Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

“Matthew, from Judea, etc. Jerome prefixes a prologue to the Gospel of Matthew, in which he does three things: first, he describes the author himself; second, he opens up the mysteries of the Gospel, at the place "presupposing two principles in the generation of Christ"; third, he shows his own intention, at the place "but for us, this was our concern in this study of the argument." He describes the author himself, however, by four things: first from his name, when he says "Matthew"; second from his origin, when he says "from Judea"; third from the order of writing, at "as he is placed first in order"; fourth from his calling, at "whose calling to the Lord," that is, to Christ, etc. Concerning this, Matthew 9:9 and Luke 5:27. And note that the interlinear Gloss, which says: "first," that is, before whom none [wrote], etc., seems to want to say that others wrote in Judea after Matthew, which is not true: for Matthew alone wrote in Judea, Mark in Italy, Luke in Achaia, John in Asia. Consequently he opens up the mysteries of the Gospel itself. And first he opens up the mysteries concerning the beginning of the Gospel; second he shows that these same mysteries are to be sought both in the middle and at the end, at "in which Gospel it is useful," etc. Now at the beginning of the Gospel two things are touched upon. First something like a title is set down, when it says, "the book of the generation"; second a certain series of generation is described, when it says, "Abraham begot Isaac," etc. First, then, he sets down the mysteries of the title, or the things touched upon in the title; second, the mysteries of the generation, at "and thus by a group of fourteen." Now in the title it is said, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ"; where two principles are touched upon, namely David and Abraham. And this is because the precept concerning circumcision was given first to Abraham; Romans 4:11: "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which is in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all who believe." David, however, was chosen by the Lord; 1 Kings 13:14: "I have found a man after my own heart." Hence on account of this these two are touched upon, so that it might be denoted that Christ drew his origin both from circumcised fathers and from the elect. And this is the meaning of "of two," of men, or of two principles, that is, there are two principles, namely David and Abraham. Consequently he sets down the mysteries which are touched upon in the genealogy. And first he touches upon the mysteries of the Gospel itself, or of the Evangelist; second, those of Christ himself, at "of all which things," etc. And it is a mystery that the Evangelist divided the genealogy of Christ into three groups of fourteen: of which the first is from Abraham to David; the second from David to the deportation; the third up to Christ; so that he might show Christ to be both of the circumcised, and of the elect, and of those deported. And this is the meaning of "set forth in threefold fashion," that is, repeated three times, above in the genealogy — "from the faith of believing," that is, from Abraham himself, who was the first exemplar of believing, "reaching forward to the time of election," that is, leading up to David himself, and "from the election," that is, from David himself, "directing to the day of the deportation"; and "from the day of the deportation defining up to Christ" — it is evident that the generation, "run through," that is, briefly and cursorily touched upon, shows the advent of the Lord, "satisfying both number and time." It is evident. Of all which things, etc. Note that in this series of the generation four things are touched upon: time, number, order, and disposition or reckoning; for it says "from Abraham even to David," etc. All these things show nothing other than that Christ is God: for this is what is intended according to the disposition and allegorical reckoning, that Christ is God. "Which is necessary for faith," namely, that Christ is God — that is, in all these things there is nothing more required of the necessity of faith except that Christ is God. "Who was made of a woman," etc. Note, and expound, and mark the chapters. "And he fixed all things to the cross," that is, sins, according as he took out of the midst the handwriting that was against us. Again, better: Christ according to God and man, who is all things, according to that saying, John 12:32, "if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself," and Philippians 2:10: "that at the name of the Lord every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." "Triumphing over them in himself," because through the trophy of the cross he subjected all things to himself, and triumphed over each and every one. "And the name of the father, in the fathers, to the son." Now for the clarification of this it must be noted that in the series of the generation certain fathers and certain sons are set down, as is evident. Likewise there is set down there a certain father without a father, as Adam; a certain son without a son, as Jesus. Likewise there are set down some who are both fathers and sons, as all the intermediate ones. Now by this it is mystically designated that in the Trinity there is Father and Son, just as in this genealogy there are certain fathers, certain sons. Likewise, by the fact that the first father does not have a father in this series, nor the last son a son, it is shown that these are from eternity. Likewise, by the fact that one and the same person is father and son with respect to different persons, it is touched upon that these are one, not indeed in person, but in nature. And this is what he says: "and restoring the name of father to the son, among the fathers" — that is, that the son should have a father; "among the fathers," that is, by the fact that certain fathers are set down there. And "restoring the name to the father," that is, that the father should have a son, and this "among the sons," that is, by the fact that certain sons without beginning and without end are set down there: because the first father does not have a father, nor the last son a son. "Showing himself to be one with the Father," that is, one in nature, because each is one in person, namely father and son, yet with respect to different persons, in the said genealogy. Note the interlinear Gloss which says: "one Christ"; which is a statement that amounts to nothing. Consequently he shows that similar mysteries are to be sought in the said Gospel, not only at the beginning, but also in the middle and at the end: and this is the meaning of "in which Gospel," namely that of Matthew, "it is useful for those desiring God," thus, that is, in the same way as we have said, "to know the first things," that is, the beginning, or the middle things, or "the perfect things," the end, and the consummation; "as also the calling of the apostle," etc. It is written, Philippians 3:12: "but I follow after, if by any means I may attain." But for us. Here he shows his own intention, namely that he intends that the things which are said here are true in their history, and yet are to be understood spiritually. "But for us this was" — that is, this was our intention — "in the pursuit of the argument," that is, of the prologue.”

“Among the Evangelists, Matthew is principally occupied with the humanity of Christ: whence, according to Gregory, he is signified by the man in the figure of the four animals. Now through his humanity Christ entered into the world, advanced through it, and went forth from it. And therefore the whole Gospel is divided into three parts. For first the Evangelist treats of the entrance of Christ's humanity into the world; second, of its advance; third, of its departure. The second part begins at chapter 3:1, where it says, "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea." The third begins at chapter 21:1, "And when they drew near to Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto mount Olivet." In the first part he does two things: first Christ's generation is described; second, the manifestation of that same generation is added, at chapter 2, where it says, "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king." In the first part he does three things: first, as it were the title of the whole book is set before it, when it says, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ"; second, the series of the fathers is woven together, "Abraham begot Isaac"; third, when it says, "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise," the generation of Christ is described in particular. Now the title which is set at the beginning is this: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." And it seems to be an incomplete sentence. For a nominative is placed there without a verb; but it is not so. For Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews, and therefore in writing he kept to the custom of the Jews. Now it is customary among the Hebrews to speak in this way, just as when it is said, "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos," it is understood, "this is," nor is it necessary to add it. So here, when it says "the book of the generation," it is understood, "this is." And this manner of speaking is also customary among us: for if we wish to give a title to some book, it is said "Priscian the Greater" or "the Lesser," nor is it necessary to add "this is" or "here begins." Again, it is asked, since so small a portion of this book concerns the generation of Christ, why he entitled his book in this way. And it must be said that Matthew, who wrote for the Hebrews, in writing kept to the manner of the Hebrews. Now it is customary among the Hebrews to entitle their books from the beginning, just as Genesis is so called because generation is treated there; whence Genesis 5:1: "This is the book of the generation of Adam." And the book of Exodus, because in its first part the going-forth of the children of Israel from Egypt is treated. But it is asked why "of Jesus Christ" is added. And it must be said that according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:22, "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." Now Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is treated, in which it is said at chapter 5:1, "This is the book of the generation of Adam." Therefore, so that the New Testament, in which regeneration and restoration are treated, might correspond to it by way of opposite, he says, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ," so as to show that the author of both is the same. Here, moreover, it is asked concerning this, that it here says "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ." For the contrary is found in Isaiah 53:8, where it is said, "Who shall declare his generation?" But the meaning is, according to Jerome, that in Christ there is a twofold generation: namely, the divine, which cannot be declared, because although we say in some manner that the Son is begotten, yet the manner in which he is begotten neither man nor angel can comprehend; and the other is human, of which he here treats, but even in this generation there are many difficult things. And therefore, according to Remigius, there are very few who can declare it. Again, it is asked concerning the word "generation," since here several generations are woven together. But it must be said that although many generations are enumerated, all are nevertheless introduced on account of one, namely on account of the generation of Christ, of which it is said below: "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise." Now he who is described, whose generation is here woven, is described first from his name, when it says "Jesus"; second from his office, when it says "Christ"; third from his origin, when it says "son of David, son of Abraham." Although there were also others who were called Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun, of whom Ecclesiasticus 46:1 says, "Valiant in war was Jesus the son of Nun, the successor of Moses among the prophets," and another concerning the building of the temple, of whom it speaks in Zechariah 3:1 — these, however, were Jesus in name and in figure, inasmuch as they prefigured this one. That Jesus led the people of Israel into the land of promise; but this Jesus, that is, our Savior, leads us not into a carnal land, but into the heavenly one; Hebrews 12:2: "For we have him as the author and finisher, through his blood," and so forth. And rightly is he called "Jesus," a name which befits him according to both natures, namely the divine and the human. According to the human indeed he suffered in his own flesh, and accomplished the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would not have had efficacy except from the power of the divinity joined to it, on this account it is said below: "his name shall be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." But it is asked why it says "Christ." Would not "Jesus" have sufficed? I answer that this was done for this reason, that, as has been said, others also were called Jesus. Now from his office he describes him, when he says "Christ," that is, anointed. Now note three anointings in the old law. For Aaron was anointed priest, Leviticus 8:11. Saul was anointed king by Samuel, 1 Kings 10:1, and David, 1 Kings 16:13. And Elisha was anointed prophet, 3 Kings 19:16. Since therefore Christ was a true priest — Psalm 109:4: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," etc. — and king and prophet, therefore he is rightly called Christ, on account of the three offices which he himself exercised. "Son of David, son of Abraham." Here there is a twofold question, namely concerning the number, and concerning the order. As to the first, why he named these two. On account of that reason which was stated in the prologue, that Abraham was a prophet. Genesis 20:7: "The Lord said to Abimelech king of Gerar: Restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet." Likewise he was a priest, Genesis 15:9, when he fulfilled the office of priest, namely by offering a victim to the Lord: "Take me," he says, "a cow of three years," and so forth. David, moreover, was a prophet, as is clear from Acts 2:30. He was also a king, as is clear from 2 Kings 2:4. Since therefore Christ was king, and prophet, and priest, he is therefore rightly called the son of these two. For if he had named only Abraham, it would not have been signified that Christ was to be king. Likewise if only David, the priestly dignity in Christ would not have been denoted; and therefore he set down both. As to the second, it must be said that, according to Jerome, David is placed first, and the order is changed on account of the necessity of weaving the genealogy; for if he had said first "son of Abraham," and second "son of David," it would have been necessary to repeat Abraham a second time, so that the order of the genealogy might be continued. According to Ambrose, however, it must be said that David is placed first by reason of dignity; for to David the promise was made concerning the head itself, when it is said, Psalm 131:11: "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." But to Abraham concerning the members, namely concerning the Church; whence Genesis 22:18: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Here it must be noted that there were many terrors concerning Christ. For some erred concerning his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and Sabellius; some concerning his humanity; and some concerning both. Others, moreover, erred concerning his person. Concerning his humanity, Manichaeus erred first, who said that he took not a true body, but a phantasmal one. Against this is what the Lord says, Luke, last chapter, 39: "Handle, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second after him Valentinus erred, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, not that he assumed it from the virgin, but that he passed through her as water through a channel. But against this is what is said in Romans 1:3: "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he took only a body, and not a soul, but had the divinity in place of the soul. But against this is what is frequently said: "Now is my soul troubled." But on account of this same difficulty he afterward changed his opinion, and said that Christ had a vegetative and sensitive soul, but not, however, a rational one, having the divinity in its place. But then it would follow, unfittingly, that Christ would be no more a man than some brute animal. Now these errors the four Evangelists divided among themselves, as it were by a certain lot. For Mark and John principally destroyed those errors which concern the divinity; whence John at once in the beginning said: "In the beginning was the Word." And Mark began thus: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" — he did not say "son of Abraham." Matthew, however, and Luke destroy at the beginning those errors which concern his humanity. Whence note that in this, that it says "son of David, son of Abraham," all the errors which existed concerning Christ's humanity are excluded. For no one is called the son of another except through univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For however much something be generated from a man, unless it share the same nature according to species, it is never called his son, as is clear in the case of lice and things of this kind. If therefore Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he must have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same nature according to species if he did not have a true and natural body, nor if he had brought that body from heaven; nor even if he lacked a sensitive soul, or a rational one. Whence the exclusion of every error is clear.”

“With the title proposed, here the sequence of the genealogy is woven together; and it is divided into three parts, according to the three sets of fourteen by which the said sequence of the genealogy is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham up to David, which proceeds through the patriarchs. The second proceeds from David up to the transmigration of Babylon, which proceeds through the kings. The third, from the transmigration of Babylon up to Christ, begins from leaders and proceeds through private persons. The second part is there where it says, "David the king begot Solomon." The third is there where it says, "And after the transmigration of Babylon," and so on. The first part is divided into three. For first are set down the fathers who were before the entrance into Egypt; second are set down those who were in the very going out, and the entrance into the land of promise; third, those who were after the entrance into the land of promise. He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac." Here it must be considered, before we proceed further, that two Evangelists pursue the generation of Christ according to the flesh, namely Luke and Matthew, but differently. And this difference is observed with respect to five things. For first they differ as to placement; second as to order; third as to manner; fourth as to terminus; fifth as to the persons enumerated. First I say that they differ as to placement, because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of the Gospel, but Luke does so not at the beginning, but after the Baptism. And the reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew took up the carnal generation of Christ to describe, and therefore he had to set it down immediately at the beginning. But Luke intends above all to commend in Christ the priestly person; now to a priest belongs the expiation of sins, and therefore Christ's generation is fittingly set down by Luke after the Baptism, in which the expiation of sins takes place. Second, Luke and Matthew differ in weaving the genealogy of Christ as to order: because Matthew weaves the generation of Christ beginning from Abraham and descending down to Christ, but Luke begins from Christ and proceeds ascending up to Abraham and even beyond. And the reason is that, according to the Apostle, Romans 4:25, in Christ there were two things, namely the humility of taking up the defect of our nature, and the power of divinity and of grace, by which he expiated us from the defects of this nature; Romans 8:3: "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first, and "of sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Matthew therefore, who intends the carnal generation of Christ, through which he descended even to the assumption of our infirmity, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him the priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and are united to Christ himself, fittingly proceeds by ascending. Third, they differ as to manner: because in narrating the genealogy Matthew uses this word "begot," but Luke this word "was." And this is because Matthew in his whole narration sets down only carnal fathers; but Luke sets down many fathers according to the law, or by adoption. For it was commanded in the law that if someone died without children, his brother should take his bride, and beget children for him; hence those children were not the children of him who begot them, but by a certain adoption were imputed to the former. Hence Luke, who sets down many sons begotten by adoption, does not say "begot," but "was," because although they themselves had not begotten them, yet by a certain adoption those sons were theirs. But Matthew, who sets down only carnal fathers, says "begot." The reason for this is that, as has been said, Matthew is occupied above all with the humanity of Christ. And because according to the flesh he was born of carnal fathers, therefore in the genealogy of Matthew no one is set down who was not a carnal father. But Luke commends above all in Christ the priestly dignity, through which we are adopted as sons of God; and therefore he set down not only carnal but also legal fathers. Fourth, they differ as to terminus: because Matthew begins his generation from Abraham, and extends it up to Christ; but Luke, from Christ, extends not only up to Abraham, but even up to God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews. Now the Hebrews gloried above all in Abraham, John 8:33: "We are the seed of Abraham," who was the first principle of believing; and therefore Matthew began from Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would never have known anything about Abraham; and therefore Luke began from Christ, and terminated not only in Abraham, but in God. Fifth, they differ as to the persons enumerated: because in the whole sequence of Luke's genealogy no mention at all is made of a woman; but in Matthew certain women are inserted. The reason for this is, according to Ambrose, that Luke, as has been said, commends above all the priestly dignity; but in a priest the greatest purity is required. But Matthew weaves his carnal generation; and therefore certain women are set down there. It must be noted, however, that in the whole genealogy of Matthew only sinful women are set down, or those who had been marked by some sin, such as Tamar, who committed fornication, Genesis 38:24, and Ruth, who was an idolatress, being a Gentile, and the wife of Uriah, who was an adulteress, 2 Kings 11:2ff. And this is to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is woven entered in order to redeem sinners. Another reason is touched on by Ambrose, namely so that the confusion of the Church might be removed. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers ought not to mock, if sinners come to the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe according to Chrysostom, so that the imperfection of the law might be shown, and that Christ came to fulfill the law. For by the fact that certain sinful women are touched on, it is denoted that those who were the greatest in the law were sinners, such as David and Judah. And in this he designates the imperfection of the others. For if these were sinners, much more were the others; Romans 3:23: "All have sinned, and are in need of the glory of God." And therefore these are set down in the generation of Christ, so that it may be designated that he himself had fulfilled the law. Note, however, that although these women were all sinners, yet not at the time when their genealogy is being woven, but they had already been cleansed by penance. He says therefore, "Abraham begot Isaac." It must be noted first that here two things are to be considered according to the letter, or the literal sense: first, that through these fathers set down Christ is designated; second, that these things are also referred, and can be referred, to our instruction. He says therefore first, "Abraham begot Isaac." And this is had in Genesis 21. "And Isaac begot Jacob," Genesis 25. "And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers." Here it is asked, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely Ishmael, and likewise Isaac had another, why no mention is made of them, as here it says "Judah and his brothers." Likewise, why Judah is expressed by name more than the others. The reason is that Judah and his brothers remained under the worship of the one God; and therefore mention is made of them in the generation of Christ, but not of Isaac and Ishmael, nor of Jacob and Esau. To the second, this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49:10: "The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until he come who is to be sent: and he shall be the expectation of the nations." For it is manifest that "the Lord arose out of Judah," as is said in Hebrews 7:14; and therefore more mention is made of him than of the others. "And Judah begot Perez," and so on. Here it is asked, since the Lord was not born of Zerah, but of Perez, why mention is made of him. Likewise, why he is expressed by name. For before it said "his brothers"; why then did it express the name of Zerah? And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that this was done as a mystery. For evidence of this, note the history, which is had in Genesis 38, that in the birth of Tamar, Zerah appeared first, on whose hand the midwife bound a scarlet thread, saying, "This one shall come out first," and therefore she called his name Zerah; afterward, as he drew back his hand, the other came out, the midwife saying, "Why is the wall divided on account of you?" Now Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people, on whose hand the midwife bound the scarlet thread, that is, circumcision, which was done with the shedding of blood. But as he drew back his hand, etc., the other came out, because blindness happened in part to the Jews. For thus the Gentile people, divided, entered into the light of faith, having come forth from the womb of ignorance and unbelief. Second, it must be noted that through the fathers set down in the generation of Christ, Christ is signified by reason of the name, or of the deed, or of something else, as is evident of itself. For Abraham is interpreted "father of many nations," and signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Hebrews 2:10: "who had brought many sons unto glory." Likewise Abraham went out from his land at the Lord's command, Genesis 12:4, and it is Christ who said, Jeremiah 12:17: "I have left my house, I have abandoned my inheritance," and so on. Likewise Abraham, who laughed, saying, "Now the Lord has made laughter for me," Genesis 21:6, and it is Christ, at whose nativity joy is announced not only to one person, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the people, for unto you is born this day a savior, who is Christ the Lord." Likewise through Jacob, both by reason of the interpretation and by reason of the deed, as is evident in this, that he placed a stone, that is, the hardness of the cross, under his head. Likewise through Judah, and through Perez, who is interpreted "division," for he himself shall divide the sheep from the goats, below, 25:32. Morally, however, in these generations is designated the state of our justification, according to six things which are required for justification. Namely, faith through Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he himself is called the principle of faith; Romans 4:11: "that he might be the father of all who believe, though uncircumcised." Isaac, hope, because he is interpreted "laughter"; Romans 12:12: "rejoicing in hope." Jacob, charity, who took two wives, Leah, who is interpreted "laboring," and Rachel, that is, two lives, which are in charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative life delights in God, and the active life is that by which one comes to the aid of one's neighbor. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith, Romans 10:10, "with the heart one believes unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and of sins, "confess your sins one to another," James 5:16. From this, moreover, follows a twofold effect, namely the destruction of vices, which is designated through Perez, and the origin of the virtues, which is signified through Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, who is interpreted "bitterness"; Isaiah 38:15: "I will recall to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul." "And Perez begot Hezron." Here is set down the sequence of the genealogy of the fathers who were born in Egypt, or in its exodus. For just as through Perez, who is interpreted "division," Christ is signified, below, 25:32, "he shall separate the lambs from the goats," so through Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," or "court." For he is called "arrow" on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which he penetrated the hearts of his hearers; Psalm 44:6: "Thy arrows are sharp, the peoples shall fall under thee into the hearts of the king's enemies." And "court," on account of the breadth of charity, by which he loved not only friends, but even enemies; Romans 5:10: "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"; Isaiah 53:12: "he made intercession for the transgressors"; and likewise Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." "And Hezron begot Ram." Now Ram is interpreted "chosen," or "exalted": Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, and he himself is exalted above all"; Ephesians 1:21, "he set him above every principality." "And Ram begot Amminadab," who is interpreted "spontaneous." He it is in whose person the Psalmist says, Psalm 53:8, "I will freely sacrifice to thee, and will confess to thy name, for it is good, O Lord"; and Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it, and he opened not his mouth," and so on; John 6:38, "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." "And Amminadab begot Nahshon," who is interpreted "augury" or "serpentine," because Christ knew not only present things, but also past and future ones; Hebrews 4:13, "all things are naked and open to his eyes." Likewise, "serpentine" on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent, below, 10:16, "be ye prudent as serpents"; Job 12:16, "he himself knows the one deceiving and the one who is deceived." Note that this Nahshon was in the time of Moses, and went out with him from Egypt, and was one prince in the tribe of Judah in the desert, as is had in Numbers 1:7. But it must be observed that in Exodus 13:18, where our text has "the sons of Israel went up armed out of Egypt," the eagle translated it as "equipped," on account of an ambiguity; but better is the reading of the Septuagint, "the sons of Israel went out of Egypt in the fifth generation." But against this: this Nahshon was not the fifth from Jacob, but the seventh, as is evident by counting Jacob, Judah, and so on, up to Nahshon. Therefore it was not the fifth, but the seventh generation. But it is said that the count is not to be made through the tribe of Judah, but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the sons of Israel went out from Egypt; Psalm 76:21, "thou didst lead thy people like sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron." And it is evident that there are only five generations. For Jacob begot Levi, and Levi begot Kohath, Kohath begot Amram, and Amram begot Moses and Aaron, as is evident in Exodus 2; and under Moses they went out from Egypt. Here note that among all the tribes the tribe of Judah multiplied the most, and this because from it the future kings were to come, who had to fight. But among all, the tribe of Levi multiplied the least, and this because it was preordained to the divine office and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. And therefore he wants that also by counting through the tribe of Judah, what is said in Genesis 15:16 should be true, "in the fifth generation they shall return here." Jerome therefore says that what is said there is to be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi, but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez himself entered into Egypt with Jacob and Judah his father. And therefore these generations are not to be counted from Jacob, but from Perez, who himself also entered into Egypt. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Likewise Levi himself entered into Egypt with his father Jacob. And therefore the generations are to be counted from Levi, and not from Jacob. Now it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi. "And Nahshon begot Salmon." Salmon is interpreted "sensible," and signifies Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. Morally it must be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification with respect to the state of beginners, so in this second generation, which likewise contains five, is signified the progress of those advancing. For the first thing that follows from the fact that a man is justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. And therefore it is well said that Perez begot Hezron, who is interpreted "arrow," on account of the efficacy of preaching by which the hearts of hearers are pierced; Isaiah 49:2, "he made me as a chosen arrow." And so adapt the rest. "And Salmon begot Boaz," and so on. Here are set down the fathers who were born after the entrance into the land of promise. For Salmon was begotten in the desert, and entered with Joshua into the land of promise, and took as wife Rahab the harlot, of whom he begot Boaz. Boaz is interpreted "strong"; Jeremiah 16:19, "the Lord is my strength and my might." Rahab, however, is interpreted "hunger," or "breadth": and signifies the Church, because to her belongs that beatitude, Matthew 5:6, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be satisfied," and so on. It is also interpreted "breadth," because the Church has been spread throughout the whole world; Isaiah 54:2, "enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles," and so on. Likewise it is interpreted "impetus," because by the impetus of preaching it converted kings and philosophers. Likewise it signifies the Church by reason of the deed. Rahab sent a scarlet thread into the window, by which she was freed from the overthrow of Jericho, Joshua 2:21. Our window is the mouth: the thread, then, in the window is the confession of the passion of Christ, by which the Church has been freed from death. Likewise by reason of marriage, because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a prince in the tribe of Judah, so Christ betrothed the Church to himself; 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I have espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." But here it is asked, according to the letter, since Rahab was a harlot, how was she betrothed to so great a prince, who was greater than the others? And it must be said that Rahab did a very great thing, in that, scorning her own people and her father's rite, she chose the worship of the God of Israel. And therefore she was given, as it were for the greatest honor, to a most noble prince. "And Boaz begot Obed of Ruth." This is had in the last chapter of Ruth. Obed is interpreted "serving," or "servitude": and signifies Christ, of whom through the prophet, "you have made me serve in your sins," Isaiah 43:24. Ruth, however, signifies the Church born of the Gentiles, by reason of place: for she was a Moabite. Moab is interpreted "from the father"; John 8:44, "you are of your father the devil"; and again by reason of marriage, as is evident in the Gloss. But it is asked why these women are named here, since they were sinners. Jerome assigns the reason concerning Ruth, namely so that the prophecy of Isaiah 16:1 might be fulfilled: "send forth the lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the land, from the rock of the desert." The rock of the desert is, namely, of evil, and Ruth the Moabite is signified. Ambrose, however, assigns the reason, saying: it was to be that the Church would be gathered from unbelieving nations; and therefore she could be ashamed and confounded, unless they saw that Christ was born even of sinful women. Hence, so that their shame and confusion might be removed, they had to be named. But it is asked: Deuteronomy 23:3 says, "the Moabites and Ammonites shall not enter the Church"; since therefore Ruth was a Moabite, how was she received into the Church? But it must be said, through the Apostle, to the Galatians 5:18, that those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law: for in the law the intention of the lawgiver ought always to be observed more than the words of the law. For what was the reason why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Namely because he found idolatry in them, lest they draw the Jews to idolatry. Hence this woman, who was already converted, was not an idolatress; and therefore she was not subject to the prohibition. "And Obed begot Jesse," last chapter of Ruth. Jesse, moreover, is interpreted "sacrifice" or "burning"; and signifies him who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But it is asked: since this man was called by another name, Isai, as is evident in 1 Kings in many places, and that name was more solemn, why did the Evangelist not name him thus? And it must be said that this was so that it might be shown fulfilled in Christ what was said through the prophet Isaiah, 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse." "And Jesse begot David the king." David is interpreted "strong of hand and desirable in appearance"; all of which befit Christ, as is evident. For he himself is strong who overcame the devil; Luke 11:22, "but if a stronger than he coming upon him overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils." Likewise he himself is "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men," Psalm 44:3. But here it is asked: since there were several other kings, why is this one alone called "the king"? And it must be said that this man was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord arose: for although Saul was king, he was nevertheless of the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merit of David himself; Psalm 88:30, "and I will set his seed for evermore, and his throne as the days of heaven." The third reason is so that the prophecy of Jeremiah 23:5 might be shown fulfilled: "I will raise up to David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth"; Isaiah 9:7, "he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom," and so on. Morally, indeed, in this generation is designated the fruit of the perfect, just as in the others the fruit of beginners and of those advancing. For the first thing required in the perfect man is that he be strong to undertake adversities, so that, namely, he is not held back on account of some difficulty; and this is signified through Boaz, for he is interpreted "strong"; Isaiah 40:31, "they that hope in the Lord shall change their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not labor, they shall walk and not faint"; Proverbs, last chapter, 10, "who shall find a strong woman?" and so on. The second is the humility of one serving, namely that the greater he is, the more he humbles himself in all things; and this is signified through Obed, who himself is interpreted "serving" or "servitude"; Luke 22:26, "he that is greatest among you, let him become as the servant." The third is the fervor of charity, which is signified through Jesse, who is interpreted "incense" or "burning"; Psalm 140:2, "let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight," and so on. And from this one arrives at the kingdom, and at glory: because Jesse begot David the king; Revelation 5:10, "he has made us a kingdom to our God, and priests to God his Father"; 1 Peter 2:9, "you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition."”

“Having set forth the series of the genealogy of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, here he sets forth the series of the fathers which proceeds through the kings; and it is divided into two parts. First are set forth the kings who were born of Israel without any admixture of foreign seed; second are set forth the kings who followed upon a union with a foreign spouse, at the place, "And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a twofold question. For Luke, in reckoning the generation of Christ, ascends through Nathan; but Matthew, descending, proceeds from David to Christ through Solomon: whence there seems to be a certain contrariety. But it must be said, as has been said, that Luke in the genealogy of Christ sets down many fathers who were not fathers by carnal origin through propagation, but according to legal adoption; whereas Matthew sets down none who was not a carnal father. And it is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon, and not through Nathan; and yet, according to Augustine, it is not without mystery that Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Christ, while Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the carnal generation of Christ, according to which Christ descended even to the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore Matthew rightly, in tracing his generation, descends from David through Solomon, with whose mother David himself sinned; but Luke, who intends chiefly to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, through which there was an expiation of sins, rightly ascends through Nathan to David, who was a holy man. Note, however, that according to the same Augustine in the book of Retractions, it is not to be understood that the Nathan who was a prophet, who rebuked him, was the same as the son whom he begot; but only that they were alike in name. Second, it is asked why Bathsheba is not named by her name, as Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are. And it must be said that the others, although for some time they were sinners, were afterward converted and penitent; but this woman sinned shamefully, in the crime of adultery and in consent to homicide: and therefore, out of shame, her name is passed over in silence. Note, however, that in Scripture the sins of great men are sometimes recounted, as of David and others; and this is because the Devil has cast down not only the small and lesser ones, but also the great: for he is our adversary. And therefore they are recounted as a caution, that he who stands may take heed lest he fall. Another reason is, lest anyone should think them to be more than men. For if anyone were to consider only their perfection, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they fell through sin, he no longer believes there is in them anything more than what belongs to man. Note also this, according to Gregory, that sometimes the literal deed is evil and what is signified is good; but sometimes the deed is good and what is signified is evil. For Uriah was a good and just man, and is not reproved in Scripture for anything; and yet he signifies the Devil. But Bathsheba was a sinner; and yet she signifies a good thing, namely the Church, as the Gloss notes on 2 Kings 12, and also the Gloss which is said to expound the figure according to the allegorical sense. For Uriah is interpreted "my light is God," and signifies the Devil, who desired the light of the divinity; Isaiah 14:14: "I shall be like the Most High." Bathsheba is interpreted "well of seven," or "well of fellowship"; and she signifies the Church from the Gentiles, on account of the sevenfold grace of baptism. The Devil had first betrothed her to himself; but David, that is, Christ, took her away from him, and joined her to himself, and slew the Devil himself. Otherwise, Bathsheba signifies the Law, by whose ways the people were led, who did not wish to enter the house through spiritual understanding, and therefore he carries the letters of his own death, because "the letter kills," 2 Corinthians 3:6. But David, that is, Christ, took the Law away from the Jews, when he taught that it was to be understood spiritually. "And Solomon begot Rehoboam," and so forth. Now just as David is interpreted "strong of hand," or "desirable in appearance," so Solomon is interpreted "peaceable": and this is fitting, because from the strength of a good operation there comes peace of conscience; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love your law." Now it happens that from peace of conscience a man wills that others come to the good. Hence Solomon begot Rehoboam, who is interpreted "onrush" or "impetus": because he is moved by an impetus of preaching, having peace of conscience for the spreading of the name of Christ; as is read of the apostles, Isaiah 27:6: "They who come in with an onrush to Jacob, Israel shall flourish and bud, and they shall fill the face of the world with seed." Now both signify Christ, because he himself is peace. Likewise he himself is Rehoboam, who converts the people by an onrush of preaching. "And Rehoboam begot Abijah," who is interpreted "God is father": because from the fact that a man is zealous for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of the fatherhood of God, as below, 5:44: "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven," and so forth. And Luke 6:36: "Be merciful." This also befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." "And Abijah begot Asa," who is interpreted "lifting up" or "raising": because sometimes a man, from the fact that he is made a father and superior to others, falls into a certain negligence of self-security; therefore Abijah begot Asa, namely so that man may be in continual progress, and always lift himself up to greater things. This also befits Christ, who is called "lifting up," that is, growing; Luke 2:40: "And the child grew." Or "lifting up," because he took away the sins of the world. "And Asa begot Jehoshaphat," who is interpreted "judging": because from the fact that the spiritual man always grows, he is made one who judges; 1 Corinthians 2:15: "The spiritual man judges all things." And this befits Christ, because the Father has given all judgment to the Son. "And Jehoshaphat begot Joram," who is interpreted "dwelling in the heights": because he who is appointed judge ought to dwell in the heights; Isaiah 33:16: "This one shall dwell in the heights." Now how this is so, the Apostle says: "Our citizenship is in heaven." And this befits Christ, because "the Lord is high above all nations," Psalm 112:4. "And Joram begot Uzziah." Here there is a literal question. For in 1 Chronicles 3:11 it is said that Joram begot Ahaziah. And Ahaziah begot Joram. And Joras begot Amaziah, who is also called Azariah. And Amaziah begot Uzziah. In two respects, therefore, the Evangelist seems to have fallen short in the series of the genealogy: first, because Joram did not beget Uzziah, but Amaziah; second, because he omitted three generations. And it must be said, as to the first, that to beget another can be understood in two ways, mediately or immediately: immediately, as a carnal father immediately begets a son; and in this way Joram did not beget Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and thus a son can be said to be begotten by a grandfather or a great-grandfather, because he descends from him through a mediate generation. Now as to why he omitted three kings, a threefold reason is assigned. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is written, Exodus 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation," upon those who become imitators of their fathers' wickedness. Now Joram took as wife a daughter of Jezebel, namely Athaliah, who drew him into idolatry. Ahaziah too was given to idolatry even more than his father. And likewise Joash, who, along with the crime of idolatry, also killed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada: and therefore these three, as it were unworthy, are excluded from the generation of Christ. Chrysostom assigns another reason. For the Lord commanded, 4 Kings 9, Jehu the son of Nimshi that he should uproot the house of Ahab; he was diligent in carrying out the command, and yet did not withdraw from the worship of the gods, for he worshipped the molten calves. And because he diligently carried out the Lord's command in destroying the house of Ahab, it was said to him that his sons would sit upon the throne of the house of Israel even to the fourth generation; hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel even to the third or fourth generation, so, on the contrary, Joram, who mingled himself with gentile women and transferred the iniquity of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, ought to lose the name of posterity in the genealogy of Christ even to the fourth generation, until expiation of the sin was made. Augustine, in the Questions on the New and Old Testament, assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil, and yet found good fathers, as Solomon, who was a sinner, and yet had David, a just and holy man, for a father; some were neither good themselves nor had good fathers, as these three were, as is clear from what has been said. Joram sinned, and his sin continued down to Uzziah, who did almost nothing evil except that he burned incense; but the continuation of sin is the cause or reason of destruction. And therefore these three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ. But a mystical reason is assigned on account of the three sets of fourteen through which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Now Uzziah is interpreted "the strength of the Lord"; and he signifies Christ, of whom it is said in Psalm 117:14: "The Lord is my strength and my praise, and he has become my salvation," and so forth. Mystically, however, Joram begot Uzziah, because those who dwell on high ought to be strong in their working. Note that under this Uzziah, Isaiah prophesied, as is clear from Isaiah 1:1. For on account of the sin of the princes, and of the kings, and also of the people, God took away prophecy and teaching; hence under a good king the flowing-forth of prophecy began again. "And Uzziah begot Jotham," who is interpreted "progress"; and he signifies Christ, through whom the Church makes progress daily. And thus fittingly Uzziah begot Jotham, because those who work strongly are in continual progress; Psalm 83:8: "They shall go from strength to strength." "And Jotham begot Ahaz," who is interpreted "comprehending" or "grasping": because through continual progress in the virtues man comes to the knowledge of God; Psalm 118:104: "From your commandments I have understood; therefore I have hated every way of iniquity"; Psalm 63:10: "They declared the works of God, showing it in their work, and understood his deeds." For which reason Paul says to the Philippians 3:12: "I follow after, if by any means I may lay hold, in which also I have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus." And this befits Christ, who alone perfectly comprehends the divinity; Luke 10:22: "No one knows the Father but the Son." "And Ahaz begot Hezekiah," that is, "the Lord is strong": because such a one has strength from the Lord; 2 Kings 22:2: "The Lord is my strength and my might." And this befits Christ, who is strong in battle. "And Hezekiah begot Manasseh," and it is interpreted "forgetfulness": because he who already perfectly knows God forgets these temporal things; Psalm 44:11: "Forget your people, and the house of your father"; Genesis 41:51: "The Lord God has made me forget all my labors." And this fits Christ, of whom it is said, Ezekiel 18:21: "If the wicked man do penance for all his sins which he has committed, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has done." "And Manasseh begot Amon," that is, "faithful and nourishing": because he is truly faithful who despises temporal things. For according to Gregory, deceit is the daughter of avarice: and therefore he who perfectly despises temporal things no longer has concern for unfaithfulness. Hence rightly Manasseh begot Amon. This is also interpreted "nourishing": because he who despises temporal things ought thereby to nourish the poor through mercy; below, 19:21: "If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have" — behold the contempt — "and give to the poor" — behold the nourishment. Now this befits Christ, who is truly faithful, Psalm 144:13: "The Lord is faithful in all his words," and again a nourisher, Hosea 11:3: "I who was a nourisher of Ephraim, carried them in my arms, and they did not know that I cared for them"; below, 23:37: "How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not?" "And Amon begot Josiah," who is interpreted "the salvation of the Lord," or "incense": because man attains salvation from the very fact that he also forgets temporal things and gives them away, or distributes them. Or "incense." This befits Christ; Psalm 73:12: "Who has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth," and he offered himself as a sacrifice to God "in an odor of sweetness," Ephesians 5:2. "And Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers," which is interpreted "the preparation of the Lord," or "resurrection"; and he signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us, John 14:2, and who says, John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life," and through this we come to the resurrection. Here, however, there is a threefold question according to the letter. First it is asked how Josiah is said to have begotten Jeconiah, when in fact he did not beget him, but rather his father Joakim. And to this there is a twofold response. For according to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name Joakim is omitted entirely; and this because he did not reign by divine ordination, but by the power of Pharaoh, who set him up in the kingdom, after his firstborn brother Joathan — who had reigned before him — was imprisoned. And on this note the history in 4 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 36:1 and following. Josiah also had three sons: Joathan, Joakim (who is also called Eliakim), and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy because they were depraved through idolatry, how much more this one, who was set up in the kingdom not through God or a prophet, but through the placement of a gentile man? It is the opinion, not the very words, of Jerome — as Ambrose holds and agrees with him — that each was called Joakim, both the one who is placed at the end of the set of fourteen, and the one who is placed at the beginning of the third; and that both — Jeconiah and Joakim — are the same. Hence it must be noted that Josiah had three sons: Joakim, who is also Eliakim; Joathan; and Zedekiah. Now when Josiah had died, Joathas reigned in his place, namely the middle son; and when he had been captured by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and imprisoned, he set up his firstborn brother Joakim as king, imposing a tribute on him; afterward Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, having overcome the king of Egypt, besieged Jerusalem, and captured Joakim, whom he sent back to Jerusalem under tribute. But afterward, when Joakim wished to rebel against the king of Babylon, trusting in the help of the king of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem, and seized him, and killed him, and set up his son Joachim in his place, whom he also named Jeconiah after his father's name; and when this was done, Nebuchadnezzar, fearing lest this one, mindful of his father's death, should ally himself with the king of Egypt, returned to Jerusalem and besieged it; and this Jeconiah, or Joachim, namely the son of the other, on the advice of Jeremiah handed himself over to King Nebuchadnezzar, along with his wife and his sons; and these are properly said to have been carried away into the deportation. But Nebuchadnezzar set up Zedekiah, the brother of his father, as king over him, and led Joachim himself away into Babylon; and it is of him that it is afterward said: "and after the deportation." But why was he named Jeconiah, when his name was Joachim? And it must be said that this name was imposed by the prophet, namely Jeremiah; Jeremiah 22:24: "Thus says the Lord: If Jeconiah the son of Joakim, king of Judah, were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence"; and further on: "Is this man Jeconiah a broken and worthless vessel?" And therefore he is named by the Evangelist rather by this name, so that it might be shown that the Evangelist agrees with the prophet. Note also that although it is the same name, it is nevertheless written in different ways. For the name of the first Joakim is written with a k, and he seems to be called Joakim; but that of the second is written with a ghimel, whence he is called Joachim: and therefore they have different interpretations. For the first is interpreted "resurrection"; but the second, "the preparation of the Lord." Second, it is asked why it says "Jeconiah and his brothers." For there were many among the kings who had brothers, yet it is never said, nor is mention made, of their brothers. And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers — as when it says "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah, of Tamar" — this signifies that they were equal in holiness or in wickedness. But these three are all evil. Otherwise it can be said that the reason is that each one of these brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said, whereas this was not the case with the brothers of the other kings. Third, a question is asked about what is said, "in the deportation." It seems false, because Josiah never was deported. And it must be said that this is to be taken according to divine foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he was then begetting were to be deported. Or it must be said that "in the deportation" is the same as "near the deportation," or with it already imminent.”

