The Great Commentary (Mossman/Cobb English)

And the disciples, viz., Peter and John, did as Jesus had appointed them: they killed and roasted the paschal lamb. Now the lamb, prepared for roasting, set forth the image of Christ crucified. For as S. Justin (contr. Tryph.) teaches, the body of the lamb was pierced through with the spit The hindfeet, as well as the fore-feet, which stood in the place of hands, were distended, and held apart by little sticks inserted in the hollows of the feet As if the spit signified the longitudinal portion of the cross, and the little stakes the transverse bars, together with the nails driven into the hands and feet of the Divine Lamb. For the fire of His affliction was no less than the fire by which the paschal lamb was roasted. “Why,” asks Franc. Lucas, “do lambs always bear the marks of wounds in the hollow of their feet, in a manner not unlike to those which our Saviour retained from the piercing of the nails upon the cross?” Christ then, when He came to the house, and beheld the roasted lamb, beheld in it a lively image of His own crucifixion. Wherefore He offered this lamb, as it were a type of Himself, or rather He offered up Himself, a whole burnt-offering, and as it were a Victim for the sins of the whole world, with a great and burning ardour unto God the Father. When the evening was come, &c. For in the evening, according to the I-aw, the lamb was to be eaten, and by the eaters standing, that the Hebrews might thereby show that they were prepared for the journey, that is to say, out of Egypt to the land of Judas Present At eUcuarisT. 167 promise. But Jesus is said to have lain down ( diseubuisse ) with His disciples, because the ancients were accustomed at supper to recline upon couches ; that is to say, with the lower portion of the body they were in a recumbent position, but with their arms they leant upon supports, as though they were sitting at table. Mark (xiv. 17) has, when it was evening He came with the twelve m Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been pre viously sent to prepare the Passover, and were already on the spot You will ask, Was Judas the traitor present at the celebration of the Passover and the Eucharist? And did he partake of it? S. Hilary and Theophvlact (in loci) say, No. So do Clemens Romanus (lib. 5, Constit. c. 16), Innocent III. (lib. de Myster. Euchar. c. 13), and Rupertus (lib. 10, in Matth.). S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierar.) is thought by some to favour the same opinion; but other writers, as S. Thomas, take S. Dionysius to incline to the opposite view. Theophylact also may be taken both ways. The reason why the above writers think that Judas did not partake is, because a traitor was unworthy of so great Mysteries, and one who must be forbidden to assist at them. But that Judas was present at the Passover and the Eucharist, and that he did communicate with the rest of the Apostles, is the common opinion of all other Fathers and Doctors, namely, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, SS. Leo, Cyprian, Austin, Bede, Rabanus, S. Thomas, and others, whom Suarez cites and follows (3 part, quasi. 73, art. 5, disp. 41, sect. 3), where he maintains that S. Dionysius also held' the same opinion. For Dionysius says thus, “And the Author Himself (Christ) of the Creeds most justly separates him, who not as He Himself, nor in like manner, with sacred simplicity, had supped with Him.” Which means, Christ separates Judas from the company of Himself and His Apostles, saying to him, “What thou doest, do quickly,” because he had supped and taken the Eucharist unworthily with Him. For presently, after his unworthy communicating, Satan entered into him, and compelled him to 168 accomplish his betrayal of Christ, as SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin teach. This opinion is proved — ist Because Matthew here says that Christ sat down to the Supper of the lamb and the Eucharist with the twelve Apostles — therefore with Judas. Whence in the a i st verse it follows, And when they were eatings He said unto them , Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray Me . 2d. Because Mark (xiv. 23) says concerning the Eucharistic Chalice, And they all drank of it 3d. Because Luke says that, after the consecration of the Chalice, Christ immediately added, Nevertheless the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table. 4th. Because John (chap, xiii.), when he relates that Christ, before the Eucharistic Feast, washed the Apostles’ feet, signifies that He washed the feet of Judas, for He says, Ye are clean, but not all, for He knew who would betray Him. If, then, Christ washed the feet of Judas, He also gave him the Eucharist ; for this washing was preparatory to the Eucharistic Feast 5th: Because Christ, after the Eucharistic Supper, said that one of them who were reclining with Him at the table, meaning Judas, was His betrayer. And when John asked, Who was this betrayer ? Christ answered (xiii. 26), It is he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the piece of bread (Vulg.), He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. The a priori reason is, that although Christ might properly have made known to the Apostles the hidden treachery of Judas, for the manifestation of His Divinity and His love, both because He was the lord of the character (fames ) of Judas, as well as because the treason of Judas was already known to others, that is, to the princes and elders, and was very shortly to become known to the Apostles themselves by the course of events, yet was He unwilling to do this, that He might give an example of perfect charity, and that He might by this means draw Juda3 to repentance. Lastly, He would show that secret sinners must not be publicly traduced nor prohibited from coming to the celebration of Holy Communion. Wherefore, when Christ, in JUDAS MADE A PRIEST. 169 instituting the Eucharist, made the Apostles priests and bishops when he said, Do this in commemoration of Me, it follows that He created Judas also* who was present, a priest and a bishop. Wherefore it is said concerning him in the 109th Psalm, “And his bishopric let another take.” For S. Peter interprets this of Judas in the 1st chapter of the Acts. For although the Hebrew of the passage in the Psalm is pecuddato, Le., prefecture, meaning his Apostleship , yet there is no reason why it should not be properly understood of Bishopric, as Suarez takes it Lastly, it is plain that none others, except the twelve Apostles, were present at the Supper and the Eucharist For these twelve only are mentioned. This against Euthymius, who thinks that others were present. And whilst they were eating, &c. Matthew says that Christ spake this before the institution of the Eucharist, but Luke (xxii. 22) says after it. And this seems more probable. For Christ would be unwilling to trouble the minds of His disciples with such dreadful news before the Eucharist Rather would He have them wholly intent upon, and devoted to the consideration of so great a Sacrament. Wherefore S. Matthew speaks by way of anticipation. Although S. Austin thinks (lib. 3, de Consens. Evang. c. 1) that Christ spake thus twice, both before and after the Eucharist About to betray (Vulg.), i.e., in a few hours to deliver up. Christ spoke thus, as well to show that He was conscious of the treachery, as that, not against His will, but voluntarily, He suffered. Wherefore He did not flee away, but offered Himself to His betrayer. He did it also to prick the conscience of Judas and arouse him to repentance. So S. Jerome says, “He casts the accusation generally, that the conscience of the guilty one might lead him to repentance.” Christ did not name Judas for three reasons. 1st. For the sake of his good name, and to teach us to act in like manner. 2d. Lest Peter and the Apostles should rise up against Judas, and tear him to pieces. 3d. That by this gentleness and charity He might provoke Judas to repentance. Wherefore S. Leo says (Serm. 7, de Passione), “He 170 made it plain to the traitor that his inmost heart was known to Him, not confounding the impious one by a rough or open rebuke, but convicting him by a gentle and quiet admonition, that He might the more easily correct, by bringing to repentance, him whom no charge had robbed of his good name. 1 ’ And they were exceeding sorry , &c Syr. They were vehemently troubled. Lord> is it Jt Syr. Mort i.e., My Lord, is it It For very greatly did they grieve that Christ their Lord, their Parent and their Master, upon whom they wholly depended, was. to be torn from them, and to die, and that* through treachery, which was to be perpetrated by one of their own college, which would be the greatest injury, and occasion the utmost infamy to the entire college. Wherefore these words of Christ transfixed their hearts as with a swoid, and, says S. Chrysostom, “they became half dead.” One by one : therefore Judas lest if he alone kept silence should betray himself, or render himself suspected to the rest of the Apostles. For, as Origen says, “I think that at first he thought he might lie hid as a man. But when afterwards he saw that his heart was known to Christ, he embraced the opportunity of concealment offered by Christ’s words.” His first action was one of unbelief, his second of impudence. Now the other Apostles all said, Is it It because, although their conscience did not accuse them of such a crime, yet, as S. Chrysostom says, they believed the words of Christ rather than their own conscience. Because, as S. Austin says in another place, “There is no sin which a man has done, which a man may not do, if the Ruler, by whom man was made, be absent from him.” He that dippeth his hand 9 &c. Dippeth ; Gr. i i.u/ta^ac, aorist, who dipped or who is accustomed to dip. It appears that Judas, in order the better to conceal his treachery, and show himself a friend to Christ, the more frequently dipped bread, or flesh, into the vessel of broth, or vinegar, or condiment But inasmuch as the other Apostles were wont to do the same thing to some extent, they could not know that Judas* was certainly HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 171 designated as the traitor by these words of Christ. Whence they strove to get at the fact by means of other questions addressed to Him. Here take notice, for the harmony of the Evangelists, who relate diversely the pointing out of Judas the traitor, that the following is the historical order which harmonises all the Gospels with one another. First, Christ before the Eucharist foretold that He should be betrayed by one of the Apostles. But this He did in a general manner, without naming or indicating any individual. This is plain from Matthew and Mark. Afterwards, when the Apostles asked one by one, Lord, is it It Christ answered, that “he was the traitor, who dipped his hand with Him in the dish.” For the ancients were wont to recline at table on couches by threes and fours, as I have shown on Esther L 6. Each three or four, therefore, had a common dish, in such a way, that those who reclined on opposite couches might have the same dish. Therefore, because several of the Apostles had the same dish, Christ did not by those words indicate precisely who was the traitor. After this Christ instituted the Eucharist. And when this was finished, He again said that the traitor was with Him at the table, as S. Luke relates at length ; on which I have* said more on S. John xiii. ai. Whereupon Peter made signs to John, who was reclining upon the bosom of Christ, to ask Him definitely, and by name, who was the traitor. John then asked, and to him Christ answered, “that it was he to whom He was about to give a morsel,” which presently He gives to Judas. Judas having received it, and feeling that he was designated both by his own consciousness of his guilt and by the sign which Christ gave, impudently asks, Rabbi, is it It Christ answered, Thou hast said, that is, thou art he. Wherefore he seemed to himself altogether detected, goes forth, as it were, in madness and rage to accomplish the betrayal of Christ, and goes to the house ol Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ

The Son of Man indeed goeth, &c. Good were it for 172 that man if he had not been born. For “ far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Eccles. iv. 2, 3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Fpist. ad Furiam ), “ It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well Judas* beginning was comr mended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.” Goeth. “ By this word,” says Victor of Antioch, “ Christ showeth that His death is like rather to a departure or passing away, than to real death. He signifies, likewise, by it that He went voluntarily to death.” Moreover, the betrayal of Judas was an act of infinite sacrilege, perpetrated directly against the very Person of Christ and God. Thus it was true deicide. Wherefore it is exceedingly probable that Judas abides in the deepest pit of Gehenna, near to Lucifer, and is there grievously tormented. And this seems to be indicated by the word woe, which Christ here pronounces upon him above the rest of the reprobates. Blessed Francis Borgia was wont, in meditation, in the depth of his humility, to place himself at the feet of Judas, that is to say, in the lowest pit of hell, exclaiming that there was no other place fit for him, neither in Heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, as the due reward of his sins

Judas answered ... Is it It Franc. Lucas thinks, with probability, that Judas asked this question after Christ had given him the morsel of bread. Now Judas asked this question out of impudence, to cover his wickedness ; and, as Jerome says, “ by boldness to lay a lying claim to a good conscience.” For he thought that Christ, out of gentleness, would not name His betrayer. As though he had said, “Surely it is not I, O Christ, who am Thy betrayer? I who have faithfully served Thee all these years ? Who have fed Thy family, and executed all Thy business?” THE THREEFOLD SUPPER. 173 Thou hast said. This is the modest Hebrew method of answering, by which they confirm what is asked As though Christ said, 11 It is not that I say it, and call thee traitor. It is thou thyself who in reality dost call thyself so because thou art, in truth, a traitor.” Whence S. Chrysostom extols the meekness of Christ, who, in just anger, did not say, “Thou wicked and sacrilegious wretch I thou ungrateful traitor!” but gently, Thou hast said. “Thus has He fixed for us the bounds and rules of forbearance and forgetfulness of injuries.”

