Sunday after Nativity

"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.

You have read that the Father is both Lord and God: "O Lord my God, I will call on you, hear me." You find the Son to be both Lord and God, as you have read in the Gospel, that, when Thomas had touched the side of Christ, he said, "My Lord and my God." So just as the Father is God and the Son Lord, so too the Son is God and the Father Lord. The holy designation changes from one to the other. The divine nature does not change, but the dignity remains unchangeable. For they are not [as it were] contributions gathered from bounty but free-will gifts of natural love. For unity has its special property, and the special properties are bound together in unity.

Let them therefore confess, even they who previously denied that the crucified was God, that they have erred. For the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing upon him the print of the nails, cried out, "My Lord and my God."

You have heard that those who do not see and believe are more praised by the Lord than those who see and believe, and even those who have been able to touch. For the apostle Thomas, when the Lord had shown himself to his disciples, was absent; and when he heard from them that Christ had risen, he said: Unless I put my hand into his side, I will not believe. What if, then, the Lord had risen without scars? Indeed, could he not have resurrected his flesh, so that no traces of wounds would remain in it? He could have done this; but unless he had retained the scars on his body, he would not have healed the wounds in our heart. He was touched, and he was recognized. It was not enough for him to see with his eyes; he wanted to believe with his fingers. Come, he says, put your fingers here; I did not take everything away, I kept something for you to believe in; and see my side, and do not be unbelieving, but faithful. But when he revealed to him what had remained doubtful, he exclaimed: My Lord and my God. He was touching the flesh, and he was calling out to the divinity. What did he touch? The body of Christ. Was the body of Christ the divinity of Christ? The divinity of Christ was the Word; the humanity of Christ was soul and flesh. He could not touch the soul itself, but he could understand it, because the body which had been dead was moving alive. But that Word is neither changed nor touched, neither diminished nor increased; because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This is what Thomas cried out; he was touching the flesh, he was invoking the Word, because the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

(Tr. cxxi) Thomas saw and touched the man, and confessed the God whom he neither saw nor touched. By means of the one he believed the other undoubtingly: Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God.

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!"

Thomas answered. Here is noted the building up of faith proceeding from the Lord's manifestation. Now our faith is established in a threefold manner from the divine manifestation: either through presence, that is, through sight; or through absence, that is, through hearing; or through the testimony of Scripture. In the first manner, therefore, faith was built up in Thomas, who believed; in the second manner, in the others, who had believed those who reported; in the third manner, in those who were going to believe through the Scriptures.

The faith of Thomas is therefore touched upon, which is indicated in his right confession: whence he says: Thomas responded and said, after so great a showing: My Lord, as to his humanity, and my God, as to his Divinity: for he is God because he created; he is Lord because he purchased us as servants; First Peter 1: "You were redeemed not with corruptible gold or silver, but with the precious blood, as of an immaculate and undefiled lamb, Christ Jesus."

He that had shortly before been slack in the duty of faith was now eager to profess it. and in a short time his fault was wholly cured. For after an interval of only eight days the hindrances to his faith were removed by Christ, Who showed unto him the print of the nails and His wounded Side. But, perhaps, someone will ask the question: "Tell me why did the minds of the holy disciples carry out so rigid an inquiry, and so careful a scrutiny? For would not the sight of the Lord's Body, the features of His Face, and the measure of His Stature, have sufficed to prove that He had indeed risen from the dead, and to secure His recognition?" What do we reply? The inspired disciples were not free from doubt, although they had seen the Lord. For. they thought that He was not in very truth the same as He Who of old had lived and dwelt among them, and had hung upon the Cross, but rather that He was a Spirit, cunningly fashioned like unto our Saviour's Image, and simulating the features of the form which they knew. For they fell into this delusion not without some apparent excuse, as He miraculously entered when the doors were closed; in spite of the fact that a body of coarse earthy mould requires a hole through which it can pass, and necessitates the aperture of the door to correspond in width with the size of the body. For this cause our Lord Jesus Christ, greatly to our profit, laid bare His Side to Thomas, and exposed the wounds on His Person, through his agency giving adequate proof to all. For though of Thomas alone is recorded the saying: Except I shall put my hands and see the prints of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe, yet was the charge of lack of faith common to them all; and we shall find that the minds of the other disciples were not free from perplexity, though they said unto the holy Thomas: We have seen the Lord. And that what we say does not err from the truth we may easily perceive by what the Divine Luke tells us: As they spake these things, He stood in the midst of them, that is, of course, Christ, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts? See My Hands and My Feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His Hands and His Feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. You see how the thought of unbelief is found lurking, not in the blessed Thomas alone, but that the minds of the other disciples were afflicted with a kindred disease. For, lo and behold! seeing that their faith wavered even after the sight of the wounds upon the Cross, He thought it right to convince them by another act, in nowise suited to a spirit, but specially appropriate to earthly bodies and the nature of flesh. For He ate the fish that was brought unto Him, or the portion of one. For when no mark at all of corruption any longer remained after the Resurrection of His holy Flesh, because He lived again to incorruption, and when it was incredible that His Body stood in need of food as heretofore, He yet showed unto them the print of the nails, and did not refuse to partake of food, in order that He might establish the great mystery of the Resurrection, and cause faith in it to spring up in the souls of us all. He does acts wholly alien to the nature of spirits. For how, and in what way, could the prints of nails, and the traces of wounds, and participation in bodily food, be found to exist in a naked spirit unconnected with flesh, to which all these things are suitable by the law of its being and the conditions under which it exists? In order, then, that none might think that Christ rose again a mere spirit, or an impalpable body, shadowy and ethereal, to which some give the name of spiritual, but that the selfsame body that was sown in corruption, as Paul saith, might be believed to have risen again, He openly did acts suitable to a palpable human form. What we said at first, however, namely, that the blessed disciple did not so much lack faith owing to infirmity of judgment, but rather was affected in this way by excess of joy, will not be wide of the mark. For we have heard the saying of the blessed Luke concerning all the others: And while they disbelieved for joy and wondered. It was wonder, therefore, that made the disciples slow to be convinced. But as henceforward there was no excuse for unbelief, as they saw with their own eyes, the blessed Thomas accordingly unflinchingly confessed his faith in Him, saying: My Lord and my God. For we must all confess that it follows of a surety that He That is Lord by Nature and Ruler over all is also God, just as also universal dominion and the glory of sovereignty is clearly seen to appertain to the living God.

Observe, too, that when he says My Lord and my God, he uses the article to show that there was One Lord and One God. For he does not say without the qualification of the article, My Lord and my God, to prevent any one from imagining that he called Him Lord or God as he might have done one of ourselves or of the holy angels. For there are gods many and lords many, in this sense, in heaven and on earth, as the wise Paul has taught us; but rather he recognises Him as, in a special sense, the One Lord and God, as begotten of the Father, Who is by Nature Lord and God, when he says, My Lord and my God; and, what is a still greater indication of the truth, the Saviour heard His disciple saying this, and saw that he rested in the firm conviction that He was, in fact, the Lord and God, and thought it not right to rebuke him. Christ, then, approved his faith, and with justice. And you may easily see that what I say is true. For to him that was possessed of this faith He says, at the end of the Gospel, as unto the rest: Go ye and make disciples of all the nations. And if He bids him who was thus minded teach all nations, and appointed him to instruct the world in His mysteries, He wishes us to have a like faith. For He is, in fact, Lord and God by Nature, even when Incarnate Man. For observe that the disciple, when he had touched His Hands, and Feet, and Side, made unto Him this confession of faith, not severing Emmanuel into a duality of Sons, but recognising Him as one and the same in the Flesh, for Jesus Christ is One Lord, according to the Scripture.

But he touched, and exclaimed: My Lord, and my God. Jesus says to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed. Since the apostle Paul says: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not appearing, it is certainly clear that faith is the evidence of those things which cannot appear. For those things which appear no longer have faith, but recognition. Therefore when Thomas saw, when he touched, why is it said to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed? But he saw one thing, he believed another. For divinity could not be seen by a mortal man. Therefore he saw the man, and confessed God, saying: My Lord, and my God. Therefore by seeing he believed, who considering the true man, exclaimed that this was God, whom he could not see.

And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." And He says to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side;" and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, "My Lord, and my God." And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes.

Thomas, when he touched the flesh, believed that he had touched God, saying, "My Lord and my God." For they all confessed but one Christ, so as not to make him two. Do you therefore believe him? And do you believe in such a way that Jesus Christ the Lord of all, both Only Begotten and firstborn, is both creator of all things and preserver of humanity and that the same person is first the framer of the whole world and afterward redeemer of humankind?

Seest thou that his doubt proceeded from unbelief? But it was before he had received the Spirit; after that, it was no longer so, but, for the future, they were perfected. And not in this way only did Jesus rebuke him, but also by what follows; for when he, being fully satisfied, breathed again, and cried aloud, "My Lord, and my God," He saith, "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." For this is of faith, to receive things not seen; since, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And here He pronounceth blessed not the disciples only, but those also who after them should believe. "Yet," saith some one, "the disciples saw and believed." Yes, but they sought nothing of the kind, but from the proof of the napkins, they straightway received the word concerning the Resurrection, and before they saw the body, exhibited all faith. When therefore any one in the present day say, "I would that I had lived in those times, and had seen Christ working miracles," let them reflect, that, "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." It is worth enquiring, how an incorruptible body showed the prints of the nails, and was tangible by a mortal hand. But be not thou disturbed; what took place was a matter of condescension. For that which was so subtle and light as to enter in when the doors were shut, was free from all density; but this marvel was shown, that the Resurrection might be believed, and that men might know that it was the Crucified One Himself, and that another rose not in His stead. On this account He arose bearing the signs of the Cross, and on this account He eateth. At least the Apostles everywhere made this a sign of the Resurrection, saying, "We, who did eat and drink with Him." As therefore when we see Him walking on the waves before the Crucifixion, we do not say, that that body is of a different nature, but of our own; so after the Resurrection, when we see Him with the prints of the nails, we will no more say, that he is therefore corruptible. For He exhibited these appearances on account of the disciple.

No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all "God and Lord." Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate, since you see it taking place.

And [Thomas] touched him carefully, and when he discovered the truth, confessed his fault by saying, "My Lord and my God!" What does this mean? While Thomas did not believe before that the Savior had resurrected from the dead, now he calls him Lord and God? This is not likely. Thomas, the doubtful disciple, does not call Lord and God the one whom he touched—in fact, the knowledge of the resurrection did not teach him that the resurrected one was God. Rather, he praised God for the accomplished miracle, being astonished for the miracles that he saw.

See how he who at first did not believe, from touching the side became an excellent theologian. For he proclaimed two natures and one person in the one Christ. By saying "Lord," he confessed the human nature, for "Lord" is used of men as well, for example: "Sir, if you have carried Him away" (John 20:15). And by saying "my God," he confessed the divine essence, and thus confessed One and the Same as both Lord and God.

He who had been before unbelieving, after touching the body showed himself the best divine; for he asserted the twofold nature and one Person of Christ; by saying, My Lord, the human nature, by saying, My God, the divine, and by joining them both, confessed that one and the same Person was Lord and God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed.

Here He means the disciples who had believed without seeing the print of the nails, and His side.

2562 The Evangelist now mentions Thomas' profession. It seems that Thomas quickly became a good theologian by professing a true faith. He professed the humanity of Christ when he said, My Lord, for he had called Christ this before the passion: "You call me Teacher and Lord" (Jn 13:13). And he professed the divinity of Christ when he said, and my God. Before this, the only one who had called Christ God was Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16); "This is the true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20).

After telling us of the incident in connection with which the disciple Thomas had offered to his touch the places of the wounds in Christ's body, and saw what he would not believe, and believed, the evangelist John interposes these words, and says: "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life through His name." This paragraph indicates, as it were, the end of the book; but there is afterwards related how the Lord manifested Himself at the sea of Tiberias, and in the draught of fishes made special reference to the mystery of the Church, as regards its future character, in the final resurrection of the dead. I think, therefore, it is fitted to give special prominence thereto, that there has been thus interposed, as it were, an end of the book, and that there should be also a kind of preface to the narrative that was to follow, in order in some measure to give it a position of greater eminence.

Many other signs indeed. Here the faith of those believing through Scripture of such manifestations is touched upon: therefore he says that manifestations of this kind were written down to establish the faith of those who could not see them. And therefore not all things were written, but those which suffice for our faith: and so he says: Many other signs indeed Jesus did in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book: because it is not ours to narrate all things, but to build up faith.

