compare the error which I was making with that error which the angel at the Sepulchre rebuked when he said to the women, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, He is risen." The comparison is of course between something of infinite moment and something very small; like comparison between the Sun and the Sun's reflection in a dewdrop. Indeed, in my view, very like it, for I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental. I think that all things, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least. "Reflect" is the important word. This lower life of the imagination is not a beginning of, nor a step towards, the higher life of the spirit, merely an image. In me, at any rate, it contained no element either of belief or of ethics; however far pursued, it would never have made me either wiser or better. But it still had, at however many removes, the shape of the reality it reflected.

There are certain writers to whom humanity owes much, whose talent is yet of so shy or delicate or retrospective a type that we do well to link it with certain quaint places or certain perishing associations. It would not be unnatural to look for the spirit of Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill, or even for the shade of Thackeray in Old Kensington. But let us have no antiquarianism about Dickens, for Dickens is not an antiquity. Dickens looks not backward, but forward; he might look at our modern mobs with satire, or with fury, but he would love to look at them. He might lash our democracy, but it would be because, like a democrat, he asked much from it. We will not have all his books bound up under the title of 'The Old Curiosity Shop.' Rather we will have them all bound up under the title of 'Great Expectations.' Wherever humanity is he would have us face it and make something of it, swallow it with a holy cannibalism, and assimilate it with the digestion of a giant. We must take these trippers as he would have taken them, and tear out of them their tragedy and their farce. Do you remember now what the angel said at the sepulchre? 'Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here; he is risen.'

There are people who say they wish Christianity to remain as a spirit. They mean, very literally, that they wish it to remain as a ghost. But it is not going to remain as a ghost. What follows this process of apparent death is not the lingering of the shade; it is the resurrection of the body. These people are quite prepared to shed pious and reverential tears over the Sepulchre of the Son of Man; what they are not prepared for is the Son of God walking once more upon the hills of morning. These people, and indeed most people, were indeed by this time quite accustomed to the idea that the old Christian candle-light would fade into the light of common day. To many of them it did quite honestly appear like that pale yellow flame of a candle when it is left burning in daylight. It was all the more unexpected, and therefore all the more unmistakable, that the seven-branched candle-stick suddenly towered to heaven like a miraculous tree and flamed until the sun turned pale.

But let us hear what he says to the women as they arrive: "Do not be afraid." As if he were saying openly: Let those fear who do not love the coming of the heavenly citizens; let those be terrified who, weighed down by carnal desires, despair of being able to reach their fellowship. But why should you be afraid, who see your fellow citizens?

Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." On the third day, the Lord, as He predicted to His disciples and also to the women who followed Him (which we learn from this passage), celebrated the triumph of His resurrection. Indeed, on the day of the Preparation, He handed over His spirit at the ninth hour, was buried in the evening, and rose on the morning of the first day of the week, as the evangelist Mark clearly indicates. Therefore, it is not unjust that He lay in the tomb for one day and two nights, because He joined the light of His simple death to the darkness of our double death. For He came to us who were held in the death of both spirit and flesh, He brought us His one death, that is, of the flesh, and dissolved the two deaths He received from us. If He had taken on both, He would have delivered us from neither, but He mercifully accepted one and justly condemned both. He conferred His simple death to our double death and, by dying, overcame our double death.

He is not here, but is risen. On the third day then, as He Himself foretold to the women, together with the rest of His disciples, He celebrated the triumph of His resurrection. Hence it follows, Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, &c. For on the day of the preparation at the ninth hour giving up the ghost, buried in the evening, early on the morning of the first day of the week He rose again.

Second, as to the proof of certain testimonies, he adds: Remember how he spoke to you, when he was still in Galilee, saying: That the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise again. For Matthew 20: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again." Similarly Mark 8: "The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the chief priests and be killed, and after three days rise again." Similarly above, chapter 18: "All things shall be accomplished which were written by the Prophets concerning the Son of man. For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles," etc., and afterward he adds: "And the third day he shall rise again." Now he had foretold these things to them in order to establish faith; whence John 14: "And now I have told you before it comes to pass, that when it shall come to pass, you may believe."

But now let us hear what the angel adds: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus in the Latin tongue means "salutary," that is, it is interpreted as "Savior." But indeed many at that time could be called Jesus, yet not substantially, but only nominatively. Therefore the place is also added, so that it might be made clear which Jesus is meant: "of Nazareth." And he immediately added the reason: "the Crucified One." And he added: "He has risen, He is not here." "He is not here" is said with respect to the presence of His flesh, though He is nowhere absent with respect to the presence of His majesty.