Whilst they were at supper , &c. This is My Body. Thus the Syriac, Arabic, and Persian. But the Ethiopic more significantly renders, This is My very Flesh. The Egyptian adds for: For this is My Body. The rest, indeed, understand for. For that the word must here be supplied is sufficiently plain from the account of the consecration of the wine in ver. 28, For this is My Blood. The word for gives the reason why they must eat and drink, namely, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ which are offered to them by Him to be eaten and drunken. For who would not most eagerly receive such Divine and precious meat and drink ? At supper , i.e., after the supper , as Luke and Paul have it, of the paschal lamb, but whilst they were still reclining at the table as it was spread for the feast Therefore Matthew says, whilst they were at supper. Here take notice that this supper of Christ was threefold. First, that of the paschal lamb, which Christ and His Apostles celebrated standing, according to the law in Exod. xiL Secondly, a common supper of other food after the lamb, which they ate reclining upon couches. For all the members of a family, especially if it were a numerous one, would not have sufficient food in the lamb alone. Thirdly, Christ added a most sacred, yea, a Divine Supper, that is to say, the institution of the Eucharist For Christ before the Eucharist partook of the lamb and the ordinary supper, since it was fitting that the type of the lamb should precede the Eucharistic Verity ; and that the Eucharist should be the final memorial of Him whQ was 174 about to die, as it were the highest pledge of love. So Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. Suarez, however, in speaking of this passage, thinks that the Eucharist was instituted between the paschal and the ordinary supper. At present, indeed, for the sake of reverence of so great a Sacrament, it is, says S. Augustine ( Epist . 128), an Apostolic tradition that the Eucharist should only be taken by those who are fasting. Wherefore the heretics falsely and deceitfully call the Eucharist “the Supper,” although it be true the first Christians for some time celebrated the Eucharist at supper, after the example of Christ, as we gather from 1 Cor. xi. 25. Moreover, in the place of the second and ordinary supper, which Paul calls the Lord's Supper , there succeeded in ancient times, among Christians, the Agape, that is, a feast common to all, as a sign and incentive of charity, but taken after the reception of the Eucharist. Lastly, Christ, after the supper upon the lamb and the ordinary supper, but before the institution of the Eucharist, washed the disciples* feet He did this to signify with what purity we ought to approach so great Mysteries. This is plain from John xiil 4. After the washing, He took and consecrated bread and wine, which were still upon the table, and converted them into the Eucharist, that is, into His own Body and Blood. From all this it is gathered that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the first or second hour of the night For after taking the Eucharist, Judas went out to summon the servants of the rulers, that they might seize Christ Christ in the meanwhile delivered His prolonged discourse, of which John gives an account, chaps, xiv.-xvii. When this was ended, He went out to the Mount of Olives, and there continued a long time in prayer. Then He was taken by the Jews and dragged back from Gethsemane to Jerusalem. Then He was taken to Annas, and after that to Caiaphas. Still there was a great part of the night left, during which He was beaten by the hands of the servants of the priests, was spat upon and mocked by them, whilst they were waiting for the day, that they might take Him to Pilate CONSECRATION OF BREAD. 175 to be condemned. From all this it appears that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the beginning of Thursday night. Lastly, listen to the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesid ), by means of (per ) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.” Jesus took bread. Observe here five actions of Christ 1st He took bread. 2d. He gave thanks to the Father. 3d. He blessed bread. 4th. He brake bread. 5th. He extended it, and as He was extending it to them He said, Take and eat; this is My Body. For these are the words by which He offered it to them as well as by which He consecrated it This annihilates Calvin’s argument, who says, all these words, namely, took, blessed, brake , gave, have respect only unto bread. Therefore the Apostles received and ate bread, not the Body of Christ. I reply to the major premiss: These words refer to bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was in the act of being bestowed (inter dandum), changed by virtue of the words and consecration of Christ into the Body of Christ For thus might Christ have said at Cana of Galilee, “Take and drink, for this is wine,” if He had wished by these words to turn water into wine. For so we say in ordinary speech, “Herod shut up S. John in prison, killed and buried him, or permitted him to be buried.” And yet it was not the same that he shut up in prison whom he buried. For he imprisoned a man, he buried a corpse. After a similar and common way of speaking is what the Evangelists and S. Paul say of the Eucharist. Observe, secondly, from what Christ said, Take ye, for this is, &c., it would seem that Christ took one loaf, and during the act of consecration broke it into twelve parts, and gave one of 176 these parts to each of the Apostles, which they appear to have received in their hands. Wherefore also, for a long time in the Church, the Eucharist was given to the faithful in their hands, as is plain from Tertullian {lib. de Spectac .), and from S. Cryil of Jerusalem {Catechesi Mystagog. 5), and from S. Austin (Serin. 244). Afterwards, however, from fear of desecration, and through reverence, it was given in the mouth. Lastly, the Apostles were not troubled at this unaccustomed action of Christ, and this new and wonderful Sacrament, for two reasons. First, because they had been already instructed and premonished (John vi.), as S. Chrysostom teaches (Horn. 83, in Maitk.). The other, because the same Christ who delivered the Mysteries, illuminated their minds by faith, that they might simply believe. For they had heard and believed many other more marvellous things without being troubled; as, chiefly that that Man, whom they saw eat, drink, sleep, be weary, was true God. Yea, that He was in Heaven at the very same time that He was speaking with them on earth, when He said (John iii. 13), “And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven. Blessed. Observe, Christ before consecration, 1st gave thanks to God the Father, as Luke and Paul say ; and that, after His manner, with His eyes lifted up to Heaven, as it is in the Canon of the Mass and the Liturgy of S. James. Whence this Sacrament is called the Eucharist, ie, 9 Giving of Thanks, because it is itself the greatest and chief Thanksgiving. 2d. Christ blessed, not the Father, as the heretics choose to say, but the bread and wine, as S. Paul says expressly, the cup of blessing which we bless, Sic. (1 Cor. x.). Now Christ blessed the bread and the chalice, that is to say, He invoked the blessing and almighty power of God upon the bread and wine, that it might be then at that time, and in all future consecrations, converted, the bread into the Body, and the wine of the chalice into the Blood of Christ, whensoever the words of consecration feFFECT OF CONSECRATION. w Are rightly and duly (legitime) pronounced. Similar was the blessing of the loaves (Luke ix. 16). Not, therefore, was this benediction the same as consecration, though S. Thomas thinks otherwise (see Council of Trent, Sess. 13, cap. 1). Whence in the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil, and in our Canon, we pray, after Christ’s example, that God would bless these gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the chalice, to perfect the consecration. Hence it is called the chalice of benediction , i.e., blessed by Christ. Whence also S. Paul says (1 Cor. x. 16), “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the Blood of Christ ? ” Lastly, it seems that Christ blessed the bread by making over it the sign of the cross, and in blessing, invoked the power of God, that it might become consecrated and transubstantiated. For, according to the practice of the Church, priests in consecration bless the bread and the wine with the sign of the cross. This they do after the example of Christ This is My Body. From hence it is plain that the Eucharist is not the figure of the Body of Christ, as the Innovators perversely say, but the true and proper Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified on Calvary, as the Church has believed in all ages, and defined in many Councils. This I have shown on 1 Cor. xi. 24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been tom away from this faith, because they # are not able to comprehend how the Body of Christ, so lofty and so great, can be contained whole in (sub) a very little host. But these persons ought to remember that God is Almighty; and that as He constituted nature, so also He often works, as He wills, contrary to nature, in a supernatural manner, that He may show Himself to be the Lord and God of nature and of all things. Wherefore, whatsoever there is peculiar in nature may be inverted and altogether changed (everii). Consequently, God is able to effect that a great quantity may be contained in a little space, yea, in a point This is the theological reason. But in VOL. IIL M * 7 * order to give full satisfaction to some weak minds, I will subjoin two evidential arguments for this mystery to show that it is possible — arguments which derive their force from analogy. Take, therefore, the following demonstration, drawn from a physical analogy — from the eye and a mirror. For both a looking-glass and a small eye receive into themselves the whole quantity of the very greatest things, not only men, but houses, temples, trees, mountains, &c., and clearly reproduce and represent them whole. Why then should not a small host, by God’s power, set forth ( exhibeat ) whole Christ? You will say that in the eye and in the mirror what takes place is done in a spiritual manner, by means of optical or visual appearances. I reply, in like manner the Body of Christ in the Eucharist assumes a spiritual mode of existence, so that, as a spirit, it should be spiritually in the very small portion of the host.* Let us add this, that the objective appearances themselves are not spiritual in such a sense as that they are not really natural and physical, yes, corporeal, entities. For they are inseparable from corporeal entities, such as the atmosphere. And of these things we see that very many, and as it were an infinite number, are received and comprehended in a mirror and in the eye. If all this constantly takes place in a natural manner, with respect to the appearances received by the eye, much mere can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supematurally in respect to the Body of Christ, miraculously in the Eucharist (Here follows in the original what the Author calls an analogical mathematical demonstration. This is omitted, both because it would involve the printing of two intricate mathematical diagrams, as also because such a species of argument seems less likely to convince now than it did when d Lapide wrote.) You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on i Cor. xi. 25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only • Lot, ut quasi spiritus spiritualitcr sit in puncto hostiae. TRAN SU BSTANTI ATION. 179 half of the vessel, but when it is made hot and rarefied by means of fire, it bubbles up and fills the whole vessel. And yet the water continues the same as regards matter, volume (molem) 9 and, as many celebrated philosophers are of opinion, as regards intrinsic bulk; for nothing is added to the water by rarefaction except extension in space. If, then, this takes place according to natural laws, why should God be unable to do the same thing supematurally, as respects the body of Christ ? Luke adds (xxil 19), This is My Body which is given for you, Le., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1 Cor. xl) has, which shall be delivered (Vulg.) ; Gr. xk&ati o», broken . Luke also adds, This do ye for a commemoration of Me. By these words Christ gave to the Apostles, and to the Priests who were to be ordained by them, power, as well as commandments, to consecrate and transubstantiate bread into His Body, and wine into His Blood. Wherefore by these words Christ constituted and ordained His Apostles Priests and Bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22, cap. 1). For by these words He commanded His Apostles, as Bishops, to ordain Priests to celebrate as well the Sacrament as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, continuously and perpetually throughout all ages. And this He did both for the perpetual praise and worship of God, and also for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, that they might, by this means, ask and obtain of God every grace for the Church. And this is the doctrine and faith of the whole Church. This do 9 therefore, is as though He said, “Do what I do, i.e., consecrate, sacrifice, transubstantiate bread and wine, and eat them, as I have consecrated, sacrificed, transubstantiated, eaten the same. Moreover, also, ordain Priests and Bishops, who, by a perpetual succession, may do the same, even unto the end of the world.” For a commemoration of Me. “That, namely, by the consecration and receiving of the Eucharist, ye may commemorate, and, as S. Paul says (1 Cor. xi. 26), may announce (Vulg.), My death.” For consecrating Priests are here bidden not only to remember the Death of Christ, but to recall the same to memory i8o with Christian people, that they may be always mindful of so great a benefit, and of Christ’s great condescension and redemption, and thankful for it, and so by it ask and obtain all grace from God

