Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

After the Evangelist has set forth the preparations for the passion, here he comes to the passion of Christ; and it is divided into two parts: because first the passion is narrated as to those things which were done by the Jews; second as to those things which were done by the Gentiles, Matthew 27:1, "And when morning was come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First the foretelling of the Lord's passion is set forth; second the passion and its order is narrated, at "Then went one," etc. The passion is foretold in three ways: by the word of Christ, by the counsel of his enemies, and third by deed and service. The second is at "Then were gathered together," etc.; the third at "And when Jesus was," etc. Concerning the first, first he sets forth the order of the foretelling, and the foretelling itself.

The order is: "And it came to pass, when he had finished." And he speaks thus, because he alone is the one who can finish. We can begin, but not finish, according to that word of Ecclesiasticus 4: "We speak many things, and fail." Again he says "these words," namely those which he had spoken from the beginning of his preaching, from when he had said: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Or the words which he had spoken concerning the foretelling of glory, because the passion was the exaltation of glory; Philippians 2:9: "For which cause God also exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." Again he does not say only "all," but "all these," because he spoke everything for the benefit of believers and of the faith.

"You know that after two days shall be the Passover": in this foretelling he does not simply foretell, but says, "after two days shall be the Passover"; and this was done to signify that not just any passion is the passion of Christ, but that which is signified through the paschal sacrifice. And he says "after two days." And according to this you ought to consider that these words were spoken on the thirteenth day of the moon, that is, on the third feria, because on the fifteenth day of the moon the Passover was celebrated. But it is found in John 12:1 that the Lord came into Bethany, and this on the Sabbath day; and on another day he came into Jerusalem, and there cast out those selling and buying, and on the day of the moon he returned, and saw the fig tree withered, which he cursed. And according to Mark he returned on the day of Mars, and then on that day he set forth all those parables. And on that day, when he had finished these words, he said: "You know that after two days shall be the Passover."

This name "Pasch," according to what Jerome says, is said from "pascendo" [feeding], but properly it is called "phase," which is "passage." Now the passage is fourfold, according as the Pasch is understood in four ways. According to history the Pasch was celebrated when the exterminator struck the firstborn of Egypt; then the Lord commanded that they eat the phase, Exodus 12:3. Again, according to allegory it is the passage of Christ through death; and concerning this, John 13:1: "Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father," etc. Again there is the moral sense, or typical, according to which one passes from carnal conduct to spiritual; Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "Come over to me, all ye that desire me." Again there is a general passage, according to which it is said that heaven and earth shall pass away, etc. Hence "after two days," namely after the teaching of the old and the new law. According to the Greek it is said from "pasqui," which is "to be fed." Hence fittingly, Christ knowing that he would pass from the world to the Father, said, "and the Son of man shall be delivered up, to be crucified." He does not say by whom he shall be delivered up, because he was delivered up by the Father; Romans 8:32: "He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Again by himself; Ephesians 5:2: "He loved us, and delivered himself up for us," etc. Again by Judas. Here: "What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" Again by the Jews to Pilate; John 18:35: "Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me." Again by Pilate to the Gentiles; hence it is said, John 19:16: "he delivered him up to be crucified."

"Then were gathered together the chief priests," etc. In this part is set forth the perverse counsel of the Pharisees. And first the counsel concerning Christ's passion is set forth; second concerning the delay, at "But they said: Not on the festival day." Concerning the first we can note that the sin of the Jews is aggravated by the time, because "then," with the paschal festival imminent; Isaiah 58:13: "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy own will in my holy day." But, as I believe, it does not refer to the immediate day, but to around that time, because it is found in John 11:13 that they took counsel, and from that day they thought how to kill him. And then it is said that Jesus withdrew into a region near the desert. Hence this was not done immediately. Or it can be said that it was done twice.

Again it is aggravated by the multitude; hence it is said: "the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together"; Isaiah 1:14: "My soul hateth your solemnities: for indeed your hands are full of blood." Again from the condition of those sinning, because they were among the greater ones; hence it is said, "the chief priests"; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great ones, and I will speak to them"; and afterward: "and behold these have altogether broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." And Psalm 2:2: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and against his Christ." Again from the place, because it was done in the courtyard of the chief priest. Hence these men ought to have restrained others from wickedness, yet they themselves were doing it; Daniel 13:5: "iniquity came forth from the elders." But were there indeed many chief priests? For the Lord had commanded that there should be one high priest alone, but this did not suffice for them. Hence on account of covetousness they had divided the priesthood. Also they had already lost it, and were buying the priesthood from the Romans. Or he calls "chief priests" those who had been chief priests before him, along with him who had been chief priest of that year. Again is touched upon that concerning which they took counsel, "that they might by subtlety lay hold on Jesus." And it was foolish to believe that they could lay hold of him by deceit, who knew all things; Jeremiah 9:8: "their tongue is a wounding arrow, it hath spoken deceit."

"But they said: Not on the festival day." Here the delay is dealt with: and the counsel is set forth, and the reason. "But they said: Not on the festival day." Someone might say that they said this out of devotion; therefore he removes this by saying, "lest perhaps there should be a tumult made among the people"; for they knew that many held him for a prophet, and some indeed for the Christ: therefore there was dissension among the people, as is found in John 7:30ff and 9:8ff. Therefore they feared lest they should take him out of their hands. This they thought, but Christ was thinking something else: hence those two thought two things, namely that they wanted to kill him, and that he should not be crucified on the festival day, to signify that this sacrifice succeeded the sacrifice of the paschal lamb.

"And when Jesus was in Bethany." Here is set forth the foretelling through the deed of the woman. And first the deed is set forth; second the reproof; third the excuse. The second at "But the disciples seeing it had indignation"; the third at "And Jesus knowing it." Concerning the first he does four things. First the place is described; second the person; third the resource; fourth the deed. First a twofold place is set forth, namely general and specific. The general, when he says "when Jesus was in Bethany"; the specific, when he says "in the house of Simon the leper." Note that he was not then a leper, but had been cured by Christ; for if he had been, Christ would not have remained with him, since this was forbidden in the law: and yet both facts pertain to the mystery. Bethany is said to mean "house of obedience": hence by this his obedience is signified; Philippians 2:8: "he became obedient unto death." Therefore it befits him to be in the house of a leper; Isaiah 53:4: "and we have thought him as it were a leper." And for this reason rather he came there. Another reason can be a literal one, namely so that she might have confidence to come to Christ, because this man was a kinsman of Mary, and had been cured by him of bodily leprosy, and she came in order to be cured of spiritual leprosy. And it should be noted that no one else is said to come to Christ for spiritual salvation, except this woman; therefore she was worthy of praise.

"A woman came to him." Behold the person. Matthew and Mark say this happened in the same place; John and Luke do not. For Luke speaks of this woman in chapter 7:37ff, and John in 12:3ff. There is therefore the opinion of certain ones, as was that of Origen, that there were several women. Let us speak of the first two. Jerome expressly says that she of whom Luke speaks was not the sister of Lazarus, because of her it is said that she anointed the feet, while of this one it is said that she anointed the feet and the head. Ambrose on Luke says that either can be said, that she is the same, or different. If we say that she is the same, we can say: although the same, yet not of the same merit: but the sinner did not dare to touch the head, but afterward, having gained confidence, she anointed the head. And Augustine proves that she is the same, because John 11:5, before he comes to this deed, says: "Now Mary was the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair." Therefore it seems that she of whom Luke speaks is the same as she who is the sister of Lazarus.

Origen says that she of whom Luke speaks is not the same as she of whom John speaks. And this can be proved by reason of time, because that account is read to have happened before he went into Jerusalem; this happened when he says: "You know that after two days shall be the Passover." Again from the place, because that woman was in the house of Martha, of whom it is spoken in John; but this one in the house of Simon. Again by this, that there she anoints the feet, here the head. The fourth is that there Judas said: "To what purpose is this waste?" But here, that all the disciples said it. Augustine says that it is the same woman, and answers Origen's arguments. To the first he says that Matthew does not keep the order of the history, but recounts it here because from this occasion Judas took the opportunity of sinning, when he saw the ointment poured out. What is objected concerning the place, Augustine does not resolve. It can, however, be resolved thus: that this man was of great authority, and having power, and their house was one, because he was a kinsman of theirs. Otherwise how would it be true what is said, that they made a supper there, and Lazarus was one of those reclining at table?

"Therefore a woman came having an alabaster box of ointment." Alabaster is a kind of marble, which is translucent, and windows are made from it. And from this stone certain vessels were made, in which ointments were kept, just as now they are made from crushed earth, because from their coldness they were preservative; hence "alabaster," that is, a vessel of alabaster full of ointment. And here it is called "of precious ointment," elsewhere that it was "of spikenard, pistic." "Pistis" in Greek, "faithful" in Latin. Hence "pistic," that is, not adulterated. Consequently the effect is set forth: "and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table." But here there is a twofold question.

How did Christ permit this, since it seems to pertain to wantonness? To this Augustine responds in On Christian Doctrine. It is judged one way in a common person, another way in a prophetic person: because in the common person it is judged according to the deed itself, but in the prophetic according to its signification. In an ordinary person it would signify wantonness; in a prophetic person, its signification. The allegorical exposition: it signifies the burial of Christ, since in ancient times bodies were accustomed to be anointed. It is found in Mark 14 that she came beforehand to anoint the body for burial. Again mystically the ointment signifies any good work whatsoever. Now this work can be done in two ways, because there is a certain work which is not done for God's sake, but for the sake of natural righteousness, as the work of a Gentile, and this is ointment, but not precious. If it is for God's sake, then it is precious. Hence one anoints the feet, when one does a good work for the benefit of one's neighbor; but when it is for the glory of God, then one anoints the head. But what is meant, that John says she anointed the feet, and Matthew that she anointed the head? Augustine says that she did both. But what is meant, that Mark says she broke the alabaster? Augustine says that just as it sometimes happens that someone pours out in such a way that nothing remains, and afterward breaks the vessel: so this woman did, and poured it out, and broke it. Or if anyone wishes to cavil, it can be said that first she anointed the feet, then the head.

Then follows the rebuke of the woman: "But the disciples seeing it had indignation." But here an objection is raised, because in John 12 it is said that Judas alone said it, but this Evangelist says that all said it. There is a twofold response according to Jerome: because that which is said here, that the disciples said it, is said by synecdoche: "disciples," that is, a disciple, and this manner is customary in Scripture; Hebrews 11:37: "they were cut asunder," whereas only one was cut asunder, namely Isaiah alone. Or it can be said that it was all, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas stirred up all the others. Again, that the others were stirred up on account of the need of the poor, but this one was moved on account of avarice. Hence they say: "To what purpose is this waste?" But why did they say this? They had heard the Lord greatly commend mercy; above, 19:21: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor."

"And Jesus knowing it, said to them." Here is set forth the excuse of the woman: and he does two things. First he excuses and commends her; second he touches upon her reward, "Amen I say to you," etc. And first he excuses; second he answers the objection of the disciples; third he explains what he had said. He says therefore: "Why do you trouble this woman?" The Lord is always the advocate of this woman, because in Luke 7:39 the Pharisee accused her of sin, whence he said: "This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is, that toucheth him," etc., and the Lord excused her through love. Again in Luke 10:40 even Martha accused her of idleness, and the Lord excused her through contemplation. Here the disciples accuse her of the pouring out of the ointment, and the Lord excuses her on the ground of devotion, saying: "Why do you trouble this woman?" Job 6:27: "You rush upon the fatherless, and you strive to overthrow your friend." "She has wrought a good work upon me"; Proverbs 3:27: "Do not hinder anyone from doing good; if thou art able, do good thyself." Chrysostom: sometimes it happens that someone does a good work generically, and perhaps could have done better; hence one must act differently before the deed and after the deed. Hence after the deed he is to be commended for the deed; but if he came before the deed, he should be counseled to do what is better. Hence it is to be believed that if she had asked the Lord's counsel beforehand, he would have told her to give it to the poor.

"For the poor you have always with you," etc. Here is set forth the response to their objection, because they said that it could have been given to the poor. "But me you have not always." This is true according to bodily presence, but he will always be present according to spiritual presence. Hence he says below, at the very end, 28:20: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." And what did she do? "For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, has done it for my burial." But what is meant? Did she indeed intend to bury Christ? No. But, as Augustine says, just as the Holy Spirit moves one to speak, so also sometimes to act; hence it is written, Romans 8:14: "They that are led by the Spirit of God, are not under the law." Hence it happens that someone is instructed by the Holy Spirit toward some meaning which he did not intend. So this woman intended a good work, but the Holy Spirit ordained it toward the burial. He says: "she has wrought a good work upon me." Someone might say that to give to one's neighbor would be a good work. This is true, but not so much that it should be preached throughout the whole world; therefore he adds: "Amen I say to you: wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, it shall be told for a memory of her," that is, in commendation of her. Jerome says that this one, about to be crucified, foretells that the Gospel would be told throughout the whole world, and yet it had not yet been made known, when Matthew wrote. Again note, that many wished their birth to be spread abroad throughout the whole world, and the memory of them has been blotted out, yet the deed of this woman has not been blotted out; Proverbs 10:7: "the memory of the just is with praises"; and Psalm 111:7: "the just shall be in everlasting remembrance."