For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." "Must be delivered up; "and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be.

Men appear in shining garments, on account of the brightness of the resurrection, and remind the women of what the Lord had told them, namely: that it was "necessary," that is, inevitable, for Him "to be delivered into the hands of sinful men," that is, the Romans, pagans and defiled ones, "and on the third day to rise again." Concerning how the resurrection is on the third day, we have spoken sufficiently in the commentary on Matthew (see ch. 28).

And they remembered His words. The women standing at the Lord's tomb remembered the words He had previously spoken about His dispensation, providing us a model, that during the celebration of the mysteries of the Lord's passion, we should always remember with worthy veneration not only His blessed passion, but also His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven.

And this was the way leading to faith, and therefore he adds: And they remembered his words; whence John 2: "What sign do you show us, since you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "But he was speaking of the temple of his body. When therefore he had risen from the dead, they remembered that he said this" concerning the temple of his body. Similarly also Matthew 12: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth."

Whence the Lord foretold his passion and resurrection, that he might at once move them to sorrow and draw them to love; on account of which Ecclesiasticus 11: "In the day of good things, be not unmindful of evil things, and in the day of evil things, be not unmindful of good things."

Now the women, when they had received the sayings of the Angels, hastened to tell them to the disciples; as it follows, And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. For woman who was once the minister of death, is now the first to receive and tell the awful mystery of the resurrection. The female race has obtained therefore both deliverance from reproach, and the withdrawal of the curse.

And having departed from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the others. Just as in the beginning the woman was the author of the fault to man, and man the executor of the error, so now the one who first tasted death saw resurrection first, and so that she might not bear the reproach of perpetual guilt among men, the grace she had conferred upon man she also conferred upon herself.

(ex Amb.) For that the woman might not endure the everlasting reproach of guilt from men, she who had transfused sin into the man, now also transfuses grace.

And having returned from the tomb etc. After having described the occasion and certitude of the revelation, here he describes its manifestation; concerning which the Evangelist introduces two things, namely the testimony of the women and the inspection of the disciples.

First therefore, as regards the testimony of the women, he adds: And departing from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now the women reported these things because they had been so charged by the Angels: whence in the last chapter of Matthew: "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee." For this was done by divine ordinance, so that the announcement of the resurrection should come to men through women: just as death and sin took their beginning from a woman, so now through women the announcement and knowledge of life and immortality would return to men, so that through this an example of humility might also be given. Whence Chrysostom: "The Evangelist does not deprive the woman of praise, nor does he think it shameful to have learned from a woman." The reproach of women is also taken away, and especially of sinful women.

It is not allowed to women to teach in the church, but they shall ask their husbands at home. (1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Cor. 14:35.) To those then who are at home is the woman sent... For that the woman might not endure the everlasting reproach of guilt from men, she who had transfused sin into the man, now also transfuses grace.

Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the others who were with them, who told these things to the apostles. Mary Magdalene herself is the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment. Joanna, wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod, about whom it has been read above. Mary of James is the mother of James the Less and Joseph, as the evangelist Mark says, the sister of the Lord's mother, hence James himself deserved to be called the Lord's brother.

(who Was also the sister of Lazarus,) and Joanna, (the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward,) and Mary the mother of James, (that is, the mother of James the less, and Joseph.) And it is added generally of the others, and other women that were with them, which told these things to the Apostles.

And therefore especially among the others that sinful woman is named, when he adds: Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary of James and the others who were with them, who were telling these things to the Apostles. Now Mary Magdalene is notably placed before the others, because she loved more fervently than the others and, as is handed down, came first to the tomb and persevered longer than the rest. And therefore John, the most loving of the Lord, notably names that lover of the Lord; John 20: "Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping"; and it follows there that she saw the Angels and that at last she saw the Lord. John therefore speaks only of Mary Magdalene. Matthew speaks of two Marys: in the last chapter of Matthew: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre." But Mark speaks of three Marys: in the last chapter of Mark: "Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome bought spices." But Luke, the best narrator, speaks of these and of others. And thus it appears that among the Evangelists there is absolutely no controversy, but each is principally directed to his own intention.

All the Evangelists, however, mention the Magdalene, and especially the friend of God, John, because he appeared to her first, as is said in Mark 16: "Jesus rising early on the first day of the week appeared first to Mary Magdalene." And this for a fourfold reason: first, because she loved more ardently: above in chapter seven: "Her many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much." Second, to show that he had come for sinners: Matthew 9: "For I came not to call the just, but sinners," to repentance. Third, to crush human pride: on account of which, Matthew 21: "Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdom of God." Fourth, to give confidence; on account of which, Romans 5: "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound," etc.

