Father Juan de Maldonado's Commentary on Matthew 26:14-27:66.

Verse 14. Then went out

S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others refer the word “then” to the six days before Pasch, when the woman anointed Christ, as in S. John 12:3. Others refer them to the two days referred to in verse 3, when the chief priests and elders met in council to debate on the destruction of Christ. This is the opinion of Bede, and seems to be the more common opinion in the Church. The argument of some, to prove that the Church used to fast on the fourth day, because on that day Judas sold Christ, seems of no weight, because, as S. Augustin and Theophylact say, the Church fasted not for this reason, but because of the council which the chief priests assembled on that day to put Christ to death. The words of S. Matthew (verse 16) seem to be of more weight. For it appears from these that some days before the Pasch Judas had had meetings with the Jews on the subject of the betrayal of Christ. This reason alone may cause doubt as to whether the betrayal happened on the night of the supper or shortly before it: because Christ was not in Jerusalem previously, but at Bethania, and it does not seem probable that Judas would have left the Apostles and come from Bethania to Jerusalem to treat of the betrayal, lest while he was plotting to deliver up Christ he should betray his intention. Yet, as SS. Matthew and Mark say plainly that, from the day on which Judas agreed with the Jews for the price, he sought opportunity to betray Christ, we must believe that this had been agreed upon some days before Pasch, on all which he was seeking his opportunity. That this was done two days before, and not six, as is the more commonly received opinion, so it is in itself more probable; because, as aforesaid, there were two assemblies of the Jews—that of which S. John speaks (11:47, 48; 12:19), and this of S. Matthew (v. 3) and S. Mark (14:1). In the assembly of S. John, they determined that it was expedient to put Christ to death, Caiaphas the high priest being the chief author of it. In that of SS. Matthew and Mark they consulted, not whether He should be put to death, but how it should be done; and it is therefore certain that Judas had not yet said: “What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you” (S. Matt., verse 15). For, if so, they would not have discussed the manner of Christ’s capture, but have gladly accepted the conditions of Judas, as described by S. Mark (14:11) and S. Luke (22:5). It is probable, therefore, that on the same day as that on which the chief priests assembled the second council to deliberate the manner of Christ’s capture, Judas came to them and promised his assistance.

One of the twelve.

The Evangelist seems to use this expression to show the magnitude of the offence; that one of Christ’s own twelve Apostles and His familiar friend should have sold Him, while a woman, a stranger, and not long since a sinner, did for Him a singular office of love and piety.

Who was called Judas Iscariot.

The two names of Judas are mentioned, that no injustice might be done to the other Apostles. For the reader might otherwise have been left in doubt about the others, who were without blame, and he might have suspected some of them; but the word Iscariot distinguishes him from the other Jude, who is called by S. Luke (6:16) the brother of James. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. Why he was called Iscariot has been stated (10:4). S. Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into Judas. This is not to be understood as meaning that he got possession of his body, as with Energumens, but that he inspired him with the most wicked thought of selling Christ; as Euthymius (in loc.) and Didymus (De Spiritu Sancto, iii.) have explained, and as appears from S. John 13:2. That Satan, therefore, entered into Judas means simply, as is said by S. Luke, that he put it into his mind to betray Christ, as S. John says. But did not this mean, perhaps, that the devil put it into his heart to steal the contents of the purse and commit other like crimes? Undoubtedly so; but why is Satan not said to have entered into him then? It seems that S. Luke wished to convey the idea of the foulness and profanity of the deed, as if he had said more plainly, It was so wicked an act that only by Satan’s entering into him could he possibly have done it; and thus Satan is not said to have entered into him when he was guilty of only lighter offences, although he committed them at the instigation of the same prompter. Thus we often say, when we see a man committing some more common and less heinous offence, “The devil has deluded him”; but when he perpetrates some unheard of and enormous wickedness, we say that he is a devil incarnate, because but for the suggestions of the devil he could not have committed it. Thus is answered the question, Why, when S. Luke says that “Satan now entered into Judas,” S. John (13:27) says that he did not enter into him until the Last Supper, when Judas had received the sop from Christ? For, in fact, Satan did not enter him either now or then; but by inspiring him and inciting him to the final iniquity he entered into him when he persuaded him to sell Christ, and when he incited him to deliver Him up when sold; for S. Luke says that Satan entered at the selling, and S. John when he betrayed Christ; because it was a greater sin to betray Him than to sell Him. This is certain, as Bede and Euthymius have shown that one Evangelist could not contradict the other. Thus God was in no sense the author of the treachery of Judas, as some modern heretics have said. We, indeed, allow that God permitted Judas to sell, but not that He was the author, suggester, or inciter of the act. For there remain the words of S. James (1:13), which cannot be false.

To the chief priests.

S. Luke (22:4) adds στρατήγοις, “captains,” whom he distinguishes from the chief priests and elders (v. 52), and calls στρατήγοις “magistrates of the Temple”; that is, officers who were over, or in charge of, the Temple, who were possibly soldiers whom some of the priests had under them for the safe custody of the Temple, and who were, therefore, called duces. For the Jews were not allowed by the arbitrary power of the Romans to have any other military force.

Verse 15. But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver

Vide chap. 18:8, for a discussion of Jewish silver money, and the various kinds of silver coins used by them; and especially the denarius and siclus (sicle). The siclus, like all other money valued by weight, was twofold—the profane, which was less; the sacred, which was greater, as Scripture everywhere signifies. There was also among the Romans, under whom the Jews then were, a silver coinage; but it is probable that S. Matthew, a Hebrew, and the author of a Hebrew Gospel, would speak of Hebrew money, and that he said שלשים כסף but the Hebrews call silver, unstamped or coined, and all money, of whatever metal composed, silver. The French do the same, both of silver and other money, because the greatest part is composed of silver. But when a numeral is added, some kind of silver money alone is meant. This is of two kinds—the denarius, which the Hebrews, borrowing from the Latin, call ובו and the sicle, which, perhaps, as being of greater weight, was called שקל that is, pondus (weight). But when the word כסף argentei (of silver), is put for silver money, unless the kind of coin is specified, it rarely means anything but sicle; and the Chaldee paraphrast, when the Hebrew is כסף with a numeral, renders it side, as in Gen. 37:28; 45:22; Judges 16:5; 17:2, 4, 10; 2 Kings 18:11, 12; 4 Kings 6:25; Isa. 7:23. In other passages, like the Evangelist, he renders it ἀργυρέους, argenteas, as in Judges 17:4–10; Zach. 11:12. So Josephus (Antiq., iii. 9; ix. 2) renders the word argenteis (pieces of silver) of 4 Kings 6:25, which the authors of the books Misnaioth have cited, by sicles. It appears, then, from the custom of the Hebrews, that the argenteos, the pieces of silver of which S. Matthew speaks, as no other kind of money is specified, were sicles; but a silver side, as shown above, was equal to one French franc; that is, twenty silver solidi. An obolus was equal to a French sou, and it is clear, from Scripture (Exod. 30:13; Levit. 27:25; Numb. 3:47; 18:16; Ezek. 45:12), that a siclus had twenty oboli. A siclus was four drachmas, and one didrachma was equal to five French sous, or one Spanish real. Four drachmas, therefore, held twenty sous, a French franc, or Tours pound. If this be so, Christ was sold for thirty French francs. If it be objected that the potter’s field could not have been bought at the price named (S. Matt. 27:7), the answer may be that it could not, perhaps, be done now, when things fetch much higher prices; but this was possible then, for Jeremiah (32:9) bought a field for seven staters and ten pieces of silver, which was a much less price.

Verse 17. And the first day of the Azymes

On the Azymes, vide verse 2 and following.

Verse 18. Go ye into the city

Two things may here be inferred:

1. That Christ when He said this was not at Jerusalem, but either at Bethania, where He had passed the two preceding days, or on the way thither; for it is beyond doubt that the city of Jerusalem is intended, at which, when Christ sent the disciples, He Himself had not arrived.

2. The words of the preceding verse (17), “On the first day of the Azymes,” are not to be understood as if the day had arrived, but that it was at hand. For if the Azymes had begun it would have been too late to send the disciples to make preparations for the Pasch; and the Evangelist implies (verse 20) that the evening had not come when Christ sent the disciples. S. Luke, also (20:14), says: “When the hour was come He sat down and the twelve Apostles with Him,” as if it had not arrived when He sent them into the city. We are informed by S. Luke (22:8) who the disciples were that were sent.

To a certain man.

Πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, to a particular person, but one who is not named. As S. Jerome has observed, the Hebrews express it thus: לפלמוני. It has been doubted whether these are the words of Christ or the Evangelist. They appear to be those of the latter, for Christ would scarcely have used an expression which is not found in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. But whether Christ mentioned the man by name, or, as we shall shortly prove, He did not do this, but pointed him out by certain signs, the Evangelist would not name him; though he wished it to be known that Christ sent His disciples, not to a stranger, but to a particular person whom He described to them. If, as is more likely, Christ did not name the man, the Evangelist intended to show this when he wrote that Christ said, “Go ye to a certain man”. We may conclude that Christ did not name him from the description He gave of him (S. Mark 14:13; S. Luke 22:10). For if Christ had named the man, what need would there have been of any description? He would have said in one word, Go to Peter or Paul. S. Jerome and Bede offer as the reason why Christ did not name the man that we may understand by His silence that all men are invited to celebrate with Him the New Pasch. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xxii.) says that “he was described without a name that, as a poor and unknown man, he might be held in esteem”; as Christ chooses, not the rich and noble, but the poor, and men of no regard, with whom to share His mysteries. But this is opposed to S. Mark 14:15 and S. Luke 22:12, where Christ says: “He will show you a large upper room,” such as a poor man could not possibly possess. Christ said “furnished”—not paved with stones of tiles, but adorned with tapestry and with tables prepared for a supper, as S. Mark describes it. Some Greek copies of this Gospel have ἐστρώμενον ἔτοιμον, “ready furnished,” as if the second word were added to explain the first. Euthymius says that Christ did not mention him that Judas might not know with whom He was going to keep Pasch, and lay snares for Him. S. Chrysostom’s opinion seems a better one (Hom. lxxxii.), that Christ did not name him because he was unknown, as 1 Kings 10:3. But this is not sufficient, because it appears from the words that follow that the man was not only known, but was also a disciple, and in some degree an intimate of Christ. “The Master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make My pasch with My disciples” (verse 18). This shows that the other was in some sense His disciple, and by the words, “My time is near at hand,” that he was in a degree an intimate. It seems more likely, therefore, either that Christ did not mention the man by name, that He might describe him in a better manner, and thus more clearly show His Divinity: or that the man was really unknown. For if He had said, “Go to Peter,” or “to Paul,” there would have been nothing to distinguish him from other men; but when He said, “Behold, as you go into the city, there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water” (S. Luke 22:19), He showed that He foreknew the future, and that all things were prepared by divine counsel for His death. So that God would appear to have led the man to the fountain to draw water that he might meet the disciples, and bring them to the house in which all things were prepared for celebrating the Pasch; so that nothing might retard the celebration of the Pasch, nor hinder the divine decree. Maldonatus then enters at much length into what he admits to be a fruitless inquiry as to who the man may possibly have been—and he gives the opinions of several early authors on the subject; but he confesses at the same time that nothing is or can be known as to who he actually was. He considers that most probably he was some wealthy Jew, who was a friend of Christ, and a believer in Him, but secretly, like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus; and he concludes by repeating that the large and well-furnished room shows him to have been no poor man nor plebeian, and that Christ calling Himself “Master” to him would signify that he was a disciple, and His saying, “My time is near at hand,” that he was an intimate.

The Master saith.

Christ appears in this word to assert that authority which no one can resist, as if He had said, “God says”; but He calls Himself the Master rather than God or Lord, as a man speaks to another man. He used the same authority when He sent His disciples to loose the foal (21:3), and in this case the result showed the weight that the word “Lord” carried; for as soon as the disciples used it the owners of the colt let it go (S. Mark 11:6; S. Luke 19:35).

My time is near at hand.

Some think that Christ in these words alludes to His intention, as said before, of keeping the Pasch before the Jews, because of the near approach of His death. This is probable, and it confirms our idea of Christ having celebrated Pasch before the other Jews. But it is more likely that He wished to show His friendship for the man, because when about to depart from the world He desired to keep his last supper with him, and that not by invitation, but of His own mind, like one who is a most intimate friend. That He did not say, “My death,” but “My time,” seems to show that He was to die at that time, not without reason or by chance, nor by the force or contrivance of the Jews, but because the time of His death appointed by His Father was come: that is, “My time,” “the time appointed by Me,” or “that on which I have decreed to die”.

With thee I make the Pasch.

That is, “I have decreed to make it”. It is a Hebrew expression like that in S. John (21:3), “I go a fishing,” that is, “I have resolved to go”. The others answer in the same way, “We also come with thee”. The Latins sometimes used the same (Seneca to Serenus, De Tranquilit. Vit., ii.).

With My disciples.

Christ seems to have added this to warn His host to prepare for the reception of thirteen persons. From this we may suppose that the man had some acquaintance with Christ, and knew that He had His disciples with Him.

Verse 20. When it was evening

S. Mark says the same. They mention the evening to show that Christ celebrated the Pasch at the time appointed by the Law, which commanded that the lamb should be slaughtered between the two evenings: that is, between the sunset of the 14th and the night of the 15th, as explained on verse 2. S. Luke said to the same effect (22:14), “When the hour was come,” that is, when the sun had set. They who say that Christ ate the lamb before the setting of the sun appear to commit a double error: both as they speak contrarily to the Law, which commanded the lamb to be eaten with unleavened bread between the two evenings. It was not eaten before the setting of the sun when the fifteenth day was begun, that is, the first day of Azymes. Secondly, when they make in this manner Christ to have been put to death at the same time as that at which the lamb was eaten, that is, between midday and sunset, they cause Him to have died not only not at the same hour, but not even on the same day; for if they say that the lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day between noon and sunset, as Christ died on the fifteenth day, He did not die on the same day.

He sat down.

Ἀνέκειτο, discumbebat, properly recumbebat. Some have thought, from the strict meaning of the word, that it refers, not to the eating of the lamb, but of the supper, of which Christ partook afterwards; because, although the Law did not order the Jews, in plain words, to eat it standing, as Euthymius says, yet they concluded this from the Law (Exod. 12:11): “And thus shall ye eat it: you shall gird your loins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste, for it is the Passover of the Lord”. This description allows no doubt that it could not have been eaten otherwise than standing; or why were they to gird their loins? why to have their shoes on their feet? why to hold their staves in their hands? how were they to show the haste of their departure if they were not standing? This posture alone speaks much more clearly than all the other things together. For nothing shows more haste in a man than his not sitting even to take his necessary food. The connection of words, too, does not permit us to allow this of any other supper than that at which the lamb was eaten (verses 19, 20; S. John 13:12). S. Matthew, too, as if speaking of another supper than that in which the lamb was eaten, says (verse 26): “And whilst they were at supper”; and S. Luke (22:14): “And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with Him”; where it is certain that he spoke of the eating of the lamb, stating the time, because the lamb was eaten at a certain fixed time. He says, therefore, of the supper of the lamb, ἀνέπεσε, as S. Matthew here has ἀνεκεῖτο. The idea of some others, of which we are informed by Theophylact and Euthymius, is still more senseless: that Christ did not eat the lamb that year, when all the Evangelists bear such open witness to the contrary. It deserves no answer. When, therefore, the Evangelists say that Christ recubuisse to eat the Passover, it must not be understood that He actually either sat or reclined; for we must believe, as S. Chrysostom says, that He kept all the ceremonies of the Law most perfectly, and, above all, that of eating the Pasch standing, as the Jews of old ate it; because it was the Passover of the Lord, as He was about to pass from this world. At all dinners and suppers the ancient Jews used to recline: in the time of Christ they were most probably accustomed to sit, and though the attitude was changed, the term was still preserved. For to this day we say, in Latin, accumbere, at table, although we sit. The Evangelists, therefore, though they used the ordinary word, recumbo, would not signify that Christ really reclined, but came to the table and supped.

With His twelve disciples.

It may be thought that, in mentioning the number of the disciples with whom Christ ate the Paschal lamb, the Evangelist meant to show that Christ on this point also observed the Law. For the Law commanded the master of the house to eat the lamb with his whole family (Exod. 12:3, 4). But the disciples were the family of Christ. S. Chrysostom thinks the Evangelists said this to show that Judas also sat down with the twelve Apostles, and proclaimed his insolence and ingratitude. The ancient authorities differ on this. Some think that Judas was not present, either at the partaking of the New Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, or even at the eating of the Paschal lamb; as S. Hilary (On S. Matt., Can. xxx.), who thinks that Judas went out while Christ was eating the lamb, to treat with the chief priests about His seizure and delivery. Others think that he was present at the supper of the lamb, but not at the reception of the Sacrament. This is constantly affirmed by S. Clement Alexandria (Constit. Apost., v. 16). Of this opinion also, as it seems, was S. Innocent (lib. iv. 13, De Myster.). The arguments are as follows:

1. S. John (13:30) says that Judas, as soon as he had received the sop from Christ, went out. We must suppose that the sop was given to him by Christ before the distribution of the Sacrament; for, as S. Luke says (22:20), Christ gave His Body and Blood after He had supped, and, as S. John says (13:2), “when supper was done”. Judas, therefore, did not receive it.

2. Christ, speaking apparently of the Sacrament of His Blood, used the words: “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father” (verse 29). As Judas, therefore, will not drink it hereafter in the kingdom of the Father, he had not drunk it previously.

3. It is not to be supposed that Christ did what He has forbidden us to do; namely, to give His Body and Blood to a most wicked man who had shown no sign of repentance. As to what some say, that Judas was indeed a sinner, but not a public one, and to men of this class the Sacrament ought not to be refused, it is a question of doubt. For Christ now discovered him, both by giving the sop, and by the words, “Thou hast said”. When the Body and Blood was given, then, all the Apostles knew that Judas was the betrayer. These arguments would be of convincing weight, had not the opposite ones defenders still more in number, and were they not more capable of proof. Some said that Judas was present both at the Paschal supper and the ordinary one, and at the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ; and that He drank the Blood, but kept the Body to show to the chief priests in derision what Christ called His Body and had given to His disciples as a great mystery. Theophylact relates this, but as it is wholly devoid of proof it needs no answer. The ancient authors generally say that Judas was present at the whole ceremony, and took of the Body and Blood of the Lord (S. Cyprian, Lib. de Cœm. Dom.; S. Chrysostom, Hom. in S. Matt. lxxxii., and Horn, de prod. Judæ; S. Jerome, in loc.; S. Augustin, Ep. lxiii. and Tractat. in Joann.; Theodosius, On 1 Cor. 11; Leo, De Pass. Dom., Serm. vii.). This opinion can be proved, because it is not credible that before all was finished Judas rose from the table to go to the chief priests; for he would thus have betrayed his treachery, which he greatly wished to conceal. Again, after the Eucharist had been given by Christ, S. Luke speaks of Christ as addressing Judas, who was still present (22:20, 21). The words of S. John, therefore, that Judas when he had received the sop went out, must be understood to mean either that Christ immediately after the Eucharist gave the sop to point out the traitor, or the word “immediately” as used by S. John means not that very moment of time, but as short a space afterwards as possible. The former seems the more likely, because S. John appears to speak as if to show that the receipt of the sop was the reason of Judas going out: as if he were enraged at being pointed out as the betrayer. It is less likely that when he had received the sop he should have waited, however short a time, and received the Holy Sacrament. The words of Christ—“I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until the day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father”—do not necessarily imply that Judas was not then present, because, although Christ does not drink with him hereafter, He does so with others; and this is sufficient for Him to say, “until I drink it new with you,” the words “with you” referring to the Apostles as a whole. Maldonatus then discusses the opinion of Euthymius and some others, that there were more than the Apostles present. Maldonatus decides the question in the negative—first, because the Evangelists have given the names in full, and with exactness, and secondly, because the Law commanded that the Pasch should be eaten by the members of each household, except there were not enough in number to consume the lamb, when strangers might be added. This was not the case here.

Verse 21. One of you

Christ discovers the traitor sine injuria, by showing that He knew him, but not naming him. Many have inquired why Christ said this. According to S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius, He did it to give Judas an opportunity of repenting, and to urge him to a change of purpose, when he saw that his designs could not be concealed. Christ also may be thought to have said it to show that He died, not against His will, nor as circumvented by craft, nor without His expectation: but knowingly, willingly, resolutely, and when, from His knowledge of the design of the traitor, He might have defeated it, and yet would not do so. But why did Christ not name him? We may reply that it was in accordance with the loving-kindness of Christ to spare the name and reputation even of His own betrayer, and to be content with showing that He was not ignorant of His betrayer; but would not name him, because it was not necessary to His object, which was to show that He died of His own knowledge and free-will. S. Jerome answers a little otherwise, that Christ did not name Judas that He might not anger him. Origen adds that Christ spoke generally, and not particularly, that the others, struck by His words, might show themselves by their countenances to be innocent, while Judas discovered himself as the traitor.

Verse 22. And they, being very much troubled

It seems strange why the Apostles who were innocent should have been troubled, as if each thought the above words spoken of himself. Nor were they only so much grieved at the great wickedness that Christ should be betrayed by His own follower, whoever he were—though no doubt this did afflict them greatly—but, as S. Matthew shows, they were sorry because each thought the saying possibly spoken of himself, and was anxious, and said, “Is it I?” Origen, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact give as the cause, that even if they knew themselves innocent, yet they put more faith in the words of Christ than in their own consciences.

Verse 23. He that dippeth

S. John (13:24) says that it was S. Peter who suggested to him to ask Christ who the betrayer was. We must, therefore, believe that both events took place, and that the Apostles first asked, one after another, “Is it I?” and when Christ would not name the traitor, that S. Peter, who resented the insults on Christ with more vehemence than the rest, asked S. John to enquire of Christ who it was that should betray Him. From this it follows that Christ, in these words, “He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me,” did not fully describe the traitor, but first spoke generally: “One of you”; and then when each had asked, “Lord, is it I?” He answered somewhat more explicitly, “He that dippeth,” that is, one of those who dip bread in the same dish “with Me”. For it is possible that, on a large table where thirteen sat at meat, there were different plates and dishes into which either three or four dipped their bread; so that Christ showed that one of these three or four, or as many as were accustomed to dip their bread in the same dish with Him, would betray Him. Lastly, when the Apostles, even by this indication, could not discover who it was, John, at the request of Peter, again asked who it was, and Christ replied (S. John 13:16): “He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped”; but because it was spoken by Christ in the ear of John, so that the others could not understand it, Judas himself at last, lest his silence should appear to convict him, asked, like the others had done: “Rabbi, is it I?” and Christ answered: “Thou hast said” (verse 25). When this was said, neither Judas himself nor the rest could have been ignorant as to the traitor, and probably Judas, when he saw that he was discovered, went out; for before he was discovered by his name he could dissemble, but afterwards he could not; and because it is likely that this took place as soon as he received the sop, S. John may have said that he went out “immediately”. The accounts of the Evangelists seem to be thus reconciled. Origen, indeed, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact think that by the words, “He that dippeth with Me,” Judas was personally described, and only not pointed out with the finger; for they say that he had arrived at such a pitch of shamelessness, that when the other Apostles modestly and reverently abstained from the Master’s dish, Judas alone put his hand into it. S. Chrysostom alone thinks that Judas did it not from shamelessness, but at Christ’s request, that the others might know who was the traitor. This idea, however, seems untenable, because it renders it impossible to harmonise S. John with S. Matthew. For if Judas had been certainly pointed out by these words, what need was there for Peter, through John, to ask who would be the betrayer? What need that Christ should point him out by other means, when He said, “It is he to whom I shall reach bread dipped”? (S. John 13:26). For all the Apostles had heard Him say, “He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me” (S. Matt. 26:23); and this, as all authorities agree, was done before that was said by Christ and Judas had dipped into the dish. Thus they all knew that Judas would be the traitor if he alone dipped with Christ into the dish. Others, on the other hand, say that these words no more than before pointed out the traitor; for they only meant, “He that dippeth with Me into the dish”; that is, one of those who sit with Me at a common table and share a common dish. All the Apostles sat together, and all dipped into the same dish, and, therefore, nothing more is meant than the saying of S. Mark: “One of you that eateth with Me shall betray Me” (14:18); and S. Luke: “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table” (22:21). Christ did not wish, therefore, to point out the betrayer, but to exaggerate the wickedness by which, when he had taken food at the same table and from the same dish, he would betray Him; as David says (Ps. 40:10): “Even he in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me”. But this does not seem to harmonise well with the words of the Evangelist, for Christ, in this case, would rather have said, “One of these who dip their hand with Me in the dish,” as He had said, “One of you is about to betray Me”; and it is not probable that, when asked by each of the disciples who it should be that would betray, He would have given no other indication of the traitor than He had already given. Some have asked how it happened that the liquid or condiment came to be in the dish when the Law had commanded that the lamb should be eaten roasted and not boiled (Exod. 12:8). This is one of their arguments who say that Christ did not eat the lamb that year: as Theophylact and Euthymius say. But it is of very little weight. For this is to be understood, not of the supper in which Christ ate the lamb, but of that which was spread after the lamb had been eaten, as will be explained on verse 26. In this roasted, boiled, and all kinds of meat and condiments might be used: leavened bread alone being forbidden, because it was the first day of the Azymes.

Verse 24. The Son of man indeed goeth

Christ compares His own position to that of Judas, and prefers it. At this time Judas appeared to be in a better position than Christ. Christ was the sold: he was the seller. Christ was going to death: Judas to reward. Christ was about to be deserted even by all His disciples: Judas was to be united to the chief priests, the Scribes and elders, in favour and friendship; and might therefore appear much more happy than Christ in the judgment of men. Christ Himself refutes this opinion, and declares that in a short time He should be in a better state than Judas. That He was to suffer and die seemed to Him neither an affliction nor a calamity, nor a thing unexpected or compulsory; but on the contrary, one that was pleasant, laudable, duteous, voluntary: a thing undertaken with the intention of obeying the will of His Father, and fulfilling His decree and the prophecies of Himself; as He said, “The Son of man goeth indeed as it is written of Him” (Dan. 9:26). The word “goeth” has the force of Christ’s showing that He was not driven out of the world by force, but left of His own free will; for it was not so much death as a migration, as is rightly said by Theophylact. The words: “As it is written,” show that the need of His death proceeded not from man, but from the divine decree and forewarning. He compares His own end, therefore, with that of Judas, because although He appeared to be dragged to death, He was not so in reality, but He went to it. He went, indeed, less to death than to glory; for it was from this “cause God also hath exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9). Judas, on the other hand, who appeared to go to profit and the favour of men, would go to the noose; and to eternal punishment so severe that it would have been better for him if he had not been born. Maldonatus then enters into some abstract questions of Predestination and others depending on it. The 8vo omits the whole. It may, however, be thus stated in summary. Objection: That Judas in betraying Christ fulfilled the divine decree equally with Christ Himself, and therefore that Judas was not more guilty than Christ. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and all Catholic teachers say in reply that it was not decreed or predestinated by God that Judas should sell Christ, but that it was foreknown and foreseen by Him that Judas would do so, and that Christ should be put to death in consequence. God did not predestinate it, but He foresaw it. He did not do it, but he permitted it. Calvin makes the necessity of things to be the divine will, and says that God not only foresaw that Judas would betray Christ, but predestinated him by this necessity to do it. If so, says Maldonatus, Judas could not commit sin. The answer is, that God and Judas did the same act, but God did not sin, and Judas did; because God did it with the good intention of man’s recovery, and Judas from a mind full of avarice and wickedness. But according to Calvin, God alone was the author of the act. Or it may be said that God generated an evil mind in Judas. The mind of God that Christ should die was necessarily good; He had no need of Judas’ evil one, for He might have caused Judas to sell Christ with a good intention, as, to obey God; or Christ might have been sold and have died with an intention neither good nor bad. The mind of Judas was of God; the evil of it was of himself. Another question has been asked. If it would have been better for Judas never to have been born, why did God create him? S. Chrysostom and Eustathius reply that Judas was not created by God such as he became afterwards. God made him good, but he afterwards made himself a traitor. So says Solomon (Eccl. 7:30). It has been asked again why, being such as he was, Christ chose him as disciple. On this see chap. 10:4. In one word, when Judas was chosen by Christ, he was not what he became afterwards; but God in His choice of men often has regard not to their future, but to their present merits. We see this in the case of Saul. God chose him when he was yet good. He was made evil per se. The same may be said of Solomon.

Verse 25. Is it I, Rabbi?

Judas did not put this question to Christ as one ignorant, that he might learn what in his own conscience he could not but know; but as a crafty speculator, to try whether Christ knew him to be the future traitor, and like a shameless dissembler, that whilst the others were asking each of himself whether he were the one, he also should enquire about himself, that he might pretend that he was not. He did not do so, as it appears, of his own choice, but as compelled by the example of the rest. Hence he asked last of all, and perhaps after Christ had in some way pointed him out by the words, “He that dippeth with Me in the dish, he shall betray Me”; for the Evangelist relates the former before the latter. Such, at least, is the opinion of Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Bede. These observe that Judas did not say like the rest, “Is it I, Lord?” but “Is it I, Rabbi?” as if, even when he most especially wished to dissemble his treachery, he was compelled by his pride to betray himself by addressing Christ with a less honourable title than the rest.

Thou hast said it.

This mode of answering was honourable, and with the least possible offence to him addressed; nor had it anything of the petulance which we are apt to show when questioned. But S. Augustin’s idea that Christ’s words conveyed neither assent nor denial cannot be reconciled with the ordinary forms of speech. It is supposed that Christ said this to Judas after He had given him the sop as mentioned by S. John.

Verse 26. And whilst they were at supper

ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν, vescentibus autem illis. Our version renders the meaning, not the words. They were at supper, because it was evening, and the food taken then is called supper. S. Mark uses the word ἐσθιόντων, “eating,” and our version has “eating” and not “supping” as here. The different rendering of the same word was made, doubtless, for some good reason. S. Luke (22:20) and S. Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) say that this was done after supper. Hence the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν, cænantibus, aut manducantibus illis, are not be understood as if Christ had done it during the supper, but immediately on its being ended, before they rose from the table, and the fragments were removed. Three acts were therefore performed at this time, which three are generally called suppers:

1. The eating of the lamb, which some call the ceremonial supper.

2. The common and customary one; for whilst the eating of the lamb was a matter of religion, when the people had eaten it they were not satisfied, and therefore another supper was spread that each might take sufficient.

3. That in which Christ gave them Bread and Wine, consecrated to be His Body and Blood. It is not certain whether the first is ever called a supper. The second is called so by S. Luke, S. John, and S. Paul. The third is nowhere called a supper in Scripture; for S. Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper, not the Eucharist, but either a supper or dinner which wealthy Christians, either before, as some think, or after taking the Eucharist, used to give to the poor, in imitation of Christ, who, before He gave His disciples His Body and Blood, took His last supper with them, as men do when they are on the eve of going away from their friends, and showed His singular love to them, as we read in S. Luke 22:15: “With desire have I desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer”. S. Paul blames them because the wealthy took the supper which they called the Lord’s Supper, and which Christians took in imitation of Christ to practise charity among themselves, with fastidiousness and without waiting for the poor, who, when they came found nothing for them, and some were hungry and others were drunken. Hence it is plain that S. Paul speaks of this supper at which some were hungry and others drunken; for who can believe that any man was ever made drunk by the taking of the Sacrament? When he says, therefore, “Have you not houses to eat and to drink in?” he clearly shows that he does not call the supper “Eucharist,” which none are allowed to take at their houses in private. Lastly, when he says, “Putting to shame those who have not” (verse 22), he shows clearly that he speaks of that supper which the poor were not able to prepare for themselves. But no one was unable to prepare the Eucharist, for which only a morsel of bread and a draught of wine were necessary. The meaning of S. Paul, therefore, is that if the wealthy are so hungry that they cannot wait for the hour of dinner or supper, they should eat at their own houses; lest, if they eat in the church, not waiting for the poor, they either anticipate the supper, or appear to despise the poor, and to break the chain of love which is seen in that feast. This is not to eat the Supper of the Lord—at least, not after the manner of Christ, who, though He was Lord, yet sat not alone, but with His twelve disciples. In the same sense, the Ancients do not call the Eucharist the Lord’s Supper, but that supper which Christ took with the disciples before He gave them His Body and Blood; as S. Cyprian and S. Bernard, who call their own condones held on that day, from the Supper of the Lord, but who would hold it impious to call their supper the Eucharist, like the heretics. We, therefore, in agreement with the Scripture and ancient authors, properly call it the Eucharist, because Christ consummated it, and, as the Evangelists say, εὐχαριστῆσαι, gave thanks, or blessed it. Thus we follow not only the authority of Scripture and the example of our fathers, but also common sense, in calling this Sacrament the Eucharist, for the term εὐχαριστία and εὐλογία, which are the same thing, peculiarly belong to this Sacrament, as being performed with thanksgiving, or at least not without it, as we are taught by the example of Christ: the whole receiving its name from the part. The act of Christ before the supper He performed, not as an example to us, but of necessity, because He must first fulfil the ancient Sacrament before instituting the new; that is, He must eat the Paschal lamb before He gave His Body and Blood; and the lamb could be eaten at no time but at supper. Then when the lamb was eaten, the ordinary supper was set, both for the sake of keeping up the custom, and also that when about to depart this life, He might take a supper with His Apostles, and thus love them to the end. The Church, therefore, is not to be blamed, but rather praised, for not following the example of Christ in that which was not done by Him for our imitation. The Church only gives the Body and Blood of the Lord to those who are abstaining from food, because in this there is much more reverence; as Ep. cxviii. of S. Augustin describes, and as he thought it an apostolic tradition.

And blessed.

(On these words we have followed the Folio and inserted much that the 8vo omits.) Καὶ εὐλογήσας, “when He had blessed”. There are at least three heretical opinions on these words:

1. That of those who read “give thanks” instead of “blessed”.

2. That Christ gave thanks, not to the bread as blessing it, but to the wine as giving it thanks (quasi illi gratias egerit).

3. That the blessing, or, as they say, the thanksgiving, was not a singular one peculiar to this Sacrament, but one in common use among the Jews, and as such adopted by Christ. This tends to show that the practice of blessing in this Sacrament is wrong. They are to be answered in order.

4. Εὐλογεῖν, used here by S. Matthew and by S. Mark (14:22) of the bread, has the same meaning as εὐχαριστεῖν—that is, “to give thanks”; for S. Matthew (here) and S. Mark (14:22) say εὐλογήσας here of the bread, and in the verse following use the word εὐχαριστήσας of the cup; and S. Matthew and S. Mark say εὐλογήσας of the bread, S. Luke (22:19), S. Paul (1 Cor. 11:24) say εὐχαριστήσας. S. Matthew (15:36) uses εὐχαριστήσας of the seven loaves and two fishes. S. Mark (8:6) says εὐχαριστήσας of the loaves and εὐλογήσας of the fishes. S. Matthew (14:19), S. Mark (14:42), and S. Luke (6:11) say εὐχαριστήσας of the five loaves; S. John (6:11) εὐχαριστήσας. S. Paul uses the two words as meaning the same thing (1 Cor. 14:16). This may have been caused by following the Hebrew, in which the same word כוו is used both for giving of thanks and blessing, as in 1 Paralip. 29:20, and thus each word may be used for the other.

5. The second error is clearly refuted by S. Paul (1 Cor. 10:16): “The cup of blessing which we bless”—that is, consecrate by blessing. By these words it is clear that the blessing was bestowed on the subject-matter; that is, the Bread and Wine, as shown in 1 Cor. 10:16; S. Luke 9:16; and that Christ bestowed a blessing on these loaves. And as He blessed the bread and the cup in the same manner in the Eucharist, the blessing is to be referred, not to God, but to the bread and wine. Again, in 1 Tim. 4:4, 5, he says: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer”. The Word of God, therefore, the prayer, and the giving of thanks refer to the food. Again, the context of the Evangelists does not suffer us to understand it otherwise than that the bread and wine were blessed by Christ. “He took the bread, and having given thanks,” &c. He took the bread, then broke it, and blessed it. S. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apologia, calls the Eucharist “food blessed by thanksgiving”—that is, consecrated; and S. Irenæus (iv. 34, 35) says the same; and S. Cyprian (De Carn. Dom.) says: “The substantial bread and the cup consecrated by solemn benediction avail to the life and salvation of the whole man”. So S. Ambrose and the poet Juvencus say “sanctumque precatus”—that is, sanctifying by prayer.

6. The followers of Calvin err in thinking that the blessing which Christ used here was not proper and peculiar to this Sacrament, but one in common use among the Jews. They are answered thus: Whenever Christ took food He blessed it and gave thanks. What is this but that by His blessing He caused some singular and wonderful results? Christ is only mentioned three times as having blessed food: (1) S. Matt. (14:19), S. Mark (6:41), S. Luke (9:16), when He multiplied the five loaves; (2) S. Matt. (15:36), S. Mark (8:6), when He multiplied the seven loaves; (3) in this place, when He changed the Bread into His Body, and the Wine into His Blood. For His blessing the bread at Emmaus, as related by S. Luke (24:30), and breaking it and giving it to the two disciples, was an act of the same kind, because, as will be shown hereafter, He even then gave His Body. Again, as these three are commonly thought to have been suppers, why did not the Evangelist say that at the supper of the lamb, and at the ordinary one which followed it, Christ either blessed or gave thanks, and at a time when the Jews most especially did so? But when they speak of the Eucharist, they do say that Christ blessed it.