"Then went one of the twelve." Above he set forth a threefold foretelling of the Lord's passion; here he turns his intention to the narration: and he does two things. First he prefaces the preparations; second he deals with the passion itself, at "as he yet spoke," etc. Now there are three preparations. First the dealing of the betrayal is set forth; second the institution of the Lord's communion; third, concerning the prayer of Christ. The second at "Now on the first day of the unleavened bread," etc.; the third at "Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani." Concerning the first, three things. First the person of the betrayer is described; second the dealing of the betrayal; third his eagerness; he says therefore, "Then."

You should understand that this does not refer to what immediately precedes, because what was said about this woman was said by way of transposition; but it is referred back to what was said, that the chief priests and elders of the people were gathered together, that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him. "Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot." And his person is described from three things. From his office, because he was one of the twelve, not only of the disciples, but of the twelve specially called; John 6:71: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" But why did he wish to choose one who would be evil and a betrayer? The first reason can be to signify that he condemns no one on account of his own predestination, nor saves anyone on that account, but on account of present righteousness. Hence if he condemned on account of his own predestination, it would not be imputed to anyone. Again for the consolation of men: for he knew it would come to pass that many would be deceived in their choices, just as happened in the case of Philip, who chose Simon Magus; therefore the Lord allowed there to be a betrayer among the disciples. Another reason can be so that no one should be blamed, if someone should be evil, since in the first college one was evil.

Again the person of the betrayer is described from his name: "who was called Judas." Among the disciples two were called by this name; yet one was evil, by which it is signified that among those who confess God some are good, some evil. Of the good ones, Psalm 113:2: "Judea was made his sanctuary." Of the evil it is said, Titus 1:16: "They profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him." Again he is described from his homeland. "Iscariot" is a certain village, and is interpreted "memory of death," because the sin of Judas is held in memory. And this can be referred to what is said in Jeremiah 17:1: "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond." "To the chief priests," who intended to kill Christ, forgetting that which is said in Psalm 1:1: "Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," etc. And in Genesis 49:6 Jacob says: "let not my soul go into their counsel."

"And said to them." Here is set forth the dealing of the betrayal. And first the dealing is set forth; second the consummation. And first his covetousness is to be considered; second his presumption. Covetousness, when he says: "What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" For money's sake he despised all friendship; Ecclesiasticus 10:10: "Nothing is more wicked than to love money: for such a one setteth even his own soul to sale." For this man, because he did not restrain covetousness, fell into betrayal. For because he saw that he had been cheated of the price of the ointment, he therefore wished to recover it by betraying Christ. Again his presumption is touched upon, when he says: "and I will deliver him unto you." It was great presumption to betray him who knew all things. Again this man speaks as one thinking very ill of God, because when someone wishes to sell a thing which he loves, he sets a price on it; but when he has a thing of which he wishes to rid himself, he says: give me what you please. So this man says: "What will you give me?" That is, give what you will. "They set at nought the desirable land," Psalm 105:24.

"And they appointed him thirty pieces of silver." Origen says that those act in a similar way who abandon God for the sake of temporal advantage. For he dwells in us through faith; but we abandon him when we cling too much to temporal things; hence it is said: "And they appointed him thirty pieces of silver." But why did he express it thus? Because it was so signified through that word of Zechariah 11:12: "and they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver." And it is not to be said that Joseph was sold for thirty denarii, but Scripture holds that it was only for twenty pieces of silver, that is, denarii. But what does it mean to say thirty? It is to be understood: this number is composed of five and six, whence five times six is thirty. By five are signified the five books of Moses, or temporal things which are subject to the five senses; hence it is signified that after the law of Moses, in the sixth age, salvation would come to pass.

"And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him." Here his eagerness is set forth. And why did he do this? So that he might perpetrate the crime more easily and more secretly, as is the case with those who sin, because "he that doth evil hateth the light," John 3:20; and Job 24:15: "the eye of the adulterer watcheth for darkness."

Now on the first day he then treats of the institution of the sacrament, and because new things succeed old things, as is said in Leviticus 26:10: "when new things come in, you shall cast out the old"; first he treats of the old; second, of the new. Concerning the first there are two parts. First, the preparation of the Passover is set forth; second, the foretelling of the betrayer is set forth, at the words "and as they were eating, he said," etc. And concerning the first, first the time is designated; second, the preparation of the feast; third, the institution of the sacrament.

He says therefore, "on the first day of the unleavened bread." And here there can be an objection, because this day was the first day of the Passover. And this seems to be against what is said in John 13:1: "before the feast day of the Passover," etc. The Greeks say that Matthew, Luke, and Mark erred, and that John corrected them, because it was done before the day of the Passover. Hence they say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, and made the supper on the thirteenth. Hence they say that the Lord confected the sacrament not in unleavened bread, but in leavened. And they strive to confirm this with many arguments. First, because it is said in John 18:28 that they did not enter in, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover; and thus on the day of the passion they were still to eat the Passover. Likewise another argument of theirs, that the women prepared spices, therefore etc. But this cannot stand, because the Lord did not break the ceremonies: for it is not found that the Passover was anticipated, though it is found that it was prolonged. And granted that it were anticipated, this does not help the Greeks, because it is written that the Passover had to be eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. If therefore he had done otherwise, he would have acted against the law. Therefore, according to what the three Evangelists say, this was done on the fourteenth moon, and then it was necessary to eat the Passover.

What then is to be answered to that which John says: "before the feast day of the Passover"? It must be said that the custom was that they began the day from the evening, and so the paschal day began from the evening. And this is found in Exodus 12:18: "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover"; and from then on leavened bread was not to be found in the houses of the Jews until the twenty-first day. Hence if we compute from the evening of the fourteenth moon, the preparation was made before the day of the Passover, and yet it was the fourteenth moon. John therefore calls that day the day of unleavened bread, and calls the day of the Passover the fifteenth moon.

As to what you say secondly, that they did not enter the praetorium etc., Chrysostom resolves it thus, and says that the Lord omitted nothing of the legal observances; hence he ate the Passover on the fourteenth moon. But these rulers were bent on the killing of Christ, on account of which they delayed, and so did not celebrate then, and this was against their own law. Or by "Passover" are understood the unleavened loaves. As to what they say concerning the women, Augustine says that they had many solemnities; but the sabbath was the more solemn solemnity. Hence it was not lawful to prepare food on the sabbath, which however was lawful on other feasts, but not on the sabbath day. Therefore it then so happened that the feast of the Passover fell on a Friday, and the sabbath followed; therefore they prepared then, and rested on the sabbath day. Therefore we can say that he celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth moon.

There follows the solicitude of the disciples: "the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" And first the inquiry is set forth; second, the command; third, the fulfillment. He says, "his disciples came." But which disciples? Remigius says that Judas came out of a show of duty, so as to conceal his betrayal. Yet Pope Leo says that others also came. "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" By this it is signified that Christ had no house there, nor did anyone of his company; thus his poverty is signified; hence above, Matthew 8:20: "but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."

"And he said" — here the command is set forth. And first he announces the host; second, the passion; third he requests the place for the banquet. He says therefore, "go into the city to a certain man." And you should note that he was not lodging in the city, but in Bethany. But what is the meaning of his saying "a certain man"? Augustine says that the Lord named some definite person; but because it was not necessary to name him, Matthew omitted to name him. Chrysostom says that he says "go to a certain man," that is, to whomever, because he wished to show his power, so that they would not be troubled about the passion. For his fame had so spread abroad that it was already decreed that whoever should receive him would be put outside the synagogue. Hence he wished it to be understood that no one would receive him unless he changed that one's heart; Proverbs 21:1: "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and he will incline it wherever he will."

"And say to him," etc. He foretells the passion so that they may not be troubled; hence he says "time" — not just any time whatever, but one determined by the Father. In this manner it is said in John 7:6: "my time has not yet come, but your time is always ready." "I will keep the Passover at thy house," that is, I will celebrate the paschal feast at your house. And he adds "with my disciples," to denote that it was not in secret, but publicly. According to Chrysostom he said this, because he wanted sufficient food to be prepared both for himself and for the disciples. But how is it that he celebrated it, and we ought not to celebrate it? For it is said in John 13:15: "I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also should do." To this Augustine responds, that just as Christ suffered in order to redeem us from death, so he willed to observe the law, in order to free us from the law. Then follows the execution: "and the disciples did as Jesus had commanded them," etc. Similarly it is found in Exodus 24:3: "all the words which the Lord has commanded we will do."

Consequently the feast is treated: "and when evening was come, he sat down with his twelve disciples." And it says "in the evening," because, as is commanded in Exodus 12:18, "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover." Or "in the evening," because it tends toward its setting; Zechariah 14:7: "and at evening time there shall be light." Or the true passing-over of Christ is signified, namely his end: for evening is the end of the day.

"And as they were eating, he said," etc. Here is set forth the foretelling of the betrayer. And first he indicates it from companionship; second, from authority; third, from his own voice. The second at the words "but he answering," etc.; the third at the words "thou hast said it." And concerning the first, first the foretelling is set forth; second, the effect: "and they were sorrowful." Hence he says: "and as they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me." "Amen I say" — he affirms, because he was saying something great, namely that one of you, whom I chose to be the pillars of the Church; Ecclesiasticus 6:10: "there is a friend, a companion at the table, and he does not remain in the day of need." And in Jeremiah 9:4: "have no confidence in any brother of yours."

Then follows the effect, and it is a twofold effect: sorrow and doubt. As to sorrow, he says "and they were sorrowful." And why? They were saddened over the death of Christ, because it was bitter to them to be without such a leader, such a patron. Likewise they were saddened over such a crime that was to come; Jeremiah 9:1: "who will give a fountain of tears to my eyes?" Then the doubt is set forth: "they began each one to say." But why did they doubt? Was not each one certain of himself? Response: the disciples had been instructed that men are quickly prone to sin; hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "let him who stands take heed lest he fall." Likewise they doubted, because they trusted him more than their own conscience. Similar is what is said in 1 Corinthians 4:4: "I am conscious of nothing to myself, yet I am not thereby justified."

"But he answering said: he who dips his hand in the dish, he will betray me." Here is set forth the foretelling from the prophetic word. And first he sets forth the prophetic foretelling; second, the necessity of the passion; third, the punishment of the betrayer. He says therefore, "but he answering said." Of this can be understood that saying of Psalm 40:10: "he who ate my bread has magnified his supplanting against me." "He who dips his hand in the dish." Mark says "in the bowl." A paropsis is called a four-cornered vessel, and is so called as having equal sides. A catinus is called an earthen vessel for receiving liquids; hence liquids were placed in the catinus, dry things in the paropsis; hence there could be both there. Or it was called a paropsis, but by its function a catinus.

And what does it mean when he says, "he who dips his hand in the dish"? It must be said that the custom among the ancients was that many ate from one dish, and perhaps took the vessel. Hence all, in astonishment, drew back their hand, except Judas — so that he might the more excuse himself; and therefore the word was ambiguous, because he was dipping at the same time along with all of them; therefore he was unwilling to expose him, lest he become a greater sinner. Or it can be said that they sat two by two, and he had placed this one with himself, in order to draw him back. But many are not drawn back by friendship.

"The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him." What is it that you say, that you will be betrayed? He says "the Son of Man goes," namely by his own will. "He was offered because it was his own will," as it is written in Isaiah 53:7. Hence the passion was foretold by the prophets, as is found in Luke, last chapter, 27: "and beginning from Moses, and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him." And thus nothing harms the Son of Man, because what comes to pass is what he himself ordained. But someone will say: if he goes by his own will, then it is not to be imputed to Judas. It must be said that, on the contrary, it is to be imputed, because he was doing with an evil will that which the Son was doing willingly.

Therefore there follows the punishment: "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed." As above, 17:7: "it must needs be that scandals come; but woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." And the greatness of the punishment is touched upon: "it were good for him if that man had not been born."

From this follows an occasion of error. For some say that punishment is not inflicted on what does not exist, and therefore they say that it is simply better not to have been, which is against the Apostle in Romans 9. Hence, according to Jerome, it must be said that he speaks according to the common manner of speaking, that is, a lesser harm — that is, he feels a greater torment than if he had not been born. And to this end seems to serve what is said in Ecclesiastes 4:2: "I praised the dead more than the living." And this is against Augustine in the book On Free Will. What is nothing cannot be chosen. Likewise, what we choose is nearer to happiness. But what does not exist is not near to happiness.

What then must be said? Can someone choose not to be, rather than to be in a state of punishment? Therefore it must be said that "not to be" can be taken in two ways: either in itself, or by comparison to something else. In itself, I say that it is not choiceworthy, as Augustine says, but by comparison to something else it is choiceworthy, as Jerome says. Because this is not something in nature, but according to the apprehension of the soul it is taken as something, as "not to sit." But choice is taken from that which is apprehended: therefore to be without evil is taken as a good. When therefore one chooses it, one chooses it not for its own sake, but insofar as it excludes evil, as the Philosopher says. By this the answer to the second is clear. He says therefore that that which more removes one from evil is taken as nearer to happiness; hence, for a man with a fever, to be without the fever seems to be happiness, because he seems not to be under miseries; hence it is better not to be, than to be under miseries.

