And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch.

“Now on the first day he then treats of the institution of the sacrament, and because new things succeed old things, as is said in Leviticus 26:10: "when new things come in, you shall cast out the old"; first he treats of the old; second, of the new. Concerning the first there are two parts. First, the preparation of the Passover is set forth; second, the foretelling of the betrayer is set forth, at the words "and as they were eating, he said," etc. And concerning the first, first the time is designated; second, the preparation of the feast; third, the institution of the sacrament. He says therefore, "on the first day of the unleavened bread." And here there can be an objection, because this day was the first day of the Passover. And this seems to be against what is said in John 13:1: "before the feast day of the Passover," etc. The Greeks say that Matthew, Luke, and Mark erred, and that John corrected them, because it was done before the day of the Passover. Hence they say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, and made the supper on the thirteenth. Hence they say that the Lord confected the sacrament not in unleavened bread, but in leavened. And they strive to confirm this with many arguments. First, because it is said in John 18:28 that they did not enter in, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover; and thus on the day of the passion they were still to eat the Passover. Likewise another argument of theirs, that the women prepared spices, therefore etc. But this cannot stand, because the Lord did not break the ceremonies: for it is not found that the Passover was anticipated, though it is found that it was prolonged. And granted that it were anticipated, this does not help the Greeks, because it is written that the Passover had to be eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. If therefore he had done otherwise, he would have acted against the law. Therefore, according to what the three Evangelists say, this was done on the fourteenth moon, and then it was necessary to eat the Passover. What then is to be answered to that which John says: "before the feast day of the Passover"? It must be said that the custom was that they began the day from the evening, and so the paschal day began from the evening. And this is found in Exodus 12:18: "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover"; and from then on leavened bread was not to be found in the houses of the Jews until the twenty-first day. Hence if we compute from the evening of the fourteenth moon, the preparation was made before the day of the Passover, and yet it was the fourteenth moon. John therefore calls that day the day of unleavened bread, and calls the day of the Passover the fifteenth moon. As to what you say secondly, that they did not enter the praetorium etc., Chrysostom resolves it thus, and says that the Lord omitted nothing of the legal observances; hence he ate the Passover on the fourteenth moon. But these rulers were bent on the killing of Christ, on account of which they delayed, and so did not celebrate then, and this was against their own law. Or by "Passover" are understood the unleavened loaves. As to what they say concerning the women, Augustine says that they had many solemnities; but the sabbath was the more solemn solemnity. Hence it was not lawful to prepare food on the sabbath, which however was lawful on other feasts, but not on the sabbath day. Therefore it then so happened that the feast of the Passover fell on a Friday, and the sabbath followed; therefore they prepared then, and rested on the sabbath day. Therefore we can say that he celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth moon. There follows the solicitude of the disciples: "the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" And first the inquiry is set forth; second, the command; third, the fulfillment. He says, "his disciples came." But which disciples? Remigius says that Judas came out of a show of duty, so as to conceal his betrayal. Yet Pope Leo says that others also came. "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" By this it is signified that Christ had no house there, nor did anyone of his company; thus his poverty is signified; hence above, Matthew 8:20: "but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." "And he said" — here the command is set forth. And first he announces the host; second, the passion; third he requests the place for the banquet. He says therefore, "go into the city to a certain man." And you should note that he was not lodging in the city, but in Bethany. But what is the meaning of his saying "a certain man"? Augustine says that the Lord named some definite person; but because it was not necessary to name him, Matthew omitted to name him. Chrysostom says that he says "go to a certain man," that is, to whomever, because he wished to show his power, so that they would not be troubled about the passion. For his fame had so spread abroad that it was already decreed that whoever should receive him would be put outside the synagogue. Hence he wished it to be understood that no one would receive him unless he changed that one's heart; Proverbs 21:1: "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and he will incline it wherever he will." "And say to him," etc. He foretells the passion so that they may not be troubled; hence he says "time" — not just any time whatever, but one determined by the Father. In this manner it is said in John 7:6: "my time has not yet come, but your time is always ready." "I will keep the Passover at thy house," that is, I will celebrate the paschal feast at your house. And he adds "with my disciples," to denote that it was not in secret, but publicly. According to Chrysostom he said this, because he wanted sufficient food to be prepared both for himself and for the disciples. But how is it that he celebrated it, and we ought not to celebrate it? For it is said in John 13:15: "I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also should do." To this Augustine responds, that just as Christ suffered in order to redeem us from death, so he willed to observe the law, in order to free us from the law. Then follows the execution: "and the disciples did as Jesus had commanded them," etc. Similarly it is found in Exodus 24:3: "all the words which the Lord has commanded we will do." Consequently the feast is treated: "and when evening was come, he sat down with his twelve disciples." And it says "in the evening," because, as is commanded in Exodus 12:18, "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover." Or "in the evening," because it tends toward its setting; Zechariah 14:7: "and at evening time there shall be light." Or the true