7. Why do they all relate the whole act so elaborately, as if it were a thing of the very greatest importance? Lastly. Why do they say that He blessed both the bread and the cup separately, as S. Matthew and S. Mark do? or why do they describe the whole so exactly that we may see that Christ blessed both the bread and the cup, as S. Luke says (22:20): “In like manner the chalice also,” showing that Christ took the cup and blessed it in the same manner as that in which He had blessed the bread?

And broke.

It was an ancient custom among the Jews for the father of the family, at the beginning of the supper in which the lamb was eaten, to take a loaf of the Azymes, and divide it into two parts; one of which he concealed in a napkin, and the other He blessed thus: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest bread out of the earth,” or thus: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, in the eating of unleavened bread,” as some have informed us from the book of the Hebrews entitled בל נו. But we cannot believe that when Christ broke or blessed the bread He meant to do nothing more than merely observe the Jewish rite, for this was to be done in the eating of the lamb according to the rites of the Jews. Christ is said to have done* His work, not in the eating of the lamb, but in the institution of the new Sacrament; or, if He did it in the eating of the lamb, as is indeed probable, the Evangelist passed it over as being nothing to the purpose. But they have all carefully related that He did it (fecerit) in the New Testament. It cannot be denied, indeed, that because Christ designed to change the eating of the lamb into the eating of His own Body, that is, the figure into the verity, He might have designed to use a similar, but not the same form of blessing. This would be more probable if the rite of breaking the unleavened bread had been introduced, not by the tradition of the Jews, but by a precept of the Law. It certainly seems that Christ did not break this bread in the same manner as they did, because all the Evangelists say that He broke it as if He had not been accustomed to break it at other times or in the same manner; and as S. Luke says (24:35), that the two disciples recognised Him in the breaking of bread, which they could not have done if He had broken it in the same manner and with the same form as the other Jewish fathers of households did. For it is plain that S. Luke states the breaking of the bread to have been the cause of the recognition. It may be said that these two disciples recognised Christ by the virtue of the reception of His Body, as if the Eucharist had opened their eyes. It may be so, but in this case it is an admitted miracle which, moreover, confirms the opinion that Christ when He gave His Body broke the bread in some peculiar manner, as it is so carefully described by the Evangelists. Some think that the bread was such as could have been easily broken by the hand. But this idea can hardly hold, because the bread was unleavened, which is much more tenacious, and the most difficult of all kinds of bread to be broken. It need not, therefore, have been broken by the hand, but may have been divided by a knife. It was a custom of the Jews to say that the bread was broken, not only when it was broken by the hand, but when it was cut by the knife; this, even when it was not divided, but only given, for it was seldom given unless it was either broken or divided first. “Deal thy bread to the hungry” (Isa. 58:7), that is, “Divide what thou hast with the poor”; and Lam. (4:4): “The little ones have asked for bread, and there was none to break it unto them”. Hence the entire performance and distribution of this Sacrament is called “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42). Christ, therefore, made twelve portions of the bread, and gave a portion to each; not, as some say, to the one nearest to Him, and he to the next (vide verse 27). It is uncertain whether Christ gave it into their hands or put it into their mouths—most probably the former.

1. Because Christ said, “Take ye,” which would apply rather to the hand than to the mouth.

2. Because, as we shall show, He gave the cup into their hands (verse 27), and He probably gave His Body in the same manner.

3. If, in dividing the bread, He had regard to the ancient Jewish custom, it is not likely that He would put the divided bread into their mouths. Lastly, because it was long the custom in the Church to give the Holy Body into the hands of the faithful, as we find from Tertullian (Lib. de Spectac. Ch. de Munere), S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. v., Myst.), S. Augustin (Serm. ccxxiv.), S. Chrysostom (De Sacerdos, iii.), Counc. i. Toledo. The Church, with a better intention, afterwards began to give it, not into the hands, but to put it into the mouth, because there was less danger and more reverence in so doing; as, although Christ gave His Body and Blood to those who had supped, S. Augustin praises the intention of the Church because she has abandoned that custom, and gives it only to the fasting (Ep. cxviii.). The heretics assail us heavily, as they think, on account of the word “breaking,” and say that we do not administer the Sacrament rightly unless there are many present among whom to have it distributed, because it is called in Holy Scripture “breaking of bread” from this reason. This is an objection of pure ignorance. For, as has been before said, it was called the breaking of bread, not because it was actually broken, but because it was given; for, in Hebrew, whoever gave bread to a poor man was said to have broken it, although only given to and received by one. If Christ had had only one disciple, He would assuredly have given His Body to him, and have been said to have broken, that is, to have given it, though He had not actually done so.

This is My Body.

Nothing in the Holy Scripture was ever more plainly stated than this, until heresy sought to obscure it. There are many mysteries in Holy Scripture more difficult and further removed from our understanding, which yet all men, heretics or Catholics, receive, such as those of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the flesh: none of these is taught in words so plain, so perspicuous, so eloquent. For where does Scripture say openly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Persons and one Essence, as Christ here says, “This is My Body”? Where does it so distinctly and clearly say that in Christ are two natures and one only Person, as He here teaches us that He gives us His Body and Blood? Where does He so explicitly declare that we shall rise again with the same body, and not another, not a spiritual, not a similar one, as He here says that He gives us not a figure, not a spirit, not bread, not wine, not anything else than His own Body and Blood? This is more easy to be believed than the other doctrines. They are proved by fewer and less notable testimonies of Scripture than this. Why are those believed, and these rejected? Why do these heretics find figures of speech where the Arians, Marcionists, Manichæans, found none? Why do they find them here, where those found them not? When we argue upon the Trinity, the whole debate turns upon the interpretation of three words: “I and the Father are one” (S. John 10:30), and: “These three are one” (1 John 5:7). When on the Incarnation, we rest on the explanation of three other words: “The Word was made flesh” (S. John 1:14). When on the Resurrection, on these: “The dead shall rise again incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52). Now, when the question is of the Eucharist, we rest on those words: “This is My Body”. These four mysteries should, as it seems, always be united together in our arguments with the followers of Calvin. The objection of these modern heretics to us on the Eucharist we retort upon them on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the dead, that so they may either cease their attacks upon the mystery of the Eucharist, or that their arguments may cease to be urged. The Arians, Marcionists, Manichæans, Origenists, have invented many explanations against the words cited above to escape the true one of the Church. The followers of Luther and Calvin, as they were less able to resist that truth, have issued many perverted opinions against those three words: “This is My Body”. The followers of Calvin and Zwinglius all agree that they are not a literal, but figurative expression. Some find the figure in the word “bread,” some in the word “is,” others in the word “Body”. Thus each word separately is to be expunged. This.—All the followers of Luther and Calvin say that this word “this” is put for the word “bread”; for Christ took the bread into His hands and immediately said, “This” (that is, this bread) “is My Body”. Hence the former say both that the bread remains in the Sacrament, because Christ said, “This” (that is, the bread) “is My Body,” and that His Body is there, because He said, “This is My Body”. The followers of Calvin, on the other hand, say that the bread remains, but that the Body of Christ is not in it, because He did not say, “This is My Body,” but “This” (that is, the bread) “is My Body”. Hence, as the bread cannot possibly be verily the Body of Christ and remain in its true nature, it follows that it cannot possibly be the Body of Christ except figuratively; that is, it signifies the Body of Christ. Each is refuted by that one word, “this”. The disciples of Luther, because if hoc, “this,” is taken of the bread; as Christ does not say Hic est, but hoc, it follows of necessity either that the bread does not remain if it be the Body of Christ, but is transmuted into it, or the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament if the bread remains. Such was the opinion of Berengarius, or some of his followers. The followers of Calvin will be answered if it be shown that the word hoc cannot be taken of the bread. This can be shown by most plain arguments.

1. If Christ intended to say hoc, that is, “The bread is My Body,” why did He not more clearly, in one word, say plainly, “This bread is My Body”? for the continuity of the sentence would have required this.

2. Why, when the three Evangelists, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul (1 Cor. 11:24), have all given us an account of the institution of this Sacrament, and on other points frequently differ from each other in words, and when one describes the same thing more obscurely and another more clearly, why do they all on this point use the same word, Hoc est? Why has none of them ever, by chance or design, to explain the opinion of Calvin more clearly, said, Hic est, or Hic panis est corpus meum? It will, perhaps, be objected that S. John has explained this in his sixth chapter, verse 52: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world”; and that S. Paul (1 Cor. 10:16, and 11:26, 28) and S. Luke (Acts 2:42) call this Sacrament the breaking of bread. It may be answered, as has often been done, that it is called bread, not because it is, but either because it was such, like the serpent into which Moses’ rod was changed is called a rod (Exod. 7:12). On because it bears the form of bread as before, as they were called tongues that sat upon the Apostles (Acts 2:3); not that they were actually tongues, but that they had the appearance of such. This reply might be sufficient, though we do not seem compelled to offer any explanation at all. It must be denied again and again that, in the places cited, the word “bread” is to be taken either for bread or for the figure (figura) of bread, for it is called, not bread, but the Body of Christ, as is clear from S. John 6:52: “The bread that I shall give is My flesh”. From these words the others are to be explained. The words “which I shall give” show most plainly that Christ did not speak of bread, but of His flesh, which is called, in some more excellent sense, bread. Christ opposes Himself to Moses, and His flesh to the manna. He also opposes His flesh which He was about to give us to eat to the five loaves with which He satisfied five thousand men, twelve baskets of fragments remaining over and above (S. John 6:12, 13). When the Jews followed Christ that He might give them this bread, as He bears witness Himself (verse 26), He opposed this bread, that is, His flesh, to those loaves, but He does not call the true bread “bread,” but “His Body,” which the Bread was, in some better and more excellent sense. As He said to the Samaritan woman (S. John 4:13, 14): “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for ever; but the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of living water springing up unto life everlasting”. In the words “which I will give him,” and in His opposing that water to the true water, He shows most plainly that He is speaking, not of actual water, but of His Grace, which the water is called in some better sense. So far, then, from the followers of Luther and Calvin being able to derive any argument against us from these words of S. John, we may rather take them as confirming our doctrine of Transubstantiation, for Christ not only signifies that He would give better bread—that is, His Body—but that He would not give it as He had given it to those whom He had lately fed, for He opposes this bread to that. He did not give that bread; He does give this. That is not in the Eucharist. This—that is, His Flesh—is in it. Those passages of S. Paul and S. Luke are to be understood in the same manner, as is plain both from the above words of S. John, and from the authors themselves; for when S. Paul says, “The bread which we break,” he shows that he is not speaking of bread, but of the Body of Christ, which, like Christ Himself, he calls bread. For the words “which we break” are added (1 Cor. 10:16) to distinguish it from true, natural bread, as the words in S. John, “which I will give,” quem ego dabo; and when S. Paul says (1 Cor. 11:26, 28) the words “this” and “that,” they show that he is speaking, not of the actual bread, but of the Body of Christ, which he calls bread, as did Christ when He said, “He that shall drink of the water that I shall give Him,” the word “which” distinguishes the grace of Christ from actual water; and S. Luke, when he says that the bread was broken, means the same thing as S. Paul did. It may be objected that the Body of Christ was not broken, but the bread was. The Body of Christ is said to be broken when it is given, because it was called by the name of bread, and it was so foreshown by the Prophets. It is the property of bread to be broken, although the body itself is not broken literally: as the grace of Christ is not drunk, and yet Christ calls it water, and water is drunk.

3. The third argument to prove that hoc is not taken for, or applied to, panis, is drawn from the difference of genders, both in the Latin and Greek. The words hoc and τοῦτο are in the neuter gender, and bread in both is masculine, and therefore they cannot refer to bread. The followers of Calvin say what some Catholics agree with, that the pronouns τοῦτο and hoc are not adjectives but substantives, and that there is no need, therefore, that they should agree in gender with panis, and that the meaning of the words is, What I give to you is My Body. But what He gave was bread. In answer:

4. The pronoun hoc is distinctly not to be taken of bread: but granting it to be so, still, if it were a substantive, why should we not follow the interpretation of Christ? “This which I give to you is My Body,” rather than the dreams of the followers of Calvin, “This which I give you is bread”. Again, granting that it is a substantive, why should we not follow the ordinary interpretation of Catholics, which is much more in agreement with a pronoun, that the pronoun hoc may be taken neither for the bread nor the Body, but may only signify that which Christ was about to give, and that it may be what they call individuum vagum. Though I contend, omnibus viribus, that it is an adjective, and can in no way be a substantive, or be taken for anything but the Body of Christ, it is beyond a doubt that the pronoun is to be taken in the same way when Christ says of the bread, “This is, My Body,” and when He says of the Blood, “This is, My Blood”. But when He says of the Blood, “This is, My Blood,” the pronoun is referred not to the wine, but to the Blood, as is clear from S. Luke and S. Paul, who join the pronoun to the following, not to the preceding word, and say τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον. Ergo, when Christ says “Hoc est corpus meum,” the hoc does not go with the preceding panis, but with the corpus following; and it is not a substantive but an adjective; for as the former goes with the cup that follows, so does the latter with the corpus that follows; and the adjective is united with the substantive, and therefore cannot express bread, but the Body of Christ. S. Jerome, or whoever was the author of our version, very rightly observes this; for, when speaking of the Blood, he does not say, Hoc, “This is My Blood,” as he would have done if he had thought the word “this” was put substantively, but hic, rendering it as an adjective. This S. Thomas, a holy, learned, and subtle doctor and wise commentator, does not observe. He is the author of the common opinion that the pronoun hoc is here used as a substantive and individuum vagum. This, it may be said, is tautology. For if hoc is taken for Body, it is the same as if Christ had said, “This Body is My Body”. This argument, though false, has been held, to one’s wonder, by some learned men. It is not a new saying, but a well-known and even necessary one, as dialecticians teach, that in every true proposition the subject and predicate are taken for the same thing; yet not every proposition is tautology proper, for tautology consists not in the “Acceptio” of a proposition, which they call “The Suppositio”: but in the signification when the subject and predicate are taken, not only for the same thing, but also signify the same thing; and not signify it only, but signify it in the same manner. For example, to say that man is a rational animal is not tautology, but a true, correct, and well-enunciated proposition; although subject and predicate are both taken for the same thing and have the same meaning: for they signify the same thing indeed, but not in the same manner: for man expresses the whole nature; and rational animal the same nature, but with a distinction and per partes. Should it be said that man is man, and a rational animal is a rational animal, this is senseless tautology. In the same manner, if Christ had said, “This Body is My Body,” He would have uttered tautology; but when He said, “This is My Body,” although the word “this” be taken for that Body of Christ and means the same thing, it is not tautology, but a most correct and well-known expression; because it means the same thing, but not in the same manner. “My Body” signifies the Body distinctly and by name. “This,” not by name, nor distinctly, but, so to say, mutely. As the French say, when a person so speaks of another as not to give him an appellation, but to describe him; he has not named him, but pointed him out by his finger, which is the same thing as if he had named him. So we commonly say, “This is my brother”; when the word “this” is taken of nothing but my brother, nor has in that place any other meaning, although not in the same manner; for, when I call him my brother, I name him. When I say, “This is my brother,” I do not name him, but (what comes to the same thing) I point him out as such. But if anyone should say, Hoc est frater metis, he would offend against the laws of the Latin language, and deserve a boy’s flagellation. Christ would have spoken with as little reason if He had said, Hoc est corpus meant; hoc being used as a substantive. The solecism does not indeed appear with corpus, because both words are neuter; but it would in sanguis, for no one would say, Hoc est meus sanguis. S. Cyprian, indeed, has so rendered it, but the passage is thought corrupt. So Scripture commonly speaks—Hic est Filius meus. Hic sanguis novi Testamenti—S. Matt. (3:17); Heb. (9:20), and in many other like passages. It may be affirmed that when the Father said, Hic est Filius meus, the hic is to be taken for homo; as if He had said, “This man is My Son”. It may be. But what would one in his senses say of this proposition, Hic est homo, when I point out a man? For what could the word hic be put, but for homo? It could not be put for animal, as if I said, “This animal is a man” (Hoc animal est homo), for the genders do not agree. How certain and clear, then, it is in this proposition, Hic est homo, or Hic est panis, that the pronoun hic cannot possibly be taken for anything but for homo and panis, which is put for the predicate; and any tyro in the Greek language would know that τοῦτο can be referred to nothing but the Body of Christ, for it is written thus, Λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ εἶπε, λάβετε, φάγετε· τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου (Accipiens Jesus Panem, et cum benedixisset fregit et dabat discipulis, et dixit Accipite manducate hoc est corpus meum). All other explanations, then, of the application of the pronoun “this,” whether of heretics or Catholics, are to be wholly rejected. This one alone is to be held most firmly, confirmed as it is by most certain arguments from S. Luke and S. Paul; it is also the only one which agrees with the Greek context of S. Matthew and S. Mark; is adopted by our version; and most unanswerably corroborates the Catholic doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It has been objected in the Schools that when Christ said those words, His Body was not yet in the Sacrament, and therefore could not have been referred to by the above pronoun. But the same schools give the answer. In propositions practical and efficacious, demonstrative pronouns often describe what is not yet, but what is caused to be by the word itself, and it is finite. When God made man of the dust, He could rightly and truly say of it, taking the dust into His hand, “This is man”. So Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum; and when from a rib God made woman, He took the rib and could say, “This is woman,” though when He spoke the word “this,” woman was not yet in existence. Nor would He have meant if He had so spoken that the dust was man and the rib was woman, but that the dust was changed into man and the rib into woman. So when Christ took bread and said, “This is My Body,” although His Body was not yet there, yet because it was to be so in a moment, He shows it by the pronoun. Nor did He signify that the bread was His Body, but that it was changed into it. So again, at the marriage at Cana of Galilee, where He changed the water into wine, He said, Hoc est vinum. The hoc showed not the water, but the wine. The meaning was net that the water was wine or signified wine, but that it was changed by that word into wine. This example is the more to our purpose because the Ancients have used it to prove and explain the faith of this Sacrament—e.g., S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. Mystag., iv). Is.—It is easy from what has been now said about the word “is” to show the error of those who think that it is taken for “signifies”. The verb substantive does not mean “signifies,” either in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, either in sacred or profane literature, nor is it, nor can it be, taken so to mean. If there is any figure at all when the word is used, it lies either in the subject or predicate, not in the word “is”. When we say that the lamb is the Pasch, the figure is in the word “Pasch,” not in the “is,” for the Pasch is not taken properly for the Passover, but for the lamb which signifies the Pasch. When, on seeing a figure of Hercules, we say, “This is Hercules,” the figure is not in the word “is,” but in the word “Hercules,” which, as it signifies the true and living Hercules, is here put for the figure of Hercules. The word “is” always involves substance, or, as Aristotle says, the union alone of extremes, and they who give a figurative meaning to it may rightly come under the rod of the Grammarians. The Grammarians say, indeed, that there are many classes of words, simple and compound; but none of them has ever said that a figure can be found in the verb substantive, but either in the subject or predicate, or in verbs not substantive, as, the field smiles, the land luxuriates. We must look, therefore, whether the figure be in the word corpus, for in the other two it certainly is not. My Body.—Everyone who is not blind must see that there is no figure in this word; for if there be, it is not taken for the very Body of Christ. That it is so taken is clear from the context (S. Luke 22:9)—Hoc est corpus meum.

5. Christ did not say, “which is given to you,” as He must have done if He had given them a figurative Body; but, “which is given for you”. He gave them something which could be offered in expiation of sin, which assuredly a figurative body could not; for only the true Body of Christ is given for us. A follower of Calvin might answer that the meaning is hoc est: that is, it is the figure of “My Body which is given for you”. Against this is the fact that no Evangelist, when speaking either of the Body or the Blood, uses the future tense; but all the three, and especially S. Paul, use the present, “which is given”; “which is poured out”. If the present had been put for the future, some of them at least would have used the future; nor can it be thought that they all used the same figure by chance. They may say again, as some of them have said, that either the present should be taken for the future, or if it is to remain as the present, the meaning of quod pro vobis datur and pro vobis funditur, is, that it begins to be given, and begins to be poured out, because it was now the beginning of the Passion. The words of S. Paul answer this, “My Body which is broken for you”; which could not be said of the Body of Christ on the Cross, because it s evidently a sacramental expression. The Body of Christ is said to be broken as it is in the form of bread. Out of the Sacrament it is not said to be broken. Not even on the Cross, where S. John has recorded it as a mystery that the legs of the thieves were broken but those of Christ were not (19:36), and it was foretold in Exod. 12:46. Again, when S. Luke (22:20) and S. Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) speak of the chalice, they say, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον. Hoc est poculum novum testamentum in meo sanguine, quod pro vobis effunditur. I have preferred to render it thus, to prevent the ambiguity which exists in our version, in which it is not clear whether the words, qui pro vobis effunditur, are to be referred to the cup or the Blood. In the Greek there is no possible doubt that it is to the cup, because “the Blood” is in the dative case, ἐν τῷ αἵματι, or if expressed by a passive participle, fusus, in the nominative, as if our version read, “This is the cup—fusus, poured out—for you”. The pouring out is evidently to be referred not to the word “Blood,” but to the word “cup”. The cup is not said to be poured out, but the contents of it. This matters nothing however. It is enough for us that it is proved most clearly that the pouring out is to be referred not to that of the Blood on the Cross, but to that in the Sacrament, for the cup is said to be poured out for us, which was not done on the Cross but in the Sacrament. The sense in which the cup, or the Blood of Christ, is said to be poured out, shall be explained hereafter. They who refer this to the Cross miss the force and meaning of the words of Christ. Christ had taken the bread and blessed it, broken it, given it to the Apostles, saying, “This is My Body”. He added, “Which is given for you”. Who does not see that He commended in these words the force, value, and price of that which He gave? For He gave His own Body; not openly, but concealed in the Sacrament. The Apostles might think that they only received bread which would profit the body, and thus hold it in less value than was right. Christ declares that He was giving, not bread but His Body: and His Body because it was given by Him for a remission of their sins. He does not praise the fruit of the Cross, as that was not His subject, but the fruit of the Sacrament, which was. It would perhaps be objected that SS. Matthew and Mark, when they speak of the cup, do not say, “Which shall be poured out for you,” but “for many,” as if Christ addressed His words not to the Apostles alone, but either to all or to many others, so that He could not be speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist alone, but rather made allusion to the Cross. The objection will be answered when it is shown that the words, “for many,” have the same meaning as “for you,” as S. Luke and S. Paul have said. For the Apostles themselves who were present were many, but because Judas was present, and the Body and Blood would profit him nothing, Christ Himself, or more probably the Evangelists SS. Matthew and Mark, to show this, did not say “for you,” lest they should include all, but “for many,” that an exception might be understood. Again, as all the Evangelists say of the Body, “This is My Body,” so S. Luke and S. Paul say of the chalice, “This is the chalice”. These two cannot be thought to speak figuratively in the use of the word chalice, and, therefore, in the Evangelists and S. Paul the word “Body” cannot be so received. And that the word “chalice” cannot be understood figuratively is most clear from what has been said before. For it is said to be poured out, so that it is a true chalice, but as Christ says, Hic est calix in meo sanguine, which is the same as if He had said, Hic est calix sanguinis mei, “This the chalice of My Blood,” it is the same as S. Luke and S. Paul say, Hic est calix in sanguine meo, and as SS. Matthew and Mark, Hic est sanguis meus. The followers of Calvin insist that as the word calix here used is figurative, so the words hoc est corpus meum are figurative also. But the contrary is the truth. The word calix is not figurative, and therefore the words hoc est corpus meum are not figurative. Let them show where the figure is. Is it in the word est? The figure, as has been proved, cannot be in that word, and therefore it must be in the word calix. Calix, therefore, is not put for a true chalice, but for the figure of a chalice; as, they say, corpus is not taken for a true body, but for the figure of a body. This is senseless—Christ gave a true chalice. They reply that calix is to be taken figuratively because it was put for sanguis—this is still more senseless.

6. Because it would be the same as if Christ had said,” This chalice,” that is, “My blood” as they explain it, “is My Testament in My Blood”—what could be more senseless?

7. Again, if there is any figure in the word calix, it would be the same as that which, they say, is in the word corpus. But in corpus they say that the figure is that the word corpus is put for the figure of corpus; ergo, if there is any figure in calix, it is that the word calix is put for the figure of the calix. Finally, if there is a figure in the calix, there is certainly none in the sanguis; for what could be more senseless than to say, “This is the chalice of My Blood”? that is, “the figure of the chalice which is the figure of My Blood”. To this result, however, in their opinion, the words of our Lord must necessarily be reduced. Again, if there were a figure, it would be that which they assert to be in the words on which they lay so much stress: Petra erat Christus. Here there is no figure at all, or it is not in the Christus, but in the word petra; for the meaning is not that the rock is a figure of Christ, but that it is Christ; for the words are transposed—“the rock is Christ” being put for “Christ is the rock” (petra erat Christus, for Christus erat petra)—and thus petra is not the subject but the predicate, as is clear from the context (1 Cor. 10:4); for it was not the actual rock that followed them, but Christ; the rock remained immovable. Christ went before them and gave them food and drink: that is, “They drank of the rock,” i.e., Christ was the rock of which they drank and which followed them. The reason of the transposition of words is that the Hebrews repeat the last word at the beginning of the next; as, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth,” &c. (Gen. 1:1); and, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word,” &c. So, because he had said, “They drank of the rock,” S. Paul repeated the word “rock,” “And the rock was Christ”. If there is any figure, therefore, it is not in the word “Christ,” which is put for the true Christ, and not for His figure; but in the word “rock,” because Christ is not literally a rock, as He is not literally a vine, or a lion; but by comparison, because he is the foundation of the Church. The followers of Calvin say that the words Hoc est mean that it is a figure of the Body. If so, Christ would be the figure of the rock—which is senseless. It cannot be doubted that the word “Body” is to be taken here in the same sense as the word “Flesh” in S. John (6:51). Panis … caro mea, for that which He promised there, He gives here; as the word panis shows; for it is not taken for the Body of Christ, unless as far as it is given under the form of bread. Their denial that that chapter of S. John refers to the Sacrament, refuted as it has been by so many men of learning, needs no answer here; and they object themselves to us that Christ said, “The flesh profiteth nothing” (verse 64), as if He were speaking of the Sacrament. The word “flesh” cannot be taken there except for the true flesh; for the figure is not in the word caro, but panis, for Christ does not call His flesh bread, but bread His flesh; as if He had said, “That bread is My flesh which I shall give you”. For He opposes that bread to the true natural bread; and when He said, Hoc est corpus meum, there was no figure in the word Body, but it showed the true Body of Christ. And even if Christ had said, “My Body is this bread,” as these think, in meaning at least, if not in words, we could not explain it as they do. “This bread is the figure of My Body,” but “This bread is My true Body”; not, however, that it is true bread, for it is true flesh, but not true bread. If these words were spoken by Christ in figure, it is very wonderful that none of the Evangelists, nor S. Paul, who all describe the same institution of this Sacrament, explain it to be a figure; most especially as they knew that, just before, the people of Capernaum had been offended by a like expression (S. John 6:60), and the Evangelists take pains to explain even in matters of much less importance than this, whatever is said in figure, or obscurely, by themselves or others. Thus Christ had said, “Destroy this Temple,” &c. He called His Body the Temple, by figure, but yet S. John explained: “He spoke of the Temple of His Body” (2:21). He had said, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself” (12:32). There is no figure here, but only obscurity. He explains it (verse 33): “Now this He said signifying what death He should die”. He said (S. Matt. 16:6): “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” which was spoken obscurely and in figure, Christ Himself explained it (verses 11, 12). He had said (S. John 15:1): “I am the true vine”; He explained His words immediately after (verse 4). S. Paul had called the Church “the Body of Christ” (Coloss. 1:24). The figure is in the word “Body,” for it was not taken for the actual and natural Body of Christ, for He immediately added, “which is the Church”. Who can believe that, if there had been a like figure in the word “Body,” none of the Evangelists, or S. Paul alone, either by chance or design, would have explained it? Especially when Christ said that He would give the Apostles His Body, and they used to doubt in matters much more plain, whether He spoke obscurely or in figure—why, then, did none of them doubt about this saying? and if in figure, why did none of them ask Him what was His meaning? They doubted about the parable of the Sower and the Seed, and Christ explained it to them (S. Matt. 13:3) even when they did not ask Him (verse 18). They doubted about the parable of the Tares. They asked and received an explanation. Surely, if Christ had spoken obscurely and had not explained His words, He would have left the Apostles doubtful and exposed to many errors, especially as these were His last words, which, as such, should have been as clear as possible; for what wise testator declares his last will in doubtful or figurative terms? S. Paul also is most clear in his account (1 Cor. 11:27): “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord”. Why would they have been guilty if they had not received the true Body and the true Blood? The followers of Calvin reply that they would have been guilty because, though they did not receive it in reality, they did receive it in figure, and they dishonoured this; or, in the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ they dishonour the Body and Blood, and treat it without reverence and respect. We may, perhaps, say what they cannot, as they think that no reverence is to be paid to Sacraments, and deride us for saying that the same honour is to be paid to images and to the things signified by them. Their example, too, is not to the point. If anyone, they say, throw the royal signet upon the ground or break it, he is guilty of lese-majesty. They take for granted what they ought to prove—that the Sacraments are signs. This has been answered again and again. Let them take an example in the image of the king. If a man misconduct himself to it is he guilty of lese-majesty? Surely not, or they must grant what they deny so obstinately, that honour is due even to the images of the things signified. S. Paul gives the reason why they who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29). They receive it with no other respect than ordinary bread: he spoke, therefore, of the true Body and Blood of Christ. Moreover, we find in Scripture that the Body of Christ is spoken of in three ways only:

8. Properly, for the natural and true Body.

9. Metaphorically, for the Church (Coloss. 1:24).

10. For the Gospel, or the truth answering to the ancient figures (Coloss. 2:16, 17). More senses in which to receive it we do not find. And as in this passage it is taken neither for the Church nor for the Gospel, the use of Scripture shows us that it is to be taken here for the true and natural Body of Christ. In short, if Christ had intended to say that He gave His true Body and Blood, could He have spoken more clearly, more explicitly, more distinctly than He did? “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood”—why, then, should we seek to obscure by figures what is said most plainly, that so we may not be compelled to believe? Calvin argues against other heretics like himself who said that Christ gave only a figure: “If a person could neither deceive nor lie, it would follow that whatever he signifies he will in fact fulfil and make good. It is the necessary result, therefore, that in the Supper of the Lord we truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ” (Institutes, iv. 17). And in his Commentary: “The Lord would command us to eat bread, declaring it to be His Body, to no purpose, unless the result truly followed the figure. For although we there discern nothing but bread, He does not deceive or delude us in giving our souls the nourishment of His flesh; not, therefore, in sign alone is shown the partaking of the flesh of Christ, but in actual fact.” Calvin, I say, argues against the followers of Zwinglius that, because Christ cannot lie or deceive or delude, He gives us not merely a figure, but His very Body and Blood. From this argument of his we reply against him: “Christ cannot lie nor deceive nor delude. Therefore, when He said, ‘Take ye and eat, this is My Body’ (verse 26), He gave not only a Sacrament, but also His very, true Body; and as He did not say, ‘This will be My Body when you eat it,’ but ‘This is,’ it follows that under the Sacrament which He gave, He gave His own Body.” We have said that this mystery is not be separated from those others of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection. It shall now be shown that we believe these by the same right, or, if possible, a still better one, than the followers of Calvin believe the above; and we explain them without any figure. In this present point, as has been said, they can find no figures. In those other mysteries the ancient heretics found them, and sought to prove them from Scripture. “I and the Father are one” (S. John 10:30) the followers of Arius explained to mean one, not in nature and essence, but in concord and consent of will, and they set about to prove it by Scripture—e.g., Acts 4:32; S. John 7:21. What could the followers of Calvin produce with so much semblance of truth from Scripture in support of their doctrine of a figurative presence? The followers of Marcion and Manes explained the words, “The Word was made flesh” (S. John 1:14), by a figure—that is, Christ took the similitude of flesh—and they even seemed to prove it by Rom. 8:3; Philipp. 2:6, 7. What triumphs would not the Calvinists have boasted against us, what clamour would they not have raised, if they had found any passage in Holy Scripture in which Christ is said to have given the form and similitude of His Body for us! The followers of Origen, again, understood that the dead would rise in figure: not in the same flesh, but they would put on other flesh, not true flesh, not corporeal flesh, but heavenly and spiritual. 1 Cor. 15:44 forms their ground of proof. The words of Job (14:12) seem expressly to deny any future resurrection, and Psalms 77:39 and 48:13 were alleged by them to the same end. What would the followers of Calvin do if they could produce any testimony from Scripture in which the Body of Christ was said not to be given to us, as it appears to be said in the above passages that the dead do not rise? To the assertions of those ancient heretics the Catholics of their day rightly replied. Rightly indeed, but we confute more rightly and easily all the testimonies which the followers of Calvin may bring to prove their doctrine of a figure. Lastly, it is unaccountable that this idea never occurred to any one after the Apostles, except to Berengarius and, perhaps, Bertram, and that it was received by none, but at once condemned by the whole Church. We follow the testimony of the ancient Fathers, from whom we will produce a few of their innumerable passages in our support. Maldonatus gives some pages of citations from the primitive Fathers. He names S. Justin Martyr (Apol. ii) as teaching that the bread and wine are changed into our body and blood when we eat and drink them. S. Cyprian (De Cæna Dom., lib. ii.) teaches that the bread was changed not in effigie but in nature, and made by Omnipotent power “the flesh of the Word”. S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Mystag, iv). Eusebius of Emissa (Hom. v. de Pasch). S. Hilary (De Trinit., viii). S. Chrysostom (Hom. lxxxiii. in loc.). “His words,” he says, “are so clear that they can be obscured by no explanation,” yet some of the heretics have produced the following words of his on this passage of S. Matthew as if he could be claimed as of their opinion. “Christ,” he says, “gave us nothing as an object of sense, but by means which were such; all the things which He gave us are in fact insensate.” Hence they infer that, in the opinion of S. Chrysostom, the Body of Christ is taken by us only spiritually. But they should have observed what follows. “As, then, Christ says, ‘This is My Body,’ we need be under no doubt, but may believe and see with the eyes of our mind; for nothing that is the object of sense has been given to us by Christ; that is, nothing that is to be judged of by sense, but all is to be comprehended by the eyes of the mind and by faith.” S. Chrysostom, therefore, holds that the Body of Christ is not to be judged of by sense. S. Ambrose (De Myst. Init. 9, and De Sact., iv. 5). S. Gregory Naz. (Orat. ii in Pasch). S. Gregory Nyss. (Orat. Catech., chap. xxxvii). S. Leo (Serm. vi. de Jejun. Sept. Mens.). S. Cyril Alexand. (Comment. on S. John x. 13). There is no need of lengthy extracts, but the reader may see that we neither believe nor explain Scripture otherwise than all the most ancient authors. The followers of Calvin object the words of S. John (6:64), “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing” (vid. loc.).

11. They argue from the passages in which the Sacra ment, even after consecration, is called bread; but they have been answered by us above.

12. They derive another argument from the word “chalice”. This has also been answered, and shall be more fully here after. Christ plainly and explicitly said, “This is My Blood”. One passage yet remains (1 Cor. 10:3, 4): “And did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink”. From this they infer that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood only in a spiritual sense. But it is evident that in these words S. Paul means that the ancient Hebrews did not eat the same spiritual food as we, but the same ipsos inter se. He does not compare them with us. This is plain from the end of the preceding chapter (9:26, 27), and the beginning of the one following (10:1–5). “I so fight not as one beating the air.” This is the proposition which he confirms in chap. 10:1: “I would not have you ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptised in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. But with the most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the desert.” His meaning was: “As our fathers, although they had the same Sacraments and were partakers of the same blessings from God, were not all saved, but many perished in the desert: so I, although I have the same Sacraments as you, ought not to be secure, but fearful, as the Wise Man said (Prov. 28:14): lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others I myself should become a castaway”. This is clear from the beginning of the chapter (1 Cor. 10:1). When S. Paul wrote this, he did not compare them to us, who were never under the cloud, but under the sun of justice, but he compares them to one another. When he said, therefore, “They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and all drank the same spiritual drink,” and especially when he added, “but with the most of them God was not well pleased,” he shows plainly that he had previously compared them, not to us, but to one another. His argument would otherwise have been without point, for he could not have said, “They ate the same spiritual meat as we, and yet with most of them God was not well pleased”. It is, therefore, possible that we too may not please God. Nor does S. Paul argue against Christ. Christ compared the bread, that is, His flesh, with the manna which the ancient Jews ate; and He said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat of it he may not die.” S. Paul adds, “Now these things were done in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things as they also coveted” (1 Cor. 10:6). He applies to us what he had said before of the Jews. He was speaking, therefore, of the Jews alone. In return, I reply—Scripture calls the food which the Hebrews ate spiritual food, and the drink which they drank spiritual drink, to distinguish them from ours. He nowhere calls our food and our drink spiritual. Theirs, therefore, was taken only spiritually, ours truly and in fact. These are all the Scripture passages which the heretics abuse, or which have any appearance of probability. Every ordinary reader can judge of their value. They offer many other reasons which should rather be answered, if at all, in the schools than in a commentary, which should savour of nothing but Scripture. It should be enough for us to answer, in one word, that we are Christians, not philosophers. The Word of God is our stay; and while we have this clear and plain, we lay little stress on the dictates of mere natural reason. One argument more of theirs, which they think most especially theological, shall alone be noticed. They say that the words, “This is My Body,” are clearly sacramental, and are, therefore, to be understood sacramentally. It may be answered—(i) If the words sacramentalis locutio mean that the Body and Blood of Christ were given to us, not really, not truly, not substantially, as Calvin says, but only in mystery, according to Zwinglius: then, to speak briefly, they are ignorant of the meaning of these terms. They take them to mean that by which an outward sign is asserted, and the thing signified is excluded. This is their first principle. If it is a Sacrament of the Body of Christ, the Body itself is not present; for they think that the presence of the thing signified is opposed to the sign. But Scripture shows otherwise. The Ark of the Old Testament was a sign, and, as it were, a Sacrament, by which the Divine Majesty was signified; but even in their opinion the Divine Majesty was present. The dove in which the Holy Ghost descended on Christ was undoubtedly a sign of the same Holy Ghost, and, as it were, a Sacrament: none deny that the Holy Ghost was present. The tongues of fire which descended on the Apostles (Acts 2:3) were a sign of the Holy Ghost, and they signified that the Holy Ghost, through the Apostles, would speak in various languages; and the Holy Ghost was not absent from them. Let them learn, then, that the words, “This is My Body,” although concerned with the Sacrament, are not a sacramental expression. They err greatly in thinking that whatever is said of a Sacrament is said sacramentaliter. For when we say of the Water of Baptism, “This is water,” we do not speak sacramentally, but truly and properly. In the same way, when Christ said, “This is My Body,” it would be a sacramental expression, if the water were termed Regeneration, and the Body of Christ were termed “bread,” and were said to be broken and torn by the teeth, as S. Chrysostom says. For these cannot be understood but sacramentally (sacramento tenus), because the Body of Christ is not properly broken, but the Sacrament.