He sums up the book in a manner, and makes plain to His hearers the object of the preaching of the Gospel. For, he says, this book was composed that ye may believe, and believing might have eternal life. He says that the signs were many, and does not limit the actions and marvellous works of our Saviour to those which were accurately known by him personally, and recorded by him, and leaves the other disciples to publish, if they chose, whatever was vividly impressed on their memory. For all the signs, he says, are not written in this book, but those only have been inserted by me which I thought best able to convince my hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

This is what the inspired Evangelist says; and I think, too, that it may be of use to make the following observation: For if the whole meaning of the record is directed to producing in us this faith, and is well calculated to make us steadfast in the conviction that the Child of the Holy Virgin, Who was called Jesus by the voice of the angel, is the very Christ Whose coming was proclaimed by Holy Writ; and if He be, indeed, very Christ and none other----not merely a son but the Son of God in a unique and special sense; what then, I ask, can they who, through ignorance, are in doubt about the faith, and who, furthermore, strive to teach others to believe that there are two Christs----what can they do or say in their defence, and what will be the sentence passed upon them when the great day shall come? For they divide Christ into two separate Beings, Man and God the Word, even after His union with man, and His ineffable and wholly incomprehensible Incarnation. Therefore are they in error, and have wandered far astray from the truth, and denied the Master that bought them. For if we examine into the definition of the being of Christ, and form a conception of Him, we find that the flesh is different from God the Word, Which is in the Father, and proceedeth from Him; but if we consider the meaning of 'the Incarnation, and strive to fathom so far as we are able this exceeding great mystery, we conceive of the Word as One with His own Flesh, though not converted into flesh. God forbid that we should so say, for the Nature of the Word is inconvertible and unchangeable, and admits of no shadow of turning. Rather do we maintain, according to our Holy and inspired Scriptures, that the Messiah, conceived of as attaining to the perfect definition of manhood through the Temple of flesh that enshrined His Godhead, is One only----Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God. Consider that the selfsame truth is found to have existence in the nature of ourselves who are men. For we are combined into one man composed of soul and |694 body; the body and the soul that it contains being distinct, but nevertheless coinciding to form one perfect animal, and wholly incapable of separation after combination with each other.

Since this Evangelist hath mentioned fewer than the others, he tells us that neither have all the others mentioned them all, but as many as were sufficient to draw the hearers to belief. For, "If," it saith, "they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books." Whence it is clear, that What they have mentioned they wrote not for display, but only for the sake of what was useful. For how could they who omitted the greater part, write these others for display? But why went they not through them all? Chiefly on account of their number; besides, they also considered, that he who believed not those they had mentioned, would not give heed to a greater number; while he who received these, would have no need of another in order to believe. And here too he seems to me to be for the time speaking of the miracles after the Resurrection. Wherefore He saith, "In the presence of His disciples."

For as before the Resurrection it was necessary that many should be done, in order that they might believe that He was the Son of God, so was it also after the Resurrection, in order that they might admit that He had arisen. For another reason also he has added, "In the presence of His disciples," because He conversed with them alone after the Resurrection; wherefore also He said, "The world seeth Me no more." Then, in order that thou mayest understand that what was done was done only for the sake of the disciples, he added, "That believing ye might have life in His Name."

Speaking generally to mankind, and showing that not on Him who is believed on, but on ourselves, he bestows a very great favor. "In His Name," that is, "through Him"; for He is the Life.

With these words the Evangelist shows that there were countless signs that the Savior performed before the disciples. In addition, he testifies that the words of the Gospels are true, namely, those scattered accounts composed accurately by the other [Evangelists] but were omitted by him. With his words here he demonstrates that he did not report those words without any polemical intention, but he shows that the words of the other [Evangelists] are true and are sufficient for the one who comes in faith and considers, reads and understands them.

Of what signs does the evangelist speak here? Surely of those which the Lord performed before His suffering? No, but of those which He performed after His resurrection. For the evangelist adds: "He did in the presence of His disciples." But the miracles before the suffering the Lord performed not before the disciples, but before all. Therefore the evangelist now speaks of those miracles which were performed by the Lord after the resurrection. For, associating with the disciples alone for forty days, He presented proofs of the resurrection. Just as before the suffering He performed miracles in confirmation that He is the Son of God, so after the resurrection He performed miracles before the disciples in confirmation that He is the Son of Man, that is, He bears a body, though incorruptible and most godlike, and no longer subject to the laws of the flesh.

2567 Now the Evangelist gives his epilogue: first he mentions the incompleteness of his gospel; secondly, the benefits it will give (v 31). Its incompleteness is clear, for Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, "Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways; and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" (Job 26:14); "Many things greater than these lie hidden, for we have seen but few of his works" (Si 43:32). According to Chrysostom, John said this because he mentioned fewer miracles than the other evangelists and he did not want it to be thought that he was denying these other miracles, and so he especially added, which are not written in this book. Or, John could be referring to the passion and resurrection of Christ, meaning that after his resurrection Christ gave many indications of his resurrection "in the presence of the disciples" that were not shown to others: "God... made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses," (Acts 10:40).

But these things are written, that you may believe: Romans 15: "Whatever things were written, were written for our instruction." That you may believe, I say, that Jesus is the Son of God, that is, humanity and Divinity in Christ; Luke 1: "You shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High"; First John 5: "Who is it that overcomes the world, if not he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" And because there is no standing still in faith, therefore he orders this end to the ultimate end: And that believing you may have life, because, as is said in Hebrews 11, "without faith it is impossible to please God," but those who believe possess life; First Peter 1: "Believing, you shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified, obtaining the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls." In his name, that is, in the faith of his name; Acts 4: "There is no other name under heaven given to men, by which we must be saved"; First John last: "These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God."

Not only does it proceed sublimely, but it also leads to sublime things. Sublime things are eternal goods; for temporal goods are the lowest and momentary; whence Second Corinthians four: "That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation works in us above measure an eternal weight of glory in sublimity." To this sublime weight of glory the doctrine of the Gospel according to John leads. Whence John twenty: "These things are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name:" that is, that eternal and sublime life, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man.

That it ought to proceed with certitude seems evident: because "nothing is more certain to a man than his own faith": therefore no knowledge or doctrine ought to be handed down more certainly than that which generates faith. But John's doctrine is for generating faith, as is said in John twenty: therefore it ought to be most certain and to proceed with certitude.

Therefore did the Lord also say to His disciples after the resurrection, "O thoughtless ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?" And again does He say to them: "These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they should understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in His name among all nations." Now this is He who was born of Mary; for He says: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again." The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,"-foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist."

Why does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written unless, to use its own words, it is so "that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"? Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views there, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father but the Son.

Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not "the Messias which is called Christ? " And so lie showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called "the Christ, the Son of God," and not the Father.

Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, "that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? " Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel.

"So, from the many miracles performed after the resurrection, only these have been recorded, and not out of boasting, or to add glory to the Only-Begotten, but, he says, so that you might believe." And what is the benefit, and to whom does it pertain? Not to Christ. For what benefit is our faith to Him? But it serves us ourselves. For, believing that He is risen and alive, we prepare life for ourselves, for He is risen and alive for us. But whoever thinks that He is dead, and has not risen and is not alive, assigns and affirms death and destruction for himself.

2568 Now he mentions the benefits given by this gospel. It is useful for producing faith: these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Indeed, all Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, are for this purpose: "The beginning of the book writes about me" [Ps 40:7]; "Search the scriptures... it is they that bear witness to me" (5:39). Another benefit of his gospel is that it also produces the fruit of life, and that believing you may have life: the life of righteousness, which is given by faith ‑ "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Hab 2:4) ‑ and in the future, the life of vision, which is given by glory. This life is in his name, the name of Christ: "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, two men are depicted, but Luke depicts one. Matthew depicts it as Jesus was leaving Jericho, but Luke as he was approaching the city. Otherwise there is no difference. The image of the Gentile people is in this case one man who through the divine blessing received the clarity of his lost sight. It makes no difference whether the Gentile people received the healing through one or two blind men since, taking the origin from Ham and Japheth, sons of Noah, they set out the two authors of their race in two blind men.

In the blind man we have a type of the Gentile people, who have received by the Sacrament of our Lord the brightness of the light which they had lost. And it matters not whether the cure is conveyed in the case of one or two blind men, inasmuch as deriving their origin from Ham and Japhet, the sons of Noah, in the two blind men they put forward two authors of their race.

We might understand the expression of being nigh to Jericho, as if they had already gone out of it, but were still near. It might, though less common in this sense, be so taken here, since Matthew relates, that as they were going out of Jericho, two men received their sight who sat by the way side. There need be no question about the number, if we suppose that one of the Evangelists remembering only one was silent about the other. Mark also mentions only one, and he too says that he received his sight as they were going out of Jericho; he has given also the name of the man and of his father, to let us understand that this one was well known, but the other not so, so that it might come to pass that the one who was known would be naturally the only one mentioned. But seeing that what follows in St. Luke's Gospel most plainly proves the truth of his account, that while they were yet coming to Jericho, the miracle took place, we cannot but suppose that there were two such miracles, the first upon one blind man when our Lord was coming to that city, the second on two, when He was departing out of it; Luke relating the one, Matthew the other.

(de Quæst. Ev. l. ii. qu. 48.) If we interpret Jericho to mean the moon, and therefore death, our Lord when approaching His death commanded the light of the Gospel to be preached to the Jews only, who are signified by that one blind man whom Luke speaks of, but rising again from the dead and ascending to heaven, to both Jews and Gentiles; and these two nations seem to be denoted by the two blind men whom Matthew mentions.

And it came to pass, that as he was coming near Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way begging. And when he heard the multitude passing by, he asked what it meant. They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. This blind man signifies, by allegory, the human race, which, expelled from the joys of paradise in the first parent, suffering the darkness of damnation, unaware of the clarity of heavenly light. But when Jesus is said to approach Jericho, the blind man is illuminated. For Jericho is interpreted as the moon. The moon, however, in sacred scripture, is used to signify the defect of the flesh, because as it decreases in its monthly phases, it signifies the defect of our mortality. Therefore, when our Creator approaches Jericho, the blind man returns to the light, because, as the Divinity takes on the defect of our flesh, the human race receives the light that it had lost. This blind man indeed is rightly described as sitting by the way and begging. For the Truth itself said: I am the way (John XIV). Thus, he who knows not the clarity of eternal light is blind; but if he already believes in the Redeemer, he sits by the way. If he already believes, but does not request to receive the eternal light, and neglects to pray, the blind man indeed sits by the way, but he does not beg. But if he both believes and prays, the blind man both sits by the way and begs.

Now it came to pass, as he drew near, etc. After he set forth the imitable example in the passion of the Crucified, here he expounds the admirable deed in the illumination of the poor blind man, in which is simultaneously manifested the power and benignity of Christ, and also the poverty of the beggar is accepted. Therefore, for the full explanation of this miracle's instruction, four things are introduced by the Evangelist, namely the opportuneness of the beggar, the importunity of the supplicant, the liberality of the healer, the completeness of the healing.

First, therefore, as regards the opportunity or necessity of the beggar, he says: And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the wayside begging. Truly this beggar was one who lacked at once both bread and light, which offer themselves to all in common. And this blind man designates the human race, which is blind through the lack of the light of wisdom and begging through the deficiency of grace and justice; whence there can be said to it that word of Apocalypse 3: "You do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked"; and of the Pharisees it is said in Matthew 15: "They are blind and leaders of the blind." Now the human race has been blinded through the desire for temporal things: Psalm: "Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun." Whence a notable figure of this preceded in Tobit, who, as is said in Tobit 2, was blinded by the droppings of swallows. And this accords with the fact that this blind man was near Jericho: for Jericho is interpreted as "moon" and designates the mutability of things, from love of which man is blinded and made foolish; Ecclesiasticus 27: "A holy man remains in wisdom like the sun, but a fool changes like the moon." And this blind man is not on the way, but by the wayside, according to that word of Wisdom 5: "We have erred from the way of truth, the light of justice did not shine upon us, and the sun of understanding did not rise upon us." But the blind man sits by the wayside when he draws near to the light of truth from the consideration of his own deficiency and changeableness; whence the Gloss: "Jericho is interpreted as 'moon,' by which the defect of mortality is understood. Therefore, while the Word of God takes on the weakness of our flesh, man returns to knowing divine things."

But the miracles of our Lord and Savior are to be received, dearest brothers, in such a way that we both believe them to have truly occurred, and yet understand that through their significance they indicate something to us. For His works both show one thing through their power and speak another through their mystery. For behold, we do not know who this blind man was according to the historical account, but yet we know whom he signifies through the mystery. For the blind man is the human race, which, expelled from the joys of paradise in its first parent, ignorant of the brightness of the light above, suffers the darkness of its condemnation; but yet is illuminated through the presence of its Redeemer, so that it now sees the joys of the inner light through desire, and sets the steps of good work upon the way of life.

It must be noted that when Jesus is said to draw near to Jericho, the blind man is illuminated. For Jericho is interpreted as "moon," and the moon in sacred speech stands for the weakness of the flesh, because as it wanes through its monthly phases, it signifies the weakness of our mortality. Therefore, while our Creator draws near to Jericho, the blind man returns to light, because when the divinity took on the weakness of our flesh, the human race received back the light it had lost. For by the very means through which God suffers human things, man is raised up to divine things. This blind man is rightly described as sitting beside the road and being a beggar; for the Truth himself says: "I am the way." Therefore whoever does not know the brightness of eternal light is blind; but if he already believes in the Redeemer, he sits beside the way; if, however, he already believes but neglects to ask that he might receive eternal light, and ceases from prayers, the blind man indeed sits beside the way but does not beg at all. But if he has both believed and recognized the blindness of his heart, and asks that he might receive the light of truth, the blind man sits beside the way and begs. Therefore whoever recognizes the darkness of his own blindness, whoever understands that the light of eternity is what he lacks, let him cry out from the depths of his heart, let him cry out with the voices of his mind, saying: "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me."

(Hom. 2. in Ev.) Because the disciples being yet carnal were unable to receive the words of mystery, they are brought to a miracle. Before their eyes a blind man receives his sight, that by a divine work their faith might be strengthened.