“Here is set out the third set of fourteen generations of Christ, which proceeds through private persons. Concerning this Jeconiah, as was said above, there was a twofold opinion. For Jerome and Ambrose hold that one man was he who is placed at the end of the first set of fourteen and was called Joakim, and another was he who was called Jechoniah. But according to Augustine, as above. For that transmigration of the sons of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the Gentiles; Acts 13:46: "It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you." In that transmigration there was made, as it were, a certain turning back of the Jews toward the Gentiles. Whence a kind of corner is constituted, as it were; and therefore this Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the cornerstone, joining in himself both peoples, of the Jews and of the Gentiles; Psalm 117:22: "The stone which the builders rejected, this has been made the head of the corner." But here it is asked: at Jeremiah 22:30 it is said, "Write this man," Zedekiah, "a childless man, who shall not prosper in his days; for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." How then is it said that Christ descended from David through Zedekiah, since Isaiah 9:2 writes thus of Christ: "He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom"? And it must be said, according to Ambrose, that when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it is understood of the spiritual kingdom, not the bodily one, except insofar as the spiritual kingdom is signified through the bodily kingdom of David. "And Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel." To the contrary: it is said at 1 Chronicles 3:17 that the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, Shealtiel, and Malchiram, and Pedaiah; but Pedaiah had sons Zerubbabel and Shimei, and of Abiud no mention at all is made there. Therefore it seems that the Evangelist speaks wrongly in saying that Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel, and that Zerubbabel begot Abiud. To this a threefold response is given in the Gloss. One response is that in the book of Chronicles many things have been corrupted by the fault of the scribes, especially concerning matters pertaining to numbers and names. Whence the Apostle forbids attending to these corrupted generations, which induce controversy rather than usefulness, 1 Timothy 1:4. Another response is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtiel, and Caphadara; and therefore the book of Chronicles calls Zerubbabel the son of Capha, but the Evangelist calls him the son of Shealtiel. There is therefore no contradiction. The third response, and the truer one, is that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as the book of Chronicles says. But Caphadara begot a son whom he called by the same name, namely Zerubbabel, and this one begot Abiud. It must also be said that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Capha himself, while the Evangelist narrates the generation of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him. It should be noted that concerning those who were from Abiud up to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the annals of the Hebrews, which Herod had for the most part burned so that the ignobility of his own lineage might be concealed. The letter is clear. Let us pursue the mystical sense. Note therefore that in this part of the genealogy three orders are set forth. The first is the order of teachers, and contains four generations. For before prayer, preparation is required, according to Ecclesiasticus 18:23: "Before prayer prepare your soul"; and therefore after Jeconiah, who is interpreted "preparation of the Lord," follows Shealtiel, who is interpreted "my petition"; and they designate Christ, who was heard in all things for his reverence, Hebrews 5:7. But prayer ought to precede teaching, according to Ephesians 6:19: "Pray, that speech may be given me in the opening of my mouth"; and therefore Shealtiel is followed by Zerubbabel, who is interpreted "master of Babel," that is, of confusion, because through the teaching and preaching of the apostles the Gentiles were recalled to the true God, and this was to the confusion of idolatry; and this belongs chiefly to Christ, who says: "You call me Master, and Lord, and you say well," John 13:13. But through teaching and preaching a man acquires the dignity of a father; whence those who instruct spiritually are called fathers; 1 Corinthians 4:15: "For though you should have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, we are sons." And therefore there follows, "And Zerubbabel begot Abiud," who is interpreted "this one is my father"; and this belongs to Christ; Psalm 88:27: "He shall call upon me: You are my father." "And Abiud begot Eliakim." Here is designated the order of beginners, namely of hearers. Now the first thing that is accomplished through preaching in the hearer, and what the preacher ought to intend, is that he should rise from vices to virtues, according to Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep"; and therefore Abiud begot Eliakim, who is interpreted "resurrection," and this belongs to Christ, who says, John 11:26: "Everyone who believes in me has eternal life." But one who has risen cannot arrive at the state of justice except through the help of God; and therefore, after he has risen, man needs the help of God, according to Psalm 120:2: "My help is from the Lord"; and therefore there follows, "And Eliakim begot Azor," who is interpreted "helped." And this too belongs to Christ, concerning whom it is said in Psalm 26:9: "Be my helper, O Lord." And through this help one arrives at justice; whence "Azor begot Zadok," who is interpreted "just"; Romans 3:22: "The justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in him." But the consummation of justice, or its end, is charity: "the end of the law is Christ," "the end of the commandment is charity," 1 Timothy 1:5. There are only two commandments, namely the love of God and of neighbor; 1 John 4:21: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God should love his brother also." And therefore Zadok is followed by Achim, and Achim by Eliud. Achim is interpreted "my brother," whence it signifies the love of neighbor; Psalm 132:1: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in one." This belongs to Christ, who is our flesh and our brother. And because the love of neighbor cannot be without the love of God, there follows, "And Eliud begot Achim." Eliud is interpreted "my God"; Psalm 17:2: "I will love you, O Lord," and this belongs to Christ; Psalm 30:15: "You are my God." "And Achim begot Eleazar." Here is designated the order of those who are advancing. But one cannot advance without divine help, whence the first thing required for advancing is divine help; and therefore Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, who is interpreted "my God is my helper"; Psalm 83:6: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you." But because God can help toward salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and giving occasions, the greatest help is through the gift of his grace; 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am." And therefore Eleazar, that is, the help of God, is followed by Matthan, who is interpreted "gift," namely of divine grace; and this belongs to Christ, who is also one who gives; John 3:16: "So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son"; Ephesians 4:8: "He gave gifts to men." But because a man could presume so much upon the gift of grace that he himself would fall into negligence, not cooperating with grace through free will, there follows Jacob, who is interpreted "wrestler"; on account of this, 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am," and it continues, "and his grace in me has not been void"; 2 Corinthians 6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain." Now there follows Joseph, that is, "increase," because through grace and the effort of free will man comes to increase; Proverbs 4:18: "The path of the just, as a shining light, goes forward and increases even to perfect day." Whence "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary." But here a twofold question arises. First, it is asked concerning the seeming contradiction between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was the son of Mathat; but Matthew says that he was the son of Jacob: therefore there seems to be a contradiction between them. But it must be said to this, that there were two men of the same stock, but not of the same family, namely Matthan and Mathat. For they were of the stock of David; but one descended from the stock of David through Solomon, namely Matthan; the other through Nathan, namely Mathat. Matthan therefore took a wife named Estha, from whom he begot Jacob; but when Matthan died, since the law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Mathat, who begot of her Heli. Whence Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same mother, but not by the same father. But Heli took a wife, and died without children; whence Jacob, in order to raise up seed for his brother, took the same wife, and begot Joseph. Whence Joseph was the son of Jacob according to the flesh, but the son of Heli according to adoption. And therefore Matthew, who sets forth in the genealogy of Christ only the fathers according to the flesh, calls Joseph the son of Jacob; but Luke, who sets forth many who were not fathers according to the flesh, calls him the son of Heli. The reason for this diversity was stated above. It should also be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to raise up his name, it is not to be understood that the son who was begotten would be called by the name of the deceased brother: for Boaz, who took Ruth in order to raise up the seed of Elimelech, begot a son whom he did not call Elimelech, but Obed; but he is said to raise up his name only insofar as that son was ascribed to him according to the law: nor is this incongruous, because, as is said in the ecclesiastical history, the apostles and Evangelists themselves were instructed by the close relatives of Christ concerning the genealogy of Christ, which they held in mind partly by memory, partly from the said books of Chronicles. The second question is: Matthew intends to write the generation of Christ. Since therefore Christ was not the son of Joseph, but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the generation of Christ from Abraham down to Joseph? To this it must be said, that it was customary among the Jews, and is so even today, to take a wife from one's own tribe, whence Numbers 36:7 says that each one should take a wife from his own tribe and kindred. And although this was not necessarily observed, nevertheless it was observed by custom. Whence Joseph took Mary as his wife as being most closely related to himself. And therefore, because they were of the same lineage, through the fact that Joseph is shown to have descended from David, it is also shown that Mary and Christ were of the seed of David. But whence can it be had that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe? It is clear from what is found at Luke 2:4, that when the census had to be made, Joseph himself went up, and Mary, into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Whence, from the fact that he took her with him, it is clear that they were of the same family. But it is asked why he did not show the generation of Christ from David through Mary. It must be said that it is not customary among the Hebrews, nor even among the Gentiles, to weave a genealogy through women; whence Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, wished in this to imitate, or to observe, the customs of men; and thus his genealogy is not described through females, especially since his genealogy could be known through the males without danger to the truth. "The husband of Mary." Jerome: "When you hear 'husband,' let no suspicion of marriage arise." To the contrary: was it not a true marriage? It must be said that yes, because there the three goods of marriage were present: offspring, namely God himself; fidelity, because there was no adultery; and sacrament, because there was an indivisible union of souls. What then must be said? This is understood as regards the completion of the marriage, which is through carnal union. Therefore, as Augustine says, Mary's husband is named, so that it might be shown that there was a marriage between those bound by an equal vow. But how was it a marriage? For a vow impedes the contracting of marriage and dissolves the contract once made. Since then the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Moreover, she consented to carnal union, if there was a marriage. But it must be said that the Blessed Virgin was anguished between two things: on the one hand she was anguished on account of the curse of the law, to which the barren woman was subject; on the other hand she was anguished on account of her resolve to preserve chastity; and therefore she resolved on virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise; whence she committed herself to the divine disposition. As for what is said, that she consented to carnal union, it must be said that she did not; but she consented to marriage directly, and to carnal union only implicitly, if God should so will. "Of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." Here a twofold error is excluded. One, which says that Christ was the son of Joseph: and this is excluded by what is said, "of whom." For if he had been the son of Joseph, it would have said "of whom" in the masculine, or at least "of whom" in the plural. The other error excluded is that of Valentinus, who says that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin but brought it down from heaven, and passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Against this is what is said, "of whom." For if it were as he says, the Evangelist would have said not "of whom" but "through whom," or "from whom," or "out of whom," or something of that sort. For this preposition "of" always denotes consubstantiality; but not the preposition "from"; whence one can say that day comes from morning, and that a chest proceeds from its maker, but it is never said that a chest is made "of" its maker. Whence, by saying "of," he denotes that the body of Christ was formed of the body of the Blessed Virgin; Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Here the error of Nestorius must be guarded against, who posited two persons in Christ, and therefore does not grant that God was born, or suffered; nor does he attribute to the man the other things that are God's, such as to be from eternity, or to have created the stars. Whence in a certain letter of his he takes this authority to confirm his error: "of whom was born Jesus" — it does not say "God," but "Jesus," which is the name of the man, and "Christ." But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be said to be one. Whence note, that in Christ, because a union of two natures comes about in one person, there comes about a communication of idioms, so that the things that are God's are attributed to the man, and conversely. And an example, of whatever sort, can be given from two accidents in one subject, as an apple is said to be white and flavorful; and as regards its flavor it is called white, by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely. "Who is called Christ." Note this: he is called simply "Christ" without addition, to denote that he was anointed with an invisible oil, not a material one, as kings or prophets were under the law. Psalm 44:8: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." "All the generations therefore." The generation of Christ having been set forth, here he concludes the number of the generations, and he divides them into three sets of fourteen. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham up to and including David, so that David is counted in that first set of fourteen; and this is "all the generations therefore." The second set of fourteen extends from David, exclusive, so that David himself is not counted, but it begins from Solomon, and ends at the transmigration of Babylon; and this is "and from David unto the transmigration of Babylon." The third begins from the transmigration of Babylon, and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth. But it is asked why the Evangelist so diligently and attentively divided the generation of Christ into three sets of fourteen. Chrysostom assigns the reason: because in these three sets of fourteen there was always made some change in the people of Israel. For in the first set of fourteen they were under judges; in the second, under kings; in the third, under priests. And Christ himself is judge, and king, and priest; Isaiah 33:22: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king." And concerning his priesthood it is said in Psalm 109:4: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." He assigns another reason, namely, that the necessity of the coming of Christ might be shown. For in the first set of fourteen they sought a king against the will of God, and transgressed the law. In the second, on account of their sins they were led into captivity. But in the third, through Christ we are freed from all guilt, and misery, and from the spiritual servitude of sin. Jerome assigns a third reason, that by these are signified the three times through which the life of all men is led. For by the first set of fourteen is signified the time before the law, because in it are placed certain fathers who were before the law; by the second, the time under the law, because all those who are placed there are under the law; but by the third, the time of grace, because it terminates in Christ, through whom, namely, "grace and truth came to be," John 1:17. This distinction also fits the mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of four and ten. By ten, then, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in the ten commandments. By four, however, the Gospel, which is divided into four books. But the three sets of fourteen designate the faith of the Trinity. Whence, by the fact that Matthew divides the genealogy into three sets of fourteen, it is designated that through the New and Old Testament, in the faith of the Trinity, one arrives at Christ. Concerning the number of the generations, however, there is a twofold opinion. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jeconiah at the end of the first set of fourteen and at the beginning of the second is a different one, there are forty-two generations, for that is the total made by three sets of fourteen. But according to Augustine there are only forty-one, and Christ is that one. And this fits the mystery. For the number forty arises from the multiplication of four by ten, and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number of bodies, for a body is composed of four elements; ten, however, is the number that arises from the aggregation of the linear numbers, for one, two, three, and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descends to us in a line, therefore through forty generations Christ comes to us. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs the expiation of sins — below, 18:22: "I say not to you, until seven times, but until seventy times seven," etc. — sets forth seventy-seven generations, for this number arises from the multiplication of seven by eleven, since seven times eleven is seventy-seven. By eleven, then, is understood the transgression of the Decalogue; by seven, however, the sevenfold grace, through which the remission of sins comes about. But the fact that, according to Jerome, there are forty-two generations, is also not without a mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, the New and the Old. "Now the generation of Christ was in this way." The genealogy of Christ having been set forth in general, here his generation is described in particular, and it is divided into three parts. First he sets forth a certain heading; second the Evangelist describes the manner of the generation, at "when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph"; third he proves the manner of the generation, at "but Joseph her husband." He says therefore, "now the generation of Christ." This is read in two ways. For according to Chrysostom it is, as it were, a certain prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is a certain epilogue of what has been said. In the first way it is read thus: thus it has been said concerning the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham begot Isaac, etc., through carnal admixture, but the generation of Christ was in this way — supply: as will be said in what follows. In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what precedes: thus Abraham, etc., down to Christ. "Now the generation of Christ was in this way" — supply: that it was extended from Abraham through David and others down to Christ. Next he describes the manner of the generation; and first he describes the person generating, when he says "when his mother was espoused"; second, the generation of Christ itself, when he says "before they came together she was found to be with child"; third, the agent of the generation, "of the Holy Spirit." He describes the person generating from three things: first from her condition, when he says "espoused ... to Joseph"; second from her dignity, "his mother"; third from her proper name, "Mary." He says therefore, "when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph." But here a question at once arises. Since Christ wished to be born of a virgin, why did he wish his mother to be espoused? The reason, according to Jerome, is threefold. The first is so that the testimony of her virginity might be more credible. For if she had not been espoused, and said she was a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem she was saying this for no other reason than to conceal the crime of adultery. But since she was espoused, she had no need to lie. And therefore she would be believed the more; Psalm 92:5: "Your testimonies have become exceedingly credible." Another reason is so that she might have the protection of a husband, whether when she fled into Egypt, or when she returned from there. The third was, so that her childbearing might be concealed from the Devil, lest, that is, if he himself knew, he might impede his Passion, and the fruit of our redemption; 1 Corinthians 2:8: "For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" — this is explained of the Demon, that is, he would not have permitted him to be crucified. But to the contrary: does the Devil not know whether this woman is a virgin? For her virginity was in flesh not corrupted. Therefore the Devil could know her to be a virgin. But it must be said, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason, that devils can know some things by a certain subtlety of nature, which nevertheless they cannot know except by divine permission. Whence the Devil would have known her virginity, had he not been divinely prevented from careful consideration. According to Ambrose a threefold reason is assigned. The first is for the preservation of the honor of the Lord's mother: the Lord preferred that men should be in doubt about his origin, rather than about the chastity of his mother. And therefore he wished her to be espoused, so that the suspicion of adultery might be removed: for he had come to fulfill the law, not to dissolve it; Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill"; Exodus 20:12 says, "Honor your father and your mother." Another reason is, so that an excuse might be taken away from virgins noted for adultery: for if the Lord's mother had not been espoused, and yet pregnant, they could excuse themselves in like manner through her example; Psalm 140:4: "Incline not my heart to evil words, to make excuses in sins." The third reason is, because Christ espoused the Church to himself, which is a virgin; 2 Corinthians 2:2: "For I have espoused you." And therefore he wished to be born of an espoused virgin, as a sign that he had espoused the Church to himself. "When therefore she was espoused" — but to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a carpenter; and this signifies Christ, who through the wood of the cross restored all things, both heavenly and the rest. "His mother," that is, the mother of God. Here her dignity is shown: for this was granted to no creature, neither to man nor to an angel, to be the father, or the mother, of God; but this was the privilege of a singular grace, that she should become the mother not only of a man, but of God; and therefore in Apocalypse 12:1 it is said: "A woman clothed with the sun," as it were wholly filled with divinity. This Nestorius denied, and this because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against him Ignatius the martyr uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. It is agreed, he says, that in the generation of ordinary men the woman is called the mother, and yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but supplies the substance for the formation of the body. Thus, therefore, the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which is taken from her is united to the rational soul. Likewise, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, on account of the union to the divinity the Blessed Virgin is said to be the mother not only of the man, but also of God; although the divinity is not taken from her, just as in other cases the rational soul is not taken from the mother. "Mary," her proper name. It is interpreted "star of the sea," or "illuminatrix," and in her own language "lady"; whence in Apocalypse 12:1 the moon is described under her feet. "Before they came together," etc. Here Helvidius objects: if "before they came together," then at some point they did come together. Whence he denied the virginity of the mother of Christ: he says that not before the birth, nor in the birth, but after the birth, she was known by her husband. And Jerome answers, that without doubt this word "before" always imports an order toward the future. But this can happen in two ways: either according to reason, or according to the acceptance of the understanding. For if it is said, "before I dined in the port of Rome, I sailed to Africa," it is not to be understood that after I had sailed to Africa I dined; but that I had intended to dine, and, being forestalled by the voyage, I did not dine. So it is here. It is not to be understood that afterward they really came together, as that impious man says; but because, from this very fact that she was espoused to him according to common opinion, it was lawful for them at some point to come together, although they never did come together. Remigius explains it otherwise, so that it be understood of the solemn celebration of the wedding: for beforehand there was, and for some days there took place, the espousal, and meanwhile the bride was not under the guardianship of the husband; but afterward there took place the solemn celebration of the wedding, and then she was led into the house of the husband. Of this wedding the Evangelist speaks here. And according to this the objection of Helvidius has no place. Note the propriety of the word: for properly that is said to be "found" which was not hoped for, nor thought; and Joseph had such an opinion of the chastity of Mary, that it was beyond his estimation that he found her pregnant. "With child" — supply: by Joseph himself, who, as Jerome says, by marital license searched out almost all her secrets. "Of the Holy Spirit." Here the agent of the conception is touched upon. But this must be read separately from what precedes. For it is not to be read, or understood, that Joseph found her having in the womb of the Holy Spirit; but only that he found her pregnant. And lest suspicion of adultery should arise among the hearers meanwhile, he added "of the Holy Spirit," that is, of the power of the Holy Spirit, not of his substance, lest he be believed to be the son of the Holy Spirit; Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you." Although, however, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are undivided, and therefore this conception itself was wrought not only by the Holy Spirit, but also by the Father and the Son; nevertheless by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. And this for three reasons. The first reason is, because the Holy Spirit is love. Now this was a sign of the greatest love, that God willed his Son to become incarnate; John 3:16: "So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." The second, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit; 1 Corinthians 12:4: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit"; and this was the greatest grace. The third reason is assigned in the acts of the Council of Nicaea, and is, that in us there is a twofold word: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The word of the heart is the very conception of the intellect, which is hidden to men, except insofar as it is expressed through the voice, or through the spoken word. Now to the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when it was with the Father, and hidden from us; but to the word of the voice is compared the incarnate Word, which has now appeared to us, and is manifest. Now the word of the heart is not joined to the voice except by the mediation of the spirit; and therefore rightly was the incarnation of the Word, through which it appeared visible to us, brought about by the mediation of the Holy Spirit. Note here four reasons why Christ wished to be born of a virgin. Of these the first was, that original sin is contracted in offspring from the commingling of man and woman: whence if Christ had been born from conjugal intercourse, he would have contracted original sin. But this would have been unfitting, since he himself had come into the world for this purpose, that he might take away our sins: whence he ought not to have been infected by the contagion of sin. The second, because Christ was the foremost teacher of chastity; below, 19:12: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." The third, on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul," Wisdom 1:4. Whence it was fitting that the womb of his mother should be defiled by no corruption. The fourth, on account of the propriety of the word: because just as the word emanates from the heart without corruption of the heart, so Christ willed and ought to be born of a virgin without corruption. "But Joseph her husband, being a just man." After he had set forth the manner of the generation, here he confirms it through testimony. For since the Evangelist had said above that the mother of Jesus was found to be with child, and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the Evangelist had added this out of favor to the Master; therefore here the Evangelist confirms the aforesaid manner of the generation. And first by prophetic foretelling, "now this was done"; second by angelic revelation, at "and Joseph arising." In the first part there are three things. First the person is introduced to whom the revelation was made; second the person revealing, at "and while he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared"; third the words of the revelation are set forth, at "Joseph, son of David." Now the person to whom the revelation is made is commended from two things: namely, from the fact that he is just, and therefore would not lie; second from the fact that he is her betrothed, or husband, and therefore would not tolerate a crime in her; Proverbs 6:34: "The jealousy and rage of the husband will not spare in the day of vengeance." He says therefore thus: she was found by Joseph to have conceived in the womb, "but Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to expose her." Here there is a twofold opinion of the saints, namely of Ambrose, and of Augustine. For Augustine holds that Joseph, who was not present when the angelic Annunciation was made, returning, and finding her pregnant, had a suspicion of adultery. But then at once a question arises: how was he just, if, holding her suspect of adultery, he was unwilling to expose her, that is, to publish her crime? For in this he seemed to consent to sin in her, and it is said at Romans 1:32, that "not only they that do such things, but they also that consent to them that do them, are worthy of death." But to this there is a threefold response. The first is according to Chrysostom, that justice is twofold: for one is the justice that is a cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, and piety, and clemency, and things of this kind. When therefore it is said that Joseph was just, it is to be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Whence, because he was just, that is, pious, he was unwilling to expose her. The other response is that of Augustine, who says that sin is twofold, namely hidden sin and manifest sin: for hidden sin is not to be publicly denounced, but a remedy is to be applied to it in another way. The suspicion of adultery, then, which Joseph had, was a suspicion of a hidden sin, and not a manifest one, because he alone knew it; and again, if others knew her to be pregnant, they could only suppose that it was by him; and therefore he ought not to have published her crime. But the third response is that of Rabanus, that Joseph was both just and pious: for in this, that he was pious, he did not wish to publish the crime; but in this, that he wished to send her away, he showed himself just: for he knew that "he who holds an adulteress is foolish and unwise," as is said at Proverbs 18:22. But according to Jerome and Origen he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew the chastity of Mary; he had read in Scripture that a virgin would conceive, Isaiah 7:14, and chapter 11:1: "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root," etc.; he also knew that Mary was descended from the lineage of David. Whence he more readily believed that this had been fulfilled in her, than that she had committed fornication. And therefore, judging himself unworthy to dwell with such great sanctity, he wished to send her away secretly, just as Peter said: "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man," Luke 5:8. Whence he was unwilling to expose her, that is, to lead her to himself, and to take her as a wife, judging himself unworthy. Or, according to the opinion of others, being ignorant of the outcome, lest he be held guilty if he concealed it and kept her with him. "But while he thought on these things." Here the person revealing is introduced: and three things are touched upon. For first the time is touched upon; second the person revealing is introduced, "behold, an angel"; third the manner of the revelation is expressed, "appeared in sleep." He says therefore, "but while he thought on these things," that is, while he turned these things over in his mind, "behold, an angel of the Lord appeared." Note that two things are commended here concerning Joseph, namely wisdom and clemency. Wisdom indeed in this, that he deliberated before he acted; Proverbs 4:25: "Let your eyelids go before your steps": that is, do nothing without judgment and deliberation of reason. Likewise, clemency or piety in this, that he did not publish or promulgate his deed, unlike many who wish immediately to publish outwardly what they have in their heart; Proverbs 25:28: "As a city that lies open and is without the compass of walls, so is a man that cannot restrain his own spirit in speaking." And therefore he deserved to be instructed, or consoled. Whence there follows, "behold, an angel of the Lord appeared": as though the help of God were, as it were, at hand; Psalm 9:10: "A helper in due time, in tribulation"; Psalm 53:6: "For behold, God is my helper, and the Lord is the protector of my soul." "An angel of the Lord": for nothing could better excuse her than one who was privy to the virginity that was kept. Whence it is believed that the same angel who was sent to Mary, Luke 1:26, was sent to Joseph, Psalm 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him," namely Mary, and Joseph, to deliver her from infamy, and not to leave Joseph in perturbation. But here it is asked, why the revelation was not made to Joseph from the beginning, before he was thus perturbed. Likewise, why Mary did not reveal to him the angelic Annunciation, which had been made to her. And it must be said to the first, that this was done so that his testimony might be more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt concerning his resurrection, so that, doubting, he might touch, and touching, might believe, and by believing might remove from us the wound of unbelief; so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt concerning the chastity of Mary, so that, doubting, he might receive the angelic revelation, and by receiving it might believe the more firmly. To the second question, it must be said, that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed. "He appeared to him in sleep": behold the manner of the revelation. Note that to "appear" properly belongs to that thing which is by its nature invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen: as is the case with God, or an angel; for those things which by their nature are such as to be seen are not properly said to appear: whence one speaks of a divine, or angelic, apparition. Whence he speaks properly, "he appeared in sleep." But here it is asked why in sleep. A reason is given in the Gloss, because Joseph was in a certain way doubting: whence he was, as it were, in a way asleep, and therefore the angel is rightly said to have appeared to him in sleep. Another, better reason can be assigned: for as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 14:22, "Prophecy is given to believers, but signs to unbelievers." Now properly the revelation which is called prophetic occurs in sleep; Numbers 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream"; and therefore, because Joseph was just, and faithful, the apparition that belongs to believers ought to be made to him as to one faithful, namely a revelation as it were prophetic. But because a bodily apparition is miraculous, such an apparition did not befit him, since he believed, and was faithful. But then it is asked, why a visible apparition was made to Mary, since she was most faithful. And it must be said, that the mystery of the incarnation was revealed to the Virgin Mary from the beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; and therefore it was necessary that a visible apparition be made to her. But to Joseph it was not revealed from the beginning, but rather when it was already for the most part fulfilled, when he could already see her womb swelling, whence he could more easily believe; and therefore an apparition which occurs in sleep sufficed for him. "Joseph, son of David." Here the words of the revelation are set forth: and it is divided into three parts, according to the three things the angel does: first he forbids the divorce of Mary and Joseph; second he opens the mystery of the incarnation, when he says, "that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit"; third he foretells the future service of Joseph himself, namely which he was to render to the child, at "and she shall bring forth a son." He says therefore, "Joseph." He calls him by name so as to render him attentive to listening, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, that when an apparition is announced, which is from above, it requires in the hearer a certain elevation of mind, and attention; Ezekiel 2:1: "Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak to you," and below, "Son of man, hear all that I say to you, and be not rebellious." Habakkuk 2:1: "I will stand upon my watch." "Son of David." He expresses his lineage for this reason, to turn away that which is said at Isaiah 7:13: "Hear, O house of David: is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also?" etc. For the sign was given not to one person, but to the whole tribe or house: whence, because he was to instruct him concerning this, he is bidden, in the expression of his lineage, to recall the prophecy of the prophet to memory. "Fear not." Every apparition, whether of a good, or of an evil angel, strikes a certain fear: and this, because such an apparition is unaccustomed, and as it were foreign to man's nature; and therefore it puts a man, as it were, outside himself. But in this there is a difference, because the apparition of an evil angel strikes terror, and leaves the man in that very terror, so that, the man being placed as it were outside himself, it may draw him more easily to sin; but the apparition of a good angel, although it strikes terror, nevertheless there is immediately added a conclusion, and the attainment of consolation, so that the man returns to himself, and attends to what is said to him; whence at Luke 1, where it is said that an angel appeared to Zechariah, there immediately follows, "Fear not, Zechariah," and likewise in the same place, "Fear not, Mary." Whence, after the apparition made to Joseph, consolation is immediately added. He had a twofold fear, namely of God, and also of sin, lest, that is, by dwelling with Mary he should sin as one privy to sin; and therefore, "fear not" is added, namely from fear of sin, "to take unto you Mary your wife." Note that she is called "wife," not on account of the marriage, but on account of the espousal: for it is the custom of Scripture to call betrothed women wives, and wives betrothed. But it is asked, how does he bid him take her, when he had not yet sent her away? And it must be said that although he had not sent her away bodily, nevertheless he had sent her away in his mind: and therefore he is bidden to take her. Or, "fear not to take her" as regards the solemnity, and the celebration of the wedding. "For that which is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit." Here he opens the mystery of the incarnation. And note that, whereas there were three things there, namely the virgin herself conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the active power of the Holy Spirit, the angel expresses two well, namely the one conceiving, and the agent of the conception; but the third, the very Son of God conceived, he expresses only indefinitely: for he says, "that which is born in her"; and this so that it might be denoted that this is ineffable and incomprehensible, not only to man, but even to the angels themselves. For where he says "that which is born in her," he does not say "of her," because to be born of a mother is to come forth into the light: to be born in a mother is to be conceived, "is of the Holy Spirit." This, then, is the angelic testimony, which the Evangelist adduces to prove what he had said above, "she was found to have conceived in the womb of the Holy Spirit." Note that in the conception of other women, in the seed of the man there is a formative power, whose subject is the seed, and through this power the fetus is formed, and nourished in the body of the woman. But this was supplied by the power of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is sometimes found said by the saints, that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed, yet sometimes it is said that there was no seed there. And this is because in the seed of the man there are two things, namely the corrupted substance itself, which descends from the body of the man, and the formative power itself. It must be said, therefore, that the Holy Spirit was in place of the seed as regards the formative power; but was not there in place of the seed as regards the corporeal substance, because the flesh of Christ, or his conception, was not made of the substance of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because neither according to the divine nature, nor according to the human. According to the divine nature indeed, because although Christ is of the same glory as the Holy Spirit, yet the Son according to the divine nature receives nothing from the Holy Spirit: and therefore he cannot be called his son; for a son receives something from a father. Likewise not according to the human nature, because father and son ought to agree in substance; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not, however, conceived of the substance of the Holy Spirit. But against what is said, "is of the Holy Spirit," there is what is said at Proverbs 9:1, that "Wisdom has built herself a house." Therefore it seems that the divine Wisdom itself, that is, the Son of God, united a human nature to himself, and thus it was not made by the power of the Holy Spirit. But there is a twofold response, according to Augustine. The first, that that word which is written at Proverbs 9:1 is understood of the Church, which Christ founded in his blood. The other is, that the works of the Trinity are undivided: and therefore that which the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does, but nevertheless by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. And the reason for this was stated above.”