Verse 27. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks

On the giving of thanks—εὐχαρίστια—vide the preceding verse. It need only be observed here that Christ blessed the chalice and the bread separately; for all the Evangelists especially say so, or at least indicate it, as when S. Luke (22:20) or S. Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) say: “In like manner also the chalice after He had supped, saying, This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood: this do ye as often as ye shall drink for the commemoration of Me”. When S. Paul says, “In like manner,” it is the same as if he had said, “In like manner He took” and “In like manner He blessed”.

Drink ye all of this.

Our enemies charge us with breaking the express commandment of God in defrauding the people of one kind of the Sacrament, for Christ intentionally, as if foreseeing our error, said of the Blood what He had not said of his Body, “Drink ye all of this”. Why, then, do they not give the Blood of Christ to infants, especially when they baptise them, and as they think this Sacrament more necessary than baptism, saying that the only proof of the necessity of baptism is in S. John 3:5, and this they deny to apply to baptism? Why do they not give the Blood of Christ to the excommunicated, if Christ willed all to receive it? In fact, Christ did not say, “Drink ye all,” when He gave the chalice, as He had not done it when He gave His Body, as if He wished to commend His Blood to them rather than His Body; but because He gave His Body to each singly, one after another, but the chalice not to each, but to the one nearest to Him, who again gave it to the next to him, and so on. Because, therefore, He gave the cup to one only, that He might not appear to desire that that one alone should drink it, He said, “Drink ye all,” or, as S. Luke explains it (22:17) more clearly, “Divide it among you”; though this has not been previously observed, especially in our time, when this saying has brought incredible troubles to many. S. Luke mentions the chalice twice. First, he says Christ took the chalice and gave thanks and said, “Take and divide”; but he does not say that Christ said, “This is the chalice in My Blood”. Again, in verse 20: “In like manner the chalice too after He had supped, saying, This is the chalice, the New Testament in My Blood”. Thus S. Jerome, whom most Moderns follow, thinks that there were two chalices. I rather agree with S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 1) and Euthymius (in loc.), that there was only one, which S. Luke, not keeping to the order of events, has mentioned twice—(1st) by anticipation, and (2ndly) in its proper place.

Verse 28. This is My Blood

For information on this subject, see verse 27.

Of the New Testament.

Τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, Sanguis Novi Testamenti. Διαθήκη properly means a disposal of property. It applies therefore to every fœdus (treaty), one kind of which is the attestation of the last will; but it is most commonly used of the testament in which the will itself is stated, as the word dispono is found in our version (Isa. 38:1): Dispone domui tuæ, “Take order with thy house”. The Hebrew is ברות which carries the same meaning. S. Paul (Heb. 9:16, 17) uses διαθήκη for a will as applied to both Old and New Testaments. The followers of Luther and Calvin therefore err in calling the Old and New Testament fœdas and not Testamentum. S. Mark uses the same word as S. Matthew: Hic is sanguis meus Novi Testamenti; S. Luke, however, says, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καίνη διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἱμάτι μου, Hic est calix Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine (22:20); S. Paul, Hic calix Novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine (1 Cor. 11:25). From this difference the heretics have inferred that as Christ said both Hic est calix and Hic calix est Novum Testamentum, each must be taken figuratively. Enough has been said on verse 26 about the figurativeness of the chalice. We will now speak of the meaning of the other figure and of the whole passage. This need not take many words Nego, I deny that Christ said these words. For, as S. Matthew who was present, and S. Mark who learned from him, say that Christ gave His Blood with the words, “This is My Blood of the New Testament”: and as He could not say both “This is My Blood of the New Testament,” as S. Matthew and S. Mark say, and “This is the chalice the New Testament in My Blood,” as S. Luke and S. Paul say, it may be thought that He used the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, rather than those of S. Luke and S. Paul. Again, the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark better express what Christ did—the giving of His Body and Blood. The words Novum Testamentum would appear to have been added in passing and by way of explanation, as appears from S. Matthew and S. Mark. S. Luke and S. Paul would appear to speak as if the first object of S. Paul had been to declare that He gave the New Testament rather than His Blood. It may be thought, therefore, that He used the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark rather than those of S. Luke and S. Paul. Still, the meaning would not be what these make it, nor would it lend any support to their view. For if Christ said, “This is the chalice the New Testament in My Blood,” as the words of S. Luke are to be rendered, He simply used a Hebraism—for “in my blood” has the same meaning in Hebrew as “of my blood”—as S. Matthew and S. Mark have expressed without a Hebraism. As, then, calix in meo sanguine and sanguinis mei bear the same meaning, let us suppose that Christ said the latter. The meaning is simply: This is the chalice of my blood; and there is no more of a figure than if we should say, “This is a cask of wine” or “a vessel of water”. Let us see if there is any figure in the word Testamentum. They who reduce everything to figure say that there is, because the New Testament is called a chalice. I, who seek not figure but truth, find none here. We see that in all languages the word fœdus has many significations—both the subject-matter and the symbol by which it is ratified, as the slaughter of a pig among the ancient Romans was a fœdus, and it was so called by them without any figure. Thus the Old Testament was so called without figure, because God performed it on the one part and the Hebrews on the other; and the divine promise itself was frequently spoken of as a pactum or covenant, as 4 Kings 13:23; and the blood by which, as an external symbol of ratification, it was entered upon and without any figure, for the word signifies all these things. In S. Luke the sentence is without a verb, and it is doubtful where it should be supplied. “The chalice,” Christ says, “the New Testament in My Blood.” The verb “is” could be inserted in two places: either after the word “This”—“This is the chalice”—so that the chalice by apposition might be termed the New Testament, or it may be read after “chalice”—“This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood”. It ought to be placed immediately after “This,” for as S. Matthew and S. Mark, as has been said, give not only the meaning, but the actual words of Christ, from them the text of S. Luke and S. Paul is not only to be understood, but even constructed. Besides, as has been said, it was not the intention of Christ to give the New Testament, but His Blood. We cannot think, therefore, that He meant “This chalice is the New Testament,” but “This is the chalice of My Blood,” which chalice is the New Testament. Hence the words of S. Paul, although transposed, are to be reduced to this model: “This chalice the New Testament”—that is, “This chalice is the New Testament”. In brief, it may be doubted why S. Luke and S. Paul did not say, “This chalice is the New Testament of My Blood,” or, more clearly, “This is the chalice of My Blood, the New Testament”. The reply may be, that it is a Hebraism: In meo sanguine meaning per meum sanguinem. They used this expression because they called the New Testament a chalice, and it is better called the New Testament, per sanguinem, or, what is the same thing, in sanguine, than sanguinis. The meaning is the same as that expressed in the plainest terms by S. Matthew and S. Mark, “This is My Blood of the New Testament”. It is worth enquiring why Christ called it His Blood of the New Testament. It was the custom of almost all nations to ratify treaties by the blood of victims. Sometimes, when about to enter upon an unusually sacred and inviolable engagement, they mutually drank blood drawn from their own veins (Sallust, Bell. Catil.). The same thing has been done in our own times. Christ did this when He gave the Apostles His own Blood to drink—that is, He ratified a treaty; for the twelve Apostles who were present represented the whole Church with which He made it. He, therefore, desired to express this in words. Christ alludes also to the institution of the Old Testament, which was dedicated by the blood of a heifer (Exod. 24:8). He seems to allude to the words of Moses when he took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said, “This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you”. Christ opposes Himself to Moses: His own Blood to the blood of the heifer: the Apostles to the people of the Jews: sprinking to sprinkling: and testament to testament. Moses sprinkled the people outwardly by the blood of the heifer: Christ sprinkled the Apostles inwardly by His own Blood. Hence, perhaps, the force of the word ἐκχυνόμενον, which is poured out, that is, “sprinkled”. Christ calls the new pactum the New Testament, which He confirmed not with the Jewish people alone, as before, but with all the nations which received the Gospel, “that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting”. Christ alludes, therefore, to that new treaty which God had often promised through His prophets; and herein, perhaps, lies the force of the Greek article in S. Matthew and S. Mark, τὸ αἴμα; that is, the Blood of that New Testament which has been often promised, and of which you have often heard. Hence we see why, when Christ spoke of His body, He made no mention of the New Testament, but when He spoke of His Blood He did make it. Because treaties are ratified by blood: not, as Origen thinks, that we are redeemed by His Blood, but by His Flesh. From this it is seen that Christ made the Testamentum there and not on the Cross, as modern heretics contend; for the meaning is not, “This is the Blood by which the New Testament will be ratified”: but “by which it is ratified now”. When a treaty is entered upon, the parties must be present to exchange words and give symbols. Nothing of this kind was done on the Cross. Christ had been deserted and, as it were, put to death when He spoke with His Mother and S. John and no other; and He spoke of personal subjects alone and not of any public treaty. He did all that was necessary for the performance of a treaty when He met the Apostles, that is, the whole Church, at a feast, at which treaties are celebrated, and gave them His own Blood, by which, as by a symbol, treaties are ratified, and He declared that He entered upon a treaty with the Church. “This is My Blood of the New Testament.” Here, then, was instituted the New Testament. Here, too, Christ offered that sacrifice without which there can be no treaties. When, therefore, He gave His Blood to the Apostles and said, “This is My Blood of the New Testament,” He put them in possession of a New Covenant. The conclusion is, that Christ gave His very Blood. For He opposes His own Blood to the blood of the heifer, as the truth is opposed to the figure.

Which for many.

S. Mark uses the same words; but S. Luke and S. Paul say, “for you”. It is not probable that Christ used both expressions, as His words were directed to those who were present, but which of the two He did use does not appear. If guided by conjecture, we might rather think that He said, “for you,” than “for many”.

1. Because He was speaking to the Apostles alone.

2. Because, as said above, He was commending a duty to them, and He desired to explain to them the good which His Blood-shedding would do them. Hence the words of S. Luke and S. Paul are to be explained by those of S. Matthew and S. Mark, that the meaning of both may be the same; not as Euthymius and Theophylact think, that “for many” is the same as “for all”. Calvin follows these, if, indeed, he knew them, but perverso animo; for he says that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the predestinate. The meaning of “for many” is not “for the predestinate,” as many, even Catholics, assert; nay, Christ signifies that His Blood was not shed even for all who were present, for the words pro multis are of less extent than pro vobis; for it is the same as if He had said, “This is shed for you”: that is, for the most of you, and He, therefore, opposes “many” to “all” who were present. When Christ said those words, therefore, it is certain that He did not include Judas, for whom His Blood, as to its effects and fruit, was not shed. S. Matthew and S. Mark, to explain this, relate, with great wisdom, not the words but the meaning, Qui pro multis effundetur. The objection may be raised that the Church thinks that Christ said both pro vobis and pro multis. In reply, the Church defines nothing; but when some Evangelists have said, “for many,” and others, pro vobis, to avoid error on a matter of doubt she unites the two.

Shall be shed.

Which is shed. We have spoken of the force of the present tense on verse 26, showing that it cannot apply to the Cross. We must see here in what sense Christ says that His Blood would then be poured out. We may take the meaning to be that it was poured out to be drunk; for we say at table to the attendant, when we wish for wine, funde vinum, “pour out the wine”. Christ may have alluded to the words of Moses (Exod. 24:8), “He took the Blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and he said, This is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words”. The word “chalice” would support this view, a chalice being a vessel most especially used for drinking from. We cannot think of any other reason why S. Luke and S. Paul use the word “chalice,” which, as said before, Christ did not use, unless to signify to what end His Blood was poured out, namely, that the Apostles might drink it: for we drink from a chalice. Their opinion is better who explain it to mean, “It is shed,” that is, “sacrificed”.

1. Because Christ does not say, “It is shed to you” (vobis), as He would have done had it been poured out for them to drink; but He said, “which is poured out for you” (pro vobis). This agrees with a sacrifice, for sacrifices are not offered to men, but for them.

2. Christ when offering His Body said, “This is,” &c., and no other reason can be imagined why S. Matthew and S. Mark said that of the Blood alone, except they thought that it would be sufficient to show the nature of a sacrifice, if they spoke only of the Blood, in which the virtue of a sacrifice chiefly consists.

3. Christ spoke in the same sense of His Body, “which is given for you,” and of the Blood, “which is shed for you”. But when He spoke of His Body, the meaning could not have been, “which is given to you to eat,” but “which is sacrificed for you”. The same of the Blood, “which is shed for you”. It will be said that the word “chalice,” which S. Luke and S. Paul use, is adverse to this idea, for they say that the chalice and not the Blood is poured out, and a chalice is not poured out for sacrifice, but for drinking from. Other nations sacrificed the blood of their victims when they had collected it into cups. Virgil describes this (Æneid, vi., line 248); and Moses himself, whose figure Christ here fulfils, received the blood of the heifers doubtless in a cup and sprinkled the people with it.

Verse 29. I will not drink from henceforth

Οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπʼ ἄρτι ἐκ τόυτου τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, de hac generatione aut de hoc fructu vitis. The ancient translator, to express the sense of the Greek, used a word not commonly employed by the Latins. Without doubt, the expression genimen vitis is a periphrasis for the vine itself, though rarely found in Scripture. Its use by Christ in Scripture shall be explained hereafter. Scripture uses another periphrasis in the same sense, calling wine “the blood of the vine” (Gen. 49:11; Deut. 32:14). The intention of Christ in using the expression generatio vitis is not obvious. The followers of Calvin do not doubt that Christ termed what He gave the Apostles “the fruit of the vine”—that is, wine—thus to maintain that it is simply bread and wine, and to exclude the Body and Blood of Christ. The early Fathers (Origen, Tract. on S. Matt. xxx.; S. Cyprian, Ep. lxviii. to Cæcilian; S. Chrysostom, Hom. in loc., lxxxiii; S. Epiphanius, Hær. xlvii.; S. Jerome, Comment.; S. Augustin, Quæst. Evangel., i. 42; Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, in loc.) refer it to the Blood of Christ, but in another sense than that of the followers of Calvin. These persons say that Christ called what He gave to the Apostles wine, because it was wine; but the Fathers above mentioned say that He called the wine His Blood (as in S. John He had called the bread His Body); and He called it generatio vitis, by a periphrasis, because He Himself was the true vine. They say that this opinion is apparently confirmed by the narration and context of S. Matthew and S. Mark, who, when they had said that Christ took the chalice and gave it to the disciples, and said, “This is My Blood,” added the words, “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit (genimine) of the vine”. But these words can hardly be received as applicable to the Blood of Christ:

1. Because what S. Matthew and S. Mark relate here that Christ said of the chalice, S. Luke says that He also said of the Pasch—that is, the lamb: “With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer. For I say to you that from this time I will not eat it till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (22:15, 16). These words, therefore, which both S. Matthew and S. Mark relate as spoken by Christ of the chalice, were not spoken of that in which He gave His Blood, but of that which, as has been said, the master of the house was accustomed at the Paschal feast to give to those who sat at meat.

2. Christ did not give that desire as the reason of His giving His Blood, but when He had given it He gave another, “which shall be shed for you”. But He gave as the reason of His wish to eat this supper with them that it was the last, as explained by S. Luke. Besides, it cannot be doubted that Christ spoke in the usual manner of men, who, when about to leave their friends, say, “We shall not drink together again”. But Christ would not have said this of His Blood, which, although it was true blood, was given under a ceremony and Sacrament; but He said it of the true and right supper, to which also His words apply better.

3. The words which follow, “when I shall drink it,” can only be understood, as will be shortly shown, of heaven; for in heaven He will not drink His Blood: neither literally nor in metaphor. But He will drink wine in metaphor, for He said: “I dispose to you, as My Father hath disposed to Me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom”. He did not speak, therefore, of His Blood, but of wine, when He said, “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine”. This would tend to support our previous opinion, which is also that of S. Augustin and Euthymius, that there were not two cups, but one only. I only differ from them in that they suppose Christ to have said of this cup: (1) “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” but not to have said, “This is My Blood”; (2) and afterwards to have added, “This is My Blood,” but not to have said, “I will not drink from henceforth,” &c. I think, on the contrary, not only that S. Luke mentioned the chalice by anticipation, but also that he related in that anticipation in that place what Christ had said before of another chalice: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine”. Unless we say, perhaps, that there was one and the same chalice from which Christ drank at the Paschal and ordinary supper, and in which He afterwards gave His Blood; and that when He had first drunk at the Paschal supper, He added, “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” and did not empty the chalice, but left some wine in it which He afterwards consecrated to be His Blood and gave to the Apostles; and that the Evangelists so mixed up these words with that chalice that, unless read with attention, they might appear to have been spoken of the one in which He gave His Blood. It appears certain that the words were not spoken of the Blood of Christ. S. Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, without keeping the order of time, related the words which Christ spoke before the consecration of the chalice after it.

Until that day when I shall drink it new.

Some explain the word “new,” that is, in a new manner, to refer not to the wine but to Christ; as if He had said, “Until I drink it when I am renewed, that is, glorified”. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, whom many Moderns follow. But the word “new,” if so explained, seems too forced as meaning “in a new manner,” if referred, as these do, to different circumstances; and because the word “it” (illud) does not appear to allow the idea, for it must necessarily refer to the wine (vinum). The wine itself, therefore, is called “new,” not because it was to be drunk in some new manner, but to show that it would be of another quality and more excellent and pleasant, such as that by which all the blessed in heaven will be inebriated, as described in Ps. 35:9. The Hebrews, whose language Christ adopted, call whatever is unusually excellent and sweet “new,” as in Ps. 95:1; 97:1; 149:1.

In the kingdom of My Father.

Some think that these words refer to the beginning of the New Testament, which dates from the Supper at which Christ gave His Body and Blood of the New Testament. They do this that that fruit of the vine which Christ had drunk before might be understood; but the new fruit, that is, the new wine, is Christ’s Blood. The design is good, but in no sense necessary. For the words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, “Until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father,” make it clear that the kingdom of the Father cannot be understood of the institution of the New Testament, for the same night could not be “that day,” much less the same hour, in which Christ was to institute the New Testament. Again, they do not appear to observe the design of Christ in saying this. He wished to support the spirits of the disciples, and reassure their minds, which had been cast down by His previous words: “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” and to fortify them by His words that follow: “Until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father”. With this design, S. Luke relates the words of Christ after He had given them His Body and Blood: “I dispose to you as My Father hath disposed to Me a kingdom” (S. Luke 22:29). He consoled the Apostles as a dying father might console a son, by saying that he had left him an ample heritage, and there was no reason why he should weep. This could not have been said of the institution of the New Testament, but it might of the life eternal. Others, as S. Jerome and Bede, think that the Church is called the kingdom of the Father. Others, again, take the words of the forty days, during which Christ often ate and drank with the Apostles after His Resurrection. This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. These explanations, however, are to be answered by the same arguments as the first. For “that day” can only refer to the most distant and last day, as the Day of Judgment is commonly called the Last Day, Dies illa. Besides, it may be observed that although the kingdom of God is sometimes put for the Church, and sometimes for the Gospel, yet “the kingdom of the Father” is never spoken of but as heaven; because, probably, the Father alone has never been seen to come down from heaven. Again, it may be observed that when Scripture speaks of eating or drinking in the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom is taken neither for the Church nor for the Gospel, but only for the life of the beatified (Ps. 16:15; S. Matt. 8:11; S. Luke 14:15; 22:29, 30; Apoc. 19:9). All which passages are without doubt to be understood of the celestial life of beatitude, as here the words of Christ, “In the kingdom of My Father,” when He speaks of drinking. Lastly, if the kingdom of heaven is taken for anything but the state of beatitude, the question is, how the term “new wine” is to be understood? For if taken of the Blood of Christ, it is not certain that Christ drank after the Resurrection; or if He did, it does not apply to so brief a portion of time. If taken for true wine after the Resurrection, He did not drink the new but the old. But the new wine agrees well with the life of beatitude, because, as said before, the Hebrews called everything sweet and pleasant “new,” as the ancients fabled of nectar and ambrosia. In this sense, Origen (Tract. xxxv. in loc.) S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. ii. in Sanct. Pasch.), and Bede receive the words. One who prefers the first explanation of the words may object that this one does not satisfy, because it is not credible that Christ in such a short time would have changed the meaning of His words, so as to call the fruit of the vine at one moment true wine, and at another, metaphorically, the sweetness of eternal life—a slight objection. If Christ called His Blood the new wine, He changed the meaning of His words. For the Blood of Christ is not literal, but metaphorical, wine, and we must remember what has been said before, that Christ often in the same sentence uses the same word in a double sense, and that, not only without any fault, but very elegantly, forcibly, and pointedly. “Let the dead bury their dead.” In the first clause, He uses the word metaphorically; in the second, literally. So in S. John 4:13, 14, which very closely resembles the passage of which we are speaking: “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever. But the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.” In the first clause, Christ speaks of water properly; in the second, metaphorically. It may be objected, with more appearance of truth, that Christ said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine” (ex hoc) “until I drink it” (illud). For when He said ex hoc, with a periphrasis, He described the true wine, and when He said illud, He meant the same actual wine, because “that” (illud) refers to “this” (hoc). These words, in this place, show neither the individual nor the species, but the whole genus, and whatever is contained, whether literally or metaphorically, under the name of wine; but in the text “this” (hoc) is taken for literal, “it” (illud) for metaphorical, wine; as if it had been said, “I will not drink wine hereafter until I drink that (illud) new with you in the kingdom of My Father”. Others object that Christ, after the Resurrection and before He ascended into heaven, often ate and drank with the Apostles, as S. Peter testifies (Acts 10:41). We might, in the first place, deny that Christ drank wine, because Scripture does not say that He did; but granting as probable that He did so, if not always, yet occasionally, His words are to be understood in a human and ordinary sense; and when He said, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” He only meant that He would not eat and drink with them as before. He did eat and drink with them, indeed, after the Resurrection, but not in His usual manner, and as if to satisfy the requirements of nature, but occasionally, by the way, as by stealth, and only to show that He had risen from the dead. He was accustomed to speak of the actions which He did in another manner after His Resurrection to that before, as if He had not done them. “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you” (S. Luke 24:44), as if He were not with them then; for He was so with them as to appear to them only occasionally. He was invisible, and not as before so as to be always with them, always be seen by them, always eating and drinking with them. In the same manner, though He sometimes ate and drank with the Apostles after the Resurrection, yet, as He only did so as through a glass, He does not make account of it. Hence the reason of Christ’s having used a periphrasis. Some say that He alluded to the usual form of thanksgiving among the Jews, which was in these words: “Blessed art Thou, Lord, King of the World, who givest us the fruit of the vine”. It may be so, but it appears more probable that Christ spoke as He did for the sake of emphasis; for it is more, and of greater force, to say, with exaggeration, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,” than to say, “I will not drink wine,” as he speaks with more exaggeration who says that he will not eat anything that the earth produces, than one who says that he will not take any food, although there is none which the earth does not produce; for the periphrasis and manner of speech adds force to the words.

Verse 30. And a hymn being said

Καὶ ὑμνήσαντες. These words show that not only Christ, but also the Apostles, sang the hymn, as Origen and S. Hilary say: though Bede, not regarding the Greek, thinks that Christ sang it alone. It is not clear whether they actually sang it, but from the words it is probable that they did. It may be an example of ecclesiastical hymnology. S. Chrysostom accommodates it to the sacrifice of the Mass, concluding that no one should depart from church before the final thanksgiving. Some think that Christ sang some usual form of Jewish hymn; for the Evangelists say, as of some ordinary hymn, “The hymn being sung” (hymno dicto). Paul Bergensis says that the Jews, as a thanksgiving, used to sing seven psalms, from the 112, the beginning of which is, “Praise the Lord, ye children” (Laudate pueri), to 118. Others think that Christ composed some new hymn. Neither is certain. The former opinion is the more probable, for the Jews used some fixed thanksgiving, and it must be believed, therefore, not only as their authorities teach, but also as we see it prescribed by God (Deut. 8:10).

They went out.

They went out, either from the house where they had supped, or from the city. This will be treated of on S. John 14:31; 18:1. S. John relates many and most weighty words of Christ between the giving of the Sacrament, from chap. 13:30 to chap. 18, to their going out. S. Luke also records some which are omitted by S. John—the contention between the Apostles as to which should be the greatest, and the other things explained in chap. 20:25, and the words in S. Luke 22:28: “You are they who have continued with Me in My temptations, and I dispose to you as My Father hath disposed to Me a kingdom, that you may eat and drink with Me at My table in My kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”. Hence it may be concluded that Judas had gone out before Christ, because of the words, “You are they that have continued with Me”: as if He opposed to the eleven Apostles Judas, who had not continued with Him, but rather, as Ps. 40:10, “The man in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me”.

Unto Mount Olivet.

This mount was distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey—that is, one mile, or, as some say, two miles (Acts 1:12). It was certainly very near, as Christ used to go to it after He had supped. The Garden of Gethsemane was probably not on the mountain itself, but at the foot of it, as the Hebrew word, meaning a rich valley, indicates.

Verse 31. All you shall be scandalised

This does not mean, as some have erroneously supposed, that the Apostles would lose their faith, nor, as others say, that they would waver or deny Christ, but that they would forsake Him. This is seen from the answer of S. Peter: “And Peter answering said, Although all shall be scandalised in Thee, I will never be scandalised”—that is, “Though all forsake Thee, I will not”. None of them lost their faith, not even Peter himself, who denied Him. Some ancient authors, indeed, speak as if he had lost his faith, not distinguishing between the confession of faith from faith, and the denial of Christ from the loss of faith, which are very different things. S. Luke says that Christ said to Peter alone: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not” (22:31). Then S. Matthew and S. Mark describe the events as if Christ had said the words after He had gone out of the house. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 2) thinks that Christ first spoke what is related by S. John (13:33), and that on this occasion S. Peter asked what is recorded by S. John (verse 36): “Lord, whither goest Thou?” and that Christ answered: “Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt follow hereafter”; and that Peter replied: “Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thee.” Then that Christ, seeing the confidence of Peter and his boastful promise, used the words related by S. Luke: “Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat” (22:31). As to the words of S. Matthew (26:36) and S. Mark (14:27), “All you shall be scandalised in Me this night,” either Christ, when He had spoken what S. Luke reports to Peter by himself, turned to the others and addressed them all, or, as what was said to Peter was said to all, S. Matthew and S. Mark have given not the words of Christ but His meaning.

In Me.

A Hebraism for “because of Me,” when you see Me suffering unworthy treatment, you will take the occasion to forsake Me; that is, you will be scandalised in Me.

For it is written.

Christ applies the words of Zacharias (13:7) to Himself; for although they were written of the priests of old, they were properly spoken of Him, as is plain from the verses preceding and following. Christ applied them not to teach the Apostles that they must necessarily forsake Him, and the necessity of the result acquit them of blame, but to show that their acting thus would be nothing strange to Him, for He knew it already, and it had been assuredly foretold by the Prophet: “I will strike the shepherd”. In Zacharias the Hebrew is חר. The LXX. read πατάξον. We might easily conclude, even from this passage, that for πατάξω we should substitute πάταξον, percute, “strike,” that the words of the Evangelist may not appear to differ from those of the Prophet, did we not see that this is sometimes the case. It is better, therefore, to say that the Evangelist follows the meaning, and not the words. In this sense, “strike” and “I will strike” have the same force. For it is God who commanded that the shepherd should be struck, and he who does a thing per alium does it per se. It shows, therefore, that it was God who struck His own Son, as in Rom. 8:32.

Verse 32. But after I shall be risen again I will go before you into Galilee

Christ, by these few words, restored the spirits of the Apostles, saying that He would rise again from the dead, and that He would appear to them in Galilee.

Verse 34. Amen, I say to thee that in this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice

S. Mark says (14:30): “Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny Me thrice”. Hence it has been asked how we are to understand this latter passage by the side of S. Matthew here. S. Luke (22:34) and S. John (13:38) say that the words were, “The cock shall not crow till thou deny Me thrice”. A further question has been raised as to whether the word “thrice” applies to the crowing of the cock or to the denial of S. Peter. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 2) thinks that the meaning is, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt begin to deny Me thrice”; as if Peter should have begun three denials before the cock crew, but not have finished them. It is plain from the above, and S. Luke 22:34, and S. John 13:38, that Christ meant to say that before the cock crew Peter should thrice deny Him. S. Augustin loses all the grace of the promise of Christ. The meaning is that in the briefest possible point of time he should not only once, or twice, but three times, deny Him. The result proves this, for S. Matthew (verses 74, 75), S. Luke (22:60, 61), and S. John (18:27), when they had related the three repeated denials of S. Peter, added, “And immediately the cock crew”. It has been rightly observed that S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John mean by this crowing of the cock, not the sound which the bird utters in the middle of the night, but that before the dawn; for the former is properly called the gallicinium, or “cock-crowing,” galli cantus, because the first crowing is called by another name, “the midnight” (media nox). The time, therefore, which precedes the dawn, when the cock crows, if it were not called the “cock-crow” (galli cantus), could not be called by any other name. Scripture speaks thus: “And it came to pass about the cock-crowing, Raguel ordered his two servants to be called for,” &c. (Tobias 8:11), and so S. Mark 13:35. Before the dawn, therefore, which is properly called the time of cock-crowing, Peter thrice denied Christ, as S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John describe. This is the same thing as, “before the cock crow twice”—that is, once in the middle of the night and again before the dawn—Peter denied Christ thrice, as related by S. Mark. It will be asked why S. Mark gave another description of this event than that of the other Evangelists. It appears probable that S. Mark learned from S. Peter, whose disciple he was, not only with what meaning, but even in what words, Christ foretold that Peter should deny Him three times that night, and that He used these same words. It seems most likely that Christ used the words of S. Mark, because they have greater force. For Christ opposes number to number, as if He had said, “Thou wilt be more active in denying Me than the cock in crowing; for before he crows twice thou shalt deny Me thrice”. We see that the whole speech of Christ is emphatic: “Amen, I say to thee,” and “in this night”; as if He had said: “In this very night in which thou boastest that even if thou shouldest die for Me thou wilt not deny Me, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice”.

Verse 36. Into a country place

Εἰς χωρίον. The same word is used by S. Mark. It was a garden, as we learn from S. John 13:1, 26, which was frequently visited by Christ for prayer (S. John 13:2). Judas knew that Christ often went thither, and S. Luke (22:39) says: “He went out, according to His custom, to the Mount of Olives”. Christ, therefore, did not go thither to conceal Himself, but rather that He might be more easily found by Judas and the band of soldiers, as those words of S. John denote.

Which is called Gethsemani.

It should rather have been called Gechemani, or Gesemani—that is, “the eighth” valley or garden; or “the fruitful,” because it was fertile; and “the eighth” because, as some are of opinion, that, as there were many pleasant country-houses and gardens around Jerusalem, they took their names from their relative distances from the city. Thus one was called the first garden, and another the second; as among the Romans there was the first, second, third from the central milestone. S. Cyril (Comment, on S. John xviii.) thinks that there was a mystery in Christ’s seeking to be taken in a garden, and that the garden itself was a symbol of paradise; for when in paradise we were taken captive by the devil, and were delivered in a like paradise: the taking of Christ being the beginning of our freedom.

Verse 37. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee

James and John. The reason of Christ’s having taken some of the Apostles is obvious. He wished to have witnesses of His Prayer, His Pain, and His Death-sweat. As to His having chosen these three, the opinion of S. Chrysostom and Theophylact is, that they had seen His glory and majesty in the Transfiguration, and it was to be feared lest the others, who had not done so, should be offended by His suffering. It may be more simply supposed that He took these three rather than the others because He trusted them more, and was therefore more accustomed to admit them to all His more secret actions, as in the Transfiguration.

He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad.

Ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν, Tristari et anxio esse animo. ἀδημονεῖν describes one who is struck by a fear so intense as to render him as it were half dead and thunderstruck. But the Evangelists S. Matthew and S. Mark use the word to describe only the greatness of the sorrow of Christ. Some formerly denied that there was any true sorrowfulness in Christ, as we learn from S. Chrysostom (in loc.), S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke xxii.), and S. John Damascus (De Hæres, lxxxiv.). S. Hilary says, perhaps incongruously, that Christ felt no pain. Evagrius (On Ps. lxviii.) asserts the same error as that of the Emperor Justinian, who thought Christ impassible. We can have no better witness than Christ Himself. He said that His soul was troubled even unto death. 2. Others, on the contrary, have said, as we are told by S. Thomas in his Commentary, that even in His Godhead Christ felt suffering and sorrow, thinking too meanly of the Godhead. 3. Others, again, say that the sorrowfulness of Christ was not suffering—passio, πάθος—but propassio, προπαθεία: the former disturbing the soul in some degree, and extorting some consent of the will, however imperfect; the latter causing some feeling of either pain or pleasure, but not disturbing the soul from its calmness. Origen, S. Jerome, and Bede think that Christ was affected by sorrow, and they explain the word ἤρξατο to mean that the sorrow was begun indeed, but not ended; for propassio had not extended on to passio. The words may rather be thought to have the force of Christ’s not being compelled when danger was at hand to be sorrowful, but being so of His own choice; when He would, as far as He would, and where and in what manner He would, as is seen from other circumstances. A short time before, when He was with the eleven disciples, He was not sorrowful, because He did not please that His sorrow should be known to them; but when He had gone from them, and was with those three alone, He immediately began to be sorrowful, as the Evangelists have described it; showing that when He pleased, and in the manner in which He pleased, He was sorrowful. S. Augustin (On Ps. lxxxvii) says, to the same effect: “The Lord Jesus underwent these results of human infirmity as He underwent the flesh of human infirmity, and the death of His human flesh; not from the necessity of His condition, but from His will of sympathy; that He might transfigure into Himself His Body, which is the Church, He having designed to be the Head—that is, His members among His saints and the faithful: that if it should happen to any of them among their human temptations to be sorrowful and to grieve, he should not therefore think himself an alien to His grace, and that his sufferings were sins, but merely proofs of human infirmities, as it were a kind of keynote; and that His Body itself might learn from Him, its Head”. S. John Damascus rightly says (De Fid. Orthodox., iii. 20): “Between our sufferings and Christ’s there is this difference: ours precede, and Christ’s follow, the act of the will; that is, we, even against our will, have suffering: Christ has it only with His will. Ours, again, arise from natural necessity and original sin: Christ’s spring neither from sin nor necessity, but from His pity for us. He hungered for us, He thirsted for us, He grieved for us.” Hence the assertion of some learned men and Catholic doctors that Christ, by the condition of human nature, feared death, may be rather explained than refuted. It may be taken to mean that Christ grieved, not from the condition and necessity of nature, but that by His own will He so relinquished His nature in its own natural condition, that He grieved as much as He would have done if His nature had been merely human. It has been disputed with much subtlety in the schools how it was that Christ, when He was in happiness, had sorrow. Some have answered that He had happiness only in the higher part of His soul, but His body had it not yet, that He might suffer. Beatitude had not yet effused itself into it, but sorrow was in His lower part, which is in the body. But Christ affirmed that His soul was sorrowful even unto death, by which He showed that sorrow possessed His entire soul; and soon after He said: “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt”; and more plainly in S. Luke: “Not My will, but Thine be done”. By this He shows that even in His will, which is the higher point of His soul, He was sorrowful, and shrank from death; and, in fact, from that passage, the Sixth Œcumenical Council and other ancient authorities proved that there were two wills in Christ, a divine and a human. They, therefore, who explain “will” to mean here the appetite of the sentient part are not to be approved. It is better defined that, even when in happiness, it was ordered by some dispensation that Christ should admit sorrow even into the higher part of His soul; for as He could restrain His beatitude from flowing down into His body, that He might be able to suffer; so He could press it down, and, in a manner, conceal it, that He might yield for a time to sorrow, which was one future part of His Passion. Again, it has been asked why Christ was sorrowful. S. Hilary, S. Jerome, and Bede say that it was not from fear of death, but from pity for the disciples, because they would suffer offence, and that this is the meaning of His subsequent words, “My soul is sorrowful”; as if He had said: “When the hour of death shall actually come it will not be sorrowful, because the scandal will then have passed”. S. Hilary thinks that the grief was especially for Judas, because Christ knew that he would be lost. These writers have been careful not to appear to make Christ appear more fearful than some of His own martyrs. But if the above be admitted as truth, this will not be necessary. Christ feared, indeed, but freely and of His own will. Hence it happened that, although He may appear to have feared death more than some of His own martyrs, He cannot be called more fearful than they. For he is not fearful, but most valiant, who does not suffer fear but when He wills to do so; and they all teach that Christ so feared death, that if it be denied the authority of Scripture cannot stand. But if He feared death of His own will, why did He will to fear it? The answer may be given in one word. If He died of His own will, why did He will to die? Assuredly He willed it for us; and for us He felt sorrow; for His pain, His sorrow, His bloody sweat, were all preludes of His death; and it was a great and an additional benefit that He pleased to undergo no sudden death, like those who are doomed to be executed unexpectedly and when not expecting to die, but one with all its attendant circumstances—the sorrow, the scourging, the insults, the ignominy, and other things that do not usually attend death, as the bloody sweat—so that we may truly say, with Ps. 114:3, “The sorrows of death compassed me, and the perils of hell have found me”. Another reason is given by S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Commentary, and S. Augustin (On Ps. lxxxvii): That Christ feared and was sorrowful that He might show Himself to be true man, that his Members, that is, the faithful, if they were sorrowful might not think it sin to be so. But why did He appear to have been oppressed with a greater dread of death than other men, so that, as S. Luke relates (22:44), great drops, or, as in the Greek, θρόμβοι, “gouts,” flowed down from His body to the earth? S. Hilary, indeed (De Trin., x), and S. Jerome, against the Pelagians of his time (ii), say that the account of this sweat and the angel that strengthened Him are omitted in many copies of both Greek and Latin; but it is more probable that there was an omission of these particulars than that anyone would have added them. Others do not deny the words, but destroy their force; as if Christ did not actually sweat blood, but was only said to do so by a proverbial expression, meaning that He was seized by a violent terror: as we say of those who are under some great anxiety and mental pressure, “They sweat drops of blood”. This is held by Theophylact and Euthymius; but when the Evangelist says that His sweat flowed down to the ground, he cannot be understood otherwise than as meaning that Christ sweated actual blood. As regards this act, although some think it to have been against nature, it may rather appear, on the other hand, to have been a natural sweat, that by some mystery His whole Body, which is the Church, might be seen to be suffused with His blood; but because it was unusual it seemed to be a miracle, as all rare events are apt to be considered. Aristotle says that this phenomenon may be natural, and that it has happened at times (Hist. Anim., vii. 16; De Part. Anim., iii. 5). Natural reason teaches us that it might happen, especially in men of rare texture and delicate constitution. For as the sweat is nothing but the watery part of the blood which is in the veins, as that part passes off in all of us in sweat, why may not, in very rare cases, and in individuals of a delicate frame and unusually subtle blood, that finer blood itself flow off in the form of sweat? And as we see men sweat when seized by sudden fear, so Christ, who was of a most delicate nature, when under apprehension of a most ignominious death, may have naturally sweated blood. It is rather to be wondered at that He should have been so apprehensive of death as to sweat blood. It is said by S. Thomas that it was not merely death, but the cause of it that most deeply agitated His mind; namely, the sins of mankind. S. Ambrose has spoken well and devoutly of this in his Commentary on S. Luke xxii. : “It had benefited me less if Christ had not taken my passions. He grieved, therefore, for me, who had no cause of grief for Himself, and laying aside the delights of His Eternal Divinity, He is affected by the weariness of my infirmity. He took my sorrow, that He might share His joy with me, and, in our footsteps, He descended even to the anguish of death, to recall us to life. I speak of grief, therefore, with confidence, because I preach the Cross; for Christ took not the appearance, but the truth of Incarnation. He ought, therefore, to take grief also, that He might conquer, not exclude, sorrow. For they who endure the stupor rather than have the pain of wounds, have no praise for fortitude.”