(Hom. 2. in Ev.) Or, blindness is a symbol of the human race, which in our first parent knowing not the brightness of heavenly light, now suffers the darkness of his condemnation. Jericho is interpreted 'the moon,' whose monthly wanings represent the feebleness of our mortality. While then our Creator is drawing nigh to Jericho, the blind is restored to sight, because when God took upon Him the weakness of our flesh, the human race received back the light which it had lost. He then who is ignorant of this brightness of the everlasting light, is blind. But if he does no more than believe in the Redeemer who said, I am the way, the truth, and the life; (John 13:6.) he sits by the way side. If he both believes and prays that he may receive the everlasting light, he sits by the way side and begs.

During the journey the Lord performs a miracle upon the blind man, so that even His passing would not be a lesson without benefit for us and for the disciples of Christ, so that we in all things, always and everywhere would bring benefit, and nothing in us would be idle.

And to show that our Lord did not even walk without doing good, He performed a miracle on the way, giving His disciples this example, that we should be profitable in all things, and that nothing in us should be in vain.

Second, as regards the importunity of the petitioner, it is added: And when he heard the crowd passing by; in which is explained the importunity of the blind man praying and giving us an example of prayer: he seeks, asks, and knocks, according to that word of Matthew 7: "Seek, and you shall find; ask, and you shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened to you."

He seeks therefore diligently from hearing the crowd; on account of which he says: He asked what this might be, namely from the passing crowd. This passing crowd is the course of creatures, which when questioned in some way lead us by the hand to the Savior; on account of which Job 12: "Ask the beasts, and they shall teach you; and the birds of the air, and they shall tell you. Speak to the earth, and it shall answer you, and the fishes of the sea shall declare. Who is ignorant that the hand of the Lord has made all these things? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing and the spirit of all flesh." Therefore all these things lead to their Maker and Restorer.

While he was asking who it was, they said to him, "Jesus, the Nazarene." He knew that they were not saying that to him with love. He left what pertained to enemies and grasped hold of what pertained to friends. "Son of David, have mercy on me."

(Hom. de caeco et Zacchaeo) There was a great multitude gathered round Christ, and the blind man indeed knew Him not, but felt a drawing towards Him, and grasped with his heart what his sight embraced not. As it follows, And when he heard the multitude passing by, he asked what it was. And those that saw spoke indeed according to their own opinion. And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. But the blind man cried out. He is told one thing, he proclaims another; for it follows, And he cried out, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. Who taught thee this, O man? Hast thou that art deprived of sight read books? Whence then knowest thou the Light of the world? Verily the Lord giveth sight to the blind. (Ps. 146:8.)

On account of which is added: They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. All these creatures, insofar as they speak to us through the book of creation, answer us concerning the uncreated Word: Daniel 3: "Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord"; and Wisdom 13: "For from the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be known so as to be seen"; because, Romans 1, "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood through the things that have been made." But insofar as they speak to us through the word of Scripture, they answer us concerning the incarnate Word: whence John 5, "Search the Scriptures, in which you think you have life. They are the ones that give testimony of me"; because, Romans 10, "the end of the law is Christ, unto justice." Whence in the Canticle of Deuteronomy 32: "Ask your father, and he will declare to you," etc.

And he cried out, saying: Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. And those who were going before rebuked him, so that he might be silent. But he cried out much more, Son of David, have mercy on me. What do those signify who precede Jesus as he comes, if not the crowds of carnal desires and the tumults of vices, which, before Jesus comes to our hearts, scatter our thoughts with their temptations and disturb the voices of the heart in prayer? For often, when we wish to turn to God after having committed sins, while we strive to pray against these same vices that we have committed, the phantasms of the sins we committed come to our heart, reverberate the focus of our mind, confound, and press down the mind and voice of our supplication. But he who is rebuked by the crowd to be silent cries out all the more, because the more heavily we are pressed by the tumult of carnal thoughts, the more ardently we should persist in prayer.

He also asks devoutly, and therefore it follows: And he cried out, saying: Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. In this, that he cries out, he shows that he has an exceeding of desire; on account of which it is said, Romans 8: "It is the Spirit who asks on our behalf with unspeakable groanings." In this, that he says Jesus, he shows that he has confidence of hope: the Psalm: "He hoped in the Lord; He will deliver him; He will save him." For in hope he calls upon Jesus, that is, the Savior, because, Romans 8, "we have been saved by hope." In this, that he says Son of David, he shows that he has understanding of faith, by which we believe that Christ was born from the seed of David, according to that passage, Romans 1: "Who was made for him from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestined the Son of God in power." Whence also in Matthew 21 it is said that "they cried out: Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

The blind man must have understood that the sight of the blind cannot be restored by human means but requires, on the contrary, a divine power and an authority such as God only possesses. With God nothing whatsoever is impossible. The blind man came near to him as to the omnipotent God. How then does he call him the Son of David? What can one answer to this? The following is perhaps the explanation. Since he was born and raised in Judaism, of course, the predictions contained in the law and the holy prophets concerning Christ had not escaped his knowledge. He heard them chant that passage in the book of the Psalms, "The Lord has sworn in truth to David, and will not annul it, saying: 'of the fruit of your loins I will set a king upon your throne.' " The blind man also knew that the blessed prophet Isaiah said, "There will spring up a shoot from the root of Jesse, and from his root a flower will grow up." Isaiah also said, "Behold, a virgin will conceive and bring forth a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." He already believed that the Word, being God, of his own will had submitted to be born in the flesh of the holy Virgin. He now comes near to him as to God and says, "Have mercy on me, Son of David." Christ testifies that this was his state of mind in offering his petition. He said to him, "Your faith has saved you."

Having been brought up a Jew, he was not ignorant that of the seed of David should God be born according to the flesh, and therefore he addresses Him as God, saying, Have mercy upon me. Would that those might imitate him who divide Christ into two. For he speaks of Christ as God, yet calls Him Son of David. But they marvel at the justice of his confession, and some even wished to prevent him from confessing his faith. But by checks of this kind his ardour was not damped. For faith is able to resist all, and to triumph over all. It is a good thing to lay aside shame in behalf of divine worship. For if for money's sake some are bold, is it not fitting when the soul is at stake, to put on a righteous boldness? As it follows, But he cried out the more, Son of David, & c.

This blind man is rightly described as sitting beside the road and being a beggar; for the Truth himself says: "I am the way." Therefore whoever does not know the brightness of eternal light is blind; but if he already believes in the Redeemer, he sits beside the way; if, however, he already believes but neglects to ask that he might receive eternal light, and ceases from prayers, the blind man indeed sits beside the way but does not beg at all. But if he has both believed and recognized the blindness of his heart, and asks that he might receive the light of truth, the blind man sits beside the way and begs. Therefore whoever recognizes the darkness of his own blindness, whoever understands that the light of eternity is what he lacks, let him cry out from the depths of his heart, let him cry out with the voices of his mind, saying: "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me."

Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me? " unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace.

But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of David," then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, in order that He might show Himself whom the Mind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord.

The blind man believed that He (Jesus) is the awaited Christ (for, having been raised among the Jews, he probably knew that Christ is from the seed of David), and cried out with a loud voice: "Son of David! Have mercy on me." And by the words "have mercy on me" he expressed that he had some divine conception of Him, and did not consider Him merely a man.

And since the imaginations of things, which ought to lead us to God, present an obstacle to our prayer, therefore he adds: And those who went before rebuked him, that he should be silent. Whence the Gloss: "Those who go before Jesus as he comes signify the tumult of carnal desires, which scatter the thought of man and disturb the voice of prayer, lest Jesus be able to come to illuminate the heart of man." Whence imaginations of this kind, drawing us back from prayer through their clamor, are nothing other than a certain obstacle between us and Christ, according to that passage, Lamentations 3: "You have set a cloud before yourself, so that prayer may not pass through"; and therefore there is need of importunate knocking.

On account of which the blind man knocks continuously, when it is added: But he cried out all the more: Son of David, have mercy on me. Psalm: "O Lord God of my salvation, I have cried day and night before you." And this is the power of prayer, which proceeds from true faith. Whence Chrysostom: "Such is the nature of faith that the more it is hindered, the more it is kindled; on account of which the servants of God are not overcome in persecutions." Whence the Gloss says that "the believer, sensing himself weighed down by the phantasm of former vices and the voice of his prayer hindered so that he cannot pray on his own behalf, cries out more ardently."

They were trying to prevent him, fearing that his eyes may be opened, and the Pharisees might recognize him and be irritated.

Those who precede Jesus as he comes—what do they signify but the crowds of carnal desires and the tumults of vices, which, before Jesus comes to our heart, scatter our thoughts with their temptations and disturb the voice of the heart in prayer? For often when we wish to turn to the Lord after committing sins, when we strive to pray against those very vices we have committed, the phantoms of the sins we have done rush upon the heart, strike back against the vision of our mind, confuse the soul, and suppress the voice of our entreaty. Those who went before, therefore, were rebuking him to be silent, because before Jesus comes to the heart, the evils we have done, thrust upon our thoughts through their images, disturb us in the very midst of our prayer.

But let us hear what this blind man who was to be illuminated did in response to these things. It follows: "But he cried out all the more: Son of David, have mercy on me." Behold, the one whom the crowd rebukes to be silent cries out more and more, because the more heavily we are pressed by the tumult of carnal thoughts, the more ardently we ought to persist in prayer. The crowd opposes us lest we cry out, because we often suffer the phantoms of our sins even in prayer. But indeed it is necessary that the voice of our heart insist all the more strongly the more harshly it is repelled, so that it may overcome the tumult of unlawful thought and burst forth to the merciful ears of the Lord by the excess of its importunity. Each one, as I suspect, recognizes in himself what we are saying, because when we turn our mind from this world to God, when we turn to the work of prayer, the very things we previously did with delight we afterward endure as troublesome and burdensome in our prayer. Scarcely is the thought of them driven away from the eyes of the heart by the hand of holy desire; scarcely are their phantoms overcome through the laments of penance.

Those that went before Jesus, as He was coming, represent the multitude of carnal desires, and the busy crowd of vices which before that Jesus comes to our heart, scatter our thoughts, and disturb us even in our prayers. But the blind man cried out the more; for the more violently we are assailed by our restless thoughts, the more fervently ought we to give ourselves to prayer.

Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me? " unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace." And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David Else you must show me, that those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man.

Look, if you will, at the persistence of his confession as well — how, despite the fact that many were trying to silence him, he did not fall silent but cried out all the louder; for a fervent zeal was moving him from within.

But Jesus, standing still, ordered him to be brought to him. Behold, he stands who previously was passing by, because when we still suffer the crowds of phantasms in prayer, we feel Jesus in some way passing by. But when we fervently persist in prayer, Jesus stands still and restores the light, because God is fixed in the heart, and the lost light is restored.

Third, as regards the generosity of the healer, it is added: But Jesus, standing still, commanded him to be brought to himself. Now Jesus is said to stand, because he is in himself immutable: Psalm: "But you are the selfsame, and your years shall not fail"; whence the Gloss: "Jesus passing by hears the blind man, standing still he illuminates him, because through his humanity he has compassion on the cries of our blindness, but by the power of his Divinity he pours into us the light of his grace." And although through prayer we may seem to draw him to us, he rather draws us to himself, just as a ship is drawn to the rock, as Dionysius says. Therefore the bride in Song of Songs 1 says: "Draw me after you." Whence we are drawn to him when we are aroused in mind toward him and transcend beyond ourselves. As a figure of which, in Mark 10 it is said of this blind man: "Casting aside his garment, he leaped up and came to him." And then we also hear secret words, according to that saying of the Prophet in the Psalm: "I will hear what the Lord God speaks within me."

The voice of one invoking in faith stops Christ, for He looks back upon them who call upon Him in faith. And accordingly He calls the blind man to Him, and bids him draw nigh, that he in truth who had first laid hold on Him in faith, might approach Him also in the body. The Lord asks this blind man as he drew near, What will thou that I shall do? He asks the question purposely, not as ignorant, but that those who stood by might know that he sought not money, but divine power from God. And thus it follows, But he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight.

But when we persist intensely in our prayer, we fix Jesus as He passes by in our mind. Hence it is added there: And Jesus, standing still, commanded him to be brought to Him. Behold, He who was passing by before now stands still, because while we still suffer the crowds of phantasms in prayer, we perceive Jesus as somewhat passing by. But when we persist intensely in prayer, Jesus stands still to restore our sight, because God is fixed in the heart, and the lost light is restored.

Yet in this matter the Lord suggests something else to us, which can be usefully understood concerning His humanity and divinity. For Jesus passing by heard the blind man crying out, but standing still He performed the miracle of illumination. For to pass by belongs to humanity, to stand still belongs to divinity. Through His humanity indeed He experienced being born, growing, dying, rising again, coming from place to place. Therefore, since in divinity there is no changeableness, and this very thing—to be changed—is to pass by, certainly that passing by is from the flesh, not from the divinity. But through His divinity it belongs to Him always to stand still, because He is present everywhere, neither coming through movement nor departing through movement. Therefore the Lord passing by hears the blind man crying out, but standing still illuminates him, because through His humanity He had compassion on the cries of our blindness and showed mercy, but He poured into us the light of grace through the power of His divinity.