And taking the chalice, , &c. Bellarmine (lib. iv. de Eucharist, c. 27) is of opinion that Christ did not consecrate the chalice immediately after the consecration of the bread, but that many actions and words of His intervened. He endeavours to prove this from the fact that S. Matthew says, whilst they were at supper ; but Luke and Paul say concerning the chalice, likewise also the cup after supper But it is far more probable that Christ, after the consecration of the bread, proceeded immediately with the consecration of the chalice. For Matthew, Mark, and Luke so relate. Moreover, the rationale of the Sacrament and the Eucharistic Sacrifice so required that there should not be any division or interruption, but that the whole matter should be accomplished at one and the same time. And we know that to the rationale of the Sacrifice pertains the consecration of the wine as well as the bread. For Christ instituted this Sacrifice after the manner of a feast, for which wine is required for drink, as well as bread for food. Thus likewise in the Old Testament, in the sacrifice of the mincha, that is, of fine flour, equally as in the sacrifice of animals, there was added a drink-offering , , i.e. 9 a pouring forth of wine and oil. For sacrifice is offered to God that it should be a refection of God. But for a refection, drink is required as well as food, that is to say, both wine and bread. Drink ye all of this. Christ said this before the consecration of the chalice. Wherefore, in Mark xiv. 23 there is an hysterologia when it is said, and they all drank of it. And presently he relates that Christ consecrated it, saying, This is My Blood of the New Testament . But it is certain from Matthew and Luke that Christ first consecrated the chalice, and then gave it to His Apostles to drink. For otherwise they would have drunk mere wine, and not the Blood of Christ COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 181 Observe, that Christ divided the bread into thirteen parts, one of which He took first Himself, and then gave the remaining parts to the Apostles, one by one. But with the contents of the chalice, being liquid, He could not do this. Wherefore, after it was consecrated, Christ first drank of it Himself, and then gave it to his next neighbour, whether John or Peter, bidding him pass it to his nearest neighbour, and thus the chalice passed round the company, and all the Apostles drank of it Wherefore it does not follow, as the Hussites and Luther say, that the chalice ought to be given to the laity, and that they ought to communicate in both kinds, because Christ and the Apostles communicated in both kinds, and that the same is Christ’s command. For this precept of drinking, where He said, Drink ye all of this (as the Church has always understood), pertained only to the Apostles, who alone were then present For Christ at that time was consecrating them Priests, and He bade them consecrate the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist under both kinds, and bade them receive both kinds, that they might complete a perfect Sacrifice. But He did not command this to the laity, to whom, inasmuch as they do not sacrifice, but only receive the Eucharist as a Sacrament, it is sufficient that they take it under one kind, because in one kind they receive the whole effect and fruit of the Sacrament And it is especially to be considered that in so great a number of lay people communicating, the chalice might easily be overturned, and the Blood of Christ contained in it spilt upon the ground, which would be an act of great irreverence. Similarly the command of Christ, This do ye for a commemoration of Afe, in what refers to consecration, pertains only to Priests; but to the laity pertains only the receiving of the consecrated Bread, as is plain. For when several precepts are mingled together, their variety may be limited and distributed, according to the condition of the persons intended, and the intention of the legislator, who in this place is Christ, and His interpreter the Church. S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the treatise (de Cana 182 Dom. observes that formerly it was forbidden to the Hebrews to drink the blood of animals, as is plain from Heb. ix. 22, Lev. iv. 6, &c., but that now the Blood of Christ is drunk by His Priests. First, because the Blood of Christ is life-giving. 2nd. Because by It we have been redeemed. 3rd. Because by It, being made spiritual, we shudder at the sins of a carnal life, as at impure blood. For this is My Blood of the New Testament Syr. Covenant , &c. The Ethiopic has, This is My very Blood . He means, “in this chalice, by this My consecration, wine is turned into My Blood. Wherefore, after this consecration, there is no longer wine there, but My Blood, by which the new Covenant and Testament are confirmed and rectified, by means of My mediation between God and man.” For Christ by His Blood, shortly to be shed, merited and confirmed for us the hope and the right of eternal inheritance in Heaven, which was the chief and the last will of Christ the Testator. And the Sacraments afford this right to us, especially the Eucharist, in the same way that a testament consigns in writing to the heir a right to the testator’s goods. Observe: Matthew and Mark have, My Blood of the New Testament But Luke and Paul have, This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood . The meaning in both is the same, but Christ would seem to have actually uttered what Matthew and Mark relate. For this is an expression of clearer meaning. Christ, by instituting the Eucharist at His last supper, rather than upon the Cross, ratified His testament and covenant with the Church. For all the Apostles were here present. And they personified and represented the Church. Observe, secondly: In the form of consecrating the chalice which we now use in the Sacrifice of the Mass, there are added these words, The eternal testament the mystery of the faith . Tradition says they have been handed down from S. Peter, who is the author of our Liturgy. So teach Leo IX. (Epist. ad. Michael imp. c. 9) and S. Thomas (3 p. q. 78, art. 2, ad. 4). For although they do not concern the essence of the form (and yet S. Thomas OFFERING OF THE CHALICE. 183 in 1 Cor. xi. seems to say they do), wherefore they are not found in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, and S. Clement, yet they pertain to its complete integrity. And this is the common opinion of the whole Latin Church, which, in the form of consecrating the chalice in the Mass, writes and pronounces these words as spoken by Christ, and enjoined by the Apostles, equally with the rest. Where observe: The mystery of the faith signifies — 1st That the Blood of Christ veiled beneath the species is a hidden (arcanam) thing, which can be recognised and believed by faith alone. 2nd. That the very Blood of Christ, as it was shed in His Passion, is the object of faith whereby we are justified. For we believe that we are justified and cleansed from our sins by the merits of the Passion and Death of Christ. For many , for all men, who are very many. Shall be shed (Vulg.). But the Greek of Matthew, Mark, and Luke has is shed , in the present, £&, is offered in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist under the species of wine, and which shall be presently shed upon the Cross in its own species and natural form of blood. For the blood of the victim was wont to be shed in the sacrifice itself, and so was a libation made to God. Whence the shedding itself is called a libation, a drink-offering. Wherefore this chalice of the Blood of Christ, as it was the drink-offering of the Sacrifice of Christ, w is poured into the mouth of Christ and His Apostles, and for this reason the reception of the species, both of bread and wine, pertains to the object and the perfection of the Sacrifice. Hence, then, it is plain that the Eucharist is not only a Sacrament, but a Sacrifice, in truth, the only Sacrifice of the New Law, which has succeeded to all the ancient sacrifices, and which contains them all in their completeness in Itself. Therefore Christ is called “a Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” not of Aaron. For Aaron offered sheep, but Melchizedek bread and wine, even as Christ did, and transubstantiated them into His Body and Blood (see Ps. cx. 4 and Heb . v. 6, 7). The Eucharist is, therefore — 1st A burnt-offering; 2nd. A sin-offering. 3rd. A peace-offering ; 4th. A mincha, or meat-offering (I^v. L, &C.). That this is so is plain — 1st. Because Christ did not say of His Blood, “ which is poured upon many? as a Sacrament, but “ which is shed for many? as a sacrifice and drink-offering. 2nd. Because the Greek of all three Evangelists is ix^u^irw, which is shed , in the present tense, that is to say, now, in this Supper and consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore He speaks of the present Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and not only of that which was about to take place upon the Cross. And so S. Ambrose understands (in Ps. 38). But the Vulgate translates, shall be shed , because it has respect to the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was just about to take place, in which the Blood of Christ was most evidently and most perfectly shed for the salvation of sinners, of which this sacramental shedding of His Blood in the Eucharist was a type and figure, and therefore was, typically, one and the same with It. 3rd. Because Luke and Paul, to the words of consecration, This is My Body , add, which is given, that is, is offered, for you in sacrifice. Paul has, which is broken for you, that is to say, under the species of bread in the Eucharist, and actually by the nails and lance upon the Cross. Wherefore Paul calls the Eucharist, the bread which we break, viz., in the Sacrament, because we break and eat the species of bread, as offering this in sacrifice to God, by receiving and consuming them, none of which things were done upon the cross. Therefore to break bread signifies, the Sacrifice, not of the Cross, but of the Eucharist. 4th. Because Luke has expressly, roZro rb Tbrrjmt 4 xcc/n) djaOjxri ip rfi cduarf fioi, rb farif u/aUp ix^o/Aircr, Le., this cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which, i.e,, the cup, shall be poured forth for you . For the word which must be referred to the cup, not to the Blood ; since al/man is in the dative case, ei in the nom. Therefore the chalice of the Blood of Christ INFINITE VALUE OF THE VICTIM. I8 5 is poured out for us; but it is poured out in the Eucharist, not on the Cross, for then there was no chalice. Therefore the pouring out of the Blood is a drink-offering and a sacrifice. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist, then, is a whole burnt-offering, because in consecrating and eating we offer whole Christ to God. The same is a peace-offering, because by It we ask and obtain peace, that is, all good things from God The same also is a sin-offering, because it is offered to God, and obtains from Him remission of venial sins and temporal punishments. But It obtains remission of mortal sins indirectly, because It obtains from God prevenient grace and contrition, by which they are blotted out (See Council of Trent % Scss. 22. q. 2. See also S. Thomas and the Scholastics on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.) I«astly, to the Blood of Christ rather than to His Body is ascribed remission of sins, although it pertains to both. The reason is, that in the Old Testament expiation is attributed to blood, and in the sin-offering the victim’s blood was poured out. Also by the shedding of His Blood the Death of Christ is signified, which was the all- worthy price, expiation and satisfaction for our sins. The first reason, then, which moved Christ to institute the Eucharist, was to ordain a most excellent and Divine Sacrament in the New Law, by means of which He might feed the faithful with Divine Food. And that the Church might worthily, by It, as well unceasingly honour and worship God. For the victim which is offered to God in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is of infinite value. It is commensurate and co-equal with God Himself. For the victim is Christ Himself, who is both God and man. God Himself therefore is offered to God. Wherefore, since all our other worship, inasmuch as it is but that of creatures, is poor and worthless, therefore Christ made Himself to be the Victim in the Eucharist, that by It, as being God’s equal, we might render due and equal worship to God, even such as He of right requires. Moreover, this Sacrifice chiefly consists in the consecration. For by it Christ is mystically slain, when His Body 1 86 and His Blood are severally apportioned ( seorsim allocantur) under the species of bread and wine, as Suarez and Lessius (lib. 12, de Perfect Div. c. 13, n. 94) teach from SS. Gregory, Irenseus, Nyssen, &c. By the word “severally” (seorsim), “ by themselves,” understand only as regards the effect (vis) of consecration. For by concomitance, where there is the Body of Christ, there also is His Blood, and vice versd. The second reason was, that He might leave unto us a perpetual exhibition (ideam) of His Life and Passion, to continually stir up in every one the memory of so great a redemption. For in the Eucharist the Blood is consecrated by Itself, and the Body of Christ is consecrated by Itself, that His Passion may thereby be set forth, in which His Blood was shed, and separated from His Body. The species therefore of wine shows forth (represents) the Blood of Christ shed. The species of bread exhibits the lifeless Body of Christ. This is what He said, Do this , &c. And S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, says, As oft as ye shall eat, &c, ye shall announce the Lords Death until He come . The third reason was, the greatness of the love of Christ towards His faithful people, by which, as He united our flesh, hypostatically, in the Incarnation, to His Deity, so in the Eucharist, sacramentally, He unites the same together with His Godhead, to each faithful communicant, and as it were incorporates them, that each may become Divine, and in a certain sense a Christ and God. For this is what S. John says of Christ when He was about to institute the Eucharist, before He washed the Disciples 1 feet John xiii. 1 : Jesus, knowing that His hour was come, and that He was about to pass out of this world to the Father, having loved His own that were in the world. He loved them to the end. To the end, to the extremity both of life and love. That is, He loved them with extremest and highest love, when He left Himself to them in the Eucharist, that they might always have Him present with them, that they might associate and converse with Him, consult Him, open to Him all their difficulties, FRUITS OF THE EUCHARIST. 187 troubles, and temptations, ask and obtain His assistance. For as He Himself says in Prov. (viii. 31), “My delights are with the sons of men.” Hence, as the Church sings, with S. Thomas : ** Himself as born for brotherhood, Feasting He gives His brethren food s Their price He gives Himself to die, Their guerdon when they reign on high.* That by this extremity of love He may entice, yea, compel us, ardently to love Him back. For a “magnet is the love of love.” It was this love which, as a sharp goad, drove S. Laurence to the flames, S. Vincent to the “wooden horse,” S. Sebastian to the arrows, S. Ignatius to the lions, and all the other martyrs bravely to endure and overcome all manner of pains and torments, that they might pay back love for love, life for life death for Christ’s death. This was why they were ambitious of martyrdom, and rejoiced and triumphed in it And these things were the effect of the Eucharist This supplied them with strength and gladness in all temptations and sufferings. Wherefore, of old time, the Christians in days of persecution used to communicate daily, that they might strengthen themselves for martyrdom. Indeed, they took the Eucharist home with them, and received It with their own hands (as Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, when she was kept captive in England, and had no Priest with her). Christ before His Passion instituted the Eucharist, that by means of It He might arm the Apostles to meet temptation. A fourth reason was, that in the Eucharist Christ might give us the opportunity of exercising every virtue. For in it our faith is exercised, when we believe that He who is true God and man is invisibly, but really and truly, contained in a small host Hope is exercised, because when we believe that Christ giveth Himself unto us, we hope that He will give us all other things, which are far less than Himself Charity is exercised, because the Eucharist is a furnace of love, which Christ exhales, and breathes upon us, 1 88 that we may love Him again. Religion is exercised, because we worship and invoke God with the highest form of worship, and sacrifice to Him Christ Himself. Humility is exercised, because we ignore our eyes and senses and natural judgment, which suggests to us that there is only bread and wine in the Eucharist, and humbly submit ourselves to the words of Christ, who says, This is My Body : This is My Blood ' Gratitude is exercised, because by it we render highest thanks to God for all His benefits, which is why it is called Eucharist Abstinence is exercised, because it is not right to communicate otherwise than fasting. Patience and mortification are exercised, because it is a lively mirror of Christ's sufferings and crucifixion, and so on. The tropological reason is, that by feeding us with pis Divine Flesh, He may call us away from earthly flesh, and its pleasures and concupiscences, that we may live a life that is not carnal, but spiritual and divine, and may say with S. Paul, “ I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” A Christian ought therefore so to live, speak, work, as though it were not he himself, but Christ who is living, speaking, working in him. Let him live, therefore, like an angel, “ For man did eat angels’ food.” And S. Cyril of Jerusalem says ( Cateches . 4, Myst), “In the Eucharist we are made concorporate, and of the same blood with Christ” Moreover, S. Chrysostom says (Hon 1. 36, in 1 Cor.), “Where Christ is eucharistically, there is not wanting the frequent presence of angels. Where there is such a King and such a Prince, there is the celestial palace, yea, there is Heaven itself.” Wherefore we read concerning S. Ammon in the Lives of the Fathers , that when he was celebrating, an angel was seen to stand at the altar, sign the communicants with the sign of the cross, and write their names in a book. And S. Chrysostom (lib. 3, de Sacerdotio) relates that choirs of angels have been seen round about the altar, who, with bowed heads, showed deepest reverence to Christ their King, and uttered awe-inspiring voices. When, therefore, we communicate, or say or hear Mass, let us think that we are sitting by the side of Christ at the Last Supper. Let us think that Christ is speaking by THE FOOD OF IMMORTALITY. 189 the mouth of the Priest, is celebrating, is transubstantiating bread and wine into His Body and Blood, and is feeding us therewith. For it is Christ who is the chief Agent, and works the Eucharistic miracle, as the Council of Trent teaches ( Scss . 22). Wherefore S. Ambrose (lib. 8, in Luc.) says, “ It is this Body of which it is said, My Flesh is meat indeed. About this Body are the true eagles, which fly round about It with spiritual wings.” And (lib. 4 de Sac!) “well may the eagles be about the altar where the Body is.” Wherefore S. Francis says, in his epistle to Priests, “It is a great misery, and a miserable infirmity, when you have Him Himself present, and care for anything else in the world.” The anagogical reason is, that Christ, in the Eucharist, gave us a pledge, a prelibation and a foretaste of the celestial inheritance. Wherefore the Church sings, with S. Thomas, in the Office of the Adorable Sacrament, “ O sacred Feast, in which Christ is received, in which the memory of His Passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and to us is given a pledge of future glory.” S. Thomas says, “In the Eucharist spiritual sweetness is tasted at the very fountain.” This was what S. Francis, S. Monica, S. Catherine of Sienna, and many others were wont to feel at the Holy Eucharist, who were inebriated with heavenly delights, and kept jubilee, exulted, and were rapt in ecstasy, saying with the Psalmist, “ My heart and my flesh exult in the living God. For whom have I in Heaven but Thee, and who is there upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee ? God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.” M My Jesus, my Love, my God, and my all.” Again, the Eucharist is the Food of immortality, because by virtue of It our bodies rise to the life immortal, according to that saying of Christ (John vi.), “Whoso eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.” The Eucharist therefore stamps upon our bodies a certain force, not physical, but moral, which is the seed of immortality, that by means of it we may rise again. Whence S. Chrysostom rightly concludes (Horn. 83, in Maith .), “ How, then, 190 does it not behove that he should be purer who enjoys such a sacrifice ? Should not the hand which divides this Flesh be more resplendent than a solar ray? Should not the mouth be filled with spiritual fire ; and the tongue, which is ruddy, with that tremendous Blood?” And our Thomas, taught of God, says in the 4 th Book of the Imitation , , chap, . 2, “It ought to seem as great, as new, and as pleasant to thee, when thou celebratest or hearest Mass, as though Christ on that self-same day descended into the Virgin’s womb, and became man; or was hanging upon the Cross, suffering and dying for man’s salvation,” Whence he gathers (chap, v.), “that when a Priest celebrates devoutly, he honours God, makes glad the angels, builds up the Church, assists the living, affords rest to the departed, and makes himself to have a share in all these good things.” “For what is His goodness, and what is His beauty, unless it be the wheat of the elect, and the wine that bringeth forth virgins?” ( Zech, ix. 17) Vulgate

