Sed quaeritur, cum non habuerint liberum arbitrium, quomodo dicti sunt mori pro Christo. But it is asked, since they did not have free judgment, how are they said to die for Christ? Sed, sicut dicitur Io. III, 17, non misit Deus Filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Numquam enim Deus permisisset eos occidi, nisi fuisset eis utile. Unde dicit Augustinus quod idem est dubitare utrum profuerit illis ista occisio, quod est dubitare utrum pueris prosit baptismus: passi sunt enim ut martyres et Christum moriendo confessi sunt, quamvis non loquendo. Apoc. VI, 9: vidi subtus altare animas interfectorum propter verbum Dei. But, as it is said, God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but to save the world through himself (John 3:17). For God would never have permitted them to be killed, unless it were useful to them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same to doubt whether that killing profited them as to doubt whether children profit by baptism. For they suffered as martyrs, and confessed Christ by dying, although not by speaking. I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God (Rev 6:9). 220. Secunda crudelitas est, quia occidit in omnibus finibus, timebat enim ne fugeret, scilicet ad aliquam civitatem. Et contigit ei sicut bestiae vulneratae, quae non attendit quem vulnerare debeat; Prov. XXVIII, v. 15: leo rugiens, et ursus esuriens, princeps impius super populum pauperem. 220. The second cruelty is that he killed the male children in all the borders thereof, for he feared lest Christ should flee to some city. And Herod was affected like a wounded beast, which pays no attention to whom it should wound; as a roaring lion, and a hungry bear, so is a wicked prince over the poor people (Prov 28:15). 221. Tertia quantum ad tempus. Unde a bimatu, idest duorum annorum. 221. The third cruelty, as regards time. Hence, from two years old and under, i.e., of two years. Et nota quod Augustinus dicit quod illo anno, quo Christus natus est, innocentes sunt occisi. And note that Augustine says that the innocents were killed in the very year that Christ was born. 222. Sed quare dicit a bimatu et infra? Dicunt quidam quod stella apparuit per duos annos ante; unde Herodes dubitabat utrum a tempore stellae natus fuisset. Et ideo dicit secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. 222. But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years before Christ’s birth; hence Herod was unsure whether he had been born since the time of the star. And so he says, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the magi. Alii autem dicunt quod isti non sunt occisi eodem anno, sed post duos annos. But others say that these children were not killed in the same year, but after two years. 223. Sed quare tantum distulit? Triplex ratio redditur a diversis. Una est, quia a principio putabat quod magi fuissent decepti et quod nihil invenissent, sed postquam audivit multa verba de Christo a Zacharia et Simeone et Anna, tunc motus fuit ad quaerendum. Alii dicunt quod hoc fecit ex cautela: timebat enim ne puerum, quem quaerebat, parentes occultassent. Unde primo voluit eos assecurare. Alii quod occupatione impeditus, quia misit post magos usque ad Tharsum Ciliciae et fecit incendi naves eorum. Item fuit occupatus, quia citatus fuit Romae accusatus a filiis. Et sic post reversionem incepit saevire. 223. But why did he delay so long? Three reasons are given, by various people. One is that he thought at first that the magi had been deceived, and that they would have found nothing; but afterwards he heard many things about Christ from Zachary and Simeon and Anna, and then he was moved to seek him. Others say that he did this out of caution; for he feared lest the parents should have hidden the child whom he sought. Hence he wanted to make sure of them first. Others say that he was held back by another affair, because he sent after the magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. Likewise, he was occupied with another affair because he was summoned to Rome, having been accused by his children. And so after his return he began to rage. 224. Et dicit et infra etc., quia cogitavit illum esse tantae potentiae, quod posset commutare faciem suam. 224. And it says, and under, because he thought him to be so powerful that he could change his face. Per istam occisionem significatur occisio martyrum, quia pueri per humilitatem et innocentiam, infra XIX, 14: sinite parvulos, et nolite eos prohibere ad me venire; item infra XVIII, 3: nisi conversi fueritis, et efficiamini sicut parvuli, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum. This killing points to the killing of martyrs, because martyrs are children through humility and innocence, below, suffer the little children, and do not forbid them to come to me (Matt 19:14); likewise below, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:3). In Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus eius; quia per totum mundum occiduntur: Act. I, v. 8: eritis mihi testes, scilicet