As long as we still suffer our manifold fancies to trouble us in our prayers, we feel in some measure Jesus passing by. But when we are very stedfast in prayer, God is fixed in our heart, and the lost light is restored. Or to pass by is of man, to stand is of God. The Lord then passing by heard the blind man crying, standing still restored him to sight, for by His humanity in compassion to our blindness He has pity upon our cries, by the power of His divinity He pours upon us the light of His grace.

But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily have presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly have permitted an untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord "stood patient." Yes; but not as confirming the error, for, on the contrary, He rather displayed the Creator.

Therefore Jesus also calls him to Himself, as one truly worthy of drawing near to Him, and asks him: "What do you want from Me?" He asks not because He does not know, but so that it would not seem to those present that the man asks for one thing while He gives another: that the man, for example, asks for money, while He, wishing to display Himself, heals his blindness. For envy can slander even in such a senseless manner. Therefore the Lord asked, and when He revealed that he wished to receive his sight, He grants him his sight.

And all the people, when they saw, gave praise to God. For the people gave praise to God, not only for the granted gift of light, but also for the merit of the faith of the one asking. They gave praise to God because they saw Jesus mercifully and powerfully restore light to the one asking, and acknowledged that the cry of firm faith, which rightly sought, could immediately be accomplished. Wherefore it should be noted that the Lord, appearing in the flesh, confirmed everything He taught with words by examples. For He who commanded us: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. V), in all things He began to do and teach (Acts I), sought not His own glory from men, but the glory of the Father (John VIII).

Not only for the gift of light obtained, but for the merit of the faith which obtained it.

And immediately he saw, through the circumspection of prudence: Ephesians 5: "See, brethren, how you walk carefully"; Proverbs 4: "Let your eyes look upon what is right, and let your eyelids go before your steps."

And he followed him, glorifying God, through the subjection of obedience. The Gloss: "He sees and follows who works the good that he understands and imitates Jesus passing by"; John 8: "I am the light of the world: he who follows me does not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life." — And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God, through the manifestation of divine glory. For this is the work in which power, wisdom, and mercy are supremely manifested: namely, when from a sinner a just man is made, from a fool a wise man, from one who errs a faithful man, and from an impious man a virtuous one. And therefore God is to be praised most greatly for this; whence Galatians 1: "I was unknown by face," Paul says, "to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but they had only heard that he who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy; and they glorified God in me." And this we ought to do, according to Sirach 43: "Glorifying the Lord as much as you can, He shall still prevail, and wondrous is His magnificence. Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can, for He is greater than all praise."

With supreme authority, he said, "Receive your sight." The expression is wonderful, worthy of God and transcending the bounds of human nature! Which of the holy prophets ever spoke like this or used words of so great authority? Observe that he did not ask of another the power to restore vision to him who was deprived of sight. He did not perform the divine miracle as the effect of prayer to God but rather attributed it to his own power. By his almighty will, Christ did whatever he would. "Receive," he said, "your sight." The word was light to him that was blind, because it was the word of him who is the true Light.

Now that he was delivered from his blindness, did he neglect the duty of loving Christ? He certainly did not. It says, "He followed him, offering him glory like to God." He was set free from double blindness. Not only did he escape from the blindness of the body but also from that of the mind and heart. He would not have glorified him as God, had he not possessed spiritual vision. He became the means of others giving Christ glory, for it says that all the people gave glory to God.

From which it is clear, that he was released from a double blindness, both bodily and intellectual. For he would not have glorified Him as God, had he not truly seen Him as He is. But he also gave occasion to others to glorify God; as it follows, And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.

But let us now hear what happened to the blind man who was asking, or what he himself did. It follows: "Immediately he saw, and followed him." He sees and follows who puts into practice the good that he understands. But he sees and does not follow who indeed understands the good, but disdains to do good works. If therefore, dearest brothers, we now recognize the blindness of our pilgrimage, if by believing in the mystery of our Redeemer we sit by the wayside, if by praying daily we seek light from our Creator, if having been illuminated after our blindness we now see that same light through understanding, let us follow in our works the Jesus whom we perceive in our mind. Let us observe where he walks, and by imitating hold to his footsteps. For he follows Jesus who imitates him. For this reason he says: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead." Again he admonishes on this point, saying: "If anyone serves me, let him follow me." Let us therefore consider where he walks, that we may deserve to follow. Behold, though he is Lord and Creator of the angels, about to take up our nature which he created, he came into the womb of the Virgin. Yet he did not wish to be born in this world through the wealthy; he chose poor parents. Hence even a lamb to be offered for him was lacking; his mother found young doves and a pair of turtledoves for the sacrifice. He did not wish to prosper in the world; he endured reproaches and mockeries; he bore spitting, scourging, blows, a crown of thorns, and the cross; and because we fell from inner joy through delight in bodily things, he showed with what bitterness one returns there. What therefore ought man to suffer for himself, if God endured such things for men? He therefore who has now believed in Christ, but still pursues the gains of avarice, is lifted up in the pride of honor, burns with the torches of envy, pollutes himself with the filth of lust, desires the prosperous things that are in the world—he disdains to follow the Jesus in whom he has believed. For he walks by a different path, if he seeks joys and pleasures, when his guide showed him the way of bitterness. Let us therefore call back before our eyes the sins we have committed; let us consider how terrible is the judge who comes to punish these things; let us form our mind for lamentation; let our life become bitter for a time in repentance, lest it feel eternal bitterness in punishment. For through weeping we are led to eternal joys, as Truth promises when it says: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." But through joys one arrives at weeping, as this same Truth attests when it says: "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep." If therefore we seek the joy of reward at our arrival, let us hold to the bitterness of repentance on the way. And so it happens that not only does our life advance toward God, but this very conversion of ours kindles others to the praise of God. Hence it is added there: "And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God."

(ubi sup.) He who sees, also follows, because the good which he understands he practises.

(Chrys. ut sup.) And thus it follows, And immediately he said. But the blind man as before his restoration he showed an earnest faith, so afterwards did he give plain tokens of his gratitude; And he followed him, glorifying God.

(Chrys. ubi sup.) We may here well inquire, why Christ forbids the healed demoniac who wished to follow Him, but permits the blind man who had received his sight. There seems to be a good reason for both the one case and the other. He sends away the former as a kind of herald, to proclaim aloud by the evidence of his own state his benefactor, for it was indeed a notable miracle to see a raving madman brought to a sound mind. But the blind man He allows to follow Him, since He was going up to Jerusalem about to accomplish the high mystery of the Cross, that men having a recent report of a miracle might not suppose that He suffered so much from helplessness as from compassion.

Note also the gratitude of the healed man. For he followed Jesus, "glorifying God," and disposing others to glorify Him as well.

(Serm. 218. App.) Hear the sacrament of a great mystery. Moses before had shut up the light of day from the traitors the Egyptians; Christ by going down thither brought back light to them that sate in darkness. He fled that he might enlighten them, not that he might escape his foes.

The miserable tyrant supposed that by the Saviour's coming he should be thrust from his royal throne. But it was not so; Christ came not to hurt others' dignity, but to bestow His own on others.

(Hom. in. Nat. Innocent.) The flight into Egypt signifies that the elect are often by the wickedness of the bad driven from their homes, or sentenced to banishment. Thus He, who, we shall see below, gave the command to His own, When they shall persecute you in one city, flee ye to another, first practised what He enjoined, as a man flying before the face of man on earth. He whom but a little before a star had proclaimed to the Magi to be worshipped as from heaven.

The first time when he would teach Joseph that she was lawfully espoused, the Angel called the Virgin his espoused wife; but after the birth she is only spoken of as the Mother of Jesus. As wedlock was rightfully imputed to her in her virginity, so virginity is esteemed venerable in her as the mother of Jesus.

(Vers. 13, 14.) Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: Rise and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. So Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt; and he stayed there until the death of Herod. When he takes the child and his mother to go to Egypt, he takes them by night and in darkness; but when he returns to Judea, neither night nor darkness are mentioned in the Gospel.

When he takes the Child and His mother to go into Egypt, it is in the night and darkness, when to return into Judæa, the Gospel speaks of no light, no darkness.

"And when they were departed, behold, an angel appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt."

There is something here worth inquiring into, both touching the magi, and touching the Child; for if even they were not troubled, but received all with faith, it is worthy of examination on our part, why they and the young Child are not preserved, continuing there, but they as fugitives go into Persia, He with His mother into Egypt. But what? should He have fallen into the hands of Herod, and having fallen, not have been cut off? Nay, He would not have been thought to have taken flesh upon Him; the greatness of the Economy would not have been believed.

For if, while these things are taking place, and many circumstances are being ordered mysteriously after the manner of men, some have dared to say that His assumption of our flesh is a fable; in what degree of impiety would they not have been wrecked, had He done all in a manner becoming His Godhead, and according to His own power?

As to the wise men, He sends them off quickly, at once both commissioning them as teachers to the land of the Persians, and at the same time intercepting the madness of the king, that he might learn that he was attempting things impossible, and might quench his wrath, and desist from this his vain labor. For not alone openly to subdue His enemies, but also to deceive them with ease, is worthy of His power.

And besides what I have said, there is another lesson also, which we are hereby taught, tending not slightly to true self-command in us. Of what kind then is it? To look from the beginning for temptations and plots. See, for instance, how this was the case even at once from His swaddling clothes. Thus you see at His birth, first a tyrant raging, then flight ensuing, and departure beyond the border; and for no crime His mother is exiled into the land of the barbarians: that thou, hearing these things (supposing thee thought worthy to minister to any spiritual matter, and then to see thyself suffering incurable ills, and enduring countless dangers), shouldest not be greatly troubled, nor say, "What can this be? yet surely I ought to be crowned and celebrated, and be glorious and illustrious for fulfilling the Lord's commandment:" but that having this example, thou mightest bear all things nobly, knowing that this especially is the order of all things spiritual, to have everywhere temptations in the same lot with them.

Now the angel having thus appeared, talks not with Mary, but with Joseph; and what saith he? "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother." Here, he saith not any more, "thy wife," but "His mother." For after that the birth had taken place, and the suspicion was done away, and the husband appeased, thenceforth the angel talks openly, calling neither child nor wife his, but "take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt;" and he mentions the cause of the flight: "For Herod," saith he, "will seek the young Child's life."

Joseph, when he had heard these things, was not offended, neither did he say, "The thing is hard to understand: Didst thou not say just now, that He should 'save His people?' and now He saves not even Himself: but we must fly, and go far from home, and be a long time away: the facts are contrary to the promise." Nay, none of these things doth he say (for the man was faithful): neither is he curious about the time of his return; and this though the angel had put it indefinitely thus: "Be thou there until I tell thee." But nevertheless, not even at this did he shudder, but submits and obeys, undergoing all the trials with joy.

And this because God, who is full of love to man, did with these hardships mingle things pleasant also; which indeed is His way with regard to all the saints, making neither their dangers nor their refreshment continual, but weaving the life of all righteous men, out of both the one and the other. This very thing He did here also: for consider, Joseph saw the Virgin with child; this cast him into agitation and the utmost trouble, for he was suspecting the damsel of adultery. But straightway the angel was at hand to do away his suspicion, and remove his fears; and seeing the young child born, he reaped the greatest joy. Again, this joy no trifling danger succeeds, the city being troubled, and the king in his madness seeking after Him that was born. But this trouble was again succeeded by another joy; the star, and the adoration of the wise men. Again, after this pleasure, fear and danger; "For Herod," saith he, "is seeking the young Child's life," and He must needs fly and withdraw Himself as any mortal might: the working of miracles not being seasonable as yet. For if from His earliest infancy He had shown forth wonders, He would not have been accounted a Man.

Because of this, let me add, neither is a temple framed at once; but a regular conception takes place, and a time of nine months, and pangs, and a delivery, and giving suck, and silence for so long a space, and He awaits the age proper to manhood; that by all means acceptance might be won for the mystery of His Economy.

Rather, however, both the people and the patriarch, going down thither, and coming up thence, were together completing the type of this His return. Thus, as they went down to avoid death by famine, so He death by conspiracy. But whereas they on their arrival were for the time delivered from the famine, this man, when He had gone down, sanctified the whole land, by setting His foot thereon.

At least it is observable how, in the midst of His humiliations, the tokens of His Godhead are disclosed. Thus, first of all, the angel saying, "Flee into Egypt," did not promise to journey with them, either in their descent or return; intimating that they have a great fellow-traveller, the Child that had been born; such an one as actually changed all things immediately on His appearing, and wrought so that His enemies should minister in many ways to this Economy. Thus magi and barbarians, leaving the superstition of their fathers, are come to worship: thus Augustus ministers to the birth at Bethlehem by the decree for the taxing; Egypt receives and preserves Him, driven from His home, and plotted against, and obtains a sort of first impulse towards her union unto Him; so that when in after-time she should hear Him preached by the apostles, she might have this at least to glory of, as having received Him first. And yet this privilege did belong unto Palestine alone; but the second proved more fervent than the first.