Verse 38. My soul is sorrowful even unto death

Περίλυπος, “My soul is besieged on every side with sorrow”. In the same sense in all respects as that in which David said, in the person of Christ, “The sorrows of death have compassed me, and the pains of hell have found me” (Ps. 114:3). On the words, “even unto death,” Origen, S. Hilary, and S. Jerome say that the meaning is as if Christ had said, “My soul is sorrowful; but the sorrow will endure only until death”. The explanation, however, seems foreign to the text; for Christ did not desire to diminish the amount of His sorrow, but rather to increase it. He would have diminished it if He had said that it would endure only until His death. There is another more modern opinion: “My soul is so sorrowful that the sorrow itself seems to bring Me death”. As we say, “I am dying of grief,” “I am dying of hunger”. The true meaning is that of Euthymius: “My soul is as sorrowful as if I were already dying”. David said in the above psalm: “The pains of hell have found me”; that is, they are as heavy as those that are felt in death.

Stay you here.

Μείνατε, sustinete. S. Mark uses the same word (14:34). Christ had lately told the other disciples not to remain, but to sit (verse 36). He commanded these to remain and watch because they were nearer to His danger, and He wished them to witness it: as He directed them, a little after, not only to remain and watch, but also to pray (verse 41).

Verse 39. And going

S. Luke (22:41) says: “He was withdrawn away from them”. Some think that He went away from those three most beloved disciples unwillingly.

A little farther.

S. Luke has described the distance (22:41): “He was withdrawn away from them a stone’s cast”. It may be asked why Christ went from the disciples to pray? He followed His own precept, as S. Thomas (Comment. in loc.) says: “When thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber and shut the door”. He probably followed an ordinary and reverent custom. For although we pray without shame before others, there are many things in our prayers, many outward marks of our zeal and warmth, which we are ashamed to show before others, but not when alone.

He fell upon His face.

S. Mark (14:35) says: “He fell flat on the ground”; and S. Luke: “Kneeling down, He prayed”. Hence it is not to be understood that He fell wholly prostrate on the earth, but that He knelt down. S. Mark says that He fell, because one who bends his knee on the earth falls upon it.

My Father, if it be possible.

Christ knew that absolutely this was possible to God, as He said (S. Mark 14:36): “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee”; but as there had been a divine decree that He should die for us, He knew that it was impossible that that chalice should pass from Him. Why, then, did He ask that if possible it should do so? He left His human nature to perform its own part, as He would have done if it had never been united to His Divinity, and He had known nothing of the divine decree. From a comparison of S. Matthew and S. Mark, we see that S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 4) is correct in saying that the words “If it be possible” and “If Thou wilt” have the same meaning; for, with regard to what is called “absolute power,” Christ did not deny it, nor call it into question, but, as if for caution, He added the words of S. Mark: “All things are possible to Thee”; but when He added, “But not what I will,” He showed that by the words, “If it be possible,” He meant only, “If Thou wilt” (si vis), or, “things remaining unaffected,” or “If, Thy glory safe, Thou wilt” (velle potes). The words, “Father,” &c., are the beginning of a prayer well fitted for gaining favour, as S. Jerome says. S. Mark united the Chaldaic and Greek words, “Abba, Πάτερ,” explaining the former by the latter. S. Paul does the same in two places—Rom. 8:15; Galat. 4:6. S. Augustin thinks this a mystery, to show that God is the Father of both Jews and Gentiles.

Pass.

Παρελθέτω ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ, prætereat a me; or, as the Latins say, prætereat me.

This chalice.

Christ’s Passion—that terrible death. Why it is called a “chalice” has been explained on chap. 20:22.

Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.

It is seen from these words that there were two wills in Christ—a divine and a human, as the Sixth General Council proved from this passage. This was not ruled in opposition to S. Paul, who says that “Christ was heard for His reverence” (Heb. 5:7). Although the chalice did not pass from Him, His prayer was not unheard; for He prayed under a condition: “If it be possible,” that is, “If Thou wilt”; but the Father would not. It may be asked, why Christ, of His human nature, shrank from death, when God willed that He should die? For He seems to have had a will contrary to that of God, which He could not have had without sin. For sin, as S. Augustin (Cont. Faust., xxii. 27) defines it, is “every word, act, or desire that is contrary to the Law of God and the divine will”. Christ, as has been said before, spoke in this prayer as if He were merely a man to whom the divine will was unknown, and who had not strength to overcome death. He left His human nature as if it were His only one, His divine being kept back that He might discharge His office more fully among men. Not everyone who wishes anything contrarily to the divine will at once commits sin, but he who wishes, speaks, or does anything against it when known to him and seen by him. We do not sin when we ask of God long life and good health for our parents; we should rather sin if we did not, though it may be God’s will that they should shortly die: because that will was not known to us, and the other was: that we should honour our parents, and wish them all good. We may, again, sometimes wish for a thing that is contrary to the divine will, though known to us to be so, and not sin: so that the will be not made known to us by precept. My father is dead. I cannot doubt that he died by the divine will; yet I might wish that he had not died, and commit no sin. Add that this will of Christ by which He refused (recusavit) death, was not full and absolute, but what is termed by divines conditional. For He did not say to Himself, “I will not die,” but, “I would not die, if it might be so”. The wish was not sin, as there was a guiltless condition annexed.

Verse 40. And He cometh to His disciples

He came to His disciples because He had finished His prayer; and He wished, after some interval, to pray three times; or He came, as the result proved, to arouse and warn them.

And He findeth them asleep.

Grief causes tears and vapours in the brain, from which arises sleep. We see that infants, after they have wept much, sleep deeply; and that men, when in trouble, are oppressed with sleep.

What, could you not watch one hour with Me?

These words, as Euthymius observes, are to be read as a double question. The first interrogation is to be put after the word “what,” and the second after the words that follow. For the word “what” is not to be referred to “could you,” but to what Peter in the first place, and then all the others in like manner, had said before: “Though I should die with Thee,” &c. Christ then said, in a manner, “Are you so ready to die with Me, and yet you could not watch one hour with Me?” Christ said this to Peter alone, because he had made the promise first, and most eagerly of all. So S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius. S. Mark says that Christ addressed Peter alone—“Could you not,” &c., and it probably was so; but because what Christ said to Peter as the chief, He said to all. S. Matthew gives the sense and not the words, saying that Christ spoke to all. The words “with Me” were calculated to prick the hearts of the disciples deeply. “While I was praying, toiling, and struggling with death, you, who ought to fight while I am sleeping, could not watch for even the briefest period of time possible.”

That ye enter not into temptation.

Not to enter into temptation, in the language of Bede, Euthymius, Theophylact, and others later, does not mean, not to fall into, but to overcome it. The words may more probably mean, not to run into it; for we are commanded to ask of God, as conscious of our own weakness, not to overcome temptation only, but not even to come into the danger of it. It is safer not to fight than to conquer. In this sense, we pray God not to lead us into temptation, as explained on chap. 6:13.

The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is the reason why they ought to pray; although their minds and will do not fail, their strength does, unless they gain grace from God through prayer. The spirit here meant is not the Holy Ghost, not the Spirit of Christ Himself, but the will of the disciples. So S. Paul (1 Cor. 7:34): “That she” (the virgin) “may be holy both in body and spirit,” pure not only in person, but also in will. Christ appears to allude to the former boast of the Apostles. They showed great zeal and great courage when they said one after another, “Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee,” repeating the words of S. Peter. Christ did not wish to show disapprobation of their zeal, He rather praised it in fact; He admonished them, however, of the infirmity of their flesh, and taught them that, although strong and prompt in His service, they must still pray, because their flesh was weak. In the words of S. Paul, “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7).

Again the second time.

Unless we understand the Hebrew, this will seem tautological. The Hebrews had said ותיבשכית and He returned a second time and prayed, as if, Tu conversus vivificabis me, that is, “Thou shalt make live again”. We have explained the idiom more than once before. The meaning is the same, therefore, as if it had been said in other words, “He returned and prayed a second time”.

Verse 43. For their eyes were heavy

Either from sleep, as the night was now advanced, or, as S. Luke says, from sorrow (22:45).

Verse 44. And He prayed the third time

The question at once occurs, why Christ prayed three times, and neither more often nor less. It is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact that this number shows truth, perfection, and constancy. This may be understood from many passages of Scripture. The vessel full of all kinds of animals which S. Peter saw was thrice let down from heaven (Acts 10:16). S. Paul says that he thrice asked God to remove the angel of Satan (2 Cor. 12:8). S. Peter thrice denied Christ. Christ thrice asked S. Peter, “Lovest thou Me more than these?” (S. John 21:15). In the same manner, Christ prayed thrice; so that that which is done three times seems to be done wholly and for ever, and Christ Himself taught us to pray always.

Saying the self-same word.

It is not necessary, Euthymius says, that Christ should have used the same words precisely, but rather that He prayed to the same effect. But it would appear that S. Matthew said what he did with care, to show that Christ always held the same feeling and uttered the same prayer as before: “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt,” to show that although He prayed thrice he never forgot His moderation, in which the praise of His whole prayer consists. This is the meaning of the words, “saying the self-same word”. S. Luke has mentioned only one prayer, with the object, probably, of showing that, although Christ prayed thrice, yet, as S. Matthew says, His words and His prayer were the same; and he immediately adds that the angel appeared to Him. It is not certain, therefore, at which of the prayers the angel appeared. It is not probable, as some have thought, that he appeared at each. We must believe that he was sent to answer Christ’s prayer and to convey the feeling of the Father to Him; and if so, he would not come before the end of the third prayer, for if he had come sooner it is hardly probable that Christ would have repeated the same prayer. When S. Luke says, therefore, that Christ came to the disciples and found them sleeping, after he had described the appearance of the angel, we must understand him to speak by hysteron proteron. For he had begun to speak of the prayer before. Hence he wished to relate all the attending events, such as the descent of the angel, in one account. And, therefore, when he says that the multitude and Judas came while Christ was yet speaking to the disciples, this is not to be referred to the words immediately preceding, “Why sleep ye? Arise, pray lest you enter into temptation;” for when Christ uttered these words Judas had not come. For, as is clear from S. Matthew and S. Mark, after Christ had said those words, He retired to pray twice, and when He returned to the disciples the third time He did not say “Watch,” &c., but “Sleep ye now and take your rest” (verse 45), and then Judas appeared. We must understand S. Luke’s words, therefore, “While He was yet speaking,” not of what He had said, but of what He had not said (non ea quæ dixerat sed ea quæ tacuerat); that is, the words, “When He was yet speaking to the disciples,” do not apply then, but afterwards. But, as from the three prayers S. Luke makes one, so he makes one discourse with the Apostles out of the three, uniting the events of the third to the first.

Verse 45. Sleep ye now and take your rest

S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 4) and Bede think that Christ said this not ironically, but with a serious meaning, because S. Mark says (14:41), “It is enough,” as if He had said: “It is enough that you have watched hitherto; now take your rest”. S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, however, take the words as ironical, as if Christ had directed them to sleep and take their rest when they ought least to do so, the enemy being at hand—upbraiding them, as it were, because, when He had previously ordered them to watch, they slept.

Into the hands of sinners.

The Gentiles. The Hebrews called all Gentiles, absolutely, sinners, as we find in S. Luke 24:7 and Gal. 2:15. The greater number of those who came to seize Christ were Roman soldiers; because, as S. John says (18:3): “Judas having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh hither with lanterns and torches and weapons”. Judas received a band of soldiers.

Verse 47. As He yet spoke

The three Evangelists—S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke—have said that Judas came while Christ was speaking, with the design, probably, of showing that the words uttered by Him just before (verse 46) were true: “Rise, let us go; behold he is at hand that will betray Me”. The same thing is said by S. John in other words (18:4).

And behold Judas.

S. Matthew names Judas as first, as does S. Mark also. S. Luke, however, mentions the multitude first, and then Judas, because perhaps the multitude came first.

A great multitude.

S. Mark and S. Luke say the same. S. John (18:3) says, “Judas having received a band of soldiers and servants”. Hence it follows that men of all ranks came to take Christ. One of the twelve who betrayed Him, and who brought the servants of the priests, scribes, and elders of the people,—for all the Evangelists say that he whose ear Peter cut off was a servant of the high priest,—and the soldiers who were Gentiles, and who came with arms, as if against some great criminal, or, perhaps, as fearing His disciples; and with torches, for it was dark.

Verse 48. Gave them a sign

Judas had given one before. Christ was so well known to all that we may wonder why there was any need of a sign. Origen (in loc.) says that it was a tradition of his time that Christ had two faces: one a natural and ordinary one in which all men knew Him, the other assumed by Him at times, as in the Transfiguration. Theophylact, with more reason, says that the greater number of those who came to seize Christ were soldiers; that is, Gentiles who were not used to hear Him, as being men who had no part in the religion of the Jews. Leontius, in his Commentary on S. John 18:5, thinks that by His own power Christ caused not only the soldiers but even Judas himself, who had been so long with Him, not to know Him. The same is the opinion of S. Chrysostom, Theodore Heracleota (in the Catena Græca), S. Cyril and Theophylact (On S. John xviii. 5). Nor, was the darkness the reason; for the Evangelist had said before that the soldiers came with lanterns and torches; and, again, the same Evangelist (S. John 18:5) added, “And Judas also who betrayed Him stood with them”; as meaning, that although Judas, who had come to point out Christ, was with them they did not know Him. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that the Evangelist said that Judas was with them, to show his want of shame and probity; for even when he had seen so great a miracle he did not cease from his wicked design. But why did he give them this particular sign rather than any other? Probably because he desired to give them a sign by which he might at once betray Christ to the soldiers and conceal his treachery from Him. He would not have succeeded if he had given them some unusual sign. It was the custom of the Jews to greet each other with a kiss, especially the inferior the superior; and of all, indeed, who desired to show extraordinary love to those whom they so saluted. So Gen. 29:11, 13; 33:4; 45:15; Exod. 4:27; 18:7. The same custom was in use among Christians (Acts 20:37; Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14); and long after these times, as Tertullian says in his De Oratione, “This is what Christ complained of to the Pharisee”. S. Luke 7:45: “Thou gavest Me no kiss, but she since she came in hath not ceased to kiss My feet”. The unhappy Judas thought to conceal his wickedness from Christ, for he had never really believed in Him; but, as S. Jerome and Bede say, he thought that His miracles were done by magical arts, as Christ Himself signifies (S. John 6:65): “There are some of you that believe not”. He said this in conversation with the Apostles. The Evangelist tells us that Christ said this because of Judas: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray Him” (S. John ut sup.). Origen refers to two opinions as to why Judas betrayed Christ by this sign rather than any other:

1. He felt some respect for Christ, and he had not yet lost all shame; so that although he kissed Christ, on the one hand, he wished that kiss at the same time to be a sign to the soldiers. Leontius mentions this opinion with approbation.

2. If he had used any uncommon sign, Christ would have understood his design, and, as He had done on other occasions, would have conveyed Himself away.

Hold Him fast.

S. Mark (14:44) says that Judas added, “Lead Him away carefully”. He feared lest Christ should escape, and he himself lose both his promised reward and his Master; for he knew that when the Jews wished to hold Christ He had often escaped them (S. Luke 4:30; S. John 8:59). This is the opinion of S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome. S. John says that “Jesus, knowing all things, went forth and said, Whom seek ye?” These are not the words of a man in fear, who would deny that he was he whom they had come to seek, but, as Leontius says, of one undismayed, and who challenged them.

Verse 49. Hail, Rabbi

Judas endeavoured, by his words and kiss, to conceal his wickedness. On the other hand, Christ shows that He was not ignorant with what intention Judas came, as He asked him (verse 50), “Friend, whereto art thou come?” and, “Dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?” (S. Luke 22:48). On the other hand, they to whom he gave the sign did not know Christ even after it was given, for it is probable that Judas gave the kiss before Christ asked the soldiers, “Whom seek ye?” as S. John says (18:4). It appears from this that they did not yet know Christ. This idea is confirmed by their answer, for they did not say, “We seek Thee,” but “Jesus of Nazareth,” and it was necessary for Christ to ask them twice before they knew Him. If Christ had asked them this before Judas gave them the sign there would have been no need of the sign; for Christ had already said twice to them, “I am He”. Of this opinion is S. Augustin (De Consens., v. 3).

Verse 50. Friend, whereto art thou come?

Christ appears, by these words, to declare, not only that He knew why Judas came, but even to excite His shamefaced and lingering betrayer to give Him up boldly, as He had said after supper, “That thou doest, do quickly” (S. John 8:27), and as the victim is apt to say to the executioner, “Do thine office”. We must think, too, that Christ first said what is found in S. Luke 22:48: “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” then what S. Matthew and S. Mark record: “Friend, whereto art thou come?” and, last of all, what S. John says: “Whom seek ye?” This is the opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5). But Leontius thinks otherwise.

Then.

This is not to be referred to the words immediately preceding, “Friend, whereto art thou come?” as if, as soon as Christ had said these words, the soldiers laid their hands upon Him, but to those of S. John (18:6, 8), when Christ said twice, “I am He”. By these words He gave them power to seize Him, and without them their hands would have been tied.

Verse 51. And behold one of them that were with Jesus

Either one of the three whom Christ took with Him when He went apart to pray; for S. Peter was one of the three, or one of the eleven who were with Christ The former is the more probable, because when Judas came with the soldiers Christ was speaking with those three alone, as S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke plainly signify. S. John says that that one was Simon Peter (18:10). S. Luke implies that all the disciples who were present were prepared to resist and to fight; for they all asked Christ if they should strike with the sword (S. Luke 22:49). They had not, perhaps, understood what Christ had said a little before (verse 38): “It is enough”. He had answered the Apostles when they said, “Lord, behold here are two swords,” with the above words. When He said (verse 36), “He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword,” He signified that He had no need of arms for Himself or His disciples, but only that a great danger, such as men ward off by arms, was impending. He did not mean, when He said, “It is enough,” that the enemy was to be resisted by those swords, nor that they needed more; but He spoke those words because He had need neither of these nor of any other swords. When they all asked Christ if they should strike with the sword, Peter, before Christ answered, struck the servant of the high priest. It is likely that the man, as being the servant, was more forward than the rest, as trusting in his master’s authority, and following his malignity and hatred of Christ, in his endeavour to be the first to lay hands upon Him. Peter did not wait for Christ’s answer; but he endeavoured to repel an audacious man, who was attacking his Master, with an audacity greater than his own.

Cut off his ear.

S. Luke and S. John say that it was the right ear. In this many think that there lies a mystery. It may be so or not. We are seeking, not for allegories, but for the literal and true meaning of Scripture. It is not clear whether S. Peter so cut off the ear that it fell to the ground. More probably it was cut quite off, as the expression of the Evangelist evidently implies. S. Luke speaks as if it had not been wholly severed, as he does not say that Christ replaced it, but “When He had touched his ear He healed him” (22:51).

Verse 52. All that take the sword shall perish with the sword

Origen explains these words as follows: “All who are the authors of wars or sedition shall be destroyed in the war which they have raised”. S. Jerome and Bede say that such shall perish, not by the material sword, but by the spiritual; that is, by divine vengeance, which shall overtake them either in this world or the next. Euthymius thinks that Christ spoke of the Jews alone, who, He signifies, in punishment of His death, shall perish by the swords of the Romans. But what has this to do with S. Peter, who took the sword? Christ, therefore, does not say that all who take the sword shall of necessity perish by the sword, for the contrary is the fact. He only cites the law which orders the homicide to be put to death (Gen. 9:6). He does not say what punishment they shall of necessity undergo, but what they merit. So say S. Augustin (Quæst. 104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.) and Theophylact (in loc.). They who conclude from these words, as many do, that even the judge must not use the sword, are void of reason, and may be easily answered from S. Paul (Rom. 13:4). He there affirms that the judge has his power from God, and bears not the sword in vain, having received the weapon itself, as it were, from God. He shall not perish, therefore, by the sword if he do use it; for he does not abuse it; that is, he does not assume and usurp it by private authority, but he has it as given by God. It has been asked why Christ blamed S. Peter for repelling force by force, and that in defence of his Master, an act which every natural law, divine or human, permitted. S. Augustin thinks that S. Peter was not blamed for cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest, for it was done by permission of Christ, and that this is the meaning of S. Luke 22:51: “Suffer ye thus far”. S. John 18:11, put by the side of the words of S. Matthew, here show, in his opinion, that S. Peter was only admonished not to fight again (Quæst. 104 in Vet. et Nov. Test.). But it is clear that S. Peter was blamed by Christ; and why?

1. Because his act was not one of defence. For what could one man have done against a band, except to irritate and provoke them to treat Christ with greater cruelty?

2. Because he did not wait for Christ’s permission, but struck at once.

3. Because he ought not to have hindered Christ’s death even if he had had the power; for Christ Himself could have asked for twelve legions of angels from the Father to defend Him; but He would rather obey the will of that Father and fulfil the words of the Prophets, as He said Himself (verses 53, 54; S. John 18:11). Christ had rebuked Peter before for a similar offence (S. Matt. 16:23), because he tried to persuade Him to avoid death. But why, then, did Christ cite a general law? Because, wherever the exception does not exist the law holds, and in S. Peter’s case the exception had no place. He, indeed, drew his sword with a good intent, but at a time and in a place where he ought not.

Verse 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father

It may be asked how Christ could say that His Father would give Him twelve legions of angels if He asked Him, when He had just before prayed that the cup should pass from Him, and had been refused? Christ spoke from the nature of the case, and not in consideration of the circumstances, as if He had said: “Do you not think that, if I had not known that it was determined by My Father that I should die, I could have asked for twelve legions of angels, and that He would have given them to Me?”

Twelve legions of angels.

Both the word and the thing is of Rome. The Evangelists, though speaking Greek, use it as they use many other Latin words. No nation but the Romans had legions. S. Matthew used the language of the Roman people who had now conquered Judæa. Among the Romans, as Vegetius (De re Milit., ii. 2) and S. Jerome say, a legion consisted of 6000 men, or, as Polybius informs us (lib. vi), ordinary legions contained 4200 foot and 300 horse. In wars of importance, the former numbered 5000 and the latter 300. However this may be, it is certain that Christ intended to describe a vast number of angels. Christ here places angels in opposition to men: the many to the few, the strong to the weak; of whom one in a single night slew 185,000 men of the army of Sennacherib. Christ seems to oppose angels, not to the soldiers, but to the disciples, who, with Judas, were twelve in number, and to have named twelve legions of angels, not more and not less, to show that for twelve individual men He could have had twelve legions of angels, each of which contained 6000 angels, if the statement of Vegetius be correct. Unless we say that the number twelve is here put for a full and perfect number as in chap. 19:28, and as S. Augustin and Bede think. It is explained on that passage. Origen concluded from this that the good angels were carrying on perpetual war against the evil ones, and that this is the meaning of the frequent expression in Scripture of “war in heaven”. It is clear that angels are frequently sent by God to defend men, not only from evil angels, but from other men, as in 4 Kings 18:1, where so vast a number was sent to the assistance of Eliseus, that they filled the whole mountain. This is the meaning of Ps. 33:8: “The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them”. The Hebrew is הכה castrametabitur; that is, He will pitch the camp of the angels round about them that none may harm them. So Ps. 90:11. We know from Daniel (10:13, 20, 21; 12:1), that they are sometimes sent to fight for us in war. Christ alluded to this custom.

Verse 54. How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that (“quia”) so it must be?

This expression is incomplete, and it contains a Hebraism. The meaning is: How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be? The word quia is used in the Hebrew sense for the infinitive mood—“So it ought to be done,” fieri oportuit; as S. Luke 24:25. The Scriptures and the Prophets to whom Christ alluded are Isaiah (53:10) and Daniel (9:26). Christ said this to show that He was not dragged to His death by violence, but that He went of His own free-will, to satisfy the decree of the Father, as declared by the Prophets. S. John (18:11) says that Christ answered Peter otherwise: “The chalice which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 5) is probable—that Christ said both. First, “The chalice” (S. John 18:11), and second, “How then” (S. Matt. 26:54). It would appear that Christ here used the word “chalice” in a double sense. He had said a little before, “If it be possible,” &c., referring to a thing bitter and full of suffering. In the words (S. John 18:2), “The chalice which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” He seems to speak of it as pleasant and sweet; for His words have this force, as if He had said, “Given by My Father most beloved, it cannot be otherwise than pleasant”; for the word itself is used in both senses, because a sweet and bitter draught is given in the same cup: “My chalice which inebriateth me, how goodly is it!” (Ps. 22:5). For Christ speaks of His death in both senses, and He calls it a chalice in both. In His prayer, before He had heard His Father’s voice, He calls it a chalice—that is, a thing hard and bitter; but now, when His Father’s will was known, He calls the same death a chalice—that is, a thing most pleasant; for no obedience but is sweet, none but is most pleasant. S. Luke alone (22:51) writes, “Suffer ye thus far,” for pains far more heavy have to be endured by Me. From this it is plain that all the disciples were willing to fight for Christ, and He answered them all; but He rebuked Peter by name, because, without waiting for His answer, he wounded the servant of the high priest. S. Luke alone mentions that He touched the servant’s ear and healed it. For Christ desired to correct the error of Peter, and at the same time to show those who seized Him that He had power to defend Himelf from them, who by His mere touch could heal that wounded member; for it was He who “killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again” (1 Kings 2:6). S. John alone tells us that the man’s name was Malchus (18:10).

Verse 55. Daily

S. Mark (14:49) says: “I was daily with you in the Temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on Me. But that the Scriptures may be fulfilled.” By these words Christ showed His captors that it was not by their will or strength that He was taken, but that it was by the will of His Father and the decree of Scripture. For if it strength had been by their and design, they would often have seized Him before, when He sat daily in the Temple teaching. But when they endeavoured to do this they were not able (S. Luke 4:30; S. John 8:59). This is the explanation of S. Luke 22:53: “This is your hour”; that is, “Now you are able to do to Me whatever you will: not that you are stronger than I, but because the hour has come when it was determined by the Father that I should die”.

Verse 56. Then the disciples, all leaving Him, fled

Peter, however, followed Him, though afar off (verse 58). So did S. John, as he himself testifies (18:15). Thus the words of S. Matthew, “all,” must either be understood of the greater number, as Theophylact says, or we must suppose that all fled at first, and that Peter and John returned soon afterwards and followed Him.

Verse 57. To Caiaphas

See, on Caiaphas, verse 3. S. John (18:13) says that Christ was first led to Annas, and he writes as if he intended it to be understood that much of what he relates afterwards took place in the house of Annas; e.g., the first denial of Peter, the first examination of Christ about His disciples and doctrine, and the buffets of one of the bystanders. Hence many of the learned, even S. Augustin himself, say that all that has been described happened at the house of Annas. But this opinion is clearly confuted by the accounts of the other Evangelists, who with one consent relate that the three denials of S. Peter took place in the house of Caiaphas the high priest. This is clear from S. John himself. For the first denial is said by him to have been uttered in the house of the high priest, when he himself, who was known to the high priest, introduced Peter (18:16). Annas was not high priest, but the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, as S. John says. For the words of S. Luke (3:2), that John the Baptist began to preach repentance under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, are not to be understood as if both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests in the same year, for there was but one high priest: but that Annas had been high priest the year before, as Josephus informs us; and as John preached both years, he is said to have preached during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. This has escaped S. Augustin and others, from their not having observed the silent and obscure change of scene signified by S. John. For he signifies that Christ was brought from Annas to Caiaphas in such a manner as would be noticed only by an attentive reader. “And they led Him,” he says (verses 13, 15), “away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.” S. John does not say plainly that Christ was led from Annas to Caiaphas, but he gives a sufficient, and more than sufficient, hint of it when he says that Christ was led to Annas first—for he shows that Christ was led thence to Caiaphas, when saying that the disciple who was known to the high priest entered with Christ into the court of the high priest; for he had said just before that Caiaphas was the high priest. When, therefore, he adds that he himself brought Peter into the court of the high priest, and that Peter was asked by the portress if he were not one of Christ’s disciples, and he denied that he was, S. John leaves it beyond doubt that the denials of S. Peter, and the other events described afterwards, took place in the house of Caiaphas. What chiefly led these Fathers into this error are the words of S. John (verse 24), “And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest”—as if, after the first denial of S. Peter and the other events related by him as having now happened, Annas sent Christ bound to Caiaphas. Some think that these words are put out of their proper place, and that they ought to stand after verse 13: “And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was the high priest of that year,” that it may follow immediately: “And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest”. The whole sentence thus read coheres well, and S. Cyril reads it thus. If this correction does not seem good, it must be said that S. John, when he had related the first denial of Peter, and before he had plainly said that Christ was sent by Annas to Caiaphas, resumed by epanalepsis what he had at first omitted, ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἄννας δεδεμένον πρὸς Καιάφαν, that it might be rendered, “Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas”. But the former seems preferable. But why did they bring Christ to Annas first if he were not the high priest? S. John gives a tacit reason—he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who probably acted much by his advice, and possibly the house of Annas was on the way to that of Caiaphas.

Verse 59. And the chief priests

The Greek adds, “and the elders”.

Verse 60. And they found not

Καὶ οὐχ εὗρον, καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύρων προσελθόντων οὐχ εὗρον, Et non invenerunt, et quidem multis accedentibus falsis testibus non invenerunt. Our translator had not seen the repetition of words, or did not think it worth expressing. Yet it has its force. What need was there of witnesses when they had determined, justly or unjustly, to put Christ to death? They wished, however, by their iniquitous conduct, to make some show of justice.

Verse 61. I am able to destroy the Temple of God

Why were these called false witnesses when they only seem to have said the truth? for Christ had said, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (S. John 2:19). Origen, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius rightly reply that they are called false witnesses because they repeated with a wicked intention and in a perverted sense, and in other words, what Christ had said. He did not speak of that second Temple of Solomon, but of His own body, as S. John has explained. Nor did He say, “I am able to destroy”—though He was so—but “Destroy this Temple”. These witnesses change His words still more in S. Mark 14:58. We find, from S. Matthew, that these false witnesses were two in number. The other Evangelists do not give the number. They were undoubtedly two in number, because they had been prepared and suborned by the chief priests and elders. They chose two because the Law ordered it thus (Dent. 17:6; 19:15). So in like manner they sent two other false witnesses against S. Stephen (Acts 6:13). S. Mark adds: “And their evidences were not agreeing”—καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως ἴση ἦν ἡ μαρτυρία αὐτῶν, Ac nec sic quidem eorum testimonium æquum erat aut equale. Some have thought that the witnesses themselves did not agree among themselves. Our version appears to adopt this view, but the Greek bears another meaning: “And not even thus was their testimony equal”; that is, sufficient for the condemnation of Christ. For this is the force of the words, “Their evidences were not agreeing”; that is, although they declared that they heard Christ say, “I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands,” the chief priests did not think this evidence sufficient for the condemnation of Jesus to death. Witnesses agree among themselves when they use the same words in the same sense. Why, then, it will be asked, was S. Stephen stoned for an offence not dissimilar? For two false witnesses said, “We heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place”. There was much in the words which the two false witnesses pretended to have heard Stephen say. He confessed that Jesus was God, which among the Jews was blasphemy, and, as such, punished by death (Levit. 24:16). The witnesses added, besides, “and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us”.

Verse 62. And the high priest, rising up

The judge ought not to rise up, but to sit. The high priest did not speak as a judge sitting on the judgment-seat, but as a priest in the synagogue, where everyone who spoke or read was accustomed to rise, as in S. Luke 4:16.

Answerest Thou nothing?

What need was there for Christ to answer, when the accusations brought against Him were not sufficient even in the judgment of the priests, as S. Mark (14:55) signifies? The wicked judge spoke from passion, and perverted the silence of Christ, which he ought to have taken as a proof of the worthlessness of the accusation, to mean guilt; as if He kept silence because He was conscious of being guilty. Evidence which appeared, even to him, frivolous, he, by unjust questioning, exaggerated: as if to say, “Answerest Thou nothing, when charges so heavy are brought against Thee?”

Verse 63. I adjure Thee by the living God

Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ ζῶντος. This properly signifies, “In the name of God,” and is intended, as by a command, to bind one to speak or to act. It was in common use among the Jews, as we learn from the Holy Scriptures.

If Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

“As Thou commonly teachest that Thou art, and as Thou callest Thyself.” For this reason the Jews on other occasions had endeavoured to stone Jesus Christ. This was not the present subject, but the high priest asked Christ the question, because he was then seeking every means of condemning Him, and Christ used to confess that He was such. He thought that when asked the question under trial Christ would not deny it, and that he could not find a better reason for condemning Him to death than His being convicted of blasphemy. For it was blasphemy among them for any man to call himself the Son of God; for he could not be such by nature, unless he were God Himself. Thus the heresy of Arius was confuted even in the opinion of the Jews. It is said by S. Luke (22:66) that these events took place “as soon as it was day”. Hence some have considered this a different account, and that Christ was twice questioned. First, by the high priest, before midnight, when He was first brought before him. Secondly, by the whole council, when it was day. For He does not appear to have answered at first with sufficient plainness, but only to have said, “Thou hast said”. The opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 7) seems better. He thinks it the same history. For it can hardly be supposed that Christ would have been asked a second time about the same thing when He had answered so emphatically before, “Tu dixisti” (verse 64), or, as S. Mark states more clearly (14:62), “I am”; and the high priest understood His meaning so well that he rent his clothes, and said (verse 65), “What further need have we of witnesses?” We may believe, therefore, that as S. Matthew has not mentioned the time, S. Luke has done so in the words, “As soon as it was day” (22:66), and that he has anticipated events. And not without reason, for he had begun to relate the examination of Christ in the assembly of the Jews (and that questioning was one examination) that he might continue, in the same narration, the denials of S. Peter. As to the objection that S. Matthew says that the chief priest asked what S. Luke says all asked (22:66), “If Thou be the Christ, tell us,” and that S. Matthew recorded the adjuration, which S. Luke did not, it is of little moment, for either the chief priest asked Christ first, and then all in the assembly repeated the question, or the chief priest asked Him in the name of the rest. S. Luke says that Christ was interrogated by the whole assembly, but he makes no mention of the adjuration; for the Evangelists pass over many things.

