CHAPTER LXX.

DIVERS APPARITIONS TO PETER, TO JAMES, TO THE TWO DISCIPLES AT EMMAUS, AND TO THE ELEVEN (FIRST AND SECOND.)

It was by withdrawing his body from the hands of the Jews that Jesus Christ proved to them his resurrection, and this proof was to them unanswerable. For, since they had remained masters of it, it became necessary, either that they should have it to show after the third day, or otherwise to confess that he was resuscitated; nor did they escape from this dilemma by bringing forward witnesses who said they had been asleep while he was carried off. It would have been necessary to attest this abduction by a judicial investigation, and to punish the perpetrators and accomplices thereof. But they could not even attempt this, because such a proceeding could only result in the disgrace of those who might undertake it. The Saviour acted differently with regard to his disciples. He fully convinced them of his resurrection by showing himself to them, and by delivering himself, as it were, into their hands, since he permitted them to touch his sacred members. The infidelity of the first was inexcusable, and the second were forced to be faithful. It is not for us to inquire the reason of these different modes of treatment. To return to the disciples, he only led them back gradually from their original state of incredulity, to that immovable faith which they subsequently communicated to the entire world, and which they finally sealed with their blood. The first proof which he gave to them was the report of the holy women, and the sight of the open tomb, with the circumstance of the linen left there, and the folded shroud; which destroyed all notion of a furtive carrying off. Then he appeared to some individuals in particular-afterwards to the entire eleven: and it was then that he permitted them to touch him, and that he ate with them; lastly (a) "was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once." Of these several apparitions, some are merely glanced at by the sacred writers, others are given in (a) 1 Corinthians, xv. 6.

detail. We proceed to relate them as they do, commencing with the private apparitions.

The first was to Simon Peter.* We know that this occurred on the very Sunday of the resurrection; but we are ignorant of the moment, the place, and the circumstances. His penance had effaced his crime; and very far from being rejected, he was none the less favored, since he was the first of the apostles to whom the Lord appeared. God forgives as God-that is to say, he pardons perfectly. He loves, and he caresses the penitent sinner, as if he had received no offence from him. We do not lose the whole fruit of this apparition, the details of which are unknown to us, whilst we gather from it so consoling a truth.

There was also a private apparition to Jamest the Less, he who is called the brother of the Lord, of whom he was a near relative according to the flesh. There is reason to believe that this did not take place until several days after the resurrection, and that when the Lord conferred this favor upon James, the latter no longer doubted that he had risen from the dead, since he must have seen him more than once in company with the other apostles.

That which follows was accompanied by very remarkable circumstances. (a) "That same day" of the resurrection, towards evening, "two disciples went to a town which was sixty furlongs (1) from Jerusalem, named Emmaus, and they talked together of all these things which had happened. While they talked and reasoned with one another, Jesus himself also drew near and went with them. But their eyes were held (2), that they should not know him. He

(a) St. Luke, xxiv. 13–32.

*The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.-Luke, xxiv. 34.

† After that, he was seen by James.-1 Cor. xv. 7.

(1) About two leagues.

(2) St. Mark says: He appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country. This may have occurred in two different ways--either by the actual changing of the features of his countenance, or because an image different from his was represented to the eyes of the two disciples. The second is in itself the most probable, as we have already said, when speaking of the apparition seen by Magdalen, and although the text of St. Mark may appear to insinuate the first, we should explain it by St. Luke, who, after having at first said, their eyes were held that they should not

said to them: What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad? The one of them, whose name was Cleophas (3), answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger

know him, concludes by further stating their eyes were opened, and they knew him. Whence we see that he places in their eyes the whole cause of the mistake.

St. Thomas places it in the powers of the soul. In order to recognize a person, it is not enough to see his countenance, we must recollect that we have previously seen him. Recollection is an operation of the soul, which Jesus Christ may have suspended in the two disciples. Thus, although they saw him as he actually was, still they could not recognize him, because the divine power hindered them from remembering that it was he. It is very likely that this was the real state of the case; but it strikes us that then St. Luke would have said that their minds were held, and not that their eyes were held that they should not know him.