His flight then was not occasioned by fear but by what had come through the mystery of prophecy. The Evangelist planted the seed when he thus spoke: "Take the boy and his mother and flee into Egypt." And later, "that what was written might be fulfilled: 'From Egypt have I summoned my son.' " Christ fled so that he might establish the truth of the law, faith in prophecy and the testimony of the psalter. The Lord himself says, "It was needful that what was written in the law and the prophets and the psalms be fulfilled by me." Christ fled for us, not for himself. Christ fled so that at the right time he might serve as a steward of the sacraments [the divine mysteries]. Christ fled so that by granting absolution he might take away the source of abuses to come and that he might give proof of faith to those who would believe. And finally, Christ fled so that he might bestow on us faith even when we have to flee, because in the face of persecution it is better to flee than to deny the faith. For Peter, because he was unwilling to flee, denied the Lord. John, lest he deny the Lord, fled.

Was it Herod seeking the child, or the devil working through Herod? When Herod saw the magi for himself, he imagined in his fantasy that they had fled their governors. For Christ, though bound in swaddling clothes, though busy at his mother's breast, though keeping quiet, concealing his words, unable to walk, nevertheless transformed the magi (who had been standard-bearers of the devil) into his most faithful servants. The devil instantly realized what Christ could do when he came of age. So he spurred the Jews against him and, clever contriver that he was, impelled Herod that he might get the jump on Christ in his infancy. He hoped to deprive him of the coming emblem of his virtue, the cross, the banner of the greatest victory for us. The devil perceived that Christ would soon be restoring life to all the world with his teaching and his virtue. Even while still whimpering as a baby, Jesus was taking possession of this world from top to bottom. It was as the prophet said: "Before the child knows to cry to his father and mother he shall take the pride of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria." The Jews themselves attest to this when they say, "You see how the whole world hastens after him."

He says not, 'the Mother and her young Child,' but, the young Child and His mother; for the Child was not born for the mother, but the mother prepared for the Child. How is this that the Son of God flies from the face of man? or who shall deliver from the enemy's hand, if He Himself fears His enemies? First; He ought to observe, even in this, the law of that human nature which He took on Him; and human nature and infancy must flee before threatening power. Next, that Christians when persecution makes it necessary should not be ashamed to fly.

Here Matthew omits the day of purification when the first-born must be presented in the Temple with a lamb, or a pair of turtle doves, or pigeons. Their fear of Herod did not make them bold to transgress the Law, that they should not present the Child in the temple. As soon then as the rumour concerning the Child begins to be spread abroad, the Angel is sent to bid Joseph carry Him into Egypt.

For when the true light withdraws, they who hate the light are in darkness, when it returns they are again enlightened.

By this that the Angel appears always to Joseph in sleep, is mystically signified that they who rest from mundane cares and secular pursuits, deserve angelic visitations.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

And when they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother. Do you see now the reason why God permitted the Virgin to be betrothed? It is revealed to you here: that Joseph might care for her and watch over her. The angel did not say, "take thy wife," but "take the mother of the Child." For once his suspicion had been allayed, and the righteous man had understood from the miracles attendant at His birth that everything was of the Holy Spirit, the angel no longer calls her Joseph's "wife." And flee into Egypt. Even the Lord flees, to confirm that He was truly man. For if He had fallen into the hands of Herod and had not been slain, it would have seemed that He had been made flesh only in appearance. He flees into Egypt to sanctify even that place. For there were two lands that were the workshops of every iniquity: Babylon and Egypt. By means of the Magi He accepted the adoration of Babylon, and Egypt He sanctified by His own presence. And be thou there until I bring thee word. Remain there until you receive God's command. So we, too, should do nothing apart from the will of God. For Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. Behold the foolishness of a man who labors to prevail against the will of God. For if it is not of God, what do you fear? But if it is of God, how can you destroy the Child?

Having showed how the Magi bore witness to the newborn Christ, the evangelist now shows how the Innocents gave testimony, not by speaking but by dying. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ was concealed; secondly, the murder of the children (v. 16); thirdly, Christ's return (v. 19).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the angel's warning; secondly, Joseph's obedience (v. 14); thirdly, the fulfillment of a prophecy (v. 15).

In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, the time of the appearance; secondly, the appearance itself and the manner of the appearance (v. 13b); thirdly, the warning given by the angel (v. 13c).

(13) The time is described at When they had departed. And it should be noted that the appearance did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because everything mentioned in Luke (2:22), namely, the purification, should be interposed: "And when the time came for their purification..." For the thought of killing the child did not come to Herod right away. Hence, when he says Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph..., he is said to have appeared in sleep, because that is when men cease their external activities, and a revelation can be made by angels: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet" (Pr 3:24).

In the warning the angel does two things: first, the angel persuades him to flee; secondly, he gives the reason. He says, therefore Rise. And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin is called "wife" by the angel before the birth (Mt 1:5) but not after for two reasons: first to commend the Virgin, for as a virgin she gave birth. Secondly, on account of her dignity, for she was the mother of God, than which there is no greater dignity. Also because, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come on account of the mother, but rather conversely. Therefore, he says Take the child and its mother. But why flee into Egypt? Does it not say in Ps 18 (v. 3): "The Lord is my helper and my redeemer." But he fled for three reasons: first, to manifest his humanity; for as the divinity appeared in the star, so in flight the humanity: "Made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7). Secondly, as an example: "When they persecute you in one city, flee into another" (Mt 10:23). Thirdly, on account of the mystery; for just as he willed to die in order to call us back from death, so he willed to flee in order to call back those who flee from his face through sin: "Where shall I flee from your spirit?" (Ps 139:7).

And remain there. But why to Egypt rather than some other region? For two reasons: first, because it is distinctive of God to be mindful of mercy in his anger (Hab 3:2). For the Lord had been angry at the Egyptians pursuing the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were God's firstborn. Therefore, the Egyptians were granted the privilege of serving the Lord: "Behold, the Lord, riding on a swift cloud, comes to Egypt" (Is 19:1); "We have seen his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). Secondly, because he had brought forth darkness in Egypt, he willed to enlighten it first. Therefore, it was well that he fled there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has light shined" (Is 9:2).

Note that when anyone wills to flee sin, the first thing to do is shake off laziness: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten you" (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he should take trust from the mother and from the Son, namely, Christ: "In me all hope of life and virtue" (Sir 24:18). Thirdly, he ought to flee from sin with the help of the mother and child: "Yes, I have wandered far, I have lodged in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7).

He adds the cause of the flight. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him. Herod was deceived, because he wanted to destroy the one who would come to share his kingdom: "As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint one for you" (Lk 22:29); secondly, because he wanted to destroy him who sought no worldly glory: "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Heb 12:2).

Egypt full of idols; for after this enquiry for Him among the Jews, Christ leaving Judæa goes to be cherished among nations given to the vainest superstitions.

Christ promised that he would come incarnate, that he would go through the phases of life, that he would announce the glory of the kingdom of heaven, that he would proclaim the way of faith and that by the power of his word alone he would put demons to flight. He promised that he would give sight to the blind, gait to the lame, speech to the mute, hearing to the deaf, remission for sinners and life to the dead. All these things he promised through the law and the prophets. Thus it was that Christ, when he was to become a man, was not to flee the death he escaped as an infant.

But why into Egypt? The Lord, who keepeth not His anger for ever, remembered the woes He had brought upon Egypt, and therefore sent His Son thither, and gives it this sign of great reconciliation, that with this one remedy He might heal the ten plagues of Egypt, and the nation that had been the persecutor of this first-born people, might be the guardian of His first-born Son. As formerly they had cruelly tyrannized, now they might devoutly serve; nor go to the Red Sea to be drowned, but be called to the waters of baptism to receive life.

The straitness of every persecution may be called night—the relief from it in like manner, day.

And he arose and took the young Child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" (Hosea 11:1).

The Jews say that this was said of the people whom Moses led out of Egypt. We reply, is it anything remarkable that something which was spoken of the people in type as a foreshadowing, was realized by Christ in truth? Furthermore, who is the Son of God? The Hebrew people who worshipped the idols and carvings of Beelphegor, or He Who truly is the Son of God?

(14) And he rose. Here is mentioned the execution of the angel's command both as to the flight and the length of the stay. He rose and took the child and his mother. The time is mentioned, when he says at night, on account of the fear and distress: "My soul desired you at night," i.e., in distress (Is 26:9); for in times of distress one must have recourse to God: "In the morning, they will come to me in their trouble" (Hos 10:1). He rose. Then was fulfilled the word of Is (19:1): "Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt," which was fulfilled to the letter.

Joseph therefore was commanded to accept this boy about whom Isaiah had said, "For a boy has been born to you; a son has been given to you, whose rule has extended over his shoulders." Now he said "a son has been given to you" because Christ the Lord was born as a boy and was counted a son of Joseph and Mary. As to his going down into Egypt, Isaiah predicted this long before the fact when he said, "Behold, the Lord sits atop a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." By this statement the promise of the Lord's incarnation was clearly revealed. Since the Lord himself is invoked as "arising from on high, the sunlight of justice," it is right that he would come on a swift cloud. By this Isaiah means he would come in a hallowed body, a body weighed down by no sin and through which he covered the light of his own majesty with the envelope of the cloud of his body. Hosea as well points to this very fact when he says, "The king of Israel has been thrown down. Because Israel was small, I took delight in him. And I called my son from Egypt."19After Egypt's ancient, grave sin, after many blows had been divinely inflicted upon it, God the omnipotent Father, moved by devotion, sent his Son into Egypt. He did so that Egypt, which had long ago paid back the penalty of wickedness owed under Moses, might now receive Christ, the hope for salvation. How great was God's compassion as shown in the advent of his Son! Egypt, which of old under Pharaoh stood stubborn against God, now became a witness to and home for Christ. God's compassion toward Egypt was like that shown toward the magi, who deserved to know Christ the Lord. For, although the magi had for a long time dared resist the divine goodness under Moses, they now, having seen but a single star in heaven, believed in the Son of God. The cavalier magicians were handed over to punishment for their lack of faith. Others were brought to glory through faith, since they believed that God had been born in the flesh—God whom the Egyptian magicians were unwilling to recognize in all his divine excellence.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 15, 16.) So that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: Out of Egypt I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Let those who deny the truth of the Hebrew scriptures answer where this is read in the Septuagint translators. But since they did not find it, we will tell them it is written in the prophet Hosea (Chapter 11), as they can also confirm with the copies we recently published. However, we can reconcile (or console) this passage differently for the contentious, whose behavior the Apostle Paul denies having. And we present the testimony from Numbers, with Balaam saying: God has called him out of Egypt; His glory is like a unicorn (Numbers 23:22).

(Epist. 57.7.) This is not in the LXX; but in Osee according to the genuine Hebrew text we read; Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and, from Egypt have I called my Son; where the LXX render, Israel is my child, and I have loved him, and called my sons out of Egypt.

(In Osee 11:2.) The Evangelist cites this text, because it refers to Christ typically. For it is to be observed, that in this Prophet and in others, the coming of Christ and the call of the Gentiles are foreshewn in such a manner, that the thread of history is never broken.

Let those who deny the authenticity of the Hebrew copies, show us this passage in the LXX, and when they have failed to find it, we will show it them in the Hebrew. We may also explain it in another way, by considering it as quoted from Numbers, God brought him out of Egypt; his glory is as it were that of a unicorn. (Num. 23:22.)

But wherefore, it may be said, is the young Child sent into Egypt? In the first place, the evangelist himself hath mentioned the cause, saying, "That it might be fulfilled, Out of Egypt have I called my Son." And at the same time beginnings of fair hopes were thenceforth proclaimed before to the world. That is, since Babylon and Egypt, most in the whole earth, were burnt up with the flame of ungodliness, He, signifying from the first that He means to correct and amend both, and inducing men hereby to expect His bounties in regard of the whole world likewise, sent to the one the wise men, the other He Himself visited with His mother.

And if the Jews should raise a question touching the prophecy, and say, that the words, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son," were uttered concerning themselves; we would tell them, This is a law of prophecy, that in many cases much that is spoken of one set of persons is fulfilled in another; of which kind is that which is said touching Simeon and Levi, "I will divide them," saith He, "in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." And yet not in themselves did this come to pass, but in their descendants; and Noah's saying again about Canaan, came to pass in the Gibeonites, Canaan's descendants. And that concerning Jacob one may see to have so come to pass; for those blessings which say, "Be lord over thy brother, and let thy father's sons worship thee," had no accomplishment in himself (how could they, he being in fear and trembling, and worshipping his brother over and over again?), but in his offspring they had. The very same may be said in this case also. For which may be called the truer son of God, he that worships a calf, and is joined to Baalpeor and sacrifices his sons to devils? or He that is a Son by nature, and honors Him that begat Him? So that, except this man had come, the prophecy would not have received its due fulfillment. It is worth observing, too, that the evangelist intimates the same by the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled;" implying that it would not have been fulfilled, unless He had come.

And this makes the Virgin also in no common degree glorious and distinguished; that the very thing which was the whole people's supreme endowment in the way of praise, she also might thenceforth have for her own. I mean, that whereas they were proud of their coming up from Egypt, and used to boast of it (which indeed the prophet also was hinting at, when he said, "Have I not brought up the strangers from Cappadocia, and the Assyrians from the pit"), He makes this pre-eminence belong to the Virgin likewise.

Isaiah had foretold this flight into Egypt. Lo! the Lord shall ascend on a light cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and shall scatter the idols of Egypt. (Is. 19:1.) It is the practice of this Evangelist to confirm all he says; and that because he is writing to the Jews, therefore he adds, that it might be fulfilled, &c.