“"And she shall bring forth a son." Here he foretells the service that Joseph will render to the child now born, and he does three things: first he foretells the Virgin's childbearing; second he shows in advance the service to be rendered by Joseph himself to the child, when he says "and you shall call his name"; third he discloses the name imposed upon the child himself, when he says "Jesus." He says therefore "she shall bring forth." Thus she conceived of the Holy Spirit indeed first, but she shall bring forth a son. He does not say "to you," because he himself did not beget the child. In Luke 1:13 it was said to Zachary: "your wife shall bear you a son," because Zachary himself begot him. Or he does not say "to you" for this reason, that it may be shown that he was born for all: not only to you, or to her, shall she bring forth a son, but to the whole world; Luke 2:10: "behold, I announce to you a great joy, for there is born to you this day a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David," and so on. But because Joseph could say: thus she herself conceived of the Holy Spirit, and shall bring forth a son, what then is this to me? In nothing am I necessary to him. Therefore he adds Joseph's own service: "you shall call his name." It was the custom among the Hebrews, and is so today, that on the eighth day they circumcised the child, and then imposed a name upon him; and this was done through Joseph: hence in this work he was the minister. Hence it is said to him "you shall call"; it is not said "you shall impose," because it is already imposed upon him; Isaiah 62:2: "a new name shall be called to you, which the mouth of the Lord has named." "Jesus" — this is the name imposed by God. And he gives the reason: "for he himself shall make his people safe," whom he acquired for himself by his own blood, that is, his people. Daniel 9:26 it is said: "the people shall not be his, who is about to deny him"; hence it is the people of the Lord through faith; 1 Peter 2:9: "you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of acquisition." "From their sins." In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such and such a one saved Israel: but from whom? From carnal enemies; but here, from sins, by remitting sins, which belongs to God alone. Luke 5:24: "but that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins." Note that here Nestorius is confounded, who said that those things which belong to God, such as being from eternity, being omnipotent, or the like, do not belong to that man. Behold, that same man, who was born of the Virgin, who is called Jesus, he himself shall make his people safe from their sins. Hence, since no one can forgive sins except God alone, it must be said that this man is God, and that the things which belong to God most truly belong to him. The Evangelist had said beforehand that the mother of God was found to have in her womb one conceived of the Holy Spirit, and this he proved above through angelic revelation; here he proves it through the foretelling of prophecy; hence he says: "all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." And it must be known that this clause can be introduced here in two ways. Chrysostom holds that the Angel said all this and introduced the prophecy. And the reason is that he, lest what he was foretelling should seem new, wished to show at once that it had been foretold of old; Isaiah 48:3: "who has already made what is to come," according to another translation. Others say, and I believe it is better, that this, namely "all this was done," etc., are the words of the Evangelist. For there the words of the Angel end: "and he himself shall make [his people] safe," and so on. And the Evangelist introduces them for three reasons. First, that he might show that the Old Testament is about Christ; Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets give testimony, that all who believe in him receive remission of sins through his name." Second, that they might more easily believe Christ: John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me." Third, to show the conformity of the Old and New Testament; Colossians 2:17: "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." But so that it may be known what is contained in this prophecy, it must be known that the Angel announces three things. First he said "that which is born in her," etc.; second, "she shall bring forth a son"; third, "his name shall be called Jesus." These are contained in order in the prophecy. And the first he proves by what is said, "behold the virgin"; second, by "and she shall bring forth"; third, by "and shall be called." Therefore it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity. And this is what is said in the prophecy, "behold a virgin shall conceive"; Isaiah 35:2: "budding it shall bud forth, and shall rejoice with joy, and praising," and so on. Likewise the virgin shall bring forth a son, because in bringing forth her virginity was in no way harmed; Isaiah 11:1: "a rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from its root," and so on. Christ indeed is the flower. Therefore her virginity was in no way harmed. There follows: "and his name shall be called Emmanuel." But it is asked, why does this not agree with the words of the Angel, who says "and he shall be called Jesus"? It must be said that this promise was made to the Jews, who from the coming of Christ would have salvation. And "Jesus" is interpreted "savior," which is the same as Emmanuel, "God with us." For God is with us in four ways: through the assumption of nature, John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh"; through conformity of nature, since he is like in all things, Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man"; through bodily conversation, Baruch 3:38: "afterward he was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men"; through spiritual conversation, below, at the end, [Matthew] 28:20: "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." But it must be asked, concerning the letter, why the Evangelist does not use the same words as the prophet, but uses the name Jesus. It must be said that he spoke by the same Spirit. Yet Jerome says that the Evangelist therefore said "would have," because he was already speaking of the fact as accomplished. Likewise it must be asked, why in Isaiah it is said "and he shall be called," but here it is said "and they shall call." Jerome says that here it is said "they shall call," because what the Angels first called by announcing, Luke 2:21, afterward the apostles called by preaching and magnifying; "that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc., Philippians 2:10. "Which is interpreted, God with us." But it is asked, who appended this interpretation to the prophecy, "God with us" — the prophet, or the Evangelist? And it seems that it was not the Evangelist, because he did not need this, since he wrote in Hebrew. But it must be said, in one way, that because Emmanuel is a composite name, therefore the Evangelist interpreted it even though writing in Hebrew. Or it must be said that he who first translated from the Hebrew provided the interpretation. And it must be noted that in the Gloss it is said that there is a threefold species of prophecy, namely of predestination, of foreknowledge, and of threat; and they differ. For prophecy is called the foretelling of those things which are far off, that is, of future things; but of future things, some are such that God alone does them; some indeed, although God does them, nevertheless come about through us and through other creatures as well; and some are such that God does them in no way at all, as evils. The foretelling of those things which God alone does is called the prophecy of predestination, as the conceiving of the virgin; hence that saying, Isaiah 7:14: "behold a virgin shall conceive," is a prophecy of predestination. But those things which come about from secondary causes can be considered in two ways. First, according as they are in the foreknowledge of God — for example concerning Lazarus; for if someone were to consider the natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would speak truly: although nevertheless he was to be raised according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore when prophecy is a foretelling according as it is in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when according to the order of lower causes, not always, as is clear in Isaiah 38:1, when Isaiah said to Hezekiah: "set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live," and so on. But does prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? And it must be said that it does not; because prophecy is a certain sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on the things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentness. For whatever is done is present to God, because his gaze extends to every time; for if I see something present, my gaze does not impose necessity, just as when I see someone sitting. And in this way we have understood these prophecies which are introduced in this book. For it must be considered that there have been three errors. One is that of the Manichees, who say that in the whole Old Testament no prophecy about Christ is found: and whatever is brought in from the Old into the New Testament is entirely due to corruption. Against which, Romans 1:1: "Paul, a servant of Christ, called an apostle, set apart unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before through his prophets," and so on. And that he speaks of the prophecies of the Jews is clear below, at chapter 9:5 [Romans 9:5]: "whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh," and so on. The other was that of Theodore, who said that none of the things which are brought in from the Old Testament are, according to the letter, about Christ, but are adapted, just as when they bring in that line of Virgil, "such things he recalled hanging, and remained fixed" — for this is adapted to Christ; and then that phrase "that it might be fulfilled" ought to be expounded thus, as if the Evangelist were saying: "and this can be adapted." Against which, Luke, the last chapter, 44 [Luke 24:44]: "all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me." And it must be known that in the Old Testament there are some things which are referred to Christ, and are said of him alone, as that saying, "behold a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son," Isaiah 7:14; and that saying, Psalm 21:2 [Psalm 22:2]: "God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and so on. And if anyone were to posit another literal sense, he would be a heretic, and the heresy has been condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament, but also the deeds signify concerning Christ, sometimes certain things are said according to the letter about certain others, but are referred to Christ, insofar as those others bear the figure of Christ, as it is said of Solomon: "and he shall have dominion from sea to sea," etc.; for this was not fulfilled in him. The third error was that of the Jews. It must be known, however, that the Jews especially object against this authority, because in the Hebrew it does not have "virgin," but "alma," which is the same as "young girl." Hence, according to the letter, these things are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah. But Jerome objects against these; and that it could not have been said of the son of Isaiah is proved, because he was already born when this was said. Likewise, no one is found to have been famous at that time who was called Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a young woman should give birth. Hence Jerome says that "alma" is an equivocal word, and signifies sometimes age, sometimes "hidden," and then it signifies a virgin diligently kept; and thus it signifies here. Likewise the Jews object that this was given as a sign. Isaiah 7:3: "two kings shall come against Achaz," etc., and he promised that they would be freed from these by giving this sign to Achaz. But it must be said that he gave this sign not only to Achaz, but also to the house of David, because he says, "hear then, O house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: the Lord will help you against this king, because he himself will do much greater things, since there will be liberation not only of him, but of the whole world. But let us return to the letter. "All this was done." But against this: the Angel had said many things beforehand, namely that "that which is born in her," etc., "she shall bring forth," etc., and again, "he shall be called," and so on. But this had not all yet been done. But it must be said, in one way, according to Rabanus, that "all this was done," etc., is referred to past deeds — that the Angel appeared to the Virgin, and spoke those words — and "all this was done" for the preserving of the Virgin, so that the word "that" is taken causally. Or it is referred to the things which he had foretold; and it can be called "wholly done" on account of predestination. Or it must be said that the Evangelist was writing when it had all already been done; and therefore it refers to that. Hence the word "that" is taken consecutively, because God did not will to become incarnate for this reason, that the prophecy might be fulfilled, as though the Old Testament were more worthy than the New; but this, that Christ should become incarnate, followed upon the prophecy.”

“Above, the Evangelist proved that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit from two things, namely from the revelation of the Angel and from the foretelling of the prophet; he intends to show this same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced to the words of the Angel so as to take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known her to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. And concerning this he does two things: first, the obedience of the spouse himself to the Angel is set forth; second, the manner of the obedience is described, there at "and he took." And note that because through the disobedience of the first man we fell into sin — Romans 5:19: "through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" — therefore at the beginning of our reparation obedience is set forth. And we can note four things which are necessary for obedience. The first is that it be ordered. And I say ordered, because first vices must be abandoned, and afterward one must obey unto the operation of the virtues; Jeremiah 4:3: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon thorns," and so forth. And therefore here it is said that Joseph, rising up from sleep — namely, from the sleep of sloth and of doubt. Concerning this sleep it is said, Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead." The second, indeed, is that it must be prompt: and this is what is said, Ecclesiasticus 5:8: "Delay not from day to day, be not slow to turn to the Lord; for his wrath will come suddenly." And therefore here it is said that he immediately did as he commanded him. The Gloss: whoever is admonished by God should dissolve delays, rise from sleep, and do what is commanded. The third, indeed, is that it must be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but it is done in the manner in which it is commanded and in the way in which it is enjoined upon them. Hence here it is said "as he had commanded." The Gloss: perfect obedience. Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in all things." The fourth is that it must be discreet, so that obedience is given to him to whom it is owed, and in that in which it is owed, so that nothing is done against God: hence it says that he did as the Angel commanded him — not an evil spirit, but one of God. 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world," and so forth. "And he took." Here it is shown in what things he obeyed, and three things are set forth: first, the obedience which he showed to the Angel; second, the reverence which he showed to the mother; third, the compliance which he showed to Christ once born. The Angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife." And Joseph did as he commanded, and so forth. Whence it is clear that he found the woman good. But did he not already have her in the house? Why then does it say, rising up... he took? Chrysostom answers: because he had not cast her out from the house, but from his heart. Or because she was first taken in betrothal, but the nuptials were still to be celebrated afterward, and then it is said that she is taken, and that she is a wife. And lest anyone should suspect that carnal union intervened, he adds, "and he did not know her." Here it must be known that this word "to know" is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for recognition, John 14:7: "and henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him"; sometimes for carnal union, as in Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife Eve," etc., namely, carnally. But an objection is raised, because it is not said simply that he did not know her, etc., but "until she brought forth her son." Therefore afterward he knew her; whence also Helvidius said that although as a virgin she conceived Christ, nevertheless afterward she had other sons by Joseph. And therefore Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as if I should say, "I will not come until I eat," because thereby I signify that I am going to come afterward; but sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign, until he puts all his enemies under his feet." Will he then not reign afterward? Indeed he will; but Scripture uses such a manner of speaking because it intends to remove that which could be doubtful. For it could be doubtful whether he would reign, at a time when he had not yet put his enemies under his feet. Likewise it could be doubtful, once the Blessed Virgin had given birth, whether before the birth she had been known by Joseph — since the first point ought to come into doubt for no one, seeing that the Angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will," Luke 2:14. And this, therefore, is what the Evangelist intends. And Jerome argues excellently against Helvidius: "You say, Helvidius, that before this Joseph did not know her, because he had been admonished in his sleep by the Angel. If, then, an admonition in sleep so availed that he did not join himself to Mary, how much more the knowledge of the Angels, the adoration of the shepherds and of the magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual recognition: that is, he did not know how great her dignity was; but after she gave birth, he came to know it. Others say that it is taken for sensible recognition, and thus the opinion of these is fairly probable as well. For they say that Moses, from the Lord's speaking with him, had such brightness in his face that the children of Israel could not gaze intently upon his face, 2 Corinthians 3:7. Therefore if Moses had this from his fellowship with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who bore him in her womb, have such brightness in her face that Joseph did not recognize her. But the first exposition is more literal. Likewise Helvidius says that the letter states, "until she brought forth her firstborn son." "First" is said with respect to a later one. Therefore she had other children. Jerome answers that it is customary in Sacred Scripture that those are called firstborn whom no others precede: Exodus 13:12 it is said that the firstborn of the Jews were to be offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: was it then necessary to wait, so that they would not be offered until a second one was born? Therefore those are called firstborn whom no others precede; and thus it is to be understood here. The compliance follows. Luke 2:21 carries this out more fully, but Matthew touches on it briefly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills, that what one has said, the other should pass over in silence. "He called his name Jesus"; this name indeed was not a little renowned among the ancients, and desired; Genesis 49:18: "I will look for your salvation, O Lord." And Habakkuk 3:18: "But I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will exult in God my Jesus."”

“Above, the Evangelist treated of Christ's generation; here he intends to make manifest his nativity. And first, by the testimony of the Magi; second, by the testimony of the innocents, at the place "who when they had departed." Concerning the first, three things are set down: first, Christ's nativity is announced; second, the place is inquired into; third, the person is inquired into. The second is at "but Herod hearing." The third is at "then Herod." Concerning the first he does three things: first, Christ's nativity is proposed, to which testimony is given; second, witnesses are brought in; third, the testimony is set down. The second is at "behold, magi." The third is at "where is he that is born?" Concerning the first, four things are touched upon: the nativity, the name of the one born, the place, and the time. The first is at "when therefore he was born." And it should be noted that Luke follows out the nativity more fully, just as conversely Matthew follows out the adoration of the magi more fully than Luke. The name is touched upon at "Jesus." The place is at "in Bethlehem of Judah," not "of Judea," because Judea is the name given to the whole region of the Israelite people; but "of Judah" — this is that land which had come into the lot of Judah. It is called Bethlehem of Judah to distinguish it from the other Bethlehem, which is in the tribe of Zebulun, concerning which Joshua 9:10. And note that these three phrases — "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king" — are fittingly set down. For Bethlehem signifies the Church, in which Jesus was born, who is the true bread, concerning whom John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven." Therefore salvation comes to no one unless he be in the house of the Lord. In these, Christ the savior was born; Isaiah 60:18: "salvation shall possess thy walls, and praise thy gates," and so on. And he added "king," to distinguish him from the other Herod: for this one, under whom Christ was born, was the Ascalonite; but the other, who killed John, was the son of this Herod, and was not a king. But it is asked why Scripture makes mention of this time. And it must be said, for three reasons. First, in order to show that the prophecy of Jacob is fulfilled, Genesis, second-to-last chapter, verse 10: "the scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of the nations." For Herod was the first foreigner who reigned in Judea. The second reason is that a greater sickness needs a greater and better physician. Now the people of Israel were then in the greatest affliction under gentile dominion, and therefore needed the greatest consoler: for in their other afflictions prophets were sent to them, but now, because of the magnitude of the affliction, the Lord of the prophets was sent to them; Psalm 93:19: "according to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts have given joy to my soul." Then the witnesses are set down, at "behold, magi." And they are described in three ways: by profession, by region, and by the place where they gave their testimony. Concerning the first he says "behold, magi": who according to common usage of speech are called enchanters; but in the Persian language "magi" means philosophers and wise men. These indeed came to Jesus, because they recognized that the glory of the wisdom which they possessed came from Christ. And they are indeed the first-fruits of the gentiles, because they were the first to come to Christ. And, according to Augustine, in the coming of these there is fulfilled that word of Isaiah 8:4: "before the child know to call his father and his mother, the strength of Damascus shall be taken away, and the spoils of Samaria, before the king of the Assyrians," etc.; for before Christ spoke, he snatched away the strength of Damascus, and the riches and spoils of Samaria, that is, idolatry. For those men gave up idolatry, and offered gifts. Likewise it must be considered that some came to Christ from the Jews, namely the shepherds; some from the gentiles, namely the magi: for Christ himself is the cornerstone, who made both one. And why magi and shepherds? Because shepherds are more simple, and these are more sinners, to signify that Christ receives both. But how many those magi were, the Evangelist does not say. It seems, however, according to the gifts, that there were three kings, although many others were represented in them; Isaiah 60:3: "the gentiles shall walk in thy light." Concerning the second, namely the region, he says "from the east." And it should be noted that some explain "from the east" as from the ends of the east; but then how could they have come in so few days? And it is answered, as some say, that they came miraculously; others, that they had dromedaries. Chrysostom, however, says that the star appeared to them for two years before the nativity, and that they then prepared themselves, and came to Jerusalem in two years and thirteen days. But it can be explained otherwise, so that "from the east" is said, that is, from a certain region which was near Jerusalem on the eastern side; for these are said to have been of the sect of Balaam, who said, Numbers 24:17: "a star shall rise out of Jacob" — which Balaam dwelt near the land of promise on the eastern side. There follows, concerning the place, "they came to Jerusalem." But why did they come to Jerusalem? There is a twofold reason. One is that it was the royal city; hence they sought the king of the Jews in the royal city; likewise this was done by divine dispensation, so that testimony concerning Christ might first be borne in Jerusalem, that the prophecy of Isaiah 2:3 might be fulfilled: "the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Then the testimony is set down, at "where is he that is born?" In which they say three things: first they announce the king's nativity; second they bring forward the sign of the nativity, at "for we have seen his star"; third they profess their pious purpose, at "and we are come to adore." They say therefore, "where is he?" But it must be considered that these magi are the first-fruits of the gentiles, and prefigure in themselves our own condition. For these presuppose something, namely Christ's nativity, and seek something, namely the place; and indeed we hold Christ by faith, but we seek something by hope: for we shall see him face to face. 2 Corinthians 5:7: "we walk by faith, and not by sight." But there is a question. Since they had heard that there was a king in Jerusalem, how could they say this? For everyone who professes another king in the city of the king exposes himself to danger. But surely they did this out of zeal of faith. Hence in these was announced that intrepid faith. Below, chapter 10:28: "fear ye not them that kill the body." Then they propose the sign of this nativity, "we have seen." And note that in these words there was occasion for two errors. Some, like the Priscillianists, said that all the acts of men are done and ruled by fate. And they confirm this by this text, "for we have seen his star." Therefore he was born under some star. The other error is that of the Manichaeans, who reject fate, and consequently this Gospel; because they said that Matthew introduces fate. But the error of both is excluded. But before we proceed to the exposition of the letter, it is necessary first to see what fate is, and how these things are to be believed, and how not. Note therefore that we see many things happen in human affairs by accident and by chance. But it happens that something is casual and fortuitous when referred to a lower cause, which, when referred to a higher cause, is not fortuitous: as if some lord should send three men to seek someone, and one should not know about the other, if they should meet one another, it is chance for them; but if they be referred to the intention of the lord, it is not chance. But according to this there was a twofold opinion concerning fate. Some said that these chance events are not reduced to any other higher ordering cause: and these took away fate, and beyond this, all divine providence. And this, according to Augustine, was the opinion of Tully. But we say that these chance events are reduced to a higher ordering cause. But since "fate" is said from "for, faris" [to speak], as it were something pronounced and spoken forth, there is a difference as to from which cause this ordination comes. For some said that it is from the power of the supercelestial bodies. Hence they say that fate is nothing other than the disposition of the stars. Others reduce these contingent things to divine providence. But in the first way it must be denied that there is fate. For human acts are not ruled according to the disposition of the celestial bodies: which is clear at present, since there are many effective reasons for this. First, because it is impossible that a corporeal power should act upon an incorporeal power, since nothing lower in the order of nature acts upon a higher nature. But in the soul there are certain powers raised above the body; certain powers are affixed to organs, namely the sensitive and nutritive powers: and the celestial bodies, although they act directly upon lower bodies, and change them per se, nevertheless act only per accidens upon the powers affixed to organs. But upon the powers not affixed to organs they act in no way by necessitating, but only by inclining. For we say that this man is irascible, that is, prone to anger, and this from celestial causes; but the choice as such is directly in the will. Hence there can never be produced so great a disposition in the human body that the judgment of free choice is not thereby left overabounding it. Hence whoever should place free choice under the celestial bodies would of necessity be positing that sense does not differ from intellect. Second, because by this all divine worship is excluded, since then all things would be of necessity; and thus then also the governance of the commonwealth would be destroyed, since it would not be necessary to take counsel, nor to provide anything, and the like. Third, because we would attribute to God the malices of men; which would be to defame him who is the creator of the stars. It is clear therefore that to say this is altogether against the faith. And therefore Gregory says: far be it from the hearts of the faithful that fate should be said to be anything. But if you wish to call divine providence "fate," then it is something. But, as Augustine says, since we ought to have nothing in common with unbelievers, we ought not to impose this name upon it; hence he says: "correct your tongue, but hold fast the meaning." Therefore it cannot be said "we have seen his star" in the sense that his whole life depended on it; because, according to Augustine, then the star would not have followed the one born, since then Christ would rather be said to be the fate of the star than the reverse. And it should be noted that this star was not among the first created things: which is clear from four points. First, from its motion, because no star moves from the north to the south. But the region of the Persians, whence these magi came, is situated to the north. Likewise, other stars never rest; but this one did not move continuously. Third, from the time, because no star shines by day; but this one gave light more by day. Fourth, from its position, because it was not in the firmament, which is clear, because by it these men determinately picked out the house. Therefore it must be said that this star was specially created for the service of Christ. And therefore he says "we have seen his star," that is, made for his service. But some say that this star was the Holy Spirit, who, just as he appeared over the one baptized in the form of a dove, so also now appeared in the form of a star. Others say that it was an angel. But it must be said that it was a true star. And he wished to be shown by the sign of a star, first, because it was fitting to him. For he is the king of the heavens, and therefore he wished to be made manifest by a celestial sign; Psalm 18:1: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament announces the works of his hands"; to the Jews indeed through angels, through whom they had received the law; Galatians 3:19: "the law was given through angels"; to the gentiles through a star, because through creatures they came to the knowledge of God; Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God, being understood by the things that are made, are clearly seen." Second, because it was fitting to those to whom it was shown, namely the gentiles, whose calling was promised to Abraham under the likeness of the stars; Genesis 15:5: "look up to heaven, and number the stars if thou canst," and so on. Hence both at the nativity and at the passion a sign was made in heaven, which made Christ known to all the gentiles. Likewise, it was fitting for all, because he himself is the savior of all. But he says "in the east," which is explained in two ways. According to Rabanus, thus: the star, existing over Judea, appeared to those gentiles in the east. Or: we saw the star while in the east. This is said better. Hence: "behold the star, which they had seen in the east, went before them." Likewise it is clear from this that this star, according to its position, was near to the earth, because otherwise it would not have picked out the place. Therefore it could not have been seen from so remote a region. Then the pious purpose is set down, "and we have come to adore." Here there is a twofold question. For Augustine says: were these men so curious that, whenever some sign should occur through some star, they would seek out a king born? For this would have been foolish. But it must be said that they did not render homage to an earthly king, but to a heavenly one: in which the divine power is shown to have been present; because otherwise, if they had sought an earthly king, they would have lost all their devotion when they found him wrapped in poor rags. But Augustine asks again: how could they know from a star that God had been born a man? And he answers that this was by the revelation of an angel; for he who showed them the star sent an angel to reveal this. Pope Leo says that just as their eyes were outwardly filled with the light of this star, so inwardly a divine ray revealed the truth. A third reason: because these men were of the stock of Balaam, who said: "a star shall rise out of Jacob." Hence they had it from his prophecy. And therefore, seeing so great a brightness of the star, they suspected that a heavenly king had been born, and therefore they sought him. And this is "and we have come to adore." In this was fulfilled that word of Psalm 71:11: "and all kings shall adore him, all nations shall serve him."”

“Having foretold the nativity of Christ through the magi, here he inquires about the place of the nativity: and three things are set down: first, the motive for inquiring is set down; second, the inquiry is undertaken; third, the finding of the truth. The second is at "and gathering together"; the third at "but they said to him: in Bethlehem of Judea." The motive was the troubling of Herod; hence "hearing." And he pointedly calls Herod "king," in order to show that he was other than the king whom they were seeking. Now there was a threefold cause of the troubling. The first proceeded from the ambition which he had concerning the guarding of his kingdom, because he was a foreigner. For he knew, or had heard, that saying of Daniel 2:44: "in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people," and so on. But in this he was deceived, because that kingdom was spiritual; John 18:36: "my kingdom is not of this world." Hence Herod was troubled, fearing the loss of his kingdom; but the Devil was troubled still more, fearing the total destruction of his own kingdom; John 12:31: "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." And note that men, as Chrysostom says, who are set in high places are thrown into confusion by a light word spoken against them; Psalm 87:16 [88:15]: "but I am exalted, and am brought low and troubled"; whereas the humble never fear. The second cause proceeded from fear of the Roman empire. For it had been decreed by the Roman empire that no one should be called a god or a king without their consent; hence he was afraid. But this was a worldly fear, which is forbidden; Isaiah 51:12: "who art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a mortal man, and of the son of man, who shall wither away like grass?" The third proceeded from the blush of shame. For he was ashamed before the people that another should be called king; in this he is like Saul, who said: "I have sinned, but now honor me before the elders of my people, and before Israel," and so on, 1 Kings 15:30. But it is a marvel that there follows "and all Jerusalem with him." For it would seem that they ought to have rejoiced. But it should be known that they had a threefold cause of troubling. The first was their own iniquity; for they were wicked, to whom the manner of life of the just is always detestable. Proverbs 13:19 [LXX]: "fools detest those who flee from evils." The second, that they might please Herod; Ecclesiasticus 10:2: "as the judge of the people is, so also are his ministers." The third, because they feared lest Herod, upon hearing this, should rage still more furiously against the nation of the Jews. But mystically it is signified in this that this man was of the earth. Gregory: "the king of the earth was troubled, when the king of heaven was born, because assuredly earthly loftiness is confounded, when heavenly loftiness is disclosed." Isaiah 24:23: "the moon shall blush, and the sun shall be ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem." And it is to be noted that, as Augustine says: "but what will the tribunal of the Judge be, when even the cradle of the infant terrified proud kings? Let kings fear him who sits at the right hand of the Father, whom an impious king feared while he was still sucking at his mother's breasts." "And gathering together." Here the inquiry is set down. And, as has been said, Herod was anxious to inquire, both on account of his kingdom and on account of fear of the Romans: hence he inquired after the truth. But to have certainty about anything, three things are required of those who inquire: for credence is given to a multitude, to authority, and to the learned. Hence he gathered together many people, both those having authority and the wise. And this is what he says: "gathering together all," as to the first, Wisdom 6:26 [24]: "a multitude of the wise is the welfare of the world." "The chief priests," as to the second; Malachi 2:7: "the lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth" (...). "And the scribes," as to the third: for it is said not merely with reference to writing, but to interpreting the Scripture of the law; through these indeed he wished to search out the truth. Ecclesiasticus 32:13 [9]: "in the midst of great men take not upon thyself to speak, and where there are ancients, speak not much." "He inquired of them where Christ should be born." The magi had called him king, but they themselves were seeking Christ: for they knew, from converse with the Jews, that the lawful king of the Jews was anointed. But it may be asked: either he himself believed the prophecy, or he did not. If he believed it, he knew that he could not be prevented from reigning; why then did he kill the children? If he did not believe it, why then did he inquire? But it must be said that he did not believe perfectly, because he was ambitious, and ambition renders a man blind. "But they said: in Bethlehem of Judea." Here the truth is found. And first the truth is set down; second its prophecy is confirmed, at "and thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah." And it should be known that Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem on account of three things. First, to avoid glory. For on account of this he chose two places: one in which he willed to be born, namely Bethlehem; the other in which he suffered, namely Jerusalem. And this is against those who seek glory, who wish to be born in exalted places, and are unwilling to suffer in a place of honor. John 8:50: "I seek not my own glory." Second, for the confirmation of his teaching, and the showing forth of his truth. For if he had been born in some great city, the power of his teaching could have been ascribed to human power; 2 Corinthians 8:9: "you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." Third, to show that he was of the lineage of David; Luke 2:3 [4]: "Joseph and Mary went up to Bethlehem, to be enrolled there, because they were of the house and family of David." It suits the mystery also, because Bethlehem is interpreted "house of bread": and Christ is that living bread "which came down from heaven," John 6:51 [50-51]. Consequently the truth is confirmed. Hence: "and thou, Bethlehem," and so on. From this prophecy we might consider two things: for the magi were both announcing something and seeking something. And from this prophecy both are shown: for as to the first he says "and thou, Bethlehem"; as to the second he says "for out of thee shall come forth a leader." And thus the nativity of Christ is confirmed by a twofold testimony, namely of the star and of the prophecy, because "in the mouth of two or three witnesses is the truth"; Deuteronomy 19:15: "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand." And note that when all were unbelievers, bodily signs were given; when there were already believers, prophecy was given; 1 Corinthians 14:22: "wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers; but prophecies, not to unbelievers, but to believers." And it should be known that the Jews failed in two ways in the recitation of the prophecy. For there it is said "and thou, Bethlehem Ephrata," and again, whereas it says "thou art by no means the least" [here it is rendered otherwise]. And a twofold reason can be assigned for why they changed it. In one way it can be said that they did this out of ignorance. In another way it can be said that these men knowingly used other words. And they state the sense. For since Herod was a foreigner, he would not have understood the authority of the prophet, and therefore they said that which was known to Herod. Hence they say "land of Judah," and "thou art by no means the least," that is, thou art not the least among the thousands of the men of Judah; or "among the princes of Judah," that is, among the principal cities of Judah. "For out of thee shall come forth a leader who shall rule my people Israel." Concerning this leader we have Daniel 9:25: "unto Christ the leader"; and Psalm 30:5 [31:4]: "thou shalt be a leader to me": for he rules the people of Israel not only in the flesh, but also spiritually; Romans 11:1: "hath God cast away his people?" and so on. Psalm 79:2 [80:1]: "thou who rulest Israel, hearken, thou who leadest Joseph like a sheep." And note that they cut off the tail of the authoritative text, namely "and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." By which is suggested that he was not to be an earthly king, but a heavenly one; which, had Herod known it, he would not have been impious. Hence they were the cause of the slaughter of those children. Likewise, from that same tail it is also clear that the interpretation of the Jews, who expound it of Zerubbabel, is false: because it does not fit him that "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Likewise, he was born not in Judea, but in Babylon. Consequently, inquiry is made about the person of the one born, when he says: "then Herod, having privately called the magi, diligently learned of them the time of the star which appeared to them." And first the inquiry is set down; second the finding of the one sought, at "they found him," etc.; third the veneration of the one found, at "and falling down they adored him." To inquire about the person they were moved by two things: by the persuasion of Herod, and by the leading of the star. Hence, as to the first, the exhortation is set down; second, the diligence of the magi in following the star, at "who when they had heard the king, departed." As to the first, three things are set down: first he inquires the time; second he announces the place, at "and sending them into Bethlehem"; third he enjoins the office of inquiry, at "go, and diligently inquire concerning the child." He says therefore "then Herod." Here it must be considered that the Jews knew the place, but not the time. Hence they are confounded by the Lord, Luke 19:44: "because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation," and Isaiah 1:3: "the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood." Therefore the time is inquired into. And Chrysostom says that the star had appeared to them two years before. Others, however, say that it appeared on the very day of the nativity. He announces the place, at "and sending." He enjoins the office of inquiry, at "go, and inquire," and so on. And he charges them with two things: and in order that they might fulfill this, he prefaces a third. As to the first he says "go," and so on. And he seeks insidiously in order to kill, like those to whom it is said, John 7:34: "you shall seek me, and shall not find me." As to the second he says: "and when you have found him, bring me word." And this too he said for an evil purpose; Ecclesiasticus 13:14 [12-13]: "by much talk he will tempt thee." As to the third he says: "that I also may come and adore him"; and indeed he deceitfully promises the worship of God; Jeremiah 9:8: "their tongue is a piercing arrow, it hath spoken deceit"; Psalm 27:3 [28:3]: "who speak peace with their neighbor, but evils are in their hearts." And note that whereas the magi were professing him king, this man calls him a child, because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Note also that he asks of the Jews where Christ should be born, wishing to test and try whether they would rejoice. Consequently the diligence of the magi is set down. He had enjoined two things: that they should inquire, and that they should return; but the magi did only one of these. Hence: "who, when they had heard the king, departed." The other, however, they did not do. Such indeed ought hearers to be, that they learn the good things but leave aside the evil ones; below, 23:3: "what they say, do ye; but according to their works do ye not," and so on.”

“Above, the Evangelist set down one motive of the Magi, namely Herod's persuasion; here he sets down another motive of the Magi for seeking Christ, namely the guidance of the star. And concerning this he does two things: first he sets down the guidance of the star; second, the effect of joy from this guidance, where it says, "And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy." And note that the star first performs its office by its motion, because it directly led the Magi to Christ; likewise it manifests the place of the child by its standing still, where it says, "until, coming, it stood over the place where the child was." Hence, as to the first, he said, "it went before them." Now from the fact that he says, "Behold, the star which they had seen in the east went before them," it is given to be understood that when the Magi turned aside into Jerusalem, the star disappeared; but when they departed from Herod, it appeared again. Now it disappeared for three reasons. First, on account of the confusion of the Jews, who, although they had been instructed in the law to seek Christ, while the Gentiles had not been instructed, nevertheless the Gentiles seek him, and the Jews despise him. Hence that saying of Isaiah 55:5 is fulfilled: "The nations that knew thee not shall run to thee." Second, on account of the instruction of the Magi: for the Lord willed to manifest himself to them not only through the star, but also through the law, so that the knowledge of the law might thus be joined to the knowledge of creatures. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand," Deuteronomy 19:15. Isaiah 8:20: "To the law rather, and to the testimony." Third, on account of our own instruction. And we are instructed concerning two things, according to the Gloss. First, that those who seek human help are abandoned by the divine. For it is unlawful to seek human help without seeking the divine; Isaiah 31:1: "Woe to you who go down into Egypt for help, trusting in horses, and putting your confidence in chariots, because they are many, and in horsemen, because they are very strong, and have not trusted in the Holy One of Israel, and have not sought after the Lord." Second, we are instructed as to this: that we, who are believers, ought not to seek signs, as these men did, who rejoiced upon seeing the star, etc.; but we ought to be content with the teachings of the prophets, because signs were given to unbelievers. In this too there is a twofold mystery. For the star signifies Christ; Apocalypse, last chapter, 16: "I am the root of David, the bright and morning star." Hence by this star we can understand the grace of God, which we lose when we approach Herod, that is, the Devil; Ephesians 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord." Likewise, when we withdraw from Herod, that is, the Devil, we find the star, that is, the grace of Christ: similarly Exodus 13:21, where it is said that the Lord went before Israel, when it went out of Egypt, in the form of fire, etc. But here he went before in the form of a star. "Until, coming, it stood over where the child was." We understand two things here. One, that this star was not very high, because otherwise they would not have been able to distinguish the house of the child. The other, that the star, its office completed, was reduced back into its own matter. "Where the child was." He frequently calls him "child," so that you may know that he is the one of whom it is said, Isaiah 9:6: "A child is born to us." Next is set down the effect of this guidance as regards the Magi. Hence, "And seeing the star, they rejoiced," etc. They rejoiced on account of the hope which they had recovered. For they feared, since they had come from distant parts, that they would lose what they hoped for; Romans 12:12: "Rejoicing in hope." Likewise he adds "with joy"; for some rejoice, and yet do not rejoice, because human gladness is not perfect joy; Proverbs 14:13: "Mourning taketh hold of the ends of joy." But true and perfect joy is about God; Isaiah 61:10: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, and my soul shall be joyful in my God." Third, he adds "great," because these men now knew great things concerning God — that God was incarnate, and greatly merciful; Isaiah 12:6: "Rejoice and praise, O habitation of Sion, for great is he that is in the midst of thee, the Holy One of Israel." Fourth, he adds "exceedingly," because they rejoiced intensely; for they had recovered what they had lost; Luke 15:10: "There shall be joy before the angels of God," etc. Next he treats of the finding of the child. Hence, "And entering into the house, they found the child." And he touches on three things: the house, which, if it be asked what sort it was, is shown in Luke 2:7. Likewise, if it be asked what sort the child was, he differed in nothing from other children, as the saints say. As to appearance, he did not speak, he seemed weak, and the like. Likewise, if it be asked what sort the mother was, the answer is: such as is the wife of a carpenter. And I say this for the reason that, if these men had been seeking an earthly king, they would have been scandalized upon seeing these things; but seeing lowly things, and considering the most exalted things, they were moved to wonder, and adored him. And this is "and falling down they adored him." But why is no mention made of Joseph? It must be said that it was brought about by divine dispensation that he was not present, lest to these men, who were the firstfruits of the Gentiles, an occasion be given for a depraved suspicion. Next is touched upon the reverence which they showed to the child, where it says "and falling down." And it was threefold: in adoring, in offering, and in obeying. He says therefore, "and falling down they adored him," as God hidden in man; Psalm 71:9: "Before him the Ethiopians shall fall down." Likewise, by offering, they showed reverence; hence, "and opening their treasures." For it was the custom among the Persians always to worship with a gift; and this is "and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh." Psalm 71:10: "The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts." Isaiah 60:6: "All they from Saba shall come, bringing gold and frankincense, and showing forth praise to the Lord." Mystically it must be considered that these men did not open their treasure on the way, but only then for the first time when they came to Christ: likewise we ought not to make manifest our goods while on the way. Hence this is reproved below, in chapter 25, concerning the virgins; and in 13:44 it is said: "The kingdom of heaven is like to a treasure hidden in a field, which a man having found, hid, and for joy thereof goeth, and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." "They offered him gifts," etc. Some assign a literal reason for these gifts, and these say that they found three things: a squalid house, a weak child, and a poor mother. And therefore they offered gold for the support of the mother, myrrh for the strengthening of the child's limbs, frankincense to remove the stench. But it must be said that something is mystically intended here, and rather these three things are referred to three things which we ought to offer, namely, faith, action, and contemplation. As to faith, in two ways: first, as to those things which concur in Christ. Namely, kingly dignity; Jeremiah 23:5: "A king shall reign, and shall be wise," etc.; and therefore they offered gold as tribute. The greatness of the priesthood; and therefore frankincense as sacrifice. The mortality of man; and therefore myrrh. Likewise, as to faith in the Trinity, because the persons of the Trinity are signified in us. Second, they can be referred to our own action. For by gold wisdom can be signified; Proverbs 2:4: "If thou shalt dig for her as for treasures, then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord." By frankincense, devout prayer; Psalm 140:2: "Let my prayer be directed, O Lord, as incense in thy sight," etc. By myrrh, the mortification of the flesh: Colossians 3:5: "Mortify your members which are upon the earth"; Song of Songs 5:5: "My hands dropped with myrrh." As to contemplation, however, by these three things can be signified either the three senses of sacred Scripture, namely the literal — under which is comprehended the allegorical, the anagogical, and the moral — or the three parts of philosophy, namely moral, logical, and natural: for we ought to make use of all these in the service of God. Next is set down how they showed reverence in obeying. Hence, "And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their own country." But how did they receive an answer, who had not asked? But it must be said that the Lord sometimes responds to a mental question, and these men were inwardly asking what would please God concerning their return; Exodus 14:15: "Why criest thou to me?" But are revelations, perhaps, immediately from God? Dionysius proves that they are not, except through the mediation of angels. Why then does he not name an angel? But it must be said that when Scripture sometimes makes mention of God, and not of an angel, this is done on account of a certain excellence of that manifestation; Galatians 3:19: "the law...ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Acts 7:37: "This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel: A prophet will God raise up to you from among your brethren, as it were me: him you shall hear," etc. Hence what the Gloss says, that this was immediately through God, is to be referred to the manner of speaking of Scripture. "They went back another way into their own country." In this it is shown that we arrive at our own country, Paradise, from which we were expelled through sin, through obedience. Proverbs 4:27: "The Lord knoweth the ways that are on the right hand; but those that are on the left hand are perverse." Chrysostom says here that these men, having returned, led a holy life, and afterward became helpers of the holy apostle Thomas; nevertheless nothing is found written about them in sacred Scripture after their departure.”