"And Judas, who betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi?" It should be noted that he said this in pretense; hence, because he delayed in asking, he signified that he was sorrowful, but it was a pretense. Likewise, the others call him Lord, but this one calls him Master. Yet he was both; John 13:13: "you call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am." "He said to him: thou hast said it." Note the meekness of the Lord. Above, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart"; and this so that he might give us an example of meekness; hence he says "thou hast said it," that is, you have confessed it. Or: you say these things — I do not assert it, but you say it. Hence it is not the word of one asserting. For he did not wish to expose him; as if he were saying: I do not assert it, but you say it.

Above, the Evangelist set down the celebration of the old Passover; here is set down the institution of the sacrament of the altar. And first the sacrament is instituted; second, the future scandal of the disciples is foretold, where "then Jesus said to them: You will all suffer scandal." First he does two things. First the paschal sacrament is instituted; second, the hymn of thanksgiving, where "and the hymn having been said, they went out to the Mount of Olives." And concerning the first he does two things. First is set down the institution of the sacrament under the species of bread; second under the species of wine, where "and taking the chalice he gave thanks," and so on. Concerning the first, he first touches on the deeds of Christ; second the words, where "take and eat; this is my body." In the deeds five things are to be noted. First the time is set down; second the matter is designated; third the blessing; fourth the breaking; fifth the communication, or distribution.

The time is touched upon when he says "and while they were eating," that is, while they were at supper, that is, while they were dining. And why did he establish this in the very supper, and not before? There is a twofold reason. Because the Lord willed that this should succeed the old sacrament, as the truth succeeds the figure; therefore after the establishment of the old sacrament he established the new one; Leviticus 26:10: "with the new things coming in, you will cast away the old." Also for another reason, because he willed that it be fixed in memory: for the things that are heard last are fixed more deeply in memory. Lamentations 3:19: "Remember my poverty and transgression, the wormwood and the gall." Why then did the Church establish that men should receive this sacrament fasting? It must be said that this is for the reverence of the sacrament: for it is fitting that it be taken before food. And this is to be understood of the same day. For since the day begins from midnight, one ought not to receive anything from midnight until the reception of this sacrament. But some have asked whether whatever enters the mouth breaks the reception of the sacrament, as if someone drinks water. It must be understood that there is a twofold fasting, namely the fasting of the Church, and the fasting of nature. The fasting of the Church is not broken by the drinking of water, but the fasting of nature is broken by it; because even though water does not of itself nourish, it nourishes together with other things. And you should understand that one receives water and drink if someone washes his mouth, and swallows a single drop by accident. Nevertheless he ought not on this account to omit reception; rather it is reckoned along with saliva. I say the same about food, that if someone eats aniseed in the evening, and something remains in the teeth, if by chance he swallows it, he ought not on this account to omit reception. Likewise some make it a matter of conscience, that if they have not slept, they should not receive. This has no place, because it was not part of the Church's establishment. Hence it makes no difference to the matter whether one has slept or not.

"Jesus took bread," and so on. Here the matter is touched upon. It must be noted that this sacrament, as regards something, pertains to the old sacrament, as the truth to the figure. That sacrament was taken as food, because it was commanded that they should eat the lamb; and this, which is taken in its place, ought to be taken as food. And just as that was truly food, so too is this lamb; John 6:56: "My flesh is truly food." Hence that opinion is false which held that Christ was there only under a sign, because if it were so, what more would this sign have than that one? But that was a sign only; this, however, is both figure and truth. But is it not irreverence, that someone should eat the body of the Lord? It must be said that this food differs from other foods, because other foods are converted into our body: hence if Christ were converted in this way, it would be irreverence. But it is not so; rather the reverse, as Augustine says: "Not you shall change me into yourself, but you shall be changed into me." Hence that sacrament is the end and perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is, because the being which exists through essence is the end and perfection of those things which exist through participation: for the other sacraments contain Christ through participation, but in this one Christ is present according to substance. Therefore Dionysius says that there is no sacrament which is not perfected in the Eucharist. Hence if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist ought to be given to him. It ought therefore to be taken as food, so that the truth may answer to the figure. And why not under its own proper species? One reason is by reason of the merit of faith, because faith has no merit where human reason furnishes proof by experience. Also, that those who receive it might be spared, because it is not customary that human flesh be eaten. Also, that it might be defended from the mockery of unbelievers. And why under such a species? Because he willed that it be celebrated by all everywhere in the world: therefore he willed to give them matter which is common to all. Now the common food is bread, and the common drink of men is wine: hence bread and wine are the principal food, the others being rather like side-dishes, as it were. Likewise in the other sacraments, in anointing, not just any oil is taken, but common oil, which is called oil from many olives; thus the unity of the Church arises from the multitude of the faithful. And thus it is clear that our sacraments are more ancient than the sacraments of the old law; because the sacraments of the old law had their beginning from Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the new law from Melchizedek, who offered Abraham bread and wine. Therefore it is said that Christ was made priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Psalm 109:4.

Next the blessing is treated; and this blessing is referred to three things. To the matter, because he blessed the fruit of the earth, in which it is signified that the curse of Adam was revoked through Christ, when he said to him, Genesis 3:17: "Cursed is the earth in your labor, ... it shall bring forth to you thorns and thistles." Likewise it is referred to that which was contained in it, namely Christ; above, 21:9: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Likewise to the fruit of the sacrament, because through this the faithful are blessed, and it passes from the head to the members; Proverbs 10:6: "The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just."

Then the breaking is touched upon, "and he broke": and it signifies three things. First it signifies the mystery of the future passion, because in the passion his members were pierced, according to that word of Psalm 21:17: "They have dug my hands and my feet, they have numbered all my bones." And this was done because he himself willed it; Isaiah 53:7: "He was offered because he himself willed it." Likewise it is signified that it is broken from unity into multitude, whence it signifies the incarnation: because, since the Word of God itself was simple, it came into this multitude, without abandoning simplicity. Likewise the effect which he brought upon diverse persons is signified; because, according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:4, "there are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit." Likewise the distribution is set down, "he gave to his disciples"; Ecclesiasticus 29:33: "Of the things that you have in hand, feed each one." And he says "disciples," because this sacrament ought to be given to no one who is not baptized. Just as a priest would not confect it unless consecrated, so it ought not to be administered to anyone unless baptized. Likewise it is not to be given except to the faithful; indeed unbelievers ought not to be admitted to see this sacrament: hence in the primitive Church, when there were many catechumens, they were received in the Church up to the Gospel, and then they were expelled. Likewise, since he says "his disciples," it is asked whether Judas was there. All say that he gave it to all at once, and even to Judas, and this in order that he might call him back from sin by his own kindness. Also that he might give the Church an example, that while a sinner is hidden, he should not be barred from the reception of this sacrament: for men do not have the right to judge of hidden things. Hilary here says that Judas was not there, because he had already gone out. And he wishes to prove it by that which is said in John 13:25, when the disciples asked: "Who is it that will betray you?" To whom he said: "He to whom I shall give the dipped morsel." Thus he shows that he had already gone out. But it is rather to be held what the others say.

"And he said: Take and eat; this is my body." Here the words are set down: and in these words he does three things. First he exhorts to receiving; second to eating; third he declares the truth. He says "take and eat." And what he says, "take," ought to be referred to spiritual reception, because it ought not to be taken except in faith and charity; John 6:55: "He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him." Likewise he induces to eating, "eat," not only spiritually, but also sacramentally; Song of Songs 5:1: "Eat, friends, and drink." Likewise he designates the truth, "this is my body." The form of the sacrament is contained in these words, which are the words of the Lord, because in the words of the Lord the sacrament is confected. Hence if the word of Elijah had such power that it made fire descend from heaven, much more will the word of God be able to transmute one body into another. Then it is asked whether power is in the words. And there is no doubt that it is. Hence it is said, Psalm 67:34: "He gave to his voice the voice of power"; Ecclesiastes 8:4: "Because his word is full of power." Hence the priest performs it in the person of Christ, and does not use the words in his own person, but in the person of Christ. But what is this power? How is the power so great? Therefore some say that there is no power there, but only the power of Christ, which assists there. And this does not seem right, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify. But what power did it have? It must be said that there is a principal agent cause, and this has power abiding in itself; likewise an instrumental cause, and this does not operate through a power abiding in itself, but through a power passing over from another: hence the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but as instrumental causes passing over from another.

But then it is asked what is in fact the case: whether that "take and eat," etc., belongs to the form of the sacrament. And it must be said that only that, "this is my body," belongs to the form of the sacrament. Hence it must be understood that it is otherwise with this sacrament than with the other sacraments, because the consecration of the matter is sometimes of the necessity of the sacrament, sometimes not; as in Baptism the consecration of the matter is not of the necessity of Baptism, but in anointings no anointing is done unless the oil is blessed. In the other sacraments too, the sacrament is not perceived in the blessing, but in the infusion; because oil and water, since they are inanimate, do not contain grace: hence since grace is the end of the sacrament, it cannot be brought about except through the reception of the sacrament. But in this sacrament is contained he who is the fullness of grace; therefore it is not perfected in us, but in the consecration of the matter. Hence, granted that no one should receive it, it would nonetheless be no less a sacrament: hence the use is a consequence and is not of its necessity. Hence in the other sacraments that belongs to the form which pertains to use: this does not pertain to use, but to the holiness of the matter. Hence that which is said, "take and eat," which pertains to use, does not belong to the form.

Likewise it is usually a question, whether the Lord confected under these words. And it seems that he did not: because it is said there, "he took bread, and blessed." Therefore it seems that he consecrated in the blessing. Therefore some have said that he did not consecrate first by words, but by spiritual power. And this he could do on account of the power of excellence, because he could hand on the truth of the sacrament without the sacrament, since he had not bound his power to the sacraments: hence he could do this through the power of excellence. Others say that first he said it in secret, and afterward in public. It is better said that he said it once, and not twice, and in these words he consecrated. Hence it ought to be read in such a way that that which is said, "he said: take and eat," refers to what precedes, so that, in saying this, he said, "this is my body."

Here it is asked what this pronoun "this" points to. Some have said that it points not to the sense, but to the intellect, because it refers only to the substance of the bread, and only to signifying. Hence the sense is, "this is my body," that is, what is signified by this, is my body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify, therefore it does nothing else but what it signifies: and it signifies the body of Christ, and thus it would only be the body of Christ under a sign. Others say that the "this" points to the very substance of the body. But how is this? Is it at once the body of Christ when he says, "this"? It is evident that it is not, because if the priest were to die, it would not be consecrated unless he completed it. Therefore others say that the "this" delays its signification, and points to that which will be after the utterance of that word "my." This too does not fit, because thus it would seem to say the same thing, as if it said: my body is my body; and this does not befit God. Others say that the words are uttered materially, not significatively. And this cannot stand, because Augustine says: "The word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament." What then? It must be said that they are spoken recitatively, and at the same time recitatively and significatively. Why? Because he himself speaks in the person of Christ, and performs the act as if Christ were present: otherwise the words would not reach to their proper matter. What then? It must be said that it is otherwise in sacramental words, and in other human words: because a human word is only significative, but a divine word is significative and effective. Hence sacramental words have their power from the divine power. Hence at the same time he speaks, and by divine power he brings about. Therefore that word is not only significative, but also effective. And first it brings about, second it signifies.

For in material making it is thus, that something common preexists in any transmutation, and that common thing is under one term of the transmutation at the start, and at the end under the other. For example, suppose that from black something white is made; in this transmutation there was a body, but at the beginning it was under blackness, and afterward under whiteness. Hence in one respect it is similar, in this respect namely that there is something common; but dissimilar, because not in the same way; because in other material transmutations the subject is common, and the form differs; here, however, it is the contrary, because the accident is common, the substance differs. Hence the substance is transmuted, the common accident remains. What then does the "this" point to? It must be said that the sense is: "this is my body," that is, what is contained under the accident is my body. Or this comes about, that what is contained under the accidents may be my body. Hence at the end he set down a noun, but at the beginning a pronoun, which signifies an undetermined substance; but through the noun a determinate form. Hence at the beginning there is not yet the form, but at the end there is.

But how is the body of Christ there? One opinion was, that together with the body of Christ the substance of the bread remained. Hence what he says, "this is my body," is referred to the body alone. Others say that the substance of the bread passes over into the preexisting matter, and the body of Christ comes there, apart from this, that the substance of the bread should pass over into the body of Christ. But this is disproved as follows. Because thus it seems that something begins to be where it was not before, which cannot be unless either it is changed according to place, or something is converted into it. Just as if it be said: here there is no fire, that afterward there is fire there cannot be, unless it is brought there from elsewhere, or something that is there is changed into fire. But according to this opinion the manner of conversion is taken away; therefore it would be nothing but a local change. But it is impossible for the same body to be in different places; therefore, and so on. Hence it must be said otherwise, that the body begins to be there, not through local motion, but through the conversion of the other thing into it; and in this the form remains, and the subject passes over. Hence the subject is changed into the subject, which is the principle of individuation, not because the body of Christ is there together with the substance of bread, or the substance of bread is annihilated, but through the fact that it is transmuted through conversion into it.

But how will it be able to be in so small a place? It must be said that something is there by the power of the sacrament, and that is there principally; but something is there by concomitance. That is there by the power of the sacrament, into which the conversion is terminated. And because the bread is converted into the body of Christ, that which is signified is the body of Christ, and it is not without the soul, nor without the divinity: yet the bread is not converted into the soul, or into the divinity, but they are there by concomitance. Hence if someone had celebrated during the three days, when the soul was separated from the body, the soul would not have been there. For in bread there are two things, substance and accidents: the accidents remain, the substance passes over. That, therefore, is there principally, into which the transmutation is terminated; but it is terminated in the substance; therefore the substance is there principally, but the accidents by concomitance: and dimensions are accidents. Nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament related to place through its own proper dimensions, but through the preexisting dimensions of the bread.