moriendo. Duo anni sunt duplex caritas, Dei et proximi, quia fides sine operibus mortua est, Iac. c. II, 20. In Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof; because they are killed throughout the entire world; you will be witnesses unto me, namely by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two-fold love, of God and of neighbor, because faith without works is dead (Jas 2:26). Et nota quod nato Christo, statim persecutio saevit, quia statim quando quis convertitur ad Christum, incipit tentari. Eccli. II, v. 1: Fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei, sta in iustitia et in timore, et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem. And notice that when Christ is born, persecution rages at once, because when someone is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted at once. Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation (Sir 2:1). 225. Tunc impletum est quod dictum est per Ieremiam Prophetam. Posita occisione puerorum, hic more suo Evangelista prophetiam annuntiantem ponit, quae est Ier. c. XXXI, 15: ‘vox in Rama audita est, lamentationis, luctus et fletus, Rachel plorantis filios suos, et nolentis consolari super eis, quia non sunt.’ 225. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet. Having set down the killing of the infants, here, as is his custom, the Evangelist places a prophecy foretelling it, which is: ‘a voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not’ (Jer 31:15). Et notandum quod, sicut dicit Hieronymus, ubicumque per apostolos et evangelistas introducitur aliqua auctoritas Veteris Testamenti, non oportet introducere verbum ex verbo semper, sed sicut dedit eis Spiritus Sanctus, aliquando sensum ex sensu in usu nostro. Ita habemus Ier. XXXI, 15: vox in excelsis audita est lamentationis, luctus et fletus, Rachel plorantis filios suos, et nolentis consolari super eis, quia non sunt. Et sensus idem est. And one should note that, as Jerome says, wherever the apostles or evangelists bring in some text of the Old Testament, it is not always necessary that they bring it in word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes the sense of the sense, in our usage. Thus we have: a voice was heard on high of lamentation, of mourning, and weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not (Jer 31:15). And the sense is the same. 226. Et considerandum quod, quantum ad hanc auctoritatem pertinet, ista est una de illis quae introducuntur in Evangelio, quae tamen sensum litteralem habet, qui est figura eius, quod fuit in Novo Testamento. 226. And one should consider that, as far as pertains to this Scriptural text, this is one of those prophecies which are introduced in the Gospel which nevertheless have a literal sense which is a figure of that which happened in the New Testament. Unde ad intellectum eius consideranda est quaedam historia, quae legitur Iudicum XIX ubi dicitur quod propter peccatum commissum circa uxorem Levitae fere tota tribus Beniamin extincta est; et dicitur quod ibi fuit maximus planctus, ita quod fuit auditus de Gabaa usque in Rama longe a Bethlehem per duodecim miliaria. Hoc dicitur Rachel plorare, quia mater fuit Beniamin; et est locutio figurativa, scilicet ad exprimendum magnitudinem doloris. Sed haec est prophetia de praeterito. Hence to understand it one must consider a certain historical account, where it says that because of the sin committed concerning the wife of a Levite, the whole tribe of Benjamin was savagely destroyed (Jusg 19); and it says that there was a most great wailing, so that it was heard from Gabaa even to Rama, about twelve miles distant from Bethlehem. This is called Rachel weeping, because Rachel was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figurative speech, namely to express the magnitude of the sorrow. But this is a prophecy of bygone events. 227. Alio modo est de futuro dupliciter. Quia uno modo potest referri ad captivitatem Israel, qui quando in captivitatem ducebantur, dicuntur in via iuxta Bethlehem plorasse; et tunc dicitur Rachel plorasse, quia sepulta erat ibi, Gen. XXXV, 19. Et dicitur hoc eodem modo loquendi quo locus dicitur plorare mala quae in loco accidunt. Vult ergo dicere propheta quod sicut maximus dolor et luctus fuit, quando extincta est tribus Beniamin, ita futurus est maximus alius tempore captivitatis. 227. It is also about the future, in two ways. For in one way it can be referred to the captivity of the Israelites, who are said to have wailed on the road next to Bethlehem when they were being led into captivity; and then Rachel is said to have wailed, because she was buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same way as a place is said to wail over the evils which happen in the place. So the prophet would have it that, just as there was the greatest sorrow and mourning when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so there will come another greatest sorrow at the time of the captivity. 