“Above it was shown how the Magi bore witness to Christ at his birth; now, however, it is treated how the innocents bear witness, not by speaking but by dying. And concerning this the Evangelist does three things. First the hiding of Christ is set forth; second, the killing of the children, at the words "Then Herod"; third, the return of Christ himself is set forth, at the words "Herod being dead." Concerning the first he does three things. First the warning of the Angel is set forth; second, the obedience of Joseph is shown; third, the fulfillment of prophecy. The second is at "that it might be fulfilled." Concerning the first, three things are touched upon. First the time of the apparition is set forth; second, the apparition itself and the manner of the apparition is described, at "behold, an Angel"; third, the warning itself made through the Angel is set forth, at "arise, and take the child." The time is described at "who, when they had departed." And it must be understood that this apparition did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because the whole of what is said in Luke 2:6 must be interposed, namely concerning the purification: "after the days were fulfilled," and so on. For Herod did not immediately think of killing the children. Hence when it says "who, when they had departed," the whole history of the purification must be interposed. Next the apparition itself is set forth; hence, "behold, an Angel appeared in sleep," and so on. He is said to appear in sleep, because then men cease from external acts, and to such the revelation is made through Angels; Psalm 4:9: "In peace, in the very same, I will sleep and I will rest"; Proverbs 3:24: "You shall rest, and your sleep shall be sweet." In this warning three things are set forth. First the Angel urges flight; second, he determines the length of the stay; third, he assigns the cause. He says therefore, "Arise." And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin before the nativity is called "wife" by the Angel, above (I, 5), but after the nativity she is not. And this for two reasons. First, for the commendation of the virgin; for as she conceived a virgin, so she gave birth a virgin. Second, on account of her dignity: for she was the Mother of God, than which dignity none is greater, and the naming is done from the more worthy. Likewise, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come for the sake of the mother, but rather the reverse; and therefore he says, "take the child and his mother," and so on. But why flee into Egypt? Does not the Psalm say (Psalm 18:15): "The Lord is my helper, and my redeemer"? But it must be known that he fled for three reasons. First, to manifest his humanity; for as his divinity appeared in the star, so his humanity appeared in the flight. Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men." Second, for the sake of example; for he showed by example what he taught by word. Below, 10:23: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another." Third, on account of the mystery: for as he willed to die, that he might call us back from death, so he willed to flee, that he might call back those fleeing from his face on account of sin. Psalm 138:7: "Whither shall I go from your spirit?" And, "be there." But why rather into Egypt, than elsewhere into another region? It must be said, for two reasons. The first is, because it is proper to God to be mindful of mercy in wrath, Habakkuk 3:8. For the Lord was angry against the Egyptians who persecuted the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were the firstborn of God. And therefore it was granted to Egypt to render service to the Only-begotten; Isaiah 19:1: "Behold, the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt," etc.; the same, 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light has arisen"; John 1:14: "We saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The second, because he himself had brought darkness upon Egypt, therefore he willed to illumine it first; and therefore he fittingly fled there; Isaiah 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light; to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light has arisen." Note that when someone wishes to flee sin, he must first shake off laziness; Ephesians 5:14: "Arise, you who sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will enlighten you." Second, he must take confidence from the Mother and the Son, namely Christ; Ecclesiasticus 24:25: "In me is all hope of life and of virtue." Third, he must flee from sin aided by the help of the mother and the child; Psalm 54:8: "Behold, I have gone far off fleeing, and I abode in the wilderness." He adds the cause of this flight: "for it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him." Herod was deceived, because he wished to destroy him who had come to share his kingdom; Luke 22:29: "And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom." Second, because he sought to destroy him who did not seek worldly glory; Hebrews 12:2: "Who, the joy being set before him, endured the cross." "Who, arising." Here the execution of the angelic command is set forth, and he sets it forth as to the flight, and as to the stay. Hence, "who, arising, took the child and his mother." And mention is made of the time, hence he says "by night," on account of fear and tribulation, according to that of Isaiah 26:9: "My soul has desired you in the night," that is, in tribulation; for in tribulations one must have recourse to God: Hosea 6:1: "In their tribulation they will rise early to me." "Who, arising." Then was fulfilled that word of Isaiah 19:1: "Behold, the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt"; which was fulfilled according to the letter. "And he was there." It is said that he was there for seven years, and dwelt in the city of Heliopolis. As to the mystery, however, by Joseph are signified the preachers, that is, the apostles, who are set forth for driving out darkness through doctrine, who, departing from the Jews, were turned to the gentiles; Acts 13:16: "To you it was necessary to speak the word of God first; but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the gentiles." "And be there until I tell you," that is, until the unbelief of the Jews is ended. Romans 2:25: "Blindness has happened in part in Israel." Next he adduces the testimony of prophecy; hence he says, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." This is, according to the translation of Jerome, Hosea 11:1. But in the translation of the Seventy it is not so, but "out of Egypt I have called his son." There seems here to be a question: because this does not seem to serve the purpose, because it is prefaced there, "the child Israel," etc., and thus it seems to speak of the calling of Israel out of Egypt. But it must be said that in all the authoritative texts which are set down in the Gospels or in the epistles concerning Christ, a certain distinction must be noted; for some are said specially of Christ, as that of Isaiah 53:7: "As a sheep he shall be led to the slaughter"; but others are said of certain persons insofar as they bore the figure of Christ. And such is this text: for these were not sons of Israel, except insofar as they bore the likeness of the true Only-begotten Son. And this is: "out of Egypt I have called my son," namely, the special one. "Then Herod." Here the killing of the children is treated; and concerning this he does two things. First the occasion of the killing is set forth; second, the killing itself is set forth, at "and sending, he killed all the children"; third, prophecies are adduced, at "then was fulfilled." The occasion was the wrath of Herod: hence, "then Herod was angry." James 1:20: "The wrath of man does not work the justice of God." And it must be noted that when any king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly grows angry and is inflamed. "Seeing that he had been deluded by the Magi, he was exceedingly angry." And he is said to be "exceedingly angry" for two reasons: because when someone is already angry, he is strongly inflamed by a slight occasion. Hence, because he was already in suspicion of the loss of his kingdom, and had been deluded by the Magi, he was exceedingly angry. Ecclesiasticus 11:34: "From one spark a fire is increased." "And sending." In this wrath there was cruelty as to three things: as to the place, as to the multitude, and as to the time. As to the multitude: that, seeking one, he killed all. Hence it is said, "and sending, he killed all the children." And note that Augustine says that this man would never have profited so much by homage as he profited by hatred. But it is asked, since they did not have free will, how they are said to have died for Christ. But, as it is said in John 3:17, "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him." For God would never have permitted them to be killed, unless it had been useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether this killing profited them, as to doubt whether Baptism profits children: for they suffered as martyrs and confessed Christ by dying, although not by speaking. Revelation 6:9: "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God." The second cruelty is, that he killed in all the borders, for he feared lest he should flee, namely to some city. And it happened to him as to a wounded beast, which does not heed whom it ought to wound; Proverbs 28:15: "A roaring lion, and a hungry bear, is a wicked prince over a poor people." The third, as to the time. Hence, "from two years old," that is, of two years. And note that Augustine says that in that very year in which Christ was born, the innocents were killed. But why does it say "from two years old and under"? Some say that the star had appeared for two years before; hence Herod was in doubt whether he had been born from the time of the star. And therefore it says, "according to the time which he had learned from the Magi." Others, however, say that these were not killed in the same year, but after two years. But why did he delay so long? A threefold reason is given by different authors. One is, that at first he thought that the Magi had been deceived and that they had found nothing, but after he heard many words about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, then he was moved to seek him. Others say that he did this out of caution: for he feared lest the parents had hidden the child whom he was seeking; hence he first wished to reassure them. Others, that he was hindered by preoccupation, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tarsus of Cilicia and had their ships burned. Likewise he was occupied, because he was summoned to Rome, accused by his sons. And thus after his return he began to rage. And it says "and under," etc., because he thought him to be of such power, that he could change his appearance. By this killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because children signify through humility and innocence; below, 19:14: "Suffer the little ones, and forbid them not to come to me"; likewise below, 18:3: "Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." "In Bethlehem, and in all its borders"; because throughout the whole world they are killed: Acts 1:8: "You shall be my witnesses," namely, by dying. The two years are the twofold charity, of God and of neighbor, because faith without works is dead, James 2:20. And note that when Christ was born, persecution immediately raged, because as soon as someone is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted. Ecclesiasticus 2:1: "Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation." "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet." The killing of the children having been set down, here, according to his custom, the Evangelist sets forth the prophecy announcing it, which is Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice was heard in Rama, of lamentation, mourning and weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not." And it must be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any authoritative text of the Old Testament is introduced by the apostles and Evangelists, it is not necessary always to render word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense, according to our usage. Thus we have Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice was heard on high, of lamentation, mourning and weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not." And the sense is the same. And it must be considered that, as far as this text is concerned, this is one of those which are introduced in the Gospel, which nevertheless has a literal sense that is a figure of that which was in the New Testament. Hence for its understanding a certain history must be considered, which is read in Judges 19, where it is said that on account of the sin committed regarding the wife of the Levite, almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was destroyed; and it is said that there was the greatest lamentation there, so great that it was heard from Gibeah as far as Rama, twelve miles distant from Bethlehem. This is called Rachel weeping, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figurative expression, namely, to express the greatness of the sorrow. But this is prophecy concerning the past. In another way it is concerning the future, in two ways. For in one way it can be referred to the captivity of Israel, who, when they were being led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have wept, because she was buried there, Genesis 35:19. And this is said in the same manner of speaking by which a place is said to weep for the evils that happen in that place. The prophet therefore means to say that just as there was the greatest sorrow and mourning when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so another equally great sorrow would come at the time of the captivity. In a third way it is explained thus. The Evangelist takes up the fact of the killing of the innocents and magnifies this sorrow in four ways: from the diffusion of the sorrow, from the multitude of the sorrow, from the matter, and from its inconsolability. He says therefore: "a voice in Rama." There is a certain city in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:25, and it can be taken for the city of Leah. Here, however, it is taken for "on high"; and it can be explained in two ways. First thus: "a voice," uttered on high, "was heard," because a voice that is in a high place is spread far and wide; Isaiah 40:9: "Get up upon a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion, lift up your voice with strength." Or, it was heard on high, that is, in heaven with God; Ecclesiasticus 35:21: "The prayer of him that humbles himself shall pierce the clouds, and till it come near he will not be comforted, and he will not depart till the Most High regard him." And again: "Do not the tears of the widow run down the cheek, and her cry against him that causes them to fall?" "Weeping": this can be referred to the crying of the slain infants. And "much wailing": this to the weeping of the mothers. Or both to the children: "weeping" insofar as they were snatched up by the soldiers, "wailing" insofar as they were being slain. Greater is the sorrow of the mothers than of the children. Likewise the sorrow of the mothers was persistent, that of the children was brief: on account of which Zechariah 12:10 says: "They shall mourn for him as for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of a firstborn." Likewise from the matter of the sorrow, because it concerns the death of children. Hence Rachel weeps. But an objection is raised, that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin, but in the tribe of Judah, who was the son of Leah. And it is resolved in three ways. First, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem, Genesis 35:19. And so she wept for the children in the manner by which a place is said to weep; Jeremiah 2:12: "Be astonished, O you heavens, at this, and you gates thereof, be very desolate, says the Lord." Or otherwise. Above it was said that Herod killed the children in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, and so on. Now Bethlehem was on the border of two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin; hence some of the children of Benjamin were killed: and thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. Augustine, however, explains it differently and says that it is customary that when someone has had good fortune, he grieves more when adversities come. Leah and Rachel were sisters, and those who were killed were of the sons of Leah. And thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the affair of Gibeah. She is said therefore to weep, seeing her sister's sons being killed and damned. Or by Rachel the Church is signified, because her name is interpreted "seeing God," and the Church sees through faith: she weeps for her children slain, not because they were slain, but because through them she could have acquired others. Or she does not weep on account of the slain, but on account of the slayers. There follows the point concerning the inconsolability of the sorrow: "and she would not." And this is explained in many ways. First, so that it is referred to the people who then were. For comfort is owed as long as some remedy is hoped for; but when it is not hoped for, there is no comfort, as is clear in the case of one despaired of in sickness; and therefore it says, so that it is referred to the opinion of the mothers, "because they are not," that is, because they do not appear; Genesis 37:30: "The child does not appear." Or, she would not be comforted, "because they are not," that is, as if they did not exist: for comfort is owed only concerning evils. Hence according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which holds them as though they reigned; hence, as of those reigning, she rejoices over them, 1 Thessalonians 4:12: "We would not have you ignorant concerning them that sleep, that you be not sorrowful, even as others who have no hope"; or, she would not be comforted concerning the present, but awaits comfort in the future; below, 5:5: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." Next the recalling of Christ is treated; hence, "Herod being dead, behold, an Angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph." And first the apparition of the Angel is set forth; second, the command of the Angel; third, the execution of the Angel's command. Concerning the first, three things are set forth. First the time is described; second, the person; third, the manner of the apparition. He says therefore, "Herod being dead": not that Herod who was present at Christ's death, because that one was the son of this one. "Behold, an Angel appeared." It must be noted that every disturbance of the Church, according to the mystery, is ended by the death of persecutors, because "in the perishing of the wicked there shall be praise," Proverbs 11:10. Likewise note that, the unbelief of the Jews being ended, Christ will return to them. Romans 11:26: "And then all Israel shall be saved." "Behold ... appeared." It must be noted that such is the order of Angels and men, that divine illuminations do not come to us except through Angels; Hebrews 1:14: "They are all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation." Hence even Christ, according as he was man, willed to be announced through Angels. The manner, at "in sleep, to Joseph in Egypt." The command, at "arise, and take the child." He does not say "son," nor "wife," but "the child," that the dignity of the child might be designated, and the integrity of the mother. In this it is signified that Joseph was not given to her for carnal union, but for service and guardianship. Next he assigns the cause: "for they are dead who sought the life of the child." But it is asked, why does it say "are dead"? For only Herod had died. This is resolved in two ways. First, because this man had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced at his death: who, foreseeing this, commanded, still living, his sister, that she should have the nobler men among the Jews killed at his death; and these had sought the life of the child along with Herod; and this is "for they are dead who sought the life of the child." Or otherwise: it is the custom of Sacred Scripture to put the plural for the singular: hence "they are dead," that is, "he is dead," and so on. Hence in this, that it says "who sought the life of the child," the error of Apollinaris is destroyed, who said that the divinity was in Christ in place of a soul. The execution of this command is set forth: "who, arising, took the child and his mother"; and concerning this he does two things: first he shows how he returned into the land of Israel; second, which part he avoided; third, to which part he turned aside, at "and being warned in sleep, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee." He says therefore, "who arising." It must be noted that the Angel did not say, "go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, "into the land of Israel," under which Galilee too can be comprehended. Hence it can be said that Joseph entered the borders of the land which Judah inhabited. Next is set forth which part he avoided, at "but hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea." And here the history of Herod must be noted. This Herod had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; but at his death he ordered that Antipater be killed. Hence three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn, and he usurped the kingdom for himself; but at length, accused by the Jews before Caesar Augustus, the kingdom was taken away from him and was divided into four parts, and Archelaus had two, the other two others divided among themselves, so that Herod had one tetrarchy, Philip another, as is found in Luke 3:1. This Archelaus was sent into exile after nine years of his reign. "And being warned in sleep." The Angel had first said that he should go to the land of Israel; but because Joseph had not yet understood, therefore the Angel, who had before revealed it indeterminately, now determines it. And this is: "and being warned ... he withdrew into the parts of Galilee." But to the contrary: just as Archelaus reigned in Judea, so Herod reigned in Galilee. But it must be said that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus held the whole, because afterward the division was made. But then it is also asked, why he did not fear Archelaus. It must be said that the seat of the kingdom was in Jerusalem; hence he dwelt there almost always. But it is asked, why in Luke 2:41 it is said that every year they took the child into Jerusalem. And Augustine resolves this, that they went safely on account of the great crowd which then went up; but there would have been danger if he had remained there long. Likewise it is asked, why the Evangelist implies that Joseph came to Nazareth as though by accident, whereas in Luke 2:39 it is said that he had his own dwelling in Nazareth. But it must be said that the Angel had told him to go into the land of Israel, which, strictly taken, did not contain Galilee, nor Nazareth: and thus Joseph understood it; and therefore he was not intending to go to Nazareth. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: that he shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it is gathered from many places. "Nazarene," therefore, is interpreted "holy": and because Christ is called holy; Daniel 9:24: "Until the Holy One be anointed"; therefore it is significantly said "through the prophet." Or it can be said that by "Nazarene" is interpreted "flourishing"; and this is had in Isaiah 11:1: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up from his root," etc.; and this agrees with what is said in Song of Songs 2:1: "I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys."”

“Above, the Evangelist dealt with the entrance of Christ into the world; but now he deals with his advance, which indeed is to be attended to according to the advance of his teaching: for it is for this that he came, John 18:37. Now concerning the teaching two things are considered. For first the preparation for the teaching is set down; second the teaching itself is set down, in chapter 5. But two things are required for a teacher of evangelical teaching. First, that he be veiled with sacred mysteries; second, that he be proved by virtues: and so two things are set forth before the teaching, namely his Baptism, and his temptation in chapter 4. Concerning the first he does two things. First the Baptism of John is introduced, at "there went out to him Jerusalem"; second, the instruction of those baptized, at "but seeing many." Now they are invited by John in two ways, namely by word and by example. The second is at "and the same John had his garment of camel's hair," and so on. Concerning the teaching of John he does, or touches on, three things. First the person of the teacher is introduced; second the teaching is set down; third, its confirmation. The second is at "do penance"; the third at "for this is he of whom it was said." Concerning the person, five things are set down, namely the time, the person, the office, the zeal, and the place. The first is at "in those days," and so on. And it is to be noted that Luke describes the time of the preaching through the rulers of the commonwealth and of the Jews. That, then, which Luke states is expressed here when he says "in those days." Nor should this be referred to the days of which mention was made, namely to the time of Christ's infancy; for it should not be understood that this happened in those days in which Christ returned from Egypt. But this is set down thus, because Christ dwelt continually in Nazareth; Luke 2:40: "and the child grew, and waxed strong, full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in him." Second, the person is set down, at "came John"; came, that is, appeared, he who before was hidden. This is he of whom John 1:7: "this man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light." But why did Christ wish for his testimony, since he had the testimony of works? It must be said that this was for three reasons. First, on account of us who are led into the knowledge of spiritual things through things that are like to us; John 1:7: "this man came that he might give testimony of the light." And why? "That all might believe through him." Second, on account of the malice of the Jews, because not only did Christ give testimony of himself, according to what they themselves said, John 8:13: "you give testimony of yourself," but also another gave testimony; John 5:33: "you sent to John, and he gave testimony to the truth." Third, to show the equality of Christ to the Father, because just as the Father had forerunners, namely the prophets, so also did Christ; Luke 1:76: "you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Highest: for you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways." Third, the office of baptizing is set down. This was his special office, because he was the first to baptize, and his Baptism was preparatory to the Baptism of Christ: because if Christ had added a new rite all at once, men could immediately have been scandalized. And therefore John went before, that he might prepare men for Baptism; John 1:31: "that he may be made manifest in Israel." Fourth, the zeal is set down, because he came in order to preach diligently. And this is "preaching the baptism." Christ indeed, about to baptize, added these words, Matthew, last chapter, 19: "go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But John prepared the way in both respects. And it is to be noted that John did this in his thirtieth year, at which age David also was made king, and Joseph took up the helm of the kingdom of Egypt, Genesis 41:46. By which it is given to be understood that no one ought to be assumed to any office before a mature age. Fifth, the place is set down, "in the desert." Now he preached in the desert for four reasons. First, that they might listen more quietly: for in the city many curious persons who impede would have gathered together, but into the desert only the earnest went; Ecclesiastes 12:11: "the words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd." Second, because it suited his preaching; because he was preaching repentance. Now such ought to be the place of repentance, either bodily or mentally; Psalm 54:8: "lo, I have gone far off flying away, and I abode in the wilderness." Third, to designate the condition of the Church, which is signified by the desert: for it is given to be understood that the preaching of salvation is not in the synagogue, but in the Church; Isaiah 54:1: "give praise, O barren, that bears not; sing forth praise, and make a joyful noise, you that did not travail with child: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that has a husband, says the Lord." Fourth, to designate the condition of Judea, which was now being abandoned by God; below, 23:38: "behold, your house shall be left to you desolate." There follows "do penance," and so on. John announces a certain new life, as Augustine says in the book On Penance: no one who is constituted the arbiter of his own will can begin a new life unless he repents of the old life. Seek this in the Gloss. And therefore he first exhorts to repentance; second he announces salvation, at "for the kingdom of heaven shall be at hand." Likewise, "do penance," through which is the remission of sins. Chrysostom: when the Son of God was born, God sent a herald into the world. And it is to be noted that it is one thing to do penance and another to repent. He repents who bewails his sins, and does not commit things to be bewailed. And it should be known that all this is referred to the purpose of the mind, so that it is said "and does not commit things to be bewailed," that is, he purposes not to commit them: for this is what repentance requires. But to do penance is to make satisfaction for sins; Luke 3:8: "bring forth fruits worthy of penance." And here a question arises. Since all sins are remitted in Baptism, why did John, in foretelling the Baptism of Christ, begin from repentance? And the answer is given in the Gloss, that repentance is threefold, namely before Baptism, because one ought to grieve for sins when one approaches it; the second after Baptism, concerning mortal sins; the third, concerning venial sins. Here it treats of the repentance that is after Baptism; hence Peter said, Acts 2:38: "do penance," namely so that you may be prepared to obtain salvation. "It shall be at hand." And note that never in the Scripture of the Old Testament is the kingdom of heaven found promised; but John is the first to announce it, which pertains to his dignity. Now the kingdom of heaven is taken in Scripture in four ways. For sometimes Christ himself dwelling in us through grace is meant; Luke 17:21: "the kingdom of God is within you." And it is called the kingdom of heaven, because through indwelling grace the way of the heavenly kingdom is begun in us. Second, sacred Scripture; below, 21:43: "the kingdom of God shall be taken from you," that is, sacred Scripture. And it is called a kingdom because its law leads to the kingdom. Third, the present Church militant is meant; below, 13:47: "the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes," and so on. And it is called the kingdom of heaven, because it is instituted after the manner of the heavenly Church. Fourth, the kingdom of heaven is said to be the heavenly court; below, 8:11: "they shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." Now before the time of John no mention was made of it, except of the kingdom of the Jebusites, Exodus 3:8, but now the kingdom of heaven is promised to his Church. Consequently the confirmation of this preaching is set down: "this is he of whom it was said by Isaiah the prophet," and so on. And, as Augustine says, this can be expounded in two ways. First, that this, namely "this is he of whom it was written," are the words of the Evangelist; and then the sense is plainer. Second, this is introduced by Matthew as though they were the words of John doing penance. Hence "this is," that is, I am he; and he speaks of himself as of another, just as John, in his Gospel, speaks of another as of himself. But it makes no difference whose words they are, since they have the same sense. This, then, is he of whom it is written, Isaiah 40:3: "the voice of one crying in the desert: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness the paths of our God." Three things are set down, by which the three aforesaid things are confirmed. First is foretold the place of John's preaching, because "the voice of one crying in the desert"; second, the coming of the kingdom of heaven, hence "prepare the way." Third, repentance, at "make straight his paths." He says, then, "the voice of one crying in the desert." And he says "voice" for three reasons. First, because, as Gregory says, the voice precedes the word; and John precedes Christ. Luke 1:17: "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." Second, because through the voice the word is known; for the voice leads the word into knowledge, so John led to Christ; John 1:31: "that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." Third, because a voice without a word does not produce certainty of mind; 1 Corinthians 14:8: "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?" And the revelation of the divine mysteries was not made through John, except insofar as he announced Christ, but through Christ, the Word; John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Therefore, "the voice of one crying"; and this can be understood in two ways. First, of Christ crying, who was speaking in John; 2 Corinthians 13:3: "do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me?" So too he cried out in all the prophets. Hence it is always said: "the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah," or to Isaiah, and so on. And yet none of them is called a voice, because they did not immediately precede Christ; Malachi 3:1: "behold, I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his holy temple." Or, "the voice of one crying," that is, John crying out. And it should be known that crying out is done to the deaf, and such were the Jews; Isaiah 42:18: "hear, you deaf, and, you blind, behold that you may see. Who is deaf, but my servant? Or blind, but he to whom I have sent my messengers?" Second, out of indignation; Psalm 105:40: "the Lord was exceedingly angry with his people, and he abhorred his inheritance." Third, at those who are distant: and these were far off from God. "Prepare the way of the Lord." And it would seem more fitting for him to have said "prepare your way to receive the Lord." And it should be known that we were so weak that we could not approach the Lord, unless he himself came to us. And therefore John had said above, "for the kingdom of heaven shall be at hand": and this is "prepare." But what is this way? Faith, which is through hearing; Ephesians 3:17: "that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts." Gregory: the way of faith is devout hearing; Amos 4:12: "prepare yourself to meet your God, O Israel." "Make straight." Faith is common, is one; but it directs into diverse works. And therefore, "make straight." Now these ways of works are straight when they do not disagree with the divine law, which is the rule of human acts, just as, according to the will of the potter, is the rule of goodness in earthen vessels, as can be had from Jeremiah 18:4. Or this, namely "prepare," pertains to charity, which is of the necessity of salvation; Isaiah 30:21: "this is the way, walk in it, and decline neither to the right hand, nor to the left." Therefore by "way" is understood everything that pertains to common salvation; 1 Corinthians 12:31: "I show unto you yet a more excellent way." But "paths" are the observances of the counsels: and these paths are said to be straight, because they ought not to be done for the sake of empty glory; below, 6:1: "do not your justice before men, to be seen by them"; and Proverbs 3:17: "her ways are beautiful ways, and all her paths are peaceable." Consequently it is shown how John gave testimony to Christ in his life, at "and the same John." But who gave testimony concerning John, who was giving testimony to Christ? And it must be said: his own life did; because, as Chrysostom says, no one is a fit witness of another unless he be a witness to himself, and this by a good life; Ecclesiasticus 19:27: "the attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, show what he is." Hence here his austerity in life, and in food, is described: and this is "and the same John had his raiment of camel's hair," and so on. Others were clothed in wool, John in hair: for he reckoned a garment of wool a softness which does not befit a preacher. Likewise, "a leathern girdle." This is expounded in two ways. Jerome says that at that time the Jews had a girdle of wool, but John, reckoning it as softness, took one of skins in imitation of Elijah, as is said in 4 Kings 1:8. Rabanus expounds it thus, and says that John took raw, unprepared skins, and used them so as to restrain lust: and this is "and a girdle." But whether it is expounded this way or that way, in either case austerity of life is understood. "And his meat was locusts and wild honey." Here the food is not prepared, but that which nature furnished; and locusts are certain animals fit to be eaten. "And wild honey." This can be understood in two ways. For properly that is called wild honey which is not stored up in artificially made hives, but is found in the woods in certain trees. Others say it is the cane of honey, and a certain thing found within canes that is very sweet; yet in all these things nothing else is meant than that he was content with simple things; 1 Timothy 6:8: "having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." Consequently it is treated of Baptism: hence it is said, "then went out," and it touches on three things. First how he was visited by the crowds; second how the crowds were baptized; and third how they confessed their sins. And as to the first it should be known that there were three things that invited men to go out to John. First, the new preaching. They had never heard mention made of the kingdom of heaven, and therefore they marveled; Job 38:33: "do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason thereof on the earth?" John was the first to teach that the reason of the kingdom of heaven was not to be set down on earth. Second, on account of his life. Hence it says "then went out," namely seeing his life; James 2:18: "show me your faith without works, and I will show you, by works, my faith," and so on. Third, because Judea was deprived of the instruction of the prophets. Psalm 73:9: "we have not seen our signs, there is now no prophet." And therefore they went out from Judea to see; and this is "then went out ... and were baptized by him in the Jordan." But why in the Jordan? Because in the Jordan Baptism was first prefigured. 4 Kings 2:8-11, where it is said of Elisha that he passed through the Jordan, and Elijah was taken up into heaven. Likewise there Naaman the leper was cleansed, who signifies one cleansed from sins in Baptism. Likewise, because the very interpretation of the word suits Baptism; for it is interpreted "descent," and it signifies the humility which man ought to have in Baptism; 1 Peter 2:2: "as newborn babes, desire the reasonable milk without guile." Third is set down, "confessing their sins." The reason why confession was introduced has been shown above, because it is of the necessity of salvation; James 5:16: "confess your sins one to another." And the Gloss says that it was introduced for this reason, that a man might have shame. But it should be known that shame is a concomitant cause, but the principal reason is on account of the power of the keys: for no one could bind or loose unless he knew what was to be bound or loosed. Hence, just as no one can remove the necessity of the keys, so no one could remove vocal confession. But it is asked whether one approaching Baptism is bound to confess. It seems that he does not need the power of the keys, since all sins are remitted in Baptism. But it must be said that he is bound at least in a general way; and this he does when he renounces Satan and all his pomps: for in this he professes himself to have been bound to Satan. "But seeing many." Having shown that many were baptized by John, here he treats of their instruction. And concerning this he does two things: first is set down who they are that are instructed; second their instruction is set down, at "who has showed you to flee from the wrath to come?" He says, then, "but seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees." It should be known that among the Jews there were certain sects, among which these two were the chief. For the Pharisees were so called, as it were, divided from the common life, on account of their observances. These in many things spoke well, yet they fell short, because, as is said, they held that all things come to pass by necessity. The others, namely the Sadducees, were called just on account of certain special observances of the law; who did not receive the prophets, nor say that souls are raised up again after the corruption of the body, nor that there is a spirit. Both, however, were noted from the very name, because "Pharisee" signifies division, which is opposed to charity. And these were altogether divided from others, as though they possessed a superabundant spirit of holiness: which indeed would be a good thing. The others also, namely the Sadducees, arrogated justice to themselves; against whom, Romans 10:3: "for they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God." And yet, although they appeared more just, they came to John as to a teacher; Isaiah 49:7: "kings shall see, and princes shall rise up, and worship, for the Lord's sake, because he is faithful, and for the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you." These, then, are fittingly instructed here. Hence, "who has showed you to flee from the wrath to come?" And it is to be noted that instruction ought to vary according to the conditions of the hearers. For to the simple it suffices to speak briefly of the things that pertain to salvation; but to the wise, particulars ought to be explained; which the Apostle hints at, 1 Corinthians 3:1: "I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." So did John: he admonished the crowds briefly concerning repentance, and announced the kingdom of heaven. These two things he here explains point by point to the Pharisees. Hence first he exhorts to repentance; second he announces the nearness of the kingdom of heaven, at "I indeed baptize you," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down that which induces to repentance; second he removes the things that could draw back from repentance, at "and think not to say within yourselves: we have Abraham for our father." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the inducement to repentance; second he sets down the manner of perfect repentance, at "bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance." Now there are two things that induce to repentance: recognition of one's own sin; Isaiah 58:1: "show my people their wicked doings"; second, fear of the divine judgment. John announces these two things. Hence he says, "brood of vipers." And it is to be noted that in sacred Scripture one is called the son of someone by way of imitation; Ezekiel 16:45: "your father was an Amorite"; John 8:44: "you are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do." These men were like vipers; and therefore he says "brood of vipers." And they are alike in three ways, according to Chrysostom. For the nature of the viper is that, when it bites someone, it runs back to water; and if it finds none, it does not die, otherwise it dies. Hence John, perceiving their intention, why they were coming to the water of Baptism, said "brood of vipers." But how did the poisoned come to Baptism? Because John was promising the remission of sins, and so he made them enter the water while laying aside their depraved intention, and therefore he says "do penance ... and they were baptized by him." The second property is that in being born it kills the parents; hence it is said to give birth, as it were, by violence, and these men were likewise. Below, 23:31: "which of the prophets have you not killed?" The third reason is that it is beautiful outwardly, having poison within: these men too are beautiful outwardly with a certain feigned justice, having sins within; below, 23:27: "woe to you, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness"; and according to this, "brood of vipers" sounds toward evil. Ambrose expounds it otherwise, and says that prudence is ascribed to serpents; below, 10:16: "be prudent as serpents." Hence John, commending them for prudence, because they were coming to Baptism, says "brood of vipers." The first thing, then, that induces to repentance is recognition of one's own sin; the second is fear of the divine judgment; Proverbs 15:27 [16:6]: "by the fear of the Lord, everyone declines from evil"; Job 19:29: "know that there is a judgment." And this is what he says, "who has showed you to flee from the wrath to come?" And it should be known that Ambrose and Chrysostom expound this of past things, Rabanus of future things; hence he says "who will show?" And according to Ambrose thus: "brood," etc., as though he said: who has showed you, that you should withdraw from evil? As if to say: no one, but God. Psalm 84:8 [7]: "show us, O Lord, your mercy, and grant us your salvation." According to Chrysostom thus: "brood of vipers," because they retain the will to sin, "who has showed you to flee," as you wish? No, because Isaiah said, 1:16: "wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from before my eyes." No, because David said, Psalm 50:4 [51:2]: "wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin"; and afterward: "a sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise." Rabanus expounds it of the future thus, as though he said: it is good that you do penance, for otherwise who will show you? Psalm 138:7 [139:7]: "whither shall I go from your spirit? Or whither shall I flee from your face?" Wrath is not taken of God according to an affect of the mind, but according to an effect: hence his wrath is vengeance. These two things that lead to repentance having been set forth, the Evangelist consequently concludes, "bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance." In a tree the fruits come after the flowers, and if fruits do not follow the flowers, that tree is worth nothing. For a certain flower of repentance appears in contrition, but the fruit is in the carrying out. Ecclesiasticus 24:23 [17]: "my flowers are the fruit of honor and riches." And it is to be noted that the fruit of justice is one thing, and that of repentance another: for more is required of the penitent than of him who does not sin. Now the fruit worthy of repentance is threefold. The first is that one punish in himself what he has committed, and this by the judgment of the priest. Jeremiah 31:19: "after you converted me, I did penance: and after you showed me, I struck my thigh," that is, I afflicted my flesh. The second is that he flee sins and the occasions of sin, hence it is said that to make satisfaction is to cut off the causes of sins. Ecclesiasticus 21:1: "son, have you sinned? Do so no more: but for your former sins also pray that they may be forgiven you," and so on. "Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent," Ecclesiasticus 21:2. The third is that he strive as much toward doing good as he strove toward sinning. Romans 6:19: "I speak a human thing, because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity: so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification." Consequently he excludes an impediment to repentance, when he says, "and think not to say within yourselves: we have Abraham for our father." Repentance has a twofold impediment: presumption about oneself, and despair concerning the divine judgment. First he removes the first; second the second, at "for now the axe is laid to the root of the trees." Concerning the first he does two things: first he excludes the impediment; second he assigns the reason, at "for I say to you." He says, then, "and think not to say within yourselves: we have Abraham for our father." These men were of the race of Abraham according to the flesh: hence they could believe that however much they might sin, God would have mercy on them for Abraham's sake; Exodus 32:11: "why, O Lord, is your indignation kindled?" and afterward: "remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob your servants," and so on. And therefore John excludes this: "and think not to say." And it is a manner of speaking; as though he said, do not say this, because it will avail you nothing; Romans 9:8: "they that are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed," and so on. For these men gloried greatly in Abraham, but the Lord says, John 8:39: "if you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham." Against such men Chrysostom says: what does a famous lineage profit him whom his character disgraces? And this holds also in spiritual matters. Consequently he assigns the reason, "for I say unto you," for it is a greater thing to imitate the father than to be born of him: "God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." One reads in Joshua 4 that when the people of Israel crossed the Jordan with dry feet, in memory of the miracle Joshua ordered that twelve stones be drawn out from the bottom of the river and placed outside, and twelve of the outer stones be placed within. Now John, baptizing in that same place, showed them these. And it can be understood in two ways. Literally, first: for this is the first foundation of faith, to believe the omnipotence of God; Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things, and no thought is hid from you." Or we can understand the stones as the Gentiles, who are called stones for two reasons: first, because they worship stones; second, on account of hardness. And although stones are hard, yet they long preserve an impression made upon them: and although also a building made of them is slow to be made, yet it is strong and durable. Hence the Gentiles, although they were hard to receive the faith of Christ, yet held to it firmly once received. This is signified in Ezekiel 11:19: "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my spirit within you." But according to Jerome, in these words he seems to recall to memory the prophecy of Isaiah 51:2: "look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you," and so on. For he names the rock Abraham on account of his inability to beget, and Sarah on account of her barrenness; as though he said: God, who made Abraham potent, and Sarah fruitful, is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. "For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees." For they might say: we do not believe that any wrath will come upon us; and therefore he removes this, saying "for now." Hence first he sets down the judgment; second he sets down the sentence of the judgment. He says, then, "for now," and so on. For some are unwilling to repent in two ways: out of despair of judgment, because they do not believe there is a judgment; Ecclesiasticus 5:1 [4]: "say not: I have sufficient life"; Job 19:29: "flee from the face of the sword, for the sword is the avenger of iniquities: and know that there is a judgment." Others, however, out of delay; 2 Peter 3:9: "the Lord delays not his promise, as some imagine, but deals patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance." But John excludes both. First the first, when he says "for now the axe"; second the second, when he says "is laid," as though he said, it will not be delayed. And this is understood in three ways. Chrysostom says that by the axe is understood the strictness of the divine judgment, which is designated sometimes by an axe, sometimes by a bow and a sword; Psalm 7:13 [12]: "except you will be converted, he will brandish his sword: he has bent his bow, and made it ready." Jerome: by the axe the preaching of the Gospel is understood, because just as through the teaching of the Gospel some are led to life, so despisers are led to death. Jeremiah 23:29: "are not my words as a fire, and as a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" Luke 2:34: "behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted," and so on. "For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees"; as though he said, it is at hand, ready to come. According to Gregory, by the axe our Redeemer is understood, who consists as it were of handle and of iron, of humanity and of divinity; whose humanity, because it patiently waits, is as it were held; whose divinity cuts, as it were the iron. The axe, then, is laid to the root, because judgment is done through God and man. And he says "to the root" for two reasons: because at the root a universal cutting off is made, even of that which is in the branches. Likewise because what is cut off at the root does not sprout again: as though he said, the extirpation of the wicked will be universal. There follows, then, and he first sets down the universality, saying "every tree"; as though he said, both Jew and Gentile alike; Romans 2:11: "there is no respect of persons with God." Likewise, guilt, because it does not make fruit, for punishment comes about through omission alone; below, 25:42: "I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat." Third, he sets down a twofold penalty: namely temporal, "shall be cut down," namely from this life; Luke 13:7: "behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none: cut it down, therefore," and afterward, "why does it also cumber the ground?" And this is "shall be cut down," together with earthly prosperity. Likewise he sets down the eternal penalty, hence it is said, "shall be cast into the fire"; Isaiah, last chapter, 24: "their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched." And below, 25:41: "depart, you cursed, into everlasting fire." "I indeed baptize." Above, John exhorted to the fulfilling of repentance; now he intends to do what he had frequently said, namely to announce the kingdom of heaven: and concerning this he does two things. First the preparation for the kingdom is set down; second, the foretelling of the kingdom is treated, at "but he that shall come after me." That kingdom is Christ, concerning whom, Luke 17:21: "the kingdom of God is within you." Now the preparation is Baptism; hence "I indeed," which is marvelous to you, "baptize," in water only, namely because I am a mere man. Hence he could only wash the body, nor could he give the Holy Spirit, since the price for sin had not yet been paid; Hebrews 9:22: "for without shedding of blood there is no remission." Likewise the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, nor had Christ by the touch of his flesh sanctified the water. Why, then, did he baptize? For three reasons. First, that he might go before Christ, by baptizing; Luke 1:76: "you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways." Second, that, once men were gathered, he might have the opportunity to preach concerning Christ; John 1:31: "that he might be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water." Third, that he might prepare them for the Baptism of Christ. Hence it is the custom in the Church that those who are to be baptized first become catechumens, namely so that a certain preparation may be made, and they may receive a certain seal, by which they are reckoned suitable: and this is what he says, "I baptize," namely so that you may know yourselves to be fit, you who intend to be baptized by Christ. Note that the Master, in Book IV of the Sentences, says that those baptized by John were not baptized by Christ, except those who put their hope in John. But this is false; hence he says, "he shall baptize you." Likewise note that Augustine raises a question. If after the Baptism of John they were re-baptized, why were they not re-baptized after the baptism of heretics? It must be said that John baptized in his own person; heretics baptize in the person of Christ; hence the Baptism of Christ is to be judged by that. Consequently it is treated of the kingdom. And first he shows its dignity; second, its office, at "he shall baptize you." He says, then, "he who comes after me," by being born, by baptizing, by preaching, by dying, by descending to the dead. But here he speaks of only two of these, namely of preaching and of Baptism; hence he says "he who comes after me," to baptize and to teach; Luke 1:17: "he himself shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." "Is mightier than I," and his Baptism is mightier; 1 Kings 2:2: "there is none holy as the Lord is"; Job 9:19: "if strength be sought, he is most strong." And lest it be believed that there is a comparison between them, he says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear"; as though he said, he is incomparably worthier than I, as Chrysostom expounds it, so much so that I ought not to render him service. But it should be known that in the other three Gospels it is not so: because there it says "to loose," here "to bear." Hence Augustine says that John wished only to show his own humility, and the excellence of Christ, and then the same thing is signified in all of them. Hence he says that this happened through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the Evangelists differ in words in such matters, so that we might receive the lesson that we do not lie, if we speak the same sense as the others, even though we do not say the same words. But if he wished to signify something mystical, then there is a difference in the words of Matthew and of the others: and by the latchet of the shoe two things can be signified, because by the shoe is meant humanity; Psalm 59:10 [60:8]: "into Idumea will I stretch out my shoe." The latchet is the union by which humanity is bound to divinity. And because he did not reckon himself sufficient to explain the mystery of the union, therefore he says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear." Or, it was a custom among the Jews, Deuteronomy 25:9, that if someone did not wish to take his brother's wife, he ought to have his shoe loosed by the one who was taking the wife. The bride of Christ is the Church. Then, therefore, John reckoned himself unworthy to take the bride of Christ. Or, otherwise according to Hilary: the shoe indeed is borne by those who announce the humanity of Christ throughout the world; which was reserved to the Apostles; Isaiah 52:7: "how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, and that preaches peace: of him that shows forth good, that preaches salvation." Therefore John says that he is not worthy to bear the shoe which was reserved to the Apostles: for it is a greater office to evangelize than to baptize; 1 Corinthians 1:17: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Are the Apostles, then, greater than John? Not by merit, but by the office of the New Testament. And according to this sense it is said below, 11:11: "he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Or, otherwise, according to Chrysostom: the feet are the Apostles, and his other servants, among whom John was. The shoe is their infirmity: because just as the beauty of the feet is not known so long as they are covered by the shoe, so is the beauty of the Apostles; 2 Corinthians 12:9: "gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me." "Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear": because neither he himself, nor the Apostles, reckon themselves worthy to be ministers of the Gospel of Christ; 2 Corinthians 3:4-5: "such confidence we have, through Christ, toward God: not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God." If, then, he signifies diverse things according to the mystery, which of these did John say? It must be said, according to Augustine, that if the words of John are referred to diverse things, then he said both. Or that John, preaching to the crowds, said one thing at one time, and another at another. Consequently he treats of the office of Christ. And first of the office of baptizing; second of the office of judging, at "whose fan is in his hand." He says, then, "he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." Many books have "and fire." But they speak after the manner of the Greeks, who lack an ablative. And he says "in the Holy Spirit and fire": in which it is given to be understood that the Baptism of Christ has more than the Baptism of John, because it adds to that, since Christ baptizes in water and spirit; John 3:5: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." But note that, when he says "he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit," he insinuates that there is to be had an abundance of the Holy Spirit, by which those who have it are wholly washed clean; Acts 1:5: "but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." He insinuates also an easy transformation. "And fire." This is expounded in many ways. Jerome says that the same thing is designated by the Holy Spirit and by fire; Luke 12:49: "I have come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?" That is, the Holy Spirit. And therefore he also appeared in fire; Acts 2:3: "and there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire." According to Chrysostom, present tribulation is signified by fire, which purges sins; Ecclesiasticus 27:6 [5]: "the furnace tries the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction just men." But it should be known that he says this Baptism to be necessary, because the Baptism of the Holy Spirit restrains the mind, lest it be overcome by temptations, but does not wholly take away the seeds of the flesh: and therefore tribulation is necessary, because the flesh, then worn down, will not sprout concupiscence. The fire, then, that refines the flesh is necessary. Or by fire is understood the future purging in Purgatory; 1 Corinthians 3:13: "of what sort it is, the fire shall try." Hilary, however, expounds it of the fire of Hell, and says that in saying this, "he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire," he intends two things, namely the salvation which he effects in the present and in the future. In the future he will purge by the fire of Hell, insofar as he will draw off the wicked; and this agrees with what follows, "but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Consequently it is treated of the power of judging, "whose fan is in his hand." And first the power of judging is touched on; second the effect of the judgment; third the manner of the judgment. He says, then, "whose fan," and he uses a similitude. The threshing floor is called the Church; the grain, the faithful, who will be gathered together by the angels; Luke 10:2: "pray the Lord of the harvest, that he send laborers into his harvest"; John 4:34: "he who sent me, that I may perfect his work." The fan is the judicial power of Christ, which will discern the wheat from the chaff; John 5:22: "the Father has given all judgment to the Son"; Acts 10:42: "it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead." "He will thoroughly cleanse," that is, he will cleanse perfectly. First through tribulations, which are as it were a certain wind, which, if it is not present, the chaff is together with the wheat: so too, as long as they are in the Church, the good are not discerned from the wicked; and just as by a lesser wind the light chaff is driven out, and by a strong one the heavier, so in the Church, if tribulation grows, even those who seem firm fall; Luke 8:13: "they believe for a time, and in time of temptation they fall away." Second, through the sentences of prelates, namely when they excommunicate; 1 Corinthians 5:13: "take away the evil one from among yourselves." Third, on the day of judgment, when the good will be separated from the wicked; below, 25:32. "He will gather his wheat into the barn," namely of Paradise, "wheat," that is, the elect; Psalm 105:47 [106:47]: "save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations." "But the chaff he will burn." And note that there is a difference between chaff and cockle: for the seed of chaff and of cockle is not the same, because the seed of chaff is the same as that of wheat. Hence by cockle we can understand schismatics, who do not communicate with us in the sacraments; by chaff, the faithful, though wicked. But both will be burned with fire. "With unquenchable fire"; Isaiah, last chapter, 24: "their fire shall not be quenched." And he says "unquenchable," to distinguish it from the fire of Purgatory. Concerning this fire, below, 25:41: "depart, you cursed, into everlasting fire," and so on.”