The question is still to be viewed in another and more delicate sense, viz.: whether Jesus, in appearing to his disciples under another form than his own, did not practice deceit for there is deceit in actions as well as in words. This was the idea of the Priscillianists, and their error was noted and refuted by St. Augustine. We are bound to believe that Jesus practised no deceit on this occasion; but it is easier to assert this than to explain it. We shall, however, do our best to make it clear. In an action of this kind, we have to consider the intention and the end proposed. Here we find that the intention was not to deceive, while the end in view was that of undeceiving. If Jesus Christ had taken the form of a pilgrim for the purpose of concealing his own identity, then his act would have been one of deceit and imposture. But, so far from that, we know that his design was to convince them that he had indeed arisen, and that it was he and no other who then spoke to them, of which they were at length persuaded. So that whatever he had previously said and done tended solely to this knowledge and conviction. He did not, therefore, lead them into error; but he left them, at first, in their ignorance, and that only that he might afterwards enlighten them in a way more suitable to their dispositions, and more salutary for those whom they were, in their turn, to instruct. This whole affair has a close resemblance to a parable or allegory, wherein he who proposes either, commences by stating things which are false in themselves, and, therefore, calculated to mislead if taken in their natural signification. But await the conclusion, and you will discover that you have been taught a valuable truth, and that that which seemed, at first, false or merely fictitious, was advanced solely for the purpose of making the truth more manifest and more easily understood.

(3) We are ignorant as to who this other disciple was. We know that he was not an apostle, since it is stated that when these had returned to Jerusalem, they found there the eleven apostles gathered together, with the exception of St. Thomas. Many think that it was St. Luke, who suppressed his own name out of humility. They are, however, refuted by St. Luke himself, who declares, at the commencement of his Gospel, that he was informed of the facts which he is going to narrate from those who were eyewitnesses thereof. If he had been amongst the number of these witnesses, he would at least have said that he was going to relate what he had partly seen himself, and partly learned from those who had seen them,

in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? He said to them: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word, before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped that it was he who should have redeemed Israel; and now besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company, affrighted us; who, before it was light were at the sepulchre, and not finding his body, came, saying: That they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said, but him they found not. Then Jesus said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things that were concerning him.

"They drew nigh to the town whither they were going; and he made as though he would go further (4). But they constrained him, saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. He went in with them; and whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them (5). And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;

(4) He made as though he would go further. The meaning of this is, that he was more willing to remain, provided they urged him to do so, as they did in point of fact. But he, in another sense, did not merely make show of an intention to proceed further: he had resolved to do so, supposing that they did not invite him to remain. He wished that the happiness of recognizing him should be the reward of hospitality exercised towards a stranger. This gives ground for thinking that at least one of the two disciples was from the village (bourg) of Emmaus, and that he had his house there. St. Jerome says that this was Cleophas, and he adds, that by celebrating the Eucharist in his house, Jesus Christ constituted it a church. It is doubtful whether this Cleophas is he whose wife or daughter was one of the Marys.

(5) He takes bread, he blesses it, he breaks it, he distributes it; this was all that he did when, at the Last Supper, he changed the bread into his body. This assemblage of similar circumstances has caused the inference that he also consecrated this, and made it Eucharistic bread. The miraculous effect which it produced upon the two disciples, goes to strengthen this opinion; indeed it is that of St. Jerome, of St. Augustine, of Theophy

and he vanished out of their sight;" leaving on their minds the full and entire conviction that it was he, and that he was truly resuscitated. Whereupon, "they said one to another: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way, and opened to us the Scriptures?"

This sacred fire seeks only to diffuse itself. Thus, (a) "they rose up the same hour and went back to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were with them, saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of bread: neither did they believe them;" which must be understood with reference to some amongst them, who had not even believed the testimony of the chief of the apostles.

Truth triumphed, at length, over incredulity, and obstinacy was obliged to yield to evidence. (b) "Whilst they were speaking these things, when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut (6), where the disciples were gathered together,

(a) St. Luke, xxiv. 33-35; St. Mark, xvi. 13.

(b) St. Luke, xxiv. 36-40; St. John, xx. 19, 20; St. Mark, xvi. 14.

lactus, &c. Protestants think the contrary, and they do so consistently with their principles; for it would evidently follow that Jesus Christ himself gave communion under the one kind of bread alone. But they must own, at least, that St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and the other ancient writers, who thought that the bread had been consecrated, have, consequently, thought that Jesus Christ himself gave communion under the one kind.

(6) Jesus Christ entered, the doors being and remaining shut, even as he had come forth from his mother's womb and from the sepulchre before the stone was removed, without hurt or fracture. The matter was so understood by the entire world until the time of Calvin, who without any discussion as to the manner in which Jesus Christ had entered, flatly pronounced it impossible, and not to be believed, that he entered whilst the doors. were and remained shut. Penetration of bodies, the possibility of which carries with it that of the real presence, was a consequence flowing too manifestly from this fact. It was therefore necessary for him to abandon the ancient explanation, which did not agree with the new error. However, an effort was made to assign another reason for it. Jesus Christ, it was said, proved much better that he was not a pure spirit by entering through the open door, than if the door had remained closed, just as if the solidity of his body was not still better proved by the touching of his hands, his feet, and his side, which he vouchsafed to the disciples. But he had, besides, to make them acquainted with the prerogatives of glorified bodies, and he did this when he entered whilst the doors remained shut.