Verse 64. Thou hast said it

On this expression see verse 25 and chap. 27:11. Christ used the same words to Pontius Pilate. S. Mark relates (14:62) that Christ answered, Ego sum, “I am,” the meaning being the same. Hence we see that the words tu dixisti do not mean what S. Augustin thinks—“I do not deny,” as if He did not assert that He was the Christ. S. Luke (22:67), that Christ said: “If I shall tell you, you will not believe Me”. It is probable that Christ was asked the same question twice. The first time simply, and without the adjuration, and that He then answered, in the words of S. Luke, “If I shall tell you,” and that the high priest then adjured Him, and He answered what S. Matthew and S. Mark relate: “Thou hast said,” or “I am”—a Hebraism. It is probable that He said both. Christ answered, not merely as much as He was asked, but even more than He was asked; for the question was one of life or death to Him whether He were the Christ the Son of God, a question which, in that place, it no way became Him either to deny or to dissemble, but rather to confess openly: as He had come into the world for this reason, that, as the Son of God, He might die for the sons of Adam. He added, therefore: “Nevertheless, I say to you that hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven”. The word “Nevertheless” has no term correlative to it, being what is known as particula adversativa. It appears to be opposed to words which the Evangelist has not expressed, but left to be understood, and which are found in S. Luke: “If I shall tell you, you will not believe Me” (22:67); “nevertheless, I say to you” (S. Matt. 26:64), the full meaning of which words is given by S. Luke (22:67, 68, 69). As if Christ had said: “What need is there for Me to answer you, since you will not believe. It is better to cause you to believe by facts than words. The time will come hereafter when you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming on the clouds of heaven, and, whether you will or not, you will be compelled to believe” (S. John 14:10, 11). For it was the custom of Christ to refer the unbelieving Jews to His own Resurrection and the Day of Judgment, as chap. 12:39; 16:4; Apoc. 1:7. The word amodo, “hereafter,” in Greek, ἀπʼ ἄρτι, does not mean that they would see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of God immediately after the time when He was speaking. He was speaking of the Day of Judgment, when He would come in the clouds of heaven (19:28; 24:3). He here signifies that the Jews shall not see Him from that time: that is, from the time of His death, until they see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven: as if He said, per negationem, “You shall not see Me as now in the guise of a criminal, but in that of the Son sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven”. He therefore tacitly opposes His second coming to His first. But how would they see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, as they were not able to see God Himself? They were to see Christ come with so great majesty, that they might easily understand Him to be placed in what may be termed the better part of the Divinity; that is, sitting on the right hand of God and showing most especially His Divinity. “The right hand of the power of God” is a Hebraism for “the powerful right hand of God”. How He would come on the clouds has been explained on chaps. 19:28; 24:30.

Verse 65. Rent his garments

It was the custom of many nations to rend their garments as a sign of grief or indignation, as we find from Homer (Il., xxii. 405), and Virgil (Æn., v. 685; xii. 609). The Jews did so for two reasons above others: (1) in token of grief; as Gen. 37:29, 34; 44:13; Numb. 14:6; Judges 11:35; 1 Kings 4:12; 2 Kings 1:11; 13:19); and (2) as a witness against blasphemy, as Ezechias, when he heard the blasphemies of the messenger of Sennacherib. The Thalmudists say, as some have observed, that it was a tradition of the Jews to do this on such occasions. They thought it great blasphemy that Christ should call Himself the Son of God, and the high priest therefore cried out that He had blasphemed כיע for this is the proper meaning of the Hebrew word כיע and of the Greek βλασφημεῖν. The high priest, against all the requirements of justice when he was the judge, acted the part of an advocate, and made the accusers the judges.

He is guilty of death.

The Law commanded the blasphemer to be stoned (Levit. 24:16). They say here that Christ was guilty of death for calling Himself the Son of God, and in S. John 10:31 they endeavoured to stone Him.

Verse 67. Then they did spit in His face

The word “then” does not mean the precise time when Christ confessed Himself to be the Son of God, and the Jews cried out that He was guilty of death, but rather that before, or, without distinction, the whole night. For it is clear from S. Luke 22:66 that the question of the high priest and Christ’s reply happened when the day was beginning to dawn, and the events now related by S. Matthew took place at night, while Christ was kept bound in the house of the chief priest, and Peter denied Him.

And others struck His face with the palms of their hands.

Οἳ δὲ ἐῤῥάπισαν, struck Him with cudgels or staves, or perhaps with their slippers, which were much used by the Jews for this purpose; for the word ράπις, whence the verb ραπιζειν, means a twig, or club, or slipper. It is probable that, for insult, they smote the face of Christ with the last-named. S. Mark and S. Luke say that they had first blindfolded Him. S. John (18:22) says that one of the bystanders first gave Him a blow, because He had answered the high priest, as in verses 20, 21, as if with too little respect. Christ, however, replied as in verse 23.

Verse 68. Prophesy unto us

Christ was generally considered to be a great Prophet (21:11, 46), and He had confessed that He was the Son of God (verse 64). Then they blinded Him, and asked Him in mockery, “Who is he that struck Thee?” (verse 68). So when He was hanging on the cross, they said: “If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him” (27:42).

Verse 69. But Peter sat without in the court

S. John (18:16) explains how Peter entered into the court: “But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple, therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter.” S. Matthew only says that “he followed afar off, even to the court” (verse 58). How he now says that Peter “sat without in the court” is not difficult to be understood. When Peter was in the court he was both within and without: within, because he was in the ambit of the house, and beyond the first door; without, because he was not in the interior of the house, but in the court and open air, where the soldiers were with the servants of the high priest, the priests, and elders.

And there came to him a servant maid.

S. John (18:17) says that she was the portress who opened the door to him. But S. Luke (22:55) and S. Mark (14:67) say that he was warming himself by the fire. Thus, by comparison of the Evangelists, we may conclude that Peter was brought by John into the court of the high priest, and was recognised by the maid servant who had opened the door as he stood with others by the fire. She was silent at first, perhaps, because she was not certain about him, whether he were Peter; but when she looked at him more attentively and knew him better, she came to him as he sat by the fire and said, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean” (verse 69). She called Him Jesus the Galilean as an insult to Him, as His enemies did; and because as He lived much in Galilee He was perhaps thought to be a Galilean; and because almost all His disciples were of Galilee (S. John 7:41). So Julian the Apostate called Christ and all Christians Galileans (Socrates, Hist., iii. 12). It is not said by S. John (18:17) that the maid said to Peter, “Thou also,” but that she asked him, “Art not thou also one?” But S. Luke (22:56) says, “When a certain servant maid had seen him sitting at the light, and had earnestly beheld him, she said, This man also was with Him”. We must believe, therefore, that she said all these words. First, as doubtful, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” as S. John says. Then she spoke positively, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean” (S. Matt. 26:69); and lastly, she turned to the bystanders and said, “This man also was with Him” (S. Luke 22:56).

Verse 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest

S. Matthew says that the denial was made before all the people present, either as a fact that increased the gravity of the offence, or to show the truth of his account, that he might not be suspected of having accused the chief of the Apostles falsely, adducing all who were present as witnesses. The words of S. Peter, “I know not what thou sayest,” have a force of certain denial, as if he had said, “I am not only not what thou sayest, but so far from it that I do not know of what thou art speaking”; as is our own custom in such cases. S. John says that Peter answered, “I am not”; S. Luke, “I know Him not”; S. Mark, “I neither know nor understand what thou sayest”. It may be believed that this was said by Peter, exaggerandi causa. 1. Simply “I am not,” as related by S. John when the maid servant asked him doubtingly, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” 2. When she persisted and stated with an affirmation what S. Matthew relates, and Peter answered, “I neither know nor understand what thou sayest,” as S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke say.

Verse 71. And as he went out of the gate

Ἐξελθόντα δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα, egressum autem eum in vestibulum. S. Mark says, “He went forth before the court, and the cock crew” (14:68), which has the same meaning. S. Peter then went into the vestibule which was before the court, as is usually the case in houses of note, and S. Mark says that immediately the cock crew. For he alone says, “Before the cock crow twice” (14:30). From this it would seem to have been about the middle of the night, for it is then that cocks crow for the first time. But S. John says, that this second denial of Peter was made when he was warming himself at the fire. So that, probably, as soon as he had denied the first time—perhaps because he was vexed by the bystanders at being taken for the disciple of Christ, or for some other reason—he went from the court to the vestibule; and then, to dissemble, and that his departure might not bring confirmation of the truth of the charge, he returned to the fire, and, as related by S. Luke, “After a little while he denied again” (22:58). These words of S. Luke must, necessarily, contain at least three hours, because he says that between the second and third denial there was the space of one hour (22:59), and all the Evangelists say that immediately after the third denial the cock crew. Hence this third denial probably took place about the fourth hour of the morning, that is, a little before dawn when the cocks crow. For it was the equinox, so that from the middle of the night, the time of the first denial, to sunrise, would be six hours. It is probable, therefore, that the second crowing happened at the fourth hour of the morning, and as there was one hour between the second and third denial it follows that the second happened about the third hour, and that about three hours intervened between the first and second denial. From S. John we learn how the words of S. Matthew, “As he went out,” ἐξελθόντα, are to be taken; that is, “After he had gone out” (that the words of S. John may be understood) and returned to the fire; for when he had gone into the vestibule the other maid-servant saw and recognised him, as when he came into the court the portress had done. The servant, therefore, who had seen Peter when he went out, came when he had returned to the fire and said to those who were present, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth” (S. Matt. 26:71). S. Luke does not say that it was a maid-servant. His words rather seem to imply that it was a man (22:58). S. Mark speaks as if it were the same maid-servant as had questioned S. Peter before—καὶ ἡ παιδίσκη ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν πάλιν ἤρξατο λέγειν τοῖς παρεστηκόσιν, rursum autem, cum vidisset eum ancilla cæpit dicere circumstantibus. S. John says that many questioned S. Peter at this second denial (18:25). Some, unable to harmonise these sayings with one another, have been led, audaciously as may be said, to assert erroneously that S. Peter denied Christ more than three times. Some even say that he did so seven. Christ forewarned him that he should deny Him, not four times, nor five, nor seven, but three only. Christ would have said that he would do so more often if it had been the truth, since, as has been shown, Christ desired to dwell with emphasis on Peter’s fears and inconsistency. Hence, according to S. Mark, He said, “Amen, I say to thee to-day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice” (14:30). All the Evangelists have mentioned three denials, none any more. This would indeed, have been wonderful if he had uttered more denials than three. Again, all have observed that after the third the cock crew, as if to make an end of them. Peter, warned by the sound, remembered the words of the Lord, and redeemed his fault by his bitter weeping. We are not to exaggerate S. Peter’s fault, though, from their hatred of the Apostle, it is the custom of the heretics to do so. The wonder rather is that these persons, on such slight grounds, and in a question of grave significance, have both set themselves in opposition to the testimony at once of the Evangelists and of Christ, and gone away from the tradition of the whole Church of all ages. Their opinion is:

1. That S. John says that the first denial took place in the house of Annas. The other Evangelists say that the three denials were made in that of Caiaphas. We have said that that first denial described by S. John and the others, which he relates in the same place, were uttered, not in the house of Annas, but of Caiaphas.

2. S. Mark seems to say that S. Peter, when questioned by the same maid-servant, denied again, as said before. If so, as S. Matthew says clearly that it was another servant, the denials are different ones. But S. Mark neither states nor implies that it was the same, for, when he says, ἡ παιδίσκη, the article is not to be taken relatively as referring to the portress whom he had mentioned before; and when he says, πάλιν, “again,” he does not imply that S. Peter was asked a second time by the same maid-servant, but by some one; that is, by some other, as he had been previously by the portress. This is stated in plain terms by S. Matthew.

3. The third conjecture carries no more weight. That S. Luke seems to say that S. Peter denied when asked, not by the maid-servant, but by some man. For when he said (verse 58), “Another, seeing him, said, Thou also art one of them, Peter answered: O man, I am not”. As S. Luke, therefore, did not know, or would not say whether it were a man or woman who asked Peter the second time, he said generally “some one”; that is, ἄνθρωπος, homo, which may express an individual of either sex. Which of the two it was must be ascertained from S. Matthew and S. Mark. They distinctly say that it was a woman.

4. The fourth conjecture is that S. John, as said before, describing the two denials, says that Peter was asked by many whether he were not also one of the disciples. When, therefore, besides the three denials mentioned by S. Matthew, they seem to find four other denials—(i) mentioned by S. John, in the house of Annas; (2) also mentioned by S. John, when Peter was questioned by many; (3) by S. Mark, when Peter was questioned by the maid-servant; (4) by S. Luke, when he was questioned by some man—they conclude that there were seven denials. We have answered the other three: there remains one to be answered. They conclude this from the second passage of S. John, but it can be answered with much less pains. (1) S. John does not say that many questioned S. Peter, he only says, εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, “they said to him”; that is, it was said to him. This is a Hebraism. It expresses the verb impersonal by the third person plural without a subject, as “they love,” amant; that is, amatur. This is true although done only by one, as they say in Latin, perhibent, ferunt, dicunt, for perhibetur, fertur, dicitur. Although, therefore, only one maid-servant said to S. Peter, “Art not thou also one of His disciples?” S. John could truly say, “They said, then, to him”. Hence it is credible that (1) the maid-servant said, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” and, (2) that they who were present took up the question. But it must not be supposed that these were, therefore, different denials.

This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.

S. Mark says that the maid-servant said to the bystanders, “This is one of them”; S. Luke, “Thou also art one of them”; S. John, “Art not thou also one of His disciples?” We must believe that the maid-servant said all these words. First, “Art not thou also one of His disciples?” as S. John says, and when Peter denied it, she said with an affirmation, “Thou also art one of them,” as S. Luke says; then that she turned to the bystanders and said, “This is one of them,” as S. Mark says; and “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth,” as S. Matthew says.

Verse 72. And again he denied, with an oath

Peter increased his offence. The first time he did not swear, but only denied; now he both denies and swears. S. Luke writes that he said, “O man, I am not”; S. John, “I am not”. It is credible that at first he merely said, “I am not,” as S. John says. Then, when either the maid-servant or they who were present pressed him, he added, as in S. Luke, “O man, I am not”; and lastly, when they urged him again, he exclaimed: “I know not the Man,” as S. Matthew says.

Verse 73. And after a little while

S. Luke (22:59) says that it was “after the space, as it were, of one hour”.

While they came that stood by.

S. Mark says the same; but S. Luke, “Another seeing him said, Thou also art one of them”. S. John says that this was a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, and who affirmed that he had seen Peter in the garden with Christ. The servant of the high priest probably commenced the enquiry and the others followed.

For even thy speech doth discover thee.

S. Mark and S. Luke say, “For he is also a Galilean”. How a Galilean, when using the Hebrew language, could be recognised to be such has been explained by S. Jerome: “Each province and country has its own peculiarities, and among them a vernacular style of speech, which it cannot escape. As we see that the men of Ephraim were unable to pronounce the word “Schibboleth” like the rest of the Jews, but said “Sibboleth” instead, which caused the destruction of many (Judges 12:6).

Verse 74. Then began he to curse

Καταναθεματίζειν, Execrari. This may refer either to Christ or to Peter, and may mean that he either cursed Christ or himself. As there is no certainty it will be right to take the words in the better sense, and to believe that Peter cursed himself—that is, devoted himself to the Furies, diris, as the Latins say, which was an execrable oath.

And to swear that he knew not the Man.

The fault still increased with the temptation. Peter said, in his first denial, “I am not”; in his second, “I know not the Man”; and in his third “I know not what thou sayest”. In the second he uttered an oath, in the third an execration, which he probably uttered more than once, as the expression, “he began to curse and to swear,” would seem to imply. S. Matthew says that Peter began to curse and to swear (verse 74). S. Luke and S. John merely say that he denied, omitting this circumstance.

And immediately the cock crew.

S. Luke says, “immediately, as he was yet speaking”. This minute account, so carefully expressed, shows that Christ’s words (verse 34) were true. All the Evangelists have related the same circumstance with the same design, but S. Luke the most fully.

Verse 75. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus

It is strange that Peter did not remember them sooner, for previously, at midnight, before his first denial, the cock had crowed. Perhaps Peter had not heard it; or, because it only crowed once, he may have hoped that he might not deny a second time; or, most probably of all, he was moved by Christ’s look, as S. Luke (22:61) signifies. So say S. Chrysostom (in loc.), S. Ambrose (lib. x., Comment, in S. Luke), S. Leo (Serm. iii de Pass. Dom.). In these denials of S. Peter there are three things to be observed.

1. The events described by S. Matthew did not all happen after, nor all before, the time at which he places them; for one part which he put before happened when the day had dawned: as the question put to Christ by the high priest, whether He were the Christ or not (S. Luke 22:66); for it is very clear that the three denials were uttered at different times of the night. S. Matthew and S. Mark, therefore, because they had begun to relate what had been done to Christ that night, desired to conclude all that history before they began to relate the denials of Peter. They therefore place these together at the end of their account. S. Luke, on the other hand, had begun with describing the denials. He therefore related these before describing what was done to Christ. S. John alone unites into one the denials of Peter and the history of Christ.

2. We must beware of the error of those who think that S. Peter lost his faith. He did not lose it, but he did deny, as Prudentius says in his Cathemerin (hymn i.):

3. The opposite error must also be avoided. That, when he denied Christ, Peter either did not sin, or at least did not utter a falsehood, but, keeping the truth, spoke ambiguously. S. Hilary and S. Ambrose say this. They say that Peter did not lie when he said that He knew not Christ as man, whom he did know as God. S. Jerome, perhaps, alludes to them when he says: “I know that some, from their love for the Apostle Peter, explain this passage to mean that Peter did not deny God, but man, and that his meaning was, ‘I know not Him as man whom I know as God’ ”. Everyone of any sense can see at once how frivolous this is. To defend the Apostle thus is to make God the author of lies. For, if Peter did not deny Christ, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, “Amen, I say to thee that in this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice”. Observe what Christ said: “Thou shalt deny Me”; not, “Thou shalt deny a man”. We may, however, acquit S. Hilary and S. Ambrose of error by a charitable explanation, that they do not deny that Peter denied and sinned; they only say that he spoke so that a true meaning can be elicited from his words, “I know not the man,” which we may explain to mean, “I do not know Christ only as man, but also as God”.

And going forth, he wept bitterly.

Peter, as S. Jerome and Bede say, was not able to do penance in the court of the house of the high priest, but he must go out. He would, indeed, have acted with more constancy and courage if he had performed it in the same place as that in which he committed the offence; and if he had confessed Christ before those to whom he had denied Him, and had thus repaired the mischief of that denial. But we are so constituted by nature, that we are ashamed to do penance, where we are not ashamed to commit the offence. Though Peter went out of the house not so much perhaps from infirmity, as from reverence for Christ, being unable to bear the look of Him whom he had denied. However this may be, he showed a great example of penitence. S. Ambrose well says in his Commentary on S. Luke, “Even the fall of the saint is useful. Peter’s denial does me no harm; his self-correction profits me. I have learnt to mistrust the promises of the faithless. Peter denied among the Jews. Solomon erred among Gentile associates. Peter wept bitterly that he might wash out his fault by his tears”; and as we read in S. Clement of Rome, “The pain of his fault was so deeply rooted in his mind, that all his life, whenever he heard a cock crow, he fell on his knees, and sought pardon for his offence with tears”.

CHAPTER 27

THE CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION OF CHRIST—HIS DEATH AND BURIAL

Verse 1. And when morning was come

S. Mark says, “Straightway in the morning”; S. Luke, “As soon as it was day”.

Took counsel.

S. Luke says, “Came together,” convenerunt (22:66). It is probable that the first council was dissolved; for it is not likely that the priests, scribes, and elders, however great their rage against Christ, would have remained in assembly without any repose through the whole night. The events related by S. Matthew (verses 62, 67, of the last chapter) took place in this morning’s council. This is clear from S. Luke also, whose account has been shown to be the same as that of S. Matthew.

All the chief priests and ancients of the people.

S. Mark and S. Luke add “Scribes”; these three classes, as has been said more than once, forming a Jewish council. On the number of chief priests, see chap. 2:4.

That they might put Him to death.

Had they not just said, “He is guilty of death”? (26:66). We have said that these words were spoken in this place and in this council; but S. Matthew said as a summary, “They took counsel,” because, having interposed the account of Peter’s denials, he had broken off the thread of the history. The false testimony did not seem to them sufficient for Christ’s condemnation to death, as S. Mark implies (14:56); and, therefore, when the day began to dawn, and they had no sufficient reason for bringing Him before Pilate, they assembled the council again to deliberate as to what they could accuse Him of to the governor that would be thought to deserve death. They, therefore, asked Him whether He were the Christ, as S. Matthew says (26:63); for they knew that He would not deny this, and it might seem a capital offence to the governor; because it was the opinion of all Jews that Christ would be a king and deliver them from the Roman yoke, and whoever called himself Christ professed to be a king—of all things the most criminal in the eyes of the usurping Romans.

Verse 2. And they brought Him bound

Καὶ δήσαντες αὐτόν, Et cum eum vinxisset, as S. Mark says (15:1). S. John (18:12) says that Christ had been bound before when He was seized: but He had either been loosed in the house of the chief priest, whence they thought that He could not escape, or His hands were not manacled. When they brought Him from the house of Caiaphas to that of Pilate, they bound Him again.

And delivered Him to Pontius Pilate, the governor.

It may be asked why they gave Him over to the governor, and did not kill Him themselves, sive jure sive rabie. S. Chrysostom thinks that they delivered Him to Pilate because it was a feast day, on which it was not lawful to put anyone to death. But (26:2) it has been shown that it was not such. Theophylact thinks that they delivered Him up to Pilate because they accused Him of laying claim to the kingdom, which would greatly concern Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. S. John states the true reason. It was not lawful for them to put any man to death (18:31); whether this were absolutely forbidden by the Romans, as almost all ancient writers think: or, as some say, it was not lawful for them to crucify, but they must either stone, strangle, burn, or slay with the sword (as described in chap. 5:22): the cross was a punishment introduced into Judaea by the Romans, and the Jews desired to crucify Christ, this being of all deaths the most ignominious. It will be urged in objection that Stephen (Acts 7:58) was stoned, and, therefore, that all capital punishment was not taken from the Jews. The obvious answer is that that manner of death was not forbidden them, because they endeavoured to stone Christ Himself on other occasions, as related by S. John (10:31). But if, as is most likely, all capital punishment was taken from them, it must be repeated that they stoned Stephen, and endeavoured to stone Christ, not according to law, but by impulse. How Pontius Pilate was made governor has been related by Josephus. We have said (14:1) that the kingdom of Herod the Great was divided, after his death, into tetrarchies, as S. Luke says (3:1). Judaea was one of these. Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, ruled over it for ten years, partly as a tetrarch and partly as a king. At the end of that time he was accused, before the Emperor Augustus, of having slaughtered 3000 Jews who had fled into the Temple on the day of Pasch, and of having practised tryanny against the Jews and disposed of the priesthood, setting up some and depriving others as he pleased. He was banished to Vienne in Gaul, as Josephus informs us (Antiq., xvii. 19; xviii. 1). Judaea was then reduced to a Roman province, governed by procurators like other provinces. Pontius Pilate was the sixth procurator (Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 4). Theophylact thinks that he was called Pontius as having been a native of Pontus. But this does not seem a reason of much weight, as there were others of the name at Rome.

Verse 3. Then Judas, who betrayed Him, seeing that He was condemned

The meaning of this passage is no doubt that Judas, seeing Christ condemned by the Jews, who all cried out with one voice, “He is guilty of death,” and dragged before Pilate—an act which they would not have committed had they not resolved to persevere until He was condemned to the cross—brought back the thirty pieces of silver. The chief priests are said to have delivered Christ to death, because it was they who gave Him over to Pilate with that intent (S. Luke 24:20). From this it has been concluded that Judas, when he betrayed Christ, did not do so with the object of His being put to death, nor with any expectation that such would be the result. This is the opinion of Theophylact and others. In this he was in some slight degree better than the priests, scribes, and elders, because, although he sold his Master from avarice and unbelief, he had no thought of His being put to death.

Repenting himself.

Origen and S. Jerome speak of the repentance of Judas in such a manner as to appear even to praise him. They refute the error of the Manichæans, who say that we have two natures—a good and a bad. They do not understand, I think, that that of Judas was not wholly good (bonam omnino, folio and 8vo, but query malam), but had some particle of good in it, for, although he did not amend the sin, yet he felt it, confessed it, and grieved for having committed it. The Greek word S. Matthew uses, μεταμεληθείς, means to grieve for sin, and to be troubled at it. It differs from μετανοεῖν, as it means to acknowledge a sin and to grieve for it. Μετανοεῖν means this, and also to atone for it. S. Peter did the latter and Judas the former. He is not described, therefore, as μετανοηθείς or μετανοῶν, but μεταμεληθείς. S. Leo (Serm. v de Pass. Dom.) says, “Justly, and as the Prophet had foretold, ‘His prayer was turned to sin’ (Ps. 108:7); for, when he had consummated his crime, the conversion of the wicked man was so perverse that even in his repentance he committed sin”. And S. Ambrose, in his Comment, on S. Luke, bk. x.: “Although the repentance of the traitor was vain, because he sinned against the Holy Ghost, he had still some shame in acknowledging his deed. Although he is not absolved, the malice of the Jews is confuted, for when the confession of the traitor had convicted them, they still claimed the right of the wicked contract, and considered themselves free from blame by saying, ‘What is that to us? see thou to it’. They were plainly senseless to suppose that they were absolved from the wickedness of Judas rather than bound by it.” Origen and Theophylact say that it was the wish of Judas, when he could not prevent the death of Christ, to die, himself, before Him that he might meet Him in the other life, and there seek forgiveness for his iniquity. This partakes much of the nature of fable, but it has at least the good of proving that, in the time of Origen, the doctrine of purgatory and of the remission of sins after this life was well known.

Verse 4. I have sinned in betraying innocent blood

Innocent blood; that is, a just man to death. Judas did not believe Christ to be God, but he confessed Him to be a just man, and innocent. God chose that Christ should have the testimony of every class against the wickedness of the priests and elders; even that of His judge Pilate, of Pilate’s wife, and of His betrayer who had sold Him.

What is that to us?

These, as S. Ambrose says, are the words of men blinded and “who thought that they were absolved by the wickedness of the agent, rather than bound by it. In pecuniary affairs,” he continues, “if the price is refused the obligation is at an end. These priests accept the terms, and follow up their sacrilege, pertinaciously claiming for themselves the mortal sin of bloodshed, when the trafficker would have refunded the price of his crime.”

Verse 5. And cast down the pieces of silver in the Temple

Judas by this act appeared to himself to give it to the priests, and so to rescind his bargain with them.

He departed, and went and hanged himself with a halter.

Ἀπήγξατο, Laqueo præfocatus est. S. Peter says (Acts 1:18): “being hanged, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out,” καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησε μέσος, et præceps factus crepuit medius. This does not appear to agree with S. Matthew. Some say that Judas first hanged himself, as S. Matthew says, but that the tree bent, and he thus survived; but afterwards died of a dropsy and burst asunder in the midst, as S. Peter says. This is the opinion of Theophylact. Others (e.g., Euthymius) say, that while he was hanging he was recognised by the passers-by and cut down, and lived some time after in secrecy, falling at last from that lofty spot, and, being swollen, burst asunder. Others say that the halter broke and he fell, and so burst asunder. Œcumenius says this (Comment. Acts Apost., i.) from Papias—a very ancient authority. More probably, as some others think, he first threw himself down from some lofty spot to die the more quickly, and afterwards, either from the breaking of the rope, he fell down and his bowels gushed out, or he became so swollen that after a time he burst in two; for all who are hanged swell much. It is doubtful whether he hanged himself immediately on returning the money. Some say that he did not do so until after the Resurrection of Christ, and that when he heard of this he lost all hope of salvation, because he had sold the Saviour of the world; and he then went out and hanged himself. But this is uncertain and has no proof. The Evangelist says that he threw down the pieces of silver, and immediately went out and hanged himself. This seems more probable. Maldonatus enters into the curious and confessedly useless question as to what tree, if any, Judas hanged himself from. He thinks, from tradition, that it was most probably a fig-tree, this having been the tree from which Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. He cites the lines of Juvencus to this effect:

“Exorsusque, suas laqueo sibi sumere pœnas, Informem rapuit ficus de vertice mortem”. He having by the noose begun Himself a punishment to give, A shameful death he did not shun, But from the fig-tree’s top he ceased to live.

Verse 6. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver

Why did the chief priests accept this money now, which they had such a short time before refused? Because Judas then gave it back as if he would have undone his own act. They would not receive it, therefore, lest they should appear to annul their compact, and be compelled to give up Christ to him, as he had given back the money. They took it now because he cast it into the Temple, and what was cast into the Temple was considered to be offered to the Temple and to God. As the priests used to accept these offerings, they now took the thirty pieces of silver also.

It is not lawful to put them into the Corbona.

הקריב in Hebrew is “to offer”. Hence the word קרבן which properly means an oblation, and is frequently found in Scripture (Levit. 1:2, 3; 2:5, 7; 6:20; Numb. 7:13; 28:2). It is sometimes used for “an oath,” which was made by קרבן that is, the offerings of the Temple by which the Jews sometimes swore: as in S. Matt. 23:16, 18. Josephus (i., Cont. Apion.) is our authority. This is perhaps the meaning of S. Mark 7:11. The word was then made to apply to the place where the treasures of the Temple were kept, that is, the sacred treasury (Josephus, Bell. Jud., ii. 8). The Greeks use the word γαζοφυλάκιον 4 Kings 12:9, 10; S. Mark 12:41, 43; S. Luke 22:1; S. John 8:20). Some understand mittere to mean remittere, “to put back,” thinking that the thirty pieces of silver were taken out of the treasury by the priests to buy Christ. Juvencus was of this opinion, and it has much probability. For public costs, pertaining to the Temple and religion, were defrayed from the sacred funds. The priests thought the murder of Christ, who called Himself the Son of God, a case of this kind.

Because it is the price of blood.

Blood is here used by a Hebraism for death. They ought to have added “of a just man,” as even Judas had done, but men who are blinded by error know not how either to think or speak the truth. The Jews were forbidden to offer any wicked gain in the Temple (Deut. 23:18). Hence they decided by analogy not to offer the price of blood to God (verse 6); nor, which was greater foolishness still, to put it into the treasury. When they took the silver pieces, they accepted them as an oblation made to God, thus, like madmen, judging that more reverence was to be paid to the treasury than to God.

Verse 7. And after they had consulted together

It is not probable that this took place immediately, but after Christ was crucified, and perhaps after the day of Pasch. For they were occupied all that day in His accusation and crucifixion, and on the day following in the Passover, when it was not lawful to engage in any business. But S. Matthew, having begun to describe Judas’ restoration of the thirty pieces, concluded the entire history and showed what was done about them. His account of the consultation and purchase of the field must be looked upon as related by anticipation.

They bought with them the potter’s field.

It is uncertain why S. Matthew calls it the potter’s field. It might be because it belonged to some particular potter: or because potters dug earth from it to make their vessels: or that they threw the broken fragments upon it so as to make it useless for cultivation, and fit only for a burial-place. However this be, it is certain that the field was commonly known by this name, both because the Evangelists speak of it as a spot well known, and because the Greek describes it with the article τὸν ἀγρόν, which shows that it was well known.

To be a burying-place for strangers.

The inhabitants of Jerusalem were accustomed to bury their dead either in some public place, or each on his own land, where he had a burying-place, in which all of the same family were interred. They thought it a great consolation in death to be buried in the tombs of their fathers, as is clear from many passages in the Books of Kings. But strangers, having no burial-place in the city, found sepulture a matter of difficulty. On this public good those holy chiefs of the priests expended the money brought to the Temple: for an offering could not be thought sacred to God unless expended on some pious work. This is the interpretation of Origen. Others think that the strangers here referred to were the Gentiles, who sometimes took up their abode in the city, or frequently visited it, but who, if they died in it, had no burying place; for all consorting of Jews with Gentiles was unlawful, not only in life but even after death.

Verse 8. For this cause the field was called Aceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day

It was surely of the divine counsel that the means used by them to cover and, as it were, bury their wickedness, carried it down, by an enduring monument, to all posterity. So that whenever Aceldama, that field of blood, was mentioned, their wickedness, as S. Chrysostom and Euthymius have observed, should be called to mind. Aceldama is a Syriac word. The Jews then used this language. It means the “field of blood,” so called as having been bought by the price of blood. The word is not used by S. Matthew, but its Greek equivalent, the “field of blood”. Nor does S. Chrysostom (in loc.), or Eusebius (Demons., x. 4), when referring to this passage, make use of it. It has been thought, with some probability, that the word has crept into this text from Acts 1:19, where it is used by S. Peter.

Verse 9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the Prophet

It is an ancient and weighty question, how S. Matthew cites these as the words of Jeremias, when they are not such, but are those of Zacharias (11:13). Much labour has been bestowed upon the point.

1. Some think that they are really Jeremias’, but taken by S. Matthew from some lost work of his. For it is plain from the Books of Kings and Paralipomenon that other Prophets, and Jeremias most especially by name, wrote other books than those we have. We read this in 2 Macchab. 2:1.

2. It has been thought these words were written by Jeremias, and in the book which we have of his, but that they were subsequently removed from the text by the malevolence of the Jews. Eusebius holds this opinion (Demons., x. 4).

3. Another opinion is that they are taken from some apocryphal writings of Jeremias, for even the Apostles themselves sometimes make citations from such works, as S. Paul (2 Tim. 3:8) speaks of Jannes and Jambres, from, probably, some apocryphal work. Origen thought this, and S. Jerome seems to confirm it, by saying that a certain Jew once gave him an apocryphal book of Jeremias, in which this citation was found to the letter.

4. Others suppose it to have been a lapse of memory in the Evangelist, and that when the name of Jeremias occurred to him, instead of Zacharias, he wrote it: but that he either discovered the mistake himself subsequently, or some reader of his gospel pointed it out to him, and he would not correct it because he believed it to be the work of the Holy Spirit, who spoke the same things by the mouths of all the Prophets; and that it could not matter what was said by which Prophet, for the words of all were common, so that what is spoken by one may be considered to have been spoken by all. This is the opinion of S. Augustin and Bede, but it is wholly untenable. For although some learned men and Catholic authors have said that the Evangelists sometimes commit errors of memory, and that the authority of Scripture is nowise lessened thereby, it cannot be seen how, with the dictation of the Holy Ghost, and the maintenance of the faith of the Scriptures—which ought always to be the highest and firmest possible—this could have happened. To say that Jeremias could have been cited for Zacharias because the same Holy Spirit says the same thing by all the Prophets, appears to me to do violence to the inspiration of the sacred text.

5. Origen and Eusebius say, and without disapprobation, that Jeremias was inserted into the text by mistake from its resemblance to the word Zacharias. But there is no such resemblance. Some are of opinion that Zacharias had two names, and was sometimes called Jeremias; but this requires proof. Others, with the approbation of S. Augustin, suppose that Jeremias was really intended, and that the reference is to chap. 32:9 and his purchase of the field. But there is nothing in common between this and the citation from Jeremias except the allusion to the field—nothing of the “potter” or of the “price” of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. Nor did Jeremias buy a field for thirty pieces of silver, but for seventeen—ten pieces of silver and seven staters. Some say that a prophecy of Jeremias was intended—not one in his written works, but one received from tradition, as the passage in S. Luke where Christ spoke of the tower of Siloe (13:4). This, if nothing better could be offered, might be received as possible.

6. The best opinion seems to be that of those who say that the Evangelist mentioned the name of no Prophet at all, but merely said, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet,” as in many other instances (1:22; 2:5, 15, 23; 13:35; 21:4; 35 of this chapter), and that some transcriber, thinking the words to be those of Jeremias, inserted his name in the margin, and some one else placed it in the text. In confirmation of this—(1) the Syriac version of this Gospel does not contain the name of Jeremias at all, and (2) S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 7) says that in his time the word was not found in several Latin copies. Against this opinion, S. Augustin argues that there was no reason why the name of Jeremias should be added: but there was this one why it should rather have been erased, that Jeremias might be thought to be cited wrongly. It is strange, as he says in the same place that there was sufficient reason for giving this prophecy to Jeremias, because he bought a field (32:9), that he now denies that that reason was sufficient for one who thought that the Evangelist alluded to Jeremias, to have inserted his name in the margin, and another to have transferred it to the text. There may be another reason for ascribing the passage to Jeremias. The words of Zacharias in the LXX. differ so widely from the truth of the Hebrew as to have no resemblance whatever to it; so that they could not be recognised by the Greek readers, who, in all probability, added the name of Jeremias. As regards the meaning of the passage, the Evangelist, in accordance with his frequent practice, describes neither word nor person, being content to give the meaning and, as he desired, to show the fulfilment of the prophecy.

And they took the thirty pieces of silver.

ואקחה שלשים הכסף. “And I took” (accept). The Prophet spoke in the first person to show that he had performed what the Lord commanded. The Evangelist, with the same meaning, has rendered the words in the third person, to show that the whole was fulfilled by the priests, whom in this the Prophet represented; although ἔλαβον in Greek may be the first person singular.

The price of him that was prized.

Τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου אדר היקר. This was called a little before by the Prophet in other words, היקר decus pretii or pretium æstimationis. The Evangelist appears not to have read יקרהי pretii or æstimationis, but יקר æstimati, τετιμημένου, which the Latin renders appretiati.

Whom they prized of the children of Israel.

Ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, אשר יקרתי מעליהם “by which I was prized by them”. The Evangelist has changed the first person singular into the third person plural, and the passive into the active voice, but has kept the same meaning. Whom they prized a filiis Israel, that is, qui ex filiis. The relative οἵ is to be understood like the Hebrew אשר as I have shown in my work, Idiom. Hebræ. A similar example is found in Judith 8:17.