“Above, the Evangelist introduced John baptizing; now he introduces Christ coming to the baptism of John. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the things that preceded the baptism; second, the things that followed upon the baptism, at the words but Jesus, having been baptized. Concerning the first, four things are set down. First, Christ's wondrous humility; second, the admiration at that humility; third, Christ's satisfaction given to that admiration; fourth, John's consent to that satisfaction. The second is at but John was preventing him; the third at but Jesus, answering; the fourth at then he permitted him. Concerning the first, four things are set down: the time, the persons, the places, and the office. The time, when he says then, namely, while John still had his own light. For just as the sun rises while Lucifer still appears, so did Christ while John was preaching and baptizing, Luke 3:21. Job 38:32: "Canst thou bring forth Lucifer in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth?" Or then, when Christ was in his thirtieth year, Luke 3:23, so as to give one to understand that no one ought to take up the office of preaching and of prelacy before a mature age. Or then, when according to the course of others he could have committed many sins. Hence he did not wish to be baptized at once, but for a long time kept the law, as one placed under the law, and so that the Jews might have no occasion for scandal, since he did not come to dissolve the law, below 5:17. But it might seem to someone that Christ delayed being baptized because he could not have fulfilled the law; and this is why he wished to observe it for so long, and why he was not baptized so quickly. The persons are set down when it is said Jesus came to John — the Lord to the servant, the Creator to the creature; below 11:29: "Learn from me, because I am meek and humble of heart." The places, from Galilee. These things agree mystically with the baptized, because Galilee signifies a passing-over: for it is fitting that the baptized pass over from vices to virtues; 1 Peter 2:1: "Laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions." Likewise, into the Jordan. Jordan is interpreted as descent, and signifies the humility that ought to be present in the one being baptized so that grace may be received; James 4:6: "But to the humble he giveth grace." The office is set down, that he might be baptized. God willed to be baptized by John for four reasons. First, so that the baptism of John might be preserved in honor, because some were disparaging it, below 21:24. Second, so that by his touch he might consecrate all water; and therefore baptism is said to be made from the fountains of the savior; Isaiah 12:3: "You shall draw waters with joy out of the saviour's fountains." Third, so that he might demonstrate in himself the true condition of man, because just as he was in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3, so he willed to be cleansed as though a sinner. Fourth, so that he might impose upon others the necessity of being baptized: for he wished first to keep what he imposed; Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach," against those of whom it is said below, 23:4: "They bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them." Next the admiration is set down. And note three things. For first John refuses the honor offered to him; second he confesses his own humility; third his own weakness. The second is at but John was preventing him; Ecclesiasticus 7:4: "Seek not of man the leadership, nor of a king the seat of honor." The third is at I ought to be baptized by thee. For he knew that Christ baptized inwardly; and therefore he speaks of being baptized, that is, cleansed from original sin — so says the Gloss. But against this, one might object, since John was sanctified in the womb. But it must be said that before the coming of Christ some were in a certain way cleansed as to the infection of the person, through circumcision and the like; but as to guilt and the infection of the whole nature, no one was cleansed before the passion of Christ. And comest thou to me? Psalm 138:6: "Thy knowledge is become wonderful to me: it is high, and I cannot reach to it." Next Christ's satisfaction is set down. Note that John had done one thing, in that he was preventing him; and he had said two things: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And yet Christ did not answer to the one, namely to this: I by thee; but he answered to that which he was preventing, whence: suffer it to be so now. And he says now, because, according to Chrysostom, John was afterward baptized by Christ, not only with the baptism of the spirit, but also of water. Or suffer it to be so now, he says this because John was afterward baptized with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Or suffer it to be so now, that I may be baptized with the baptism of water, because I have another baptism with which to be baptized, namely the baptism of the passion; Luke 12:50: "I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished?" And with this baptism too John was baptized by Christ, inasmuch as he died for justice, which is the same as to die for Christ. Or suffer it to be so now, meaning: while I bear the form of a servant, let me fulfill the office of humility; because when I shall appear glorious, then I will baptize thee with the baptism of glory. Next Christ answers the admiration, and says thus: for so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Which is expounded in three ways. First, thus it becometh us to fulfil all justice, namely through baptism: for it was to come to pass that Christ would fulfill all justice, both of the law and of nature; but he willed to fulfill it by this way, because without baptism it is not fulfilled; John 3:3: "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," etc. Remigius expounds it thus: thus it becometh us to fulfil all justice — it becomes me to give an example of this sacrament, in which the fullness of all justice is given, because the fullness of grace and of the other virtues is given; Psalm 64:10: "The river of God is filled with water," namely of graces. Or thus: thus it becometh us etc., that is, it becomes me to have perfect humility. The first degree is not to prefer oneself to an equal, and to subject oneself to a greater, which indeed is a matter of necessity. The second, when one subjects oneself to an equal. But the perfect degree is when a superior subjects himself to an inferior: and this is thus it becometh us etc., that is, to fulfill perfect humility. But since there was such a contest of wills between them, Christ prevailed. Hence then he permitted him, etc., that is, he permitted that he be baptized by him. The Gloss: true humility is that which obedience does not forsake; for to resist stubbornly belongs to pride. 1 Kings 15:23: "As the sin of witchcraft, is to rebel," that is, to refuse to acquiesce; for thus are Jeremiah and Moses praised, who in the end gave their consent. Next, when it says but Jesus, having been baptized, forthwith came out of the water, four things consequent upon the baptism are set down. And it should be known that just as Christ in his own baptism gave an example of baptizing for others, so in the things following upon the baptism he gave us to understand what we should follow after. Now there are four consequent things, namely the ascent of Christ, the opening of heaven, the appearance of the Holy Spirit, and the declaration of the Father. The first is at but Jesus, having been baptized, forthwith came out of the water. And to the letter this is said because the river had deep channels. In this, however, it is signified that those who are baptized ascend by good works. And he says forthwith, because those baptized immediately put on Christ in Christ; Galatians 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Likewise they obtain a heavenly inheritance; 1 Peter 1:3: "He hath regenerated us unto a lively hope... unto an inheritance incorruptible": and this is and the heavens were opened. This is not to be understood corporeally, but by an imaginary vision. And the heavens were opened to him. And this signifies that heaven had been closed to the human race through sin; Genesis 3:24: "And he placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." It is said that he placed the Seraphim, but it was opened through Christ. But it is asked, why were the heavens opened to him, since they had always been open to him? And it must be said, according to Chrysostom, that the Evangelist speaks according to the common manner of speaking, because by the merit of his baptism the heavens were opened to us: just as a king, when a friend of his asks a favor on behalf of another, says: I grant this to you. And it should be known that there are three kinds of men who fly straight to heaven immediately after death: those baptized, as here; martyrs, whence Acts 7:56: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God"; and those who have completed penance, of whom it is said, Acts 10:19, that to Peter praying heaven was opened. Next the appearance of the Holy Spirit is set down; hence: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. This is what is fitting for the baptized, who receive the Holy Spirit into themselves; John 3:6: "That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit," that is, is spiritual. And he saw — not by an imaginary vision, otherwise he alone would have seen it — the Spirit of God, that is, the dove. And it should be known that nothing corporeal is said of God according to his substance, but either through an imaginary vision, Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated," etc., or through signification, 1 Corinthians 10:4: "And the rock was Christ," or through assumption into the unity of the person, John 1:14: "The Word was made flesh." But in none of these ways is the Holy Spirit called a dove. That it is not by an imaginary vision is clear, because it was seen commonly by all. Not by signification, because it had not previously existed as such. Not by assumption into the unity of the person. And therefore there is a fourth way, which is when some species is newly formed for the representation of divine effects, as in Exodus 3:2 the Lord appeared in fire and a bush; and in the giving of the law, in lightning and thunder, Exodus 19:16. Hence the dove served to represent the influence of the Holy Spirit: and this is and he saw the Spirit of God descending. Now he appeared in the form of a dove for four reasons. First, on account of charity; for the dove is a loving animal. Chrysostom: "Even the servant of the devil has, in pretense, other gifts which the servant of God has in truth: only the charity of the Holy Spirit can the unclean spirit not imitate." Song of Songs 5:2: "Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled." Second, on account of innocence and simplicity; below 10:16: "Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and simple as doves." Third, because it has a moaning in place of song; and man, sanctified through the Holy Spirit, ought to groan for his sins; Nahum 2:7: "And her handmaids led her away mourning, as doves." Fourth, on account of fecundity. Whence also it was commanded in the law that they should offer a dove: and this befits the baptized, because, as John 3:6 says, "that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." Descending as a dove. The emanation of divine gifts from God into any creature whatsoever is always by way of descent, because a creature cannot receive except by a descent into it; James 1:17: "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." And coming upon him. Note: a visible mission is always a sign of an invisible mission, and it signifies either grace newly received or an increase of grace: just as in the apostles, when the Holy Spirit appeared in tongues, it signified an increase of grace. Likewise such a mission signifies either grace then made, or grace made before. In Christ, however, it did not signify a new effect, because from the instant of his conception he was full of grace and truth; but the grace which then rested upon him was so inasmuch as he was man, not inasmuch as he was God. Next, when it says and behold a voice from heaven, saying, the declaration of the Father is set down: this is my beloved Son. Note that baptism makes men not only spiritual, but also sons of God; John 1:12: "He gave them power to be made the sons of God." And it should be known that this voice, as it were, expresses that which the dove signified. Beloved — not as other creatures are, Wisdom 2:13, but as a natural son; John 5:20: "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder." This is also signified by Psalm 2:7: "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." But because the saints too are loved by him, he adds Son, by which he distinguishes the Son, according to one understanding, from the others. In whom I am well pleased. For in whomever the good of someone shines forth, in that one something is pleasing to himself, just as a craftsman is pleased with himself in his own beautiful work, and as when a man sees his own beautiful image in a mirror. The divine goodness is present in every particular creature; but it is never wholly perfect except in the Son and the Holy Spirit; and therefore the whole is not pleasing to himself except in the Son, who has as much of goodness as the Father: and this is in whom, that is, I am well pleased in myself in him; John 3:35: "The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand." But note that a certain contrariety seems to exist between this Evangelist and the others, because Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 say, "Thou art my beloved son"; but Matthew says, "This is my beloved son," and, "in whom." But the meaning is the same, because what is said, thou art, seemed to be said directly to Christ; but he said it on account of others, because Christ was certain of the Father's love. And therefore Matthew expressed the intention of the one speaking, and says this is, etc. Hence he shows it to have been said, as it were, to others; thus said Augustine. Likewise it is asked, why do Matthew and Mark say in whom I am, while Luke says in thee? Augustine says that the Father is pleased in the Son both in himself and for the sake of men. On account of this, therefore, what is said, in whom, signifies that he is pleased in men. Hence, that he may please others through me, that is, to my honor, because some, seeing the Son, glorified the Father. Or according to both senses: in whom I am well pleased, that is, my pleasure was to fulfill the salvation of men: and this is in thee, that is, through thee. And note that in this baptism there is represented not only the end and the fruit, but also the form of baptism, which is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, below. For the Son was in the flesh, the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. And note that this — that they occurred separately — does not pertain to a division of the operation of the persons of the Trinity, since, just as there is a common essence, so too there is a common operation; but this is said on account of a certain appropriation, because the whole Trinity both created that dove and created the flesh; but these things are referred to the different persons.”

“Above it was shown that Christ prepared himself for teaching by receiving Baptism; but now he does so by overcoming temptation. Concerning this he does two things: first the victory which he had over the temptation is set forth; second, how he called the disciples to hear his teaching, at the passage "And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee." Concerning the first he does three things: first he sets forth certain preambles about the temptation; second the assault of the temptation is set forth, at "And the tempter coming approached and said"; third the victory, at "Then the Devil left him." Now three preambles are set forth, namely the place, the fasting, and the experience of hunger. As to the first, four things are touched upon: the time and the place, the leader, and the purpose of this leading. The time is "then," namely when it was already being declared by the Father's voice that he was the Son of God. In this he gives us to understand that temptation threatens those who are made sons of God through Baptism; Ecclesiasticus 2:1: "Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation." This desert was between Jerusalem and Jericho, where many were killed, concerning which Luke 10:30: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having inflicted wounds went away, leaving him half-dead." And note five reasons why anyone is tempted after receiving spiritual grace. The first, that he may receive proof of his own righteousness; Ecclesiasticus 34:9: "He that hath not been tempted, what manner of things doth he know?" Second, to repress pride; 2 Corinthians 12:7: "Lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me," etc. Third, to confound the Devil, that he may know how great the power of Christ is, so that he cannot overcome it. An example of this is found in Job 1:8: "Hast thou considered my servant Job?" etc. Fourth, that he may be rendered stronger, just as soldiers are rendered strong through experience; Judges 3, asking why he willed to leave the enemies remaining among the children of Israel. Fifth, that he may know his own dignity: for when the Devil attacks someone, this redounds to his honor, since the Devil attacks the holy; Job 40:10: "his food is grass," and he "trusteth that the Jordan may run into his mouth." Next follows, concerning the place: "Then Jesus was led into the desert." This fits both what precedes and what follows: for it was fitting that after Baptism he should enter the desert. This is signified in the people of Israel, who after the crossing of the Red Sea, which was a figure of Baptism, came into the land of promise through the desert and solitude: so too the baptized ought to seek a solitary and quiet life, forsaking the world in body, or in mind; Hosea 2:14: "I will lead her into solitude, and I will speak to her heart." Psalm 54:8: "Behold I have gone far off flying away, and I abode in the wilderness." For it was fitting that he should go out into the desert, as it were to a single combat with the Devil. Chrysostom: he goes into the desert who goes out beyond the bounds (that is, the will) of the flesh and the world, where there is no place for temptation. For how is he tempted to lust, who is all day with his wife? But those who do not go out from the will of the flesh and the world are not sons of God, but sons of the Devil, who, even having their own wife, desire another's; but the sons of God, having the Holy Spirit, are led into the desert, that they may be tempted together with Christ, concerning which it follows: "he was led by the Spirit" — understand, the Holy Spirit. But he who leads is greater than the one who is led. Therefore the Holy Spirit is greater than Christ. It must be answered: if it is referred to Jesus insofar as he is the Son of God, then he is equal to the Holy Spirit. And one can lead another either by command, and thus he is greater; or by exhortation, and thus he is equal; John 1:40 and following, Andrew led Peter to Jesus; and it is in this way that Jesus was led. Hilary refers it to Christ according as he is man: namely, the Holy Spirit exposed to temptation the man whom he had filled. For men are then led by the Holy Spirit when they are moved by charity, in such a way that they are moved not by their own motion but by another's, because they follow the impulse of charity; 2 Corinthians 5:14: "the charity of God presseth us." And thus the sons of God are driven by the Holy Spirit, so that they may pass through the time of this life, which is full of temptations — Job 7:1: "temptation is the life of man upon the earth" — with victory, through the power of Christ. For he himself willed to be tempted, so that just as by his death he conquered our death, so by his temptation he might overcome all our temptations; Hebrews 4:15: "We have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things after our likeness, without sin." Gregory says that there is a threefold degree of temptation, namely by suggestion, delight, and consent. The first is from without, and can be without sin; the second is from within, in which sin begins to be; which indeed is completed through consent. The first degree could be in Christ, not the others. And note that the Devil would not have dared to approach to tempt Christ, unless Christ had first approached him. Consequently the second preamble is set forth, namely the fasting — "and when he had fasted," etc. — which fits both what precedes and what follows: what precedes, because it is fitting that someone fast after Baptism, since after Baptism one ought not be given over to idleness, but should be exercised in good works; Galatians 5:13: "But you, brethren, have been called unto liberty"; but true liberty is not to be committed to the carnal life. Likewise it was fitting for what follows, that he whom the Devil was about to tempt should fast, because "this kind of demons is not cast out except by prayer and fasting" (Matthew 17:20 below). "Forty days." This is to be understood literally. And he adds "and nights," lest some believe that it was permitted to eat at night, as the Saracens do. And it must be known that this number is prefigured in the Old Testament in Moses and Elijah, Exodus 24:18, and 3 Kings 19:8. And a mystery lies hidden in this, because a number of this sort arises from ten multiplied by four. Ten signifies the law, because in the ten commandments the whole law is contained. Four signifies the composition of the flesh, because the flesh is composed of four elements. Since therefore we transgress the divine law through the suggestion of the flesh, it is just that we should afflict our flesh for forty days. According to Gregory, however, this number was instituted by the Church for fasting, because by this we pay the tithes of the whole year: for from the first Sunday up to Easter there are thirty-six fast days, which are a tenth part of the year itself, six days being excepted. And therefore of old a half day was added by some, who fasted until the middle of the night of Holy Saturday. A third preamble is added, because "afterward he hungered." This is not read of Moses and Elijah, who were mere men; but Christ willed to hunger, in order to demonstrate his humanity; because otherwise the Devil would not have dared to approach to tempt him; Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man." Consequently the assault of the temptation is set forth; and it is threefold. The first concerning gluttony; the second concerning vainglory; the third concerning ambition. The second at "Then the Devil took him up into the holy city." The third at "Again the Devil took him up into an exceeding high mountain." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the assault of the Devil; second, how Christ answered, at "Who answering," etc. "And the tempter coming approached, said." For this could be brought about, that he himself should approach Jesus in some bodily form. And temptation is threefold: for God tempts in order to instruct; Genesis 22:1: "God tempted Abraham." Sometimes man tempts in order to learn, just as the queen of Sheba tempted Solomon, 3 Kings 10:1, where it is said of her: "And the queen of Sheba, having heard of the fame of Solomon, came to tempt him with riddles." The Devil tempts in order to deceive; 1 Thessalonians 3:5: "lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you." Whoever wishes to test someone regarding knowledge first tests concerning common things. Now the common vices of the whole human race are the vices of the flesh, and especially gluttony. Likewise, he who wishes to besiege a stronghold begins from the weaker part; but man has two parts, the carnal and the spiritual. The Devil always tempts from the weaker part: hence he first tempts concerning carnal vices, as is evident in the first parent, whom he first tempted concerning gluttony. But a wonderful cunning is to be noted in his tempting: "If thou be the Son of God" — for he tempted directly concerning one thing, in such a way that obliquely he tempted concerning another. Hence in the first man he urged that he eat of the tree, which pertained directly to a carnal sin, namely gluttony; but secretly he was leading him on to pride and avarice, which are spiritual sins; hence he said, "And you shall be as gods," Genesis 3:5. So too in Christ: for he had heard that Christ was to come into the world, and this one seemed to be the Son of God; but he had come into doubt whether this was the one of whom it had been prophesied, because he found nothing in him; John 14:30: "The prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing." Hence he was suggesting what is delightful to a hungry man. Likewise he led him on to desire the things that are God's; and this is: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." Ecclesiastes 8:4: "his word is full of power"; and Psalm 32:6: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth." Therefore a stone can be changed by his word. Therefore he wished to incline him to this: that if he did it, he would know him to be the Son of God; if not, he was leading him toward arrogance. And it must be noted that there are many men who consent to carnal sins, reckoning that they need not thereby lose their spiritual state. But if, in that in which a man is tempted and consents, he would not lose his spirituality, the temptation would be light. Thus the Devil wished to persuade the woman, and Christ, promising spiritual things. "Who answering said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live." In this response he gives three lessons, which are to be practiced by the one tempted. The first, that he should have recourse to the medicine of Scripture; Psalm 118:11: "In my heart I have hidden thy words, that I may not sin against thee," etc. Hence he said, "It is written." The second lesson, that man should do nothing at the Devil's bidding. Vegetius: a wise commander ought never to do anything at the bidding of his enemy, even if it should seem good. And therefore the Lord, though he could without sin change stones into bread, was unwilling, because it was that one who was suggesting it. The third is, that one ought not act without benefit, for the display of one's own power, since this is vanity. "Who answering said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live." It must be noted that the Devil was striving toward two things: first, to lead him into an affection for carnal things; likewise toward presumption. But Christ, against each of these, first avoids boastfulness; as if he were to say: you call me the Son of God, I name myself a man; hence, "Not in bread alone doth man live." Likewise, the Devil draws toward an affection for carnal things: "Command that these stones be made bread"; here he draws himself toward an affection for spiritual things: "but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." As if he were to say: bodily life is not to be sought after as much as spiritual life, which is preserved by spiritual food: "but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life"; Psalm 118:93: "Thy justifications I will never forget: for by them thou hast given me life." And he says "in every word," because all spiritual teaching is from God, whether it be spoken by man or by God. And again, "from the mouth": because the preacher is the mouth of God; Jeremiah 15:19: "If thou separate the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth." Or otherwise: "Not in bread alone" — that is, man does not live by bread alone, but he can also be preserved by the word, that is, by the command of God, without any food. "Then the Devil took him up into the holy city." The first temptation having been set forth, in which the Devil was conquered, now the second is set forth, namely concerning vainglory. And the order is fitting, that after the Devil saw himself defeated in the vice of the flesh, he should tempt concerning vainglory, or pride: for pride lies in wait for good works, that they may perish, as Augustine says in the Rule. Concerning this temptation, then, he does three things. First the place of the temptation is set forth; second the assault, or attempt, of the temptation, at "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down"; third the resistance of Christ, at "Jesus said to him." But it must be known that Luke set this as the third temptation, whereas here it is the reverse; but this makes no difference, according to Augustine: because all the things narrated here are also narrated in Luke, nor is it stated, either in Luke or here, which was first or second. Rabanus, however, says that Luke attended to the order of the history, and therefore arranged it thus, according to how it happened. Matthew, however, followed the nature of the temptation, because after the temptation of gluttony and of vainglory there follows the temptation of ambition: for thus was Adam tempted — first concerning gluttony, hence Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death"; second concerning glory: "You shall be as gods"; third concerning avarice, or ambition: "knowing good and evil." But why does he say "then he took him up"? For this word "taking up" implies force. And Jerome answers that the Evangelist says this according to the opinion of the Devil, because what Christ endured out of his own power, the Devil took as though he were doing it by his own power. He calls it "holy," either because holy things were done there — namely temporal sacrifices and the like — or he says it on account of the holiness of the fathers who were there. Hence, from ancient custom he calls it "holy," although the holiness had ceased; Isaiah 1:21: "How is the faithful city, that was full of judgment, become a harlot?" But afterward it says, "thou shalt be called the city of the just, the faithful city," etc. But it must be known that Mark 1:13 says that he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan. From which it seems that all the temptations were in the desert. Therefore it does not seem to be true what is said, "then the Devil took him up." And here there is a twofold response. Some say that all the temptations were in the desert, and that they occurred according to an imaginative vision, namely that Christ so imagined it, with his own permission. Others say that they occurred according to a bodily vision, and that the Devil appeared to him in bodily form. This seems to be implied, because it says that he took him up into the holy city. Some say that this pertains to the desert for this reason, that Jerusalem was deserted by God. But it is better to say that what is stated in Mark 1:13 is not to be understood as meaning that all the temptations were in the desert, nor does Mark even say this, but only that he was being tempted by Satan. And therefore it must be known that the first temptation was in the desert; the other two outside the desert. But it is asked how he "took him up." They say that he carried him upon himself. Others (and better), that by exhorting he induced him to go; and Christ, by the disposition of his own wisdom, went to Jerusalem. "And set him upon the pinnacle of the temple," etc. It must be known that it is read in 3 Kings, chapter 6, that Solomon made three stories in the temple with a flat roof, and certain pinnacles next to the temple, by which men could ascend; and it is concerning this that it is said here, "and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple." But whether he went up to the first, or the second, or the third, is not said here; but it is certain that he ascended some one of them. But did not men see, when the Devil was carrying Christ? It must be said, according to those who say that he was carrying him, that Christ by his own power brought it about that he could not be seen. Or it must be said that the Devil was in the form of a man, and it was the custom that men should ascend in this way. "And he said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down." The Devil always strikes with two arrows: on the one side he induces vainglory, on the other side, homicide; and this is: "If thou be the Son of God," etc. But certainly this consequence does not suit Christ, because it belongs to him to ascend; John 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven," etc. And he says "cast thyself down," because his intention is always to cast down, just as he himself was cast down; Apocalypse 12:4: "the tail of the dragon drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth." The Devil also betrays his own weakness, because no one is conquered by him unless he is willing; hence he says "cast thyself down," he does not cast him down; Isaiah 41:23: "Bow down, that we may go over." But why upon the pinnacle? The Gloss: because in that place they used to teach. Hence it signifies that the Devil tempts great men concerning vainglory. Against which the Apostle, 1 Thessalonians 2:6: "nor seeking glory of men, neither of you, nor of others." And he says "cast thyself down," etc., because men who seek glory must persuade to such a degree that they display the sonship of God as humble in many respects; and therefore Tully says in the book On Duties: the desire for glory must be guarded against, for it snatches away the freedom of the soul, for which every struggle ought to be waged by great-souled men. Consequently he brings in the authority, "it is written"; and he uses this not in order to teach, but in order to deceive; and from this an argument is drawn, that just as he transfigures himself into an angel of light, so also do his ministers, who use the authority of Sacred Scripture to deceive the simple; 2 Peter, last chapter, 16: "the unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction." Hence the Devil prefigured this in himself as in the head. "For he hath given his angels charge over thee." Note that one distorts the authority of Sacred Scripture in three ways: sometimes as when a thing is said of one and is expounded of another — as if it is said of some just man, and is expounded of Christ; for example: "Who could have transgressed, and hath not transgressed," Ecclesiasticus 31:10. Likewise John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I," this is said of Christ according as he is man. Hence if it is expounded of him according as he is the Son of God, the authority is distorted. So the Devil here says "his angels," because Psalm 90 says this of a member of Christ, who needs the guardianship of angels, which is evident because it adds, "lest perhaps thou dash thy foot": for this cannot be said of Christ, because he could not stumble by occasion of any sin. In the second way one distorts, when someone brings in the authority for something for which it is not an authority; as that text, Proverbs 25:21 and Romans 12:20: "If thy enemy be hungry, feed him," etc. For if someone does something to another so that the other might be punished by God, he acts against the sense of the authority. So too the Devil, because Scripture intends that the just man is so guarded by angels that he does not fall into danger; Psalm 9:10: "a helper in due time in tribulation," etc. But the Devil expounds it as meaning that a man should thrust himself into danger, which is to tempt God. In the third way, when one takes from an authority what is in his favor, and leaves aside what is against him — which is the way of the heretic: thus the Devil did here, because he left aside what follows, which was against him, namely: "Thou shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and thou shalt trample under foot the lion and the dragon." Hence he became the model of all who distort the Scriptures. "The Lord said to him." He defends himself not by violence, but by wisdom; Wisdom 7:30: "wisdom is not overcome by malice." And therefore against that authority he sets an authority which explains the one already cited; as if he were to say: you tell me to cast myself down, that I may see whether God will rescue me; but this is forbidden in Scripture; hence, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," Deuteronomy 6:16. Or otherwise: you are tempting, and in tempting you are acting against the authority; but he who acts against the authority ought not to use the authority of Sacred Scripture. And Scripture says, "thou shalt not tempt," etc. But you are tempting the Lord thy God, who am I; John 13:13: "You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am," etc. Nevertheless, the first explanation is more literal. Consequently the third temptation is set forth, namely concerning ambition, or avarice; hence, "Again the devil took him up." And the assault of the temptation is set forth; second, the resistance of Christ, at "Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan." Now the Devil tempts in two ways, by deed and by word; hence, "all these will I give thee," etc. In the deed, two things are to be considered: for first he took him up onto a mountain; second he showed him all the kingdoms of the world. He says, then, "then he took him up." Concerning the "taking up" it has been said above; but this, namely "onto a mountain," can be explained in two ways. Rabanus says that this mountain was in the desert, because according to him all the temptations were in the desert. It is called "high" in comparison to some other mountains that were round about. Chrysostom, however, says that he led him to the greatest mountain in the world; and this seems to be what the letter of the text conveys, since it says "exceeding high." In this, however, it is signified that the Devil always raises up toward pride, just as he himself is proud; Jeremiah 13:16: "before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains." Hence too it is called a mountain; Jeremiah 1:15: "For behold I will call together all the families of the kingdoms of the north, saith the Lord." "And he shewed him all the kingdoms of the world." It must be known that "the kingdom of the world" is taken in two ways. First, spiritually: and thus the Devil is said to reign in it; John 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Second, according to the letter, "the kingdom of the world" is said according as one reigns over another. Now what is said here seems to some to be said of the kingdom of the Devil; hence "he shewed him all the kingdoms of the world" — namely those over which he reigned — "and the glory of them," etc., because when he reigns perfectly over men, he even makes them glory; Proverbs 2:14: "who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things"; Psalm 51:3: "Why dost thou glory in malice?" And this is the last degree of sin. Others explain it of a carnal kingdom. But then it is asked how he could show all the kingdoms of the world. Remigius says, miraculously: for he showed all the kingdoms in the twinkling of an eye, just as it is also read of blessed Benedict, that the whole world was shown to him in a single glance. But it must be known that these two explanations do not seem good, because there would have been no need to say that he took him up onto an exceeding high mountain, since all this could have been done in a valley. Hence Chrysostom says otherwise: "he shewed him" — not that he showed him each single kingdom, but toward what quarter each kingdom lay; and not only this, but he "shewed him the glory of them," that is, he set forth to him the temporal glory of the world; Hosea 4:7: "I will change their glory into shame"; Philippians 3:19: "glory is in the confusion of those who mind earthly things." "And he said to him: All these will I give thee." In these words he does two things: he promises one thing, and demands another: and in the promise he is a liar, in the demand he is proud. The Devil at first tested whether he was the Son of God; now believing that he had already ascertained that he was not, he says, "all these will I give thee," etc.; wherein he is a liar, because these things were not in his own power; Proverbs 8:15: "By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Daniel 4:14: "till the living know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and he will give it to whomsoever he will"; otherwise he would not have said "all these will I give thee"; for no evil man reigns except by divine permission; Job 34:30: "Who maketh a man that is a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people." He demanded another thing; hence, "if falling down thou wilt adore me." Note three things. First, that the Devil always perseveres in that which he desired from the beginning; Isaiah 14:13-14: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High." And for this reason he leads men on to idolatry, wishing to usurp for himself what belongs to God. Likewise note that no one adores the Devil unless he falls, just as the Devil himself fell; Daniel 3:7: "falling down they adored the golden statue." And therefore he says, "if falling down thou wilt adore me." Third, note that here there is avarice. Hence he promises a kingdom, in which is understood an abundance of riches, and an excellence of honors. And he asks that he fall down: because the ambitious always humble themselves beyond what is fitting. Hence Ambrose: ambition has a danger native to itself: it bends in servility, that it may be granted honor; and while it wishes to be lofty, it becomes cast down. Consequently the detection of the enemy is set forth; hence, "Then Jesus saith to him"; and concerning this he does two things. First he checks the temptation; second he brings in an authority, at "it is written," etc. He says, then, "Then Jesus saith to him." Note that Christ had heard many insults, but did not concern himself. But this, "if falling down thou wilt adore me," he did not endure: because the earlier ones redounded to an injury of himself, but this one to an injury of God. Hence Chrysostom: one's own injury is to be borne; to disregard an injury to God is exceedingly impious. And therefore he says, "Begone, Satan." 3 Kings 19:10: "With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant"; Psalm 68:10: "the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up." Likewise, note that it is not in the Devil's power to tempt as much as he wishes, but only as much as God permits; hence he says "Begone"; as if he were to say: I do not wish you to tempt any further; 1 Corinthians 10:13: "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it"; Job 38:11: "Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves." And it must be noted that the Lord said almost similar words to Peter below, Matthew 16:23. But there he said "behind me." Hence the meaning is different here and there: because "Satan" is interpreted "adversary." The Lord therefore willed that Peter, who wished to hinder his Passion, should go behind him; but here he says only "go," because the Devil cannot follow him; and therefore he says "go" — namely, to Hell; Matthew 25:41 below: "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the Devil and his angels." "It is written"; Deuteronomy 6:16. And he frequently brings in such authorities from Deuteronomy, in order to signify that the teaching of the New Testament is signified through Deuteronomy. What follows, "the Lord thy God," can be inferred in two ways; as if he were to say: you, Devil, say that I should fall down and adore you; but the Law says, "Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God." Hence it can be brought in to show that a mere man ought not to be adored. Or it must be taken that he speaks of himself as of God: "Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God," etc., as if he were to say: you ought rather to adore me, than the other way round, because it is written, etc. Nevertheless, the first is more literal. And note that he says two things, namely "thou shalt adore" and "thou shalt serve": and there is a difference between these. For man ought to relate himself to God in two ways: because he ought to be subject to him, and he ought to raise himself up to him as to his last end. As to the first, we owe him all obedience; Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God, rather than men." For then we are subject to him, when we do his whole will. But we are raised up to God in two ways: for sometimes we draw ourselves to him; Psalm 33:6: "Come ye to him and be enlightened: and your faces shall not be confounded"; sometimes we draw others to him; 1 Corinthians 3:9: "for we are God's coadjutors." We demonstrate each of these sensibly: because while we make prostrations, we admonish ourselves that we ought to be subject to God; and therefore he says, "the Lord God"; Psalm 71:11: "all nations shall serve him." Likewise, in that we offer sacrifices and praises, we signify that we ought to raise up our mind to him: and to this pertains service; and this is, "and him only shalt thou serve." And there is a twofold service: one which is owed to God alone; and this in Greek is called latria; and this is itself twofold. For one kind is adoration which is owed to God alone, which consists in serving him above all things; another service is that we should tend toward him as toward our last end. There is also an adoration or service which belongs only to subjects, as when inferiors serve their superiors; Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers." But one ought not obey a superior above all things, because never against God. Likewise there is no creature which ought to be held as the last end; Psalm 145:3: "Put not your trust in princes: in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation." Jeremiah 17:5: "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man." There is also a second service, which is owed to prelates; which in Greek is called dulia. Consequently the victory of Christ is set forth, and it is intimated in two things. In the departure of the Devil: "Then the Devil left him." James 4:7: "Resist the devil, and he will fly from you." And just as it was the custom among the ancients that when some had a victory, they were honored, so here the triumph of Christ is celebrated by the angels. Hence, "and behold angels came and ministered to him." He does not say "descended," because they were always with him, even though for a time they withdrew by his own will, so that the Devil might have opportunity for tempting: for they showed their service in external things, namely in miracles, and other bodily things which are done through the mediation of angels; for in interior things he had no need of them. In this it is signified that men who overcome the Devil merit the ministry of angels; Luke 16:22: "it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom." And it must be known that the Devil left Christ only for a time: because afterward he made use of the Jews as his own members to attack him, etc.”

“Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was tested and approved, namely by overcoming the Devil; here he shows how Christ began to teach: and concerning this he does three things. For first the place in which he preaches is described; second he shows how he chose the ministers of his preaching, at the words "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers"; third, how he drew the crowd to listen, at the words "And Jesus went about all Galilee." Concerning the first, he describes the time, the place, and the manner of preaching; the second at the words "He withdrew into Galilee," etc.; the third at the words "and from that time Jesus began to preach." This time of Christ's public preaching was after the imprisonment of John; hence he says, "Now when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up"—namely by God, since it was by his permission. And it should be noted, for the understanding of the Gospels, that here there seems to be a certain contrariety between John and the other three: for they say that Christ went down to Capernaum after the imprisonment of John, whereas John says that he went down to Capernaum before the imprisonment of John—which imprisonment, however, took place in Galilee. The answer is that John, who was the last, supplied those things that had been omitted by the others. But why did they omit them? It must be said that although Christ did certain things in the first two years, he had nevertheless done few things in comparison with those that were done in the last year. Therefore it must be said that John speaks of the things he did in the first and second years, and some things of the third; but these others speak of what was done in the last year. Again, the question is asked for how many years Christ preached. Some say two years and a half, the half being computed from the Epiphany to the Passover, although it is not complete; for John made mention of only three Passovers, since after the Baptism he says that he went up to Jerusalem, John 2:13. Afterward he makes mention of the Passover when the miracle of the five loaves was worked, and after that there was one more year until the Passion. But this opinion does not seem to be true, inasmuch as it does not agree with the opinion of the Church; for the Church holds that three miracles were worked on the day of the Epiphany, namely the adoration of the Magi, the Baptism, and the changing of water into wine. It is necessary, therefore, to say that from the Baptism to the changing of water into wine there was one year. Hence it appears that Christ preached for three years, since up to the miracle of the wine there was one year; and from there to the Passover there was another half year; and from the Purification another year up to the Passion—for so the Church holds. And according to this it must be said that John says little about the first year; but of the second he says something, namely how he went down to Capernaum, and about the question that arose concerning purification between Christ himself and the Jews. It must also be known that John was killed about Passover time; for it is read in John 6:4 that when the miracle of the five loaves was worked, the Passover was near; and in Matthew 14:13 it is said that Christ, having heard of the death of John, withdrew into Galilee. It is clear, therefore, that John was beheaded about Passover time, and that Christ carried on his public preaching for only one year. Then the place is treated, where it is said, "He withdrew into Galilee." And first the place is treated with respect to the province, and second with respect to the city. He says, then, "he withdrew"; this withdrawal is not the first one of which John speaks, but it took place after one or two years, since the Evangelists are silent about this earlier one. Now he withdrew for two reasons. First, that he might defer the time of his Passion; John 7:6: "My time is not yet come." Second, for our example, namely that we might flee persecutions; John 15:20: "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." But in a mystical sense it makes clear that the preaching of Christ was to pass over to the Gentiles, because the Jews were persecuting the grace of God; Acts 13:46: "To you it behooved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles." Now coming into Galilee he came first to Nazareth, as Luke says in 4:18ff., and there he entered the synagogue and taught, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." And from there the Jews led him to the brow of the hill, and wished to cast him down; and afterward Christ fled and came to Capernaum, and there he immediately healed a man possessed by a demon, concerning whom Mark 1:23 speaks. But Matthew omits this. Now Nazareth is interpreted "flower." By this are understood the doctors of the law, who do not come to maturity. For Capernaum is interpreted "most beautiful village," and signifies the Church; Song of Songs 6:3: "You are beautiful, my love," and so on. Capernaum is, in the literal sense, maritime, since it lies alongside a certain freshwater lake; for the Jews call every gathering of waters a sea. And in a mystical sense, because the Church is situated alongside the tribulations of the world. "In the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim." For Galilee was divided, and one part was in the tribe of Zabulon and Nephthalim. For from there the princes of the Church, namely the apostles, were chosen. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet." Note that it is not said here just as in Isaiah 9:1; but only the sense is given. Isaiah has it thus: "At the first time the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim was made light, and at the last was heavily loaded, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, of Galilee of the Gentiles: the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light," and so on. And it is explained in three ways according to Jerome. First, thus: at the first time it was made light by the preaching of Christ from sins, and at the last the way that is by the sea of Galilee was made heavy with the burden of sins, because after the preaching of Christ they persecuted the apostles. Or otherwise: "At the first time." He touches on the history: for Tiglath-Pileser, king of the Assyrians, who first came upon the land of the Jews, first led those tribes into captivity. And this is "at the first time it was made light," because then the sinners were first led into captivity. And "at the last," etc., because afterward the whole people was led into captivity. But what has this to do with the matter at hand? It must be said that where the persecution first began, there the Lord wished first to give consolation. Or otherwise: "At the first time," that is, at the time of Christ's preaching, "it was made light," that is, unburdened of the weight of sins through the preaching of Christ; and "at the last it was made heavy," that is, Christ's preaching was made dense and multiplied through Paul, who preached there. For the Evangelist gives only the sense in his construction: "the land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan," that is, alongside the sea. And he says "land," that is, the people, so that all might be named. And he says "Galilee of the Gentiles," because Galilee is divided into two parts: one of the Gentiles, the other of the Jews; and it was so divided at that time according to what is said in 3 Kings 9:11, that Solomon, on account of the timber which the king of Tyre had sent to him for the building of the temple, gave him twenty cities; and since he was a Gentile, he settled Gentiles there to dwell; and therefore it is called "Galilee of the Gentiles," and it was in the tribe of Nephthalim, although the other part was in the tribe of Judah. Another reading has: "beyond the Jordan of Galilee," that is, in comparison to Galilee. But the first exposition is better. "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light." He speaks of two: him who walked, and him who sat; for he who is in darkness that from the beginning is not very dense, and is not stupefied by it, walks on, especially when he hopes to find light; but while one is stupefied by the darkness, he stands still. This is the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles: because the Jews, although they were in darkness, were nevertheless not totally oppressed by it, since not all of them worshipped idols, but hoped for the coming of Christ, and therefore they walked; Isaiah 50:10: "Who among you...has walked in darkness, and hath no light? Let him hope in the name of the Lord," and so on. But the Gentiles were not waiting; and therefore there was no hope of light. And again they were oppressed by darkness, because they worshipped idols, since according to Psalm 75:2, "God is known in Judea," and therefore they stood still. And this is what is said: "the people that sat in darkness have seen a great light." The light of the Jews was not great, 2 Peter 1:19: "We have the prophetic word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place"; but this light was great, like the light of the sun; Malachi 4:2: "But unto you that fear my name, the sun of justice shall arise." "And to them that sat," that is, the Gentiles, "in the region of the shadow of death." Death is damnation in Hell; Psalm 48:15: "Death shall feed upon them." The shadow of death is the likeness of future damnation, which is present in sinners. Now the great punishment of those who are in Hell is separation from God. And because sinners are already separated from God, they therefore bear a likeness of future damnation, just as the just also bear a likeness of future blessedness; 2 Corinthians 3:18: "But we all, beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory." And note that the light "has risen" for the Gentiles, because they themselves did not go to the light, but the light came to them; John 3:19: "The light is come into the world." It "has risen" for them. And that land is on the border of the Jews and the Gentiles, so as to show that he called both; Isaiah 49:6: "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel." And afterward: "I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayst be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth." "From that time Jesus began to preach." Having set down the place where Christ first began to preach, here the manner of preaching is set down. "From that time," namely after overcoming gluttony, vain glory, and ambition or avarice, he began to preach; for such as have overcome these can fittingly preach. And thus is fulfilled that saying of Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Or "from that time," that is, after the imprisonment of John, he began to preach publicly; for before this he had preached privately and to certain individuals, John 1:38ff., namely to Peter, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael, but here publicly. Now he did not wish to preach publicly at first, so as to give room to the preaching of John; otherwise it would have availed nothing, just as the light of the stars is obscured by the light of the sun. By this it is signified that, the figures of the law ceasing, the preaching of Christ began; 1 Corinthians 13:10: "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." For by John the law is signified; below, 11:13: "The law and the prophets were until John." "Do penance." It should be noted that here Christ speaks the same words that John spoke, for two reasons. First, he admonishes us concerning humility, namely that no one should disdain to preach words spoken by others, since he himself, the fount of ecclesiastical knowledge, preached the same words. Second, because John is the voice, but he himself is the Word. Now the same thing is signified by the word and by the voice, except that the word is expressive of the voice. Concerning this he does two things: he admonishes one thing, and promises another. The first at the words "Do penance"; the second at the words "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." But why did he not admonish concerning justice at the beginning of his preaching, but to penance? It must be said that the reason was that he had earlier admonished concerning justice through the law of nature and of Scripture, but they had transgressed; Isaiah 24:5: "They have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant." In this he gives us to understand that he found all to be sinners; 1 Timothy 1:15: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners"; Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God." And this is "Do penance." Now he promises something else; hence, "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This promise differs in two respects from the promise of the Old Testament: because there temporal things were promised, here heavenly and eternal things; Isaiah 1:19: "If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land." Likewise, there the kingdom of the Canaanites and Jebusites was promised; here the kingdom of heaven; hence, the kingdom of heaven "will draw near," into you. And therefore the teaching of Christ is called the New Testament, because there a new covenant was made between us and God concerning the kingdom of heaven; Jeremiah 31:31: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Second, because the old law together with its promise also had a threat; Isaiah 1:19-20: "If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land: but if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath, the sword shall devour you." And Deuteronomy 28 has the same: where many blessings are promised to those who keep the law, and Moses threatens many curses to transgressors of the law. And this is so because the old was the law of fear, but the new is the law of love. Augustine: "a brief difference—fear and love." Hebrews 12:18: "For you are not come to a palpable and approachable fire, and a whirlwind, and gloom, and storm, and the sound of the trumpet, and the voice of words, which they that heard it excused themselves, that no word should be spoken to them." And therefore he says "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," namely, eternal blessedness. And he says "is at hand," because he who was giving it descended to us, since we were not able to ascend to God. "And walking," etc. After he began to preach, he wished to have ministers of his preaching; hence here he calls them to himself. And concerning this he does two things, according as he calls two pairs of ministers. For first Peter and Andrew; second James and John. Concerning the first he does four things: first the place of the calling is described; second the condition of those called is set down, at the words "for they were fishermen"; third the calling itself, at the words "and he saith to them"; fourth their perfect obedience, at the words "and they immediately leaving their nets, followed him." He says therefore "walking by the sea of Galilee." A fitting place: because, as the Gloss says, being about to call fishermen, he walks by the sea. But as for the mystical sense, it should be known that God's standing signifies eternity and immobility; his walking, temporal birth. By the fact, then, that walking he called disciples, it is signified that through the mystery of his incarnation he drew us to himself; Psalm 7:7: "Arise, O Lord, in the precept which thou hast commanded," that is, which thou hast disposed to be fulfilled, "and a congregation of people shall surround thee." And he says "of Galilee," by which is understood the turbulence of this world; Isaiah 57:20: "The heart of the wicked is like a raging sea, which cannot rest, and the waves thereof cast up dirt and mire." Christ bore the likeness of a sinner; Romans 8:3: "God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh," and so on. Next the condition of those called is described: first as to their number; second as to their names; third as to their act; fourth as to their occupation. He says therefore "he saw two," not with the eye of the body only, but also of the mind; for his sight is a regard of mercy; hence Exodus 3:7: "Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people that is in Egypt," and so on. And note that the same thing is signified by "two" and by "brothers": for both pertain to charity, which consists in the love of God and of neighbor. And therefore he chose them in pairs, and sent them in pairs to preach; and by this he wished spiritual charity to be signified, because charity is more firmly established when it is founded in nature; Psalm 132:1: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." "Simon who is called Peter"—now indeed, but not then; for Christ afterward imposed this name on him, but first he promised it; John 1:42: "Thou shalt be called Cephas"; but he imposed it in Matthew 16:18: "Thou art Peter." "And Andrew." Every preacher ought to have these names. For Simon is interpreted "obedient"; Peter, "one who recognizes"; Andrew, "fortitude." And the preacher ought to be obedient, so that he can invite others to this, Proverbs 21:28: "An obedient man shall speak of victory"; one who recognizes, so that he may know how to instruct others: 1 Corinthians 14:19: "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others"; strong, so that he not be terrified by threats; Jeremiah 1:18: "I have made thee this day a fortified city, and a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass"; Ezekiel 3:8: "I have made thy face stronger than their faces, and thy forehead harder than their foreheads: I have made thy face like an adamant and like flint." There follows: "casting a net into the sea." Chrysostom asks why the Lord chose that hour. And he says it was so that an example might be given that we ought never to omit the service of God on account of our occupations. Or for this reason: because through this act was prefigured the act of future preachers, since through the words of those who preach men are drawn as if by nets. Their occupation is set down: "for they were fishermen." And it should be known that among all men, fishermen are the more simple; and the Lord wished to have men from the most simple condition, and to choose them, so that what was accomplished through them might not be attributed to human wisdom; 1 Corinthians 1:26: "See your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise." And therefore he did not choose Augustine, or Cyprian the orator, but Peter the fisherman; and from a fisherman he won both an emperor and an orator. "And he saith." Here the calling is set down, concerning which three things are to be considered: first he invites; second he promises leadership; third, a reward. He says therefore, "Come." This is from divine liberality alone, that he draws to himself; Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my generations"; below, 11:28: "Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you." "After me," as if he were to say: I go, and you come after me, because I will be your leader; Proverbs 4:11-12: "I will show thee the way of wisdom, I will lead thee by the paths of equity: which when thou shalt have entered, thy steps shall not be straitened, and when thou runnest, thou shalt not meet with a stumblingblock"; Psalm 138:17: "But to me thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly honourable: their principality is exceedingly strengthened." "I will make"—as if to say, I will change your occupation into a greater one. Of these it is said, Jeremiah 16:16: "Behold I will send many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them," and so on. And he says "I will make," because preaching labors in vain outwardly unless the grace of the Redeemer is present inwardly; for they did not draw men by their own power, but by the operation of Christ. And therefore he says "I will make." This indeed is the greatest dignity; hence Dionysius: nothing is more worthy in the office of men than to become a co-worker of God. For dignity consists solely in its own brightness. Now those approach nearer to that dignity who are so illumined that they illumine others. For although men who follow Christ do illumine others, and accomplish great things as regards justice, yet they assert the dignity of Christ with respect to one thing only; but the life of preachers does so with respect to two things; Daniel 12:3: "They that instruct many to justice, shall shine as stars for all eternity." Their obedience is set down: "And they, leaving their nets and boat, followed him." And he shows their obedience with respect to three things. First, with respect to promptness, because they did not delay; hence "and they." Against those of whom Ecclesiasticus 5:8 speaks: "delay not from day to day"; Galatians 1:15-16: "But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood." Isaiah 50:5: "The Lord God hath opened my ear, and I do not resist: I have not gone back." Second, with respect to readiness, because they left everything; for it is not the amount of possessions that must be weighed, but the disposition; for he leaves all things who leaves whatever he is able to have. But what necessity is there of leaving everything? Chrysostom: no one can possess riches and perfectly attain to the kingdom of heaven; for they are an impediment to virtue, since they diminish concern for eternal things, on account of which a man cannot perfectly cling to divine things. And therefore they must be given up; 1 Corinthians 9:25: "Every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things," and so on. Third, with respect to execution, because they followed him: for it is not too great a thing to leave everything, but perfection consists in following him, which comes about through charity; 1 Corinthians 13:3: "And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." For perfection does not consist of itself in outward things, namely poverty, virginity, and the like, except insofar as these are instruments toward charity; and therefore he says, "and they followed him." Next the other calling is treated: "And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother." And first those called are described; second the calling is set down, at the words "and he called," etc.; third, the obedience of those called, at the words "and they, leaving their nets and their father, followed him." Those called are described in four ways: as to number, names, filial devotion, and poverty. He says therefore, "And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren." Note that from the beginning he called brothers; and although he called many others, mention is made specially of these, because they were preeminent, and because he called them two by two; for the new law is founded in charity; hence also in the Old Testament he called two brothers, Aaron and Moses, because there too a commandment concerning charity was given. And because the new law is more perfect, therefore at its beginning a double number of brothers is called. "James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother." By these four is designated the teaching of the four Gospels, or the four virtues: for by Peter, who is interpreted "one who recognizes," the virtue of prudence; by Andrew, who is interpreted "manly," or "most strong," the virtue of fortitude; by James, who is interpreted "supplanter," the virtue of justice; by John, on account of his virginity, the virtue of temperance. Filial devotion is set down, because they were with Zebedee their father. Chrysostom: their devotion is to be admired, for though poor, seeking their bread by the trade of fishing, they nevertheless did not abandon their aged father. Ecclesiasticus 3:8: "He that feareth the Lord, honoureth his parents." Poverty is designated in this, that they were mending their nets. Nonetheless, by those who were casting their nets are signified those who transact business in the world in their first age; by those who had already cast them and were mending them are signified those who have long transacted business in the world, and are already swallowed up by sin, and are called to Christ. Lamentations 3:27: "It is good for a man, when he hath borne the yoke from his youth." "And he called them," inwardly and outwardly; Romans 8:30: "And whom he predestinated, them he also called." To call inwardly is nothing other than to supply help to the human mind when he wishes to convert us. There follows, concerning their obedience: "and they, leaving their nets and their father, followed him." Note that the two mentioned above left only the boat, but these left their nets, boat, and father: in which it is signified that for Christ's sake we ought to give up all earthly occupations, which are designated by the net; 2 Timothy 2:4: "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business"; riches, or possessions, which are designated by the boat; below, 19:21: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me"; and carnal affection, which is signified by the father; Psalm 44:11: "Forget thy people and thy father's house." But in a mystical sense, by Zebedee is signified the world, which is interpreted "vehement flux." But here there is a question: for it seems that these men sinned in leaving their father, who was old and poor, since children are bound to support their parents. And in general it is asked whether it is lawful for anyone to leave his parents in extreme need by entering religious life. It must be said that a counsel never takes precedence over a precept; but this, namely "Honor thy father and thy mother," Exodus 20:12, is a precept; and therefore if a father can in no way live unless helped by his son, the son ought not to enter religious life. But this was not the case with Zebedee, for he was able to help himself, and had what was necessary. There is likewise a question of the letter. For Matthew here seems to be in contradiction with John and Luke: for John 1:28 says they were called near the Jordan; here it says near the sea of Galilee. Likewise Luke 5:10 says that he called Peter and Andrew, James and John, all together, although no mention is made of the other two in one place, because it is believed that they were there. Likewise there it is said that all were called together, here that they were called separately. But it must be known that the calling of the apostles was threefold. For first they were called to familiarity with Christ, and this is recounted in John 1, and this in the first year of Christ's preaching. Nor is it an obstacle that it is said afterward: "his disciples went up with him to Cana of Galilee," because according to Augustine they were not yet disciples then, but were to be disciples in the future: just as if it were said that the apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, though at that time he was not yet an apostle. Or it must be said that he speaks of other disciples, for all who believe in Christ are called disciples. Second, they were called to discipleship; and of this Luke chapter 5 speaks. The third calling was that they might cling to Christ totally; and of this it is spoken here; which is clear, according to Augustine, because Luke 5:11 has, concerning this, "and having brought their ships to land"; therefore they still had a boat, and took care of it, as though intending to return to it; but here it says, "and they, leaving all things," etc. And therefore it must be said that here he speaks of the final following.”

“It is the custom among kings that, once the army has been gathered, they proceed to war: thus Christ, having gathered the army of the apostles, proceeds to fight against the Devil through the office of preaching, in order to expel him from the world. Hence here the teaching and preaching of Christ is treated. And first Christ's preaching is set forth; second, the effect of the preaching, at the place "his fame went abroad into all Syria," etc. Concerning the first, he touches on three things: first, the diligence of the one teaching and the manner of teaching, and the confirmation of the doctrine proposed. And the diligence is shown in two respects. First, that he did not seek his own rest; hence "he went about"; Romans 12:11: "not slothful in diligence." Second, that he was not a respecter of persons, of lands, or of towns, but went about all Galilee without distinction; Mark 1:38: "Let us go into the neighboring cities, that there also I may preach"; Psalm 102:22: "in every place of his dominion." The manner, at the place "teaching in their synagogues." He says two things, "teaching" and "preaching": teaching the things that are to be done in the present, preaching of things to come; or, teaching those things which pertain to the instruction of morals — Isaiah 48:17: "I am the Lord thy God that teach thee profitable things" — preaching things to come; Isaiah 52:7: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that announceth and preacheth peace, that announceth good, that preacheth salvation." Or, teaching the natural forms of justice: for certain things are handed down in theology which natural reason itself dictates, namely justice and things of this kind — and as to this he says "teaching"; but other things exceed reason, such as the mystery of the Trinity and the like — and as to this he says "preaching." But an objection is raised against what the Gloss says, that he taught the natural forms of justice, such as chastity and humility and the like: for natural virtues do not seem able to be called virtues, since virtues exist through grace. And it must be said that the inclination and the beginning are natural; but the perfection, by which a man is rendered pleasing, comes from grace, from political virtue, and from habituation. "In their synagogues." Note two things. First, that he sought out the multitude, so that the preaching might profit more; Psalm 34:18: "I will give thanks to thee in a great church." Likewise, that he preached only to the Jews; Acts 13:46: "To you it behooved us first to speak the word of God." And "preaching the Gospel of the kingdom": not fables and curious things, but those things which pertained to the kingdom of God, and those things which would profit men. Consequently the preaching is confirmed by miracles; Mark 16:20: "But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." Hence "healing." "Languor" can refer to bodily infirmities, "infirmity" to the infirmity of the soul: for the infirmities of the soul are not less than those of the body. Or, by "languors" are meant grave and long-lasting infirmities; by "infirmities," any other kind whatsoever; Psalm 102:3: "Who healeth all thy diseases"; Ecclesiasticus 10:12: "the physician cutteth short a brief languor." It is given to be understood also in this, that preachers ought to confirm their teaching by works; and if not by miracles, then by a virtuous life; Romans 15:18: "For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." "And his fame went abroad into all Syria." Here the effect of the preaching is set forth: and it is threefold, namely the fame concerning his example, the trust which men had in him, and the devotion by which men followed him. He says, then, "his fame went abroad into all Syria." Syria is the region from Capernaum as far as the great sea: hence it was spread abroad even in the land of the Gentiles. This also pertains to preachers, that they should have a good testimony; Ecclesiasticus 41:15: "Take care of a good name"; 2 Timothy 2:15: "Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." By Syria, moreover, can be understood the pride of the world, for it is so interpreted: and the fame of Christ was diffused throughout the whole world. The trust, at the place "and they presented to him all that were ill at ease"; for they knew that he was able to heal; Jeremiah 17:14: "Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved." And he says first "his fame went abroad," etc., and afterward, "they presented to him," etc., because when someone has a reputation for holiness, men more readily uncover to him the wound of their conscience. "Taken with divers diseases and torments." By these grave infirmities spiritual infirmities are designated. By "languors" can be understood long-lasting infirmities, and thereby an infirmity persisting for a long time is signified; Ecclesiasticus 10:11: "a lingering disease is burdensome to the physician." And because some are burdened by infirmity, but others by the bitterness of pain, this is signified when he says "and taken with torments": and by this are signified those who have a conscience burdened and gnawing at them; Psalm 17:5: "The sorrows of death surrounded me, the sorrows of hell encompassed me." "And those who had devils"; and this is what is said in Luke 6:1: "And they that were troubled with unclean spirits were cured." By this are understood those who worshipped idols; Psalm 95:5: "All the gods of the Gentiles are devils"; 1 Corinthians 10:20: "I would not that you should be made partakers with devils." "Lunatics" are properly said of those who suffer an infirmity of a certain madness at the wane of the moon: and then they are seized by demons. And the Devil afflicts more at that time for two reasons. One is assigned by Jerome, and it is that he may bring the creature of God into disrepute; and this also happens in the effects of the magic art, by which demons are invoked under certain constellations, and the demons come for this purpose, that they may extol the creature and lead men into idolatry. The second reason is better, namely that the Devil can do nothing except through the powers of the body. But there is no doubt that lower bodies are altered according to the various alterations of the higher bodies. And therefore the Devil, when invoked, comes gladly at that time when he sees the higher bodies working toward that effect for which he is invoked. Now at the wane of the moon, as is evident, moisture fails; and therefore the wane of the moon contributes to such an infirmity, when the earth does not abound in humors; and therefore the Devil vexes more at that time: and this is "and lunatics." By these we can understand the inconstant — Ecclesiasticus 27:12: "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon" — those who have a resolve to live chastely, but are overcome by the passions, according to that saying of Romans 7:15: "For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I hate, that I do." "And those that had the palsy." Those are properly called paralytics who have their limbs relaxed, so that they cannot have the use of their limbs. By these are signified the ignorant: and all these are cured by Christ; hence "and he cured them," namely, perfectly. Consequently the third effect is set forth, namely the devotion of those who followed; hence "and there followed him great multitudes"; Psalm 7:8: "Arise, O Lord, in the precept which thou hast commanded, and a congregation of people shall surround thee." But it must be known that some followed him in different ways. For some, out of zeal for salvation, namely spiritual salvation, namely the apostles; hence above: "leaving all things, they followed him"; and below, 19:27: "Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee." Some, out of zeal for bodily health; Luke 6:17: "a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast, both of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." Some, out of mere curiosity to see the miracles; John 6:2: "and a great multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did upon them that were diseased." Others in order to lay snares, as the Pharisees and Scribes; Jeremiah 20:10: "I heard the reproaches of many, and terror on every side." "From Galilee." It is the province where Christ chiefly preached, and it is interpreted "migration." By this are signified those who ought to pass over from vices to virtues. "And Decapolis." It is the region where there are ten towns; and by this are signified those who strive for the observance of the ten commandments. "And from Jerusalem." Jerusalem is interpreted "vision of peace"; and it signifies those who come to Christ out of desire for peace; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love thy name." "And from Judea." Judea is interpreted "confession"; and it signifies those who come to Christ through the remission of sins; Psalm 113:2: "Judea became his sanctification." "And from beyond the Jordan"; and by this are signified those who come to Christ through Baptism: for Baptism was prefigured in the Jordan.”

“"Seeing the crowds, Jesus." Here the Lord sets forth his teaching, and this is divided into three parts. In the first is set down the teaching of Christ; in the second is set down the power of the teaching; in the third, the end to which it leads. The second is at chapter 13; the third at chapter 17. The first is divided into three. In the second, the ministers of the teaching are instructed; in the third, the adversaries are confounded. The second is at chapter 10; the third at chapter 11. The first is divided into two. In the first, the teaching of Christ is set forth; in the second, it is confirmed by miracles, at chapter 8. The first into two. In the first, a kind of title is prefixed to the teaching; in the second, the teaching itself is explained, at "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Concerning the first he does three things. First he describes the place where the teaching was set forth; second, the hearers of the teaching; third, he sets down the manner of teaching. The second at "and when he had sat down"; the third at "and opening his mouth he taught them." He says therefore — as I said, that they followed, etc. "Seeing the crowds, Jesus." This text can bear a twofold understanding. First, thus: he went up in order to teach the crowds, that is, not fleeing them. Hence Chrysostom says that just as a craftsman, when he sees the material prepared, delights to work, so the priest delights to preach when he sees the people gathered together; and therefore, "he went up"; Psalm 34:18: "I will confess to you in the great Church." Or otherwise: "he went up," namely fleeing the crowds, so as to teach the disciples more securely; Ecclesiastes 9:17: "the words of the wise are heard in silence." And it should be noted that we read that Christ had three refuges: for at times he fled to the mountain, as is said here, and John 8:1: "And Jesus went to the Mount of Olives." At other times to a boat; Luke 5:1: "when many crowds pressed upon him... going up into one boat, which was Simon's... sitting he taught." The third, into the desert; Mark 6:31: "let us go apart into the desert." And this is fitting enough; for in three things a man can have refuge in God: in the protection of the divine height, which is signified by the mountain; Psalm 124:1: "they who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion." In ecclesiastical fellowship, which is designated by the boat; Psalm 121:3: "Jerusalem, which is built as a city, whose participation is in itself." In the solitude of religious life, which is taken through the desert, through contempt of temporal things; Hosea 2:14: "I will lead her into solitude, and I will speak to her heart"; Psalm 54:8: "behold, I have gone far off in flight, and I have remained in solitude." Now he went up onto the mountain for five reasons. The first, to show his excellence: for he himself is the mountain of which Psalm 67:16 speaks: "the mountain of God, a fat mountain." The second, to show that the teacher of this doctrine ought to ascend to the eminence of life; Isaiah 40:9: "Get you up upon a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion." Chrysostom: no one can stand in the valley and speak of heaven, etc. The third reason, to show the height of the Church to which the teaching is set forth; Isaiah 2:2: "the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be on the top of mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills." Fourth, to show the perfection of this teaching, because it is most perfect; Psalm 35:7: "your justice is like the mountains of God." Fifth, so that it might correspond to the old legislation, which was given on a mountain; Exodus 19 and 24. Consequently the hearers are set down: "and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him." Two things can be noted in his sitting. Humiliation; Psalm 138:2: "you have known my sitting down." When he was in the height of the divine majesty, his teaching could not be grasped; but then men began to grasp it, when he humbled himself. Or this pertains to the dignity of the office of teacher; below, 23:2: "the Scribes and Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses." For quiet is required for the pursuit of wisdom. "His disciples came to him," etc., not only in body but in mind; Psalm 33:6: "come to him, and be enlightened"; Deuteronomy 33:3: "they who draw near to his feet shall receive of his teaching." And note that when the Lord preached to the crowds, he stood; Luke 6:17: "Jesus, coming down from the mountain, stood in a level place"; but here, when teaching the disciples, he sat. From this arose the custom that preaching to crowds is done standing, and to religious, sitting. "And opening his mouth he taught them." Here the manner of the teaching is set down. In his saying "opening," it is signified that he had been silent for a long time before. And it shows that he was about to make a great and long sermon, as Augustine says. Or that he was about to say great and profound things; for so men are accustomed to do; Job 3:1: "after this Job opened his mouth, and cursed his day." And he says "his own mouth": for before he had opened the mouths of the prophets; Wisdom 10:21: "wisdom opened the mouth of the dumb, and made the tongues of infants eloquent": for he himself is the wisdom of the Father. But here there is a question: for this sermon is set down, as to many points, also at Luke 6:20ff. But there seems to be a contrariety between here and there, as is evident in the text. And Augustine gives two solutions. One is that this is a different sermon from that one: for he first went up onto the mountain, and delivered this sermon to the disciples, and afterward, coming down, he found the crowd gathered, to whom he preached the same things, and recapitulated many of them: and it is of this that Luke 6:20ff. speaks. Or otherwise it should be said that there was one mountain, which had a level place on its side: that level place was raised up by another, smaller hill. Hence the Lord went up onto the mountain, that is, onto the level place of that mountain. And first he went up higher, and called together the disciples, and there he chose the twelve apostles, as is evident in Luke; and afterward, coming down, he found the crowd gathered, and when the disciples came to him he sat down, and delivered this sermon to the crowds and the disciples. And this seems truer: because Matthew says at the end of the sermon that the crowds marveled at his teaching. Nevertheless, whichever is accepted, there is no contrariety.”