228. Tertio modo exponitur sic. Evangelista assumit factum de occisione innocentum et exaggerat istum dolorem quadrupliciter. Ex diffusione doloris, ex multitudine doloris, ex materia, et inconsolabilitate. 228. In a third way, it is explained thus. The Evangelist takes up the deed of the killing of the innocents and magnifies the sorrow in four ways. From the spreading out of sorrow, from the multitude of sorrows, from the matter, and from the inconsolability. Dicit ergo: ‘vox in Rama.’ Quaedam civitas est in tribu Beniamin, Iosue XVIII, 25, et potest accipi pro civitate Liae. Hic autem accipitur pro ‘excelso’; et potest dupliciter exponi. Primo sic: ‘vox’, in excelso prolata, ‘audita est’, quia vox quae in loco alto est, longe lateque diffunditur; Is. XL, 9: supra montem excelsum ascende tu qui evangelizas Sion, exalta in fortitudine vocem tuam. Vel ‘audita est’ in excelso, idest in caelo apud Deum; Eccli. XXXV, 21: oratio humiliantis se nubes penetrabit, et donec propinquet, non consolabitur, et non discedet donec Altissimus aspiciat. Et iterum: nonne lacrimae viduae ad maxillam descendunt, et exclamatio eius super deducentes eas? He says then, ‘a voice in Rama.’ Rama is a certain city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25), and can be taken as the city of Lia. Moreover, this is taken as ‘high’, and can be explained in two ways. First, in this way: ‘a voice’, sounded forth on high, ‘was heard’, because a voice which is in a high place is spread out far and wide; get up upon a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion: lift up your voice with strength (Isa 40:9). Or it ‘was heard’ on high, i.e., in heaven with God; the prayer of him that humbles himself, will pierce the clouds: and till it come near he will not be comforted: and he will not depart till the Most High behold (Sir 35:21). And again, do not the widow’s tears run down the cheek, and her cry against him that caused them to fall? (Sir 35:18). 229. ‘Ploratus’: hoc potest referri ad fletum infantium occisorum. ‘Et ululatus multus’; hoc ad matrum ploratus. Vel utrumque ad pueros: ‘ploratus’ inquantum elevabantur a militibus, ‘ululatus’ inquantum iugulabantur. Maior est dolor matrum, quam filiorum. Item matrum erat dolor assiduus, puerorum fuit brevis: propter quod dicit Zach. XII, 10: plangent eum quasi super unigenitum, et dolebunt super eum, ut doleri solet in morte primogeniti. 229. ‘Lamentation.’ This can be referred to the crying of the infants who were killed. ‘And great mourning’; this can be referred to the mothers’ wailing. Or both can be referred to the children: ‘lamentation’ insofar as they were lifted up by the soldiers, ‘mourning’ insofar as they had their throats slit. The mothers’ sorrow is greater than the children’s. Likewise, the mothers’ was an enduring sorrow, while the children’s was brief; on account of which it is said, they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they will grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn (Zech 12:10). 230. Item ex materia doloris, quia de morte filiorum. Unde ‘Rachel plorat.’ 230. Again, from the matter of the sorrow, because it was over the death of children. Hence, ‘Rachel bewailing.’ Sed obiicitur, quia Bethlehem non erat in tribu Beniamin, sed in tribu Iuda, qui fuit filius Liae. But it is objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin, but in the tribe of Judas, who was the son of Lia. Et solvitur tripliciter. Primo, quia Rachel sepulta fuit iuxta Bethlehem, Gen. XXXV, 19. Et ita ploravit pueros eo modo, quo aliquis locus dicitur plorare; Ier. II, 12: obstupescite, caeli, super hoc, et portae eius, desolamini vehementer, dicit Dominus. And this is resolved in three ways. First, because Rachel was buried next to Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). And thus she lamented the children in the same way that a place is said to lament; be astonished, O heavens, at this, and gates thereof, be very desolate, says the Lord (Jer 2:12). Vel aliter. Supra habitum est quod Herodes occidit pueros in Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus eius et cetera. Bethlehem autem erat in confinio duarum tribuum, scilicet Iudae et Beniamin; unde de pueris Beniamin occisi sunt: et sic cessat obiectio, sicut exponit Hieronymus. Or in another way. It was said above that Herod killed the children in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof. Now, Bethlehem was on the common boundary of two tribes, namely of Judas and of Benjamin; hence some of the children of Benjamin were killed; and thus the objection rests, as Jerome explains it. Augustinus autem aliter exponit et dicit quod consuetudo est quod quando alicui aliqua prospera succedunt, ille, quando adversitates veniunt, magis dolet. Lia et Rachel sorores fuerunt, et isti qui occisi sunt fuerunt de filiis Liae. Et sic corporaliter occisi sunt, ne aeternaliter punirentur, ut in facto Gabaa. Dicitur ergo plorare videns filios suos occidi et damnari. But Augustine explains it another way, and says that it is customary that when good fortunes follow someone, then adversities come, he sorrows all the