Then saith Jesus unto them , All ye shall be offended because of Me this night ; for it is written , 1 will smite the Shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. Be offended and fall into sin, first the sin of weakness and cowardice in forsaking Me, you m f n 194 your Master and Lord, in My Passion. “The terror of the disciples,” says S. Leo, “was then excusable, nor did their sorrow sink into distrust” And further on, speaking of S. Peter’s denial, “ The Lord saw not in thee a feigned faith, nor estranged love, but shaken resolution.” It was thus that Marcellinus and many others, when asked whether they were Christians, and denied it through fear of tortures, sinned not directly against the faith, but merely against its open profession, in not daring openly to confess it But the Apostles seem to have stumbled in the faith, because^ when they saw Christ seized by the Jews without defending Himself, they thought He was suffering either unwillingly or by compulsion, and as He could not deliver Himself and them, He consequently was not God, and that as He would die and never rise again, they had nothing further to hope for from Him. They consequently forgot and disbelieved all His promises and predictions. The Church accordingly seems to think that the Blessed Virgin alone remained then steadfast in the faith. For in the Office for Good Friday the Church puts out all the lights one by one, leaving only one burning; though others confine this more strictly to faith in the resurrection, as if she alone believed that He would rise again from the dead. This is clear, too, from the Apostles, who hardly believed Christ when He appeared to t them after His resurrection, and said that He was alive. Christ accordingly reproved their unbelief (Mark xvi. 14). And so S. Hilary explains it, “Ye shall be troubled with fear and want of faith.” And Euthymius, “The faith ye now have in Me will be driven out of you, because ye will believe that I can no longer help you.” Indeed our Lord foretold this. See John xvi. 31, 32, “The hour cometh when ye shall be scattered, every one to his own, and shall leave Me alone. Ye believe in Me now, but very soon ye will not believe, when ye see Me a captive and suffering.” For not only “did they forsake Him hastily, but” (says S. Augustine, Tract, ciil) “ in their hearts forsook the faith. For they were reduced to as great despair, and extinction (as it were) of their faith, as appeared in Cleopas when he said he trusted that DID S. PETERS FAITH FAIL? 195 He would have redeemed Israel But see how they forsook Him, in abandoning the very faith wherewith they believed in Him.” Many commentators follow S. Augustine in considering that the Apostles fell away from the faith. And S. Ambrose also maintains that S. Peter lost his faith, and Turrecremata also (de Eccl. L 30 and iii. 61). But many theologians teach at the present day that he did not lose his faith, but merely sinned in not openly professing it This, they urge, is all that the Evangelists say ; why invent a heavier charge, and urge it against him? S. Augustine says (in John % Tract, cxiii.) he merely denied that he was a Christian, as people did in Japan, though still retaining the faith in their hearts. S. Cyril (Jib. xL 41, in John) maintains that he denied Christ not through fear, but through love ; for that if he confessed himself His disciple he could not have remained by Him, as he wished to do. S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.) says that he did not deny God, but man. “ I know not the man, because I know Him to be God.” And when he says (Scrm. xlvil) that Peter gave up the faith, he means the profession of the faith. So, too, S. Hilary (cap. xxxii. in Matt) and S. Leo (as above), “ His tears abounded where his love failed not, and the fount of charity washed away the words of fear.” Peter then sinned mortally against the profession of the faith, and consequently lost charity, though not faith. Maldonatus, Toletus (in John xviii.), Bellarmine (de Eccl. iii. 17) distinctly maintain this; Suarez (de Ftde Disp.ix, sect. 6) thinks it was probably the case with all the Apostles that they fled through fear, and not as denying Christ God allowed this for various reasons. 1. To suggest to Christ further grounds for patience, and to exercise Him in every kind of suffering. For the defection of the Apostles was a great affliction to Christ ; not merely on their own account, but because He saw that ail the fruit of His preaching had been lost upon them. 2. To humble the Apostles with a sense of their own weakness, when they saw that all their courage and resolution had melted away. “ Like lions before the battle, like deer when in it” 3. To •how the power of persecution and fear which bereft them of their 196 & MATTHEW, C. XXVI. faith, their memory, and senses; and that consequently this fear could not be overcome by their natural reason or strength, but only by Divine grace, which they should constantly implore. “ We learn thence,” says S. Chrysostom, “a great lesson, that the will of man is powerless unless strengthened by help from above." And S. Victor of Antioch, “ Man’s promptitude is worthless for withstanding graver temptations, if heavenly aid be wanting." I will smite . The Heb. and Sept read “ smite ” in the imperative. The meaning is, however, the same. The Prophets frequently use the imperative for the future by way of apostrophe. “Smite, O sword,” that is, “I God will smite Christ, will suffer Him,” i.e., to be smitten. Comp. Isa. vl 10 with S. Paul, Acts xxviil 26. The shepherd. Christ the Shepherd and the Bishop of our souls (1 Pet ii. 25). And the sheep shall be scattered, i.e., the Apostles. But God soon brought them together again, that Christ might find them joined in one body, and restore them their faith and courage. For having no homes of their own, they naturally betook themselves to the upper chamber, where they had kept the Passover, that He the master of that house might be again their host and friend, and where, in fact, He soon after appeared to them, and restored their faith. This was Christ’s special favour. He bestowed it on Peter after his threefold denial, when by a look He made him weep bitterly ; and on S. John, whom He brought back and placed by His mother near the cross, and commended him to His mother as her son. There can then be no question that they both returned into favour with Christ and were sanctified. Christ foretold this to show that He was God, and that He suffered for man’s redemption, not compulsorily, but willingly; and that when suffering thus “they might not despair,” says S. Hilary, “but might exercise repentance and be saved.”

But after 1 am risen again , I will go before you into Galilee, “where I will meet you,” says Euthymius. “He mentioned Galilee,” says S. Chrysostom, “to deliver them from fear PETER*S DENIAL. 197 of the Jews, and induce them the more readily to listen to Him.” It was to keep them from despair

Peter answered and said unto Him , Though all should he offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. This was from his vehement love for Christ. “For faith is the ardent affection towards God,” says S. Jerome, “which makes him speak thus.” “ For he thinks ” (says S. Augustine, de Grot, de lib . Arb. cap . xvii.) “ that he can really do that which he feels he wishes.” And yet his sin was threefold — first, in boldly and vehemently contradicting Christ ; next, in arrogantly preferring himself to others ; thirdly, in too great presumption and reliance on his own strength. He ought to have said, “ I believe it can be, nay, that from my weakness it will be so. But do Thou, O Lord, strengthen my weakness by Thy grace ; support and sustain me, that 1 fall not into sin.” And our experience is the same. We think that we are strong in faith, in chastity, in patience; but when tribulation assails us we stumble, we are afraid, and speedily fall. The remedy for temptation is the acknowledgment of our own weakness and the imploring Divine strength

Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night y before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. In Greek arap>T) 6 fi, abjure Me. Thou wilt do much worse than the others. Thy presumption deserves it. They only fled, thou shalt abjure Me. — The cock crows more loudly in the morning than at midnight This time, then, is properly the cock-crowing. It was before this cock-crowing that Peter thrice denied Christ As S. Mark says, “ Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny Me thrice.” Thou who art now so eager to confess Me, wilt be more frequent and eager in thy denials this very night than the cock in his crowing. And yet the cock awakes the sleepers to praise God, whilst thou, by thy denial, wilt excite others to revile Me. Peter, says S. Jerome, made professions from the warmth of his faith, and the Saviour foretold, as God, what would be. And He gives the cock-crowing as a sign to Peter, in order that whenever he hears it he may remember Christ’s prophecy, may penitently 19 $ §. Matthew, c. xxvi. acknowledge his sin of denial and presumption, and seek for pardon; as indeed he did. “As God” (so Bede observes), “He foretells the mode, time, moment, and extent of his denial”

Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee % yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said they all. To testify their faith, affection, and love towards Him; but in their presumption they sinned in a twofold manner. Thou wilt say, The Apostles believed Christ to be the Son of God, why then did they not believe (nay, clamoured against) Him when He predicted their fall? Why, because they did not attend to Christ’s prediction, but looked rather to their then purpose of heart, which they felt to be so strong that it would be impossible for them to fall away. And consequently regarding Christ’s words not so much a prediction as a test and trial of their purpose and love, they thought that in this time of trial their affection towards Him should be boldly and resolutely manifested. “ Peter,” says S. Hilary, “ was so carried forward by his affection and love for Christ, as to take no account of his own natural weakness, nor the belief he should have in the Lord’s words.” But even though they believed Christ’s prediction, yet they were free to deny Him, because neither did the prediction itself nor their belief in it take away their liberty, but rather presupposed it For Christ predicted their defection because they would certainly forsake Him; but they did not forsake Him because He foretold they would do so. Objectively their future defection was prior to Christ’s foreknowledge and prediction, for Christ only foresaw that which they would do as free agents, and accordingly imposed not on them any necessity of denying Him, since His prediction was objectively subsequent. But thou wilt maintain, If Peter, believing Christ’s words, had persuaded himself that he would certainly deny Christ that very night, he could not have but done it ; because this persuasion and belief would have determined his mind, and bound him to do so. For no one can effectually strive against that which he knows will certainly happen by his own agency. The attempt would be vain. FOREKttOWLEDGfc ANt) FREEWILL. He regards and shrinks from it as impossible ; for he knows that this and nothing else would happen, whatever his efforts. But, I reply, this persuasion would have inclined and in some measure have determined Peter to deny Christ, but yet only in a general way, that he would deny Him some time in the night, but not at that particular moment or occasion, or before such and such people. All his particular acts then would have been free. And in like manner that knowledge, that we cannot avoid all venial sins, obliges us Jo fall into them at some time or another. But yet only generally, and in a confused way. For as often as we commit this or that venial sin, we sin of free choice. Theologians, and Suarez in his treatise on Hope, teach us that if a man’s damnation were revealed to him, he could not possibly effectually hope for eternal life, as already apprehending it to be impossible (for no one can attempt what he thinks impossible). But yet he both ought and can observe God’s commands, and that as often as he transgresses he would do so freely and sinfully, even though he is generally aware that he would fall into, and die in, some mortal sin. This fall of Peter and the rest made them more humble and cautious. See John xxi. 15, 21, 22

Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethr semaney &c. Gethsemane is the valley of oil or fatness, or more precisely, the oil-press, for pressing the oil from the olives which grew on Mount Olivet It was somewhat more than half an (Italian) mile from the ccenaculum (upper chamber). Christ withdrew there — (1) for retirement and prayer, and to be free from distraction; (2) to show that He did not fly from death, but rather sought for it, for the place was well known to the traitor; and (3) to show that He suffered out of pure love and compassion for men. For oil is the type of compassion ; and as oil was in that spot pressed from the olives, so in His agony was the Blood of Christ pressed forth, with which we are refreshed as with oil, are anointed and are fed. See Cant. i. 3. Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder . That is, in the garden, about a stone’s throw distant See John xviii 1 ; Luke xxii. 41. 200 Adrichomius describes the hut of S. Pelagia the penitent and the tomb of the Blessed Virgin as close by, and above it Mount Olivet, the place of the ascension; humility and exaltation being fitly associated together, as is oft the case with God’s elect To speak accurately, Christ neither prayed nor suffered His agony in Gethsemane, but in the garden close by; and He began His Passion in a garden as expiating the sin of Adam, which was committed in a garden. For he ruined therein himself and all his descendants, and subjected them to sin, death, and hell. And all these did Christ expiate in a garden by the agony He there endured. As in the Canticle, “ I raised thee up under the apple tree : there was thy mother defiled : there was she violated that bare thee ” (Cant viii 5). Christ therefore in the garden restored us to Paradise, from which we had been expelled by Adam, and planted there the garden of His Church, verdant with the anguish of mortification, the saffron of charity, the spikenard of humility, the lilies of virgins, the roses of martyrs, the chaplets of doctors ; for “a garden enclosed is my sister, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed. Thy sendings forth (shoots) are of Paradise” (Cant iv. 12, 13)

And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, &c. He took only these three to be witnesses of His sorrow and agony, lest the other Apostles should be troubled and scandalised thereby. Moreover, Christ most relied on these three as His special intimates, and also because it was but fitting that they who had seen the glory of His transfiguration should contemplate His agony, and learn that the way to glory is through agony and suffering, and that the way of Calvary and the Cross leads to the Mount and glory of Tabor. And began to be sorrowful and very heavy . Of His own free will, and not by compulsion. He began to be so sore distressed as to be almost lifeless and beside Himself. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful,” He says, “even unto death.” S. Luke calls it “an agony,” like those who are at the last struggle with death. Vulg. in Mark reads “ foedet for sorrow makes a man weary of SUPERNATURAL SORROW OF CHRIST. 201 life. S. Mark adds, to be stupefied (x 0 afi,/ 3 tte$ai ) 9 for excessive fear has this effect, as a lion stupefies other animals with its roar. Note, first, that Christ had true sorrow. For though from the moment of His conception He enjoyed the vision of God, as hypostatically united to Him, and thus enjoyed the highest happiness, He was yet supremely sorrowful, God supematurally enlarging the capacity of His soul, that it might experience the highest joy and the deepest sorrow at the same time. This is the general opinion of theologians, though Melchior Canus (de Locis xii. 14) says that the joy naturally arising from the sight of God was suspended while He was but a sojourner, in order that He might feel sorrow. (See S, Thomas , /. iii. q. 46, art. 8, and Suarez, p. in, g. 18, Disp. 38, sect. 8.) Christ was both on His journey and had reached the end (viator et comprehensor). In the one character He was full of sorrow, in the other full of joy. But even when on the way He had both the greatest joy and the greatest sorrow in His Passion. He was sorrowful in His lower nature, since it was painful ; He rejoiced in His higher nature, since it was the will of God, and ordained for man’s salvation. 2. This sorrow was not only in His feelings, but also in His will (at least in its lower part), which naturally regards that which is for itself good as life and death, and hates the contrary. This is clear from His own prayer, “ Father, not what I will, but what Thou wilt” He naturally wished to be saved from death. As in Luke, “ Not my will, but Thine be done.” 3. The primary cause of His sorrow was npt the flight of His Apostles, which He foresaw, but the vivid apprehension of His approaching Passion and death, as is plain from His prayer, “ Let this cup pass from Me.” For Christ foresaw all the torments, one by one, which the Jews would inflict on Him, and fully entered into and weighed the magnitude and bitterness of His several sorrows, so as to seem to be already suffering them, even to the shedding of His blood. For Christ doubtless wished to atone by His sorrow for the pleasure which Adam had in eating the forbidden fruit, and which sinners now experience in their sins. i 202 There were, moreover, other grounds of sorrow, which He experienced in the highest degree from the very moment of His conception to His death. First, the sins of all men, which He undertook to atone for, and thus make satisfaction for the injury done to His Father. For the soul of Christ saw them all in God, and manifested for them the greatest sorrow and compunction, as though they had been His own. For He saw how great was their gravity, how the majesty of God was offended, and consequently what wrong had been done to Him. All which elicited condign and commensurate sorrow. So He says Ps. xxii. i. 2. The second was His foreseeing all the pains which martyrs, confessors, virgins, married people also would suffer in their several ways. Prelates too and pastors in governing the faithful; the faithful in withstanding the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil All which sorrows Christ generally and severally mentally took upon Him, that by His sorrow He might obtain for them from God the Father grace and strength to bear and overcome them alL For He loves His children as Himself and feels for their affliction. See Matt xxv. 35, 40. 3. The third was the ingratitude of men. For He foresaw that His Passion would be of use to but very few, and that the many would be lost through their own negligence and ingratitude. As the poet sings, — “ 'Tis not my grief, ’tis love ; my only pain Is that to thousands ’twill be all in vain.” 4. The fourth was the affliction of His mother; for the sorrows of the Son pierced, as a sword, the soul of the mother, and from her were reflected on Christ For His greatest sorrow was that His mother suffered so grievously on His account All other sorrows Christ suppressed and overcame, manifesting this only to His disciples. Now, observe this sorrow of Christ was not by compulsion, or involuntary, so as to prevent the exercise of reason, but was freely undergone by Christ. Whence theologians say that in Christ were not passions, but their first grounds OF Christ’s sorrow. 203 suggestions (propassiones ) ; * for all His affections resulted from the ordering of His reason and His own free choice. For to this all the inferior powers were perfectly subjected, both in Adam and in Christ For original righteousness, which was in Christ as in Adam before his fall, required this. See S. Augustine, de Civ . xiv. 9, and Damascene (de Fid . iii. 23). Nothing was compulsory in Christ, for of His own will He hungered, was fearful, and was sad. 5. S. Luke adds, that He sweated blood, and was comforted by an angel ; while Isaiah (liil 3) calls Him a man of sorrows. But the final and moral grounds of this were manifold. SL Chrysostom gives as the 1st: “To show that He took on Himself true flesh, He endures human sufferings.” So Jerome and Origen ; and S. Leo (Serm, vii. de Pass.) says, “He was despised in our humility, made sad with our sadness, and crucified with our pain.” 2nd. S. Gregory (Mor. xxiv. 17), “As His death was approaching, He set forth in His own person our struggles of mind, for we fear greatly the approach of death.” The 3rd. S. Ambrose sets forth (in Luke xxii. 44), “In no point do I more admire the tenderness and majesty of Christ than in this, which most men dread. He would have done much less for me had He not taken on Himself my feelings; He took on Him my sorrow, that He might now give me joy. I confidently make mention of His sorrow, for I preach the Cross. He was obliged to endure pain, that He might conquer. Insensibility wins not the praise of fortitude. But He wished to instruct us to overcome the sorrow of coming death, and perhaps He was sad because, after the fall of Adam, death was a necessity, and again because He knew that His persecutors would have to pay the penalty of their monstrous sacrilege.” And again, “Thou smartest not for Thine own wounds, but for ours ; not for Thine own death, but for our infirmity.” S. Athanasius (de Cruce) writes thus elegantly, “Christ descended to win for us our ascension; was bom that # [The word is taken from S. Jerome (in Matt xxvi.). See Aquin. p. iii quest xv. art. 4, and Suarez in loc . Disp. xxxiv. sect. L] 204 we might be reconciled to the unborn Father; was made weak for our sakes, that we might be raised up by His strength, and say with S. Paul, I can do all things through Jesus Christ that strengtheneth me. He assumed a corruptible body, that the corruptible might put on incorruption ; a mortal body, that mortality might put on immortality. Lastly, He became man, and died, that we men might by dying become gods, and no longer have death reigning over us.” 4th. The fourth was to mitigate the dread of death, which was inflicted as a punishment for Adam’s sin, and turn it into joy and the hope of attaining a better life. Christ then obtained for the martyrs exemption from pain and fear in their grievous torments, and caused them to undergo them willingly, and even to rejoice in them. “Christ came,” says S. Chrysostom, “ to bear our infirmities, and to give us His strength. And again, Christ by His agony enabled His faithful ones not to fear death, but patiently and even joyfully to meet it from their hope in the resurrection, saying with Hosea and S. Paul, as triumphing over death, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’” (1 Cor. xv. 55). 5th. The fifth was to cure by His sorrow our sloth, weakness, fear, &c. As Isaiah (liiL 4) says, “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” And accordingly our best remedy in all these trials is to look at Christ in His agony, that by the pattern and merits of the agony He endured in the garden He may heal our sorrow. As S. Leo ( Semu iv. dt Pass.) says, “He healed our weaknesses by partaking them, and drove away the fear of suffering punishment by undergoing it Himself: our Lord trembled with our fear, that He might take on Himself our weakness, and robe our weakness with His strength.” It was, again, to remove the dread of difficulty, which occurs in every virtuous act For this dread keeps many back from virtue and holiness. Whenever, therefore, any difficulty or temptation assails, let us strengthen ourselves by meditating on the agony of Christ ; for if He overcame His by the struggle and bloody sweat, we ought also to overcome ours by manly resistance. See Heb. xil 1. Christ then taught us to fight against our passions with reason SORROWFUL UNTO DEATH. 20 $ and judgment, especially our sloth, sadness, and anxiety. Calvin and Beza here impiously and unleamedly accuse Christ of timidity, inconstancy, and vacillation, as being indeed more cowardly than the martyrs; rather He not only willingly underwent these sufferings, but brought them of His own accord on Himself, that He might by His bold struggle overcome them in Himself, and subdue them also in us. For, as & Augustine says, “Christ was troubled when exercising His power, and not in His weakness" [John xi. 33]

Then saith He unto them , My soul is exceeding sorrcnvful ’ even unto death : tarry ye here , and watch with Me . I am as sorrowful from the lively apprehension of My sufferings and death, as if I were now dying; I seem to be lifeless with sorrow and dread. My pain well-nigh takes away My life and breath. It is not My flesh, but My soul, which is so very sad, for sorrow penetrates the inmost parts of My soul, and cuts it in sunder as a sword. “ The waters have come in even to My soul,” Ps. lxix. 1. I am but the smallest point removed from death, so that the slightest addition to My sorrow would crush Me, and take away My life. Consider with what feeling of sorrow and love Christ spake these words, — His pathos, His look, His voice, His countenance, — Tarry ye here. Wait and behold Me here, deeply sorrowing and praying in the agony of death, both as witnesses of My sorrow, and to learn from Me in every tribulation to betake yourselves to prayer; so that thus watching ye may be some solace to Me in My affliction. But it is not so ; for sorrow hath overwhelmed you, and forces you to sleep. Whence Christ complains (Ps. lxix. 21), “I waited for some to have pity on Me, but there was no man, neither found I any to comfort Me.” Christ from the vehemence of His love wished to pass through His unmitigated and wondrous Passion without any consolation or consoler. He wished to drain the chalice of gall and bitterness unmixed with the sweetness of honey, both in order that His redemption should be plenteous, and for an example of heroic virtue. For Christ manifested in His Passion the most perfect 206 acts of heroic virtue. And He Himself was therein ~a prodigy of humanity ; for though “ He was in the form of God . . . He became obedient as far as unto death, even the death of the Cross,” Phil, a 8. He was also therein a prodigy of patience^ fortitude, and of charity; for “ greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John xv. 13). But Christ laid down His for His enemies (Rom. v. 8)

And He cometh to His disciples and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter , What , could ye not watch with Me one hour t To gain some consolation, little though it were, and also as having care for His people ; thus teaching bishops and pastors to do the like, and to break off prayer in order to visit them. They were sleeping for sorrow, and He speaks to Peter as the head of the rest, and as having so boldly professed his allegiance to Christ. But observe how gently and tenderly He reproves them. He does not reproach them with their grand promises ; but He merely says, “Could ye not?” Ye wished indeed to watch, but I attribute your sleep not to your will, but to your weakness: arouse yourselves, overcome your infirmity, shake off sleep. Mystically : “ He signified,” says S. Irenseus, “ that His Passion is the awakening of sleepers.”

Watch and pray , lest ye enter into temptation . Of denying and forsaking Me for fear of the Jews. If My dangers move vol. hi. 0 210 you not, may your own do so. There hangs over you the great temptation of denying Me; watch and pray to overcome it “The more spiritual a man is,” says Origen, “ the more anxious should he be lest his great goodness should have a great fall” Watchfulness and prayer are the great means of foreseeing and overcoming the arts of devils and men. Enter into temptation . Be not ensnared, as birds in a net and fishes with a hook. Not to be tempted is often not in our own power, nor is it God’s will for us. He wills we should be tempted, to try our faith, to increase our virtue, and to crown our deserts. But we must not enter into temptation, so that it should occupy, possess, and rule over us. So Theophylact and S. Jerome. The spirit indeed is willing , but the flesh is weak. I know your readiness in spirit, but your weakness in the flesh. By the flesh is meant our natural feelings, which shrink from suffering and death. Pray, therefore, that your weak flesh may not enfeeble your spirit and compel it to deny Me ; but may God by His grace so strengthen both your spirit and your flesh, that ye may not only be ready, but strong to overcome all adversities, so that for My sake ye may eagerly wish for death, and bravely endure it. “ The more, therefore,” says S. Jerome, “ we trust to the warmth of our feelings, the more let us fear for the weakness of the flesh.” Some understand (less suitably) by “spirit” the devil, by the “flesh” man. That is, the devil is powerful to tempt, man is feeble to resist Origen, moreover, observes “ the flesh of all is weak, but it is only the spirit of the saints which is ready to mortify the deeds of the flesh.” S. Mark adds, “And they knew not what to answer, for they were struck down by their grief, and oppressed with sleep, and had neither sense nor understanding

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying O My Father, if this cup may not pass away unless I drink it. Thy will be done. S. Mark says that He used the same words as before. But S. Matthew omitted the first part of the prayer as without efficacy or meaning, and in order to insist on the latter part in which the whole force of the passage consists, and set it CHRIST’S THREEFOLD PRAYER. 21 1 forth for our imitation. For Christ absolutely wished and prayed to drink the cup of His Passion, which was decreed and destined for Him by the will of God. For He plainly and expressly asked that the will of God might be fulfilled in Him in and through all things

And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy . With sorrow and watching, and afterwards with sleep. “ For,” says S. Chrysostom, “it was a wild night,” adding that “Christ did not reprove them, since their weakness was great.”

And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, using the same words . 1st. To show the intensity of His sorrow ; for, as S. Luke says, He sweated blood, and an angel comforted Him. But this was only when He prayed the third time, and not the first and second time, as Jansen maintains. 2nd. To teach us that if God hears us not in our first prayer, we should pray more frequently and fervently, till He hears us, and we obtain our request Perseverance crowns the work, in prayer especially. And if Christ was not heard in His first and second prayer, what wonder if we are not heard at once ? Let us persevere, and we shall gain the fruit of our prayer, strengthening, calming of sorrow, and power of mind to withstand and overcome our trials. Symbolically: 1. Remigius says, “He prays thrice for the Apostles, and especially for Peter, who was about to deny Him thrice.” 2. Rabanus says “that He prayed thrice, in order that we should ask pardon for past sins, protection in present, and caution in future perils; that we should direct all our prayers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that our body, soul, and spirit should be preserved blameless.” 3. S. Augustine ( Qucest . Evang. in loc.) says, “ It is not unreasonable to conclude that our Lord prayed thrice, in consequence of our temptation being threefold. For as the temptation of desire is threefold, so also is the temptation of fear. The fear of death is opposed to the desire of curiosity. For as in the one there is the desire of knowledge, so in the other is the fear of losing it But to the desire for honour 2(2 or praise there is opposed the fear of disgrace and contumely, and to the desire of pleasure there is opposed the fear of pain.”

Then cometh He to His disciples , and saith unto them. Being after His third prayer strengthened by an angel, He resumed His former courage and spirit, and nobly composed Himself to meet His Passion (see on Luke xxii. 41). Sleep on now , and take your rest. S. Chrysostom and others suppose that this was said ironically. This is no time for sleeping in our moment of extreme peril ; rouse yourselves now, if ever. But S. Augustine (de Cons . Evan. iiL 4), and Bede after him, suppose that Christ spoke seriously, and in compassion for them granted them a little longer rest “ Sleep on for the short time that remains till Judas arrives.” Behold, the hour has arrived. Fixed from eternity by the Father, and decreed for My Passion and death. And the Son of Man is betrayed, i.e., is about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners — sinners in a special manner, such as Judas and the Jews who were raging against Him. For there was no nation more wicked at that time, and therefore Christ had resolved to be bom and die at that very time, in order that He might suffer more atrocious cruelties from such a people. His supreme goodness resolved to do battle with their consummate malice, in order that He might crush in them, as its head, the malice of all men, subject it to Himself, and convert it into goodness. The divine clemency and power of Christ were equally manifested in converting to Himself and making saints of those self-same wicked Jews, by Peter and the other apostles

Rise, let us be going: behold, he hath come who will betray Me. He bids them rise, not in order to fly with Him, but to go forth to meet Judas. It is hence clear that Christ was heard in His last prayer; that, comforted of God by the angel, He had thrown off His sadness and sorrow, and went forth to meet Judas and the death of the cross with great and noble resolution. “ For,” as Origen says, “He saw in the spirit Judas the traitor drawing nigh, though he was not yet seen by the disciples.” “ He therefore THE PASSION FOREORDAINED. 213 in every way teaches His disciples,*' says S. Chrysostom, “ that this was not a matter of necessity or of weakness, but of a certain incomprehensible dispensation, for He foresaw that they were coming, and so far from flying, He went forth to meet them.** Christ in thus going forth, as indeed in the whole of His Passion, left three points most worthy of notice. 1st His innocence in boldly going forth to meet His enemies. 2nd. His majesty, forethought, and power, wherewith as God He orders and foretells the approach of His enemies, and so moderates their fury that they could do no more than He permitted and foreordained. 3rd. The readiness with which He voluntarily met Judas, to show that it was not from weakness or unwillingness, but with the highest dignity, condescension, and generous love that He suffered and died for us. “Rise, let us be going," to meet Judas; and, asS. Jerome says, “ let us go of our own accord to death.” Morally: Christ here teaches us to arouse ourselves, and go forth to meet our sufferings. It is the act of an heroic mind to weaken by its own resolution the force of any imminent evil, and by voluntarily embracing it to overcome and subdue it Great evils are more easily overcome by a great mind than minor evils by a small one. As says the poet, “Yield not to trials; boldly go to meet them, as a lion shuts its eyes when rushing on its foes" (Plin. N, H. viii. 16). The cross therefore pursues those who fly from it, and flies those who seek for it As is said of honour

And while He yet spake , lo, Judas , one of the twelve , came, &c. This is more fully set forth, John xviii. 2. The truth of His prediction and foreordaining was thus made good. He so interwove Judas* sin and His Passion, that the whole action appeared to be partly permitted and partly ordained by Him. Lo> JudaS) one of the twelve . Lo is an expression of wonder. An unheard-of portent, a stupendous crime, that one of the Apostles was not only a thief and robber, but the traitor, and the leader of those who killed Christ 1 “ He went before them," says S. Luke 214 A great multitude: of Roman soldiers, high priests* servants, &c. Staves: tipped with iron, as spears, &c., or not so tipped, as clubs. Observe here the folly and madness of Judas and the Jews. He knew that He was a very great prophet, nay, the Son of God, who could not be overcome by force, as the Jews well knew, and yet, maddened with avarice and fury, they bring armed men to use violence towards Him, to seize and bind Him. Dost thou wish, O Judas, to bind God, to seize the Almighty, to fight, O petty men, against your Creator, and compel Him to give Himself into your hands? “It was avarice,” says S. Chrysostom, “which inspired him with this madness, avarice which makes all its slaves cruel and fierce; for if the covetous man neglect his own salvation, what will he care for another ?

Now he that betrayed Him gave them a sign , saying. Whomsoever I shall kiss , that same is He: hold him fast Lest He escape, as He did at other times. “And lead Him away carefully,” adds S. Mark. For Judas was afraid lest Christ should escape by changing His shape, and that He should thus lose the thirty pieces of silver, which were not as yet given, but only promised. Gave them a sign . That the Roman soldiers might know him. For it was night. And perhaps, as some modems suggest, from His likeness to S. James the Less, His kinsman. I shall kiss . Origen mentions a tradition that Christ had two countenances, one natural, the other assumed at will, as at His transfiguration, and that Judas gave this sign for fear Christ should alter His appearance, so as not to be recognised. But this is a gratuitous assumption, and not to the point, for Judas was not present at the Transfiguration; and even had he been there, he might reasonably fear that Christ might render Himself invisible, as He knew He had done at other times. The true reason is as given above

And forthwith he came to Jesus , and said Hail , Master; and kissed Him . Judas knew from Christ’s words at the Last Supper that he and his treachery were known to Christ ; but KISS OF JUDAS. 215 yet, in order to hide it from the other Apostles, he pretends to give Christ the usual mark of friendship and reverence. It was the ancient mode of salutation. The Apostles probably saluted Christ in this manner, when returning back to Him from some other place. The early Christians also used to salute each other in the same way (see Tert. de Orat. % and i Cor. xvi. 20). But Judas most wickedly misused this token of friendship for the purpose of betrayal, being persuaded (says S. Chrysostom) that Christ in His gentleness would not reject his kiss, and that if He rejected it, the sign would yet have been given. S. Victor of Antioch says, “ The unhappy man gave the kiss of peace to Him against whom he was laying deadly snares.” “ Giving,” says pseudoJerome, “the sign of the kiss with the poison of deceit.” Moreover, though Christ felt deeply, and was much pained at His betrayal by Judas, yet He refused not his kiss, and gave him a loving kiss in return. 1. “ That He might not seem to shrink from treachery ” (S. Ambrose in Luke xxi. 45), but willingly to embrace it, and even greater indignities, for our sake. 2. To soften and pierce the heart of Judas (S. Ambrose, ibid.) ; and 3. To teach us to love our enemies and those whom we know would rage against us (S. Hilary). For Christ hated not, but loved the traitor, and grieved more at his sin than at His own betrayal, and accordingly strove to lead him to repentance. Just as the spark of fire is elicited from the steel, so was Christ’s latent love elicited by His blows and sufferings. His love was pre-eminent through the whole of His Passion

But they that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest , where the scribes and elders were assembled. S. John mentions that they led Him first to Annas, the father-in-law to Caiaphas. This was out of respect to Annas as the elder, or because he especially wished fhat Christ should VOL in. f 1 226 be taken. Whence S. Cyril and F. Lucas think that the price of Judas’ betrayal was paid him there, or because the house of Annas was on the road (see on S. John xviii. 13). For it was in the house of Caiaphas that Christ was first examined, smitten, and denied by S. Peter, as is clear from S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke; and S. John (xviii. 19) also insinuates the same when be says “that the High Priest questioned Jesus.” For when he says (ver. 24) that Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, it must be considered an analepsis. For John merely goes back to what he had omitted, for fear any one should conclude from his previous statement that Christ had been examined by Annas and not by Caiaphas. Some transpose ver. 24 and put it in after ver. 13, as S. Cyril does. So Origen, S. Augustine (de Cons . Evang. cap. vl), Jansen, &c. Were assembled. He says not “were called together,” for this had been done when Judas requested Caiaphas’ soldiers to take Christ For it was then that Caiaphas summoned the Scribes and Elders to judge and condemn Him as soon as Judas brought Him before them. For they had conceived a deadly hatred against Christ, and thirsted for His death. “They sat watching all the night in Caiaphas’ house,” says S. Chrysostom

But Peter followed Him afar off. Peter alone gathered courage, and partly from curiosity, but more from love of Jesus, followed Him; but yet it was “afar off,” for fear he should be seized by the soldiers, both as a disciple of Jesus, and also as having cut off Malchus’ ear. His flight was a token of fear, his return a token of love overmastering his fear. “Peter,” says S. Ambrose in Luke xxil, “is deserving our highest admiration for not forsaking the Lord even when afraid ; his fear was natural, his care for Him was from affection ; his fear alien to his nature, his not flying natural; his following Him was from devotion, his denial from surprise.” In Peter, therefore, fear and love struggled together ; in the first case love overcame fear, but soon afterwards under heavy temptation fear overcame love, when through fear of the attendants he denied Christ. PETER IN THE HIGH PRIEST’S PALACE. 227 Unto the High Priest's house. That is, Caiaphas’. This is more fully stated John xviii. 15. The disciple there mentioned was S. John, according to S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. So Jerome (in Epit. Marc. and Lyranus, who says that John was known to the High Priest from selling him fishes, or because one of his kindred was a servant of the High Priest, or because he had sold his inheritance to the High Priest (Niceph. L 28). But it is more likely that it was not one of the Apostles, because they were not known to the High Priest And, moreover, both Christ and his Apostles were hated by the High Priest, and would not have been admitted into his palace by the servants; more likely would have been taken prisoners. Most probably it was one of His secret disciples, according to the Syriac version. And went in y and sat with the servants. Not into the house where Jesus was to be examined, but into the court “He approached not the place where Jesus was,” says S. Jerome, “ lest he should be suspected, but sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire,” as the other Evangelists state. Peter erred from imprudence and rashness, for thrusting himself among the servants, and thus exposing himself to the risk of either joining with them in reviling Him, or else of suffering imprisonment and scourging. He therefore shortly afterwards denied Christ “He that loveth danger shall perish therein ” (Ecclus. iii. 26). To see the end. Whether Christ would be condemned or not, or set Himself free from His peril. If condemned, Peter would have taken refuge in flight; if acquitted, he would have dutifully returned to Him

But the Chief Priests and all the Council sought false witness against fesus f to put Him to death. Here comes in S. John’s narrative (xviii 19). The High Priest “asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine,” as is there said, because, says Euthymius, “ he wished to convict Him of introducing strange doctrines, and of stirring up sedition.” For it was the duty of the High Priest to inquire into heresies and new sects. But Jesus firmly and prudently 228 replied that He had taught openly, and that those who heard His teaching were there present, and though His enemies, could speak to it. Let him ask them what He had taught them. For there is no surer evidence of innocence and sound teaching than that which comes from unfriendly hearers. For had Christ stated His own doctrine, they might have urged that through fear of condemnation He had said one thing in the Council and another in public “He replied not arrogantly,” says S, Chrysostom, “but as confident in the truth.” Whence He says, “Why askest thou Me?” Why dost thou insidiously and captiously ask Me, thou crafty High Priest, to catch something out of My mouth wherewith to accuse and condemn Me ? Thou canst easily learn from the common opinion of the people what I taught them. If thou knowest it not, thou hast not done thy duty as High Priest And if thou wishest to know it now, ask the bystanders, My enemies, who have often heard Me. Let them produce, if they can, a single untrue or unsound word of Mine. For I know they cannot do so in truth. But when S. John says “that one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,” S. Cyril thinks that he was struck with His teaching, and wished to remove this impression by striking Him. He struck Him on the cheek, as vindicating the honour of the High Priest Such a blow, inflicted with a mailed hand, was both severe and disgraceful, as appears from the “ sacred countenance ” which is religiously preserved at S. Peter’s, and exhibited to the people in Passion Week. “What more audacious act?” says S. Chrysostom. “ Let the Heaven be horrified, let the earth tremble at the patience of Christ and the insolence of His servants.” “ Methinks,” says S. Cyril, “ the whole universe would have shuddered had it known what it meant : for the Lord of Glory was smitten by the impious hand of a man.” It is a marvel that this hand was not at once shrivelled up, nay, that the earth had not swallowed the man up alive. But the gentleness and love of Christ prevented this, who called him and many of his fellows to SEEKING FALSE WITNESSES. 229 repentance (Acts ii. 37). Just as Jeremiah foretold in sorrow, or rather in astonishment, “He will give His cheek to him that smiteth Him. He will be filled full of reproach” (Lam. iii* 3°)- Now comes in S. Matthew’s narrative. Finding they could find nothing against Him from those who were there, “they sought false witnesses,” as despairing of finding true testimony, because Christ’s wisdom, truthfulness, and sanctity were fully known to all the people. That they might deliver Him to death . This was the great end for which they sought for false witnesses as a necessary means, though the sole end of justice is to condemn only on true evidence, and to inflict on false witnesses a correspondent punishment For they wished for their own credit not to appear men of violence, but impartial judges, and consequently to be proceeding judicially against Him, though they were at the same time both judges and accusers, against every rule of justice and equity. “They craftily devise,” says S. Chrysostom, “the outward form and appearance of justice, disguising their craft under the veil of a trial” (Viet. Ant. on Mark xiv.). Again, they wished Him to be condemned by Pilate, but they knew he would not condemn Him unless the crime were proved by witnesses to be deserving of death. The Chief Priests therefore seek false witnesses against Jesus, the Author of life and Saviour of the world, because, though they knew it not, God had decreed to give us, by His death, life both here and hereafter

But found none : yea , though many false witnesses came , yet found they none. “The wicked men found no semblance of blame in him,” says Origen, “ though they were many, astute, and ingenious, so pure and blameless was the life of Jesus.” For the evidence of these witnesses was either false or contradictory, or not to the point, so that He could not be proceeded against as worthy of death. At last came two false witnesses , and said This fellaiv said / am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days . 230 Christ, indeed, had said this (John ii. 19), in answer to their request for a sign that He was sent from God. But they were false witnesses, because, though they spake the truth in part, yet they perverted His words and meaning. For, first. He did not say “I am able to destroy,” but “destroy ye,” i.e, 9 “if ye destroy it” Next, S. Mark says they added the words “ made without hands," though S. John has nothing of the kind. Next, Christ said not, “ I will build it again,” but “ I will raise it up.” In like manner they distorted its meaning, for He spake of the temple of His Body, in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt as in a temple, as S. John added. For when the Jews asked for a sign, Christ gave them the sign of His resurrection. Christ might have plainly said, “I will rise again from the dead.” But He chose rather to make use of the figure of the temple, because in the presence of cavillers He was obliged to speak covertly and symbolically, and also by speaking thus obscurely to furnish occasion for His Passion; for He knew that the Jews, from misunderstanding this obscure saying, would prosecute Him as guilty of death. S. Mark here adds, “But neither so did their testimony agree together.” For however boastful these words of Christ seemed to be, yet they injured no one, and a capital charge could not be founded on them

And the High Priest arose and said, Answerest Thou nothing to those things which they witness against Thee t He arose, as being indignant that He was silent, and slighted this accusation as futile, and confuted it by His silence. Again, he rose up to show the heinousness and gravity of the crime brought against Christ, as though Christ, in speaking thus, had made light of the magnificence and holiness of the temple. But Jesus held His peace, 1. Because the charge contained nothing worthy of death, and needed not an answer. 2. Because He knew that anything He might answer would be turned into a charge against Him. 3. Because He was fully preparing Himself for the death decreed for Him of the Father, and wished not to escape it by self-excuse. 4. The silence of Christ atoned for Adam’s THE HIGH PRIEST’S ADJURATION. excuses (Com. on Mark xiv. apud S. Jer.). Christ was silent, in order by His siience to make satisfaction for Adam’s foolish talking

And the High Priest said to Him, 1 adjure Thee by the Living God that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. I, the High Priest, am the Vicar of God on earth, and therefore by the authority of God committed to me, I call God to witness, and conjure Thee to answer. Caiaphas here touches the essence of the whole matter. Jesus said that He was the Christ, sent with supreme power for the salvation of men. The Chief Priests pertinaciously denied it He therefore asks the question not for information, but in order to condemn Him. For if He said He were, they condemned Him to death as a blasphemer ; but if He said He were not, he would have replied, Why then didst Thou pass Thyself off with the people as Christ the Son of God ? and would consequently have condemned Him as a false Prophet, in having made Himself equal with God, as the Jews urged against Him (John v. 19). For the whole ground of their hatred against Him was that He, a man, as it seemed, of low birth, said He was Christ and Son of God, preached accordingly without their sanction, despised their foolish traditions, and publicly and sharply reproved their vices and crimes

Jesus saith unto him. Thou hast said. Meaning thereby, I am. Christ candidly and clearly replied that He was Christ, both to show reverence to the Divine Name by which He was adjured, and to bestow due honour and obedience to the authority of the High Priest who adjured Him. Says S. Chrysostom, “ to take away from them every excuse,” that they might not be able to excuse themselves with men, nor before God in the day of judgment, by saying, We asked Jesus judicially in the Council, but He was either silent or answered ambiguously, wherefore we were not obliged to accept and believe in Him as Christ 1 Nevertheless I say unto you. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power. After this time, i.e., in the day of judgment. Ye shall see Me then, who how seem to be only the Son of Man, to be truly the very Son of God, when I am seated at $. MATTHEW, c. XXVI. 232 the right hand of God, and to be His equal in dignity, majesty, and glory. He alludes to Ps. cx. 1. I am He of whom David sang of old, “The Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. Christ, moreover, not only as God, but as man too, sitteth on the right hand of God, as explained in Col. iii. 1. The Chief Priests will not strictly and exactly see this in the day of judgment, as being reprobates, and not to be blessed with the sight of God, but to be cursed with the sight of the devil But indirectly and in effect they will see it For they will see such great majesty, glory, and splendour, and such a train of angels attending Him, that they will not doubt that He is near to God, nay, God himself, and the Son of God. For they will then experience His omnipotence in glorifying the godly and condemning the ungodly, who here have condemned Him as weak and feeble. And coming in the clouds of Heaven. Alluding to Dan. vil 13. Behold here, and wonder at His greatness of mind, who though standing in the midst of His enemies, yet threatens them with His coming to judgment As though He said, Ye now unjustly condemn Me as a false prophet and false Christ, but that day will come when I, who stand at your tribunal, shall be seated as judge. Ye condemn Me now to the death of the Cross ; but I, in this very same place (for Christ will sit in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is nigh Jerusalem, Joel iil 2), will condemn you to the eternal torture of hell-fire, because ye committed on My person this awful sacrilege, because ye were the murderers of Christ and of God. And surely it will thus be

Then the High Priest rent his clothes , saying ; He hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need have we of witnesses t behold^ now ye have heard His blasphemy. The garments of the Jews could easily be rent, for they were open at the neck, so as to be readily taken on and off. They could therefore easily take hold of both sides of the opening, and tear them down to the waist (but no farther), in token of grief and indignation. This was usual among the heathen, but especially among the Jews, in THE OLD PRIESTHOOD ABOLISHED. 233 grief or when they heard blasphemy against God. (See 2 Kings xix. 1.) But Caiaphas, being High Priest, tore his garments unlawfully; for “he shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes,” Lev. xxL 10 : the reasons for which I have there given. But Caiaphas rent his garment to arouse their ill-will against Jesus, and to expose Him as a blasphemer to general execration. But by this very act he signified symbolically that the old law with its priesthood was rent away by the death of Christ, and that he also was deprived of his Priesthood by Him. So S. Leo (Serm. vi. de Pass.) says, “ He did this to increase their anger at what they had heard. But not knowing the meaning of his mad act, he deprived himself of the honour of the Priesthood in forgetfulness of the precept, ‘He shall not take off his head-dress, nor rend his clothes.’” And Origen says, “He rent his garments, displaying his filthiness and the nakedness of his soul, and showing forth in mystery that the old Priesthood was to be rent away, and its school of Priests, and its training, which was according to the letter.” And Jerome, “He rent his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of the Priesthood, and that the seats of the High Priests were empty.” So, too, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansen, Barradius, and others. He hath spoken blasphemy , in saying He was the Messiah and Son of God. The High Priest, for fear any one should be influenced by the words of Christ, anticipates it by fastening on Him the charge of blasphemy, to keep any one from speaking in His behalf, and to compel them all to condemn Him as a blasphemer. What need we any further witness t Caiaphas here displays his wickedness, in not acting as a judge, but as a prosecutor and accuser of Christ. (See S. Chrysostom.) What think ye l Here again he acts the part of a prosecutor and not of a judge, makes the very enemies of Christ His judges, and by his pontifical authority, and his sentence already decided on, drives them, as it were, to condemn Him as a malefactor. “ The 234 same persons,” says S. Chrysostom, “ bring the charge, discuss it, and pass sentence.” But they answered and said He is guilty of death. Blasphemers were stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16), as S. Stephen was stoned. But they cried out that He was guilty, not of stoning, but of death. For they had already decided to crucify Him. Origen touchingly sets forth the indignity of this most iniquitous sentence. “ How great an error was it to declare the Prince of Life Himself guilty of death, and not, on the testimony of so many who had risen, to look on Him as the Fount of Life, from whom life flowed forth on all living! For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” What greater indignity than that the Son of God, the source of all life to angels, men, and all living things, should be condemned by the whole Council as guilty of death for having, when asked and adjured by the High Priest, confessed that He was the Son of God ? He had restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to the dead, and is therefore condemned to death by the envious priests. But they said in ignorance (but in another sense), that though Christ was in Himself most innocent and holy, yet He had taken on Himself to atone for our sins. And on that account He was guilty of death. For Christ took on Himself the sentence passed on Adam and his posterity, “ In the day thou eatest thereof,” &c. (Gen. ii. 17). For He wished to atone for our death, that by His death He might restore us to the eternal life of grace and glory. And accordingly He took on Himself this most undeserved sentence with the greatest calmness, equanimity, and patience, and surrendered Himself to God the Father as a victim for our sins (see Isa. liii.), to teach us to bear contentedly (after His example, and for love of Him) the unjust judgments, the reproaches and censures of men, in order to make the best return to Him we can ; while in His service we are treated as guilty of death, just as He was, by the whole Council, judged and proclaimed guilty of death for our sakes. Tropologkally : a Christian who sins condemns our Redeemer a second time to death, kills Him (as it were), and crucifies TWO JEWISH COUNCILS. 235 Him (see Heb. vi. 6). Whence S. Bridget (Rev. i. 37) tells us that the Blessed Virgin said to her, “I complain that my Son is crucified more cruelly by His enemies in the world now, than He was by the Jews. For the sins with which they spiritually crucify my Son are more abominable and grievous than the sins of those who crucified Him in the body.” Some suppose that this Council was held early the next day, and that everything here recorded by S. Matthew from ver. 59 is spoken by anticipation, and ought to come after the first verse of the next chapter (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evan. iii. 7, &c.). Others maintain, more correctly, that these events were recorded by S. Matthew in due order, and that they took place immediately after midnight For there were two Councils held, one at night, the one here mentioned, the second next morning (Luke xxii. 66). For as all the Council were not present at night, Caiaphas summoned a general assembly in the morning, to which he convened them all In this Christ was condemned unanimously as guilty of treason, not only against Divine law in calling Himself the Son of God, but against human law also, in asserting that He was a King, and was given up to Pilate to sentence Him to crucifixion. The great Council (the Sanhedrim) was held in the morning

Then they spat on His face. Great and brutal was the barbarity of the servants, as also of the Chief Priests and the Councillors who permitted it But they considered they did rightly, in vindicating their law and the honour of God, since Christ had been already condemned to death as a blasphemer. Those who held Him, and the other bystanders as well, and some, too, of the Council (as S. Mark implies), spat upon Him. On that Divine face, worthy of reverence and adoration from all creatures, on which the angels desire to look. This was an atrocious insult inflicted by the vilest men on Christ the Son of God, who here exhibited stupendous gentleness, humility, and patience, and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (ii. 6), “I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that pluck off the hair.” Whence Forerius says that the plucking of 236 the beard was a great pain and insult, like spitting in the face. Whence S. Clement Alex {Pad. iii. 3) says ‘‘it is a monstrous thing to pluck off the hair, which is man’s natural beauty.” Whence Euthymius says, “Shudder, ye heavens and earth, and all creation; for what face was it on which they inflicted such insults?” And so S. Chrysostom, and Titus Bostrensis after him, “They spat on that face which the waves of the sea feared, on seeing which on the Cross the sun hid his rays; they smote it, fully satisfying their anger, inflicting the most insulting wounds, thrusting their hands into His (ace, &c. But why did they beat Him when they were about to kill Him? What need was there for such insults? But their cruelty was manifest in all they did, like hunters who vent their rage on the prey they have at length found, counting it a pleasure and festive sport, and showing how eager they were for cruelty.” S. Anselm {de Pass. Horn.) introduces the Blessed Virgin as thus saying, “After a little while my Son appeared covered with spittle as with leprosy ; ” and speaking of His scourging says, “My Son was so benumbed and disfigured, that He appeared as though struck with leprosy.” They buffeted Him. A buffet {colaphus) is a blow struck with the fist on the neck or head; a blow ( alapa ) is given with the flat of the hand on the cheek, inflicting greater insult, but less pain than the blow {colaphus). But others struck Him in the face with their hands. Some translate as a rod or a slipper. But here, by a misuse of words, it means “a blow.” Christ is therefore here accused as impious, — struck with the hand, as impudent ; speaks as the Lord, is silent as innocent ; is condemned as sacrilegious ; is smitten with fists, “though He measures out the waters with the hollow of His hand” (Isa. xl.). His countenance, the brightness of His Father’s glory, is disfigured with blows. His eyes are veiled who lays bare the secrets of the hearts and looks into all thoughts. He is insulted, beaten, and assailed with scoffs, and has His hair torn out. ORACLES OF THE SIBYLS. 237

Now Peter sat without in the hall: and a damsel came unto Him, saying, And thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. S. Matthew here goes back to the history of S. Peter, whom he speaks of (ver. 58) a? having followed Jesus into the hall; and he here brings together in one S. Peter's three denials, though they took place at different times. He sat at the fire warming himself. S. John says he stood; but this with the Jews merely meant that he was present, not any particular attitude He stood, it may be, at one time, and sat at another. But if he stood without, how was it that he was within the house? He was within, as being in the outer court, but without with respect to the inner court. Whence S. Ambrose says (Luke xxii.), “Where was it that Peter denied Christ? In the praetorium of the Jews, in the company of the wicked.” And Bede, too, on Mark xiv., “How hurtful is converse with the wicked! Peter amongst the servants of the High Priest said he knew not the man, though among the disciples he had confessed Him to be God.” A damsel One of inferior degree, “a doorkeeper,” says S. John. Hence we see more clearly the weakness and fear of Peter, who was staggered by the question of a humble damsel, and denied Christ ; though afterwards, when he had received the Spirit, feared not Caiaphas, or the whole Council, when he said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts iv.). Learn from this how weak is man when over-confident in himself and forsaken of God; and, on the other hand, how bold, if he distrusts himself and trusts in God. “Peter without the Spirit was overcome by the words of the damsel, but with the Spirit he yielded neither to rulers nor kings” ( Com. on S. Mark, apud S. Jerome). Peter's deceit. 24 1 But how did this damsel recognise Peter before all the men who had seen him in the garden with Christ? Because, as the doorkeeper, she carefully noticed those who went in and out And she observed that Peter was not one of the servants, but a stranger, and with an agitated look, and hence conjectured he was a follower of Jesus. For sagacious doorkeepers are quick in detecting, for it is difficult to conceal the feelings, and not to betray them by the look. Perhaps, also, she had seen Peter with the other Apostles, and had carefully noted his appearance. Of Galilee, For Jesus was of Nazareth in Galilee, and he calls him a Galilean, both as despised by the Jews, who thought that no Prophets came from thence (John vii. 62), and also as a seditious person, a follower of Judas of Galilee (Acts

But he denied before them ally sayings 1 knoiv not what thou sayest. Fearihg he would be seized, and to obtain belief for his denial, he said that her question was so strange that he knew not what it meant. “I am so far from knowing who Jesus is, that I know not what it is you ask. For I know not whether He has disciples, or who and what they are” It was a lie ; just as when a person, if asked by Pagans whether he is a Christian, says he is not This is a sin against the profession of the faith, of which Peter had heard Christ's warnings and threatenings (Matt. x. 33). “But Peter,” says Victor of Antioch, “was in such consternation and agitation of mind as entirely to forget the Lord's threatening.” And hence S. Augustine (on John xviiL 65), commiserating his fall, exclaims, “Behold this most firm pillar tumbled at one single breath of air! Where is now that boldness of promising, that over - confidence in himself? Where are his words, ‘If I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee'? But what marvel if God's prediction proved true, and man's presumption false?” Denied . How many times? Dionys. Carthus. says six times, thrice in the house of Annas. S. John implies, thrice in the VOL. iil Q £42 house of Caiaphas, as the other Evangelists expressly state (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. iii. 6). Cajetan (on John xviiL) says seven times, thrice when addressed by women, and four times by men. But the common opinion is that he denied only thrice. See S. Cyril on John xviii. ; S. Ambrose (Luke xxii.), and others. And this is clear from S. Matthew’s narrative, who sets foith the history succinctly, and in the best order. The Evangelists relate his threefold denials in different ways. But in order to reconcile them, observe that Peter first simply denied in the hall, when asked by the first damsel, next with an oath, when asked by the second, and thirdly, with cursing and swearing. Here observe that S. Hilary on this passage, and S. Ambrose on Luke xxii., seem to say that Pete: in denying Christ did not lie, but spoke ambiguously. For he said he knew not the man, because he knew Him to be God. “ I was not with Him whom ye call a man, but I withdrew not from the Son of God,” says S. Ambrose. I know not what thou sayest, — that is, I understand not your profanity. But S. . Jerome tacitly refutes them, as Christ does also by saying, “Thou shalt thrice deny Me.” But SS. Hilary and Ambrose can both be excused, because they merely meant to say that Peter’s words were so measured that a sound meaning could be elicited from them, that he spoke so ambiguously that his words of denial could be turned into a good meaning. 1. It is certain, therefore, that Peter sinned mortally. So S. Chrysostom here, and S. Augustine ( Tract, cxiii on John). He therefore lost by his denial the grace and love of God. But whether he lost his faith is doubtful. But if any one of the Apostles retained his faith it was Peter (see above, ver. 31), especially as he soon afterwards repented, and wept bitterly for his sin of denial. He therefore mentally retained his faith, which moved him to repentance and tears. 2. He was to fall thus gravely for three reasons. First (which is the source of all), from over-confidence ; next, because, though conscious of his weakness, he threw himself ONE SIN LEADS TO OTHERS. 243 into the company of the wicked men who had seized Jesus; and lastly, that he, the future head of the Church, might learn to have compassion for the fallen, and set a pattern of true penitence to all sinners. So S. Chrysostom, S. Leo (Serm. ix. de Pass.), S. Gregory {Horn, xxi.), and others. The first denial took place just after midnight He went away for fear the damsel should question him again. And the cock crew. This first cock-crowing did not rouse Peter from his fall, nor keep him from falling again

But as he was going out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said to them that were there. This jellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. “ It is clear,” says S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. iil 6), “ by comparing the testimony of all the Evangelists, that Peter did not deny in front of the gate, but within it, in the hall by the fire. S. Matthew and S. Mark mention his going, but for brevity’s sake do not mention his return.”

And immediately he denied with an oath, I know not the man. It appears from S. Luke and S. John that several others put the same question, and pressed him hard. On which Peter, finding that a stronger answer was required, added an oath, ue., committed perjury; for, as S. Gregory says, “a sin which is not blotted out by repentance, by its very weight quickly draws on to another,” both because it weighs down, depresses, and weakens the conscience, and also because the sinner thinks that as he has sinned, it is of little moment if he falls again into the like sin. Some Christians when they have once fallen into fornication or gluttony repeat the sin, as thinking, “We have already fallen, let us fall again, and then by the same confession we shall blot out all our sins together.” But they are wrong ; for a second is a new offence against God, and inflicts on the soul a new wound more deadly than the first; for repentance is more difficult after repeated sin than after the first fall. “ Perseverance in sin causes increase of guilt,” says Rabanus. His intercourse with the ungodly, which he ought to have given up after his first fall, drove Peter to this, though, assuredly, he never should have done it, 244 as having experienced its noxiousness and his weakness in their company

And after a while came unto him they that stood by and said unto him, Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee

And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He sat'd. Before the cock crow twice (S. Mark adds), thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly . “ After the herald of day cried to him,” says Origen, “ he remembered.” And Victor of Antioch on Mark xiv. says, “ He was admonished by the cock crowing, and, as if aroused from deep sleep and brought back again to himself, he remembered that he had fallen into that very sin and disgrace which the Lord had foretold.” Symbolically: a cock. Our own conscience is given to rs by God, which cries out against us as oft as we sin, and says, Why committest thou this great sin ? Why dost thou offend God ? Why dost thou hurt thyself, and expose thyself to the peril of hell? This cry wounds the conscience, and stimulates it to repentance; and whoso hears and regards it feels true compunction with S. Peter, and does away his sin by penitence. So Laur, Justin de Christi agone , cap . ix. So, too, S. Gregory (Mor, xxx. 4), explaining Job xxxviil 36 (Vulg.), “Who hath given the cock understanding?” And he went out Because he could not weep before the Jews, lest he should betray himself ; and because the very sight of them was the cause of his denying Christ As he was penitent, this ground for falling away had to be removed. He goes forth, therefore, and gives full vent to his tears. “For he could not,” says S. Jerome, “manifest his repentance when sitting in the hall of Caiaphas ; he therefore goes away from the council of the wicked to wash away the filth of his cowardly denial with the tears of love.” Calvin objects, that this was but a halting repentance, because he did not confess his sin before the Jews, in whose presence he had denied Christ, and thus do away with the scandal he had caused them. I reply, that he had not given them any scandal so as to strengthen them in their hatred of Christ, for they were already most determined in their hatred of Him. And if he had retracted his denial in their presence, it would have been without any PETER’S TEARS. 247 benefit, nay, with hurt both to himself and them. For he would have exposed himself to the risk of relapse, and them to the peril of feeling greater indignation against Christ ; and they would then have punished more severely both himself and Christ Wept bitterly. He wept with bitter tears (in the Arabic), as though his great sorrow had embittered his heart, so as to shed bitter tears in satisfaction for his sin. “For” (as S. Bernard says) “the tears of penitents are the wine of angels” — nay, of God and Christ Hear S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.), “Why wept he? Because his sin came into his mind. Peter grieved and wept because he had erred as a man. To fall is a common thing, to repent is of faith. But why did he not pray rather than weep?” He answers, “Tears wash away the sin which the voice is ashamed to confess. Tears do not ask for pardon, they merit it I know why Peter kept silence. It was because an earlier request for pardon would have added to his offence. We must weep first, and then pray.” And shortly after he says, “Teach us, O Peter, what did thy tears profit thee! Thou hast taught us already. For thou didst fall before thou wept But after thy tears thou wast raised up to rule others, though before thou couldest not rule thyself.” Thou wilt say that S. Ambrose remarks in the same passage, “ I read of the tears of Peter, but not of his satisfaction.” These words the Calvinists pervert, as doing away with works of satisfaction, and destroying their efficacy. But ignorantly and foolishly. For S. Ambrose means by “ satisfaction ” excuses for sin, as appears from what follows. “ I read that Peter lamented his sin, and did not excuse it, as guilty men are wont to da” But Peter confessed his sin with loving tears. And there is no question among the orthodox that such works are satisfactory. S. Clement, the disciple and successor of S. Peter, records that Peter was so penitent, as his whole life afterwards to fall on his knees when he heard the cock crow, shed bitter tears, and ask pardon again of God and Christ for his sin, long since forgiven. His eyes also gave evidence of this, being bloodshot from constant 248 weeping (Niceph. ii. 37). And lastly, Peter compensated for hts fall by living to his death an austere life, feeding on lupins (S. Gregory Naz. de A more pauperum ), and also by his unwearied labours as an apostle, his persecutions, his sorrows, and, finally, his death on the cross, which he most resolutely and joyfully underwent for Christ’s sake. S. Bridget records (Rev. iii. 5) that S. Peter appeared to her, and stated that the cause of his fall was his forgetfulness of his own resolution and the promise he made to Christ And he thence suggests this remedy for temptation, “ Rise up by humility to the Lord of Memory, and seek for memory from Him.” ( 249 ) CHAPTER XXVII. X Christ is delivered bound to Pilate . 3 Judas hangeth himself. 19 Pilate , admonished of his wife , 24 washeth his hands: 26 and looseth Barabbas. 29 Christ is crowned with thorns , 34 crucified , 40 reviled , 50 dieth, and is buried : 66 his sepulchre is sealed , and watched. flT HEN the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people * * took counsel against Jesus to put him to death : 2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. 3 IT Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us ? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said. It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying. And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value ; 10 And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. 11 And Jesus stood before the governor : and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews ? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. 12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. 13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee ? 14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. 15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom the)' would. 16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 250 THE HOLY GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you ? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. 19 IF When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man : for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you ? They said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done ? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. 24 IF When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just persop : see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said. His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 IT Then released he Barabbas unto them : and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. 28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 29 II And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand : and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews ! 30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. 31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. 32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name : him they compelled to bear his cross. 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, 34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall : and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink. 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. 36 And sitting down they watched him there ; 37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left 39 f And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him , with the scribes and elders* said. THE HOLY GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 25 1 42 He saved others ; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God ; let him deliver him now, if he will have him : for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard Mat, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 50 H Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom ; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent ; 52 And the graves were opened ; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee ministering unto him. 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children. 57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathxa, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus* disciple ; 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock : and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. 61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre. 62 IT Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead : so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch : go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. 252 Ver. i. But when the morning was come (Syr. when it was dawn), all the chief priests, &c. “See here,” says S. Jerome, “the eagerness of the Priests for evil,” their feet were swift to shed blood (Ps. xiv. 6). They were urged on by their bitter hatred of Christ, and by Satan’s instigatioa It was the morning of Friday, only a few hours before His crucifixion, when Caiaphas, who had already tried and condemned Him the night before, summoned thus early the great Council of the Sanhedrim. It was to obtain His condemnation by the whole Body, which would ensure the subsequent condemnation by Pilate. S. Matthew omits the proceedings of this Council, as being a mere repetition of what he had already recorded (chap. xxvi. 59 seq.). But the narrative is supplied by S. Luke (xxii. 26 seq.), as explained above (see ver. 59). S. Leo says strikingly, “This morning, O Jews, destroyed your Temple and altars, took away from you the Law and the Prophets, deprived you of your kingdom and priesthood, and turned all your feasts into unending woe” (Serm. iii. de Pass.). To put Him to death. That is, how they could do it without hindrance or tumult, and also by what kind of death, as, e.g., that of the Cross, the most ignominious of all. Some members of the Council were probably Christ’s followers and friends; and these most likely absented themselves, or were not summoned, or sent away elsewhere, for fear they should defend Him. But if any of them were present, they either gave sentence in His favour, or were forced by the clamour of the rest to remain silent ; as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea (Luke xxiii. 51). Here notice, this wicked Council erred not only in fact, but in faith. For it gave sentence that Jesus was not the Christ nor the Son of God, but that He was guilty of death, as having falsely claimed to be both : all which statements are erroneous and heretical. This, however, was only a small and particular, not an (Ecumenical Council. These latter, as representing the whole Church, have the gift of inerrancy by the power of the Holy Ghost and by Christ’s own promise. But you will say the whole Jewish Church at that time fell away from the faith. It was not so, for many of Christ’s converts JESUS BOUND. 253 in Judaea remained steadfast, and there were true believers among the Jews who were converted at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.)