“The Evangelist has set out above, as it were, a brief title of Christ's teaching; now he sets out the teaching itself, and its effect, namely the wonder of the crowds. Now it must be considered that, according to Augustine, in this sermon of the Lord the whole perfection of our life is contained. And he proves this by what the Lord adds as the end to which it leads, namely a certain promise. Now that which man desires most is beatitude. Hence the Lord here does three things. First he sets forth the reward which follows for those who receive this teaching; second he lays down the precepts, where he says, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the law," etc.; third he teaches how one can arrive at keeping them, where he says, "Ask and you shall receive." Concerning the first he does two things, because of this teaching some are only observers, others are ministers. First, therefore, he describes the beatitude of those who observe; second, of those who minister, where he says, "Blessed are you when they curse you." Now it must be noted that several things are set down here concerning the beatitudes; but no one could ever speak of the Lord's words so subtly as to attain fully to the Lord's intent. Yet it must be known that in these words the whole full beatitude is included: for all men desire beatitude, but they differ in judging about what beatitude is; and therefore some desire this, others that. Now we find a fourfold opinion about beatitude. For some believe that it consists only in exterior things, namely in an abundance of these temporal goods; Psalm 143:15: "They have called the people blessed who have these things." Others hold that perfect beatitude consists in this, that man satisfy his own will; hence we say: blessed is he who lives as he wishes. Ecclesiastes 3:12: "And I knew that there was nothing better than to rejoice," etc. Others say that perfect beatitude consists in the virtues of the active life. Others, that it consists in the virtues of the contemplative life, namely of divine and intelligible things, as Aristotle held. Now all these opinions are false, though not in the same way. Hence the Lord rejects them all. The opinion of those who said that it consists in an abundance of exterior things he rejects: hence he says "blessed are the poor," as if to say, not blessed are the wealthy. The opinion of those who placed beatitude in the satisfaction of appetite he rejects when he says "blessed are the merciful." But it must be known that there is a threefold appetite in man: the irascible, which desires vengeance on enemies, and this he rejects when he says "blessed are the meek." The concupiscible, whose good is to enjoy and take delight: this he rejects when he says "blessed are they that mourn." And that of the will, which is twofold, according as it seeks two things. First, that the will be bound by no higher law; second, that it be able to restrain others as subjects: hence it desires to rule, and not to be ruled. Now the Lord shows the contrary as to both. And as to the first he says "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice." As to the second he says "blessed are the merciful." Therefore both those who place beatitude in exterior abundance, and those who place it in the satisfaction of appetite, err. But those who place beatitude in the acts of the active life, namely the moral acts, err less, because that is a way to beatitude. Hence the Lord does not reject it as evil, but shows it to be ordered to beatitude: for such acts are either ordered to oneself, as temperance and the like, and their end is cleanness of heart, because they make one conquer the passions; or they are ordered to another, and thus their end is peace and the like: for the work of justice is peace. And therefore these virtues are ways to beatitude, and not beatitude itself; and this is "blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." He does not say "they see," because that would be beatitude itself. And again, "blessed are the peacemakers," not because they are peaceable, but because they tend toward something further, namely that "they shall be called the children of God." Now the opinion of those who say that beatitude consists in the contemplation of divine things the Lord rejects only as to time, because otherwise it is true, since ultimate happiness consists in the vision of the best intelligible object, namely God: hence he says "they shall see." And it must be noted that, according to the Philosopher, in order for contemplative acts to make one blessed, two things are required: one substantially, namely that it be an act concerning the highest intelligible object, which is God; the other formally, namely love and delight, for delight perfects happiness as beauty perfects youth. And therefore the Lord sets down two things: "they shall see God" and "they shall be called children of God": for this latter pertains to the union of love; 1 John 3:1: "See what manner of charity the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be the children of God." Likewise it must be noted that in these beatitudes some things are set down as merits, and some as rewards, and this in each one. "Blessed are the poor in spirit": behold the merit; "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven": behold the reward, and so in the others. And it must also be noted, something concerning merit in general, and something concerning reward in general. Concerning merit it must be known that the Philosopher distinguishes a twofold kind of virtue: one common, which perfects man in a human manner; the other special, which he calls heroic, which perfects above the human manner. For when a strong man fears where fear is to be had, this is virtue; but if he did not fear at all, it would be a vice. But if, trusting in God's help, he feared in nothing, this virtue would be above the human manner, and such virtues are called divine. These acts, therefore, are perfect, and virtue too, according to the Philosopher, is a perfect operation. Therefore these merits are either acts of the gifts, or acts of the virtues insofar as they are perfected by the gifts. Likewise note that the acts of the virtues are those which the law commands; but the merits of beatitude are acts of the virtues; and therefore all things which are commanded and are contained below are referred to these beatitudes. Hence just as Moses first set forth precepts, and afterward said many things which were all referred back to the precepts set forth, so Christ in his teaching first put forward these beatitudes, to which all other things are reduced. Concerning the first point it must be noted that God is the reward of those who serve him; Lamentations 3:24: "The Lord is my portion, said my soul, therefore will I wait for him"; Psalm 15:5: "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup"; Genesis 15:7: "I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land, and that you might possess it." And as Augustine says in Book II of the Confessions, the soul, when it withdraws from you, seeks good things outside of you. Now men seek diverse things; but whatever can be found in any life whatsoever, the Lord has promised all of it in God. For some place the highest good in an abundance of riches, through which they can arrive at the greatest dignities; the Lord promises a kingdom which embraces both; but he says that this kingdom is arrived at by the way of poverty, not of riches. Hence, "blessed are the poor." Others arrive at these honors through wars; but the Lord says, "blessed are the meek," etc. Others seek consolations through pleasures; the Lord says, "blessed are they that mourn." Some are unwilling to be subject; the Lord says, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice." Some wish to avoid evil by oppressing their subjects; the Lord says, "blessed are the merciful," etc. Some place the vision of God in the contemplation of truth in this present life; the Lord promises it in the homeland; hence "blessed are the clean of heart," etc. And it must be noted that these rewards which the Lord touches on here can be had in two ways, namely perfectly and consummately, and thus only in the homeland; and by way of a beginning and imperfectly, and thus in this present life. Hence the saints have a certain beginning of that beatitude. And because in this life those things cannot be unfolded as they will be in the homeland, Augustine therefore expounds them according as they are in this present life: "blessed, therefore, are the poor in spirit" — not only in hope, but also in reality. Luke 17:21: "The kingdom of God is within you." Having laid down these things, then, let us come to the letter of the text. In these beatitudes the Evangelist does two things. First the beatitudes themselves are set down; second, the manifestation of the beatitudes, where he says, "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," for this is declarative of all the beatitudes. Now virtue does three things: it removes from evil, it works and makes one work good, and it disposes to the best. First, therefore, he determines concerning the first, where he says "blessed are the poor"; concerning the second, where he says "blessed are they that hunger"; concerning the third, where he says "blessed are the clean of heart," he determines. Now virtue removes from three evils: from covetousness, from cruelty or restlessness, and from harmful pleasure. The first is noted where he says "blessed are the poor"; the second where he says "blessed are the merciful"; the third where he says "blessed are they that mourn." He says, therefore, "blessed are the poor," which is read in two ways. First thus: "blessed are the poor," that is, the humble, who esteem themselves poor: for those are truly humble who esteem themselves poor, not only in exterior things, but also in interior things; Psalm 39:18: "But I am a beggar and poor," against that saying of Apocalypse 3:17: "You say, I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing; and you know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," etc. And then what he says, "in spirit," can be read in three ways. For "spirit" is sometimes called man's pride; Isaiah 2:22: "Cease from the man, whose spirit is in his nostrils, because he is reputed high"; Isaiah 25:4: "The spirit of the strong is like a whirlwind beating against a wall." And pride is called "spirit" because just as wineskins are inflated by breath, so men are inflated by pride; Colossians 2:18: "puffed up by the sense of his flesh." Therefore, "blessed are the poor," namely those who have little of the spirit of pride. Or "spirit" is taken for man's will. For some are humble out of necessity, and these are not blessed, but those who aspire to humility are. Third, it is taken for the Holy Spirit; hence "blessed are the poor in spirit," those who are humble through the Holy Spirit. And these two readings return, as it were, to the same thing. And he says "poor in spirit" because humility gives the Holy Spirit; Isaiah 66:2: "To whom shall I have respect, but to him that is poor and little, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembles at my words?" To these poor is promised the kingdom, in which supreme excellence is understood. And although this is bestowed in return for any virtue whatsoever, it is nevertheless given especially to humility, because "everyone who humbles himself shall be exalted," below, chapter 23:12. And Proverbs 29:23: "Glory shall uphold the humble in spirit." Or otherwise, according to Jerome: "poor in spirit," to the letter, in the renunciation of temporal things. And he says "in spirit," because some are poor out of necessity, but to them beatitude is not owed, but to those who are poor by will. And these latter are spoken of in two ways: for even if some have riches, yet they do not have them in their heart; Psalm 61:11: "If riches abound, set not your heart upon them." Others neither have them nor desire them, and this is more secure, because the mind is drawn away from spiritual things by riches; and these are properly called poor in spirit, because acts of the gifts, which are above the human manner, belong to the blessed man; and that a man should cast off all riches, so as not even to desire them in any way, this is above the human manner. To these is promised the kingdom of heaven, in which is noted not only the height of honor, but the abundance of riches; James 2:5: "Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith?" And note that Moses first promised riches; Deuteronomy 28:1: "The Lord your God will make you higher than all the nations that are upon the earth"; and below: "Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed in the field." And therefore, that the Lord might distinguish the old law from the new, he first places beatitude in the contempt of temporal riches. Likewise, according to Augustine, note that this beatitude pertains to the gift of fear, because fear, especially filial fear, makes one have reverence toward God, and from this man holds riches in contempt. Isaiah sets down the beatitudes in descending order; Isaiah 11:1-3: "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness, and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord." Christ, conversely, ascends from the gift of fear, that is, from poverty, because Isaiah foretold the coming of Christ to the earth, whereas Christ drew things upward from the earth. "Blessed are the meek." This is the second beatitude; but lest anyone say that poverty alone suffices for beatitude, he shows that it does not suffice: rather, meekness is also required, which tempers anger, just as temperance tempers concupiscence; for he is meek who is not even provoked. Now this can happen through virtue, namely that you not become angry except for a just cause; but if even when you have a just cause you are not provoked, this is above the human manner; and therefore he says "blessed are the meek." For strife arises on account of an abundance of exterior things; and therefore there would never be disturbance, if man did not desire riches; and therefore those who are not meek are not poor in spirit. And for this reason he immediately adds "blessed are the meek." And note that this consists in two things. First, that a man not become angry; second, that if he does become angry, he temper his anger. Thus says Ambrose: "It belongs to the prudent man to temper the movement of anger, nor is it called a lesser virtue to be angry with moderation than not to be angry at all; and I judge the latter to be lighter, the former stronger," etc. Chrysostom says: "Among many eternal promises he places one earthly one." Hence, to the letter, the meek possess this earth. For many strive at law in order to acquire possessions, but frequently lose life and everything; but frequently the meek have everything; Psalm 36:11: "The meek shall inherit the land." But it is better expounded as referring to the future. And then it can be expounded in many ways. Hilary thus: "they shall possess the earth," that is, the glorified body of Christ, because they will be conformed in their own body to that brightness; Isaiah 33:17: "They shall see the king in his beauty; their eyes shall behold the land afar off"; Philippians 3:21: "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory." Or otherwise: this earth is now the earth of the dead, because it is subject to corruption, but it will be freed from corruption according to the Apostle, Romans 8:21. Therefore this earth, when it will be made bright and freed from the servitude of corruption, will be called the land of the living. Or by "earth" is understood the empyrean heaven, in which the blessed are: and it is called earth, because as earth stands to heaven, so that heaven stands to the heaven of the holy Trinity. Or, "they shall possess the earth," that is, their own glorified body. Augustine expounds it metaphorically, and says that by this is to be understood a certain solidity of the saints in the knowledge of the first truth; Psalm 26:13: "I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living." This second beatitude is adapted to the gift of piety, because those properly become angry who are not content with the divine ordination. "Blessed are they that mourn," etc. Two beatitudes have been set down, by which we are drawn away from the evil of covetousness and of cruelty; here a third is set down, by which we are drawn away from the evil of harmful or noxious pleasure: and this is "blessed are they that mourn." In the Old Testament earthly things were promised, and earthly gladness; Jeremiah 31:12: "They shall flow together to the good things of the Lord, for the corn, and the wine, and the oil," etc.; and afterward: "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, the young men and the old together." But by contrast the Lord places beatitude in mourning. Now it must be noted that not every kind of weeping can be called mourning, but that by which one weeps for a dead person dear to oneself: for the Lord speaks here by way of excess. Just as above, "blessed are the poor," so here he makes mention of the greatest mourning; for just as those who weep for the dead receive no consolation, so the Lord wishes our life to be in mourning; Jeremiah 6:26: "Make yourself a mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation," etc. And this mourning can be expounded in three ways. First, for sins not only one's own but also those of others: for if we mourn carnally for the dead, much more should we mourn spiritually; 1 Kings 16:1: "How long will you mourn for Saul?" etc. Jeremiah 9:1: "Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? And I will weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people." Now this beatitude is quite fittingly placed after the one before. For someone might say: it suffices not to do evil; and this is true from the beginning, before sin; but after sin has been committed, it does not suffice unless you make satisfaction. Second, it can be taken of mourning for the sojourn of the present misery; Psalm 119:5: "Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged." This is the "watering from above and from below" of which Joshua 15:19 speaks: "weep for your sins, and for the sojourning in the heavenly homeland." Third, according to Augustine, for the mourning which men have for the joys of the world, which they leave behind in coming to Christ: for some men die to the world, and the world dies to them; Galatians 6:14: "By whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world." Now just as we mourn over the dead, so they mourn: because it cannot be that, in giving something up, they do not feel some sorrow. Now to this threefold mourning a threefold consolation corresponds: for to mourning for sins is given the remission of sins, which David sought, saying, Psalm 50:14: "Restore to me the joy of your salvation." To the delay of the heavenly homeland, and to the sojourn of the present misery, corresponds the consolation of eternal life, of which Jeremiah 31:13: "I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them joyful after their sorrow"; and Isaiah 66:13: "In Jerusalem you shall be comforted." Third, to mourning corresponds the consolation of divine love: for when someone grieves over the loss of a beloved thing, he receives consolation if he acquires another thing more beloved. Hence men are consoled when, in place of temporal things, they receive spiritual and eternal ones, which is to receive the Holy Spirit; wherefore he is called the Paraclete, John 15:26. For through the Holy Spirit, who is divine love, men will rejoice; John 16:20: "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." And it must be noted that this beatitude is appropriated to the gift of knowledge, because those mourn who recognize the miseries of others; hence of certain people who do not have this knowledge it is said, Wisdom 14:22: "Living in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace"; conversely, Ecclesiastes 1:18: "He who adds knowledge, adds also labor." And it must be noted that these rewards are so ordered that each successive one adds something over the first. For first he said "blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"; afterward, "for they shall possess the land": for it is more to possess than merely to have. Likewise, afterward, "for they shall be comforted": for it is more to be comforted than to possess, for some possess these things but do not delight in them. Following upon the beatitudes which pertain to the removal of evil, here is set down the beatitude which pertains to the working of good. Now our good is twofold, namely of justice and of mercy. And therefore he sets down two things. As to the first he says, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice." Justice is taken in three ways, according to Chrysostom and the Philosopher. Sometimes it is taken for every virtue: and every virtue is called legal justice, which prescribes concerning the acts of the virtues. Hence insofar as man obeys the law, he fulfills the work of all the virtues. In another way it is taken as it is a special virtue, one of the four cardinal virtues, which is opposed to avarice, or injustice, and concerns buying, selling, and hiring. What is said here, then, "who hunger after justice," can be understood generally or specially. If it is understood of justice in general, this is said for two reasons. The first is Jerome's, who says that it does not suffice for a man to perform the work of justice, unless he perform it with desire; Psalm 53:8: "I will freely sacrifice to you," etc. And elsewhere, Psalm 41:3: "My soul has thirsted after God, the living fountain," etc. Amos 8:11: "I will send a famine into that land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of God." Therefore there is hunger when someone works with desire. The other reason: justice is twofold, perfect and imperfect. Perfect justice we cannot have in this world, "for if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," 1 John 1:8. And Isaiah 64:6: "All our righteousnesses are as a filthy rag." But this we shall have in heaven; Isaiah 60:21: "Your people shall be all just, they shall inherit the land forever." But we can have the desire for justice here; and therefore he says, "blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice," etc. And this is like what Pythagoras did. For in the time of Pythagoras those who pursued learning were called sophi, that is, wise men; but Pythagoras did not wish to be called sophos, that is, wise, but philosophus, that is, a lover of wisdom: so the Lord wishes that his own be, and be called, lovers of justice. But if it is understood of special justice, which is that man render to each what is his own, it is fittingly said, "blessed are they that hunger," etc.; because hunger and thirst are properly characteristic of the avaricious, since those who desire to possess the goods of others unjustly are never satisfied; hence this hunger of which the Lord speaks is opposed to that, namely to the hunger of the avaricious. And the Lord wishes that we so pant after this justice that we may never, as it were, be satisfied in this life, just as the avaricious man is never satisfied. "Blessed, therefore, are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall be filled." A fitting reward is set down, "they shall be filled," first in the eternal vision, for they shall see God through his essence; Psalm 16:15: "I shall be satisfied when your glory shall appear": for there nothing will remain to be desired; Psalm 102:5: "Who satisfies your desire with good things"; Proverbs 10:24: "The desire of the just shall be granted." Second, in the present life. And this is twofold. One is in spiritual goods, that is, in the fulfilling of God's commandments; John 4:34: "My meat is to do the will of him who sent me, that I may perfect his work": and Augustine expounds it in this way. In another way it is taken of the satisfaction of temporal things. Unjust men are never satisfied, but men who have their limit in justice itself do not go beyond it; Proverbs 13:25: "The just eats and fills his soul." This beatitude, according to Augustine, is reduced to the gift of fortitude, because that a man work justly pertains to fortitude. Likewise it adds something to the reward set down above, because to be filled is to have one's desire wholly fulfilled. Likewise note that first he says "blessed are they that mourn": for when a man is sick, he does not desire to eat, but he begins to desire it when he is beginning to be healed; and so it is in spiritual things, that when men are in sin, they do not feel spiritual hunger, but when they abandon their sins, then they feel it; and therefore he immediately adds "blessed are the merciful": because justice without mercy is cruelty, and mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution. And therefore it is fitting that the two be joined together, according to Proverbs 3:3: "Let mercy and truth not leave you," etc. Psalm 84:11: "Mercy and truth have met each other," etc. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." To be merciful is to have a heart made wretched by the wretchedness of others: now we have mercy over the wretchedness of others when we reckon it, as it were, as our own. Now over our own we grieve, and we strive to drive it away. Therefore you are truly merciful when you strive to drive away the wretchedness of others. Now there is a twofold wretchedness of one's neighbor. The first is in these temporal things, and toward this we ought to have a wretched heart; 1 John 3:17: "He who has the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?" The second is that by which a man is made wretched through sin: for just as beatitude is in the works of the virtues, so wretchedness properly is in vices; Proverbs 14:34: "Sin makes nations miserable." And therefore when we admonish those who are falling to return, we are merciful; below, 9:36: "And Jesus, seeing the crowds, was moved with mercy." These, therefore, the merciful, are blessed. And why? "For they shall obtain mercy." And it must be known that the gifts of God always exceed our merits; Ecclesiasticus 35:13: "For the Lord is one who repays, and he will repay you sevenfold." Therefore the mercy which the Lord will bestow upon us is much greater than that which we bestow upon our neighbor. This mercy is begun in this life in two ways. First, because sins are forgiven; Psalm 102:3: "Who forgives all your iniquities." Second, because he removes temporal defects, so that he makes his sun to rise; yet it will be perfected in the future, when all wretchedness, both of fault and of punishment, will be removed; Psalm 35:6: "O Lord, your mercy is in heaven." And this is "for they shall obtain mercy." This beatitude is reduced to the gift of counsel, because it is a singular counsel that amid the dangers of this world we should obtain mercy; 1 Timothy 4:8: "Godliness is profitable for all things"; Daniel 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable to the king." Thus, then, the acts of the virtues have been set down, by which we are removed from evil and by which we work good. Now are set down the acts by which we are disposed to the best; hence, "blessed are the clean of heart," etc. This beatitude consists in two things: in the vision of God and in the love of neighbor; hence he first sets down the beatitude which pertains to the vision of God, and second the beatitude which pertains to the love of neighbor, where he says "blessed are the peacemakers," etc. He says, therefore, "blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." Here first there is a literal question. For we have it that God cannot be seen: 1 John 4:12: "No man has seen God at any time." And lest anyone should say that, although no one sees him in the present, he will see him in the future, the Apostle removes this, 1 Timothy 6:16: "He inhabits light inaccessible, whom no man has seen, nor can see." But it must be known that on this point there are diverse opinions. For some have held that God is never seen through his essence, but only in some refulgence of his brightness; but the Gloss rejects this, on the text of Exodus 33:20, "Man shall not see me, and live," for two reasons. First, because this is repugnant to the authority of sacred Scripture, 1 John 3:2: "We shall see him as he is." Likewise 1 Corinthians 13:12: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then face to face." Likewise it is repugnant to reason, because the beatitude of man is the ultimate good of man, in which his desire is set at rest. Now it is a natural desire that a man, seeing effects, should inquire concerning the cause: hence too the wonder of the philosophers was the origin of philosophy, because seeing effects they marveled, and sought the cause. This desire, therefore, will not be set at rest, until it arrives at the first cause, which is God, namely at the divine essence itself. He will therefore be seen through his essence. Others have erred even more in holding the contrary: for they said that we shall see the essence of God not only with the eye of the mind, but also with that of the body, and that Christ sees the divine essence with a bodily eye. But this is not fitting: which is clear, first, from the authority set down here, because he would not have said "blessed are the clean of heart," but "blessed are they that have clean and pure eyes." Therefore he gives us to understand that God is seen only by the heart, that is, by the intellect: for "heart" is taken here in the same way as in Ephesians 1:18, "the eyes of your heart being enlightened." Second, because a bodily sense can attain only to its own object; and if it be said that then it will have a greater power, it must be said that then it would not be bodily vision, because the bodily eye sees nothing but colors, and the essence only accidentally, according to Augustine, City of God, last book, chapter 19. Just as when I see a living thing, we can say that I see life, insofar as I see certain signs by which its life is indicated to me; so it will be in the divine vision, because there will be so great a refulgence in the new heaven, and the new earth, and in glorified bodies, that through these we shall be said to see God as it were with bodily eyes. "Blessed, therefore, are the clean of heart," etc. He resolves the text, "no man has seen God at any time," in three ways. First, because not by a comprehensive vision; second, not with bodily eyes; third, not in this life: for if it was granted to anyone to see God in this life, this was because he was totally taken out of himself and raised above the bodily senses. And therefore it is said "blessed are the clean of heart": because just as the eye which sees color must be clear, so must the mind which sees God; Wisdom 1:1: "Seek him in simplicity of heart, for he is found by those who do not tempt him; and he appears to those who have faith in him": for by faith the heart is purified; Acts 15:9: "Purifying their hearts by faith." And because vision will succeed to faith, therefore it is said, "for they shall see God." "Blessed are the clean of heart," namely those who have a general cleanness from alien thoughts, through which their heart is a holy temple of God, in which they see God to be contemplated: for "temple" seems to be named from "contemplating." But specially, "blessed are the clean of heart," that is, those who have cleanness of the flesh: for nothing so impedes spiritual contemplation as uncleanness of the flesh. "Follow peace, and holiness, without which no man shall see God," Hebrews 12:14. And therefore some say that the moral virtues are of profit for the contemplative life, and especially chastity. And according to this, "blessed are the clean of heart" can be understood of the vision proper to this present life: for the saints who have a heart filled with justice see more excellently than others who see through bodily effects; for the nearer effects are, the more God is known through them. Hence the saints, who have justice, charity, and effects of this kind, which are most similar to God, know more than others; Psalm 33:9: "Taste, and see that the Lord is sweet." "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Here is set down the seventh beatitude; and, as has been said, the virtues that dispose to the best dispose to two things, namely to the vision of God and to love. And just as cleanness of heart disposes to the vision of God, so peace disposes to the love of God, by which we are named and are the children of God; and thus it also disposes to the love of neighbor, because, as is said in 1 John 4:20, "he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see?" And it must be noted that here two rewards of beatitude are set down, namely "blessed are the peacemakers," and "blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake." And all the preceding beatitudes are reduced to these two, and are the effects of all the preceding ones. For what is achieved through poverty of spirit, through mourning, through meekness, except that one should have a clean heart? What through justice and mercy, except that we should have peace? Isaiah 32:17: "The fruit of justice is peace, and the cultivation of justice, quietness and security forever." "Blessed, therefore, are the peacemakers." But it must be seen what peace is, and how we can arrive at it. Peace is the tranquility of order. Now order is the disposition which gives to equal and unequal things their proper places. Therefore peace consists in this, that all things hold their proper places. Hence the mind of man ought, first, to be subject to God. Second, the lower movements and powers, which are common to us and to brute animals, ought to be subject to man: for by reason man rules over the animals; Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moves upon the earth." Third, that man have peace toward others, for thus he will be wholly ordered. Now this ordering can exist only in holy men; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love your name"; Isaiah 48:22: "There is no peace to the wicked": for they cannot have interior peace; Wisdom 14:22: "Living in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace." Such peace the world cannot give; John 14:27: "Not as the world gives do I give to you." Likewise, all this alone does not suffice, but they ought to make peace among those who are at discord; Proverbs 12:20: "Joy follows them that take counsels of peace." Yet it must be known that this peace is begun here, but is not perfected, because no one can have all his brutish movements wholly subject to reason; Romans 7:23: "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin which is in my members." Hence it will be true in eternal life; Psalm 4:9: "In peace, in the very same, I will sleep, and I will rest"; Philippians 4:7: "The peace of God surpasses all understanding." "For they shall be called the children of God," for a threefold reason. The first is, because they have the office of the son of God: for the Son is said to have come into the world for this, that he might gather together the scattered; Ephesians 2:14: "For he is our peace"; Colossians 1:20: "Making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things on earth and the things in heaven." Second, because through peace, together with charity, one arrives at the eternal kingdom, in which all are called children of God; Wisdom 5:5: "Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints." Ephesians 4:3: "Careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." Third, because through this man is made like to God, because where there is peace, there is no resistance; but no one can resist God; Job 9:4: "Who has resisted him, and had peace?" And it must be noted that these beatitudes each add something over the one before: for it is more to obtain mercy than to be filled, because to be filled is to be filled with what is proportioned to oneself, but mercy overflows abundantly. Likewise, not all who receive mercy are admitted by the king to see the king. Likewise, it is more to be a son of the king than to see the king. And yet it must be known that by all these one single reward is designated. But why did the Lord wish to signify that by so many things? It must be said that all the things which are divided in lower things are gathered together in higher things. And because in human affairs these are found dispersed, and we are led by the hand through sensible things, therefore the Lord signified that one eternal reward through many things. Now this seventh beatitude is adapted to the gift of wisdom, for wisdom makes one a child of God. Likewise it must be noted that in the seventh beatitude peace is set down, just as on the seventh day there is rest, Genesis 2:2. Following upon this the eighth beatitude is set down, which designates the perfection of all the preceding ones: for then is a man perfect in all of them, when he abandons none of them on account of tribulations; Ecclesiasticus 27:6: "The furnace tries the potter's vessels, and the trial of tribulation just men." "Blessed, therefore, are they that suffer persecution," etc. But someone, perhaps, hearing "blessed are the peacemakers," will say that these are not blessed on account of persecution, because persecution disturbs peace, or takes it away entirely; but certainly not interior peace, only exterior; Psalm 118:165: "Much peace have they that love your law," etc. Now persecution itself does not make one blessed, but its cause: hence he says "for justice's sake"; 1 Peter 3:14: "If you suffer anything for justice's sake, blessed are you." Chrysostom: he does not say "by the pagans and for the faith," but "for justice's sake."”