Likewise, "he broke." But is the whole body in every part? I say that it is. And you should understand that it is one thing to be in a place, and another for the thing placed to be in a place; because the thing placed is related to the place under its own dimensions, but not so here. Hence it must be noted that wherever there is some difference of quantity, it does not make a difference in substance; but if there is something that follows quantity, it is divided according to quantity. But the soul does not have its totality from quantity, but has its totality in every part: hence the body of Christ is not related to that body according to quantity, but only according to substance. Therefore just as the soul is in every part of the body, so Christ is in every part of the host.

What then will become of these accidents? It must be said that they remain without a subject by divine power. And how can this be, since accidents depend upon substance? It must be said that God is the principle of being; hence he can produce an effect separated from a subject and without its principles; therefore, since it belongs to the principle of substance to conserve accidents in being, God can conserve them without their principles. If you ask whether this is true of all accidents, it must be said that all accidents are referred to substance by means of dimensions, whence in a certain way they are individuated; therefore the dimensions are without a subject, but quality is in the dimensions as in a subject. Hence the sense is "this," that is, what is contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, is my body — because the substance, which first underlay these accidents, is changed into the body of Christ.

Above, the institution of the new sacrament was treated as to the sacrament of the Lord's body; here the institution of the same is treated as to the sacrament of the blood: and concerning this he does two things. First the deeds of Christ are set down; second his words, at "Drink of this, all of you." Concerning the first, three deeds are set down. First, that he took the cup; second, that he gave thanks; third, that he gave it to the disciples. Hence he says, "And taking the cup," etc.; by which it was signified that it was not instituted that it should be done under one species, but under two. And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this sacrament: one which is sacrament only, another which is reality only, another which is both sacrament and reality. Sacrament only are the species of bread and wine; reality only is the spiritual effect; reality and sacrament is the body contained. If, then, we consider the sacrament only, it fits well that the body be signified under the species of bread, the blood under the species of wine, because it is signified as indicating spiritual refreshment; but refreshment is properly in food and drink, therefore etc. Likewise, if it be taken as reality and sacrament, this fits because that sacrament is commemorative of the Lord's passion. And it could not signify this better than thus, so that the blood is signified as poured out and separated from the body. Likewise, as to that which is taken as reality only, because blood pertains to the soul—not because blood is the soul, but because life is preserved in the blood: hence it is signified that, since that sacrament is for the salvation of the faithful, bread is offered for the salvation of the body, but blood for the salvation of the soul. Proverbs 9:5: "Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you," because this refreshment is in bread and wine. Likewise another reason: the whole Christ is contained in the body. What then is the necessity that the blood be there in itself? For this reason it must be understood, as was said above, that one thing is there by the power of the sacrament directly, another by natural concomitance. Under the species of bread the body of Christ is contained by the power of the sacrament, but the blood by concomitance. In the blood, conversely, the blood is there by the power of the sacrament, but the body by concomitance. Hence, if the blood of Christ had been poured out on the ground and it had been celebrated, there would not have been blood except by itself alone. For this reason, because certain people did not understand this, they said that these forms are continued into one another. Hence they say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if the priest were to die before he consecrated the wine, both body and blood would be in the host. Likewise, he says "taking the cup," and does not say "taking wine"; therefore some said that it ought to be done with water. And this is excluded, because there follows "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine," etc. Second, it is clear that it was wine mixed with water. And the reason for this is on the part of the sacrament, because it must be celebrated as the Lord instituted it. But in a hot country the custom is that wine is not drunk without water; therefore it is not to be believed that he made it with pure wine. It also fits what is contained, because that sacrament is commemorative of the Lord's passion; but from Christ's side there came out blood and water, as is had in John 19:34. Likewise, to signify the effects, and this in two ways: because this signifies the memory of Christ's passion; therefore it induces in us the effects of Christ's passion. But the effect is twofold, to wash and to redeem. He redeemed us through his blood; Apocalypse 5:9: "You have redeemed us to God in your blood." Likewise he washes away filth; Apocalypse 1:5: "He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." And these things were necessary, that he might wash and redeem. And the washing is signified by water, the redemption by wine. Likewise by water is signified the people; Apocalypse 17:1: "many waters, many people." And through this sacrament the people is united to Christ; therefore through this mixture it is signified that the people is united to Christ. But what happens to that water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is converted into wine, because since it is put in a small amount, the species is changed, and thus the whole is converted; and thus it pertains to the mystery, because in this the unity of the Church is contained. Likewise, in that he says "taking," it is signified that he voluntarily sustained the passion; hence in Psalm 115:13: "I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord." Likewise, "he gave thanks." And concerning what? Concerning two things, the sign and the thing signified. Concerning the sign, because of the effect; concerning the thing signified, because of the passion. In which it is signified that we ought to give thanks not only for good things, but also for evil and adverse things; 1 Thessalonians 5:18: "In all things giving thanks"; Romans 8:28: "To them that love God, all things work together unto good." Likewise he gave thanks concerning the institution of this sacrament, because he was doing this by divine power; hence in John 5:30: "Of myself I do nothing." Therefore he gives thanks to God the Father; John 11:41: "I give thee thanks, because thou hast heard me." In which an example is given to us, that if Christ, who was equal to the Father, gave thanks, we ought to give thanks. Likewise he gives thanks concerning the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And this he could not do except from his divinity; John 6:64: "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." There follows "and he gave," that they might take it in the sacrament. And by this he signified that the fruit of his passion ought to be ministered by some to others. Hence the apostles can be compared to the young of the eagle, of whom it is said in Deuteronomy 32:11: "As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them." Then he enjoins the use. And first he sets down the use; second, the words of consecration of the blood; third, he foretells the resurrection. He says therefore, "Drink of this, all of you"; Song of Songs 5:1: "Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved." Hence it is signified that Christians can partake in different places and at different times. "For this is my blood," etc. These are the words of consecration. And note that in these words there is a difference from those which the Church uses. The Church adds: "This is the cup." Likewise, where he says "of the new testament," the Church adds "of the new and eternal testament." Likewise, where he says "which is shed for many," the Church adds "which shall be shed for you," etc. Whence then does the Church have this form? It must be said that, as Dionysius says, it was not the intention of the Evangelists to hand down the forms of the sacraments, but to keep them as it were secret; hence they intended only to narrate the history. Whence then does the Church have it? From the institution of the apostles. Hence Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:34: "The rest I will set in order when I come." But there is a question: why does he say "this is my body," or "is my blood"? Why does he not say: "this is converted into body, or into blood"? etc. But there is a twofold reason. The first is that the forms of the sacraments ought to signify what they effect. That which they effect is that it be converted into the body of Christ; but the last effect is that the body comes to be, therefore the last effect ought to be signified; therefore it ought to be signified that this is the body, but not that it is converted into the body. In this form, however, there is something similar to the old, something dissimilar. Similar in this, as is had in Exodus 24:8, that when Moses had read the law, he immolated calves, and offered the blood, and said: "This is the blood of the covenant of the Lord." Thus this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. In Hebrews 9:7 it is said that once a year the high priest alone entered, not without blood, which he offers for his own and the people's ignorance. But a difference is shown as to four things. First, in this, that that blood was of calves, this of Christ; therefore this is effective to remit; Hebrews 9:13: "For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?" Likewise, that was called the blood of the testament, but this is called the testament. Likewise, "testament" is taken commonly and properly. Commonly for any deed whatsoever, because it used to be the custom that witnesses were brought in for every deed. Properly it is called a testament when something is bequeathed at death, according to what the Apostle says, that a testament is confirmed at the death of the testator. In both ways it fits here, because there was a pact there; and it was made with blood, because in the confederation of peace in ancient times they showed blood, therefore it was called the blood of the covenant. Likewise, according as it is said with reference to the dead, thus there was a certain pact between God and men in the old and in the new law, but differently; because first concerning temporal things, namely of the old law, as is clear that he promised them the land of the Amorrhites, therefore it was old, because men were not renewed by it, but rather grew old; but this testament is concerning heavenly and supernal things. Therefore above, 4:17: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Therefore he says "of the new testament"; there indeed it was said: "This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," etc. Jeremiah 31:31: "I will make with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant." Hence, "for this is my blood of the new testament," that is, dedicated to the new testament, in which we ought to have confidence; Hebrews 10:19: "We have confidence by the blood of Christ." Likewise, it fits with respect to death; because through the death of Christ the promise was confirmed. Likewise another difference, because this adds "of the new and eternal testament," which can be referred either to the eternal inheritance, or to Christ, who is eternal. Another difference is that in that one it is had: "which he hath made with you"; hence that testament was restricted to those alone; but this one also to the Gentiles, Isaiah 52:15: "he shall sprinkle," namely with his blood, many nations. "For many," and for all, because if sufficiency be considered, he is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. But if we consider the effect, it has effect only in those who are saved, and this by the fault of men. But the Church adds "for you," that is, the apostles, because they themselves are the ministers of this blood, and through them it is derived to the Gentiles. Likewise it is put "unto the remission of sins," because that one could not remit sins. "But I say to you." Here consolation is set down, according to Chrysostom. Because he had made mention of the shedding of blood, by which the passion is signified, therefore he consoles them, and foretells his own glory. And it can be expounded in four ways. Chrysostom expounds it thus, that the Lord had foretold the passion, therefore he wishes to make them glad. "I will not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine," that is, of wine, "until that day," etc. This kingdom he calls the kingdom of the resurrection. Then he received a new kingdom, that is, in a new manner. That afterward he drank with them is clear from Acts 10. But why is it said "in a new manner"? Because before he ate in one way, and afterward in another; because before he ate from necessity, but after the resurrection not on account of necessity, but that he might demonstrate the truth of the resurrection. Jerome says thus, that by the vine is signified the people of the Jews; Isaiah 5:7: "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel"; Jeremiah 2:21: "I planted thee a chosen vineyard, all true seed." "But I say to you that from now on I will not drink," that is, my soul will not rejoice concerning this people, "until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father." "Kingdom" signifies the present Church; "new," that is, renewed through faith, because then they shall be converted, and then I shall rejoice with them. For many have been converted, and many shall be converted. Remigius expounds it thus, and says that this must be referred to the paschal ceremonies, that is: I will not celebrate henceforth ceremonies of this kind until the state of the Church, when I shall rejoice over the renewal of the Church. Augustine thus: in that he says "new," it is opposed to old. But oldness is twofold: of punishment and of fault, and this is derived from Adam, as is had in Romans 5:12ff. But Christ had the oldness of punishment, not of fault. Hence he paid his single debt for our double debt. He says therefore "I will not drink," concerning the oldness of punishment, "until," etc., because he was about to lay down this body, and he took up in the resurrection a glorified body, and he promises the apostles that they too shall take it up. And he signifies that they are not diverse natures, because the body which he will take up will be of the same nature, but of another glory.

Having set down the institution of the new sacrament, here the future scandal of the disciples is foretold. And first the place is set forth; second the prediction, where it says and he said to them. And this fits both with what precedes and with what follows. Hence it can be connected with either. He says therefore and when a hymn had been sung. By this he gives us an example in two ways: because first there was a meal and a material supper, after which we ought to give thanks and praise God; Psalm 21:27: "the poor shall eat and shall be filled, and they shall praise the Lord that seek him." Likewise after that there was the sacramental supper, after which we likewise ought to give thanks. Hence after that, he sang a hymn. Hence what is said after communion in the Mass represents this hymn; therefore the faithful ought to wait until the end of Mass in order to hear this hymn. And this is what is said in John 17:1: "Father, glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you." And when this was said, they went out to the Mount of Olives. For the Mount of Olives signifies richness, because olives are rich; hence it signifies spiritual richness. In Genesis 49:20: "his bread is fat." Hence it signifies the richness of grace and of the heavenly glory to which he is being led forward; Psalm 67:16: "a mountain of God, a fat mountain." Oil soothes weary limbs, mitigates pain, provides fuel for fire and brightness. So it will be in that glory, because all labor will be removed, all pain; all brightness will be present. Likewise, what he says, to the Mount of Olives, fits the future prediction. By oil mercy is signified: for just as it floats above other liquids, so does mercy; Psalm 144:9: "his tender mercies are over all his works." Likewise on the mountain he shows the scandal, so that mercy might be signified as preceding it. "When the just man shall fall, he shall not be bruised, for the Lord putteth his hand under him," Psalm 36:24.