passing-over of Christ is signified, namely his end: for evening is the end of the day. "And as they were eating, he said," etc. Here is set forth the foretelling of the betrayer. And first he indicates it from companionship; second, from authority; third, from his own voice. The second at the words "but he answering," etc.; the third at the words "thou hast said it." And concerning the first, first the foretelling is set forth; second, the effect: "and they were sorrowful." Hence he says: "and as they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me." "Amen I say" — he affirms, because he was saying something great, namely that one of you, whom I chose to be the pillars of the Church; Ecclesiasticus 6:10: "there is a friend, a companion at the table, and he does not remain in the day of need." And in Jeremiah 9:4: "have no confidence in any brother of yours." Then follows the effect, and it is a twofold effect: sorrow and doubt. As to sorrow, he says "and they were sorrowful." And why? They were saddened over the death of Christ, because it was bitter to them to be without such a leader, such a patron. Likewise they were saddened over such a crime that was to come; Jeremiah 9:1: "who will give a fountain of tears to my eyes?" Then the doubt is set forth: "they began each one to say." But why did they doubt? Was not each one certain of himself? Response: the disciples had been instructed that men are quickly prone to sin; hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "let him who stands take heed lest he fall." Likewise they doubted, because they trusted him more than their own conscience. Similar is what is said in 1 Corinthians 4:4: "I am conscious of nothing to myself, yet I am not thereby justified." "But he answering said: he who dips his hand in the dish, he will betray me." Here is set forth the foretelling from the prophetic word. And first he sets forth the prophetic foretelling; second, the necessity of the passion; third, the punishment of the betrayer. He says therefore, "but he answering said." Of this can be understood that saying of Psalm 40:10: "he who ate my bread has magnified his supplanting against me." "He who dips his hand in the dish." Mark says "in the bowl." A paropsis is called a four-cornered vessel, and is so called as having equal sides. A catinus is called an earthen vessel for receiving liquids; hence liquids were placed in the catinus, dry things in the paropsis; hence there could be both there. Or it was called a paropsis, but by its function a catinus. And what does it mean when he says, "he who dips his hand in the dish"? It must be said that the custom among the ancients was that many ate from one dish, and perhaps took the vessel. Hence all, in astonishment, drew back their hand, except Judas — so that he might the more excuse himself; and therefore the word was ambiguous, because he was dipping at the same time along with all of them; therefore he was unwilling to expose him, lest he become a greater sinner. Or it can be said that they sat two by two, and he had placed this one with himself, in order to draw him back. But many are not drawn back by friendship. "The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him." What is it that you say, that you will be betrayed? He says "the Son of Man goes," namely by his own will. "He was offered because it was his own will," as it is written in Isaiah 53:7. Hence the passion was foretold by the prophets, as is found in Luke, last chapter, 27: "and beginning from Moses, and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him." And thus nothing harms the Son of Man, because what comes to pass is what he himself ordained. But someone will say: if he goes by his own will, then it is not to be imputed to Judas. It must be said that, on the contrary, it is to be imputed, because he was doing with an evil will that which the Son was doing willingly. Therefore there follows the punishment: "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed." As above, 17:7: "it must needs be that scandals come; but woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." And the greatness of the punishment is touched upon: "it were good for him if that man had not been born." From this follows an occasion of error. For some say that punishment is not inflicted on what does not exist, and therefore they say that it is simply better not to have been, which is against the Apostle in Romans 9. Hence, according to Jerome, it must be said that he speaks according to the common manner of speaking, that is, a lesser harm — that is, he feels a greater torment than if he had not been born. And to this end seems to serve what is said in Ecclesiastes 4:2: "I praised the dead more than the living." And this is against Augustine in the book On Free Will. What is nothing cannot be chosen. Likewise, what we choose is nearer to happiness. But what does not exist is not near to happiness. What then must be said? Can someone choose not to be, rather than to be in a state of punishment? Therefore it must be said that "not to be" can be taken in two ways: either in itself, or by comparison to something else. In itself, I say that it is not choiceworthy, as Augustine says, but by comparison to something else it is choiceworthy, as Jerome says. Because this is not something in nature, but according to the apprehension of the soul it is taken as something, as "not to sit." But choice is taken from that which is apprehended: therefore to be without evil is taken as a good. When therefore one chooses it, one chooses it not for its own sake, but insofar as it excludes evil, as the Philosopher says. By this the answer to the second is clear. He says therefore that that which more removes one from evil is taken as nearer to happiness; hence, for a man with a fever, to be without the fever seems to be happiness, because he seems not to be under miseries; hence it is better not to be, than to be under miseries. "And Judas, who betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi?" It should be noted that he said this in pretense; hence, because he delayed in asking, he signified that he was sorrowful, but it was a pretense. Likewise, the others call him Lord, but this one calls him Master. Yet he was both; John 13:13: "you call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am." "He said to him: thou hast said it." Note the meekness of the Lord. Above, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart"; and this so that he might give us an example of meekness; hence he says "thou hast said it," that is, you have confessed it. Or: you say these things — I do not assert it, but you say it. Hence it is not the word of one asserting. For he did not wish to expose him; as if he were saying: I do not assert it, but you say it.”

“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”

“Now when the even was come,.... The second evening, when the sun was set, and it was dark, and properly night; for "on the evenings of the passovers near the Minchah, a man might not eat , "until it was dark" (p).'' This was according to the rule, Exo 12:8, he sat down with the twelve, his twelve disciples; so the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel; and which also adds, "at table"; even all the twelve apostles, who were properly his family, and a sufficient number for a passover lamb (q): for "they do not kill the passover for a single man, according to the words of R. Judah, though R. Jose permits it: yea, though the society consists of an hundred, if they cannot eat the quantity of an olive, they do not kill for them: nor do they make a society of women, servants, and little ones?'' Judas was now returned again, and took his place among the disciples, as if he was as innocent, and as friendly, as any of them: this he might choose to do, partly to avoid all suspicion of his designs; and partly that he might get intelligence where Christ would go after supper, that he might have the opportunity he was waiting for, to betray him into the hands of his enemies. "He sat, or lay down with them", as the word signifies; for the posture of the Jews, at the passover table especially, was not properly sitting, but reclining, or lying along on coaches, not on their backs, nor on their right side, but on their left; See Gill on Joh 13:23. The first passover was eaten by them standing, with their loins girt, their shoes on, and staves in their hands, because they were just ready to depart out of Egypt: but in after passovers these circumstances were omitted; and particularly sitting, or lying along, was reckoned so necessary to be observed, that it is said (r), that "the poorest man in Israel might not eat, , "until he lies along", or leans;'' that is, as some of their commentators (s) note, either upon the couch, or on the table, after the manner of free men, and in remembrance of their liberty: and another of them (t) says, "we are bound to eat, "lying along", as kings and great men eat, because it is a token of liberty.'' Hence they elsewhere say (u), "it is the way of servants to eat standing; but here (in the passover) to eat, "sitting", or "lying along", because they (the Israelites) went out of bondage to liberty. Says R. Simon, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, that which a man is obliged to in the passover, though it be but the quantity of an olive, he must eat it, "lying along".'' The account Maimonides gives of this usage, is in these words (w): "even the poorest man in Israel may not eat until he "lies along": a woman need not lie; but if she is a woman of worth and note, she ought to lie: a son by a father, and a servant before his master ought to lie: "but a disciple before his master does not lie, except his master gives him leave" (as Christ did his); and lying on the right hand is not lying; and so he that lies upon his neck, or upon his face, this is not lying; and when ought they to lie? at the time of eating, the quantity of an olive, of unleavened bread, and at drinking of the four cups; but at the rest of eating and drinking, if he lies, lo! it is praiseworthy: but if not, there is no necessity.'' This custom was so constantly and uniformly observed at the passover, that it is taken particular notice of in the declaration, or showing forth of the passover by the master of the family, when he says (x), "how different is this night from all other nights", &c. and among the many things he mentions, this is one; "in all other nights we eat either sitting, or lying along; that is, which way we please, but this night all of us "lie along".'' (p) Ib. c. 10. sect. 1. (q) Ib. c. 8. sect. 7. (r) Misn. Pesachim, c. 10. sect. 1. (s) Jarchi & Bartenora in ib. (t) Maimonides in ib. (u) T. Hieros. Pesach. fol. 37. 2. (w) Hilch. Chametz Umetzah, c. 7. sect. 8. (x) Maimon ib. c. 8. 2. Haggadah Shel Pesach. p. 5.”