(15) And remained there. It is said that he was there seven years and lived in the city of Heliopolis. In regard to the mystery, by Joseph is signified preachers, i.e., the apostles, whose task is to replace the darkness with doctrine—they left the Jews and turned to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the gentiles" (Acts 13:46).

And remain there till I tell you, i.e. until the unbelief of the Jews is ended: "Blindness has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). Then he applies the testimony of the prophet; hence he says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." The Septuagint is not the same, for it says: "Out of Egypt I have called his son."

There seems to be a question here, because this text does not appear to apply, in as much as it is preceded by the words: "When Israel was a child, I loved him"; hence, it seems to speak of Israel's call from Egypt. But it must be noted that in all the texts presented in the Old or New Testaments about Christ a certain distinction must be made: because some refer specifically to Christ, as Is (53:7): "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; but some are said of certain ones accordingly as they are a figure of Christ, such as the text in question. For they were called sons of Israel, because they possessed a likeness to the true only-begotten Son. And this is the meaning of "Out of Egypt I have called my son," i.e., special.

(non occ.) And while he thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (of martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord.

(Serm. 220. App.) Behold how this unrighteous enemy never could have so much profited these infants by his love, as he did by his hate; for as much as iniquity abounded against them, so much did the grace of blessing abound on them.

(Serm. 373. 3.) O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death.

(Serm. 132. App.) The Magi had seen this unknown star in the heavens, not a few days, but two years before, as they had informed Herod when he enquired. This caused him to fix two years old and under; as it follows, according to the time he had enquired of the Magi.

(Gloss. ord.) Or because he feared that the Child to whom even stars ministered, might transform His appearance to greater or under that of His own age, or might conceal all those of that age: hence it seems to be that he slew all from one day to two years old.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 11.) Or, disturbed by pressure of still more imminent dangers, Herod's thoughts are drawn to other thoughts than the slaughter of children, he might suppose that the Magi, unable to find Him whom they had supposed born, were ashamed to return to him. So the days of purification being accomplished, they might go up in safety to Jerusalem. And who does not see that that one day they may have escaped the attention of a King occupied with so many cares, and that afterwards when the things done in the Temple came to be spread abroad, then Herod discovered that he had been deceived by the Magi, and then sent and slew the children.

(Hom. in Nat. Innocent.) In this death of the children the precious death of all Christ's martyrs is figured; that they were infants signifies, that by the merit of humility alone can we come to the glory of martyrdom; that they were slain in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof, that the persecution shall be both in Jerusalem whence the Church originated, and throughout the world; in those of two years old are figured the perfect in doctrine and works; those under that age the neophytes; that they were slain while Christ escaped, signifies that the bodies of the martyrs may be destroyed by the wicked, but that Christ cannot be taken from them.

For Herod, as we have said, in his desire to destroy the Savior of the world, sent word to Bethlehem and commanded that all children two years of age and under be killed, figuring the age according to the time that he had learned from the magi. He thought that his edict would reach even to the Lord himself, the source of life. The Holy Spirit had already foreseen his wickedness beforehand. Solomon, speaking for the church, had said, "Who will give to you my brother, the one who nurses at the breast of his mother?" Moreover, by saying, "Who will give to you?" he was demonstrating that Herod would have no power over him who is the Lord and Prince of all powers. Thus the Lord spoke rightly when he bore witness about himself through the same Solomon: "Evil men will seek and not find me. For they hate wisdom and moreover have not partaken of the Word of God and have had no desire for it." The Spirit also said through David: "Since you are the one who gave birth to me, you are my hope, my mother, from the time I nursed at your breast … you are my protector." The blessed Moses also relates that Christ the Lord, an infant, could not have been killed while still nursing. He gave witness to this with his words, "You will not cook a lamb in the milk of its own mother." In this exact statement Moses revealed the expectation that Christ our Lord would be the true Lamb of God who was to suffer at the appointed time.

In Bethlehem therefore all the babies were slain. These innocents who died then on Christ's behalf became the first martyrs of Christ. David refers to them when he says, "From the mouths of nursing babies you have perfected praise because of your enemies, that you might bring ruin to the enemy." … For in this persecution even tiny infants and nursing babies were killed on Christ's behalf and attained to the consummate praise of martyrs. Meanwhile the wicked king Herod was destroyed, he who had usurped the realm to defend himself against the king of the heavens. Thus it is that those blessed babes have deservedly lasted beyond others. They were the first who were worthy to die on Christ's behalf.

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth."

Yet surely it was a case not for anger, but for fear and awe: he ought to have perceived that he was attempting impossible things. But he is not refrained. For when a soul is insensible and incurable, it yields to none of the medicines given by God. See for example this man following up his former efforts, and adding many murders to one, and hurried down the steep any whither. For driven wild by this anger, and envy, as by some demon, he takes account of nothing, but rages even against nature herself, and his anger against the wise men who had mocked him he vents upon the children that had done no wrong: venturing then in Palestine upon a deed akin to the things that had been done in Egypt. For he "sent forth," it is said, "and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

Here attend to me carefully. Because many things are uttered by many very idly touching these children, and the course of events is charged with injustice, and some of these express their perplexity about it in a more moderate way, others with more of audaciousness and frenzy. In order then that we may free these of their madness and those of their perplexity, suffer us to discourse a little upon this topic. Plainly, then, if this be their charge, that the children were left to be slain, they should find fault likewise with the slaughter of the soldiers that kept Peter. For as here, when the young child had fled, other children are massacred in the place of Him who was sought; even so then, too, Peter having been delivered from his prison and chains by the angel, one of like name with this tyrant, and like temper too, when he had sought him, and found him not, slew instead of him the soldiers that kept him.

"But what is this? it may be said; "why this is not a solution, but an enhancement of our difficulty." I know it too, and for this intent I bring forward all such cases, that to all I may adduce one and the same solution. What then is the solution of these things? or what fair account of them can we give? That Christ was not the cause of their slaughter, but the king's cruelty; as indeed neither was Peter to those others, but the madness of Herod. For if he had seen the wall broken through, or the doors overthrown, he might, perhaps, have had ground to accuse the soldiers that kept the apostle, of neglect; but now when all things continued in due form, and the doors were thrown wide open, and the chains fastened to the hands of them that kept him (for in fact they were bound unto him), he might have inferred from these things (that is, if he had been strictly doing a judge's office on the matters before him), that the event was not of human power or craft, but of some divine and wonder-working power; he might have adored the doer of these things, instead of waging war with the sentinels. For God had so done all that He did, that so far from exposing the keepers, He was by their means leading the king unto the truth. But if he proved senseless, what signifies to the skillful Physician of Souls, managing all things to do good, the insubordination of him that is diseased?

Wherefore art thou wroth, O Herod, at being mocked of the wise men? didst thou not know that the birth was divine? didst thou not summon the chief priests? didst thou not gather together the scribes? did not they, being called, bring the prophet also with them into thy court of judgment, proclaiming these things beforehand from of old? Didst thou not see how the old things agreed with the new? Didst thou not hear that a star also ministered to these men? Didst thou not reverence the zeal of the barbarians? Didst thou not marvel at their boldness? Wast thou not horror-struck at the truth of the prophet? Didst thou not from the former things perceive the very last also? Wherefore didst thou not reason with thyself from all these things, that this event was not of the craft of the wise men, but of a Divine Power, duly dispensing all things? And even if thou wert deceived by the wise men, what is that to the young children, who have done no wrong?

"Yea," saith one, "Herod thou hast full well deprived of excuse, and proved him blood-thirsty; but thou hast not yet solved the question about the injustice of what took place. For if he did unjustly, wherefore did God permit it?" Now, what should we say to this? That which I do not cease to say continually, in church, in the market-place and everywhere; that which I also wish you carefully to keep in mind, for it is a sort of rule for us, suited to every such perplexity. What then is our rule, and what our saying? That although there be many that injure, yet is there not so much as one that is injured. And in order that the riddle may not disturb you too much, I add the solution too with all speed. I mean, that what we may suffer unjustly from any one, it tells either to the doing away of our sins, God so putting that wrong to our account; or unto the recompense of rewards.

"But what kind of sin had these children," it may be said, "that they should do it away? for touching those who are of full age, and have been guilty of many negligences, one might with show of reason speak thus: but they who so underwent premature death, what sort of sins did they by their sufferings put away?" Didst thou not hear me say, that though there were no sins, there is a recompense of rewards hereafter for them that suffer ill here? Wherein then were the young children hurt in being slain for such a cause, and borne away speedily into that waveless harbor? "Because," sayest thou, "they would in many instances have achieved, had they lived, many and great deeds of goodness" Why, for this cause He lays up for them beforehand no small reward, the ending their lives for such a cause. Besides, if the children were to have been any great persons, He would not have suffered them to be snatched away beforehand. For if they that eventually will live in continual wickedness are endured by Him with so great long-sufferings, much more would He not have suffered these to be so taken off had He foreknown they would accomplish any great things.

And these are the reasons we have to give; yet these are not all; but there are also others more mysterious than these, which He knoweth perfectly, who Himself ordereth these things. Let us then give up unto Him the more perfect understanding of this matter, and apply ourselves to what follows, and in the calamities of others let us learn to bear all things nobly. Yea, for it was no little scene of woe, which then befell Bethlehem, the children were snatched from their mother's breast, and dragged unto this unjust slaughter.

And if thou art yet faint-hearted, and not equal to controlling thyself in these things, learn the end of him who dared all this, and recover thyself a little. For very quickly was he overtaken by punishment for these things; and he paid the due penalty of such an abominable act, ending his life by a grievous death, and more pitiable than that which he now dared inflict; suffering also countless additional ills, which ye may know of by perusing Josephus' account of these events.

Why did Christ do this? Christ is the judge of thoughts and the examiner of minds. Why did he desert those whom he knew were being sought because of himself and whom he knew would be killed for his sake? He was born a king, the king of heaven—why did he neglect the standard-bearers of his own innocence? Why did he disdain an army of the same age as himself? Why did he thus abandon those who were cut down as plunder from the same cradle as himself? Was it so that he, who would become the one king, might proceed against the forces of all his enemies? Brothers, Christ did not despise his own soldiers but promoted them and granted that they might walk in victory before they lived. He enabled them to participate in a victory without struggle. He gave to them the gift of the crown even before their bodies had grown. It was Christ's will that they pass over vice for virtue, attain heaven before earth and share in the divine life immediately. Thus it was that Christ sent his soldiers ahead. He did not abandon them. He gathered up his ranks. He did not leave them behind.

When the infant Jesus had subdued the Magi, not by the might of His flesh, but the grace of His Spirit, Herod was exceeding wrath, that they whom he sitting on his throne had no power to move, were obedient to an Infant lying in a manger. Then by their contempt of him the Magi gave further cause of wrath. For when kings' wrath is stirred by fear for their crowns, it is a great and inextinguishable wrath. But what did he? He sent and slew all the children. As a wounded beast rends whatsoever meeteth it as if the cause of its smart, so he mocked by the Magi spent his fury on children. He said to himself in his fury, 'Surely the Magi have found the Child whom they said should be King;' for a king in fear for his crown fears all things, suspects all. Then he sent and slew all those infants, that he might secure one among so many.

He is not satisfied with the massacre at Bethlehem, but extends it to the adjacent villages; sparing no age from the child of one night old, to that of two years.

In Joseph is figured the order of preachers, in Mary Holy Scripture; by the Child the knowledge of the Saviour; by the cruelty of Herod the persecution which the Church suffered in Jerusalem; by Joseph's flight into Egypt the passing of the preachers to the unbelieving Gentiles, (for Egypt signifies darkness;) by the time that he abode in Egypt the space of time between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of Anti Christ; by Herod's death the extinction of jealousy in the hearts of the Jews.

But (we hold the contrary): for Christ, by "accepting praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings," has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility, -the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony; while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant.

He gave orders that not only the children in Bethlehem but even those in the outlying districts of the town be killed, thinking that amid the multitude of those killed would be the one he was seeking. Herod ordered those who were two years old and under to be slaughtered. He had calculated such was the time that had passed from the incarnation of Christ, taking into account the time the magi had spent on their journey and that which he had spent on the throne. But Christ was taken out of Bethlehem once night had arrived. It is not possible that the birth of Christ be the cause of the killing of the children. But the disclosure of Herod's child-killing marked the beginning of a long string of wickedness. Even those who crucified Christ were not wicked at the time when they arrested Christ. Rather, they became wicked at the time when they undertook his murder. Yet for Christ's sake the children will receive a good reward, fitting to their martyrdom.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the Magi, was exceedingly wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem. As God used Moses to trick Pharaoh, so, too, He used the Magi to trick Herod. For both Herod and Pharaoh were child slayers: Pharaoh slew the male children of the Hebrews in Egypt, and Herod slew the male children of the Hebrews in Bethlehem. Herod vents his wrath against the Magi upon those who had wronged him in nothing. Why were the children allowed to be slaughtered? So that Herod's wickedness might be revealed. But perhaps you will ask me, "Why did the children suffer wrong to show Herod's wickedness?" Listen then. They were not wronged but were made worthy of crowns. For anyone who suffers some evil here, suffers either so that his sins might be absolved, or so that his crowns might be multiplied. So it is with these children; for their suffering they will receive a greater crown in heaven. And in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully ascertained of the Magi.

(16) Then Herod... Here he tells of the slaughter of the infants. In regard to this he does three things: first, the occasion of the slaughter is mentioned; secondly, the slaying (v. 16b); thirdly, the prophecies are quoted (v. 17).