Then he says, (…) "all of you shall be scandalized because of me this night." Here the scandal is set forth. And first in general; second in particular, where it says but Peter answering. Concerning the first he does two things. First he foretells it; second, lest it seem to happen by chance, he brings forward an authority, where it says for it is written: "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered." And in this word the sin of the disciples is aggravated in many respects. First from its universality, all of you; Isaiah 1:6: "from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein," and so on. Likewise the matter is touched upon, you shall be scandalized because of me; 1 Corinthians 1:23: "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block." The Jews, because they sought nothing but the weakness of the flesh, suffered scandal. Likewise the sin is aggravated by the nearness of the time, because after so many warnings, after the reception of the sacrament. Hence they had already forgotten what he had done for them; hence they are well compared to a man beholding the countenance of his birth in a mirror: "for he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was," James 1:24. Likewise because it happens at night, for "they that are drunk, are drunk in the night," and "they that sleep, sleep in the night," 1 Thessalonians 5:7: so also those who are scandalized. Then he adds the authority: for it is written: "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered." And it is written in Zechariah 13:7, and there it says: "strike the shepherd," namely Christ, "and the sheep shall be scattered"; but here it says "I will strike," and quite fittingly, because the prophet desired that this should happen, and therefore said, "strike the shepherd"; but Christ speaks in his own person; and on this day he foretells first the passion of Christ; second the scandal, when he says "I will strike the shepherd." This shepherd is Christ; John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd." And 1 Peter 2:25: "you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls." And he was struck, because God delivered him up, "for he spared not even his own Son," Romans 8:32: and this on account of our sins; Isaiah 53:8: "for the wickedness of my people have I struck him." Likewise he foretells the scandal, "and the sheep shall be scattered." The sheep are the faithful; John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice." And thus God allowed them to be scattered, that afterward he might gather them together; Psalm 146:2: "he will gather together the dispersed of Israel." John 10:16: "other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and them also I must bring."

Then he foretells the joys of the resurrection: "but after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee"; for although the Father raised him up, as is said elsewhere, Acts 2:24: "whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell," nevertheless he rose by his own power, because the power of the Father is the power of the Son; 2 Corinthians ult., 4: "for although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God." Likewise, against what he had said, that the sheep would be scattered, he says "I will go before you into Galilee." For sheep follow the shepherd: hence the shepherd gathers them by calling them by name; therefore he says "I will go before." Or it can be referred to what he says "after I shall be risen again." Because some might believe that a long time would pass until his resurrection, therefore he said that it would not be long, because "I will go before you into Galilee." His custom was to remain but little in Judea, but to pass quickly into Galilee. He wishes therefore to say: I will rise again before you can come into Galilee, so as to show that he is the one who will appear to them. Therefore they were able to be sufficiently assured. Likewise, what he says, that he will go before, gives security. Because they were suffering persecution in Judea, therefore he says that he will go before into Galilee, so as to remove them from fear. And Chrysostom says that it must not be understood that he first appeared in Galilee: rather he appeared here, but not first, indeed rather in Jerusalem. Why then does he rather say "into Galilee"? Galilee is interpreted "passing over": hence it is signified that through the resurrection we shall pass from mortal life to immortal life; and in this he went before us, because Christ is the firstfruits of them that sleep. Likewise the passing over of the disciples to the Gentiles is signified: and in this Christ went before, by moving hearts.

"But Peter answering." Here the prediction concerning the scandal of Peter is set forth. And first the occasion is set forth; second the prediction; third the excuse. The second is where it says "Jesus said to him," and so on; the third where it says "Peter said to him," and so on. Here there is a question of the letter; because it seems that Peter said this after they had departed from the supper room; but Luke 22:34-39 seems to say that it was before they departed, and John 13:36-38 agrees with this. Augustine resolves this by saying that Peter said this three times, and thus all accounts agree, because if we consider the narrative, he says this for several reasons. This movement arose from the fact that he had foretold the scandal. Luke 22:32 the Lord had said: "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not," and then Peter said: "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." But in John it is said for another reason; because John 13:33 the Lord said: "whither I go, you cannot come at this time." Then Peter said: "I will lay down my life for thee." Therefore he said it three times; hence it can be that he said it twice in the supper room, but once outside, as is said here. And it can be that he spoke from fervor, and did not consider his own powers. Yet he sinned in three respects. First because he trusted himself more than the Lord, though it is written in Romans 3:4: "God is true; but every man a liar." Likewise because he preferred himself to the others; hence he said, "and even if all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized." Hence he considered himself firmer than the others; and he fell into what is said in Luke 18:11: "I am not as the rest of men," and so on. Likewise because he attributed to himself what he ought not, though it is written John 15:5: "without me you can do nothing." Because therefore he spoke arrogantly, therefore the more did he permit him to fall. And God does this, because God greatly hates pride; Job 40:6: "and looking on every one that is proud, he humbleth him."

"Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice." Because you might think that I speak by way of threat, therefore I say to thee, "amen," that is, I say to thee from the heart, that "before the cock crow in this night, thou wilt deny me thrice." And his fault is aggravated by the nearness of the time, because "in this night." Likewise by the multiplicity, because "thrice": just as he had presumed three times, so he denied three times after the presumption; Job 31:27: "if my heart hath rejoiced in secret." But there is a question about this "before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice"; because in Mark 14:30 it is stated that "before the cock crow twice." According to Augustine it can be resolved that according to the history what Mark says is true. And what Matthew says can be resolved thus, that a man is said to do a thing when he does it in intention, as above at 5:28: "whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Thus Peter in his intention denied three times, or even more times; from which he conceived a fear that was sufficient for denying three times or more; therefore he says that he denied three times because he had already conceived that he would deny three times or more. Hence Matthew said what he intended inwardly; but Mark, what he did outwardly. Or it can be said otherwise, that when I say: I will do this within such a time, then it is not necessary that it be done within that time, but it suffices that it be begun. Hence what he said, that he would deny three times, it was not necessary that it be completed before the cock's crow, but only begun.

There follows the excuse of Peter, "Peter said to him," and so on. Peter excuses himself, "even if I should die with thee, I will not deny thee." And yet he feared, because at the voice of a maidservant he denied. Jerome says that he did not know what he was saying, because Christ alone was to die, that he alone might be the Redeemer; Isaiah 63:3: "I have trodden the winepress alone." Then he sets down the affirmation, namely of the others likewise, "and all the disciples said the same." Hence they said as Peter had said; yet the others had a better reason than Peter for excusing themselves, because the others spoke without such an assertion.

"Then Jesus came with them into a country place, which is called Gethsemani." In this part the preparation is set forth, which is by prayer; and he does three things. First the purpose of praying is proposed; second the necessity of praying; third the manner. The second is where it says "and taking with him Peter," and so on; the third where it says "and going a little further, he fell upon his face." Concerning the first he does two things. First the place is set forth; second he foretells the purpose, "and he said to his disciples." He says therefore "then Jesus came with them into a country place, which is called Gethsemani." The contrary seems to be said in John 18:1, that Jesus went forth and came over the brook Cedron. Hence it should be noted that that country place was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, hence it was the same place; and he came there after supper, as if to walk about. Then he foretells the purpose of praying, "and he said to his disciples: sit you here, till I go yonder, and pray." A similar thing is found in Genesis 22:5: "Abraham said to his young men: stay you here with the ass, I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you." But here Damascene raises a question. Prayer is an ascent into God, but the intellect of Christ was joined to God; how then did he who was doing this need God? Hence it should be said that he prayed not for his own sake, but for our benefit. And this is twofold, because he prayed in order to give us an example, that in tribulation we might have recourse to the Lord; Psalm 119:1: "in my trouble I cried to the Lord." Likewise, that he might show that he was from another, and that he had it from another; hence he says: "the Son cannot do anything of himself." And in the same place, 8:28: "I do nothing of myself." Likewise, to exclude an error, because some said that the power of the Father and of the Son was not the same; John 8:49: "I honor my Father." He gives, therefore, an example of prayer, and how one ought to pray. For the first condition of prayer is that it ought to be humble prayer: which is signified because he went into a valley; Judith 9:16: "the prayer of the humble and the meek hath always pleased thee." Likewise it ought to be devout; hence in Gethsemani, that is, in a country place of richness; Psalm 62:6: "let my soul be filled as with marrow and fatness." Likewise it ought to be solitary, as above at 6:6: "enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father."

"And taking with him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee," and so on. Here he foretells the necessity of prayer: and this was sorrow. And first he sets forth witnesses of the sorrow; second he shows the sorrow; third he dispels it. The second is where it says "he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad"; the third where it says "stay you here, and watch with me." He says therefore, "and taking with him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee," and so on. He took three with him. And why these rather than the others? One reason is that these were firmer, and because weakness scandalizes all, therefore he wished to show his weakness rather to these than to the others. Likewise he had shown them glory; therefore he wished that just as they had seen his glory, so they might see his weakness, that they might know that neither weakness swallowed up glory, nor glory swallowed up weakness.

There follows the showing of the weakness. And first in deed; second in word. And according to this he does three things: because first he says according to what Christ was made sorrowful; second why he was made sorrowful; third how he was made sorrowful. As to the first, "he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad." Here two errors must be avoided; for some said that he was made sorrowful according to his divinity: and this cannot be, because he was made sorrowful because he was passible, but the divinity was not passible. Likewise the opinion of the Arians, otherwise of Eunomius, was that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word in place of a soul. And why did he say this? So that all things that pertain to defect might be referred to the Word, so that he might be shown to be less than the Father. And this is false. Therefore he suffered according to what he was able to suffer, that is, according to his soul. Then he says to them: "my soul is sorrowful even unto death," and so on. He does not say: I am sorrowful, because "I" is indicative of the person, but he was not made sorrowful inasmuch as he is the Word, but according to the soul; therefore the error both of Arius and of Apollinaris is excluded; likewise that of the Manicheans, who hold that he did not truly suffer. Hence it is clear according to what he was made sorrowful.

But why was he made sorrowful? The words of the saints differ. For Hilary and many others said that he was not made sorrowful for his own sake, nor on account of his own death, but on account of the scandal of the disciples: and he wishes to prove this by the fact that he took them with him. Damascene says that he was sorrowful for his own sake. And why? Because sorrow arises from the fact that we lack that which we naturally love. The soul naturally wills to be united to the body, and this was in the soul of Christ, because he ate, and drank, and hungered. Therefore separation was against natural desire: therefore to be separated was sorrowful for him. Yet we can understand that something belongs to the soul in itself, and something belongs to the soul by comparison to another: just as a bitter drink, considered in itself, is painful, but referred to the end of our salvation, is a cause of joy. Just as something belongs to reason as nature is, and something belongs to reason inasmuch as it is reason: so this death of Christ was matter for sorrow according as it was considered in itself; but according as it was referred to reason, referring it to the end, thus he rejoiced. Therefore the words of Hilary and Jerome are understood as referring to the end.

Likewise it is asked how sorrow falls in Christ. Hence it must be noted that sometimes sorrow happens according to passion, sometimes according to propassion. According to passion, when something suffers and is changed: but when it suffers, and is not changed, then it has propassion. But sometimes such things are in us in such a way that reason is changed, and then the passions are complete; but when reason is not changed, then it is propassion. But in Christ reason was never changed; therefore it was propassion, and not passion. Hence the Evangelist says pointedly "he began to be sorrowful." Likewise Augustine says that we have sorrow as something contracted, but Christ as something assumed: for that is contracted which is had by origin through birth, but Christ assumed our nature as he willed; therefore there was no necessity that he should receive passibility, such as sorrow, but it was from his will. Likewise it should be noted, as Damascene says, that in us the movement of the passions forestalls reason, because sometimes there is passion in us, and sometimes propassion; but in Christ there was nothing but propassion, and it never happened in Christ that a movement arose in the lower powers of the soul, rather the lower powers were totally subject to reason, and when he willed, he permitted the lower powers to act according to what was natural to them. Therefore another Evangelist said that he troubled himself, because these movements could not have happened except according as he willed.

Then he says to them: "my soul is sorrowful even unto death." Note what he says, "even unto death," by which I shall make satisfaction for this scandal and for the others. Or according to another explanation: do not believe that it must last forever, because as long as the body will be passible, and this is until death, "my soul is sorrowful," and then it will be glorified.

Then he excludes the others, "stay you here, and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying." Above he touched the cause of the sorrow, here however he treats of the order of Christ's prayer. And because he prayed three times, therefore this part is divided into three parts according to the three prayers. And concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the prayer of the one praying; second he rebukes the failure of the disciples, where it says "and he cometh to his disciples," and so on. And in the first he first sets forth the condition of the one praying; second the tenor of the prayer. A threefold condition, moreover, is commended, because first it notes solicitude, second humility, third devotion. Solicitude, because "going a little further," because he separated himself even from those whom he had chosen; above at 6:6: "when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret." But note that it was not far, but "a little," so as to note that he is not far from those who call upon him; Psalm 144:18: "the Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him." Likewise, so that they might see him praying, and receive a form. Therefore there follows humility, "and he fell upon his face," hence he shows an example of humility. And first on account of common humility, because humility is necessary for prayer; Ecclesiasticus 35:21: "the prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds." Likewise on account of a special humility, namely that of Peter, because he had said: "even if I should die with thee, I will not deny thee." Therefore the Lord fell down, that he might signify that he ought not to trust in his own power; above at 11:29: "learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart." Likewise the condition of piety, or of devotion, is signified, when he says "my Father"; for it is necessary for one praying to pray out of devotion, hence it says "my Father," because he alone is uniquely the Son, but we are so by adoption; John ult., 17: "I ascend to my Father and your Father"; as if to say, mine in one way, and yours in another.