Verse 10. And they gave them unto the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me

Καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, ואשליך היוצר אל יהוה בית אתו “And I cast them (the silver or the price) into the house of the Lord to the statuary”. That is, that from them a field might be bought, a figulo, as the Evangelist (optimus interpres) has expressed it. Thus, Rabbi David Kimshi and other expositors of this passage of Zacharias are not to be trusted, who think that יוצר figulam, “potter,” was written for אצר by the change of the letter א thesaurus, “treasure,” that the meaning may be, “I cast it into the house of the Lord,” to the treasure, or to the treasury; that is, that it might be laid up among the sacred treasures. If in the Greek of the Evangelist we read ἔδωκα, dedi (I gave), for ἔδωκαν, dederunt (they gave), the Greek will agree with the Hebrew. There is no mention of the word agri (field) in the Prophet, but as it is contained in a manner in the word figuli, “potter” (the meaning as we have said, being “I cast it to the potter,” that is, that the field might be bought by the potter), the Evangelist, as explaining the Prophet, expressed it, εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, in agrum figuli, unto the potter’s field.

As the Lord appointed me.

These words are not found in the Prophet, but the sense and the fact are. It was said by the Prophet that the Lord commanded him to cast the thirty pieces of silver to the statuary, that is, the potter. He subsequently says that he did so, and thus fulfilled the command of the Lord. The Prophet himself did not say this in words, but he said it in fact, by doing it. S. Matthew explained the whole to teach us that it was done, not by accident, nor by the will of man, but by the command of God. Hence the priests bought the potter’s field for the thirty pieces of silver by the providence and impulse of God.

Verse 11. And Jesus stood before the governor

S. John (18:28) says that Christ was brought to the governor’s hall. But the Jews themselves did not venture to enter, lest they should be defiled, and that they might be able to eat the Pasch. Pilate went out to them, therefore, and asked them: “What accusation bring you against this man?” These words were spoken as if intended to show that Pilate himself thought Jesus innocent. As if he had said: “What offence can be brought against this just man?” The Jews, as if the question had done them some injustice, replied (verse 30): “If He were not a malefactor we would not have delivered Him up to thee”. After these words should be placed those of S. Luke (23:2): “And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, and saying that He is Christ the King”. Then follows S. John (18:31): “Pilate therefore said to them, Take Him you, and judge Him according to your law”. It appears that the governor tried every means possible to avoid judging Christ. The Jews, therefore, said to him: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”. S. John adds: “That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which He said signifying what death He should die”—referring to S. Matthew 20:18, 19. S. John intimates that the Jews would not use the power given to them by the governor (18:31): “Take Him you and judge Him according to your law,” because it was not lawful for them to crucify anyone. And this was the death they especially designed for Christ, and that by which Christ had foretold that He should die. Or they may have supposed that Pilate spoke ironically. S. John signifies that it was not from the virtue of the Jews, but rather from their cruelty, and from the divine counsel by which it was decreed that Christ should be crucified, that the Jews would not judge Him by their law. After these things, as S. John says, the governor entered into the hall, and while the Jews stood without, called Christ to him, and asked Him, in the words of S. Matthew and S. John, “Art Thou the king of the Jews?” The governor asked, then, only of the kingship and tribute, the latter being contained in the former. If Christ were a king, He would undoubtedly refuse tribute to Cæsar. For the Jews raised these two objections amongst others, which they thought likely to influence Pilate: (1) That He made Himself a king; and (2) that He taught that it was unlawful to give tribute to Cæsar. These accusations could be answered even by their own evidence; for when they asked Him whether it were lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, He answered: “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (22:21). There were also Roman witnesses, and Jewish publicans, who could testify that Christ not only taught them to pay tribute to Cæsar, but even paid it Himself. They object nevertheless, against their own consciences, sciences, an odious offence, and one that they knew would appear the more probable to Pilate, because the sect of the Herodians was then flourishing, who are believed to have held it unlawful for Jews to pay tribute to a foreign king, as has been explained (22:16).

Thou sayest it.

The words of S. John (18:33, 34), “Art Thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of Me?” are to be placed before these. Christ would appear by these words to have pricked the conscience of Pilate, as if He had said, “Thou knowest that I am not the king of the Jews, but thou askest this at their demand”. Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me; what hast Thou done?” He saw that he was constrained by Christ, and he therefore appears to have answered with anger that he had not asked this of his own will: for he was not a Jew; but he performed the duties of a judge, and he was compelled as such to examine Christ on the points that were brought against Him by the Jews who had delivered Him up to him. Jesus answered: “My kingdom is not of this world”—that is, it is not mundane, not of the earth, not temporal, but heavenly and spiritual. It is not only the society of the blessed, but the congregation of the faithful, even upon earth. It is in the world, yet it is not of the world. It has its beginning not from the earth, but from heaven, as Christ is its head. By Him it is assembled and formed. It descends from heaven; for faith, which is its form, and charity, which is its bond and hope, which promises its rewards, are sent from heaven, as Christ said (S. John 8:23; 15:19). The whole question may be answered thus: Christ, as He is God, is not only the spiritual, but also the temporal King of the whole world, both of the higher and of the lower. Hence (Apoc. 19:16), “He hath on His garment and on His thigh written, King of kings and Lord of lords”: to show that He is not King by force, nor by oppression, nor by election, nor by adoption, but by nature: for this is the meaning of “His thigh”; and because by nature being in the form of a servant, He thought it “not robbery to be equal with God” (Philip. 2:6). Abraham commanded his steward to put his hand under his (Abraham’s) thigh, and swear by the God of heaven and earth, because Christ would be born of his thigh (Gen. 24:2). Christ assuredly, as He is man, is the Spiritual King of the whole Church. This is the kingdom which He bought for the Father with His blood, and which He will give back to Him at the end of the world (1 Cor. 15:24). This is the kingdom of which David says, in Ps. 2:6–8, “I am appointed king by Him”; he immediately goes on to describe it as a spiritual and not a temporal kingdom, “preaching His commandment” upon His holy mountain, because that Sion is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as S. Augustin says (Tract. cxv. on S. John). To teach the precepts of God is the work not of a temporal, but of a spiritual King. This is the kingdom of which David says in the same second Psalm: “I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance”; because the Church was to be spread throughout the whole earth, and carried from sea to sea. This is the kingdom of which Christ spoke after His Resurrection (S. Matt. 28:18, 19). He describes the nature of its power in the verse following: “Going, teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. These are not the acts of a temporal, but of a spiritual King. And as in a temporal kingdom the king alone has power to make the laws, so Christ alone in the Church has power to institute the Sacraments, which are the remedy for sin in His spiritual kingdom, like the laws in a republic. But as far as Christ is man, He is not the temporal king of the whole world. So says S. Augustin in the passage just cited, and all good teachers agree in the same view. For if so He must be king: (1) By a natural, (2) by a divine, or (3) by a human law. He was not king by a natural law, because He was not the son of a king, which is to be a king by nature. He was not a king by divine right, because all the Scriptures which speak of His kingdom are to be understood, as S. Augustin says, of a spiritual kingdom. He was not king by a human law, because He was not chosen to be such by the consent of the whole world; and when the Jews wanted to take Him by force and make Him a king, He escaped from them (S. John 6:15). Christ shows (S. John 18:36) that His kingdom was not of the world, for if it had been, He would have had servants of this world to fight for Him. But He was so far from having, or desiring to have, an earthly kingdom, that He rebuked Peter severely for wounding the servant of the high priest in self-defence, and commanded him to put up his sword again into the sheath, signifying that his servants were not of earth but heaven: that is, they were the angels (26:53). Pilate now asked Him if He were a king, and He answered, as here related by S. Matthew (verse 11), “Thou sayest”. By this expresssion He answered, not ambiguously, as S. Augustin and some others think, but firmly, that He was a king, using the same words as supra, chap. 26:25–64.

Verse 12. And when He was accused by the chief priests and ancients, He answered nothing

S. Luke 23:4 should come before this, for, as S. John says (18:38), Pilate, after he had questioned Christ as to whether He were a king, went out to the Jews who were outside the prætorium, and said, “I find no cause,” that is, no fault, “in Him”.

Verse 13. Then Pilate said to Him, Dost Thou not hear how great testimonies they allege against Thee? S. Matthew does not mention these testimonies, but S. Luke (23:5, 6) does. Herod was glad when he saw Christ, because he had heard much about Him before, and he desired to see some sign from Him. He questioned Christ much, but He did not answer. The chief priests and scribes vehemently accused Him to Herod. Herod, when Christ answered nothing, held Him in contempt, and put a white robe upon Him as an opprobrium, and sent Him back to Pilate; and Pilate and Herod were made friends from that day, when they had before been at variance. When Christ was sent back to Pilate, Pilate called the chief priests and said to them, the officers, and the people (S. Luke 23:14–16): “You have presented unto me this man as one that perverteth the people, and behold I, having examined Him before you, find no cause in this man in those things wherein you accuse Him; no, nor Herod neither. For I sent you to him, and behold, nothing worthy of death is done to Him. I will chastise Him, therefore, and release Him.” This may be understood either of stripes or of words. At these words of Pilate the Jews probably began to insist and be urgent, and to accuse Christ, although the Evangelists do not mention it. Pilate may then have said what S. Matthew has related: “Dost Thou not hear how great testimonies they allege against Thee?” (5:14).

Verse 14. And He answered him to never a word, so that the governor wondered exceedingly

It may appear strange that Christ kept such a resolute silence now, especially as He previously answered so freely. The reason of His having answered before was clearly that He was then examined as to whether He were a king; that is, whether He were the Christ: a fact which He could not deny, as He had come into this world to teach that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Many reasons may be given for His present silence:

1. (which is deduced per contrarium). He was not now asked about the chief question, but about the commotion of the people, His doctrine, and other similar subjects of which, as open and notorious, they could not be ignorant; and there was therefore no need for Him to answer about them, as He had before answered the chief priest (S. John 18:20).

2. The reason given by S. Ambrose (Comm. on S. Luke), S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius (in loc.), is that Christ knew that if He did answer, the Jews would not believe Him, as He had said (S. Luke 22:67).

3. Theophylact says that if He had answered, the anger of the Jews would have been excited, and their offence made greater.

4. S. Jerome and Bede say that if He had answered and confuted the accusation, He would have been acquitted, and the fruit of the Cross, our salvation, would have perished.

5. S. Ambrose said that He was silent because He needed no defence: “The Lord is accused and He holds His peace. He is rightly silent who needs no defence. They take pains to defend themselves who fear to be convicted. Christ did not confirm the accusation by His silence: He despised it by not replying to it.”

6. The prophecy was fulfilled by this very silence (Isa. 53:7).

Verse 15. Now upon the solemn day

The day of Pasch, which was especially called the solemn day (S. John 18:39). Whether the Jews obtained tained this as a new boon from the Romans when these took possession of Judæa, or it was an ancient custom continued to them by the Romans, is uncertain. It was most probably an ancient Jewish tradition to set at liberty a prisoner on this day, in remembrance of their delivery out of Egypt.

Verse 16. And he had then a notorious prisoner that was called Barabbas

Notorious—ἐπίσημον, “remarkable,” “notorious,” but in a bad sense. He was in prison, not for virtue, but for his crimes. S. Mark (15:7), S. Luke (23:19), and S. John (18:40) call him λήστην, the equivalent of the Latin word latro, one who robs and murders on the highway; a robber on a large scale, not a petty thief (κλέπτην).

Verse 17. Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ?

It is clear from many circumstances that Pilate sought by every means in his power to release Christ. 1. As soon as Christ was brought before him, he asked the Jews what accusation they brought against Him (S. John 18:29). This was equivalent, as before said, to his asking them what accusation they brought against one who was both just and innocent. 2. When he had questioned Christ within the prætorium, he went out to the Jews, and said, “I find no cause in this man” (S. Luke 23:4; S. John 18:38); and when he heard that Christ had taught throughout all Galilee, he gladly seized the occasion of sending Him as a Galilean to Herod (S. Luke 23:7). When He was sent back by Herod, he again endeavoured to set Him free, saying that neither he himself nor Herod found any fault in Him. When this did not mitigate the rage of the Jews, he would have chastised Him, whether with blows or words, and let Him go (S. Luke 23:16). Pilate now brings their religion before the Jews, that, at least from respect to the solemn feast, when criminals were released, Christ, against whom no fault could be proved, might be set free. He used still other means. He does not name Christ singly, nor with a number of others, but with Barabbas, the most wicked of men, that the Jews, unless they were wholly blind, or beyond measure lost, might be compelled to choose Christ. Who could have supposed that Barabbas—a homicide, a seditious man, and a public robber—would have been preferred to Christ, against whom nothing could be objected, or at least substantiated? But the hatred of the Jews and the unjust conduct of Pilate prevailed. But Pilate still endeavoured to release Christ, for when the Jews insisted, “Away with Him, crucify Him” (S. John 19:15), he exclaimed: “Shall I crucify your king?” as if it were against their honour to do this deed, however bad His conduct—for kings are beheaded, not crucified. The chief thing was the sending of the messenger by Pilate’s wife to warn him to have nothing to do with that just man, who, she had heard from the Jews, declared Himself to be the Son of God. Thus, as Pilate had previously endeavoured, from justice and religion, to set Christ free, he now attempted the same thing from fear. These events are all related by the Evangelists, no doubt to show us how unjustly Christ was condemned—(1) when a wicked and unjust judge sought again and again, from mere motives of religion and justice, to set Him free; (2) from a comparison of Pilate and the Jews to show the incredible iniquity and injustice of both; (3) that from the manner of His condemnation, extorted as it was by importunity from an unjust judge, who was wholly averse to the act, it might be seen that Christ was given over to the cross, not so much by man, as by the will of the Father.

Verse 19. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment

That is, this happened very opportunely, as Pilate was now ready to give sentence, that the whole act might seem not to have been brought about by chance, but ordered by the Divine Will. S. Matthew, who is the only narrator of the event, has implied this.

His wife sent to him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man.

That is, do not be concerned in His condemnation. Pilate’s wife called Christ a just man both from common report and from her dream. She used the word “just” to persuade Pilate the more easily either by fear or religion. She was no doubt a pious woman, and either previously, or now from her dream, believed in Christ. At the same time she may have had some good womanly feeling, and feared lest any evil should befal her husband if he condemned a just man.

For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.

The Evangelist has not told us what it was, but we may easily believe that she was taught at once that Christ was innocent and that He was the Son of God, and that she foresaw the evils that would happen to Jerusalem from His death, and feared lest Pilate, as the author of it, might be involved in them. It has been asked of what nature the dream was. Writers on the subject have described four kinds of dreams: 1. The natural dream, such as those of bile, sanguineousness, and melancholy. 2. The moral dreams, arising from our desires, actions, thoughts, and manner of life. In these we dream of what we do, or think strongly about, or desire. Hence Plato justly thought that the dreams of a philosopher and a wise man were different to those of ordinary persons (In Theæteto). 3. The divine dream, which is frequently sent by God either with or without the agency of angels. Of these there are many notable examples in Scripture, as we have shown (2:13). 4. The diabolical dream, which comes from the devils; such are impure dreams. That the dream of Pilate’s wife was a natural dream, no one can say with any appearance of probability. Some think, or do not deny, that it was a moral dream, she having dreamed of Christ that night because she knew that He was accused by the Jews. There was not only a common, but a very ancient opinion, as we learn from S. Ignatius (Ep. v. to Philip.) and from Bede (in loc.), that it was a diabolical dream. For the devil had begun to perceive the Divinity of Christ, and to understand the mystery of His death, by which the world would be freed; and that he thus endeavoured to prevent His death. This opinion, however supported, appears quite untenable. For we have shown that Satan had already discovered the Divinity of Christ (iv), and if he wished to hinder His death, why did he not rather act upon the minds of the Jews, who were the authors of the entire tragedy, than terrify by dreams a stranger woman, in whose sex even true divinations are considered mere illusive dreams? The dream, therefore, was sent by God. This is the opinion of Origen, S. Hilary, S. Leo (Serm. xi. de Pass.), S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact (in loc.). It has been asked why the dream was not sent by God to Pilate rather than to his wife. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius give two reasons: either Pilate was unworthy of a revelation from God; or he would have been suspected by the Jews of having invented the account, the better to procure the acquittal of Christ. God, if we may form a conjecture on the subject, may have chosen that Christ’s condemnation should have been so conducted that His innocence should be shown by every means, by the opinion of men of all classes, and, as it were, even by the consent of the elements themselves. Not only the Jews, then, many of whom believed in Him: not only the judge who had to give sentence in His cause: not only the judge’s wife, a woman previously ungodly, and, as a witness, capable of no suspicion of double-dealing: not only the centurion and the soldiers, who had a little before heaped revilings upon Him; but the darkened sun, the rent rocks, the divided veil, the earthquake, all gave evidence of the innocence and the Divinity of Christ. Origen, S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact think it probable that the wife of Pilate was saved through that dream of Christ.

Verse 23. What evil hath He done?

S. Mark (15:14) says the same thing and in the same words. S. Luke says, τί γὰρ κάκον ἐποίησε. The causal particle γάρ, “for,” renders the meaning difficult, for it does not seem clear what is its force. The Jews cried out, “Crucify Him”. Pilate answered, “Why, what evil hath He done?” We may suppose, therefore, that γάρ is put for οὖν, the meaning being, “If you wish me to crucify Him, what evil has He done that I should do so?” that is, “Give me a reason for such an act”. Pilate appears to have answered, not to what was said, but to what was understood. For the Evangelists do not recount all the events; but S. John says, that when the Jews raised the cry, “Crucify Him,” Pilate answered, “Shall I crucify your king?” as meaning, “I will not do so, for what evil has He done?” S. Luke adds that Pilate said, “I will chastise Him and release Him”. παιδεύσας οὖν, “either by words or by scourges”. It appears from S. John, as we shall shortly show, that He was scourged. After this, which is described in the same manner by S. Matthew and S. Mark, He was beaten with rods, crowned with thorns, robed in purple, and led forth to the Jews, Pilate saying his Ecce homo: that by this unhappy spectacle the ferocious minds of the Jews might be pacified. But S. Matthew and S. Mark, because they had begun to describe the condemnation of Christ, and to avoid breaking the thread of the history, put these things first. Such is the opinion of S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 9). S. Hilary, however, thinks that they have kept the order of events. Some say that Christ was scourged twice. Firstly, now at this time to mitigate the rage of the Jews, that, being contented with this punishment, they might release Him, as S. John says; and a second time when He had been condemned. For S. Jerome says that it was the custom of the Romans to crucify no man until he had been scourged. This can easily be believed of the cruelty of the Jews, though there is no proof of it in the Gospels. Bede, however, approved it.

Verse 24. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made

This does not excuse Pilate but Christ, while it shows that the governor, without any fitting testimony or any proof of crime, but only from fear of a popular tumult, condemned Christ, and in such a manner that his condemnation was, in truth, His acquittal.

Taking water, washed his hands before the people.

Some think that it was not the custom of the Jews alone that the judges of life and death should wash their hands, as in Deut. 21:6, but that heathen nations did the same, as they find in Sophocles and Virgil (Æn., ii. 717). It may have been the custom of other nations, but it was not that of the Romans, as Origen has observed, and as we learn from their historians. Pilate, though a Roman, in the cause of a Jew and before Jewish judges, wished by this means to testify his innocence. The Jews he knew practised the washing of hands as a proof of innocence, as shown by the passage of Deuteronomy cited above, and by Psalm 25:6: “I will wash my hands among the innocent”; but an offence of such gravity is not washed away by water, and S. Leo has well said, “The washing of his hands did not cleanse the defilement of Pilate’s mind, nor did the sprinkling of water upon them expiate the wickedness of his soul. The wickedness of the Jews surpassed the offence of Pilate. They compelled him from fear of Cæsar, and by their voices, to the committal of this crime; but he did not escape the guiltiness of the act by resigning his proper office of judge, when, in co-operation with these seditious men, he fell into the commission of a heinous crime” (Serm. viii. de Pass.).

I am innocent of the blood of this just man.

Pilate expressed in words what he signified by the act of washing; and before he condemned Christ he acquitted Him, calling Him “that just man”. At the same time he, by these same words, condemned himself, by sentencing one whom he had so called. He spoke falsely, therefore, when he said, “I am innocent”; for he could not be so, having condemned the innocent.

Verse 25. His blood be upon us and upon our children

This is a Hebraism for “We will bear the penalty” (Levit. 20:9, 12, 16; Josh. 2:19; 2 Kings 1:16; Ezek. 33:4; Osea 12:14).

Verse 26. Having scourged

(See verse 23.) What kind of scourge it was is unknown, and it is useless to enquire. It is commonly supposed to have been made of thorns. Euthymius conjectures that it may have been of cords, or thongs of leather. It was more probably of twigs, such as the Romans used, and such as were carried by the lictors before the consuls.

Then the soldiers of the governor.

The word “then” in this instance does not mean consecutiveness of the events related, but the whole period of Christ’s Passion. For we have shown from S. John (on verse 23) that the things which S. Matthew describes as having been done then, had been done before. The word “then” means here sub idem tempus, “about the time”; that is, a little before.

Verse 27. Taking Jesus into the hall

That is, into the place where the tribunal of the praetor was, which was called the prætorium. S. Mark explains it (chap. 15:16). It was in the hall, or somewhere near it; where they who had causes for trial might assemble. Why the soldiers led Christ into that place may be conjectured from the event. They wished to place Him in the tribunal, as a king in mockery. We see this from the crown which they placed on His head, and the purple robe which they put upon Him, and the reed which they gave Him for a sceptre. Finally, they placed Him on the tribunal as on a throne. We conclude, from S. John 19:1, 2, that all that the soldiers did they did, by command of Pilate.

Gathered together unto Him the whole band.

As if to a king, to render their mockery more complete.

Verse 28. And, stripping Him, they put a scarlet cloak about Him

S. Mark (15:17) and S. John (19:2) explain the word “scarlet” by purple. Everyone knows that purple was the proper colour of kings, not only among the Romans, but other nations as well. Kings allowed some favourites to wear purple as a peculiar privilege (3 Esdras 3:6; 1 Macchab. 10:20; 11:58; 14:43, 44).

Verse 29. And platting a crown of thorns

It was platted in the shape of a crown, as for a king: and of thorns, to show that He was not a true king, but outcast and miserable. With the same object they put a reed into His right hand.

Verse 32. And going out

As they were going out of the city or at the gate. The Greek does not use the aorist, ἐξελθόντες, “when they went out,” but the present, ἐξερχόμενοι, which has the meaning of their having met the man of Cyrene actually at the gate of the city.

They found a man of Cyrene.

He was so called, either as having been born at Cyrene, or as being a native of the country, for the word included both the capital city and an entire region of Decapolis in Syria, which took its name from the city (Pliny, v. 5; Strabo, xvii; Melas, i.; A. Marcellinus, xxii). In this city and region were formerly Jews, as we find from Acts 2:10. It is uncertain whether Simon were a Jew or Gentile. S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, Bede, and S. Leo (Serm. viii. de Pass.) think that he was a Gentile, and they suppose that there was a mystery in the case—showing that when the Jews did not believe, the Gentiles carried the cross. But as S. Mark (15:27) says that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, he was most probably a Jew, for he names those men as well known, or, as some think, even disciples of Christ.

Him they forced.

Angariaverunt. On the meaning of this word, vide chap. 5:41. S. John (19:17) says that Christ bore His own cross. This can be easily be harmonised with S. Matthew and S. Mark if we say that at first the soldiers placed the cross on Christ, and that He carried it through the whole length of the city; but at the gate Simon the Cyrenian was met, and was compelled to carry it to the place of crucifixion. So think Origen (Tract. xxxv. on S. Matt.), S. Athanasius (De Pass. et Cruc. Dom.), S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 10), S. Jerome, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact. It appears to have been the custom of those who were to be crucified to carry their own cross. And it was therefore laid at first upon Christ. Why Simon was compelled to bear it afterwards the Evangelists do not say, but it has been conjectured that Christ may have been so wearied by His watching and the scourging that He could carry it no farther. For although as God “He upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3), He allowed His human nature to suffer, as if He had not been God. Some think that this was done by the design of the Jews, who so wished to accelerate His death; that, as He was hindered by the weight of the cross from moving as quickly as they wished, they caused a strong man whom they happened to meet to carry it. Perhaps, too, it was in mystery, that He might fulfil the type of Isaac, who bore on his shoulders the wood by which he was to be sacrificed (Gen. 22:6), and as S. Chrysostom (Hom. lxxxiv. on S. John), S. Augustin (Tract. cxvii. on S. John), and Theodoret (In Impatib.) explain it; but that it was afterwards carried by Simon, that Christ might teach by facts what He had taught before in words (16:24): “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me”. S. Ambrose (lib. x., On S. Luke) says: “It is a fitting order of events, that He should first erect the trophy of His cross, and then pass it on to His martyrs to erect it”. It is related by S. Luke (23:27) that some women followed Him, and a great multitude of people weeping and lamenting. S. Matthew tells us who these women were: “Among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (verse 56), and that the rest of the multitude flocked together to Him. The chief priests may have alluded to these (S. John 7:49), who probably alone believed in Christ. It is also related by S. Luke (23:28, 29) that Christ turned to the women, and said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days shall come.” The word “behold” shows that Christ alluded to some time near at hand. It cannot be doubted that He meant the coming destruction of Jerusalem—that by Titus and Vespasian, when all the Jews, and especially the women, underwent sufferings so dreadful that, as related by Josephus, some were compelled to eat even their own infants. Christ spoke to the women rather than to the men: (1) Because it is to be thought that, according to their nature, the women lamented more than the men; and (2) because in the slaughter at the taking of the city, they would suffer more misery than the men. Christ forbids them to weep for Him, showing that it was not ill with Him, for He was not dragged by force to obey His Father’s will and free man from the tyranny of the devil; but that He was going to death voluntarily, and would soon be exalted to the right hand of the Father, and receive a name above every name. He bids them weep for themselves, because they would soon have to pay the penalty of His death—the destruction of Jerusalem, its result, being imminent. Not that these women would witness that catastrophe themselves, for all of them would probably die before it; but that the women then living would suffer such and so great miseries, that He could say: “Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck” (S. Luke 23:19). For, although He spoke to those persons, He did not speak of them, but of the whole body of women; as in chap. 3:11, S. John Baptist did not mean that those particular individuals with whom he was speaking would be baptised by Christ, and who perhaps never were so, but that the Jews, quales illi erant, would be baptised by the Holy Ghost and by fire. The Evangelist describes the lamentations of the women, which, in their self-forgetfulness, are apt to be raised for their children rather than themselves. David (in Ps. 67:7) describes in other terms the last extremity of distress. S. Matthew uses a different but similar figure to the same result (24:19): “Woe to them that are with child and that give suck in those days,” because such women would be impeded in their flight, and undergo double suffering, for themselves and for their infants. “Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, Cover us.” These are the words of men suffering the last extremity of ill, who wish to die but cannot, and who, overwhelmed by the greatness of their sufferings, cry to the mountains to fall upon and deliver them. The same expression is found in Isa. 2:19; Osee 10:8; Apoc. 6:16. “For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?” Christ compares Himself to the green tree and the Jews to the dry, because as a green tree is ill adapted for burning and the dry is very fit for it, so He is very little fit for—that is, is no way worthy of—punishment, but the Jews are most fit—that is, most worthy—if for no other reason, at least for this, that they delivered Christ to death, whom they ought to have received as their Saviour. What Christ here calls “the green tree,” S. Paul, by another metaphor, calls “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), that is, vessels so frail as to be broken by the slightest touch. S. Paul desires to point out those who, by adding sin to sin, are so ripe for punishment that, unless the infinite mercy of God sustained them, the earth would open and swallow them. The Prophets compare such men to stubble, and the wrath of God to the flames (Isa. 5:24; 33:11; 47:14; Abdias 1:18; Malachi 4:1). Christ argues, therefore, from the less to the greater: If God have not spared Me who am innocent, but have commanded Me to undergo such heavy punishment for others, how will He spare those who have brought Me to the cross? S. Peter uses a similar argument (1 Epist. 4:17, 18).

Verse 33. And they come to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary

The Hebrews call it גלגלה “a head,” because it is round, The Syriac and Chaldean, by the addition of one letter, גלגלתא “Golgotha”. For so it should be read. By the fault, probably of the transcriber, that letter has dropped out, and length of time has confirmed the error. Why the place was so called is not known. The ancient opinion, which has the support of many early authors, is that it was called Golgotha—that is, Calvary, or a skull—because the head of Adam, the first man, was found there; for there was a strong tradition that Adam was buried in that place. Of this opinion were Origen (Tract. xxxiii. in S. Matt.), S. Cyprian (Serm. de Resurrect.), S. Athanasius (Serm. de Passione et Cruce), who cites the authority of ancient Hebrew Doctors. S. Ambrose (Comment. on S. Luke) does the same. So also thought S. Basil (Comment. on Isaiah v.). S. Epiphanius (Hær. xlvi., and Anchoratus), S. Chrysostom (Hom. lxxxiv. on S. John), S. Augustin (Serm. lxxiv. de Temp.; De Civitat., vi. 32), and Paula and Eustochium, two learned women, in a letter to Marcella, in the works of S. Jerome. S. Jerome himself refutes this opinion, rightly perhaps, but by an argument of no great force. “Scripture,” he says, “teaches us that Adam was not buried near Mount Sion and Jerusalem, formerly called Jebus, but in Hebron.” The name Hebron, we are told by Joshua (14:15), was formerly Cariath Arbe. “The name of Hebron before was called Cariath Arbe. Adam, the greatest among the Enacims, was laid there.” The word “Adam” here is not a proper name, but an appellative, which it is not strange that S. Jerome, learned father as he was, but occupied with other subjects, did not see. Some thought, as S. Cyril of Jerusalem says in his Thirteenth Catechetical Lecture, that the mountain was called Calvary from its resemblance to a human head, but he rejects the opinion for topographical reasons: “There is no mountain,” he says, “on that spot called Calvary”. He thinks that the place was so called prophetically, because Christ, our Head, was to suffer there. The opinion of S. Jerome and Bede seems better. They say that the name Calvary was given to the place because criminals were decapitated there, and the place was full of skulls. They who were crucified there were taken away and buried, but such as were beheaded were left, as S. Jerome tells us, without burial.

Verse 34. And they gave Him wine to drink mingled with gall

S. Mark (15:23) says that they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh. The Ancients explain the apparent contradiction in different manners. S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 11) thinks that S. Mark’s “wine mingled with myrrh” was not infected by the gall, but S. Matthew says that it was mixed with gall. Gall is bitter; as we say of a thing that is bitter, “It is gall,” or “mixed with gall”. He also thinks, and Bede and Strabus follow him, that the wine, myrrh, and gall were mixed together, and that S. Matthew speaks of the gall and not of the myrrh; S. Mark of the myrrh and not of the gall. Euthymius thinks that two draughts were offered by two different persons, one mixed with myrrh, the other with gall. Some suppose that the devout women who followed Christ lamenting first gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to remove or deaden the pain, as was usually done to those who were crucified. They suppose that this draught, and the one mentioned by S. Luke (23:36) and S. John (19:29) as given to Christ on the cross when He was at the point of death, were one and the same. S. Chrysostom originated this opinion, and Euthymius adopted it; but from the different accounts of the Evangelists, it is evident that they were different draughts. S. Matthew and S. Mark imply that the wine mingled with myrrh was given before He was crucified to deaden the pain. But S. Luke and S. John say that the other draught was given, not only when He was on the cross, but when He was on the point of resigning His breath, and had undergone all the full tortures of the cross. Again, S. Matthew and S. Mark speak of wine; S. Luke and S. John of vinegar. For although the Greek here reads ὄξος, “vinegar,” and Origen, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Jerome, and still more, the Syriac, so read it, yet it is clear from S. Mark that it is a wrong reading, in whom, as he relates the same event, no one ever read anything but “wine”. It is most certain that S. Mark, speaking a little after of the drink which S. Luke and S. John state to have been given to Christ when dying, says: “And immediately one of them, running, took a sponge and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink” (verse 48), distinguishing that draught beyond question from the one spoken of here. The one speaks of wine, the other of vinegar; one as given before Christ was nailed to the cross, the other when He was hanging on it; the one was given probably in a vessel, the other in a sponge on a reed; the one when He did not ask for it, the other when He said, “I thirst”. Our version certainly here reads “wine,” not “vinegar”. So do S. Hilary, S. Ambrose (Comment. on S. Luke), S. Augustin (De Cons. Evang., iii. 11), Juvencus (Hist. Evang., iv.), Sedulius (Carm., v.), and probably S. Jerome, for he speaks, in his commentary, not of vinegar, but wine. But some unskilful hand erased the word “wine” from a corrupt copy, and substituted “vinegar,” transferring it into the text of S. Matthew found in the commentaries of S. Jerome. Certainly, S. Hilary and S. Ambrose think the former offering mentioned by S. Matthew (verse 34) and the latter in verse 48, of which S. Luke and S. John also speak, to be different. That this is so must appear to every careful student of the Gospels beyond dispute.

And when He had tasted He would not drink.

S. Mark says that He received it not. The two passages seem to be at variance, but they do not really differ. S. Matthew says that He received it—that is, He tasted it; S. Mark that He did not receive it—that is, He did not drink it, as S. Augustin explains it in the passage cited above. Why Christ would not drink the wine when He had tasted it may be a question. Possibly He tasted it that He might not appear to despise wine offered according to custom; but He would not drink it, to show that He had no need of medicaments to help Him in bearing the agonies of the cross. Thus we ourselves, if invited to drink when we do not thirst, taste wine offered to us, in acknowledgment of the courtesy, but, for temperance, we do not drink deeply. This double draught fulfilled the words of David (Ps. 68:22): “They gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”. Wine was given first to Christ mixed with gall, or with myrrh, which from its bitterness was called gall, and then vinegar. But the gall, according to the Prophet, was given to Him not to drink, but to eat. And rightly so; for as David spoke of gall only, which, if not diluted with some other fluid, has more of the nature of food than drink, he called it food, and not drink. S. Matthew, with this view, perhaps, though he knew that that wine was not mixed with real gall, but was only said to be so by metaphor (that is, it was diluted with bitter myrrh), yet said that it was mixed with gall, to show by a word in passing that the prophecy was fulfilled. It has been asked why Christ chose this kind of death. S. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. de Resurrect. Chti.) and S. Thomas, in his commentary on this passage of S. Matthew, have given reasons for this. That of S. Paul to the Philippians would have been sufficient—Christ desired to undergo the most shameful death for us, that He might thus humble Himself and show His great love for man, and afford an example of humility (Philip. 2:8; 1 Pet. 2:21).

Verse 35. And after they had crucified Him they divided His garments

S. Luke says that Christ even on the cross prayed for His murderers: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (23:34). Christ showed clearly by these words that He underwent death even for the very men who crucified Him; thus confuting the ancient heresy of the Predestinatians and their successors, the followers of Calvin, who assert that He died only for the predestinate.

Casting lots.

S. Mark (15:24) says: “They divided His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take”. S. Luke (23:34): “They, dividing His garments, cast lots”. These three Evangelists, and especially S. Mark, write as if all the clothing of Christ was distributed by lot, nor could we have understood them in any other sense, unless S. John had related it more distinctly (19:23, 24). From this it appears that not all Christ’s garments, but only the coat, was so disposed of, as has been observed by Euthymius. Some conclude from S. Luke that Christ had five coats, but it is clear from S. John that He had only one. For he says that the soldiers divided His garments, and also His coat, opposing this to the others. This Euthymius has clearly perceived. What the coat and the other garments were is not known with certainty. We may conjecture that the coat was that which came next to the under-garment, if Christ used one, and covered the whole person. There is no kind of garment more probably without a seam. By the other garments, the upper one in place of which the soldiers put on the purple robe, the shoes, and the other clothing such as even poor men wear may be understood. There was a tradition, not devoid of probability, that the seamless coat had been woven for Christ by His Mother when He was a child. This, as very ancient, is mentioned with approbation by Euthymius. The reader will question whether the garments of the robbers were also divided by the soldiers, for the Evangelists are silent on the point. It was probably the custom of the Romans, as of other nations, to leave the clothing of those who had been put to death to the executioner. The garments of the robbers, therefore, may have been distributed among the soldiers, but the Evangelists, because they were writing the history of Christ and not of the thieves, and as they knew that in the division of their clothing there was no mystery, whereas that of Christ was not only by custom, but there was mystery in it, that the words of David might be fulfilled (Ps. 21:19), made no mention of the robbers’, but only of Christ’s. Hence S. Matthew immediately adds, “that it might be fulfilled,” &c. (verse 35). Although these words are not found in some Greek copies, and Origen and Euthymius do not read them, yet our Latin version has them, as has also the Syriac; and it can easily be believed that S. Matthew wrote them, as, of all the Evangelists, he is the most careful always to point out the prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.

Verse 37. And they put over His head His cause written

That is, they affixed to the part of the cross which was over the head of Christ. It is not certain whether there was a scroll fastened to the wood of the cross, or whether it was written on the cross itself; the former is the most generally believed, and is the most probable. For (1) there would hardly have been room on the cross itself for so many words in three languages, and of a size to be read by passers-by. (2) One who was about to place such an inscription on the cross of a man crucified would naturally write it on a tablet. (3) The Empress Helena, the mother of Constantine, is said to have found such a tablet apart from the cross (Ruffinus, Hist. Eccles., i. 7). It has not been a question, though it might have been, whether the robbers also had titles. It would appear probable that they had; for it was the custom that his offence should be stated on the cross of everyone who suffered death upon it. It was under this law that Christ’s title was imposed. S. Ambrose (Orat. de obitu et vita Theodosii) and other ancient authors relate that when Helena found the crosses, that of Christ was distinguished from the rest by its title. This is very probable. It might have been identified, not as having had a title while the others had none, but as the title of Christ’s had been, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”. From these words it would be clear that it was the cross of Christ.