The occasion was Herod's anger; hence Herod was in a furious rage: "Man's anger does not work the justice of God" (Jas 1:20). And it should be noted that when a king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly becomes inflamed with anger.

Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage. He is said to have been in a furious rage for two reasons: because when one is angry, he becomes furious at the slightest provocation. Hence, because he suspected the loss of his kingdom and had been tricked by the wise men, he went into a furious rage: "From a spark of fire come many burning coals" (Sir 11:32). And he sent... In that fury was cruelty in regard to three things: the place, the multitude and the time. In regard to the multitude, because to find the one he kills all. Hence it says, He sent and killed all the male children. And note that Augustine says: "He would never have benefited them as much by paying homage, as he benefited them by his hatred." But one might ask, since they did not have free will, how they are said to die for Christ? But, as it says in John (3:17): "God did not send his son into the world to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him." For God would never permit them to be killed, unless it were useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether their killing profited them as to doubt whether baptism would have profited them: for they suffered as martyrs, and by dying confessed Christ, though not by speech: "I saw under the altar the souls of those slain for the word of God" (Rev 6:9). The second cruelty is that he killed in all that region, for he feared that he might flee to another city. He acted like a wounded beast, which does not care whom it injures: "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear, a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Pr 28:15). The third was in regard to time. Hence those who were two years old and under. And note that Augustine says that "the Innocents were killed in the year Christ was born."

But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years previously. Hence, Herod was not sure that he was not born as soon as the star appeared. Hence, he says, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. But others say that they were not killed in the same year but two years later. But why did he wait so long? Three reasons are given by different persons. One is that in the beginning he thought that the Magi had been deceived and would find nothing, but after he heard many things about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, he felt it was necessary to make inquiries. Others say that he did this out of wariness, for he feared that the parents would conceal the child he sought. Hence, at first he wished to follow them. Others say that he was prevented by his business, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. He was also occupied, because he had been summoned to Rome, where his sons had accused him. And so, after his return he began to vent his rage.

He says or under, because he knew that he had such power that he could change his features.

By that killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because they were children in humility and innocence: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Mt 19:14); likewise below (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

In Bethlehem and in all that region, because they are killed through the whole world: "You will be witnesses to me," namely, by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two loves—of God and of neighbor, because "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:20). And note that after Christ was born, a persecution at once rages: because as soon as one is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted: "Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation" (Sir 2:1).

(ord.) She will not be comforted in this present life, for that they are not, but transfers all her hope and comfort to the life to come.

It could not be that they were not who seemed now dead, but by glorious martyrdom they were advanced to eternal life; and consolation is for those who have suffered loss, not for those who have reaped a gain. Rachel affords a type of the Church long barren now at length fruitful. She is heard weeping for her children, not because she mourned them dead, but because they were slaughtered by those whom she would have retained as her first-born sons.

(Vers. 17 seqq.) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying: A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they are no more (Jerem. XXXI, 15). From Rachel was born Benjamin, in whose tribe Bethlehem is not (Genes. XXXV). Therefore, it is asked how Rachel mourns the sons of Judah, that is, Bethlehem, as if they were her own. We will answer briefly, because she is buried near Bethlehem in Ephrath, and from the maternal womb, she received the name of the mother's lodging. Whether because Judah and Benjamin were two joined tribes, and Herod had ordered not only the killing of children in Bethlehem, but also in all its borders. By the slaughter of Bethlehem, we understand that many from Benjamin were also killed. But she wept for her children, and she did not receive consolation, according to a twofold interpretation. Either because she considered them dead for eternity, or because she did not want to console herself about those whom she knew would survive. But what is said in Rama, let us not think that this is the name of a place, near Gabaa, but 'rama' is interpreted as 'an elevated place', so the meaning is: A voice was heard in an elevated place, that is, far and wide dispersed.

(In Hierem. 31:15.) This passage of Jeremiah has been quoted by Matthew neither according to the Hebrew nor the LXX version. This shows that the Evangelists and Apostles did not follow any one's translation, but according to the Hebrew manner expressed in their own words what they had read in Hebrew.

By Ramah we need not suppose that the town of that name near Gibeah is meant; but take it as signifying 'high.' A voice was heard 'aloft,' that is, spread far and wide.'

Rachel's son was Benjamin, in which tribe Bethlehem is not situated. How then does Rachel weep for the children of Judah as if they were her own? We answer briefly. She was buried near Bethlehem in Ephrata, and was regarded as the mother, because her body was there entertained. Or, as the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were contiguous, and Herod's command extended to the coasts of Bethlehem as well as to the town itself, we may suppose that many were slain in Benjamin.

This may be understood in two ways; either she thought them dead for all eternity, so that no consolation could comfort her; or, she desired not to receive any comfort for those who she knew had gone into life eternal.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Thus having filled the hearer with horror by relating these things: the slaughter so violent and unjust, so extremely cruel and lawless; he comforts him again, by saying, Not from God's wanting power to prevent it did all this take place, nor from any ignorance of His, but when He both knew it, and foretold it, and that loudly by His prophet. Be not troubled then, neither despond, looking unto His unspeakable providence, which one may most clearly see, alike by what He works, and by what He permits.

But what, it may be said, hath Rachel to do with Bethlehem? For it saith, "Rachel weeping for her children." And what hath Rama to do with Rachel? Rachel was the mother of Benjamin, and on his death, they buried her in the horse-course that was near this place. The tomb then being near, and the portion pertaining unto Benjamin her infant (for Rama was of the tribe of Benjamin), from the head of the tribe first, and next from the place of her sepulture, He naturally denominates her young children who were massacred. Then to show that the wound that befell her was incurable and cruel, He saith, "she would not be comforted because they are not."

Hence again we are taught this, which I mentioned before, never to be confounded when what is happening is contrary to the promise of God. Behold, for instance, when He was come for the salvation of the people, or rather for the salvation of the world, of what kind were His beginnings. His mother, first, in flight; His birth-place is involved in irremediable calamities, and a murder is perpetrated of all murders the bitterest, and there is lamentation and great mourning, and wailings everywhere. But be not troubled for He is wont ever to accomplish His own dispensations by their contraries, affording us from thence a very great demonstration of His power.

(Hil. Quæst. N. and V. Test. 9. 62.) Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. (see Judg. 20.) Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of a neighbour.

Or, it was heard on high, because uttered for the death of the innocent, according to that, The voice of the poor entereth into the heavens. (Ecclus. 35:21.) The 'weeping' means the cries of the children; 'lamentation,' refers to the mothers. In the infants themselves their death ends their cries, in the mothers it is continually renewed by the remembrance of their loss.

Or, The Church weeps the removal of the saints from this earth, but wishes not to be comforted as though they should return again to the struggles of life, for they are not to be recalled into life.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

The sacred Evangelist adds, to show the greatness of the mourning, that even the dead Rachel was roused to mourn her sons, and would not be comforted because they were not.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying. Lest anyone think that the slaying of the children took place against the will of God, the evangelist shows that God both knew of it beforehand and foretold it.

(17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (18) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same.

We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability.

He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15).

Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son.

This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers.

Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).

Hil. Quaest. N. and N. Test.9. 62: Or, The sons of Benjamin, who were akin to Rachel, were formerly cut off by the other tribes, and so extinct both then and ever after. Then therefore Rachel began to mourn her sons, when she saw those of her sister cut off in such a cause, that they should be heirs of eternal life; for he who has experienced any misfortune, is made more sensible of his losses by the good fortune of aneighbour.

In Rama was there a voice heard. Rama is a place in Palestine of high elevation, for the name itself means "high." This place fell by lot to the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin, who was the son of Rachel, and Rachel was buried in Bethlehem. By "Rachel," therefore, the prophet Jeremiah means "Bethlehem," for Rachel was buried in Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19). He is saying that weeping and lamentation will be heard from on high. Listen to what the prophet says: Lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, that is, Bethlehem weeping for its children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. In this life they are no more, but their souls are immortal.

(Hom. in Nat. Innoc.) This slaughter of the infants for the Lord's sake, the death of Herod soon after, and Joseph's return with the Lord and his mother to the land of Israel, is a figure showing that all the persecutions moved against the Church will be avenged by the death of the persecutor, peace restored to the Church, and the saints who had concealed themselves return to their own places. Or the return of Jesus to the land of Israel on the death of Herod shows, that, at the preaching of Enoch and Elijahc, the Jews, when the fire of modern jealousy shall be extinguished, shall receive the true faith.

(Eccles. Hist. i. 8.) For the sacrilege which Herod had committed against the Saviour, and his wicked slaughter of the infants of the same age, the Divine vengeance hastened his end; and his body, as Josephus relates, was attacked by a strange disease; so that the prophets declared that they were not human ailments, but visitations of Divine vengeance. Filled with mad fury, he gives command to seize and imprison the heads and nobles out of all parts of Judæa; ordering that as soon as ever he should breathe his last, they should be all put to death, that so Judæa though unwillingly might mourn at his decease. Just before he died he murdered his son Antipater, (besides two boys put to death before, Alexander and Aristobulus.) Such was the end of Herod, noticed in those words of the Evangelist, when Herod was dead, and such the punishment inflicted.

After the death of Herod, Joseph was advised by the angel to return to Judea with the boy and his mother. When he returned he heard that Archelaeus, son of Herod, was king. So he was afraid to go, but the angel admonished him to cross over into the region of Galilee, and they lived in the city of Nazareth.… Joseph resembles the apostles to whom Christ entrusted the spreading of the news about him. Similar to what happened with Joseph after the death of Herod, they must deal with the same people who caused the Lord to suffer. The apostles are commanded to preach to the Jews, for they were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But when they saw that the power remained in the hands of inherited faithlessness, they became afraid and retreated.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel.

Many here err from ignorance of history, supposing the Herod who mocked our Lord on the day of His passion, and the Herod whose death is here related, were the same. But the Herod who was then made friends with Pilate was son of this Herod and brother to Archelaus; for Archelaus was banished to Lyons in Gaul, and his father Herod made king in his room, as we read in Josephus.

From this we see that not Herod only, but also the Priests and Scribes had sought the Lord's death at that time.

"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel."

He no more saith "fly," but "go." Seest thou again after the temptation refreshment? then after the refreshment danger again? in that he was freed indeed from his banishment, and came back again to his own country; and beheld the murderer of the children brought to the slaughter; but when he hath set foot on his own country, he finds again a remnant of the former perils, the son of the tyrant living, and being king.

See how Joseph was set for ministering to Mary; when she went into Egypt and returned, who would have fulfilled to her this so needful ministry, had she not been betrothed? For to outward view Mary nourished and Joseph defended the Child; but in truth the Child supported His mother and protected Joseph. Return into the land of Israel; for He went down into Egypt as a physician, not to abide there, but to succour it sick with error. But the reason of the return is given in the words, They are dead, &c.

And that is said to have been done by the counsel of God for their conspiring with Herod against the Lord; as it is said, Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

(De Cæl. Hierarch. 4.) See how Jesus Himself, though far above all celestial beings, and coming unchanged to our nature, shunned not that ordinance of humanity which He had taken on Him, but was obedient to the dispositions of His Father made known by Angels. For even by Angels is declared to Joseph the retreat of the Son into Egypt, so ordained of the Father, and His return again to Judæa.

Rachel is well set for a type of the Church, as the word signifies 'a sheep' or 'seeing;' (vid. note i, p. 19.) her whole thought being to fix her eye in contemplation of God; and she is the hundredth sheep that the shepherd layeth on his shoulder.

But if they were many who sought his destruction, how came they all to have died in so short a time? As we have related above, all the great men among the Jews were slain at Herod's death.

Or the Evangelist uses a figure of speech, by which the plural is used for the singular. These words, the Child's life, (or soul, i. e. the Apollinarians.) overthrow those heretics who taught that Christ did not take a soul, but had His Divinity in place of a soul.

But when Herod was dead. Herod came to a bitter end. For with fever, torment of the bowels, itching, swelling of the feet, rotting of the private parts, breeding of worms, difficulty in breathing, trembling and spasms in every member, he cast off his evil soul.

Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel. He did not say "flee" but "go," for there was no longer any need for fear. For they are dead which sought the young Child's soul. Where is Apollinarius, who said that the Lord did not have the soul of a man? For here he is reproved.

(19) Then he deals with Christ's being called back; hence, when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. First, he mentions that the angel appeared; secondly, the angel's command; thirdly, the execution of the angel's command.

In regard to the first, three things are done: first, the time is described; secondly, the person; thirdly, the manner of the appearance.

He says, therefore, But when Herod died: not the one involved in Christ's death, because that was his son; behold an angel appeared.

It should be noted that all trouble in the Church is terminated by the death of the persecutors: "When the wicked perish, there are shouts of gladness" (Pr 11:10). Note, also, that when the unbelief of the Jews has ended, Christ will return to them: "And then all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

Behold... appeared. It should be noted that the order between men and angels is such that divine illuminations are produced in us only by angels: "Are they not administering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Heb 1:14). Hence, even Christ as man willed to be announced by angels.

The manner: in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.

(Verse 20) For those who sought the child's life are dead. From this we understand that not only Herod, but also the priests and scribes at the same time had planned the death of the Lord.

(20) The command: Rise, take the child and his mother. He does not say, "son" or "wife", but child, in order to designate the dignity of the child and the purity of the mother. In this is shown that Joseph was not given to her for the purpose of carnal intercourse but to minister and guard. And he assigns the cause: for those who sought the child's life are dead.

But one might ask why he says, are, for Herod alone had died. This is answered in two ways: first, because he had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced in his death. When he had a foreboding of his death, he commanded his sister to kill the nobler Jews when he died. These had sought the life of the child with Herod: for those who sought the child's life are dead. Or another way: It is the custom of Sacred Scripture to use the plural for the singular: hence, they are dead, i.e. he is dead. Hence, the statement that those who sought the child's life destroys Apollinaris' error, that the godhead was in Christ in place of a soul.

Joseph was not disobedient to the angelic warning, but he arose, and took the young Child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. The Angel had not fixed the particular place, so that while Joseph hesitates, the Angel returns, and by the often visiting him confirms his obedience.

But the figurative interpretation holds good any way. Joseph represents the Apostles, to whom Christ is entrusted to be borne about. These, as though Herod were dead, that is, his people being destroyed in the Lord's passion, are commanded to preach the Gospel to the Jews; they are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Verse 21.) He rose and took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. He did not say, 'I took my son and my wife,' but the child and his mother, as if a foster father, not a husband.

And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Herod left three sons: Philip, Antipas, and Archelaus. He had directed Archelaus to be king, and the other two, tetrarchs. Joseph was afraid to go into the land of Israel, that is, Judea, because Archelaus was similar to Herod, his father. Antipas was the young Herod who slew the Forerunner. And being warned by God in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee. Galilee was not of the land of Israel, but of the Gentiles, and for this reason the Jews considered the Galileans an abomination.

(21) Then he mentions the execution of the command: and he rose and took the child and his mother. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how he returned to the land of Israel (v. 21); secondly, the section he avoided (v. 22); thirdly, the section he chose (v. 22b). He says, therefore, and he rose. Note that the angel did not say: "Go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, to the land of Israel, under which even Galilee can be included. Hence, it can be said that Joseph entered the boundaries of the land which Judah inhabited.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 10.) Here it may be asked, How then could his parents go up every year of Christ's childhood to Jerusalem, as Luke relates, if fear of Archelaus now prevented them from approaching it? This difficulty is easily solved. At the festival they might escape notice in the crowd, and by returning soon, where in ordinary times they might be afraid to live. So they neither became irreligious by neglecting the festival, nor notorious by dwelling continually in Jerusalem. Or it is open to us to understand Luke when he says, they went up every year, as speaking of a time when they had nothing to fear from Archelaus, who, as Josephus relates, reigned only nine years. There is yet a difficulty in what follows; Being warned in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. If Joseph was afraid to go into Judaea because one of Herod's sons, Archelaus, reigned there, how could he go into Galilee, where another of his sons Herod was tetrarch, as Luke tells us? As if the times of which Luke is speaking were times in which there was any longer need to fear for the Child, when even in Judaea things were so changed, that Archelaus no longer ruled there, but Pilate was governor.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 9.) This may perhaps occur to some, that Matthew says His parents went with the Child Jesus to Galilee because they feared Archelaus, when it should seem most probable that they chose Galilee because Nazareth was their own city, as Luke has not forgot to mention. We must understand, that when the Angel in the vision in Egypt said to Joseph, Go into the land of Israel, Joseph understood the command to be that he should go straight into Judaea, that being properly the land of Israel. But finding Archelaus ruling there, he would not court the danger, as the land of Israel might be interpreted to extend to Galilee, which was inhabited by children of Israel. Or we may suppose His parents supposed that Christ should dwell no where but in Jerusalem, where was the temple of the Lord, and would have gone thither had not the fear of Archelaus hindered them. And they had not been commanded from God to dwell positively in Judaea, or Jerusalem, so as that they should have despised the fear of Archelaus, but only in the land of Israel generally, which they might understand of Galilee.

(De Con. Evan. ii. 5.) The whole of this history, from the account of the Magi inclusively, Luke omits. Let it be here noticed once for all, that each of the Evangelists writes as if he were giving a full and complete history, which omits nothing; where he really passes over any thing, he continues his thread of history as if he had told all. Yet by a diligent comparison of their several narratives, we can be at no loss to know where to insert any particular that is mentioned by one and not by the other.

(ord.) But then we might ask, why was he not afraid to go into Galilee, seeing Archelaus ruled there also? He could be better concealed in Nazareth than in Jerusalem, which was the capital of the kingdom, and where Archelaus was constantly resident.

But finding the seed of their hereditary unbelief still abiding, they fear and withdraw; admonished by a vision, to wit, seeing the Holy Ghost poured upon the Gentiles, they carry Christ to them.

(Verse 22) But hearing that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. Many fall into error due to ignorance of history, thinking that he is the same Herod who mocked the Lord in his passion, and who is reported to be dead now. Therefore, this Herod, who later became friends with Pilate, is the son of that Herod, the brother of Archelaus; and Tiberius Caesar himself, the city of Lugdunum, which is in Gaul, banished him, and made his brother Herod successor to the kingdom. Read the story of Joseph.

But how did Archelaus reign over Judaea, when Pontius Pilate was governor? Herod's death had recently taken place, and the kingdom had not yet been divided into many parts; but as he had only just ended his life, the son for a while kept possession of the kingdom "in the room of his father Herod;" his brother also bearing this name, which is the reason why the evangelist added, "in the room of his father Herod."

It may be said, however, "if he was afraid to settle in Judaea on account of Archelaus, he had cause to fear Galilee also on account of Herod." I answer, By his changing the place, the whole matter was thenceforward thrown into shade; for the whole assault was upon "Bethlehem and the coasts thereof." Therefore now that the slaughter had taken place, the youth Archelaus had no other thought, but that the whole was come to an end, and that amongst the many, He that was sought had been destroyed. And besides, his father having come to such an end of his life before his eyes, he became for the future more cautious about further proceedings, and about urging on that course of iniquity.

Joseph therefore comes to Nazareth, partly to avoid the danger, partly also delighting to abide in his native place. To give him the more courage, he receives also an oracle from the angel touching this matter. Luke, however, doth not say that he came there by Divine warning, but that when they had fulfilled all the purification, they returned to Nazareth. What then may one say? That Luke is giving an account of the time before the going down to Egypt, when he saith these things. For He would not have brought them down thither before the purification, in order that nothing should be done contrary to the law, but he waited for her to be purified, and to go to Nazareth, and that then they should go down to Egypt. Then, after their return, He bids them go to Nazareth. But before this they were not warned of God to go thither, but yearning after their native place, they did so of their own accord. For since they had gone up for no other cause but on account of the taxing, and had not so much as a place where to stay, when they had fulfilled that for which they had come up, they went down to Nazareth.

Herod had nine wives, by seven of whom he had a numerous issue. By Josida, his first born Antipater—by Mariamine, Alexander and Aristobulus—by Mathuca, a Samaritan woman, Archelaus—by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Herod, who was afterwards tetrarch, and Philip. The three first were put to death by Herod; and after his death, Archelaus seized the throne by occasion of his father's will, and the question of the succession was carried before Augustus Cæsar. After some delay, he made a distribution of the whole of Herod's dominions in accordance with the Senate's advice. To Archelaus he assigned one half, consisting of Idumæa and Judæa, with the title of tetrarch, and a promise of that of king if he showed himself deserving of it. The rest he divided into two tetrarchates, giving Galilee to Herod the tetrarch, Ituræa and Trachonitis to Philip. Thus Archelaus was after his father's death a duarch, which kind of sovereignty is here called a kingdom.

Or, we may apply it to the last times of the Jewish Church, when many Jews having turned to the preaching of Enoch and Elijah, the rest filled with the spirit of Antichrist shall fight against the faith. So that part of Judæa where Archelaus rules, signifies the followers of Antichrist; Nazareth of Galilee, whither Christ is conveyed, that part of the nation that shall embrace the faith. Galilee means 'removal;' Nazareth, 'the flower of virtues;' for the Church the more zealously she removes from the earthly to the heavenly, the more she abounds in the flower and fruit of virtues.

(22) Then he mentions the area he avoided: when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea. Here the history of Herod should be noted. For he had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; at his death he commanded that Antipater be killed. Thus three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn and usurped the kingdom; but he was later accused before Caesar Augustus by the Jews and his kingdom was taken away. It was then divided into four parts. Two were given to Archelaus and one each to Herod and Philip, as Luke (3:1) says. Archelaus himself was sent into exile after reigning for nine years.

Being warned in a dream. First the angel had said that he should go to the land of Israel, but because Joseph had not yet understood, the angel's message made explicit what was previously implicit. And this is indicated, when he says, being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee.

But on the other hand, just as Archelaus ruled in Judea, so Philip in Galilee. But one must answer that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus had the entire kingdom, because the division was made later. But then why did he not fear Archelaus? The answer is that Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom; hence, he practically stayed there always. But why does Luke (2:41) state that they brought the child to Jerusalem every year? Augustine answers that it was safe to bring him on account of the vast throng that came there at that time; but it would have been dangerous, if he had tarried there for a long time. But why does the evangelist suggest that it was by accident that Joseph came to Nazareth, whereas Luke (2:39) says that he had his personal domicile in Nazareth. The answer is that the angel had told him to go into the land of Israel which, strictly speaking, did not include Galilee or Nazareth. That is the way Joseph understood it; therefore, he made no decision to go to Nazareth.

But if "the Nazarene" is interpreted to mean "holy" or, according to some, as "flower," this is the designation found in many instances. For Daniel calls him "holy" or "of the holy ones." Likewise we find in Isaiah: "A branch from the stock of Jesse and its flower." Even the Lord says of himself in the Song of Songs, "I am the bloom of the plain, the lily of the valleys."

To this he adds the Prophet's testimony, saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, &c.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

(Verse 23) And coming, he lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. If he had set a fixed example from the Scriptures, he would never have said, what was spoken by the prophets; but simply, what was spoken by the prophet: but now, calling them prophets in the plural, he shows that he did not take words from the Scriptures, but the meaning. Nazarene, interprets as holy. But all Scripture testifies that the Lord would be holy. We can also say in another way, that even in the same words, according to the Hebrew truth, it is written in Isaiah: There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall rise out of his roots (Isa. 11:1).

Had he meant to quote a particular text, he would not have written 'Prophets,' but 'the Prophet.' By thus using the plural he evidently does not take the words of any one passage in Scripture, but the sense of the whole. Nazarene is interpreted 'Holyd,' and that the Lord would be Holy, all Scripture testifies. Otherwise we may explain that it is found in Isaiah (c. 11:1.) rendered to the strict letter of the Hebrew. There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall grow out of His rootse.

We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, "That it might be fulfilled," saith he, "which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.

"Was not this then," one may say, "casting a shade over the prophecy touching Bethlehem?" By no means: rather this very fact was sure greatly to stir up men, and to awaken them to the search of what was said of Him. Thus, for example, Nathanael too enters on the inquiry concerning Him, saying, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" For the place was of little esteem; or rather not that place only, but also the whole district of Galilee. Therefore the Pharisees said, "Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." Nevertheless, He is not ashamed to be named even from thence, signifying that He needs not ought of the things of men; and His disciples also He chose out of Galilee; everywhere cutting off the pretexts of them who are disposed to be remiss, and giving tokens that we have no need of outward things, if we practice virtue. For this cause He doth not choose for Himself so much as a house; for "the Son of Man," saith He, "hath not where to lay His head;" and when Herod is plotting against Him, He fleeth, and at His birth is laid in a manger, and abides in an inn, and takes a mother of low estate; teaching us to think no such thing a disgrace, and from the first outset trampling under foot the haughtiness of man, and bidding us give ourselves up to virtue only.

They might have read this in some Prophets who are not in our canon, as Nathan or Esdras. That there was some prophecy to this purport is clear from what Philip says to Nathanael. Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth. Hence the Christians were at first called Nazarenes, at Antioch their name was changed to that of 'Christians.'

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. How is it that Luke says that after the Lord was born, He completed the forty days, was held in the arms of Simeon, and then went down to Nazareth (Lk. 2:22-40)? But here Matthew says that after the return from Egypt He went to Nazareth? Learn, therefore, that Luke spoke those things on which Matthew was silent. I will give an example: after the birth, He completed the forty days, and then went down to Nazareth. This is what Luke says. Matthew speaks of what took place afterwards, that He fled into Egypt, and then returned from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. They do not contradict each other. One of them, Luke, speaks of the descent from Bethlehem to Nazareth, while the other, Matthew, speaks of the return from Egypt to Nazareth, which took place later. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which prophet said this? It is not to be found now. For many books have been lost, because of both the carelessness of the Hebrews and the frequent captivities. But perhaps this was an unwritten prophecy among the Jews. "Nazarene" means "sanctified" and as the Christ is holy, it is right that He is called "a Nazarene." For by many prophets the Lord was called "The Holy One of Israel" (Ps. 88:18, Is. 1:4, etc.)

(23) That what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it was gathered from many passages. For Nazarene means holy; and because Christ is called holy: "Until the holy one is anointed" (Dan 9:24), therefore, he is said to be so called by the prophet. Or it can be said that by Nazarene is meant abounding with flowers, as in Is (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a flower shall grow out of his roots." This agrees with Song of Songs (2:1): "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."