Consequently he adds the tenor of the prayer: "if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me." This prayer can be expounded in three ways, and in whatever way it is expounded, two things must be considered. First you ought to consider in common as regards all, because, according to Damascene, prayer is an ascent of the mind into God: hence prayer belongs to the mind, or to the higher reason; yet it is constituted below God, but above human nature, or under the divine will. What then must be understood? According as it is when the higher reason descends to these things, insofar as it is fitting, yet in such a way that it is always subject to the divine reason; and this is noted when it says "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"; because the higher reason follows the will of nature, yet not simply, that is, if referred to the higher, it is not repugnant. Hence he wishes to say: I will that what I will be fulfilled, if it is not repugnant to thy justice, but I will that thy justice be fulfilled. And in this he teaches an example of how we ought to order our affections, because we ought to order them in such a way that they do not dissent from the divine rule. Hence it is not a grave matter if someone shrinks from what is grave to nature, provided he order it to the divine will.

Likewise it can be expounded, according to Chrysostom and Origen, in such a way that by the chalice the passion of Christ is signified, of which it is said in Psalm 115:13: "I will take the chalice of salvation," and so on. It is established that Christ had a natural human will; and this is what shrinks from death: therefore, in order to show himself man, he asks that the chalice pass from him; and this is so natural, that the petition was not removed from him. Likewise he said "if it be possible, let the chalice pass," that is, the passion: but I do not say it absolutely, but "if it be possible." And because someone might believe that he doubted whether it was possible for God, therefore he shows that it is possible, because "all things are possible to thee," Mark 14:36. "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt," that is, if it is fitting to thy justice, I will it; therefore he says "not as I will." Hence he touches two wills: one which he had from the Father inasmuch as he is God; one which he had with the Father. And in this the error of many is confounded. Likewise another will inasmuch as he is man: and this will he submitted in all things to the Father, giving us in this an example, that we should submit our will to the will of God; John 6:38: "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."

According to Jerome, he was not asking simply, but that this chalice might pass in this way. He saw that he was to suffer at the hands of the Jews; he willed therefore that it should pass, that is, that he might so redeem the world, that it might not be the crime of the Jews; Romans 11:11: "by their offence, salvation is come to the Gentiles." Hilary indeed says thus: the Lord does not ask that he not die, but he asks that the chalice pass over to others; as if he were to say: I will take the chalice with confidence. I ask that my disciples receive it without diffidence. But why does he say "if it be possible"? Because it seems against nature that they should receive death without sorrow. Hence he wishes to say: I would that the others not suffer, if it were possible; but let it be done as thou willest, that is, according to thy ordinance.

"And he cometh to his disciples." Here he rebukes the failure of the disciples. And first the failure is set forth; second the rebuke; third the admonition; fourth the reason for the admonition. When he had prayed, "he cometh to his disciples, and findeth them asleep." And this has an explanation according to the letter, because already part of the night had passed, therefore they were weighed down with sleep. Likewise the cause was that they were sorrowful, and sleep easily steals upon such; Proverbs 17:22: "a sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones." Likewise it is signified that while Christ was going up for us to the passion, many slept, just as "they all slumbered and slept," above at 25:5. And he says to Peter: "so, could you not watch one hour with me?" But why did he say this rather to Peter? The reason is that Peter had boasted more that he would stand by him in his necessities: therefore now it was a foreshadowing of his fall. "Could you not watch one hour with me?" And what is the reason that he afterward said it to all? Because all had promised along with Peter; hence it was said above: "and all the disciples said the same."

"Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation." In this part the admonition is added. You trust in yourselves; but you ought to have recourse to the aid of prayer, hence "pray that ye enter not into temptation." Hence above at 6:13, in the common prayer, he teaches us to ask this: "and lead us not into temptation." And he places watchfulness before this as a preparation; Ecclesiasticus 18:23: "before prayer prepare thy soul," that is, prudence is necessary; above at 10:16: "be ye wise as serpents."

"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak"; as if to say: what you promise, is from the readiness of the spirit; but nevertheless prayer is not necessary on account of the spirit, but on account of the flesh, which is weak; therefore watchfulness is necessary. Similar is what the Apostle says, Romans 8:10: "the body indeed is dead, because of sin, but the spirit liveth, because of justification." But it should be noted that the flesh of all is weak, but not the spirit of all is willing. In the wicked, indeed, just as the flesh is weak, so also is the spirit: on the contrary in the good, because they have the spirit willing, and therefore at the resurrection the spirit will restore the body ready. Or there can be a twofold weakness. One evil, which inclines to sin, according to what the Apostle says, Romans 7:18: "there dwelleth not in my flesh that which is good." Another weakness good, according as the flesh fails in readiness, according to what is said in the Song of Songs 5:8: "tell my beloved that I languish with love." And for this reason a man ought to watch, as Origen says, just as one who has a great treasure watches diligently that he may guard it.

Again, "a second time he went and prayed." Here he prays a second time. According to Chrysostom, he prays a second time for this reason, that he might show more firmly the truth of human nature: hence in Genesis 41:32: "that which thou hast seen the second time, is a token of firmness." But what he says, "if this chalice may not pass, but I must drink it, thy will be done," can be expounded in three ways. First thus. Above he had asked under a condition, here however, because he was assured that it could not be but that he should drink it, therefore he asks that his will be done; as if he were to say: if it cannot be but that I shall pass over to the glory of immortality, since mortality was not contracted, but assumed: therefore whether he suffered or not, he was to pass over to the glory of immortality. But it could not pass from him and from his members; hence if he did not drink it, it would not pass from the members. He wishes therefore to say: if it cannot pass from me, and from my members, thy will be done; Psalm 39:9: "that I should do thy will: O my God, I have desired it." Second, Jerome expounds it thus: if it cannot be that the truth pass over to the Gentiles, unless the Jews exceed the measure, thy will be done: for by their offense salvation was made for the Gentiles. Hilary expounds it thus: if it cannot be that the other saints drink the chalice of the passion except by my example, thy will be done; because the other saints took the example from the passion of Christ. He wishes therefore to say: if it cannot pass from me into the disciples, unless I drink it, so that they may be made stronger to drink it, thy will be done.

Consequently the second falling asleep of the disciples is set forth: "and he cometh again, and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy," with sleep, that is, on account of sleep, and on account of sorrow; Psalm 30:10: "my eye is troubled with wrath." "And leaving them, he went again, and he prayed the third time." Here he treats of the third prayer: and he does two things. First he sets forth the order; second the concession of sleep, where it says "then cometh he to his disciples," and so on. He says, "and leaving them, he went again, and prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word." But what does it signify that he prayed three times? He prayed three times so that he might free us from evils present, past, and future. Likewise so that he might teach our prayer to be directed to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; hence in the prayers of the Church it is always said: "glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." Likewise so that by the threefold prayer he might free the threefold denial of Peter; Luke 22:32: "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not." Likewise he prayed three times against three fears. For there is a fear opposed to concupiscence; for there is a threefold concupiscence, of curiosity, of pride, and of the flesh, and this threefold concupiscence is touched upon in 1 John 2:16: "all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life." To this threefold concupiscence a threefold fear corresponds, namely: to the concupiscence of the flesh, the fear of pain; to the concupiscence of the eyes, the fear of poverty; to the concupiscence of pride, the fear of reproach and disgrace. And Christ suffered these, not because he needed them, but for us.

Then "he cometh to his disciples, and saith to them." And first he indulges their sleep; second he rouses them, where it says "rise, let us go." First he gives leave; second he assigns the reason, where it says "behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed." The first time Christ found them sleeping and rebuked them; the second time he found them sleeping, and was silent; the third time he found them sleeping, and permitted the sleep. What is the reason? The literal reason is that a form of correction is given to prelates; because when he comes to someone, and finds him sleeping, he does not know whether it happens to him from negligence, or from weakness. And he can indulge it. Likewise, because after the resurrection he found them sleeping, and reproached them; Luke 24:25: "O foolish, and slow of heart to believe." Likewise he visited them after they had received the Holy Spirit, and then said nothing, because they were still weak; because they were still observing the legal precepts, as is said of Peter in Galatians 2:11. But at last, at his coming, he will visit them, and will let them rest in holy and peaceful quiet; Psalm 4:9: "in peace in the selfsame I will sleep, and I will rest."

According to Augustine, he grants it to them here, and above he denied it: but this sleep here is other than the one above. Because there is a sleep of oppression, and of this he speaks above, hence it is said at verse 43: "their eyes were heavy," with sleep, and this is to be rebuked. But this sleep here is a sleep of quiet; and this is permitted. Likewise there is a sleep on account of disturbance; and this is forbidden. Of this it is said in Ephesians 5:14: "rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." For sometimes there is sleep on account of the quiet of the body, but yet the soul watches: "I sleep, and my heart watcheth," Song of Songs 5:2. Likewise, because they were going to labor, therefore it was fitting that they should rest.

Then he assigns the reason, "behold the hour is at hand." He did not have to do this from any necessity, but from the divine ordinance; John 7:30: "they sought therefore to lay hands on him, but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come." But this hour had come; John 13:1: "Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father." But someone might say: if the hour is from the divine ordinance, then those who kill him do not sin. Therefore along with this he sets forth the sin, "and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners," that is, they do not do this thus from the divine ordinance, but from the fulfillment of their own will. Jeremiah 12:7: "I have given my dear soul into the hand of her enemies."

Then he sets forth the rousing. And first he sets it forth; second the necessity, where it says "behold." Now in what he says, "rise," he shows his own readiness; hence John 18:3 it is said that he went to meet them. And why? "Behold he is at hand that will betray me." He was near, not that he saw with the bodily eye, but by the spirit itself, namely by the eye of the divinity. But how did he say to them "rise," when he had given them leave to sleep? Augustine resolves this, because he had said it by way of reproach; as if he were to say: sleep as much as you will, behold the hour is at hand, and so on. And Augustine says that this would suffice, unless something better should occur; therefore he says otherwise, that they slept a little while, and when they had slept, he said "rise, let us go."

Above were set down the preparations for the Passion, namely the institution of the sacrament and the prayer of Christ; but here he sets down the Passion as regards those things which were inflicted by the Jews. And first he shows how he is captured; second, how he is examined; third, how he is condemned. The second at "the chief priests," etc.; the third at "then the chief priests," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he treats of the betrayal; second, of the capture; third, how he was led away after the capture. The second at "then they came up"; the third at "but they, laying hold of him," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he describes the person of the betrayer; second, the sign of the betrayal; third, the completion. The second at "now he who betrayed him," etc.; the third at "and immediately," and so on.

He describes the betrayer from three things: first from his name; second from his dignity; third from his company. From his name: "while he was yet speaking, behold, Judas," and so on. That is, while he was speaking these words, by which he was inspiring confidence in them, "behold, Judas" — who is interpreted "confessing." There were two Judases, of whom one is evil, the other good, to signify that some who would confess in the Church would be good — Romans 10:10: "but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation" — and some would be evil; Titus 1:16: "they confess that they know God, but by their deeds they deny him." Next he is described from his dignity: "one of the twelve" — because although he had been established in so great a dignity, he nevertheless fell into so great a crime. In which an example is given that no one ought to trust in his own state. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "let him who stands take heed lest he fall"; John 6:71: "did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" And why did he choose him, since he knew that he would be evil? One reason is that he might give an example to prelates, that they should not be despondent.

Again he is described from his company: "and with him came a great crowd," and so on. Just as he had a cruel mind, so too a cruel company, because every animal seeks out its like. And this is described because it says "many." In this it is noted that they were fools, for fools exist in a multitude; Ecclesiastes 1:15: "the number of fools is infinite." And they were indeed fools, because they were contradicting wisdom. Again they were armed, for it says "with swords and clubs." And what is the reason? Origen says that many believed in him, and therefore they feared lest the crowd should snatch him away from them. Again, because they had said above, in chapter 12, that he cast out demons by Beelzebub, therefore, so that no power should protect him, they came armed. Again he is described by authority, because they had been sent "from the chief priests and the elders of the people"; hence they were furnished with their authority, so that no one would contradict them, so that what is said in Psalm 2:2 might be fulfilled: "the kings of the earth stood up, and the princes gathered together in one against the Lord and against his Christ."

Next the sign of the betrayal is treated: "now he who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying," and so on. But here there is a question. Since he was known in Judea, why did they seek a sign? There can be a twofold reason. One, because Judas had heard that Christ had been transfigured on the mountain, and he believed that this had been done by magic art; therefore he wished to forestall him by the sign of a kiss, before he could transfigure himself. Jerome gives this explanation. But Origen speaks thus: that just as the manna in the desert tasted to each person according to what he supposed it to be, so Christ appeared to each person according to the opinion he held of him; therefore it was necessary that a sign be given. He gave a remarkable sign, for: "whomsoever I shall kiss, he it is, hold him." He made the sign of friendship the sign of betrayal; Proverbs 27:6: "better are the wounds of one who loves than the deceitful kisses of an enemy."

"And immediately coming to Jesus, he said: hail, Rabbi, and he kissed him." Here the completion of the betrayal is set down. And first he showed the signs; second he began to act. And he shows this first by word, when it says "hail, Rabbi"; second by deed, "and he kissed him." A similar case is found in 2 Kings 10:1, where Joab held Amasa's chin, and killed him. But why did he not come to him at once, but first greeted him? One reason is on account of reverence for the master. Again he first greeted him, because he feared lest, before he had made him manifest, he might transfigure himself first.