more. Lia and Rachel were sisters, and those who were killed were of the sons of Lia. And thus they were killed bodily lest they be punished eternally, as happened in Gabaa. So she is said to lament, seeing that her own children were killed and damned. Vel per Rachel Ecclesia signatur, quia interpretatur videns Deum, et Ecclesia per fidem videt: quae plorat filios suos occisos, non quia occisi sunt, sed quia per ipsos poterat alios acquirere. Vel non plorat propter occisos, sed propter occidentes. Or, the Church is indicated by Rachel, because she is interpreted as seeing God, and the Church sees through faith. She laments her slain children, not because they are slain, but because through them she could have acquired others. Or she does not weep on account of the ones killed, but on account of the killers. 231. Sequitur de inconsolabilitate doloris: ‘et noluit.’ Et exponitur illud multipliciter. Primo ut referatur ad populum, qui tunc erat. Consolatio enim debetur quamdiu speratur aliquod remedium; sed quando non speratur, non est consolatio, sicut patet in infirmo desperato; et ideo dicit, ut referatur ad opinionem matrum, ‘quia non sunt’, quia scilicet non apparent; Gen. XXXVII, 30: puer non comparet. Vel ‘noluit consolari, quia non sunt’, idest ac si non essent: consolatio enim non debetur nisi de malis. 231. There follows, concerning the sorrow’s inconsolability, ‘and she would not.’ And this is explained in many ways. First, as it is referred to the people who lived at that time. For there should be consolation as long as some remedy is hoped for, but when no remedy is hoped for, there is no consolation, as is clear in the case of sick people who have despaired. And for this reason he says it is referred to the mothers’ thought ‘because they are not’, namely because they are gone; the boy does not appear (Gen 37:30). Or, ‘and would not be comforted, because they are not’, i.e., as if they were not; for consolation should only be over evils. Unde secundum hoc refertur ad opinionem Ecclesiae, quae habet eos tamquam regnarent; unde, sicut de regnantibus, gaudet de eis, I Thess. IV, v. 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus, ut non contristemini, sicut et ceteri qui spem non habent vel ‘noluit consolari’ de praesenti, sed expectat consolationem in futuro; infra V, 5: beati qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. Hence according to this explanation it is referred to the thought of the Church, who sees them as reigning; hence she rejoices over them as over one who reigns, and we will not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep, that you be not sorrowful, even as others who have no hope (1 Thess 4:12). Or, she ‘would not be comforted’ about the present, but she expects consolation in the future; below, blessed are they who mourn: for they will be comforted (Matt 5:5). 232. Consequenter agitur de revocatione Christi; unde defuncto Herode, ecce angelus Domini apparuit in somnis Ioseph. 232. Next he treats of how Christ was called back; hence, but when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt. Et primo ponitur apparitio angeli; And first, he sets down the apparition of the angel; secundo mandatum angeli; second, the angel’s command; tertio executio mandati angeli. third, the execution of the angel’s command. 233. Circa primum tria ponuntur. Primo describitur tempus; secundo persona; tertio modus apparitionis. 233. Concerning the first, three things are set down. First, the time is described; second, the person; third, the manner of the apparition. Dicit ergo defuncto Herode: non ille qui fuit in morte Christi, quia ille fuit filius istius. Ecce angelus apparuit. He says then, but when Herod was dead; not the man who was involved in Christ’s death, for that man was the son of this one. Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. Notandum quod omnis turbatio Ecclesiae secundum mysterium terminatur per mortem persecutorum quia in perditione impii erit laudatio Prov. XI, 10. Item nota quod infidelitate Iudaeorum terminata, Christus redibit ad eos. Rom. XI, 26: et tunc omnis Israel salvus fiet. One should note that every disturbance of the Church, according to a mystery, is ended by the death of the persecutor, because when the wicked perish there will be praise (Prov 11:10). Similarly, note that when the Jews’ infidelity was ended, Christ returned to them. And so all Israel should be saved (Rom 11:26). Ecce . . . apparuit. Notandum quod talis est ordo angelorum et hominum, ut divinae illuminationes non fiant nobis nisi per angelos; ad Hebr. I, 14: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis. Unde etiam Christus secundum quod homo, voluit per angelos nuntiari. Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. One should note that the order of angels and men is such that divine enlightenments only come to us through angels; are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who will receive the inheritance of salvation? (Heb 1:14). Hence even Christ, as a man, wished to be announced by angels.