The women came to the tomb, but they didn't find the body in the tomb. Instead, they were told by angels that Christ had risen. The women reported this to men. And what's written? What did you hear? These things seemed in their eyes like an idle tale. How very unhappy is the human condition! When Eve related what the serpent had said, she was listened to straightaway. A lying woman was believed, and so we all died. But [the disciples] didn't believe women telling the truth so that we might live. If women are not to be trusted, why did Adam trust Eve? If women are to be trusted, why did the disciples not trust the holy women?So in this fact we have to reflect on the goodness of the Lord's arrangements, because this, of course, was the doing of the Lord Jesus Christ that it should be the female sex which would be the first to report that he had risen again. Humanity fell through the female sex; humankind was restored through the female sex. A virgin gave birth to Christ; a woman proclaimed that he had risen again. Through a woman death, through a woman life. But the disciples didn't believe what the women had said. They thought they were raving, when in fact they were reporting the truth.

This hope, this gift, this promise, this tremendous grace—when Christ died his disciples lost it from their spirits, and on his death they fell away from hope. Here we see them receiving the news of his resurrection, and the words of the messengers seemed to them like an idle tale. Truth became like an idle tale. If ever the resurrection is proclaimed nowadays, and someone thinks it's an idle tale, doesn't everybody say he's all twisted up? Doesn't everybody loathe and detest what he says, turn away, close their ears and refuse to listen? That's what the disciples were when Christ died. What we abhor is what they were. The leading rams had the disease which the lambs shudder at.

And these words appeared to them as an idle tale, and they did not believe them. That the disciples were slow to believe in the Lord's resurrection was not so much their weakness as our (so to speak) future firmness. For the resurrection itself was shown to them with many proofs while they doubted. As we acknowledge these things by reading, what else are we but strengthened by their doubt?

(ex Greg.) Which was not so much their weakness, as so to speak our strength. For the resurrection itself was demonstrated to those who doubted by many proofs, which while we read and acknowledge we are through their doubts confirmed in the truth.

Secondly, as regards the sight of the disciples, it is added: And these words seemed before them as idle talk, and they did not believe them. Hence they did not believe what they heard, both because what was being said was wondrous, and because this was being brought about by divine dispensation, so that a greater and more certain assertion of the truth might be obtained. Hence Gregory: "That the disciples were slow to believe was not so much their incredulity as our future firmness, so to speak. For while they doubted, the resurrection was demonstrated by many proofs, which, when we recognize them as we read, what else happens but that we are strengthened by their doubt?"

The Spirit of truth would by no means have permitted this hesitation, wavering in human weakness, to enter the hearts of his preachers, if their trembling anxiety and questioning delay were not to have established the foundations of our faith. Consequently it was our doubts and our danger that was being considered in the apostles. We, in the guise of the apostles, were being instructed against the slanders of the wicked and the proofs of earthly wisdom. Their "seeing" instructed us, their "hearing" informed us, their "touching" strengthened us. Let us give thanks for the divine plan and the necessary "slowness" of the holy fathers. They "doubted" so that we need not doubt.

When they returned from the tomb and told the apostles about this, they were regarded as dreamers. So, by nature, the miracle of the resurrection seems incredible to people!

Now the miracle of the resurrection is naturally incredible to mankind. Hence it follows, And their words seemed to them as idle tales.

Luke is supposed to have mentioned this concerning Peter, recapitulating. For Peter ran to the sepulchre at the same time that John also went, as soon as it had been told to them alone by the women, (especially Mary Magdalene,) that the body was taken away. But the vision of Angels took place afterwards. Luke therefore mentioned Peter only, because to him Mary first told it. It may also strike one, that Luke says that Peter, not entering but stooping down, saw the linen clothes by themselves, and departed wondering, whereas John says, that he himself saw the linen clothes in the same position, and that he entered after Peter. We must understand then that Peter first saw them stooping down, which Luke mentions, John omits, but that he afterwards entered before John came in.

But Peter arose and ran to the tomb, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths alone, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. Luke briefly mentions Peter's run; but how this happened is more fully detailed by John, who also says that the disciple whom Jesus loved ran with Peter, thus implying himself. Therefore, it is asked how Luke says of Peter: "And stooping down, he saw the linen cloths alone" (Luke 24), while John signifies that he himself did this, but that Peter, upon entering the tomb, saw not only the linen cloths but also the napkin that had been on his head. It must be understood that Peter, stooping down, saw what Luke records, which John is silent about; but after entering, to more carefully discern the interior, he entered, yet before John entered.

Therefore the doubt arising from hearing incited them to seek certainty through sight; on account of which he adds: But Peter rising up ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves, and he went away, wondering within himself at what had happened. Now Luke narrates these things specifically about Peter, to show that he had not abandoned his fervor. But John narrates this more expressly in chapter twenty, that not Peter alone went, but also John; and that "they ran together," and that "John ran ahead more quickly than Peter, but did not enter the tomb first." Luke therefore narrates that Peter, stooping down, saw the linen cloths laid; but John pursues more expressly that he not only saw these things, but also "entered the tomb," and yet, as is said here, he went away wondering within himself, not yet believing, because it is said in John chapter twenty: "For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead."

And it should be noted that by the linen cloths laid are understood the mysteries of the humanity, which have been set forth for us to believe and understand through the mystery of the resurrection; hence Revelation chapter five: "Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, to open the book and to loose its seven seals." But because not all things can be comprehended by reason of the united Divinity, therefore it is said that he went away wondering. For it is said in the Psalm: "Your knowledge is become wonderful beyond me." And therefore, in designation of this, it is said in John chapter twenty that "the cloth which had been upon the head of Jesus, he saw not laid with the linen cloths, but separately rolled up in one place." There the Gloss: "The incomprehensible mysteries of the Divinity are removed from the knowledge of our infirmity; for in what is rolled up neither beginning nor end is seen, so the loftiness of the Divinity neither began to be nor ceased to be." And therefore Peter went away wondering; the Psalm: "Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it exceedingly."

If he left his clothes behind in the tomb, it was so that Adam could enter into paradise without clothing, just as he had been before he had sinned. In place of having to leave paradise clothed, he now had to strip himself before entering there [again]. Or [alternatively], he abandoned them to symbolize the mystery of the resurrection of the dead, for just as [the Lord] rose into glory without clothes, so we also [will rise] with our works and not with our clothes.

For he alone believed the women saying that they had seen Angels; and as he was of more ardent feelings than the rest, he anxiously put himself foremost, looking every where for the Lord; as it follows, And stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves.

However, Peter does not delay, like fire that has taken hold of material, but runs to the tomb and sees only the linen cloths lying there. And from the fact that he reached the tomb, the first benefit is that instead of mocking, he marvels: "and he went away (it says), wondering in himself at what had happened." For how did the linen cloths alone remain, and that when the body had been anointed with myrrh? How much leisure did the thief have, when he left them properly folded, carried out the body, and that when soldiers had been posted? By "Mary, the mother of James," understand the Theotokos, for she was so called as the supposed mother of James, the son of Joseph, who was called the Less; I mean the Brother of God. For there was also James the Greater, one of the Twelve, the son of Zebedee.

Peter, as soon as he heard this, delays not, but runs to the sepulchre; for fire when applied to matter knows no delay; as it follows, Then arose Peter, and ran to the sepulchre.

But now when he was at the tomb, he first of all obtained that he should marvel at those things which had before been derided by himself or the others; as it is said, And departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass; that is, wondering in himself at the way in which it had happened, how the linen clothes had been left behind, since the body was anointed with myrrh; or what opportunity the thief had obtained, that putting away the clothes wrapped up by themselves, he should take away the body with the soldiers standing round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, we believe that Peter could not have doubted, having been convinced by so many examples of virtue. It is also clear that John believed when he saw the Savior, who believed at that moment, after he saw the empty tomb. So why does Luke mention that several were troubled? First of all, because the opinion of a few includes the sentiment of the majority; secondly, even though Peter believed in the resurrection, he could still be troubled when he saw the Lord suddenly appear with his body in a place that was locked and enclosed by walls. So Luke, in his historical account, pursued each particular event: he considered the end, while here he focused on the sequence. For, by saying: "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures," he confesses that the disciples themselves came to believe what was written.

Therefore I think it most natural that our Lord indeed instructed His disciples, that they should see Him in Galilee, but that He first presents Himself as they remained still in the assembly through fear.

But afterwards when their hearts were strengthened, the eleven set out for Galilee. Or there is no difficulty in supposing that they should be reported to have been fewer in the assembly, and a larger number on the mountain.

But persuaded by the example of their virtues, we can not believe that Peter and John could have doubted. Why then does Luke relate them to have been affrighted. First of all because the declaration of the greater part includes the opinion of the few. Secondly, because although Peter believed in the resurrection, yet he might be amazed when the doors being closed Jesus suddenly presents Himself with His body.

Let us then consider how it happens that the Apostles according to John believed and rejoiced, according to Luke are reproved as unbelieving. John indeed seems to me, as being an Apostle, to have treated of greater and higher things; Luke of those which relate and are close akin to human. The one follows an historic course, the other is content with an abridgment, because it could not be doubted of him, who gives his testimony concerning those things at which he was himself present. And therefore we deem both true. For although at first Luke says that they did not believe, yet he explains that they afterwards did believe.

They were troubled and terrified, thinking they were seeing a spirit. This is what the Manichean heretics suspect and believe about Christ, that He was not true flesh, but a spirit. This first thought arose in the hearts of the apostles. And indeed those Manicheans never believed that Jesus was a man. However, the disciples knew the man with whom they had conversed for such a long time. But after He died, could they believe that what they knew could be raised again if it could die? Therefore, He appeared to their eyes as the one they knew. And not believing that true flesh could rise from the grave on the third day, they thought they were seeing a spirit. This error of the apostles is the sect of the Manicheans. However, when these things are objected to them, they usually respond in this way: What harm do we believe? We believe Christ as God, we believe He was a spirit, we do not believe He was flesh. Spirit is better than flesh. We believe what is better; we do not wish to believe what is worse. If there is nothing wrong with this statement, let Jesus leave His disciples in this error. What harm did the disciples believe too? They believed Christ to be a spirit. For they did not think He was nothing, but a spirit. If you think you are at risk from a small sickness, listen to the doctor's sentence.

The disciples had known Christ to be really man, having been so long a time with Him; but after that He was dead, they do not believe that the real flesh could rise again from the grave on the third day. They think then that they see the spirit which He gave up at His passion. Therefore it follows, But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. This mistake of the Apostles was the heresy of the Manichæans.

For which reason he adds: But troubled and frightened, they supposed that they were seeing a spirit. They were frightened because they had seen him dead on the cross, and because they feared lest "Satan should transform himself into an angel of light," and because he had come with the doors shut: whence John 20: "When therefore it was late on that day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be to you."

But in this there seems to be a contradiction between Luke and John, because in John 20 it is said: "The disciples were glad, having seen the Lord." But there is no contradiction, because first they were frightened, but afterward, when his hands and side had been shown, they were glad. — There also seems to be a contradiction because John says that "Thomas was not with them when Jesus came"; but Luke says that "they found the eleven gathered together." — But to this Augustine responds that Thomas was with the disciples when those two returned, but afterward went out before the Lord appeared while they were speaking.

But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom-nay, were supposing that He was one-He says to them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him-I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any.

But since this word did not quiet the agitation of their souls, He shows them in another way that He is the Son of God, who knows the hearts.

And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. Not only the hands and feet, which bore the marks of the nails, but also the side which had been pierced by a spear, as attested by John, he showed. So that by showing the scars of his wounds, he might heal their wound of doubt and unbelief. Indeed, just as after the resurrection he graciously revealed the places of the nails and the spear to strengthen the faith and hope of his disciples, so in the day of judgment he will come revealing the same signs of his passion and the very cross itself to confound the wickedness and unbelief of the proud. Clearly, that he might show to all, angels and men alike, that it is him who died for the impious and by the impious, and they shall see (as it is written) him whom they pierced, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him (Rev 1:7). Certainly, it must be noted that the Gentiles are accustomed to raising a challenge in this place, and foolishly ridicule the faith in our hoped-for resurrection. For if your God (they say) could not heal the wounds inflicted by the Jews on himself, but as you say, took the marks of the scars with him to heaven, with what boldness do you believe that he will restore your bodies from dust to their entirety? To which the response must be that our God, who raised his flesh, glorified now with perpetual immortality, from the sepulcher when and how he chose, also restored it as he willed. For it does not follow that he who is proven to have done greater things would be unable to do lesser ones. But certainly, out of grace of his dispensation, he who did the greater chose not to erase the lesser, that is, he who destroyed the realms of death chose not to obliterate the signs of death. First, evidently, so that through these he might establish the faith of his resurrection for the disciples. Then, so that while interceding with the Father for us, he might always show what kind of death he endured for the life of mortals. Third, so that he might always renew the signs of the same death by which they have been redeemed, generously aiding them, so that they might never cease to sing the mercies of the Lord eternally, but let those say, who have been redeemed by the Lord, that he is good, for his mercy endures forever. Finally, so that, in the judgment, he might also demonstrate to the faithless how justly they are condemned, by showing, among other crimes, even the scars of the wounds he received from them. Just as if some most valiant man, by the command of his King, striving in singular combat for the salvation of the entire people, should receive many wounds but nonetheless kill the enemy, plunder his spoils, and bring victory to his people; and when asked by the physician tasked with his care whether he desires to be healed in such a way that no traces of the wounds remain or rather that the scars should remain while all deformity and filth are completely absent, he would reply that he prefers to be healed in such a way that, having fully recovered his former state of health and glory, he perpetually carries with him the signs of such a great triumph. Likewise, the Lord, for the perpetual sign of victory, preferred to bring the scars of the wounds of his passion with him to heaven, rather than to erase them. Yet, none of this detracts from the faith in our resurrection, concerning which it is prophesied with true promise: Not a hair of your head will perish (Luke 21:18).

Likewise, for greater certainty he not only presented a palpable body, but also showed the scars of his body; whence he adds: And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet, namely with the scars. Now the Lord preserved these, as Bede says, for four reasons: "First, to establish faith in the resurrection. Second, so that when supplicating the Father on our behalf, he may always show what kind of death he endured. Third, so that to those redeemed by his death, he may intimate how mercifully they were aided, by setting forth the signs of that same death. Finally, so that at the judgment he may declare how justly the impious are condemned"; Revelation 1: "Every eye shall see him, and they also who pierced him." — A further reason could also be assigned, namely, to inflame our cold affection, as Ambrose says. And sixth, as a sign of victory: whence Bede: "He preserved the scars not out of inability, but so that he might bear about the triumph of his perpetual victory." Seventh, as a preeminent sign of love: whence Isaiah 49: "In my hands I have inscribed you"; and Song of Songs 8: "Set me as a seal upon your heart."

(Mor. 14. c. 55.) It follows, And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet, on which indeed were clearly marked the prints of the nails. But according to John, He also showed them His side which had been pierced with the spear, that by manifesting the scar of His wounds He might heal the wound of their doubtfulness. But from this place the Gentiles are fond of raising up a calumny, as if He was not able to cure the wound inflicted on Him. To whom we must answer, that it is not probable that He who is proved to have done the greater should be unable to do the less. But for the sake of His sure purpose, He who destroyed death would not blot out the signs of death. First indeed, that He might thereby build up His disciples in the faith of His resurrection. Secondly, that supplicating the Father for us, He might always show forth what kind of death He endured for many. Thirdly, that He might point out to those redeemed by His death, by setting before them the signs of that death, how mercifully they have been succoured. Lastly, that He might declare in the judgment how justly the wicked are condemned.

Then they offered him a piece of broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, he took the remains and gave them to them. What do we believe the broiled fish to signify, if not the Mediator between God and men, himself suffering as a man? For he deigned to hide in the waters of the human race and willed to be caught in the snare of our death, and as it were, to be roasted by the fire of his passion. But he who deigned to become a broiled fish in his passion, was to us a honeycomb in his resurrection. Or does the one who willed in the broiled fish to symbolize the tribulations of his passion, in the honeycomb wish to express both natures of his person? For the honeycomb is honey in wax. The honey in the wax is divinity in humanity. Thus, the Redeemer manifests his own, so that he might lay out for us the path to follow. For behold, he wished to join a honeycomb with his broiled fish because assuredly he receives into eternal rest in his body those who here endure tribulations for God and do not withdraw from the love of interior sweetness. When a honeycomb is taken with a broiled fish, it means that those who here take on affliction for the truth are there satisfied with true sweetness.

But mystically, the broiled fish of which Christ ate signifies the sufferings of Christ. For He having condescended to lie in the waters of the human race, was willing to be taken by the hook of our death, and was as it were burnt up by anguish at the time of His Passion. But the honeycomb was present to us at the resurrection. By the honeycomb He wished to represent to us the two natures of His person. For the honeycomb is of wax, but the honey in the wax is the Divine nature in the human.

And therefore he adds: And they offered him a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb. Now Christ ate this not in secret but publicly, as a proof of his resurrection. Hence he adds: And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. Now the Lord ate not from need but from power. Hence, just as "the ray of the sun absorbs water in one way and the earth in another, because the former does so by power, the latter by need," so Christ before the resurrection took food from necessity, but after the resurrection consumed it by his own power. And therefore Augustine, in the thirteenth book of The City of God, says: "Not the power but the want of eating and drinking shall be taken away from glorified bodies." Therefore the truth of the eating was a true proof of the resurrection.

And it should be noted that by the broiled fish is understood the affliction of the humanity assumed. Hence Bede says: "The broiled fish is the Mediator himself who suffered, caught in the waters of the human race, broiled at the time of the passion." As a figure of this, Tobias, chapter six, says of the fish that was caught: "If you place a piece of its heart upon coals, its smoke drives out every kind of demon." This is the fish in whose mouth is found the price of our redemption, as is intimated in Matthew, chapter seventeen.

By the honeycomb, however, is understood Christ as God and as glorified. Hence Bede says: "Christ is a honeycomb to us in the resurrection. The honeycomb, honey in wax, is the Divinity in the humanity." The Psalm says: "Taste and see that the Lord is sweet." And therefore in the canticle of Deuteronomy: "That he might suck honey from the rock and oil from the hardest stone." — This therefore is the food in which Christ delights, because all his delight is in himself. The remains of this food spiritual men eat, of whom Wisdom, chapter sixteen, says: "You provided them bread prepared from heaven without labor." The Psalm says: "With your remains you shall prepare their countenance."

(Orat. 1. de Res.) By the command of the law indeed the Passover was eaten with bitter herbs, because the bitterness of bondage still remained, but after the resurrection the food is sweetened with a honeycomb; as it follows, And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb.

In the midst of these things, both yesterday's reading of the holy Gospel and today's admonishes us that we ought to carefully consider why our Lord and Redeemer is recorded to have eaten roasted fish after his resurrection. For what is repeated in deed is not without mystery. For in this reading he ate bread and roasted fish, but in that which was read yesterday he ate with the roasted fish also a honeycomb. What do we believe the roasted fish signifies, except the Mediator himself between God and men who suffered? For he deigned to hide in the waters of the human race, he willed to be caught, caught in the snare of our death, and was as it were roasted by tribulation at the time of his passion. But he who deigned to become a roasted fish in his passion, became a honeycomb for us in his resurrection. Or did he who wished to prefigure the tribulation of his passion in the roasted fish, wish to express both natures of his person in the honeycomb? For a honeycomb is honey in wax, but honey in wax is divinity in humanity.

And therefore he would remember the passage concerning the eating of our Lord, where it is written of Him that, "He made the festival, and ate the passover;" or where it is said that, "They set before Him a piece of broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb;" or where again it is written, "They had fishes and bread." And these and such like things doth the glutton bring forward as proofs when he wisheth to eat everything freely, and the rule of the freedom of Christ, Who like God was above laws and commandments, doth he set forth to be a stumbling-block to his life, and he understandeth not the reason of that rule and conduct, and he perceiveth not that other types were inscribed therein.

Yes, and besides the figure, there is contumely with ready lip, and dishonour, and infamy, and the ferocity involved in the cruel things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the Lord, that you may now be crowned with laurel, and myrtle, and olive, and any famous branch, and which is of more use, with hundred-leaved roses too, culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of lily, and with violets of all sorts, perhaps also with gems and gold, so as even to rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained. For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb and He was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honour.

The foods He consumed seem to have a certain hidden meaning as well. By eating "a piece of broiled fish," the Lord indicates that by the fire of His Divinity He broiled our nature, which was swimming in the salt sea of this life, dried up all the moisture clinging to it from the deep waters, and especially from the waves, and thus made it divine food, rendering what was formerly unclean into a morsel pleasing to God. This is signified by the honeycomb, that is, the present sweetness of our nature, which was formerly rejected. Or, I also think that "broiled fish" signifies the active life, which by means of the coals of the desert and of silence destroys in us the excess of moisture and fatness, while "honeycomb" signifies knowledge or contemplation, since the words of God are sweet (Ps. 19:10). However, there is the honey of drones — pagan wisdom, and there is the honey of bees — divine wisdom, and the bee is Christ. Although it is small in size, for the word is brief and weak in power, since Paul preaches not with wisdom of words, lest the cross be made void (1 Cor. 1:17), nevertheless it is beloved by kings and common people alike, who use its labors for the health of their souls.

The things eaten seem also to contain another mystery. For in that He ate part of a broiled fish, He signifies that having burnt by the fire of His own divinity our nature swimming in the sea of this life, and dried up the moisture which it had contracted from the waves, He made it divine food; and that which was before abominable He prepared to be a sweet offering to God, which the honeycomb signifies. Or by the broiled fish He signifies the active life, drying up the moisture with the coals of labour, but by the honeycomb, the contemplative life on account of the sweetness of the oracles of God.

To convey therefore the truth of His resurrection, He condescends not only to be touched by His disciples, but to eat with them, that they might not suspect that His appearance was not actual, but only imaginary. Hence it follows, And when he had eaten before them, he took the remnant, and gave to them. He ate indeed by His power, not from necessity. The thirsty earth absorbs water in one way, the burning sun in another way, the one from want, the other from power.

He ate therefore after the resurrection, not as needing food, nor as signifying that the resurrection which we are expecting will need food; but that He might thereby build up the nature of a rising body.

To establish the truth of the Lord's resurrection, we should also note what Luke reports, saying: "Eating together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." And a little later: "While they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud received him from their sight." Note the words, mark the mysteries. Eating together he was lifted up. He ate, and he ascended, so that through the act of eating the truth of his flesh might be made evident.

After his resurrection from the dead, he put aside all his passions: ruin, hunger and thirst, sleep and fatigue, and the like. Although he did taste food after his resurrection, it was not in obedience to any law of nature. He did not feel hunger, but at the appointed time, he confirmed the truth of the resurrection by showing that the flesh which had suffered and that which had risen were the same.

When the disciples still did not believe and were not convinced even by touch, the Lord added yet another proof — the partaking of food, consuming what was eaten by a certain divine power. For everything that is naturally eaten by the mouth passes out through the bowels, but He, as we have said, partakes not according to the law of nature, but by a special dispensation.

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and he said to them: Because it is written thus, and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day. He offers himself to be seen with the eyes, he offers himself to be handled by the hands. It is not enough to read, he recalls the Scriptures. And this is not enough, he opens the mind, so that what you read you understand. Then after commending the truth of his body, he commends the unity of the Church.

After having presented Himself to be seen with the eye, and handled with hands, and having brought to their minds the Scriptures of the law, He next opened their understanding that they should understand what was read.

The second key is the understanding of the Incarnate Word, through whom all things are restored. "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled that are written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures." Who is speaking? The Word of God, of whom John writes: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," where He displayed two natures within a single Person. Hence: "Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes." The two Cherubim are the two Testaments whose gaze is directed upon Christ. He opened their minds when they understood the Scriptures, meaning that the book of Scriptures is understood precisely through that key, the Incarnate Word, the one eminently concerned with the works of restoration. For unless you understand the order and origin of restoration, you cannot understand Scriptures.

This is what incarnate Wisdom says: "I dwelt in the highest heavens," in the creation; "My throne is in a pillar of cloud," in the incarnation; "I have walked in the waves of the sea," in the passion; "I have penetrated into the bottom of the deep," in the penetration of Scriptures, for after He arose, "He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures." By faith in the cross, Peter walked on the sea.

Second, with regard to the infused light of understanding, he adds: Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures: he, I say, opened, because he alone holds the key, according to that passage in Isaiah twenty-two: "I will give him the key of David, and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." And therefore the Prophet asks in the Psalm: "Open my eyes, and I will consider the wondrous things of your law"; because, in Daniel two, "he reveals deep things and knows what is established in darkness, and the light is with him."

Now these deep mysteries in Scripture no one understands except through Christ crucified and raised up and proclaimed to the nations through the Holy Spirit, because the Scriptures are about him and for his sake, and therefore they are explained by him. Whence in the Apocalypse it is said that the Lion raised up and the Lamb slain opened the book: Apocalypse five: "The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, who is worthy to open the book and to loose its seven seals. And I saw in the midst of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a Lamb standing as though slain." "And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, and they sang a new song, saying: You are worthy, O Lord, to open the book and to loose its seals." And thus it is clear that he himself expounds the doctrine of the books of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the elders and the living creatures brought together.

Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures; and said unto them, That thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name even among all nations."

Again, in the Pslams, David says: "Bring to God, ye countries of the nations"-undoubtedly because "unto every land" the preaching of the apostles had to "go out" -"bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up victims and enter into His courts.

When the Lord had calmed and quieted the hearts of the disciples, having assured them of the reality of the resurrection of His body through His words, by allowing them to touch Him, and by partaking of food, then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. For if their soul had not been calmed, how would they have understood, being in a state of disorder, in a state of confusion? For "Be still," it is said, "and know" (Ps. 46:10).

Otherwise, how would their agitated and perplexed minds have learnt the mystery of Christ.