"And Jesus said to him: friend, why have you come?" And this can be read either interrogatively, or gently. If interrogatively, then it can be read as spoken by way of reproach, as if he were saying: you show friendship by a kiss, and have you come to destroy me? According to Psalm 27:3: "they speak peace with their mouth, but evil is in their hearts." And he said "friend." As often as he calls someone "friend," he speaks by way of reproach. Hence it was said above in chapter 22:12: "friend, how did you come in here, not having a wedding garment?" And elsewhere, chapter 20:13: "friend, I do you no wrong," and so on. 1 John 4:19: "for we did not love him first, but he first loved us." Or it can be read gently, and it is not a word of rebuke, but of permission: "friend, why have you come" — according to John 13:27: "what you do, do quickly." And he calls him friend as far as it depends on himself, because "with those who hated peace, I was peaceable," Psalm 119:7. And although he knew that he was going to kiss him, nevertheless he went to meet him.

"But they, laying hold, laid hands on Jesus." Now the capture is treated. And first the severity of the capture is set down; second, the testimony; third, the rebuke of the disciple. Concerning the first he does three things: for first he tells how the ministers seize him; second, how a certain disciple wished to hinder them; third, that Christ rebuked him. He says therefore: "but they, laying hold, laid hands on Jesus." Isaiah 1:15: "your hands are full of blood." For he himself handed himself over; Jeremiah 12:7: "I have given my beloved soul into the hands of her enemies."

Then it is set down how one disciple assailed the assailants: "and behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword." Who was this? It must be said that it was Peter. Hence just as above, in 16:22, he wished to hinder the Passion of Christ, so also here. From where did he have the occasion? From what is found in Luke 22:36, where the Lord commanded that they buy swords, and understanding this they believed that swords were necessary; hence they had a knife for cutting the lamb. Therefore Peter had one.

"Striking the servant of the high priest, he cut off his ear." Do not believe that he had time for deliberation to cut off the ear; rather he threw the blow, and when he wanted to strike him to death, it happened that he cut off the ear. The name of this man was Malchus, which is interpreted "king." And this signifies the cutting off of the kingdom from the Jewish people, and yet it was made the servant of the chief priests, that is, of the Romans; from this man Peter cut off the ear. By the ear, hearing is signified; and this is twofold, namely the right, by which eternal life is signified, and the left, by which temporal life. He cut off his ear, because he cut off from the Jewish people the doctrine of spiritual things; and this happened as an occasion for the Gentiles to receive the right ear, because Peter first preached to the Gentiles; and thus he cut off the right, drawing the Gentiles to the faith.

"Then Jesus said to him: put your sword back into its place." Here the rebuke is set down. And first he rebukes Peter; second, the ministers: "in that hour Jesus said to the crowds," and so on. And first he sets down the admonition, second he assigns the reason for the admonition: "for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." It says: "then Jesus said to him: put your sword back into its place." He had come to suffer voluntarily, therefore he did not wish to be defended. And in this he gave an example that martyrs suffering for Christ should not defend themselves.

Then he assigns the reason: first from the penalty; second from the will of Christ; third from authority. The second at "do you think that I cannot ask my Father," etc.; the third at "how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" First he mitigates by the terror of the penalty, saying: "all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." But Augustine raises a question, because not all who strike with the sword perish by the sword, but sometimes by fever; therefore it can be explained in three ways, according as the sword is threefold: material, concerning which in Psalm 36:14: "the sinners have drawn out the sword." Again, the sword of divine judgment, concerning which Jeremiah 19:7: "I will overthrow them by the sword." Again, of the divine word; Ephesians 6:17: "and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." It can therefore be understood of all these. Of the material sword, because he who kills with the sword will perish by the sword, that is, by his own, not another's. Hence Psalm 36:15: "let their sword enter into their own hearts." Again it can be explained of the sword of condemnation, concerning which it is found in Genesis 3:24, that the Lord placed a turning sword before Paradise. Hence those who condemn others will be condemned by divine judgment. Or some take up by their own authority what they do not have from another, and such perish by the sword.

"Do you think that I cannot ask my Father," and so on. Here he assigns the reason to mitigate the spirit of Peter, giving him to understand that he was suffering voluntarily, and that he could escape. And because he saw him presuming, therefore he says: "can I not ask my Father?" And he does not say "I cannot call," or "bring," but "ask": for he speaks the words of a man, because to ask is proper to a man. "And he will presently furnish me with more than twelve legions of angels?" And this was said according to the weakness of Peter's mind. Peter conducted himself in this way, that he ought to defend him, and that he needed the help of men; therefore he wishes to say that if he could be defended by the help of men, much more by that of angels. But it was not necessary, because rather the angels are sustained by him.

But what is the meaning of his saying "twelve legions of angels"? It must be said that a company is called among the Greeks a "phalanx," among the Romans a "legion," and it had six thousand men; hence twelve legions are seventy-two thousand, and there are that many languages of men, as is found from Genesis 11. Hence he wishes to say: if all men should rise up against me, the Lord could send a thousand angels against each language; and if one angel destroyed so many thousands, as is evident from Isaiah 37, much more will a thousand be able to kill the men of one language. Job 25:3: "is there any numbering of his soldiers?" And Daniel 7:10: "thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him." Remigius speaks thus: whoever do the will of God can be called angels, that is, messengers; Isaiah 18:2: "go, swift messengers, to a nation rent and torn apart." For whoever obey God are called angels; Psalm 103:4: "who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fire." Therefore by "legion" the legion of the Romans can be understood. Hence the Lord could bring in and provoke the legions of the Romans to destroy the Jews, just as afterward was done under Titus and Vespasian. And at this passage certain men have destroyed the opinion of those who said that the Lord could not do other than what he does; for if he could summon legions, which he did not summon, it is established that he can do many things which he does not do.

"How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?" Here the third reason is set down, why he ought not to be hindered: because the Scriptures have said so; and therefore it must happen thus. And he does not say which Scriptures, because all the prophets spoke either hiddenly or openly. Hence Luke, last chapter, 26: "was it not necessary that Christ should suffer, and so enter into his glory?"

"In that hour Jesus said to the crowds." In this part he rebukes the ministers, and he does two things. First he recalls the deed; second, the unreasonableness of the deed, when he says: "as against a thief have you come out with swords and clubs to seize me." Job 16:10: "he has gnashed his teeth against me" — because they went out as if he were a thief, but they themselves rather came as thieves. A thief hides so as not to be caught; but Christ offers himself openly. And thieves, if they wish to do harm, do not do harm in public; but Christ offered himself. Hence he says: "daily I was with you teaching in the temple, and you did not seize me"; therefore you have come as thieves. For in order to give them the opportunity, he went out of the city. "Daily I was with you teaching in the temple." A similar thing is found in John 18:20: "I have spoken nothing in secret." And he says "teaching in the temple." This was always his custom, to teach in the temple. "And you did not seize me." Hence it is clear that you have come like thieves.

Next the testimony is set down: "but all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." And he does not say of whom, because it is found as it were in all of them; Psalm 21:17: "they have dug my hands and my feet, and they have numbered all my bones." And Isaiah 53:3: "we esteemed him the last of men, a man of sorrows." And he says "that they might be fulfilled." The word "that" can be taken causatively, and thus it is not taken here; or consecutively, and thus it is taken here. For it did not happen because the prophets said it; but rather they foretold it because it was bound to happen. Hence the sense is "that it might be fulfilled," that is, by this deed there was fulfilled what had been foretold through the prophets.

"Then all the disciples, leaving him, fled" — so that what is said in Psalm 37:12 might be fulfilled: "my friends and my neighbors have forsaken me." But why did they not forsake him from the beginning? Jerome answers: because it is written in John 7:30, that they sought him, and no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. Hence from the beginning they believed that he could free himself, and would defend himself; but when they saw that he was captured, and that he did not wish to defend himself, they fled and forsook him.

Above it was treated of the seizing of Christ; now it is treated of whither he was led, and the place and the company gathering at the place are described. He says therefore, "But they," namely those who had seized him, "led him to Caiaphas." This Caiaphas was the high priest of that year, according to Jerome, as is had in John 11:49: "since he was the high priest of that year." For already the priesthood was not being conducted according to the precept of the Law. The Lord had commanded that Aaron and his sons should be priests by hereditary right, so that when one died another priest would remain. But afterward, as ambition grew, they could not endure this, but when Judea had been subjected to the Romans, this Caiaphas had bought the priesthood from the Jews, had bought it from Pilate; therefore he was an unjust prince. And it is no wonder if an unjust judge, or prince, renders an unjust judgment. And this suits the mystery; for just as the passion of Christ was the oblation of the true sacrifice, so also the place had to be fitting, that Christ, who is priest forever, should be offered in the house of the high priest. Caiaphas is interpreted "investigator," and this can be referred to the malice by which he condemned Christ. But here there is a question, because in John 18:13 it is said that he was first led to Annas. And this must be understood to be true: for they had gathered at the house of Annas, and there they had assembled; and in this their malice appears, because whereas they ought to have been intent on the solemnity, they were intent on malice, so that what is said in Isaiah 1:14 fittingly applied to them: "My soul hates your solemnities." Whence was fulfilled what is said in Psalm 2:2: "They gathered together against God, and against his Christ."

"But Peter followed him afar off." The place has been treated; here Peter's arrival is treated. First he is led, then Peter arrives. And he does three things: for first he touches the manner; second, how the one following arrived. That he arrived, this was of fervor; that afar off, this was of fear; whence it was signified that the Church, founded on the faith of Peter, was to follow Christ, yet from afar; because Christ suffered for the Church, not for himself, whereas Peter and the Church suffered for themselves. Likewise the place is touched, "even to the court of the high priest": for he did not dare to enter the house, lest he should seem to be one of the disciples of Jesus. But how he entered, Matthew is silent, but John narrates in 18:15, that a certain disciple was known to the high priest, and he brought Peter in. There follows the company and the entrance, "and going in he sat with the servants, that he might see the end"; and this he did either out of curiosity or out of piety. And these three things were already certain dispositions toward Peter's fall: that he followed afar off disposed to this, because it signified that he was not firm; for he who is firm ought to draw near. Whence it is said in James 4:8: "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you." For in the house is the seat of God and of the Lamb, as is had in Apocalypse, the last chapter, verse 3. For in the house was perfect charity. Whence Peter did not draw near to the charity of Christ. Likewise he had not arrived at the malice of the Jews, and so he was lukewarm; whence there befell him what is said in Apocalypse 3:16: "Because thou art lukewarm, I will vomit thee out of my mouth." Likewise, because of evil servants: Ecclesiasticus 10:2, "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." And so it was no wonder if he fell, since he remained in bad company. Wherefore Psalm 17:26 [17:16 as cited]: "With the holy thou shalt be holy."

Then follows the examination of Christ. And first by witnesses; second by his own confession, at the place, "And the prince of priests rising up said to him," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First the perverse zeal of the princes is designated; second, its failure; third, the false testimony. He says therefore, "But the chief priests sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death." But there is a question, why they did not put him to death without testimony. One reason is that hypocrites seek what appears to be good, but they do not seek the truth: thus these men sought that they might not appear to act on their own authority, whence they were acting against the Law; Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not speak false witness against thy neighbor." If it is not lawful to speak it, neither is it lawful to seek it. Another reason was that they did not have the authority to kill, and therefore they sought that they might be able to hand him over to the prince. "And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come." Behold the failure, in which the innocence of Christ is designated, so that he could say: "I have walked in my innocence." For they always laid snares for Christ, but found nothing evil in him. Whence was fulfilled that which is had in 1 Peter 2:15: "By doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." Then follows the false testimony: "And at the last there came two false witnesses, and said." But here there is a question, why they are called false witnesses, since it is manifest that Christ had said this, John 2:19. According to Jerome, not only is he called a false witness who says what he does not know, but also he who refers a saying to a false meaning. Here he said: "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it." But he did not mean the material temple, but the temple of his own body. Likewise, it is a false testimony not only as to the meaning but as to the very wording, for he had said, "Destroy this temple"; and he did not say, "I am able to destroy the temple of God"; as if he were saying: you Jews, destroy the temple, that is, Christ, and after three days I will raise it up again. He did not say, "and after three days I will rebuild it," because to rebuild pertains rather to a material temple, but to raise up pertains rather to a body. Whence they were false witnesses both by reason of the wording and by reason of the meaning. Likewise there is a question: why do they not accuse him of violation of the sabbath? Chrysostom answers that it is because they had often accused him of this, and he had always excused himself, and had confirmed his excuse by miracles; therefore they thought it would not avail them. Likewise the judge was not a Jew, and so they knew that he would not accept this accusation.

Then follows the examination by his own confession. And first is set down the questioning as regards the testimony; second, as regards the principal matter. The second is at the place, "And the prince of priests said to him," etc. He says therefore: "And the prince of priests rising up said to him: Answerest thou nothing to that which these witness against thee?" That he rose up was out of impatience and fury, hearing that Christ was not being convicted; and what he says, "answerest thou nothing," etc., he does not say in order to excuse him, but in order to catch him in speech; Isaiah 32:6, "The fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity. But Jesus held his peace." But why did he hold his peace? For three reasons. To teach us caution: for he knew that whatever he might say, they would refer all of it to calumny; and in such a case, in the presence of those laying snares, one must be silent; Psalm 38:2 [38:1-2], "I set a guard on my mouth, when the sinner stood against me." Another reason was that then was not the time for teaching, but for having patience: and thus was fulfilled what is said in Isaiah 53:7: "He shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth." The third reason is that he might teach us constancy, when someone is unjustly accused of something; Isaiah 51:7: "Fear ye not the reproach of men."