“Hence he says: for justice's sake, 1 Peter 3:14: "If you suffer anything..." Chrysostom: he does not say "by the pagans" and "according to the faith," but "for justice's sake," because martyrdom is not from just anyone or for just any cause, but for the father's justice — Ecclesiasticus 4:33: "Strive for justice." The prophets were killed not because they denied the faith but because they announced the truth; John the Baptist, because he announced the truth, was killed and was a martyr. And it should be noted that this beatitude is placed in the eighth position, just as circumcision was performed on the eighth day, in which a certain general circumcision of the martyrs is foretold. "For theirs is the kingdom." This appears to be the same as what is set down in the first beatitude; hence it is explained variously by the saints. For some say that this is the same as what is said: "Blessed are the poor, for theirs...," and this in order to designate the perfection of patience, James 1:4; for perfection is always designated by the fact that it returns to its own starting-point, as appears in a circle. Likewise, he who suffers persecution for justice's sake is poor, and all the other things are owed to him, since he is also meek and merciful, and so with all the rest; and therefore not only the first reward is owed to him but all the rewards. Others say that it is not the same; hence Ambrose says that the kingdom of heaven is set down here with respect to the glory of the soul and heart: for to the power of the soul the kingdom of heaven corresponds, but to martyrdom corresponds the beatitude which consists in the glorification of bodies, on account of the torments which they suffered. Or otherwise: the kingdom of heaven is promised to the poor in hope, because they do not fly away at once, but to the martyrs in reality, because they fly away at once. [87565] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 11: "Blessed are you." Here he touches upon the dignity of those who are to teach the very doctrine of the apostles. And it should be known that all the beatitudes pertain to three things, since the first three are for the removal of evil, namely: blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, and blessed are they who mourn; the other four are for the working of good; and the last pertains to the patient endurance of evil. Now these three ought to be present by excellence in the teacher of sacred Scripture, because in enduring evils he ought not only to bear them patiently but ought to rejoice; likewise he ought to remove evils from others; and thirdly he ought to enlighten unto good. Hence in these three he commends the apostolic dignity in order, and he begins from persecution, because by this the perfection of all the others is designated, and it signifies that no one ought to take up the office of preaching unless he is perfect, Proverbs 19:11: "The teaching of a man is known by patience," Psalm 91:15 (Vulgate): "They shall be well patient." Concerning this, then, he does three things: first he enumerates the evils they were about to suffer; second he teaches the manner of suffering: "Rejoice and be glad"; third he assigns the reason: "for your reward." Now evils are either present or absent; and present evils come about by word and by deed: hence he sets down the whole. He says therefore: "Blessed are you." But here Augustine raises a question, because first he says "when they shall curse you," and afterward "and speak all evil," which seem to be the same. But it should be known that those curse who bear reproach to one's face, but those speak all evil who slander the absent. For they curse those to whom many reproaches are made, Jeremiah 15:10: "All curse me," 1 Peter 2:23: "who, when he was cursed..." Blessed, therefore, when they shall curse you, that is, when they shall offend you by word and by deed. Chrysostom: the merit of eternal life consists in two things: in doing good and in enduring evil, and just as any good deed, however small, is not without merit, so every injury has its reward. "And persecuted," that is, by expelling you from city to city, 1 Corinthians 4:12: "We are cursed, and we bless," and below, 23:34: "Behold I send to you prophets and scribes, and some of them you shall persecute from city to city." "And shall speak," that is, they shall pierce you and defame you with many evils, 2 Corinthians 6:8: "as seducers," 1 Peter 4:14: "If you be reproached for the name of Christ." But it should be known that not all of whom evils are spoken are blessed, but it is required, first, that it be spoken falsely, and second, that it be for Christ's sake; hence he says "lying, for my sake," and this "for my sake" refers to all the aforesaid. Likewise note that what he says, "for my sake," is the same as what was said above, "for Christ's sake." [87566] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 12: "Rejoice." Here he teaches the manner in which evils are to be endured. Above, when he was speaking of all in general, he said "blessed are they that suffer," that is, who are not indignant; but in the apostles this does not suffice — rather it is fitting that they should exult, James 1:2: "count it all joy," Acts 5:41: "the apostles went rejoicing." But against this, Augustine: "you command that these things be endured, not that they be loved." It must be said that one is not to rejoice over the tribulations themselves but over the hope which one has on account of enduring them, just as one who takes medicine does not rejoice over the bitterness of the medicine but over the hope of health. And he says "rejoice and be glad," where it should be known that to be delighted, to exult, to rejoice, and to be glad are the same thing in reality but differ in their notion. For delight properly arises from the conjunction with the very thing loved and fitting; joy consists not only in the conjunction but also in the apprehension of it; interior gladness and exultation are effects that follow upon joy and delight, because from these the heart is first dilated — hence "laetitia" (gladness) is as it were "latitia" (a widening); likewise, not only is the heart dilated within, but when it is expressed it appears outwardly, and then it is called exultation, as it were appearing outside. Now one must rejoice because it will be to the confusion of unbelievers and the joy of the faithful; thus blessed Lawrence rejoiced on the gridiron, as is read of him. And there is a twofold cause of joy: first, the reward, hence: "for your reward is abundant in heaven," namely in the Empyrean, hence 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (17): "so shall we always be with the Lord." Augustine: in saying "in heaven" he names both the object of beatitude and its substance, which will not be among bodily things but among spiritual things, namely in the enjoyment of God; and these spiritual goods are designated by the heavens on account of their solidity and firmness. And he says "abundant" on account of the superabundant reward of the apostles, Luke 6:38: "good measure," Genesis 15:1: "I am God, your reward." The second cause why one must rejoice is the example, hence: "for so." For it is a great consolation when some are likened to the great and preceding fathers, Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets...," James 5:10: "Take, brethren, for an example..." And note that in this the dignity of Christ is designated, because he has his prophets suffering on his behalf just as in the Old Testament, and also the dignity of the apostles, who are likened to the prophets. [87567] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 13: "You are the salt." Above, the Lord showed the dignity of the apostles as regards the fact that in tribulations they ought to be not only patient but even rejoicing; now, however, he states their excellence as regards the fact that they ought to restrain others from evils, and therefore he compares them to salt: "You are..." And concerning this he does two things: first he determines their office as regards restraining others from evils; second he shows how they ought to restrain themselves from evils, at the place: "But if the salt lose its savor." He says, therefore: "You are the salt." He compares them to salt for four reasons. The first, on account of the generation of salt, which comes from water and wind and the heat of the sun: for spiritual generation is from the water of Baptism and by the power of the Holy Spirit, John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again...," and from the heat of the sun, that is, the fervor of love which is from the Holy Spirit, Romans 5:5: "the charity of God..." Second, on account of the useful properties of salt, of which the first is use, since all things are seasoned with salt; hence it signifies the wisdom which apostolic men ought to have, Ecclesiasticus 6:23 (37:23): "the wisdom of teaching," Colossians 4:5: "in wisdom towards those that are without." The second reason was Leviticus 2:13, that salt was to be added to every sacrifice, because apostolic teaching ought to shine forth in every work of ours. The third is that it consumes the excess of moisture and thereby preserves from putrefaction: thus the apostles by their teaching restrained carnal concupiscences, 1 Peter 4:3: "the time past is sufficient," Romans 13:13: "not in rioting." The fourth effect is that it renders the earth barren: hence it is said that certain victors sowed salt over the city they had captured so that nothing might spring up there; so also the evangelical teaching makes the earth barren, so that earthly works may not spring up in us, Ephesians 5:11: "Have no fellowship..." The apostles, therefore, are called salt because they have a biting sharpness that draws men back from sins, Mark 9:49 (50): "Have salt in yourselves." But someone might say: it suffices that I have salt. No — rather it is necessary that the powers of salt preserve you from sin, and to this he adduces four reasons. The first is taken from incorrigibility, hence: "But if the salt lose its savor." Those things properly lose their savor which lose their own power: just as strong wine, when it loses its strength, so salt when it loses its bite, Mark 9:49 (50): "if the salt become unsavory, with what will you season it?" Hence someone loses his savor when he lies subject to sin, Romans 1:21: "they became vain in their thoughts." If, therefore, on account of tribulations or anything else you fall away from virtue, "with what will you be salted" — that is, with what other salt will it be salted? For if the common people sin they can be corrected, but if the prelate sins, no one can amend him, Hosea 8:5: "How long will they be unable..." And it should be noted that Luke 14:34 says: "But if the salt become tasteless" — for it is a great folly to give up eternal things for temporal ones. The second reason is taken from usefulness, hence: "good for nothing," and Luke 14:35 explains this: "neither for the land nor for the dunghill," because it makes the land barren and does not fertilize the dunghill. Thus spiritual men, when they sin, are worth nothing, because they are not fit even for secular affairs, as soldiers and the like are, Ezekiel 15:2: "Son of man, what shall be done to the wood of the vine?" etc., Psalm 13:3 (14:3): "They are all gone aside." The third reason is taken from the imminent danger and has two branches according to two dangers. The first is expulsion, hence: "except to be cast out," namely from the Church, Apocalypse 22:15: "Without are dogs..." Likewise, that the dignity of priestly teaching authority be taken from him, Hosea 4:6: "because you have rejected knowledge," below, 21:43: "the kingdom shall be taken from you," and this is: "except to be cast out." The second danger is degradation, because those who first live supernaturally and then fail become contemptible, and this is: "and to be trodden on," Luke 14:30: "This man began to build," Malachi 2:8: "You have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law." And it should be noted, according to Augustine, that if certain holy men are held in contempt, as is said above (5:11): "and shall speak all evil," etc., they can nevertheless never be trodden underfoot, because they always have their heart in heaven, and it is properly those who are trodden underfoot who lie upon the earth. [87568] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 14: "You are the light." Here the third dignity of the apostles is set down. For just as they ought to restrain others from evils, so they ought also to enlighten. And concerning this he does two things: first he shows their dignity, second he removes faint-heartedness, at the place: "A city cannot..." He says, therefore: "You are the light of the world" — as if to say, not of Judea only, or Galilee, but of the whole world, Acts 13:47: "For so the Lord has commanded us: I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles." And this was a marvel, that he was scarcely known in his own land and yet he went forth into every land. But it is objected that this saying, "light," seems to belong to Christ alone, John 1:8: "He was not the light," and afterward: "that was the true light." It must be said that Christ alone is light essentially, but the apostles are called light illuminated, namely by participation, just as the eye is a light that illuminates and yet is itself illuminated. And note that these three sayings — namely, "Blessed are you when they shall curse you," and "You are the salt," and "You are the light" — seem to pertain to the three last beatitudes: the first to "Blessed are they that suffer persecution," the second to "Blessed are the peacemakers" (because they make peace in themselves and in others), the third to "Blessed are the clean of heart." For if the apostles were excellent in these last three, much more so in the higher ones. The Lord had said: "Blessed are you when they shall curse you" and "they that suffer persecution"; they might therefore say: we shall endure so many persecutions, therefore we wish to hide ourselves. And therefore the Lord next removes their faint-heartedness, hence: "A city cannot be hidden." And first he forbids hiding, second he shows the manner in which they ought to manifest themselves, at the place: "so let your light shine." That they ought not to hide themselves he proves by two reasons: first, because they could not even if they wished; second, because they ought not, and this is: "neither do men light..." "A city cannot..." The city was the congregation of the faithful, namely the very company of the apostles, Psalm 86:3 (87:3): "Glorious things are said of you." Now it was situated "upon a mountain," namely Christ, Micah 4:1: "the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be...," Daniel 2:34: "a stone cut out..." Or "upon a mountain," that is, upon the perfection of justice, Psalm 35:7 (36:6): "Your justice is like the mountains." Now a city situated upon a mountain cannot hide itself, and so it is with the apostles: Chrysostom. Men set in a lowly place, if they sin, can lie hidden; but if set upon the summit, they cannot, 3 Kings 1:20: "the eyes of all Israel are upon you." Hilary explains it differently, though the sense is nearly the same: the city upon the mountain is Christ, because on the part of the human nature by which he communicates with us, he is a city, Jeremiah 1:18: "I have made you this day into a fortified city"; he is upon a mountain because he is in the divinity which is the mountain, Psalm 67:16 (68:15): "the mountain of God, a fat mountain." And therefore Christ could not lie hidden; and therefore you, apostles, ought not to hide me. [87569] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 15. Second, at the place: "neither do men light...," as if to say: let us grant that it could lie hidden, still you ought not to hide it. For no one who receives a benefit ought to act against the intention of the giver. God gave you knowledge so that you might share it, 1 Peter 4:10: "as every man has received grace..." And this is: "neither do men light a lamp" — men, that is, or the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. By "lamp" can be understood, first, the evangelical teaching, Psalm 118:105 (119:105): "a lamp to my feet"; for a lamp has an incorporated light; the light of truth has been placed in sacred Scripture, and it has been lit by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or by "lamp" can be understood the apostles, insofar as the light of grace has been placed within them, John 5:35: "he was a burning lamp," Psalm 130:17 (132:17): "I have prepared a lamp." Or by "lamp," Christ, because just as a lamp is light in an earthen vessel, so is divinity in humanity, 2 Kings 22:29: "You are my lamp." The lamp being understood in this way, by "bushel" we can understand three things. First, according to Augustine, bodily things, for two reasons: the first, because a bushel is a measure, Deuteronomy 25:15; but what we do in the body will be repaid to us, 2 Corinthians 5:10: "we must all appear..."; or because all bodily things are measured, but divine things are infinite, since they are beyond measure. Those, therefore, put the lamp under the bushel who refer their teaching to temporal advantage, since that is held more precious; against which the Apostle says, 1 Thessalonians 2:5: "For neither have we been..." In a second way, according to Chrysostom, worldly men are called the bushel, because they are empty above and solid below: for above they have unsoundness, since they perceive nothing of the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 2:14: "the sensual man...," but below, that is, in secular affairs, they are wise, Luke 16:8: "the children of this world"; and this is the more literal exposition. Then, therefore, according to this, the lamp is put under the bushel when the teaching is hidden out of worldly fear, Isaiah 51:12: "Who are you, that you should be afraid of a man?," 2 Timothy 2:9: "I labor even unto bonds." But if by "lamp" is understood the evangelical teaching or Christ, then by "bushel" can be understood the synagogue: for Christ was not incarnate for this reason, that he might lie hidden beneath Judea, but that he might manifest himself to the whole world, Isaiah 49:6: "I have given you for a light." "But upon a candlestick." This can be explained in three ways, because by "candlestick" can be signified the body, and by "lamp," the evangelical teaching; hence "bushel" and "candlestick" mean the same thing, as if to say: the evangelical teaching ought not to be subjected to temporal things, but all things ought to be at its service; hence when you give up possessions, your body, and even your life unto death for the love of Christ, then you put the lamp upon the candlestick. Or by "candlestick" is understood the Church, because those who are the lamp are set in a higher place, Ecclesiasticus 26:22 (17): "a shining lamp." But if it is understood of Christ, then by "candlestick": the cross, Colossians 1:20: "through the blood of the cross." "That it may give light to all." This too is explained in three ways. By "house" the Church can be understood, 1 Timothy 3:15: "that you may know how you ought to behave..." Or the house is the whole world, Hebrews 3:4: "for every house is built by some man..." etc. [87570] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 16. Next is set down the manner in which they ought to manifest themselves, and first he sets down the manner: that they ought to shine before men, by enlightening them, Ephesians 3:8: "To me, the least of all the saints..."; the order: "that they may see," James 2:18: "show me from your works"; the end, because it is not for their own glory, 2 Corinthians 2:17: "we are not as many...," and this is: "and may glorify"; for we ought to do good works for the glory of God, so that God may be glorified in our good life, 1 Corinthians 10:31: "whether you eat..." etc. [87571] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 17: "Do not think." Note here that the Lord fulfilled the law in five ways: first, because those things which had been prefigured he himself fulfilled in deed, Luke 22:37: "it is necessary that it be fulfilled"; second, by observing the precepts of the law, Galatians 4:4: "when the fullness of time had come"; third, by working through grace, namely in sanctifying through the Holy Spirit, which the law was not able to do, Romans 8:3: "for what was impossible..."; fourth, by making satisfaction for the sins by which we had been made transgressors of the law — hence, the transgression having been removed, he fulfilled the law, Romans 3:25: "whom God proposed as a propitiation"; fifth, by adding to the law certain perfections which either belonged to the understanding of the law, or were for the greater perfection of justice. Note that the law is broken in three ways: by denying it entirely, or by wrongly interpreting it, or by not fulfilling the moral precepts. "Do not think." The beatitude to which the teaching of Christ pertains having been set down, here he begins to promulgate his teaching, and first he lays open his intention, second he proposes the rule and precepts of his teaching, at the place: "But I say to you." Concerning the first he does two things: first he excludes the intention that was supposed, second he sets forth the true one, at the place: "I have not come." The Lord had said to the apostles (5:11): "Blessed shall you be when they shall curse you," etc.; hence the apostles might have suspected that such a teaching was about to be handed down, on account of which they would need to hide themselves, as if Christ were saying something against the law; and therefore the Lord excludes this, saying: "Do not," etc. And likewise, because it might be said that no other prophet, after Moses who gave the law, has broken the law, the Lord therefore says he will do something greater, hence: "but to fulfill"; for no one had fulfilled it. And note that this saying is very effective against those who condemn the law as if it were from the Devil, 1 John 3:8: "in this the Son of God appears"; but he himself confesses: "I have not come to destroy the law"; therefore it is not the work of the Devil. By this argument a certain man was converted to the faith and became a Friar Preacher. Hence the Manichees very much abhor this chapter; hence Faustus raises many objections, according to Augustine, and all the objections are reduced to three. First, from the authority of the law: for it is said, Deuteronomy 4:2: "you shall not add to the word which I speak to you, nor take away from it"; but Christ added; therefore he acted against the law. Likewise, Hebrews 8:13: "in saying a new one, he has made the former old"; but Christ said he was the founder of a new law, below 26:28: "this is my blood"; therefore he destroyed the old one. Third, John 13:15: "for I have given you an example"; every action of Christ, therefore, is a true instruction; if therefore he fulfilled it, we too ought to fulfill it: therefore we ought to be circumcised and observe all the legal precepts; and this objection is common also to the Nazarenes and the Manichees. Faustus said, therefore, either that Jesus did not say these words, but Matthew — who was not present at the discourse — said them, while John, who was present, did not say them; or that if Christ did say them and Matthew wrote them, the Gospel must be explained differently. For in sacred Scripture the law is explained in three ways: as the Mosaic law (Romans 7:6: "we are delivered from the law of death, in the law of God"); the law of nature (Romans 2:14: "for when the Gentiles, who have not the law..."); the law of truth (Romans 8:2: "the law of the spirit... has come"). Thus it is proved in three ways, therefore: of the old law, of the law of nature (Titus 1:12: "one of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans..."), of truth (below 23:34: "behold I send..."). What he says here, therefore, "I have not come," etc., must be understood of the law of nature or of truth, which also comes to be in certain of the ancient fathers; and a sign of this is that the Lord, when he was speaking of the precepts, seemed to approve some and not others, namely those which are proper to the Mosaic law, such as "an eye for an eye" and the like. But against these things Augustine objects as follows. First, because whoever denies something of the Gospel will be able, by the same reasoning, to deny anything else whatsoever, and so annul Scripture; but the faithful man ought to believe whatever things are in Scripture. Likewise, what he says — that Christ speaks of another law and prophets — is false, because in the whole New Testament, wherever mention is made of the law, it is understood of the Mosaic law, Romans 9:4: "whose is the giving of the law"; therefore the Lord too speaks of these. Hence we must see first how Christ came to fulfill the law, and afterward we shall resolve the arguments. It must be known, then, that Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets in five ways. First, because those things which had been prefigured in the law and the prophets concerning Christ, he fulfilled in deed, Luke 24:44: "it is necessary that all things be fulfilled." Second, by observing the legal precepts to the letter, Galatians 4:4: "when the fullness of time came." Third, by working grace, which the law of nature was not able to do: for every law aims at this, that we be made just men; but Christ did this through the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:3: "for what was impossible to the law." Fourth, according to Augustine, by making satisfaction for the sins according to which we had been made transgressors of the law; hence, the transgression having been removed, he is said to have fulfilled the law, Romans 3:25: "whom God proposed as a propitiation," etc. Fifth, by adding to the law certain perfections which either belonged to the understanding of the law or were for the greater perfection of justice, Hebrews 7:19: "the law brought nothing to perfection"; and this appears to be Christ's intention, because when he has already made mention of all the legal precepts, he adds: "Be you therefore perfect," etc. (Matthew 5:48). Let us resolve, then, the arguments of Faustus as Augustine resolves them. To that saying (Deuteronomy 4:2), "you shall not add to the word," it must be said that Christ did not add but explained; for they understood "you shall not kill" of the act of homicide, whereas Christ explains that he also forbade hatred and anger. Likewise, to that saying (Hebrews 8:13), "the new has made the old obsolete," it must be said that this "new" is the same thing, because the old was the figure and the new is the fulfillment of the figures. To the point that we ought to observe it, it must be said that something can be signified by speech and by figure, and it makes no difference in whatever way it is signified. Before Christ was born, one could have said: Christ is to be born and to die; but now it is said: Christ has been born, and the like; and yet the thing is in agreement, because the same accomplished and future reality is pronounced in different words. Hence that which was signified by figures as future, when it has already passed, is signified as present through new figures, namely the sacraments of the new law. Hence, although Christ has fulfilled it, nevertheless, because the truth has now come, whoever would still fulfill it in the old way would do an injury to the truth. Thus, then, is "I have not come to destroy" to be understood. [87572] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 18: "For amen." Here is set down the reason for the fulfillment, and he seems to assign a threefold reason: the first from the immutability of the law, the second from the penalty of those who break it, the third from the reward of those who fulfill it; the second at the place: "shall break," the third at the place: "shall do and teach." He says, therefore, "amen," and it should be known that in the old law all the mysteries of Christ were prefigured, but, as is said in Amos 3:7, the Lord does nothing without revealing it; the mysteries of Christ, therefore, will endure to the very last end, below at the end (28:20): "behold I am with you." Hence not all the mysteries of the prophets were fulfilled at Christ's first coming; rather they will be fulfilled up to the end of the world. And what he has said cannot be changed, Numbers 23:19: "has the Lord said, and will he not do it?" If, therefore, the law foretold things that are future, it is also necessary that they come to pass of necessity. Hence he says: "amen I say," that is, all things will be fulfilled successively up to the end of the world. It should be known that "amen" is a Hebrew word, and no translator, out of reverence for this term — since the Lord frequently used it — has dared to change it; and it is taken sometimes in the force of a noun, whence "amen": true; sometimes it is an adverb, that is, truly, and it is taken in this way here; sometimes it stands for "let it be done," as in the Psalm (40:14 [41:13]) where what we render "let it be" is in Hebrew "amen"; hence the verse is said: for "true," "truly"; for "let it be done," "amen" is said. Hence the Lord here rouses attention in his hearers. "Till it pass" — not according to substance, but according to disposition, 1 Corinthians 7:31: "the figure of this world passes away," 2 Peter 3:12: "the heavens being on fire." "Till," that is, up to the end of the world. "Jot." "Jot" among the Greeks is the letter which we call small I; among the Hebrews, however, it is called "yod"; and among the Greeks "iota" signifies the letter Y, and is a new letter (for all the letters signify some number), so it pertains to the completeness of the Decalogue, and perhaps for this reason he set down "iota" rather than "yod," according to what the saints say. The "point," or accent-mark, is placed above letters both in Hebrew and in Greek, but for different reasons in each: because among the Hebrews the aleph sometimes sounds as "a," sometimes as "e," and this is known by certain points, and those are called apices; likewise among the Greeks certain marks are placed above letters to distinguish breathings and accents, and these too are called apices among the Greeks. The Lord wishes to say, therefore, that nothing however small will fail to be fulfilled. [87573] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 19: "Whosoever therefore shall break." Here the second reason is set down, taken from the punishment of those who break the law, as if to say: whoever shall break it will be held guilty of punishment as a transgressor of the divine observance. Now the least commandments, according to Chrysostom, are the commandments of Christ; hence: "whosoever shall break one of these least commandments" which I am about to speak. And the continuity is thus: because the law cannot be broken, therefore, since I do not break it, whoever shall break it will be held guilty of punishment. And they are called least, first, on account of humility, just as he also calls himself a little one, below 18:3: "unless you become..."; or they are called least with respect to the transgression, because he sins less who breaks them; but greater are the things which Christ commanded with regard to observance, because the law commanded "you shall not kill," Christ, not even to be angry. Augustine and Jerome say it differently: he speaks to the letter of the least precepts which are in the law, because he said "jot and tittle"; and they are called least because the principal ones are: "you shall love the Lord your God" and "your neighbor"; hence certain observances are called the least precepts, such as the many that are in Leviticus 19. And he says this as a rebuke of the Pharisees, because the Pharisees, on account of their own observances, transgressed many things, below 15:6: "you have made void." Now the law is broken in three ways: first, by denying it entirely; second, by wrongly interpreting it; third, by not fulfilling the moral precepts. "And shall teach." He does evil who acts wrongly, but he does worse who teaches others to act wrongly, Apocalypse 2:14: "you have there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam"; and therefore he says: "whoever shall break and teach," namely, teach others to break the commandments. And according to this it seems that he who breaks them will be in the kingdom of heaven. But it should be known that, according to Augustine, the kingdom of heaven is here taken for eternal life, and the Lord wished to give us to understand that no one will be there who breaks and teaches, etc., because there will be no one there who is not great, Romans 8:30: "whom he justified," etc.; hence he who is too small will never enter. Second, according to Rabanus, thus: men seek fame among men, because it is a certain glory for a man to be reputed great in the kingdom of men; but whoever breaks the commandments will be reputed least in the kingdom of heaven, not existing there at all: for he is reputed small there who transgresses the commandments, and least who teaches others to transgress; and this explanation is good enough. Chrysostom explains it differently: Scripture sometimes calls the final judgment the kingdom of heaven, as the Psalm says (96:1 [97:1]): "the Lord has reigned"; and there there will be different ranks, but the least will be he who teaches men to transgress the commandments, because, according to this, even those who are in Hell belong to the kingdom of heaven. Gregory: on behalf of the Church, hence: he will be called least in the Church, because when a man's life is despised, it follows that his preaching too is held in contempt. "But he that shall do and teach." Great is he who does well, but greater is he who both does and teaches; hence he will have great glory, below 10:32: "whoever shall confess me," Wisdom 19:22 (19:20 Vulgate): "in all things you have magnified your people." [87574] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 20: "But I say to you, unless it abound." Above the Lord showed that it was not his intention to destroy the law but to fulfill it; hence here he begins to fulfill it. In the law there were four kinds of precepts: certain moral precepts, certain judicial ones, certain figural ones, and certain promises; three of these the Lord fulfills in words — namely the moral, the promissory, and the judicial, that is, he teaches how they are to be fulfilled; the figural ones, however, he fulfilled in deed, in his passion. Hence this part is divided into three: in the first he fulfills the law as regards the moral precepts, in the second as regards the promises, in the third as regards the judicial precepts; the moral precepts are of two kinds: some prohibitive, some permissive; first he fulfills the former, second the latter, at the place: "it was said" (5:31). Concerning the first he does two things: first he forbids homicide, second adultery, at the place (5:27): "You have heard," etc., "You shall not commit adultery." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the necessity, second the fulfillment, at the place: "You have heard." He says, therefore: "But I say to you." Note that justice is taken in two ways: sometimes it is a certain particular virtue, one of the four cardinal virtues, and has a determined subject-matter, namely the exchangeable goods which come into the use of life; otherwise it is called the general virtue, which is the common virtue that the Philosopher calls legal justice, which pertains to the fulfilling of the law: and it is taken in this way here. "And more than that of the scribes." And he says: "of the scribes and Pharisees," because these were the more prominent in the justice of the law, since they even added certain further observances of their own; therefore, in order to designate the excellence of the New Testament, he shows that it surpasses even their justice. Hence it is said that whoever is less will be in the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church is greater than that. The sense, therefore, is: "unless it abound," that is, unless your justice be more perfect than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter, etc. And it should be known that the state of the Gospel is a middle state between the state of the law and the state of glory, and this is clear because in Galatians 4:3 the Apostle compares the state of the law to a child, and the Gospel to a perfect age; hence he says: "as long as we were children," etc., and afterward (3:24): "the law was our pedagogue," etc., and 1 Corinthians 13:11: "when I was a child," etc.; it is, therefore, a middle state, and this is natural, because no one can arrive at one term unless he passes beyond another: for no one can arrive at old age unless he passes beyond childhood; thus the Lord says that one cannot arrive at the state of the kingdom of heaven unless one passes beyond, etc. Likewise, a greater reward is acquired for greater labor, 2 Corinthians 9:6: "he who sows sparingly..."; now in the law temporal and earthly things were promised, Isaiah 1:19: "if you be willing...," but here heavenly things are promised; therefore justice ought to abound in us, because a greater reward is expected. But it is objected against this saying of the Lord, "unless it abound," that the justice of the law consists in the fulfilling of the Decalogue; but he who fulfills the precepts of the Decalogue will have eternal life, below 19:17: "if you will enter into life..." And it is resolved thus: it is said universally, first, that the observers of the Decalogue were never able to enter except by faith and through the redemption of the blood of Christ (Galatians 2:21): "for if justice be by the law..." And therefore it must be said that the saying "if you will enter into life" is to be understood with faith presupposed; but the scribes and Pharisees did not have faith, Romans 9:31: "but Israel, by following after the law of justice, has not attained to the law of justice. Why? Because," etc.; and this is a solution good enough. Another is Augustine's, who says that all these fulfillments which Christ makes are all contained already in the old law, since there too anger is forbidden, Leviticus 19:17: "you shall not hate your brother." What, then, does the Lord add? It must be said that he adds with respect to the depraved understanding of those scribes and Pharisees, since they believed that in that precept, "you shall not kill," nothing was forbidden except from fear of the act, the act of homicide. Hence the Lord explained this, and therefore he does not simply say "unless your justice abound beyond the law," but "more than that of the scribes and Pharisees." There is also another solution, with Augustine: for Christ had said, "whoever shall do and teach," etc., and "whoever shall break," etc.; but the Pharisees and scribes do not both do and teach, below chapter 23: "for they say," etc.; therefore "unless it abound," etc., means: that what you say, you also do. "You shall not enter," etc. But another question remains, because the Lord said, "whosoever therefore shall break" one of the least commandments "shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," and yet he who does not abound shall not enter; therefore he who breaks the commandments will nonetheless be there. And Chrysostom resolves this by saying that to be in the kingdom is one thing and to enter it is another: for those properly enter who have a share in the dominion of the kingdom; those are said to be in it who simply dwell within it, wherever that may be — hence even those who are held in prison are said to be in the kingdom; so also it is with the kingdom of heaven, because those brought to punishment are in the kingdom but do not share in the kingdom. Augustine explains it differently, and says that from this we can understand that the kingdom of heaven is spoken of in two ways: one, which those who lack justice do not enter, and this is eternal life; the other, which those who break the commandments do enter, and this is the present Church. [87575] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 21: "You have heard." Here is set down the fulfillment of the precept, and concerning this he does three things: first he sets down the precepts, second he fulfills them, third he warns to the observance of the fulfillment; the second at the place: "but I say," the third at the place: "if therefore you offer." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets down the precepts about the prohibition of homicide, second the penalty for homicide. He says, therefore: "you have heard" this, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17, and he says "by them of old," because, according to Chrysostom, just as if a teacher says to one of his disciples: it is a long time since I taught you the elements, it is time that you learn greater things, so does the Lord, Hebrews 5:12: "for whereas for the time you ought to be masters," etc. And it should be noted that concerning this precept a threefold error arises. For some said that it was not lawful to kill even the small animals; but this is false, since it is not a sin to make use of those things which are subjected to man's power: for it is the natural order that plants be for the nourishment of animals, and certain animals for the nourishment of others; and all things are for man's nourishment, Genesis 9:3: "even as the green herbs." And the Philosopher too says in the Politics that hunting is like a just war. The second is the error of certain ones who said "you shall not kill" means a human being; hence they call all secular judges who condemn men according to certain laws murderers. Against this Augustine says that God did not take away from himself the power of killing, hence (Deuteronomy 32:39): "I will kill and I will make to live," etc.; therefore it is lawful for those to kill who do so by the command of God, because then it is God who acts. Now every law is a command of God, Proverbs 8:15: "by me kings reign," Romans 13:4: "for he beareth not the sword without cause"; therefore "you shall not kill" must be understood: on one's own authority. The third error is that some believed that "you shall not kill another" but that it is lawful to kill oneself, since this is found recorded of Samson and also of Cato and of certain virgins who threw themselves into the flames, according to what Augustine recounts. But Augustine replied that whoever kills himself kills a human being, since one ought not to kill another except by the authority of God, nor oneself either except by the will of God or the instinct of the Holy Spirit, and thus he excuses Samson. "But whosoever shall kill." Here the penalty is set down: "he shall be liable to judgment," that is, to the penalty which the law will adjudge, Exodus 21:12. [87576] On Matthew, chapter 5, verse 22. There follows: "But I say to you," etc. The precept of the old law having been set down, here the Lord fulfills it, and this fulfillment does not empty out the law but rather makes for its greater fulfillment, because he who is angry is prone to homicide, though when he is angry he does not yet commit homicide. This is in a certain way contained already in that precept, because that law was given by God, and there is a difference between the law of man and the law of God, because man is the judge of external acts, but God of internal ones, 1 Kings 16:7: "man sees those things that appear"; hence in this "you shall not kill" the very movement toward killing is also included. But there is a twofold movement toward harming one's neighbor, namely of anger and of hatred; nor is hatred the same as inveterate anger, but it is spoken of by way of cause, since hatred arises out of inveterate anger. There is, then, a difference, because anger does not desire evil to one's neighbor except insofar as it wills vengeance — hence, once vengeance is exacted, it comes to rest; but in hatred the harm itself is willed for its own sake and the desire never comes to rest; therefore the movement of hatred is graver than that of anger. Now God forbids not only the movement of hatred but also that of anger, which is lighter, 1 John 2:11: "he that hates his brother." Now he sets down three degrees of anger: the first degree is of anger latent in the heart, the second of anger appearing outwardly, the third of anger bursting forth into harm. The first is at the place: "but I say to you," and Augustine says that the reading ought to be "without cause," since he who is angry without cause will be liable to judgment. Jerome, however, says that "without cause" does not belong to the text, because then a place would be left for anger; but the Lord leaves no place at all for anger. But is all anger contrary to virtue? It should be known that, as Augustine says, there were two opinions of the philosophers on this point: the Stoics said that no passion of the soul falls upon the wise man, indeed they wished true virtue to exclude passion altogether; the Peripatetics, however, said that anger does fall upon the wise man, but moderated, and this is the truer opinion; which is clear both by authority, because in the Gospels we find these passions in a certain way attributed to Christ, in whom was the fullness of wisdom; and by reason, because if all the passions were contrary to virtue, there would be certain powers of the soul that would serve only for harm, since they would have no fitting acts of their own, and then the irascible and concupiscible powers would have been given to man in vain. And therefore it must be said that anger is sometimes a virtue and sometimes not. Now anger is taken in three ways: first, as it lies in the judgment of reason alone, without any disturbance of the soul; and this is not called anger but judgment — thus the Lord, punishing the wicked, is described as appearing angry, Micah 7:9: "I will bear the wrath of the Lord." Second, it is taken as it is a passion, and this is in the sensitive appetite, and it is twofold, because sometimes it is ordered by reason and contained within the bounds of reason — namely when one is angry as much as one ought, at whom one ought, and the like — and then it is an act of virtue and is called anger through zeal. Hence the Philosopher too says that meekness does not consist in never being angry at all. And therefore Chrysostom says that if anger were entirely taken away, discipline too would be taken away, etc. This anger, therefore, is not a sin. There is a third anger which escapes the judgment of reason, and this is always a sin, but sometimes venial, sometimes mortal, and this will be said to arise from the very worst impulse. For something is a mortal or venial sin in two ways: from its kind, or from its circumstances, or in the act and by consent; for example, homicide is an act of mortal sin from its very kind, because it is directly contrary to the divine precept, and therefore consent to homicide is a mortal sin — because if the act is mortal, so too is the consent; likewise if it were a venial sin, so too would be the consent, and so on. Sometimes, however, a sin is mortal from its kind, but nevertheless the mere impulse is not a mortal sin because it lacks consent, as when the movement of concupiscence arises toward fornication: if it is not consented to, it is not mortal. Likewise, anger is a movement toward avenging an injury inflicted — for this is properly anger; if, then, this movement, for example in the matter of homicide, remains only in the passion, such that reason too is drawn along with it, then it is a mortal sin; but if reason is not perverted, then it is venial. But if the movement is not, from its kind, a mortal sin, then even if consent is given to it, it is not mortal. What the Lord says, then — "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" — must be understood of the movement tending toward harm, which movement is a mortal sin provided it is with consent, Ecclesiastes 12:14: "all things that are done, he will bring..." etc. And this is: "but I," etc. And note that no prophet, speaking of the law of Moses, spoke in this way, "but I say," etc., but they only led men to the observance of the law of Moses. From this it is clear that the Lord shows that he has authority and shows himself to be a lawgiver when he says "but I," etc. Next is set down the second degree of anger, namely when it appears outwardly without the infliction of harm. "Raca," according to some, is not a word signifying any determinate concept but is an interjection of one who is angry. According to Augustine, it is like "alas," an interjection of one who grieves, and signifies a certain feeling; hence the anger already bursts forth outwardly, yet not into harm. According to Chrysostom, it is an interjection of one who holds another in contempt, and sounds a note of contempt. Now both of these are forbidden, namely both to show bitterness toward one's brother — the Apostle (Ephesians 4:31): "let all bitterness..." — and to despise him, Malachi 2:10: "why does he despise," etc. According to others it is a word signifying a determinate concept, and on this point there are two opinions: for, according to Augustine, it is the same as "ragged," from "rachos," and this opinion agrees with that of Chrysostom; according to Jerome, "raca" signifies "empty," hence "raca," as it were "without a brain," and this is a great injury — indeed it is done as an injury to the Holy Spirit when one calls a wise brother, full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4: "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"), empty, etc. But Chrysostom asks: if "empty" is the same as "foolish," why did the Lord afterward say, "but whosoever shall say, You fool"? And he answered that in every language there are words signifying injury, but the injury arises from usage and the custom of speaking: for "raca," although it is the same as "fool," is nevertheless not used in the same way, since "raca" is said familiarly; and it is a sin when it is said with anger. "He shall be liable to the council." Augustine: it is a greater thing before God to be liable to the council than to judgment, because judgment applies while the case of the accused is still being examined and it is doubtful whether he is guilty, 1 Timothy 5:21: "without... judgment"; but after he is convicted of the crime, no more is done with the accused, but the judges betake themselves to council concerning the penalty to be imposed. Hilary: he is liable to the council of the saints, because he who does injury to the Holy Spirit deserves to be condemned by the saints. Chrysostom says that the apostles explained it thus: liable to the council, that is, so that he is known to those who came together in council against Christ. "But whosoever shall say, You fool." Here is the third degree, which is when one inflicts harm by word. And just as he who says "raca" inflicts injury upon the Holy Spirit, so he who says "fool" inflicts it upon the Son of God, who was made unto us wisdom, 1 Corinthians 1:30. "He shall be liable to the fire of hell (Gehenna)." This is the first place where mention is made of Gehenna, such that no one had ever before used this word. Jeremiah 19: near Jerusalem there was a certain pleasant valley called the valley of Topheth, or of the sons of Ennon; in that valley the children of Israel worshipped idols, and God threatened them through Jeremiah that in that place their own corpses would be cast down, hence Jeremiah 19:6: "this place shall be called," etc. Gehenna, according to the Hebrews, is the same as the valley of Ennon. Because, then, many were cast down and slain in that valley by Nebuchadnezzar when they were coming down from Jerusalem, therefore the Lord calls Gehenna the place of Hell. For just as he changed the earthly promises which were in the old law into heavenly and eternal goods, so he changed the temporal punishments which the old law inflicted into eternal punishments. Now, just as the faults themselves stand in relation to one another — since it is a greater thing to show anger outwardly than to hold it within, and a still greater thing to inflict harm — so too, first there is judgment, second the council, third a determinate penalty; and all of these, namely judgment, council, Gehenna, signify the punishment of Hell. And he says "in many ways" because he shows thereby a diversity of punishments, since those who inflict harm will be punished more severely.”

“"If therefore you offer." Here he forbids inveterate anger, from which hatred is born, and he argues from the greater, according to Rabanus, thus: if it is not lawful for you to be angry with your brother, much more is it not lawful to retain anger, whence hatred is born. Therefore "if you offer," that is, if you propose to offer, "at the altar." This is explained in many ways, according as "altar" is sometimes taken for the material temple, as in Psalm 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will encompass your altar, O Lord." Sometimes it is taken for Christ; Lamentations 2:7: "The Lord has cast off his altar," that is, Christ, namely in the Passion. Sometimes for the devotion of the heart, and this is the interior temple, according to Augustine. As to the first, "if you offer your gift," that is, your oblation, "at the altar" — the material altar, taken literally; or the gift of a good work, according to the Gloss, "at the altar," that is, Christ. Or, according to Augustine: "your gift," that is, prayers, Psalms, hymns, and the like, "at the altar," that is, in the heart, which is the temple where you are about to offer; and "there," namely in the Church, or in the heart, "you remember that your brother has something against you." This can be understood in two ways, namely concerning the one who injures and the one who is injured. Concerning the one who injures, thus, according to Augustine: "if you remember," that is, if it comes into your mind and to your knowledge, that "your brother," whom you have injured, "has something against you" — namely on account of the disposition of an insult, of bodily injury, of the taking away of temporal goods, of the blackening of reputation — "leave there," namely before the altar, or before God, "your gift, and go": if he is absent, not with the feet of the body, as Augustine says, but you should prostrate yourself in humble mind in the sight of him to whom you are about to offer; if he is present, he must be called back to love, by seeking pardon from him. Or, if "your brother," who injured you, "has something against you," that is, whereby he is set against you, "go to be reconciled to your brother," by giving up your rancor toward him. For from the very fact that, in saying "if your brother has something against you," he does not add "justly," he gives us to understand that even the one to whom the injury was done ought to seek friendship. Hence Chrysostom says: if for the glory of your salvation the Lord commands you to make friendship, much more ought you to ask for it, so that you may attain a double glory: one, because you are innocent; the other, because you asked first. "And then, coming" — as one now pleasing to the Lord, whereas before you did not please him — "you shall offer your gift." Chrysostom: if you have offended in thought, be reconciled in thought; if in words, in words; if in deeds, in deeds. And again: unless you appease by deeds the one whom you have injured by deeds, you pray to the Lord in vain, you give alms in vain from the things by which you have despoiled others. For what does it profit if one man prays to the Lord for you, and another cries out to the Lord against you? Ecclesiasticus 34:23: "The Most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked." And note here four things which are required for the giving or offering: first, cheerfulness of mind; hence he says "if you offer"; Ecclesiasticus 35:11: "In every gift make your countenance cheerful." Second, ownership of the thing; hence he says "your gift"; Proverbs 3:9: "Honor God with your substance." Third, the fitness of the place, "at the altar." Fourth, love of neighbor; hence he says "and you remember"; 1 Corinthians 13:3: "If I distribute all my goods to feed the poor, but have not charity, it profits me nothing." He is foolish who loses an abundance of food for the sake of a penny's worth of salt, that is, of charity, which gives savor and beauty to all things, as gold does to other metals. "Be at agreement with your adversary." Above he forbade having anger, or discord, with one's brothers; here he removes having discord with an adversary, saying "be agreeing," that is, benevolent or kindly — as is gathered from the Greek, as Jerome says — "with your adversary." An objection: the Devil is an adversary; therefore one must agree with him. Response: he speaks of the one who is with us on the way; but the Devil is not on the way, nor can he be, but is in eternal straying from the way; hence "your adversary," according to Chrysostom, means a man who opposes, or literally an enemy; Romans 12:18: "If it be possible, as much as is in you, having peace with all men." "While," that is, until, "you are with him in the way," that is, in the state of meriting; John 9:4: "The time is coming when no one can work." Or our adversary is God, of whom Exodus 23:7 says: "I am the Lord, who am an adversary to the wicked." Or it is the divine word, which is opposed to those willing to sin; 2 Timothy, penultimate chapter, 16: "All Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproving." Or it is the remorseful conscience, of which Psalm 49:21 says: "I will reprove you, and set myself against your face." And thus, again, it is explained according to all these ways. Hence, "be agreeing with your adversary," that is, with God, and with the divine word, according to Augustine and Bede, with whom one must agree in the hope of the promise, in the fear of punishment, in the carrying out of the precept, in the avoidance of what is forbidden. "Quickly," that is, without delay; Ecclesiasticus 5:8: "Do not delay to be converted to the Lord." "While you are with him," that is, with him with whom you shall walk rightly "in the way," namely the way of Christ, or of penance, or of the world; Psalm 118:32: "I have run the way of your commandments, when you enlarged my heart." "Lest perhaps he deliver you." According to Augustine, "lest perhaps" means lest it become, as it were by occasion, the cause of your being delivered up. And he says "perhaps," according to the Gloss, lest the place of repentance be taken away. For if the adversary had died before he agreed — or had been well-disposed — it would seem that he would be condemned, were it said simply and without qualification, "lest the adversary" — that is, the divine word, or God, or the remorseful conscience — "deliver you to the judge." The Gloss: into the hands of Christ. John 5:22: "he has given all judgment to the Son." And "the judge" is Christ; Jeremiah 29:23: "I am the judge, and the witness." "Deliver you to the officer": the Gloss says, that is, to the Angel who gathers the tares in order to seize them, below, chapter 13; Psalm 103:4: "who makes his Angels spirits." Or "to the officer," that is, to the Devil, the exactor; Isaiah 14:4: "How has the exactor ceased?" "And you be cast into prison," that is, into the abyss of Hell; Isaiah 24:22: "they shall be shut up in prison"; Revelation 20:3: "he cast him into the abyss, and shut him up." "Amen I say to you," that is, know for certain, that you shall not go out from there, "until" — the Gloss: that is, never. Hence Augustine: "until" does not here signify the end of the punishment, but the continuation of the misery. As if he were to say: you shall always be paying, and never fully pay off; as in Psalm 109:1: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool," that is, you shall sit forever. "You pay the last farthing," that is, the smallest sins, according to Bede and Rabanus, because nothing will remain unpunished — for the farthing is a kind of coin having two mites. Or, according to Augustine and Jerome, by "farthing" he meant to signify earthly sins: for the last farthing is earth, which is the fourth part of the elements of this world, and the last from fire; as if he were to say: because you were unwilling to be fire through charity, air through the vigor of good work, water through the sanctification of Baptism, but were earthly by clinging to earthly things, you shall not go out from there, because you shall never fully pay off the sins which you contracted from the earth.”