This is Jesus the King of the Jews.

S. Mark (15:26) only gives, “The King of the Jews”. S. Luke (23:38), “This is the King of the Jews”. S. John (19:19), “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”. All the Evangelists, therefore, seem to have given the meaning of the title, but none of them all the words of it. From the whole we may conclude the words to have been, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”. S. John says that the title was placed by the command of Pilate, whether according to custom, because it was the duty of the judge to state the offence of a condemned criminal, or that that was done by private design in the case of Christ alone which was not done to others; that as the cause of Christ was most just, and He Himself was unjustly condemned, Pilate might clear himself by this public eulogy; pretending that Christ was justly condemned for asserting that He was a king against the faith due to Cæsar. It is clear from S. John that, whatever his intention, it was overruled by divine counsel; so that even the judge himself who had condemned Christ, really proved by the very title by which he sought to show that he condemned Christ justly, that he had done so unjustly, thus bearing witness that Christ was the true King of the Jews, that is, the Messiah. For, when the Jews asked Pilate, on reading the inscription, not to put “The King of the Jews,” but “He said,” &c., Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written”. “I cannot alter it, because it was held, as it were in the divine hand, that I should be be impelled to write these words.” It cannot be doubted that Pilate, in the words, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews,” meant nothing but that which the Jews required of him: “This is Jesus of Nazareth who made Himself the King of the Jews”; but it was of Divine Providence that he used words which showed Christ to be truly such. God thus extorted the truth from the unjust judge.

Verse 38. Then were crucified with Him two thieves, one on the right hand and one on the left

S. Mark (15:28) gives one reason why Christ was crucified with the thieves, that the prophecy of Isaiah (53:12) might be fulfilled. But Pilate, who was a profane man and thought nothing of the fulfilment of prophecy, may have supposed that if he crucified Christ by Himself, he might appear to do so at the wicked entreaties of the Jews, and not from justice; but when He crucified Him with men of this class, whom no one could doubt to be justly condemned, the similarity of the deaths might go some way to prove a similarity in their crimes; it is not improbable that the Jews even solicited Pilate to crucify Christ with the thieves, that His death might be more ignominious. That Christ was placed between the two thieves may be thought the result at once of the human design of the Jews and of the divine counsel of God. Of the Jews, to show that Christ was the head and chief of wicked men, and therefore should be crucified in the midst of such, that by this kind of contumelious distinction His disgrace might be the more augmented; for the leaders of robbers, when taken with their followers, are hung in the midst of them, and in some conspicuous place. Of the counsel of God, to show that Christ laid down His life for sinners, that whoever ever would have life might receive life. The event proved the mystery, for one of the two robbers believed, the other blasphemed. He who was crucified calls all sinners to Himself. So says S. John (12:32). He draws all things to Himself, not in effect, but in will. He would have drawn both the thieves to Him if they would. He wished to draw both—seizing one, as it were, by the right hand and the other by the left. He drew one, the other He did not draw. The one suffered himself to be drawn, the other did not. Tertullian finds another mystery in this. “Christ,” he says, “is always crucified between two thieves.” He calls the Church and the doctrine Christ, as Christ Himself did when He said, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” and that, when Saul was persecuting, not Christ Himself, whom he believed to be dead, but His Church and doctrine. We see, as Tertullian says, that the Church is most frequently persecuted between two opposite heresies. The Ebionites said that Christ was God alone, and had only the appearance of man. The Church stands in the midst, and joins the two in one—true God and true man. The Sabellians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not only one nature, but one Person also. The Arians said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not only three Persons, but three natures also. The Church stands in the middle, teaching one nature, three Persons. The Nestorians said that in Christ were not only two natures, but two Persons also. The Eutychians taught that there was both one Person and one nature. The Church, in the middle, says one Person, two natures. The Manichæans of old, and the followers of Luther and Calvin in these days, deny that man has any freedom of will, and refer everything either to nature or divine grace. The Pelagians say that we have such strength of free-will that we have no need of divine grace. The Church is in the middle, and says that we have indeed free-will, on the one hand, but that, on the other, we still need the grace of God.

Verse 39. And they that passed by blasphemed Him

S. Matthew says “they that passed by,” meaning all who did so, to show that not by one or two, but by all in common, were insults heaped upon the crucified Christ.

Wagging their heads.

To move the head was a sign among the Jews sometimes of commiseration or of admiration united with pity, sometimes also of derision. In Job 16:5; 42:11, it is a sign of commiseration; that is, they wept with him that wept according to the admonition of S. Paul (Rom. 12:15; Ecclus. 12:18, 19; Jerem. 18:16). Of derision, 4 Kings 19:21; Is. 37:22; Ps. 21:8, in which this scene was foretold long before. For that whole psalm is to be understood of Christ suffering, as He Himself shows (verse 46) by repeating its commencement; and Ps. 108:25; Ecclus. 13:8; Lam. 2:15.

Verse 42. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross

It was not for the king, as such, to come down from the cross; for a king may be no stronger nor more able to work miracles than another man. The words are to be understood as in adaptation to the subject. They understand the king who would be the Messiah, and the Son of God, as Christ professed Himself to be (S. Mark 15:32; S. Luke 23:35).

Verse 43. He trusted in God. Let Him now deliver Him if He will have Him

The priests showed their blindness, bringing up Scripture against themselves; for these words, which they used to convict Christ, are taken from Ps. 21, which, as just stated, was written entirely of Christ. They are the words of the wicked who opposed not only the Divine Providence but even God Himself; and derided the holy David, who served Him because he trusted to Him in adversity. “He trusted in God,” they say; “let God deliver Him, seeing that He delighteth in Him”; that is, David loved Him, that is, God—as if they had said, “Let the God whom He loves deliver Him”. In the same sense we should understand what is here put concisely, “Let God deliver Him if He will have Him”; that is, if He love God. It is a Hebraism—חפץ velle; that is, amare, “to love”. In the Greek it is expressed more at length—ῥυσάσθω αὐτὸν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν, liberet nunc eum si vult eum; that is, si amat eum, keeping the same Hebraism; for the Greeks do not say θέλει αὐτόν. The unwise priests, whilst they endeavour to mock Christ, prove Him by their very act to be the true Christ; for they fulfil the prophecy of David which was spoken of Christ. For although those words were written by David of himself, as if spoken to him by his enemies, it cannot be but that he showed in his own person what would happen to Christ.

Verse 44. And the self-same thing

That is, the same words, or the same reproaches in other words: “If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us” (S. Luke 23:39).

The thieves also that were crucified with Him.

S. Mark describes the same thing in the same words. S. Luke says that one only of the thieves mocked Him. Many of the Ancients have therefore supposed that at first both of the thieves mocked Christ; but that afterwards one of them, seeing the portents which were taking place, patiente Christo, and His singular patience and meekness, believed in Him, and rebuked the other. Origen, S. Athanasius (Serm. cont. Hæres. Omn.), S. Hilary, S. Cyprian, Theophylact, and Euthymius (in loc.) are of this opinion. S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and Bede think it probable. S. Cyprian (Serm. de Pass. Dom.), S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. Comm., xiii.), S. Augustin (De Cons., iii. 17), S. Ambrose (Comment. on S. Luke), S. Jerome (in loc.), S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Pass.), and S. Gregory (On Job xxvii. 16) hold the opinion, which appears more probable, that only one of the thieves reviled. It is easy to see why S. Matthew and S. Mark spoke of the thieves in the plural number. They did so by syllepsis. S. Ambrose and S. Augustin bring many similar passages from Scripture. “The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together against the Lord, and against His Christ” (Ps. 2:2), though there was only one Herod who conspired against Him, as S. Peter says (Acts 4:26, 27). Again (Heb. 11:33, 34), Daniel alone stopped the mouths of lions, and (verse 37) Isaiah alone was cut asunder. Euthymius says that the Evangelists related these insults of the thieves to show us what and how many contumelies were endured by Christ, when not only the chief priests and the others who brought Him to that place, but even the thieves who were His companions in His punishment, and who should have been filled with compassion both for themselves and for Him, covered Him with reproaches. The robbers were probably Jews: (1) because one received Christ, even when hanging on the cross, as the Messiah so long expected by the Jews; and (2) because the other treated Him with all the malice and incredulity of the Jews. S. Luke (23:40) says that the other rebuked the blasphemer, saying, Neque tu times Deum, οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν Θεόν. These few words, “variously taken with each other,” admit of several explanations.

1. If joined together thus: “Nec, ‘neither,’ fearest thou God,” the nec being referred to times, “fearest,” and meaning, “Thou not only dost not love and revere God, but thou dost not even fear Him”. This opinion, which is a more modern one, seems hardly tenable, because no doubt the good and faithful thief meant to compare the other with the Jews. This comparison is contained in the word nec, “neither,” as if he had said, “Not only those who are under no punishment feel no fear of God, but even thou, who art in the same condemnation, feelest none”.

2. If the stress comes on Deum, “God,” the meaning will be, “Not only dost thou not fear man, but not even God Himself”. This also seems inadmissible, because it is not in agreement with the subject. There is no force in the faithful thief saying, “Thou fearest not men alone, but thou dost not even fear God”. It seems clear that the words are to to be taken as meaning, “Neither dost thou fear God,” although the Greek is οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεόν. Our version rightly alters the order of the words, and makes the meaning plainer. The meaning will then be that, “Not only these, who, as they are suffering no punishment, are moved by no pity for that of this man, but rather forgetful of the fear of God, heap insults upon Him, but not even dost thou, who art under the same punishment as He, and who oughtest, therefore, not to insult, but to commiserate Him, fear God, but like the rest, without fear, addest affliction to the afflicted”. This is the meaning of that 40th verse of S. Luke: “Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art under,” or “because thou art under,” “the same condemnation,” as our version renders the Greek, which is somewhat obscure. An entirely new explanation has been offered by some Moderns—ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι εἶ; that is, “Because thou art under the same condemnation,” as if the thief had said, “Though thou art at the point of death, and art undergoing the most extreme punishment, thou dost not fear God”. But the Greek does not allow this; for the Evangelist did not say, ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι, but ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τῷ κρίματι. These words mean not “that,” but “the same” condemnation. But as the expression “the same” can only be used by comparison, another difficulty arises. With what condemnation—that is, with what punishment (for it is clear that condemnation, or, as the Greek word is, κρίμα, judicium, is called punishment)—is that of the thief compared? Some think it the condemnation of the Jews, as if the meaning were, “Neither dost thou fear God more than these Jews, though thou deservest the same punishment as they for the contumelies heaped upon Christ”. This explanation seems to be strengthened by the opinion we have lately offered, that by the words “neither dost thou” the other thief was compared to the Jews. Some suppose that there is a comparison by the penitent thief of his own punishment with the punishment of the other. As if he had said: “While you are in the same suffering as I, you yet do not fear God more than the rest”. But this explanation is abs re. The comparison seems to be between the punishment of Christ and that of the thief; and thus the meaning will be taken to be: “Although you are in the same punishment as Christ, and, what is more, you are suffering justly and He unjustly, neither your fellowship in His punishment, nor His innocence moves you to pity Him”. The stress rightly falls upon the words (verse 41), “we indeed justly, but He hath done nothing amiss,” which is a correction of verse 40. As the good thief had said that the other was under the same punishment as Christ, he might have appeared to signify that Christ had therefore committed a like offence. To prevent this he classes himself by his words, “we indeed justly,” with the other, that his blame might be more moderate and gentle; and, not to appear to visit him too severely, he blamed himself in an equal degree. Nihil mali gessit—that is. οὐδὲν ἄτοπον—nothing unbecoming a good man. The good thief wished by these words to show, not merely that there was no great wickedness in Christ, but that there was not even the very slightest cause for blame. The word ἄτοπον shows this, and therefore the thief used the word “Lord” (S. Luke 23:42). These words mean, not “when Thou comest to reign,” but “when Thou comest, reigning already”; not “when Thou comest to obtain a kingdom,” but “when Thou hast obtained it”—as Christ will come to the judgment. A brief but full confession; for the thief confessed in a few words that Christ is both God and King: a King when he said, “when Thou comest to Thy kingdom,” and God when he calls Him “Lord,” and confesses Him to be such a King as to be able to forgive sins. Lastly, the words “Remember me” show that He believed in Christ’s Resurrection. For he would not have asked One who was apparently drawing His last breath to remember him when He came to His kingdom, unless he believed that He would both rise again and reign after He had risen. This confession, though most admirable in itself, yet is more so if we take the time, place, and circumstances into consideration, as S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latr.) and S. Leo (Serm. ii. de Passione) have observed. S. Leo’s words are as follows: “What exhortation urged to that confession? What teaching instilled it? What preacher kindled it? The thief had not seen Christ’s miracles before: His care of the sick, His giving sight to the blind, His raising the dead, had ceased. The events that were to be had not yet taken place, and still he confessed Him, whom he only saw as a sharer of his own punishment, to be his Lord and King.” “Remember me.” A modest request. The thief did not ask to be made a sharer of Christ’s kingdom, or to have a more honourable place in it than others, nor to sit on His right hand or on His left, as the wife of Zebedee asked for her sons (20:21). He only said, “Remember me”; as if he had said, “Do not shut me out, or take account of my sins, but for Thy mercy and loving-kindness admit me even to the lowest place. S. Augustin rightly concludes from these words that there is a purgatory. The thief saw that he would shortly die, and yet he prayed Christ to remember him—that is, to forgive his sins after his death. He believed, therefore, according to the Jewish religion, that sins would be forgiven after death. But this can only be done in purgatory. S. Luke (23:43) says that Christ answered, “Amen, I say to thee this day thou shalt be with Me in paradise”. Three difficult questions are caused by these words: (1) on “this day”; (2) on “in paradise”; (3) on “with Me”. 1. Some join the words “this day” to “say,” as if Christ had said, “Amen, I say to thee this day,” not “Thou shalt be with Me this day,” as Theophylact says. If this had been Christ’s meaning He would assuredly have said, “Amen, I say unto thee now,” and not “this day”. Others even more senselessly refer these words to a period after the Resurrection, that is, to the Day of Judgment; as if Christ had said, “This day,” that is, after the Resurrection and last judgment. This would involve the souls of the blest not being in any state of bliss before the supreme judgment. If Christ had meant this He would not have answered the prayer well; for although this would only have granted what was asked, it is clear that Christ granted far more than this. The thief had said, “Remember me”; that is, “Forgive my offences”. Christ answered, “This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise”; that is, “I will not only forgive thy sins, but I will give thee the best place—I will bring thee into paradise to be with Me”. As if He had said, “Near Me where I am”—as He said before (S. John 12:26), “Where I am there also shall My minister be”. The thief had asked to be remembered, not immediately, but when Christ should come into His kingdom. The answer of Christ was, “This day”—“I will not delay the granting of thy prayer so long as thou askest—for so many ages; I will give thee thy prayer this day”. The words “this day” correspond to the thief’s “when Thou comest”. Others have passed this over. S. Augustin alone seems to have seen it (Cont. Felician, cxv.).

3. “In paradise.” These words have been explained both by Ancients and Moderns, and in many different senses. Some, as S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. Comm., xiii), S. Greg. Nyss. (Serm. de Resur. Dom.), S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latr.), S. Augustin (Tract. cxi. on S. John), say that paradise here means heaven. If it be asked how the thief could be in heaven with Christ on that day, when He Himself would not ascend into it till after forty days, the above authors and others who hold this opinion answer that Christ, as He is God, is everywhere present, and that He was therefore in heaven on that day. But Christ evidently meant that not only the thief, but that He Himself also should be that day in paradise, where, when He spoke those words, He was not. There is a sort of tacit comparison of persons and antithesis of places in these words, as if Christ had said: “As thou art with Me in the same punishment now, so thou shalt be with Me this day in the same paradise”. Others explain paradise to be the place of Adam where was the terrestrial paradise. Among these are Theophylact and Euthymius. But these from the word “paradise” would place Christ and the thief in the country of Mesopotamia, or wherever Adam’s paradise was. But what would Christ do there after His death, or what benefit would it have been to the thief to be carried to a place which is now waste and barren and without enjoyment? Others think that no especial place was intended, but that wherever Christ is, and is seen to be God, there paradise is said to be; and because the soul of the thief was to follow Christ and see Him as God on that day, he is therefore said to be about to be with Christ in paradise. Many Moderns adopt this idea, and cite S. Augustin and Bede as its author. Let them see how truly. It seems to be an idea which, whoever was its author, cannot be maintained; for Christ spoke of paradise as a place where He then was not. On the other hand, this opinion seems open to objection; for if paradise is merely a place whence God is seen, the thief was in paradise when hanging on the cross, for he there saw God, and, as the Doctors of the Church agree, never ceased to be in bliss. Paradise, in fact, would appear to be the bosom of Abraham, the place where the holy men of old were in waiting until the way to heaven was opened to them. This place was called paradise and the place of rest; for into it as a place of enjoyment, or certainly of rest, Lazarus was carried by the angels after his death (S. Luke 16:22). As, then, Christ was about to go down thither on that same day to show Himself to the holy fathers and the spirits who were there, and to preach the Gospel to them, as S. Peter tells us (1 Ep. 3:19), that returning thence He might lead captivity captive (Ephes. 4:8), Christ promised the thief that he should go thither with Him that same day. This is the opinion of S. Justin Martyr (Quæst. 76 ad Orthod.), S. Athanasius (Ep. to Epictetus), S. Augustin (De Genes. ad Litt., xii. 34), and Prudentius (Hymn. pro Defunctis). From this it is clear how the third word, mecum, is to be understood: “Where I also shall be, whither I am about to go”. It is said by some teachers of heresy that there is no purgatory, and that no offence is remitted without also the remission of the punishment, for both were remitted to the thief, who was not sent into purgatory after his death but was admitted to paradise. These argue from the particular to the general. There was no purgatory for the thief, therefore there is none for any man; the offence of the thief was remitted and his punishment was remitted also; to none, therefore, when the fault is remitted is the punishment retained. By this reasoning there would be neither paradise nor hell. Not to speak of the other thief, an infinite number of lost souls have no paradise. Are we, therefore, to conclude that there is no paradise for anyone? Not only for this thief of whom we are speaking, but also for the Apostles and many others of the blessed, there was no hell. Is there none, therefore, for any man? It would be well if this were so; we should then be free from the numberless evils by which God punishes us. Who denies that diseases, the miseries of this life, and death itself are the penalties of original sin? But the fault of original sin is remitted, though the punishments of it are retained. Who does not know that the offence of David’s adultery was forgiven, though some portion of the punishment was inflicted upon him (2 Kings 12:13, 14)? The words of S. John (19:25, 26, 27) apply here: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus, therefore, had seen His Mother and the disciples standing whom He loved, He said to His Mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son’.” Christ called His Mother woman and not mother to show that she was widowed and alone; but when He said, “Behold thy son,” He did not commend that disciple to her, but He commended her to the disciple, as if to say, “I do not leave thee wholly deserted. That disciple shall fulfil My offices to thee; he shall console thee, protect thee, support thee”. Then He said to the disciple, “Behold thy mother”. These words are to be understood in a contrary sense, because of the difference of the persons; for Christ does not now commend the disciple to the mother, but the mother to the disciple, as if to say, “Henceforth thou shalt have her as thy mother; thou shalt cherish (colo) her, comfort her, protect her, support her (ales).

Verse 45. Now from the sixth hour

We have now to meet the difficult question of the hour at which Christ was crucified. S. Mark (15:25) says that it was the third hour. Hence it has been concluded that, as there was darkness for three hours, Christ hung on the cross during that time, for the words of S. Mark are not contrary to those of S. Matthew. For although S. Matthew does not state directly at what hour Christ was crucified, yet when he says that the darkness happened at the sixth hour (after the distribution of His clothes, the blasphemies of the Jews as He was hanging on the cross, and the conversation of Christ and the thief), he shows that Christ was crucified before the sixth hour. But S. John appears to be at variance with S. Mark; for S. John says (19:14), “And it was the parasceue of the Pasch, about the sixth hour”. Christ, therefore, could not have been crucified at the third hour, as S. Mark says; nor even at the sixth, when S. Matthew speaks of the darkness while He was on the cross; for there were so many things done in the interval between His condemnation and crucifixion. He was brought by the soldiers into the hall. He was scourged, crowned with the thorns, clothed in the purple robe, mocked, and, lastly, led slowly to Calvary, as a man so greatly wearied and carrying his cross would necessarily be. All these things could not have been done in the space of one hour only. S. Augustin has solved the difficulty in two ways (Tract. on S. John cxvi, and De Consens., iii. 13).

1. At the third hour, as S. Mark says (15:25), Christ was crucified, not by the hands of the soldiers, but by the tongues of the Jews; for it was at that hour that they cried out to Pilate, “Crucify Him! crucify Him!” But this explanation does not appear to agree with the words of the Evangelists. For it is clear that S. Mark does not speak of that metaphorical crucifixion of tongues, but of the actual crucifixion; for he speaks at once (15:24, 25) of His being crucified and of the division of His garments. Again, he had said just before (verses 13, 14) that the Jews cried out to Pilate, “Crucify Him!” Why should it have occurred to him to say a second time that Christ was crucified by the tongues of the Jews? Lastly, it is clear from S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke that Christ was crucified before the sixth hour, for they all three say, Eo jam crucifixo, “When He was now crucified the darkness came”. He could not have been crucified, therefore, at the sixth hour, and much less condemned by Pilate. Hence if one or other Evangelist requires to be explained—S. Mark or S. John—it must be S. John rather than S. Mark, for his opinion seems to be less in harmony with that of the others.

2. The second opinion of S. Augustin is that Christ was condemned at the sixth hour of the night, and not of the day, and that He was crucified at the third hour, not of the night, but of the day, as S. Mark says. S. John does not say absolutely that it was the sixth hour, but that it was about (quasi) the sixth hour of the Parasceue. The Parasceue was not only the day, but also the night; or, as S. Augustin thinks, the night rather than the day. But S. Augustin himself thinks this idea less tenable than the other, and can be more easily refuted. We have said before, and it is certain from S. Luke 22:66, that the day had certainly dawned before Christ was brought to Pilate. But even if He had been condemned as soon as He was accused, He could not have been condemned at the sixth hour; and, besides, many things had happened before His condemnation, but after He was brought to Pilate. Pilate made many efforts to set Him free. He examined Him carefully as to whether He were the King of the Jews. He sent Him to Herod. Herod sent Him back. He scourged Him when sent back. Some have conjectured that the word “third” in S. Mark 15:25 has got into the text from a mistake of the transcriber, and that for the third hour we should read the sixth. This may easily have happened from the resemblance of the Greek letters ϛ and γ, which represent three and six. But there is no evidence in support of this opinion, and we should not alter the text merely to meet a difficulty. And even if this conjecture were true, the passage would not be explained; for, supposing S. Mark to have said that Christ was crucified at the sixth hour, how could He have been crucified then, as S. John says that He was condemned at that hour, and between His condemnation and crucifixion there must have been at least an hour? How do S. Matthew, S. Luke, and even S. Mark himself, say that the darkness was at the sixth hour, when Christ had been crucified much before? Again, S. Mark (verse 33) says, “When the sixth hour was come” (γενομένης δὲ ὥρας ἕκτης), when he had said before that Christ was crucified at the third hour, thus opposing the sixth hour to the third when Christ was crucified. For the word γενομένης (factæ, “come”) has the force here of meaning that it had not come before, and the particle δέ, “but,” is a disjunctive one, by which S. Mark opposes that hour to the one in which he had said that Christ was crucified. If any passage has to be corrected, it should rather be, as some still think, that of S. John, that for the sixth we may read the third hour. But this, again, is not to correct, but to deprave Scripture, and the same question will remain: How could Christ have been condemned at the third hour, when S. Mark says that He was crucified then, and at least one hour must have elapsed before His condemnation and crucifixion? The question is easy, and it would have been already answered by N. de Lyra if many, from over much curiosity and subtlety, had not made it difficult. It has been observed on chap. 20. that the Hebrews divided the day into twelve hours, called by astronomers usuales and inæquales. These twelve hours they subdivided again into four parts, as they did with the night also, only that each division of the latter had its own military name of watch—φυλακαί, each soldier keeping guard for three hours. The four divisions of the day, each consisting of three hours, having no proper name of their own, received one from the end of the preceding division. The entire space of three hours, therefore, which intervened between sunrise and the third hour of the day was called the third hour, from the third hour, which was the last of that interval if described strictly and accurately. It was the custom of the Jews, as it is ours, to call the hours that follow by those that have last passed. Thus when the clock has struck twelve we call it noon till one o’clock; or at least until twelve is nearly over, though it is not properly noon, but one o’clock, or the first hour after noon; for the hour of noon is that which begins at eleven and ends at twelve. When we speak of the time, therefore, between eleven and twelve, we sometimes call it eleven and sometimes twelve, at one time naming it from the beginning, and at another from the end of the hour. S. Mark and S. John speak in the same manner. For as Christ was condemned and crucified in the interval between the end of the third hour, which is the beginning of the sixth, and the end of the sixth, which is the beginning of the ninth, S. John, dating from the end of the third hour, calls it the sixth hour: S. Mark, dating from the beginning of that period, calls it the third hour; but because it is not likely that S. John would have called it the sixth hour until the time was getting on towards the end of the sixth hour, as we should not call it one o’clock until it was at least half-past twelve, it is to be supposed that Christ was condemned after half-past ten if we reckon by our own time; for their third hour answered to our nine o’clock, their sixth to our twelve, and their third hour and half was our half-past ten. At that time, therefore, Christ was condemned, and S. John says that He was condemned about the sixth hour. He was crucified about an hour later, that is, about half-past eleven, which S. Mark calls the third hour, because the whole time between the third and sixth hours was called the third hour. Christ had, therefore, been crucified one and a half hour when the darkness came on. His garments were then divided by the soldiers, the revilings of the Jews took place, and paradise was promised to the thief. From this it follows that they are in error who think that Christ hung on the cross alive for six hours; that is, from nine o’clock in the morning till the third hour after noon; that is, three o’clock. By this account of time He could not have hung on the cross alive more than four hours; for He was crucified after eleven o’clock, and at the ninth hour, that is, the third after noon, or shortly after, He expired; as S. Matthew relates in verses 46 to 50. Origen and Theophylact say that Christ was crucified at the same hour as that in which Adam fell, which was about noon; others, that, at the hour of the expulsion of Adam from paradise, Christ opened the gates of it again. S. Luke (23:44) says that it was almost the sixth hour; not that it was not the sixth hour, but either he was not quite sure whether or not the sixth hour was completed, or he would not affirm that it was, he added the word “almost,” as we do when we state the time, but it is of no consequence to be exact. Both S. Matthew, in this place, and S. Mark (15:33) say: “When the sixth hour was come there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour”. The three Evangelists say that it was the sixth hour—that is, midday—that the miracle might appear more wonderful; for when the sun was at its height the darkness came, as Amos had foretold (8:9): “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the sun shall go down at midday, and I will make the earth dark in the day of light”. They seemed opposite events, and therefore more wonderful, that the sun should be in the meridian and go down. The Evangelists probably named the sixth hour that no one might endeavour to obscure a miracle, so notable and clearer than the day, by saying that it was not true darkness, but that it was either morning or evening, and that the interposition of an unusually dense cloud made it appear that there was darkness when there was not really such.

There was darkness.

It may not have been a darkness as thick and dense as that of midnight, when there is neither sun nor moon, but such as that of a total eclipse of the sun; for neither the Mother of Christ nor S. John left the place, nor the soldiers nor the other spectators, whom no love of Christ detained at the cross as it did the disciple and the Mother. For it would have been wonderful if during those three full hours the darkness had been as dense as night and they had not gone away. The Evangelists do not explain how the darkness was caused, and therefore we cannot know to any certainty. But we may conceive what is most likely. Some enemies of Christ, to magnify the miracle forsooth, have said that it was a simple eclipse, as Origen and S. Jerome inform us when treating of the passage. But they easily answer the objection and expose their ignorance. It was the season of Pasch, which always falls on the fifteenth day of the first month, when the moon is at the full; whereas an eclipse of the sun, which is caused by the irregularity of the natural course of the stars, can only happen when the moon is new, for then it is in conjunction with the sun and the earth, and intercepts the light of the sun. Others think that it was an eclipse, but a supernatural one. For when the moon was distant from the sun half the breadth of the heavens, as is the case when it is full, at the commandment of God it went back and returned to the place of the sun and darkened it, as happened at the prayer of King Ezechia, when the sun went back ten degrees. Origen and Dionysius the Areopagite were the authors of this opinion. The latter, when he was in Egypt with his attendant Apollophanes, has recorded, in his letter to S. Polycarp, that he saw that eclipse which was caused in contradiction to the laws of nature. This opinion is held by almost all Catholics and is very probable, ipse per se, without the weight of authority. The only point against it, as will be shown by and by, is the fact that the darkness was only seen in Judæa, and, therefore, that it could not have been visible in Egypt, a country so far distant. This objection shall, shortly, be answered. Others think that the sun was darkened by the subtraction of its rays; as if it were astounded, as S. Jerome says, witnessing so shameful a deed. Others, again, hold that dense clouds were interspersed, as in the miraculous darkness in Egypt (Exod. 10:22, 23). Origen appears to have been of this opinion, and S. Chrysostom, in his Hom. lxxxix. on S. Matt. So also were Theophylact and Euthymius. It would not be foreign to our object to enquire why this darkness was sent? Some think—e.g., S. Leo (Serm. x. de Pass. Dom.)—that it was to signify the blindness of the Jews; others, as S. Jerome, that it was to show the detestation felt by God for wickedness so flagrant. Others say that it was sent to show that Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, had set (Amos 8:9; S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Comm., xiii). Others, still, that it was to declare the divine wrath. This opinion seems the more reasonable, because it is in agreement with other passages of Scripture (so Jer. 15:9; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:10, 30, 31; 3:14, 15). It might be thought that these and the other miracles which took place at the death of Christ were performed to bear testimony to His Divinity. For, as before said, God so willed His Son to be condemned, so willed Him to die, that in that very condemnation, in the ignominy of the cross, in His very death itself, not only His innocence, but also His Divinity, should especially shine forth: lest, if He had died without miracles, He might have been thought a mere man; and the rather because He closed His life hanging on the cross, and He did not come down from it when the Jews cried out to Him, “If Thou be the Son of God,” &c. By the most wise counsel of God, therefore, so many and great miracles were opposed to the cross, that our faith, which might have been weakened by the ignominy of the cross, might be strengthened by the multitude and greatness of them. Another question on the subject is: How far the darkness extended? S. Matthew says, “Over the whole earth”; and SS. Mark and Luke say the same in other words. Thus many good authorities, such as S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, think that the darkness extended over the whole world. In confirmation of this idea, we may cite the letter of Dionysius to Polycarp, stating that he saw it in Egypt. The opinion of Origen, however, seems more tenable, that it only extended over Judæa, and that it was sent for the Jews only, and to those places in which Christ had preached the Gospel, that so His Divinity and doctrine might be confirmed. It is also very unlikely that none of all the many Greek and Latin historians should have recorded an event so remarkable, if it had extended and had been known throughout the entire world. Again, it was not possible that there should have been darkness over the whole earth at that sixth hour, when in the central parts of the earth it was night; and in many others where it was day, it could not be the sixth hour, that is, noon. For this happens in different countries at different times; and it is evident that the Evangelists not only wished to relate the miracle, but that it happened at the sixth hour, that is, noon, when the miracle would be greater. In those countries, then, where it was not noon at that time, that miracle was not wrought. But, then, how do the three Evangelists say that the darkness was over the whole earth? Origen answers rightly, that the word “whole” is to be applied to, and understood of, the place in question in which the event happened. The event happened in Judæa: the darkness therefore happened throughout the whole of Judæa. So in 3 Kings 18:10. When Abdias found the prophet, he had certainly not been into all kingdoms, but into all the parts of his own kingdom. So again S. Luke 2:1. The whole world was not literally enrolled, for Cæsar was not master of this, but all those parts of it within which the Roman Empire was contained. But how was it that S. Dionysius saw the darkness in Egypt? for neither his authority nor the authenticity of his letter is to be given up. The darkness was probably caused by the total opposition of the moon; and therefore in Judæa, where the eclipse was full, the darkness was great; but in other places, where the moon did not conceal the whole sun, it was less, as each country was more or less distant from Jerusalem. Dionysius, therefore, in Egypt could see the eclipse, but not the great darkness that was in Judæa, although he says that he saw the great darkness—great, that is, probably as compared with other darkness: such as that which happens at the eclipse of the sun. But, then, why has no Greek or Latin historian mentioned the event? One has done so, for Origen mentions Phlegontes, the author of Egyptian Chronicles, who described it.

Verse 46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice

This ninth hour answers, as has been said, to our three in the afternoon. S. Mark says: Exclamavit voce magna. He increases the force of the cry by the addition of ex to the verb, and by the words magna voce, by epitasis. So S. Paul (Heb. 5:7). That Christ, when at the point of death, could cry with a loud voice surpasses human nature. For the voice of the dying, or even of those in dread of death, is apt to fail at the outset. Christ, although He was dying as man, yet, as God, was able to cry with a loud voice, supra hominem. His having thus cried out cannot be thought void of a reason and mystery. Origen thinks that it was to show that there was a great mystery in His death. This would not have been without probability had he not turned the whole into an allegory. He supposes the voice to have been great, not because it was loud and strong, but because it was full of teaching and mystery. For every voice of Christ is great. Euthymius thinks that Christ cried with a loud voice to show that He truly suffered of His own free-will. But this would rather tend to prove that He did not suffer at all, as He was able to cry out with so powerful a voice. It may rather be thought that His reason was that all who were present might recognise the words of Psalm 21, and see that He was the Christ of whom it was written: Eli, Eli, lama Sabacthani. S. Mark (15:34), by a slight alteration, reads Eloi, but it is the same Hebrew word. They expressed Deus meus by both Eli and Eloi. It is easy to understand that Christ might have used either expression; but as He was reciting the Psalm, we must suppose that He did not say Eloi, but Eli, as written therein. The bystanders, too, thought that He called for Elias, which they would not so readily have done had He said Eloi, instead of Eli, Eli, lama Sabacthani, למה שבקתני. This is Syriac, which language was then used by the Jews. The Hebrew is עזבתני. They are the words of David in his complaint against God of being deserted by Him in adversity. The words that follow are רחיק מישועתי דברי שאגתי longe a salute mea verba rugitus mei; that is, “my complaints before Thee are far from bringing me any salvation and deliverance”. From the similarity of the Hebrew word the LXX. have rendered rugitus παραπτωμάτων, delictorum, that is, “I cry to Thee for safety, but my sins cry to Thee against it, so that I am far from it”. But as the whole psalm was written of Christ, as we see from verses 17, 19, which can apply to no other, it cannot be doubted, that when David uttered these words, he had regard to Christ. Christ, then, when dying uttered the beginning of the psalm to show that He was the Christ of whom the psalm speaks. But here arises another question. How could Christ say that He was forsaken by God? Calvin is not to be listened to who says that He suffered all the pains of the condemned, among which was utter despair. Christ’s own words disprove this: “Into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (Ps. 30:6). Nor was it either necessary or possible that He should suffer all the punishments of the lost, or He must have blasphemed God, and done other things which these do, and which, although committed of their free-will, are punishments of sin. Nor, again, was He required to undergo the heavy punishments which many of His martyrs have endured for Him. For it was not the greatness of His punishment, which, however great it was, could not compare with the multitude and greatness of our sins, but the condition of His Person which satisfied God; for whatever it was that God suffered, it was so great that it satisfied even an angry God. The ancient Fathers, although they explain the words in different manners, yet all claim His own glory for Christ. Their most general explanation is that He spoke them not in His own Person, but in ours—that is in the person of all sinners. For when the Arians brought this passage forward in depreciation of the Divinity of Christ, and said that He was so far from being God, that He cried out that He was forsaken by God—all Catholic Fathers answered that He cried out not for Himself, but for us whom He saw to be deserted by God, and alienated from Him, and whom He desired to restore to His favour. So say S. Athanasius (Orat. i, ii, and Serm. iii, iv, cont. Arian., and Quod Dens de Deo); S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. iv. de Theolog.); S. Cyril Alexandria (De Fid. ad Reg.); S. Augustin (Ps. xxi); S. Leo (Serm. xvi. de Pass.); S. John Damascene (De Fide, iii. 2, 24), and Euthymius (in loc.). “Hence it is,” says S. Leo, “that our Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, transforming all the members of His Body into Himself, what He had formerly ejaculated in the psalm, that He repeated on the cross in the voice of their Redeemer: ‘My God, My God, look upon me, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ ” He confirms this opinion by the words of S. Augustin which immediately follow, “Far from Thy salvation are the words of my sins,” which can apply to us, but cannot to Christ. Others think that Christ called Himself forsaken by the Father, because when He was in the form of God, by the decree of the Father He “emptied Himself and assumed the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, when He had undergone so many and great punishments, He, as it were, repented that He had been made man”. This is the opinion of Origen, and one not apparently very tenable. The opinion of those who say that Christ spoke those words as man, for Himself, as He had said to the Father, “Father, if it be possible,” &c, seems better. For as He was both God and man, so, as we have said before, God permitted the manhood so to suffer (restraining, as it were, the Godhead) as if He had been a mere man. Thus, although He was God, He prayed as a mere man. Like a mere man He complained that He was deserted by God. Not that He thought Himself so, for He soon after commended His spirit into His hands, but that He felt Himself suffering as if He had been. Hence He cried out like a man deserted by God, “My God, My God,” to express the person of a man suffering the most extreme punishment and deserted by God. This is the opinion of Tertullian (Adv. Prax.), S. Hilary (Can. xxxiii. on S. Matt.), S. Epiphanius (Her. lxix.), S. Cyril (Thesaurus, x. 2), S. Ambrose (Comment. x. on S. Luke, and De Fide, i. 6), S. Jerome (in loc.). But S. Hilary and S. Ambrose are to be received with caution; for they explain it as if when Christ died His Godhead was separated from His soul and body. “The man,” they say, “when on the point of death, cried out from the separation of the Divinity.” They doubtless meant, not that His Godhead was truly separated from the body and soul of Christ, but that He so suffered and so died as if it had been.

Verse 47. And some that stood there and heard, said, This man calleth Elias

It is uncertain who these were. Theophylact supposes them to have been Jews; not the Priests, or Scribes, or Pharisees, or others who understood, or professed to understand, the Scriptures, but the ordinary unlearned people, who had no knowledge of them, and therefore thought that Christ had called for Elias. Others say that they were learned Jews, or Priests, or Scribes, or Pharisees, who not from ignorance of Scripture, but from forwardness, and from making the resemblance of Eli to Elias a pretext for ridicule, said, “He calleth for Elias”. This opinion finds favour with S. Jerome and Bede. Others, again, think that they were the Roman soldiers, who from ignorance of Hebrew, as S. Jerome, Bede, Strabo, and Euthymius suppose, or from the license of mirth, said, “He calleth for Elias”. For their intention we cannot speak, but it may be safely affirmed that they were soldiers, because S. Matthew and S. Mark say that they who said, “He calleth for Elias,” or one of them, immediately offered Christ the vinegar. S. Luke (23:36) and S. John (19:29) say that they who did this were Roman soldiers.

Verse 48. And immediately one of them running took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar

S. Matthew (here) and S. Mark (15:36) seem to say that it was one of the soldiers who ran and offered the vinegar, because Christ was thought to have called for Elias. This seems scarcely in harmony with the history, for what had Elias to do with vinegar? S. John explains it more fully: “Afterwards Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished,” that is, that He had now suffered all things that the Father had determined, and that nothing remained but that He should give up His life, “that the Scripture”—that is, that the prophecy of David—“might be fulfilled” (Ps. 68:22), “said, ‘I thirst’ ”. By these words He declared His thirst, of which David had spoken, and He showed that the time was now come when the vinegar should be offered to Him. It may appear strange that there should have been vinegar at that place, and at hand to be given to Christ. S. John says that it was there. It was no doubt placed there according to custom, for vinegar was given to men crucified or about to be fixed on the cross. The reason of this has caused some speculation among commentators. Theophylact, whom all the more recent authors follow, says that it was given that the criminal might die and be released from his sufferings the quicker. It may rather be thought that it was given to sustain the spirits, if any man, from fear of death, before being nailed to the cross, were seized with faintness. It is still used for that purpose in cases of execution or phlebotomy. But as Christ was hanging on the cross, and the vinegar could not be given out of a vessel, a sponge was wetted with it, and offered Him on a reed. S. John speaks of hyssop. Some have thought that it was a stalk of hyssop, as Euthymius (On S. John xix.) says, “because although hyssop is a mere shrub with us, in Judæa it grows to the size of a small tree.” But this hardly seems probable, for neither Pliny nor Dioscorides, nor any other botanical writer, has mentioned this, and the author of the Books of Kings says the contrary. He tells us that Solomon treated of trees, from the cedar that is in Libanus unto the hyssop that comes out of the wall (3 Kings 4:33). The opinion of Theophylact is preferable that S. John called the reed hyssop, from some resemblance to the uppermost leaves of the herb, but the question is where is the resemblance to be found? Some say that the sponge was bound round the reed by hyssop, hyssopo being not the dative but the ablative of the instrument. S. John may not have meant that the sponge was placed about the hyssop as about a reed, on which the vinegar might be offered, but as a medicament which was given to the dying with vinegar. So the soldiers first bound the hyssop round the reed, and then placed the sponge about the hyssop, as S. John says, that Christ might thus take the juice of the hyssop with the vinegar.

Verse 49. And the others said

S. Mark (15:36) says that the words that follow were spoken, not by the others, but by the man who ran to give the vinegar. It has been thought that the passage is corrupt, and that it should not be read λέγων ἄφετε, but οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἔλεγον; but the rest said, “Let be,” sinete, as S. Matthew reads. These maintain that the words οἱ δὲ λοιποί have fallen out of the text of S. Mark, and that for ἔλεγον has been substituted λέγων, and ἄφετε for ἄφες. They support their opinion by the Syriac and some Greek copies of S. Mark which read as above; and because S. Mark relates the Passion of Christ, not only generally as S. Matthew does, but he almost always uses the same words. We should not venture, however, to alter Scripture without stronger proofs than this. The proverb, Ne moveas lineam, “Move not the line,” ought to be kept to. Certainly S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 17) read the passage of S. Mark as we do, though he does not attempt to solve the difficulty. The correction does not appear in any way necessary to the reconcilement of the Evangelists; for the words of S. Matthew, “The others said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver Him,” are apparently to be referred not to verse 48 but 47. For the Evangelist does not oppose the others to him who ran and filled the sponge with vinegar, but to those who said, “This man calleth Elias,” as if he had said, “Some said, ‘This man calleth Elias,’ but others said, ‘Let be, let us see,’ ” &c. He who ran, as S. Mark says, and filled the sponge may have been one of these. If it be objected that they do not say sinite but sine, the answer is that it is a Hebraism, by which, even when more than one was spoken of, they used the singular, saying חרף sine. S. Mark, however, who says that one especially, as speaking with the others, uttered those words, does not say that he used the expression sine but sinete. What is this to the vinegar? It seems to confirm the idea that the speakers addressed not him who offered the vinegar, but all in common. As they saw that Christ was dying, and thought, or pretended to think, that He called upon Elias, they wished to recruit His strength by the vinegar, and to see whether He would die before Elias came to deliver Him. One of those, therefore, who said, “Let be,” ran for the vinegar. The reason of their pretending to think that Elias would come, may have been that it was a common opinion among the Jews, and a true one, that, before the coming of Christ, Elias would appear (vid. 11:14; 17:10, 11); and although these were Roman soldiers, from having lived among the Jews, they had some knowledge of their belief on the subject, and spoke from it.

Verse 50. And Jesus again crying with a loud voice

Christ had so cried before (verse 46). Hence the force of the word “again”. So S. Mark 15:37. The carefulness of the Evangelists in relating this shows that there was some mystery in it which may be worth enquiring into. The Ancients give many and probable explanations of it. Origen (Tract. xxxv. in Matt.) says that it was that Christ might show that He died not in fear, but in confidence and with security, as one who knew that after death He would be placed at the right hand of the Father, and receive a name that is above every name. S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., xiii.), S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix.), S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact (in loc.) think that it was to show that He died, not from any necessity of nature, but from His own will, dying with so loud a cry. Euthymius says that even with His last breath, as He had done through His whole life, He professed that He and the Father were One, commending His spirit to Him. Some say that He cried with the loud voice that all might understand how far He had humbled Himself for the sins of men. S. Ambrose, in his Commentary on S. Luke xxiii., is the author of this idea. Christ appears to have desired, as we have said before, by this, as by His other miracles, to show His Divinity, that He who could supernaturally cry with a loud voice at the last moment of life might be believed in as more than man. The event that followed confirms this opinion. For S. Mark says (15:39) that the centurion said, “Indeed, this man was the Son of God”. We know from S. Luke alone what Christ said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”. Christ evidently calls His soul His spirit. He commended His soul, therefore, to His Father, not in the sense in which holy men do when they die, nor even in that of S. Stephen (Acts 7:58), “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. For men commend their souls to God, that He may not destroy them, but make them partakers of everlasting life. Christ did not so, for He knew that He could not be lost, and He had no sin for the forgiveness of which He must pray to the Father; but He commended His soul to Him that He might not leave it in hell, whither He was about to descend, nor suffer His holy one to see corruption, as David said of Christ (Ps. 15:10). In a word, as He was to remain dead three days, which He would pass in hell, He deposits His soul, which He would receive again, in the hands of His Father, or, as He says Himself, commends it to Him. So one who was going a three days’ journey would give into the keeping of his most trusted friend whatever he especially valued, saying, “I commend this to thy care”. So Tertullian (Cont. Prax.) and S. Ambrose (On S. Luke xxiii.) explain these words of Christ. Christ took them from Psalm 30:6, and applied to Himself, with a change of meaning, what David had said of himself. David commended to God, not his soul, but his life, which he meant by the word “spirit” (Ps. 30:6); but Christ calls His soul His spirit. The prayer of David, too, is conditional, as if he had said, “As often as,” or, “If I commend my life into Thy hands, although I be in extreme peril of death, Thou hast redeemed me”; that is, “Thou wilt redeem me,” and as Thou hast promised to be present with me, so wilt Thou do; but Christ’s prayer was not conditional, but absolute.

Yielded up the ghost.

This expression also shows that the death of Christ was not compulsory, but voluntary; as S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and Bede have observed. S. Ambrose says, “He gave up His spirit, and He gave it up well, for He did not lose it against His will”. In fine, S. Matthew says that He yielded up His spirit (emisit). But what is yielded up (emittitur) is given voluntarily; what is lost (amittitur) is involuntary. So says S. John (19:30): “Bowing His head, He gave up the ghost”. His meaning is that Christ bowed His head, not of necessity, but of His own free-will, as being about to lay down His life gently. We must not suppose, however, that Christ gave up His spirit in that great cry, for, as S. Matthew and S. Mark say, He first cried out, and then, in the words of S. John, “bowing His head, He gave up the ghost”. There is no ambiguity here in S. Matthew’s using the aorist tense κράξας—κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα, cum clamasset voce magna emisit spiritum. S. Mark speaks much more hesitatingly: ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην, emittens vocem magnam. We must explain this by S. Matthew: “yielded up,” emittens; that is, cum emisisset, “when He had sent forth”. Euthymius thinks that Christ commended His Mother to S. John between that great cry and His giving up His spirit. The contrary appears to be the fact from S. John, who says that He had done this a long time before. For he says that Christ, before He bowed His head and died, cried out, “It is finished”. The followers of Luther and Calvin strangely pervert the meaning of this word, as if it had been the intention of Christ to take away the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and all our satisfaction, and meant to say that all sacrifices are now ended, and none are to be offered henceforth; for all satisfaction and all our sanctification were now perfected. But Christ did not speak of the satisfaction of sacrifice, but of His own Passion. He meant that this was completed; that is, that all that He had to suffer was completed, and nothing remained to be done but to lay down His life, which He had only taken that He might die, and had only kept to that end. For these words are to be explained according to the harmony of time, place, and the subject matter. It was the season of the Passion. Christ was hanging on the cross. He had endured all the punishment He had to endure for us. He said, “It is finished”; that is, there is nothing now remaining for Me to suffer. As if his friend should say to a patient who had to undergo amputation of his limbs, when the operation was over: “It is done; you have borne all; there is nothing more”. In short, Christ only meant what S. Paul says (Rom. 6:9). Granting for a moment that Christ spoke of the sacrifices and figures of the Old Law, as certainly many even of the Ancients understood it; as if He had said, “It is finished,” that is, all the prophecies and figures of the Old Law are fulfilled which (as we shall show on verse 47) was signified by the rending of the veil: yet what has this to do with the taking away of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist? what to the taking away of the satisfaction of good works? The Ancients who received the above explanation believed both these doctrines. But the Moderns explain the words in question to mean that: “There is nothing now to be done either by us or by them to insure our salvation”. If so, why do we believe? why are we baptised? why do we take the Eucharist? why are good works required of us even after the death of Christ, if we are absolutely saved only by those three words, “It is finished”? There is another meaning latent in these words. Christ showed that He was willing to die then, and not before, and not after; for He died not by any law of nature, but by His own will and for the sake of His office, and as He meant to satisfy the Father’s will and decree; and as He had not satisfied these before, He would not die before; but when He had satisfied them, even though nature required Him to live some time longer, yet, lest He might appear to live even a few hours to no purpose after He had discharged His office, He willed to die. This is the meaning of “It is finished”; as if He had said, “The time is come for Me to lay down My life”. And thus Pilate, not understanding the mystery, wondered that He was dead already (S. Mark 15:44). Their opinion cannot be assented to who say that Christ, because He had endured greater sufferings throughout the night than the thieves, therefore died sooner than they. To increase the sufferings of Christ they diminished the mystery.

Verse 51. And behold

S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 19) rightly concludes that the word “behold” means that immediately upon Christ having given up His spirit the veil of the Temple was rent; so that His death is proved to have been the cause of the rending of the veil, and, therefore, that when S. Luke (23:45) unites this with the darkness which happened while Christ was still alive, he does so by anticipation.

The veil of the Temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom.

S. Mark (15:39) writes to the same effect. It is a mystery the meaning of which has been differently explained by different authorities.

1. The greater number say that it was that the ancient sacraments and types, which scarcely the most learned of the Doctors of the Law understood, were rent and laid open that all might penetrate into the very Sanctum Sanctorum, which had been separated by the veil—that is, into the very penetralia and most secret and occult mysteries of the Old Law; for what appertained to the Hebrews in figure we, by the taking away of the veil, look upon, as S. Paul says, with open face (2 Cor. 3:18). Origen (Tract. xxxvi. on S. Matt.), S. Ambrose (x., On S. Luke), S. Jerome (in loc.), S. Cyril Alexandria (x. 37, On S. John), Theodoret (Orat. ix. on Dan), S. Augustin (On Ps. lxiv, lxx.; Cont. Faust., xii. 11; and Serm. iv. de Verb. Dom. sec. Joan), S. Leo (Serm. x. de Pass.), Sedulius, and others are the authorities for this opinion.

2. Others think that the words signified the abrogation of the Synagogue. So S. Augustin (De Temp., cxiv.).

3. Others that the Passion of Christ was ended. For the flesh of Christ was signified by the veil of the Temple. And by the rending of the veil was meant either the piercing of His body, or the separation from it of His soul. So S. Cyril Jerusalem (Cat. xiii.); Theodoret (Dial. i. de Impatib.).

4. Others say that the veil was as the clothing of the Temple; and as the Jews, when in affliction, used to rend their clothes, so the Temple, like one mourning, rent its veil on the death of Christ. Sedulius thus expresses it (Carm. v.):

5. Others take it as foreshowing the division and dis persion of the Jews (S. Hilary, Can. xxxiii. on S. Matt.).

6. Others that the Temple, which had been holy hitherto, would henceforth be profaned. This is said by Theophylact.

7. Others that the way of the Holies was laid open; as S. Paul says (Heb. 9:8). That is, the gate of heaven was opened to us, which before the death of Christ was closed and henceforth all who would might enter it. For the veil of the Temple was opposed, that no one but the high priest might enter into the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year, and not without blood: which was also a figure of heaven (Heb. 9:24, 25). This interpretation with the above—No. 1—as having the most authorities, seems the best.

And the earth quaked and the rocks were rent.

That there was some mystery here cannot be doubted, though not the same as in the rending of the veil. It is probable that Christ showed His Divinity by these two events. The divine presence and majesty is shown by the earthquake and the rending of the rocks, as in Ps. 67:8, 9; 97:7–9; 98:1; 113:6, 7; Joel 2:10. The divine wrath that was hanging over the Jews may also have been signified (Joel 3:16; Aggeus 2:22, 23; Ps. 45:7). A question may be raised as to the extent of the earthquake, like that of the darkness. Origen thinks that, like the darkness, it extended only over Judæa. The author of the book on the miracles of Scripture, falsely ascribed to S. Augustin, says (2:3) that it extended farther, and overthrew eleven cities in Thrace. It does not seem probable, however, that eleven cities should have been destroyed in a country where the people were innocent, and none in, Judæa, the seat of the crime.

Verse 52. And the graves were opened

It does not appear clearly from the Evangelists at what time the graves were opened. S. Chrysostom (in loc.). thinks that it was while Christ was yet living, because they who rose accompanied Christ to hell. This does not seem to agree with the words of the Evangelist, who, although he does not say that the tombs were opened immediately after Christ’s death, yet clearly implies that such was the fact. Theophylact, more in accordance with the history, thinks that it took place then, when also the veil was rent, the earth quaked, and the rocks were divided. But there is this difficulty. As the tombs were opened only that the dead might rise, or to testify that they had risen, and those dead rose only by their resurrection to bear witness to the Resurrection of Christ, it would appear useless that they should have risen before Christ did so. For what could they have done in the meantime? Again, it seems most probable that Christ visited those who rose while they were yet in Hades, as He did the other dead who were there, and took them with Him thence, that they might rise with Him when He rose. Lastly, in verse 53, S. Matthew says: “And coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, came into the holy city and appeared to many”. The words seem to imply that they rose only after Christ’s Resurrection. From these premisses Origen, S. Jerome, and Bede conclude that they rose after the Resurrection of Christ; although the two last think that the tombs were opened immediately after His death, though the dead did not rise till after the Resurrection of Christ. But why were the tombs opened immediately if the dead were not to rise? It may appear more probable that the tombs were not opened, and that the dead did not rise until after Christ had risen; but that S. Matthew, when He began to relate the miracles which happened on the death of Christ, joined this also to the others, the cause of which, as of the rest, was the death of Christ. Why those dead rose is a question that may rightly be asked. The answer would not be difficult. Christ desired to have companions and witnesses of His Resurrection: for if He had risen alone He might have been thought a phantom; but when He had others with Him, who rose at the same time as He did, He could easily show that He could rise, because He raised them. For this reason they who rose are said to have appeared to many in the city. This was a proof of singular love. For He chose to die alone who would not rise alone. For the thieves who were crucified with Him were not crucified by Him, but by their own crimes. But they who were raised with Him were raised by Him. His death was the cause of our resurrection: the cause of our death is ourselves. It has been asked whether they who rose again with Christ died again? It is the opinion of Theophylact that they did. The opinion of those Moderns who think that they did not, but were taken by Christ to heaven with Him, seems better. For what would they have done among the living who had received a taste of the divine glory? Their condition would have been worse than if they had never been raised at all; for they would have been recalled from Abraham’s bosom, where they were in rest, and brought back to a life of turbulence, to remain in it for some time, and then to die again. And what if, in the bosom of Abraham, where we must believe them to have been, as the Evangelist calls them saints, they were certain of salvation, while in this life they were not so, for they might sin again? If they had risen to die again they would have appeared not to many, as the Evangelist says, but to all. For they would have lived among men as they did before they died, and as Lazarus did after He had been raised by Christ. But now that, as the Evangelist says, they appeared to many, he signifies clearly that they did not appear in common to all, but only to those to whom the Resurrection of Christ was to be confirmed. And even Christ Himself, because He was not to die again, but shortly to return into the heavens, was not seen by all, but only by the Apostles and other faithful witnesses, as S. Peter says (Acts 10:41); nor did He live with them after His death as He had done before it, daily, and in an ordinary manner; but He now appeared, now disappeared.

Verse 53. Came into the holy city and appeared to many

Jerusalem was called the Holy City, not as being so at that time—for it had recently been defiled by the blood of Christ—but because it had formerly possessed the Temple of Solomon and the Holy of Holies. So S. Jerome and Bede explain it. In like manner, S. Matthew, after he became a disciple of Christ, was still called a publican, because he had been one before. Why they did not appear to all has been explained in the preceding verse.

Verse 54. Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God

S. Mark (15:39) gives another reason for the excessive fear of the centurion and the soldiers: “And the centurion who stood over against Him, seeing that, crying out in this manner, He had given up the Ghost, said: Indeed this man was the Son of God”. Each cause, we may believe, moved the centurion—the great cry, the darkness, the earthquake, and the other miracles which S. Luke (23:47) describes in a few words: “Now, the centurion, seeing what was done, glorified God, saying: Indeed this was a just man”. The fear of the soldiers is not difficult of explanation. They feared lest the divine vengeance should be directed against those who had been instrumental in so unjust a death; for they acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, who, they thought, would not suffer the death of His Son to be unpunished. S. Luke says that the centurion glorified God and confessed Christ to be indeed the Son of God. The Hebrew expression, “to glorify God,” means to give glory to Him, to acknowledge our offence or His glory and majesty, as S. John 9:24; Joshua 7:19.

Indeed this was the Son of God.

So S. Mark. But S. Luke says: “Indeed this was a just man” (23:47). S. Augustin (De Consens., iii. 20) explains the difference by saying that the centurion either said both—that Christ was the Son of God, and was a just man—and S. Matthew has related one, and S. Luke the other; or S. Luke wished to explain in what sense the centurion called Christ the Son of God—that is, not that he thought Him such by nature, but in that sense in which all just men are called the sons of God (Ps. 81:6). This opinion of S. Augustin is probable; but it is more likely that the centurion applied both expressions to Him, considering a just man the son of God. Not perhaps that he called Christ a just man in the ordinary sense—for these miracles did not take place at the death of other righteous men—but he called Him just, as He was called by others who believed in Him. My own firm opinion is that the centurion was moved by the multitude and greatness of His miracles to believe in Christ. S. Luke, moreover, says that the whole multitude of them “that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned” (23:48). They returned as if acknowledging their fault, and abhorring the wickedness of that innocent death.

Verse 55. And there were many women afar off

S. Mark says the same. S. Luke adds, “And all his acquaintance” (23:49). This, however, cannot be taken in a general sense, as the disciples had almost all fled. But as there were women present who were known to Him, and as S. John was among them (19:26), S. Luke said that “all His acquaintance were there,” not meaning, probably, that all were present, but that all that were so stood afar off. This is not opposed to what S. John says (19:25), that the Mother of Christ and the beloved disciple stood by the cross. For they were both near the cross and afar off—near, to see His sufferings and hear Him speak to them; and afar off, because they were not so close to the cross as the soldiers who had the custody of Christ, and the multitude of Jews who passed their revilings upon them. The expression of S. Matthew, “afar off,” does not imply that the women who were near the cross came from a distance, for this is asserted soon after: “And the women that were come with Him from Galilee following after saw the sepulchre and how His body was laid,” but that they were afar off from the cross; which is also the meaning of the Greek μάκροθεν θεωροῦσαι.

Who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him.

The Evangelist describes a threefold office of these devout women: 1. They were where the Apostles who had said that they would die with Christ dared not be. 2. They had left their homes and country in Galilee and followed Christ. 3. They ministered to Him. They did this by attending on Him and supplying Him with things needful, as related by S. Luke (8:3). Because faithful men were wanting, it pleased God to raise up women to be witnesses both of the death and burial of Christ; for even the Apostles would have been unable to assure us that Christ had truly risen from the dead unless for these women, who could declare to His having been truly dead and truly buried. The death and burial of Christ are proved by the word and testimony of the women; His resurrection by those of the Apostles.

Verse 56. Among whom was

S. Luke implies that there were many more. S. Matthew only names three, both because these were more known and had been more active in their ministrations, and because, while the rest were absent, these kept their stations to the end of the burial, as in verse 61. We except the Mother of Christ, than whom none was better known, and none more zealous in attendance upon Him. She was not at His burial, perhaps because John, to whom she had been commended by Christ before His death, had taken her to his home, lest she should die of grief.

Mary Magdalene.

The sister of Lazarus and Martha (S. John 11:5), as is the general belief, though some think (from S. Luke 8:2) that she was of Galilee, and had no connection with Lazarus. Out of her Christ had cast seven devils (S. Luke 8:2).

And Mary, the mother of James and Joses.

In the Greek Ἰωσῆ (Jose). She was the sister of the Mother of the Lord, as has been shown chaps, 10:3, 12:46. S. John says (19:25): “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene”. Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary, the mother of James and Joses, was the same person. She is called Cleophae from her husband, and Jacobi and Jose from her sons. This James was the Apostle. He was called “James the Less”. He is the author of the Epistle, and he is called “the brother of the Lord,” and “the son of Alphæus”. He was the first bishop of Jerusalem, as stated on chap. 10:3. Alphæus was the cognomen of Cleophas, the father of James.

And the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

S. Mark (15:40) calls her by another name—Salome. To this is to be referred what S. John has related (19:31 to 37) but the other Evangelists have passed over: “Then the Jews, because it was the parasceue, that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day (for that was a great Sabbath day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away”. We have spoken of the parasceue and the great Sabbath day on chap. 26:2. The unwillingness of the Jews to allow the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath day was a senseless and revolting piece of hypocrisy. They did not think it contrary to religion to crucify the innocent Christ, to go to Pilate on the very day of Pasch, to ask him for soldiers to guard the tomb, to seal the stone; but they did think it so to leave the bodies on the cross that day. S. John adds: “The soldiers therefore came, and they broke the legs of the first and of the other that was crucified with him” (verse 32). It was apparently the custom to break at times the legs of those who were crucified, that they might die more speedily. This cannot be considered a singular event, for in this case the Jews would scarcely have ventured to make application to Pilate. S. John proceeds: “But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear opened His side, and immediately there came out blood and water”. This piercing of the side of Christ was done at once by the insolence of the soldier and the divine counsel. Of the former, as he took it amiss that Christ had died in so short a time, and had escaped his intended torture, and the contumelies of the Jews and the soldiers. When, therefore, he found that he could not torment the living he insulted the dead. The divine design ordered it that blood and water, the symbols of our salvation, should flow thence, as all the ancient authorities agree. For we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and washed by the waters of baptism, with which, as it were, His blood is mingled. By the blood the Eucharist, by which we are nourished, and by the waters of Baptism, by which we are born, the two chief sacraments of our salvation are signified. Christ is therefore said to have come through water and blood. There are three witnesses who bear testimony to Christ on earth (1 S. John 5:6)—the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The Spirit who descended upon Christ and testified that He was the Son of God; the water and the blood which issued from His side after His death. This, as it was not merely human, showed Him to be, not a mere man, but God. S. Cyril of Jerusalem has treated fully of this in his thirteenth Catechetical Lecture. The assertion of Calvin, therefore, on the subject is profane, and opposed to the divine intention. He says that the flow of blood and water from the side shows that it was a natural event, whereas S. John himself says that it was supernatural (verse 35). Because it appeared to be incredible he affirms that it did happen, and that he saw it and related the truth. That Christ’s legs were not broken is taken by S. John to be a mystery that the Scripture might be fulfilled (Exod. 12:46; Zach. 12:10). The latter prophecy was not fulfilled at that time wholly, but it began to be so. They pierced Christ, then, which was one part of the prophecy, but it will not be until the Day of Judgment that they shall look on Him; as S. John explains (Apoc. 1:7).

Verse 57. And when it was evening (“sero”)

“Sero” here does not mean that it was actually evening, but that it was inclining towards evening. If it had been actually evening it would not have been lawful to take Christ down from the cross and bury Him; because the rest and observation of the Sabbath began with evening. For this reason they hastened His burial; for, if the Sabbath had begun, it would not have been lawful to perform it, as is said by S. Mark (15:42) and S. Luke (23:54).

There came a rich man of Arimathea.

S. Luke (23:51) says that Arimathea was a city of Judæa. Eusebius says that it was formerly called Ruma and Remptis. It was in the tribe of Judah (Judges 9:41; 4 Kings 23:36).

Who also himself was a disciple of Jesus.

He gave his reason secretly for desiring to take charge of the burial of Christ. S. John describes him as “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews” (19:38). S. Mark (15:43) calls him “a noble counsellor,” εὐσχήμων βουλευτής: “Who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God”. S. Luke speaks to the same effect (23:51), adding that he had not consented to the counsel and doings of the Jews, so that it would appear that he was not only a counsellor, but that he had also been present at the council in which they deliberated about seizing Christ, and putting Him to death, and had not agreed with them.

Verse 58. He went to Pilate

Before the Sabbath had begun (S. Mark 15:43; S. Luke 23:52). It was not lawful to take down and bury the bodies of criminals without the permission of a judge (lib. i. ff., De Cadav. Puniend.). Joseph, therefore, asked the body of Christ from the governor.

Then Pilate commanded that the body should be delivered.

S. Mark (15:44) says that Pilate wondered that Christ was dead so soon, and that he sent for the centurion to enquire whether it were really so; and when he knew the truth he gave the body to Joseph. It is possible that Pilate may have suspected deceit, and thought that Joseph, a disciple of Christ, though a secret one, had asked for His body while He was yet alive, that under the pretence of burying Him he might deliver Him from the cross and death. All this was done by the divine counsel, that the judge himself who had condemned Christ might know from the testimony of the centurion and the others who guarded Him on the cross that He was truly dead, and might bear witness to His death: that none might say hereafter that He had not truly risen (not having truly died), but had been taken down from the cross alive, and shut up in a tomb. It may, perhaps, be matter of wonder that neither the Apostles, nor the others who openly professed themselves Christ’s disciples, should have performed this office for Him, but that it should have been left to Joseph who was a secret believer, and to Nicodemus, who, as S. John says (3:2; 7:50), was another. S. Ambrose (On S. Luke x.) says: “Why did not the Apostles, but Joseph and Nicodemus, the one a just man and constant, and the other in whom was no guile, bury Christ? That burial was one in which there could be no fraud or deception; all room for tergiversation is done away, and the Jews are rejected by their own testimony. For if the Apostles had buried Christ themselves, it might have been said that He had not been actually buried, whom the Jews feign to have been carried off.”

Verse 59. Wrapped it in a clean linen cloth

It was, without doubt, to honour Christ that Joseph wrapped His body, not in any kind of ordinary linen, but in such as was fine and new, and which S. Mark says he bought for the purpose (15:46). Although the Ancients saw a divine mystery in the fact, it was becoming that the body of Christ, which was most pure, should be wrapped in linen both clean and new.

Verse 60. And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock

This also was done to honour Christ; and for this reason this entombment is so carefully described by the Evangelists. Joseph laid Christ not in any ordinary tomb, but in his own, which, as S. Matthew says, “he had hewn out in the rock”. This was done, not by his forefathers, but by himself; and the tomb was not built of stone, but was hewn out. Only the great and illustrious are buried in this style. S. Luke adds: “Wherein never yet had any man been laid” (23:53). S. John adds what the rest omit: “That the body was inclosed with spices, as the manner is of the Jews to bury” (19:39, 40). We see that Joseph and Nicodemus omitted no kind of honour to the tomb of Christ. But His body was then dead, and what could they do for the living? The Ancients saw a mystery in this also. They say that the tomb of Christ should resemble His mother’s womb, in which there never was any other. Christ must be both purely conceived and purely buried. This also all tends to prove the truth of the Resurrection: as Bede, Theophylact, and Euthymius observe. For if the tomb had not been a new one, the Jews might have said that it was not Christ who rose from the dead, but some other person who was buried in the same place. If the tomb had been built of stones, they would have said that the disciples had dug under them and carried off the body, nothing of which could be said of a tomb hewn out of a rock. This has been pointed out by S. Jerome and Bede. This also applies to the rolling of the stone described by S. Matthew (verse 60): “He rolled a great stone to the door of the monument, and went his way”. It could not be said that Christ not being really dead, the stone was removed and He escaped; nor that the disciples had opened it, and stolen the body. Bede, on this passage, describes the tomb from the account of those who (religonis causa) had visited Jesusalem in his time, as being round, hewn out of the rock, of such a height that a man, standing up inside and raising his arms, could scarcely touch the top. It had an entrance from the east, at which the great stone was rolled and placed against it. In the north part is the tomb itself; that is, the place of the Lord’s body, made of the same rock. It is seven feet in length, and it is higher than the rest of the floor by three palms’ breadth. It is open, not from below, but on the whole south side, whence the body was brought in. The colour of the tomb and sepulchre is red, or red mixed with white.

Verse 61. And there were there Mary Magdalene and the other Mary

On Mary Magdalene see verse 56. The other Mary is the mother of James and Joses, of whom we have also spoken on verse 56. It is plain from S. Mark (15:47) that this is she who is to be understood here by the name of “the other Mary”. S. Matthew, when he speaks of the other Maries, always puts Mary Magdalene first, and by “the other Mary” he understands the mother of James and Joses, as in chap. 28:1. They were present to see where the body of Christ was laid, that they might return after the Sabbath and anoint it (S. Mark 15:47; 16:1; S. Luke 23:55).

Verse 62. And the next day which followed the day of preparation

That is, the Sabbath, on which day the Jews, that year, kept the Passover, as explained chap. 26:2.

The chief priests and Pharisees came together to Pilate.

These placed their whole religion in an even superstitious observance of the Sabbath; yet they were so blinded by their hatred of Christ that they violated it; for it was not lawful for them by their law and tradition, on the Sabbath, and that the day of the Pasch, to approach a judge: to ask for soldiers: to bring armed men to the sepulchre: or to seal the tomb.

Verse 63. We have remembered

They would rather blame their own negligence and forgetfulness than seem careless in guarding a man now dead. They speak as if they had previously forgotten the point—“We have remembered”—and that Pilate might not wonder at their not having asked for a guard of soldiers at first, and their asking it now that Christ was buried.

That that seducer said while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Christ had not said that He would rise again after three days, but on the third day (16:21; 20:19). The opinion of those who explain “after” by “within” three days, or on the third day, as the Latins say, seems correct. For if the priests and Pharisees had understood Christ to say that He would not rise till after three days had been completed, they would have had no reason to fear that the disciples would steal Him away in the interval. It is indeed most improbable that they would have attempted such a thing before the day He Himself had named. Again, they would have taken care to watch the tomb not only during those days, but for many days after, as He did not signify that He would rise immediately after the third day, but that He would not do so before it, as in S. Mark 8:31: “He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and by the high priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again”.

Verse 64. Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day

As when they asserted before that Christ had said, “After three days I will rise again,” the word “after” did not mean that the three days must be passed before He would rise from the dead; so here when they say, “until the third day,” the word “until” does not mean, as it usually does, the beginning but the end of the third day; as if they had said, Command the tomb to be guarded, until the third day has passed.

And steal Him.

The Greek adds νύκτος, noctu, “by night,” ἔλθοντες κλέψωσι. The passage may be read, “Lest they come by night and steal Him away,” or “lest they come and steal Him away by night”. The meaning will be the same.

And they say to the people, He is risen from the dead.

As if their meaning were, “They would not say this to us, who are men of learning and refinement, and should by no means believe them, but they might make such an assertion to the ignorant multitude, which yields easy faith to every rumour”. The Jews used to say, what the heretics do now, that Christ had no disciples but the rude and ignorant. So S. John 7:47, 48, 49.

And the last error should be worse than the first.

By the “first error” they meant that Christ, while alive, persuaded the people by miracles, performed by diabolical agency, that He was the Son of God; “the last” would be, if the disciples persuaded the people, that He had risen from the dead. This would be worse than the first, because the first was contained in it. For if He had risen, which is of all things the most difficult, they would believe the more readily that all He had taught during His life was true.

Verse 65. You have a guard

Some think that they had a military force for the protection of the Temple. That there were armed men kept for this purpose is certain, because, among other officers, mention is made of a στράτηγος or dux. These suppose Pilate to have answered, “You have a guard,” as meaning that it was needless to ask for what they had already. If they had soldiers they would have been confined to the protection of the Temple, and could not have been employed in any other manner. If Pilate spoke of a Jewish soldiery, these could only have been of the priestly tribe, because to them alone was confided the protection of the Temple, and what need to offer these money, to feign what they did about the stealing away of the body? They would have been certain to say this of their own accord. Some take the words, “You have,” ἔχετε, for the imperative, and that Pilate meant to command them: “Go and take”. This is an error. The word here is an indicative, and means that Pilate did not command or direct them to take a guard, but merely granted one: “Whatever military force I have is in your power; go, keep the tomb”. This is rightly expressed by Juvencus in the following lines:

“Et Pilatus ad hæc, miles permittitur, inquit, Servate ut vultis, corpus tellure sepultum”. Said Pilate, “Soldiers shall for this be found, Keep you the body, buried in the ground”.

Verse 66. And they, departing, made the sepulchre sure

The Greek is ἀσφαλίζω, “to make safe”. The same word is used, in verses 64, 65, by the Pharisees to Pilate, and by Pilate to the Pharisees, when he said, “Go, guard it as you know”. The words that follow are to be united thus—although separated by hyperbaton, or transposition—as if it were written, “They made the tomb sure with a guard, having first sealed the stone”. They sealed the stone with a ring, or something of the sort, that the disciples might not come while the soldiers slept and open the tomb—in which case the theft would have been discovered by the seal having been broken—nor the soldiers themselves be bribed by the disciples to give up the body. So Darius sealed, with his own ring, the den of lions into which Daniel was thrown (Dan. 6:17), that no one might say that he had delivered the Prophet by stealth, or that others had entered the den and slain him, and given out that he had been killed by the lions. The diligence of the priests in darkening the divinity and glory of Christ was wonderful; but the Divine Providence, which made use of their labours and artifices to publish it, was more wonderful. The priests feared lest the disciples should persuade the people that Christ had risen, as He had foretold. They employed keepers to this end: but these very persons bore witness, not to the people, but to the priests themselves, and to the Pharisees, by whom they were employed, that Christ had risen (28:11). They sealed the stone of the sepulchre that no one might steal the body; but the stone itself, carefully guarded as it was, certified that the body of Christ was not removed from the tomb by force or fraud, but was raised by divine power. Nothing is closed, nothing is sealed to God; but “He catcheth the wise in their craftiness, and disappointeth the counsel of the wicked” (Job 5:13), and “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God”. For it is written, “I will catch the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Cor. 3:19). S. Hilary says well: “Their fear that the body would be stolen, and their guarding and sealing the stone, are a proof of their folly and unbelief. For they desired to seal the tomb of Him, whom, according to His own saying, they beheld, when dead, risen from the sepulchre.”