Then follows the question as to the principal matter: "And the prince of priests said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God." And first is set down the inquiry; second, the Lord's response. Seeing that the prince could not catch him, he adjured him: and this in order to catch him in his speech. And this is had in John 10:24: "How long dost thou hold our soul in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." For among the Jews, to adjure was held to be a great thing: for to adjure is to compel to an oath. For just as Christians ought not to swear except out of necessity, so neither ought they to use adjuration, but in place of adjuration they ought to use prayer. Then follows the response: "Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it." Note that when something was said against him, he held his peace; but as soon as the power of the Father was invoked by adjuration, he answers. Whence he always sought the glory of the Father; John 8:50: "I seek not my own glory." And concerning this he first sets down the response; second, the manifestation. He says therefore, "Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it": this can be expounded as though Christ does not assert it, but leaves it in doubt; above, chapter 7:6, "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Or it can be read assertively: "Thou hast said it," that is, it is true; and this is clear, because it is said in Mark 14:62, "I am."

Then he shows the evidence: "Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God." And he wishes clearly to show that he is the Son of God, according to two authorities. One is in Psalm 109:1: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand." And by this he had shown above, in 22:42-46, that Christ was the Son of God. The other is Daniel 7:7 [i.e. 7:13]: "I beheld in the vision of the night, and behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven," etc. Thus, I say, he says, namely, "thou hast said it"; but thou dost not know the truth. Attend, for the truth will be manifested, "for you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God." Because he said "sitting at the right hand," Chrysostom expounds that sitting at the right hand signifies royal dignity; Isaiah 9:7, "Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom he shall sit." Or, to sit at the right hand is to be in the full beatitude of power, or in the more excellent goods: for the right hand is the more noble part; therefore it signifies greater dignity, not because he has greater power, but equal power; below, the last chapter, verse 18: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." Likewise, concerning his power he says: "coming in the clouds of heaven." But what is it that he says, "hereafter you shall see"? etc. It must be noted that what he says, "in the clouds," can be referred to the last coming, or to the daily coming. The last coming will be in a cloud; Acts 1:11: "As you have seen him going into heaven"; and above, chapter 24, it is said that he will come in the clouds. In another way it can be expounded of the daily coming, concerning which Job 9:11 says: "If he come to me, I shall not see him." And this coming is in clouds, that is, in the apostles and the sacred doctors. Concerning these it is said, Isaiah 60:8: "Who are these, that fly as clouds?" These are called clouds because they ascend on high. Likewise clouds are fruitful. The first pertains to the height of life, the second to the fruitfulness of teaching. And they are clouds of heaven, that is, heavenly, because they have borne the heavenly image. But what is "hereafter you shall see"? That is, immediately after the passion he converts some to the faith, others by the evidence of works. Whence some were converted on account of their faith, some on account of good work. Likewise, if this is referred to the last coming, Origen says: the whole time of the world compared to eternity is nothing, like a single moment. Psalm 89:4 [89:4]: "A thousand years before thy eyes are as yesterday, which is past." Therefore he says "hereafter," because time up to the judgment is nothing in respect of eternity. Nevertheless, after you have fallen away from me, nothing remains except that you shall manifestly know me, because I shall come in the clouds of heaven. And then you shall know that I am the Son of Man. A similar manner of speaking is had above, in chapter 23:39: "You shall not see me henceforth, till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

"Then the prince of priests rent his garments." Here the condemnation is set down. And first is set down how he is condemned; second, how he is denied by the disciple. And first he treats of the condemnation; second, of the mockery. Concerning the first he does two things. For first the prince condemns him; second he seeks the sentence. But condemning him, he shows the fault both by deed and by word: by deed, because he rent his garments. With the same fury he rent his garments as that with which he had shortly before risen from his seat: for it was customary that those who heard blasphemy would rend their garments as a sign that they could not bear to hear it. But that he did these two things, something was signified: that he rose from the throne showed that he would lose the priesthood; and that he rent his garments signified that it was to be transferred; to Hebrews 7:12: "The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." The garment of Christ was not rent; John 19:24: "Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be." Whence it signified the abolition of the priesthood. And this is signified in 1 Kings 15:28 [1 Samuel 15:28]: "The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day." Thus it was rent from the Jews, and given to the members of Christ.

Then he imposes the guilt: "He hath blasphemed," because he had said this, he reckoned him a blasphemer; whence John 10:33: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself the Son of God"; and to such a one death was owed. Then he manifests the guilt: "What further need have we of witnesses?" Then he seeks the sentence: "What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death," according to the judgment of the law. And this would be true, if he were a blasphemer; but he was not, and so they judge wrongly, because they condemn to death the author of life; 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."

"Then they did spit in his face," etc. After the condemnation of Christ, the mockery is treated. And quite fittingly, because Christ bore our sins, as Isaiah 62 [says]. But man through sin was handed over to death, when it was said to him, Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Likewise he lost his proper honor, because "man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts," Psalm 48:13 [48:12/21]. And therefore Christ the Redeemer sustained death and reproaches, first in deed; second in word, at the place, "Prophesy unto us, O Christ." In the first he is spat upon, and beaten with blows; in the second he is struck in the face. As to the first it is said: "Then they did spit in his face, and buffeted him"; according to what is had from the words, this was done as a sign of the contempt of God's commandment, whence it is had in Deuteronomy 25:5ff., that if someone was unwilling to take his brother's wife, they would spit in his face. Likewise on account of contempt of a paternal command: thus concerning Miriam the sister of Moses. Whence they spat in his face, because they reckoned him a blasphemer; Isaiah 50:6: "I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me." Likewise "they struck him with blows," after the manner of a drunken man or a fool; Isaiah 53:3: "We have seen him, the last of men," that is, he seemed so despised as if he were the last of all men. "And others struck his face with the palms of their hands," in irreverence; Lamentations 3:30: "He shall give his cheek to him that striketh him."

Mystically, according to Augustine, some still do this: because to spit in the face is nothing other than to despise the presence of the grace of Christ; to Hebrews 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?" But properly he buffets, who puts his hand under his chin: and such are those who seek their own dignity rather than the honor of Christ. Of such it is said that "they loved men's darkness rather than the light." But those who strike the face are those who in a certain way strive to demolish his presence, as the Jews did. Concerning these, Isaiah 30:11: "Let the Holy One of Israel cease from before our face." Then they hurl reproaches by word: "Prophesy unto us, O Christ: who is he that struck thee?" And they said this in mockery, because none of them held him to be a prophet; nor was it necessary, for their own infamy was manifest. Whence he was unwilling to say this; Job 16:11: "And reproaching me, they have struck my cheek."

"But Peter sat without." Here the denial of Peter is treated. Luke 22:55, however, relates it in a different order, because he first sets down the denial of Peter, then the mockery of Christ; but Matthew does the contrary. And there is no contrariety, because while he was being mocked, it happened at the same time; therefore it does not matter whether it is placed before or after. And it is to be noted that while he was being led, he did not deny; but when he was being mocked, he denied, to signify that some fear reproaches more than blows, contrary to that saying of Isaiah 51:7: "Fear ye not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies." And concerning this, first the denial is set down; second, the repentance of Peter, at the place, "and going out, he wept bitterly, and immediately the cock crew, and Peter remembered the word of Jesus." The first is divided into three, according to the three denials. The second is at the place, "and as he went out of the gate," etc.; the third at the place, "and after a little while, they came that stood by," etc. And first the place is set down, second the occasion, third the denial. He says therefore, "But Peter sat without," namely, outside the place where Christ was suffering: for those who distance themselves from Christ are quickly confounded; Jeremiah 17:13: "Lord, all they that forsake thee shall be confounded." On the contrary, in Psalm 33:6: "Come ye to him, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded." For he who is outside the passion of Christ easily falls. Then is set down the incitement to denial: "and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean." And Peter's fall corresponds to the fall of the first man; Ecclesiasticus 25:33 [25:24]: "From the woman came the beginning of sin." Thus Peter denied Christ at the voice of a woman; in which the Lord wished to humble his presumption, since it was not at the voice of a man, but of a woman. "And thou also wast with Jesus the Nazarene." This used to be glorious for him, but now is terrible to him, and so he denied. "But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest." If we wish to aggravate Peter's fault, we can aggravate it in three ways. It is aggravated because he denied at once, at slight terror; Leviticus 26:36: "The sound of a leaf flying shall terrify them." Likewise, because he did not blush before them all. Likewise from the lie, because he said "I know not what thou sayest," and "I know not the man"; contrary to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 4:24 [4:30]: "Be not ashamed to speak the truth."

"And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied. Here the second denial is set down. And first the place is touched; second the incitement; third the denial. As to the history, according to Mark 14:66-72, after the first denial the cock crew, and then he went out of the gate, and the maid saw him, and he denied. But this seems contrary to the others, because the others seem to say that those sitting said it; and Luke 22:58 says that one of those sitting said it. Why then is it said here that it was a maid? It must be noted, according to Augustine, that when he had denied, he went out; and while he was going out, the maid said this to him, etc.; and then he denied; hearing which, Peter returned inside. Then those who had heard it from the maid asked the same thing. And it can be that one who recognized him pressed him more. And again with an oath he denied, "for I know not the man"; contrary to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 23:9: "Let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing."

Then follows the third denial. And first the time is described; second the incitement; third the denial. He says therefore, "and after a little while." Luke says that an interval of about one hour had passed. And the Devil procured this, so that he might have no respite. Whence they say to him, "Surely thou also art one of them"; and this they prove, "for even thy speech doth discover thee." But it is agreed that all were Jews; how then does he say, "for even thy speech doth discover thee"? Jerome resolves this by saying that within the same language there is often a different manner of speaking, as is evident in France, and Picardy, and Burgundy, and yet it is one language. Thus the Galileans had some difference from the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus also it can be said to anyone: "for even thy speech doth discover thee"; because, as is said in Luke 6:45, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"; because when a man is carnal, he quickly breaks out into carnal words; when spiritual, into spiritual words.

"Then he began to curse and to swear," etc. There are some who wish to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin; whence when he said "I know not the man," it is true as to man, but not as to man and God. And this is not good, because it imposes a lie upon Christ: for Christ had said, "Thou wilt deny me." Therefore it is better to say that Peter rather lied, than Christ. Likewise it must be noted that he not only denied Christ but denied that he was a Christian. Whence in one denial he said, "I know him not," namely, I am not a Christian. Likewise it must be noted that he who does not quickly draw himself back goes further into evil; Ecclesiasticus 19:1: "He that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little." Whence to the denial he added perjury, and to the perjury, blasphemy. Whence Gregory says: a sin which is not washed away by penance soon by its own weight drags one into another. Likewise it must be noted that a threefold temptation is signified, by which man is tempted. He is tempted by the concupiscence of the flesh; James 1:14: "Every man is tempted by his own concupiscence." Likewise he is tempted by the desire of earthly things; Wisdom 14:2 [14:21]: "For a covetousness of gain devised that." Likewise by demons, and this is signified by that denial in which it is said, "after a little while they came that stood by." To the Ephesians 6:12: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." Concerning these three it is had in 1 John 2:16: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life." Or otherwise, according to Augustine, it must be said that by these three denials the error of all heretics is signified. For some denied the divinity of Christ, as Photinus; some, however, denied his humanity, as Eunomius; some denied both, as Arius, who said the Son was unequal to the Father. Likewise, according to Origen, the persecution which the Church was to have is signified. The first was from the Jews, in which many died; the second from the gentiles, in which many were made martyrs; the third from heretics, which seduced many, and some even died.

Likewise it must be noted that certain writings are found which seem to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin mortally, because Bernard says: charity was lulled to sleep in him, not extinguished. It must be said that he sinned mortally, yet not out of malice, but out of fear of death. And this is what Bernard wished to say, that it was "lulled to sleep," etc.

"And immediately the cock crew." Here the repentance of Peter is treated. And first is set down the motive, or the incitement; second, his repentance, at the place, "and going out, he wept bitterly." Two things are touched, by which the excitation is effected. First, the crowing of the cock; whence, "and immediately the cock crew." By the cock the preacher is signified, who rouses sinful men to repentance; whence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:34: "Awake, ye just, and sin not"; and to the Ephesians 5:14: "Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten thee." The second is the memory of Peter: "and Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which he had said," etc. Psalm 21:28 [21:27]: "All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord." And these two frequently occur at the voice of the preacher, because he who has forgotten God through sins returns at the voice of the preacher. Concerning that cock it is said in Job 38:36: "Who hath given understanding to the cock?" Likewise Luke sets down a third thing, that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." The Apostle to the Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by his grace." Lamentations 5:21: "Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted."

Afterward the repentance of Peter is treated: "and going out, he wept bitterly." And his repentance is commendable for three reasons. First, because it was prompt, since he went out immediately; Ecclesiasticus 5:8 [5:7]: "Delay not to be converted to the Lord." Likewise, because it was prudent, because he withdrew from the company of those who had led him to deny; thus penitents also ought to avoid the occasion of sinning; 2 Corinthians 6:17: "Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you." Likewise, because it was efficacious and true; Jeremiah 6:26: "Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation"; Isaiah 38:15: "I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul."